RAILWAY FREIGHTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 904, 22 February 1930, Page 1

RAILWAY FREIGHTS

“ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL”

MR. STERLING’S POLICY From Our Own Correspondent HAMILTON, Today. “What Mr. Sterling advocates is not equitable, notwithstanding his assertions to the contrary, in that the policy he is adopting is frankly one of ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’; neither is it good business.** In these words Mr. Walter Seavill, chairman of directors of the Farmers’ Co-operative Auctioneering Company, Limited, Hamilton, criticised the General Manager of Railways’ statement regarding railway freights. “If the Government engages in commercial pursuits it should do so on a competitive basis and not take advantage of its unique position to ride roughshod over private enterprise,” added Mr. Seavill. “If the railways are rendering good national service by carrying manure, etc., below cost, and I think they are, the department concerned should be recompensed by the Departments of Land and Agriculture. I believe this is being done to a certain extent, but this principle might be given further effect to. This would be equitable and would be an example of the Government’s ability to take a long-sighted view of the subject. To try and make up the leeway lost on the transport of one class of goods by taking advantage of their position by extracting it from the pockets of those affected by the rates ruling on other classes, is obviously unfair.

“If it is contended that the fact that my company deals with goods carried under many headings in the railway freights schedule, it should enable it to balance one class against another. It is very poor argument, for the following reasons: Freights have to be reflected in the retail price charged, and what hope would my company have of successfully conducting that part of its business coming under classification A, B or C. with firms dealing in these goods only, and who are carrying them by lorries at a cheaper rate than the railways? “They can consequently snap their fingers at the Railway Department, seeing that the department has no way of successfully retaliating by penalising them on goods classified under D or E.

“My firm, and all others engaged in similar business, are merely channels of supply and the ultimate consumer must be the man who pays the costs of insurance and freightage of goods. Decreased profits are no good to either shareholders or the Income-tax Department.”