PERMITS FOR COAL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 286, 22 August 1918, Page 6

PERMITS FOR COAL

TERMS SHOULD BE CLEAR

METHODS OF COMMITTEE

CRITICISED

TRIVIAL. BREACH OF REGULATIONS

A case of considerable interest to people interested in the coal trade, and the public generally, was hoard before Mr. i''. V. .frazor, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, Allien Waipa Railway and Collieries, Ltd., was proceeded ijgainst on an information of Having sold seven tons of coal to W. Barton, farmer, of. fc'catheratoii, without obtaining a permit from tiio Coal Trade Comuittee..

Mr. J. Prondevillo, of the Crown Law Office, conducted the case for the prosecution, the defendant firm being represented by Mr. M. Myers. in outlining his ca'oe, Mr. Preudevillo said that on or about Juno 15 the defendant lirm sent to Barton a truck of l'gnitc,coal, weighing 7 tons loowt. Tho coal was to bo divided amongst four people.

His Worship remarked that under the regulations one ton was tho maximum quantity which a private porson couid obtain.

Continuing, Mr. Prendevillo said that on June G application was raado for a permit to supply coal. Tho amount was 4311 tons. . included in tho list was a request) to supply, seven tons to Barton and three others at l''eathorston. Tho application was dealt with by the committee, which refused to grant a permit for tho supply to -Barton. Under date of Juno 11, the Waipa Collieries asked for reconsideration of the decision reffardinji Barton. On Juno 12, a formal permit was sent to the company, consenting to the supply of 1311 tons, but no reply was sent to the letter asking for further consideration of Barton's case. His Worship: Has the seven tons been deducted from that total? Mr. Prendoville: It is not shown as deducted, but tho permit was for the delivery of 4304 tons. Mr. Myers: Exactly. It is an open permit. It is only an estimate and not a fixed quantity.

Mr. Brendeville: That is so. The mit. is for 4.904 tons.- We submit the company supplied 4811 tons.. They were specifically informed that one item was refused. It was their duty to check their list, total it if necessary, and ascertain by inquiry, or otherwise, what the position was. It was admitted- that tho coal was practically ordered before the permit was obtained, and was on its way before the permit was issuod, but no attempt was made by tho company to stop delivery. Mr. Myers i We had the permit, you know. Mr. Prendevillo: They had already been advised that tho permit was refused in regard to this particular quantity, and that was sufficient to draw their attention to the fact that the permit was for less than the quantity applied for. His Worship: They had been granted permission to deliver seyen tons less than the estimate, without specifying which particular persons shall be excluded. • Mr. Prendeville: That is so, sir. . A. M. Adams, chief executive officer of tho Munitions and Supplies Depart-" inent, stated that ho had initiated the prosecution, and ho put in copies of the regulations governing tho distribution of coal. Committee of Business Men. Richard Henry Stephens, secretary to the Wellington Coat Trade Committee, gave evidence as to tho correspondence which had passed between the defendant firm ami the committeo regarding the matter under nutice. Mr. Myers: i suppose that the members of tills Coal' Trade Committeo aro assumed to be business lncn?—"lt naturally follows," JNow, all those gentlemen know the circumstances affecting the conditions at the different mines?—" Yes." , ' They know, for instance, that . tho Waipa Company, like some ether companies in the worth, have no bins, and must get their coal away as soon as it is mined?—" Yes, that is known." So, if thero is any delay in issuing permits, and so on, one of two things has Jo be done: Either the company has to supply its coal, or stop its mine?— "Yes, that is so." Is this not a fact: That tho company stated certain requirements on August 2, and no permit was issued until August 16 —"Yes, that is so." How do you business men expect that the coal trade is to bo carried on if that sort of tiling happens, when you have admitted already that a company which has no bins must either go on supplying or stop its mine?—" That delay was inadvertent."

Is It not absolutely necessary that tho coal should be sent out without waiting for the actual permit?—"lt is so in many instances." That is the custom?—"lf there is a restriction, of course it is'given, as in this particular case." You say that is the custom; otherwise the mino would have to stop sending the coal out?—" Personally, as to that I cannot say." Well, there was a case in which the delay was inadvertent. It took 11 days to get a permit, and in the meantime the coal hnd to be supplied or the mine would have had to stop. And that is not the only case. Is it not the case that permits are frequently delayed for a week or ten days?—"No, it is not." Tnko April of this year. ■ On April 11 the company applied for permits for coal which you added up to 45G0 tons. In that list was tho "school committee, Greytown, eight tons"?—" Yes." Is it not a fact that on April 17 a permit was granted in accordance with the list?—" Yes."

Did not the committeo some days afterwards write and eay that although they had granted the permit that eight.tons had been refused to the Greytown District High School?—"I am not in a position to say,. as I was not secretary at that time."

Will you tell His Worship why tho letter of June 11 was not answered, seeing that you are business men controlling the concern?—"l,- as secretary, cannot answer that question. That letter was placed before the committee." . And no answer-was sent?—" No."

Can you say why the ordinary business precaution was not taken of "putting in tho permit the words, "subject to our letter of ——," or "this does not include Barton"?—"lf a man asks for 1000 tons, and it is reduced by seven tons, the permit is issued for that quantity." ',

The total from the Waipa Company was not added up, was it?—" No."

They applied for further consideration and got no answer, and yet you put in your permit the words -."As per list of Juno C." Can't you see that that is misleading ?—"Well, there is no other list to refer to."

"Can't you see as a business man thnt it is misleading?—"lt just depends whether the person receiving the permit is not getting the quantity he has asked for. I would have added my permit up."

Would you now? Well, I beg to suggest that yon would have done nothing of the kind.

Do you know whether this company has supplied anything like 1301 tons for the month?—"! cannot say, but as a natural conclusion I ehsuld say they have not."

So thnt they arc pel! within their permit, are they not, with the possible exception of the misunderstanding in regard to tho seven tons?—"No, I should say they are not."

Albert Sandoreon Collins, acting secretary to George S. Scales and Co.. distributing agents for the Wcstport-Rtock-ton Coal Company, and deputy-chairman of the Wellington Coal Trade Committee, said he was a member of the sub-com-mittee which dealt with permits. .The. application in respect to Barton- wns struck out because if the Coal Trade Committee were to allow truck loads of coal to go direct to any private nersons who wanted them, half the people in the district would be without coal. The Wnipa and other comnnnirs had been wrtten lo and instructed that coal should not be sonl lo farmers or other individual pxennt in oases where (here was only a dag, station. Supplies to Come From Dealers.

His Worship; In other words, ovory.

ouo should, wliero possible, bo supplied trom focal dealers. Continuing, the witness stated that the letter of June 1). from the Waipa Collieries asking for reconsideration uf Barton's caso was not considered again, as tho committeo saw no reason to alter their decision. With regard to the case of delay in August, mentioned by Mr. Myers, tho permit was granted on the dato the application was received, but tho documents were mislaid. The documents were signed on August !!. His Worship: That is not correct. The permit is dated August ]li. Witness: Tho committee passed the application on August 2. The papers were mislaid, and that was why the company did not receive the permit. His Worship: A delay of a fortnight seems to be rather a serious thing at this time. I sincerely hope that the Coal Trade Committee will'put its house iu order.

Mr. Myers: It would be serious if we had to close our mine.

Witness: Talking of closing the mine is only a figure of speech. Most collieries order their coal in anticipation of getting their permits, becauso there are certain industries supplied by them which they know the committee would not interfere with. If the Waipa Company's output wns to be affected they could have approached the Coal Trade Committee. His Worship: It is ralher a serious thing if a man does not know when he is K«ing to get his coal from, the company or local dealer.

Tho witness added, in reply to Mir. Prendeville, that the Waipa' Collieries could easily have diverted Barton's truck after it had been ordered and sent the coal to the Salvation Army Hostel at Fentherston, tho Railway Department, or handed the coal to the Defence Department, for each of which authorities tho company held a contract.

Crass-examined by Mr. Myers, witness said the committee had allowed a Mr. Bwan, of Herolaunga, to :.et a truck of coal because was difficulty'in getting supplies in that township. The permit was issiwd in that case on the condition that the coal was distributed amongst-other people, and that no person received more than one ton. -There was no coal dealer at Herataunga, and tho committeo considered the residents there were just as much entitled to get coal as the people of Wellington. Business and Courtesy. . Mr. Myers: You received a letter on June 11 from tho Waipa .Company, Mr. Collins. You are business men; why didn't you, reply to ,that letter?—" Because ws had already de.ilt with the matter." But don't you see that these people, as business peole, were asking you to reconsider the matter? Why didn't you do as business and courtesy demanded, namely, reply?—"We had already writ-' ten ou June 10 giving our-decision, and if wo were to go on writing letters we wouild never end our work. You must remember that we are only in honorary positions and are giving the bulk of our time to the Government for nothing." You have a secretary; why didn't you reply?—'' Because we had already dealt' with it, and we thought that was sufficient." Well, I don't, ibnt wo will pass on. Did you see that tho permit said: "As per list of .Tune G"?—"Yes, that is put on all permits."

Why didn't you put in, "As per list, except Barton" ?—"Because «■" had already written to tho Waipa Company stating that the permit re BnTtou had been refused."

Don't, you think when you say, "As per list of June 6'," that they were entitled to assume it was in accordance with the whole list of June G?—"The onus is on them to deliver coal in accordance with the angulations, which say that before coal is delivered a' permit must be issued. It was their duty to go through their list and see. that it was in accordance with the list granted by the committee."

The witness went on to say Hint there was usually a delay of six days between the issue of,the permit and the delivery of the coal. Permits were for the month of issue only. In iregard to the mso of tho Greytown District High School, the permit had been refused because the Coal Trade Committee learned that somo .of tho coal wius intended for members of tho School Committee.

Mr. Myers submitted that there was no case to answer, and that tho information should ho dismissed. The matlor was really 1 trivial. Counsel contended that the members of the committee had not treated tho matter in a 'businesslike manner, and that their action in not replying to the defendant firm's letter of Juno 11 was discourteous. The secretary of tho Wnipa Collieries thought ithat, subject to tho permit bDing obtained, bo was_ quite in order in supplying tho truck of coal so long :i6 the coal was divided among four persons. $ho firm received,a permit which authorised tho supply of coal "as per list of June 6," and though the secretary" and the firm did not add up the quantities, he acted on what was the substance of the permit. Prom the wording of the permit any business man would assume that the coal could be supplied in accordance with the list submitted by the company on June.C. That view was emphasised and accentuated by the fact that (ho committee did not deign to reply to the company's letter of Juno 11 asking for reconsideration of Barton's case. Since October last the AVaipa Collieries bad distributed something like 65,000 tons of coal-35,000 tons in the Wellington dis-. trict-aud there had never 'been any occomplain that tho company had sought to break the letter or the spirit of the Coal Trade Regulations. Quantities Not Totalled. Herbert D. Vickery, secretary of tho AVaipa Collieries, stated that he had from month to month applied for permits to deliver coal. On' no occasion had he totalled the quantities when ho made the application, and neither had ho added t up the quantities when the permits were received. The reason was that tho quantities were only estimated. Had he been informed in reply to his letter of June 11 that the coal could bo delivered, except Barton's, there could have been no difficulty. Ho took it that tho permit included Barton's order. There had been no attempt to defeat the regulations. To Mr. Prendeville: The coal for Barton went forward from the mine and he made no. attempt to countermand the order because he hnd not received any reply to his letter of June 11. He had Bono away to thp mine, and did not receive the permit until his return to Wellington. He took it that by the wording of the permit the application was granted. \ Permit Not Explicit. , His Worship said that looking at the wording of the regulations ho thought there should be a separate permit for each contract, or each wholesale supply •It was certainly open to question whether or not that should be done. The custom _of tho Coal /Trade Committee was to issue one inclusive permit for the whole month's supply in accordance with the lists submitted. When a bare permit in terms of tho list of June G was , received it was quite natural that tho secretary and other officers of the company should consider that that permit was a reply to tho letter of Juno 11. It did not except anything from the iist. If the secretary of the committee had taken tho trouble to add the words "except Barton's," or "except Barton's truck," there would have been no difficulty. Of course, he thought everything was all right, because he himself had totalled the quantities applied for, and had deducted seven tons, representingBarton's amount. He thought that was sufficient, and probably it would have been if the company had inserted t'io total in its letter of application. His Worship had no hesitation in believing that the secretary of the company bad acted in perfect good faith, and that lie had justification in doing what ho did. Under tho Toinilations it was illegal to sunply moro than one ton of coal without a special permit, and taking all tho circumstances into consideration it was quite elonr that a permit bad not been granted in respect to Barton's coal. An nd'enec hnd been committed,■ but quite innocently, and he would dismiss the information as trivial.