A FIGHT FOR JUSTICE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 818, 16 May 1910, Page 4

A FIGHT FOR JUSTICE.

When an individual or a company sets out to fight for justice from a State Department with an unsympathetic or antagonistic Minister at the head of it, the task is a heavy, and maybe a costly, one. For some years now the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Distributing Company has been conducting such a is still fighting. The merits of its case 'have been admitted by the Law Courts; Parliament has recommended that justice should be.done; but continuous applications by the company to the Government have proved unavailing. The will of Parliament is flouted and the injustice continues. We are reminded of these facts by a copy of _ a petition now in circulation in which the Farmers' Distributing Company sets out the injustice done it and again appeals to Parliament for redress. The following is a short statement of the position as embodied in 1 the petition, which we think will arouse tho indignation of every fair-minded man and woman who reads it:

Tho coal-dust nuisance, rendering the company's premises unlottable, lias continued sinco May, 190G, and i> still causing damage to the company to the extent of £450 per year. The present state of the law makes tho [State] Coal Department immune from any liability for any injury or damage it may do. In 1908 tho Government on the evo of the general elections granted the company the right to sue. Tho Supreme .Court awarded .£205 and costs, but an injunction was refused because the suit was against the Crown. The nuisance still continuing, and the Crown refusing tho company the right to state a further case for the continuing damage, Parliament wae petitioned last session.

■ The Public Petitions Committee recommended that tho case should bo submitted to arbitration. After somo months, no action being taken by tho Government to give effect to this recommendation, a resolution of Parliament was passed urging the Government to either waivo the Act or submit the case to arbitration.

Continuous applications to the Government to give effect to tho will of Parliament have, up to tho present, proved futile.

The position, therefore, is that the company has suffered loss to date to the extont of JUSOO, is still losing at the rato of nearly forty pounds per month, has no redress at law; and is refused the right to submit its case to arbitration although a majority of Parliament has ordered that this should bo done. Tho position as put explains itself. Tho Crown cannot ha sued without the Crown's permission. A Statetrading -Department injures a pri-vate-trading concern; the Law Courts decide that the damage to date amounted to £205; the damage continues, but the Crown refuses ail means of redress, and this in the face of the recommendations of Parliament to the contrary. All that the company asked for was the right to take proceedings in order that the Courts might say whether the nuisance should bo stopped and any further damages be assessed. To quote again from the petition:

The Stato Coal Department is absolutely irresponsible for any damage or injury it may do. No legal suit can bo brought against it. A citizen may be killed or maimed by any of tho appliances, including the steam wagons that daily traverse the streets of our principal cities, yet his widow and orphans or those dependent on him for support havo no case at law for redress. This has already been the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Barton v. tho King. •

The Department can also with impunity damaee the property of any citizen to an extent that may cause serious loss or even ruin—still no legal claim. Tho position is a menaco to every inhabitant of the Dominion, and it is to assist in remedying this anomaly that you are invited to sign this petition. We find ourselves quite unable to understand the attitude of the Government in this matter. The majority of the members of the Cabinet are reasonable enough men in the everyday affairs of life. The main facts of this case are not, we believe, disputed. Probably the only question in dispute is the amount of the damage. Yet this injustice is permitted to continue. Does one Minister dominate the whole Cabinet, including the Piume Minister himself '>. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie, the Minister in charge of the State Coal Mines Department, has apparently set his mind against the Farmers' Co-operative Company and ho is a stubborn man. Perhaps Parliament in its wisdom will teach him a lesson.