The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1910. AN OBSTINATE MINISTER.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14211, 28 May 1910, Page 4

The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1910. AN OBSTINATE MINISTER.

Our attention has been specially drawn to articles in the Wellington '' Evening I'ost" and the "Farmers' Union Advocate," dealing with the case of the Wellington Farmers' Distributing Company against the State Coal Depot at Wellington. It appears that this depot is situated in the heart of the city—within 70 yards of the Town Hall—and next door to the Company's premises; and that the dust which is occasioned by the discharge of coal in the yard (assisted no doubt bv Wellington's winds) is a great nuisance to the Company, and makes certain 01 their promises useless, because unlettable. Some time ago the Company, after complaining and expostulating, brought a suit for damages against the State Coal Department. At first the Minister irieaded as a bar to the action the Crown Suits Act, which, unless it is made non-effective in particular cases by statutes dealing with such cases, requires the consent of the Government, before an action can be

su-laitmd. Tii,. Covcrnn.eni did however uaivc 1.1 u.i technical objection : .suit was brought, and the Company "iis awarded .fJOC :is damages. The Company souc.ht also an injunction :■ f-Cisil)sJ ihc continuance of the, nuisance, l,iil, the Covcnnndif refused to allow this case to Ih, hoard. The "-.A'cning Post " iii(.|it.i(iiis another ease, on tlm face of if even uvumi than the defended nui.sanoo. This is the case, of :i, motor man who was terribly injured through the carelessness of ono of tlio State Coal Depot employees. The. man lost Jii.s billet and is maimed for life, but bis claim for damages was rulnrJ out of Court, on the ground that liability of the. State for the consequences of negligence on the part of its employees does 7iot extend to tbo employees of tbo State Coal Department. Tb<i Crown Suits Act is the bar; and it is a bar, because it is an old Act, passed before tbe State went in for coal dealing. ]fc mentions flu; various commercial undertakings that tbe State- bad ~, hand when the Act wa.s passed about, thirl y .wars. ago. and .says that, no claim or demand si,all he made against the Government, except when it arises from some contract, or from some wrong or damage in connection wit.li a "public, work." and ■•public uork-'' means railways, tramways, roads, bridges, electric telegraph,

"or other work of a like nature." The, idea, of the State, becoming a retail dealer in commodities probably had not even occurred to anyone in those days. However, there is the Act, with its "no claim or demand .-bail bo made".— against the State Coal Department, because if has not been made liable to claims under that Act. 'The Ministerial manager of tbo coal depot lias been mean enough to take advantage oi it in both cases, and in regard to tie:: nuisance, he lias been foolish enough to flout the House of .Representatives, which adopted a, recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee 'mad j after an inspection of the place) thai the Crown Suits Act should be waived in this case. The 'Farmers' L'nion Advocate " states that when Mr McKenzie was a private* Member, he signed, with other Members, a letter to the Minister thou in charge of the coal yard, urging him to submit the matter to arbitration or allow it to go before the Courts. Mr Mc-

Kcnzie as Minister has turned right-about-face, and refuses the redress he had himself been one to ask for. Tho Minister lias been shown to bo in the wrong by one verdict having been given against the Coal Department; he lias virtually admitted that he is in the wrong, by intimating that tho depot is to be shifted. Olio of the stock arguments against permitting the State to be shot at by all and sundry is that jurors and arbitrators are apt to be unjustly liberal to claimants against the Government; and there aro some people who think it no great moral delinquency to cheat tho Government. Here we have the Government setting a very bad example ; and everyone who recognises the unfairness of the Minister's attitude will not only echo the Wellington ''Post's" concluding remark: "We trust that Parliament will insi.st next session upon putting the law on a more reasonable footing," but will be inclined to add that tho relations of Ministers to the public needs some amendment also.