ROAD v. RAIL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 109, 11 May 1933, Page 6

ROAD v. RAIL

NEW PLYMOUTH-WANGANUI TWO SIDES IN COURT ARE THEY BOTH NECESSARY? Au indication of the powers vested in respective motor licensing authorities has been given in Wanganui during the past two days. A year ago the Nu. 5 Licensing Authority sat here lor the first time, and was empowered to grant licenses to various passenger services. it did so, such licenses being operative for 12 months. This week the various services have been called upon to show cause why renewals of those licenses should be granted. The ramifications oi every service have come up lor review before Mr F. Thomson (chairman), Mr J. U. Kolleston and Major K. A. Wilson. Fares, time-tables, starting points and terminii, and the carnage of parcels —all these matters have been considered, in addition, the presentation of applications for renewal of licenses has permitted the Railways’ Board the opportunity to state its case, and, if necessary oppose renewal. borne twenty cases were considered in Wanganui yesterday and on luus•ay. In nearly every instance the application was not opposed, but in onu case the Railways Board made special endeavours to show that the service, running parallel to the line most of the way, was not necessary or desirable in tnc public interest. Hodson s Pioneer Motor Service made application lor renewal of its license to tarry passengers between New Plymouth and Wanganui, Mr P. Dickson presenting the case, lhe Railways Board appeared in opposition and was represented by Mr Aitken. The motor service and the railway both presented returns showing the number of passengers carried. Both held that they were desirable in tnu public interest. Mr Aitken, lor the railways, traced the development of the legislation which brougnt about the system of licensing of motor services and indicated the growth of public opinion towards the necessity lor coordinating road and rail services in the public interest. The railways, he said, were operated by the btatc and weiu a burden to the btatc’s finances. Mr Forbes, dealing with transport problems, had referred to the wasteful duplication of road and rail transport, which, he said, could only mean that costs must all be greater than they should be. The basic cause of the loss on railways was the competition with motor transport and the necessity lor building up-to-date motor roads alongside the rail routes. That competition was not on a fair basis, because while the railways were expected to pay all their own costs the road services were subsidised by the taxpayer by the creation of up-to-date roads. Mr Aitken pointed out that the Commission which sat on this question recently had been so alarmed at the state of competition between road and rail that it bad gone outside its order of reference to point out that something would have to be done. Counsel held that the matter resolve! itself into a question of whether the service was “necessary” and “desirable” in the public interest. The whole matter had to be considered not from the point of view of personal convenience, but from a public interest standpoint. Counsel held that the suggestion of creating a monopoly lor the ra’lways could not be urgued, and quoted a noted Canadian authority who ruled that while it was recoguised that coordination did give the railways monopoly up to a certain point, they were doing their best- to find a way out. “in any cUiC it vrouid not be a monopoly in any given ?ase,” said Mr Aitken, “as any Authority would have the right to say that the railways are not doing tneir job and would take the service away irom them.” Mr Dickson quoted authorities to prove that the rights of those uU'ected by curtailment or conccllation of motor services had to be considered, lie mentioned the case of Broughton and Company v. Tate and anotuer, which laid down that m any legislation which interfered with the rights of individuals should have applied to it as broad an interpretation us possible. The Motor Transport Act had taken away the rights of individuals, and it was the duty of the Authority to see that it was applied only to the extent expressly stated. Determining public interest was a difficult matter, counsel quoted the case Queen v. the ol the County of Bedford, in which it was held that the rights of the people who used a bridge had to be considered. I’hat case had some analogy to this in that the people who used service cars had to be considered. The fact that they were prepared to pay more than the faro on the railways indicated that they desired the service to continue. Counsel quoted another authority, Attorney General v. Terry, to show that something that was a convenience to the public was desirable. Lastly, counsel referred to the decision of tho Central Licensing Authority regarding Smith’s Service from Wellington as establishing a precedent to be followed in this case. He also stressed the fact that the Minister of Transport had said that the Act was not to be used to penalise or interfere with private enterprise. but for the regulation of it. Tho present case, counsel thought, savoured of an attempt being made to use the Act in a way that was never intended. If Hodson’s had the service curtailed or cancelled 20 employees would bo affected. Decision was reserved.