The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1888. MARKET TICKETS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1917, 13 August 1888, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1888. MARKET TICKETS.

Since the hearing of the proceedings m the local Court, when the Bail way Department sued Mr I. R. 0. C. Graham for four and sevenpence for the balance of railway fare to Timaru, considerable attention has been given to the case. The decision went against Mr Graham and so far a precedent has been established as no appeal against the verdict was made The public, however, are not satisfied that the Magistrate's ruling is correct, and, indeed, it does not appear to be at all relished. Mr Graham, on the other hand, is warmly supported m his contention that so long as he holds a ticket from point to point of his journey the Department has no right to enquire where he is going or what business he has to transact when he alights from the train. To show this more forcibly we will repeat the circumstances under which the case was brought before the Court :— Mr Graham sometime m March last took a ticket at Ashburton for Washdyke on a day when return " market tickets " were issued to that station at a cheap rate. He had, however, no intention o& stopping at Washdyke, as his business was m Timaru on that particular occasion. As, however, cheap fares were the order of that day Mr Graham naturally took advantage of this, and re- booked from Temuka (a station on the Ashburton side of Washdyke) to Timaru, taking an ordinary single ticket and booking back from Timaru to Washdyke from thence continuing hiß journey home to Ashburton. The Department contend that on the day when market tickets are issued, holders of them have no right to go beyond the market town, or stop short of its and they must go to the sale yards or market as bona fide dealers. This is cutting the matter rather fine, and never m this light has the market ticket been considered by the traveller. A person wants to go to Temuka say on a Washdyke market day. It is cheaper to get a return ticket to Washdyke and back than a single to and from Temuka. Does it then stand to reason that a traveller is bound to take out two single tickets at a higher rate than he could get a return ticket for, which would suit his purpose, and at a cheaper rate. If the Department intend that Wednesday tickets should apply only to auctioneers and dealers, why, we ask, should these have special advantages to pursue their calling and busi ness which can be denied to ordinary travellers. Naturally a person will take advantage of cheap fares when these cheap fares are announced, for the benefit of the public, and to bring custom to the .Railway Department. The Department is very well aware that all sorts and conditions of men travel by market tickets who have no business at the market town for which they take advantage of the cheap fares. Take Addington market as an example. There can he no denying the fact that men, and women too, who have business m Christchurch on Wednesdays take advantage of the market ticket system to Addington, and can it be said that they commit a fraud by. bo doing ? The ticket is merely a return ticket, and there is nothing on it to say you shall only go to Addington-e-not beyond, nor on this side of it.

The case has, however, unfolded the matter to the general view, and Mr Graham is to be complimented that he Went the length of testing it. We have no hesitation ia saying that the decision of the Magistrate $0 b«jsed on wrong premises. As well might W4s gay that a man or woman who took an eicureion ticket for the Dunedin races or the Waterloo meetiag was bound to go and see these things on his or her arrival. The whole thing is absurd. Bo long a# A passenger has a ticket entitling him to travel the distance, the guard has no more to do with the object of his journey than the man m the moon ; neither has a guard any right to prevent a parson booking to where he likes, and we think the action of the guard m refusing to issue a ticket to Mr Graham to take him to Timaru from Washdyke is open for enquiry.

If the Department is right m its contention and the public wrong on the question it is patent the majority is •with jtho public, and it cannot but be noticeable how absurd and idiotic are the regulations which govern our railway traffic. Assuming for a lament that the view of the Department is a Bound one, it must strike the ordinary citizen as being a singularly unbusinesslike one. If the Minister for Public Works was directly responsible for the bringing ou of (he cage we cau neither

commend his good sense nor his business' tact, and if he is to be one of the New Railway Board he has not given evidence | of possessing great qualifications for a seat npon it. No distinct regulation limiting the use of market tickets has ever been issued, and we know m the absence of these the same idea has prevailed as with respect to excursion fares to races, shows, or any other attraction for which cheap return tickets are issued. As to the law on the subject, counsel who appeared for the Department explained that the action was taken under sections 144 and 163 of the Public Works Act. The latter section simply provides that all fares, rates, and charges " may be recovered by and m the name of the manager of the railway, or of any person authorised by the Minister m that behalf, m any Court of competent jurisdiction." Section 144 defines the powers of the Minister m respect to railways open for traffic. He is empowered inter alia to fix, alter, or revoke scales of fares, and there is a specific proviso that he " may from time to time fix special fares to be paid m lieu of ordinary fares upon special occasions, or for such times and throughout such parts of any railway as he may think fit" The Minister is further authorised to make by-laws for the management of railways open for traffic upon certain defined subjects, among which is " the regulating the manner, times, and places m and at which tickets of any kind shall be purchased by, issued to, used by, and delivered up by passengers on railways." Mr Graham did not attempt to shuffle out of the case, he admitted he took the Washdyke ticket, intending to go to Timaru, so there was only the law of the case to be decided. It would be difficult to say how the matter would have stood had Mr Graham taken his ticket, intending to go to Washdyke, but when there found it a matter of urgent importance to go on to Timaru. Could the Department have prevented him, or would it have been an illegal act to go to Timaru by train, even though the matter were one of " life or death ?" Under the ruling of Captain Wray it would seem to be compulsory to employ a trap and horße rather than use the train to go to Timaru. Was ever anything more characteristic of our muddled railway laws than this ?

We think it a thousand pities that appeal was not irade against such a judgment, A railway ticket is a simple contract under the Department, and m consideration of the fare, fixed by the Department itself, a passenger is to be carried to a certain place indicated by the ticket, which also states the class m which the traveller is to be accommodated. With the issue of the ticket the Department makes no other regulation than appears on the face thereof, and so long as a passanger holds that ticket and travels m a carriage quietly no law that we know of should be able to dictate what distance short of that ticket shall be travelled . Nor is there any law to prevent the holder going further than his return ticket entitles him, provided he takes out another and returns within the time stipulated by the ticket. If market tickets are only to be issued to "those who have business at the markets a statutory declaration will be necessary from everyone who takeß a ticket and it is perhaps an oversight on the part of the Department that they have not introduced this nice piece of red tapeism. We commend it to Mr Maxwell, who is to be the Chairman of the New .Railway Board. It would be m keeping with his management.

Market tickets and excursion tickets are, to our mind, simply issued to tempt the public to patronise the railways and keep the traffic as lively as possible, and where the holders of the tickets go to or what they do is outside the domain of the Department. No regulation read contrary to this idea can be legal. We think the matter is not over yet. There are others who will openly run the risk of another court case to try the legality of the question. The whole circum stance discloses such a rotten state of management that at once stamps the officials connected with compiling of the regulations with the brand ©f incompetency. Instead of gaining friends to the railway system the General Manager seems to take every opportunity to run against anything calculated to do it good. Reform from rpot to branch m the Kail way Department is moßt urgently wanted and we hope it may speedily come.