THE Wairarapa Age THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1936. GETTING OUR OWN BACK.

Wairarapa Age, 28 May 1936, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1936. GETTING OUR OWN BACK.

A very good ease was made out by Councillor W. Kemp when he urged, at the meeting of the Borough Council on Tuesday evening, that further efforts should be made to have sittings of the Supreme Court reinstated in Masterton. It is notorious that the abolition of these sittings is very far from work ing out in economy. Not only are litigants put to needlessly heavy expense, but an 'increased outlay is incurred by the Crown on account of witnesses having to be kept at call over a longer period than if cases were heard in Masterton. Against these increased costs there is hardly anything to be set in the way of economies—at most the minor item of the expenses incurred by a Judge and his Associate in travelling between Wellington and Masterton. With these strong grounds to rely upon, Councillor Kemp added a human note to his advocacy when he spoke—shall we say with grim realism or with searching pathos?—of the hardship of having to go to the Supreme Court at Wellington, where “you are tried by a jury that doesn’t

even know you.” A good many people no doubt will feel that this particular grievance is suffered only at second hand and may not be prepared to enlarge upon it. There is in any case good and sufficient justification for the demand made by Councillor Kemp for the reinstatement of Supreme Court sittings in Masterton, and the Borough Council did the right thing in deciding again to make representations to the Minister of Justice on the subject. When the demand was last made it was turned down, but no valid reasons were adduced for adopting that course. A new Minister of Justice is now in office and he may reach some happier adjustment of the matter with the Chief Justice, upon whom it devolves to arrange sittings, than did his' predecessor. The possibility of securing the measure of justice Masterton meantime is denied certainly should be put to the test.

TRANSPORT CONTROL. After extended discussion, the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill has been passed by the House of Representatives embodying one seriously objectionable feature—the autocratic power given to the Minister to deal with and determine appeals. Against this section of the Bill protests were made, not only by the 'Opposition, but by one member of the Labour Party. Time may be expected to show that these protests were fully warranted. In his speech on the third reading, the Minister (Mr. Semple) said he did not object to criticism, but strongly objected to the imputation of foul motives. There is no question of imputing foul motives to Mr. Semple or anyone else—so far as we are concerned, he is more than welcome to a monopoly of language of that kind in the discussion of an important public question. The clause of the Transport Bill giving the Minister autocratic power in dealing with appeals is 'in the highest degree objectionable for the sufficient reason that in the matter of transport licensing and appeals it destroys the customary and established rights of British citizenship'. In any other walk of affairs in this country, one man is as good as another in the eyes of the law. Where transport is concerned, no other man is to have any redress against the Minister when the appeal section of the present Transport Bill takes effect. The preservation of the liberties of the people and of equality under the law is very much more important than administrative convenience. The Minister observed, amongst other things, that he was merely being invested with the powers formerly exercised by the Transport Co-ordination Board, but that is entirely beside the point. Past failures do not alter the fact that the determination of transport appeals by a oompetent judicial authority is vastly to be preferred to their determination by a Ministerial autocrat.