A Fight For Justice.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 21 May 1910, Page 4

A Fight For Justice.

— • — (Krom tin l Dominion.) WilliMi an inci'ivicinal or a company .sots out to light l'or justice from a State Depar'tnient with an unsympathetic or antagonistic .Minister at thu head of it, -tlie ta.sk is a heavy and niayho a co.stlv one. For some years now the New Zealand i'anner.s' Co-operative Distributing Company lias been conducting such a light —it i.s still fighting. The merits of its case have been admitted i'.v 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 Pai linineiit is flouted and the injustice" ccutiuut'.s. We are reminded of 'these facts by a copy of a putitiou now in circulation in which the Fa rulers' 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 the petition, which we think will arouse the indignation of every fair-minded man and woman who reads it : "The coal-dust nuisance, rendering the company's premises unlet,table, has continued .since -May, 1!)(K>, and is still causing damage to the company to the extent of (J 101 la. year. "The present state of the law makes the (State) C'eal Department immune from any liability for any injury or damage it may do. "In li)()S the Government on the eve of the general elections granted the company the right to sue. "The Supreme Court awarded £'20~) and costs, but an injunction was refused because the suit was against the Crown. "The nuisance still cnitinuing, and the Crown refusing the company the right to state a further case for the continuing damage. Parliament was petitioned last session. "The Public Petitions Committee recommended that the case should lil* submitted to arbitration. Alter some months, no action being taken by the Government to give effect to this recommendation, a resolution of Parliament was passed urging 'the Government to either waive the Act or submit the case to arbitration. ''Continuous applications to the Government to give effect to the will of Parliament have, up to the present, proved futile. "The position, therefore, is that the company has suffered loss to date to the extent of L'loflO, is .still losing at the rate of nearly forty pounds per month, has no redress at law, and i.s refused 'the right to submit its case to arbitration although a majority of Parliament has ordered that this should be done. "The position as put explains itself. The Crown cannot he sued without the Crown's permission. A S'tatetrad in g Department injuries a. pri-vate-trading concern ; the Law Courts decide that the damage to date amounted to £20o; the damage continues, but the Crown refuses all means of redress, and itliis 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 be stopped .and .any further damages h'o assessed. To fpiotn again from the petition : "The State Coal Department is absolutely irresponsible for any damage or injury it may do. Nb legal suit can be brought lagaaiuit it.

"A citizen may be killed or miaimocl by any of the appliances, including the siteam wagons that daily traverse the streets of our principal cities, yet his widow and orphans or those dependent on him for support have no case ait Law for redress. This Iras already been the judgment of the Supreme Count in the ease of Harden v. the King. "The Department can also wiltih impunity damage the property of any citiacn to an extent that may cause serious less or even ruin—still no legal claim. "The position is a menace to every inhabitant of the <lominion, :uul it is ito assist in remedying this .anomaly that yon are invited to sign .this petition." We find ourselves qui to. unable to understand the attitude of the Government in this nmitter. The majority of the members of the Cabinet are reasonable enough men in the evervdav affairs of life. The main ifaets of this ease are not, wo believe, disputed. Probably the only question in dispute is the amount of the d:,ainn go. Yet ithis injustice is permitted to continue. Does one Minister dominate the whole Cabinet. including the Prime Minister himself? The Hon. R. M'Kenzio, the Minister in icbarge of tlie State Coal Mi lies Department, has apparently sot his mind against Vie Karmers' Co-operative Company and be is a stubborn nrn 11. Perhaps Parliament in its wisdom will tench him a lesson.