TRANSPORT TRANSFER

Wairarapa Times-Age, 28 May 1943, Page 2

TRANSPORT TRANSFER

OPPOSED BY FARMERS’ UNION >■—- HEARING BEFORE AUTHORITY YESTERDAY. MR SKOGLUND URGES CO-OPERATION. An application by Fly and Young, Ltd., Masterton, for the transfer of their transport licences to the firm of Transport Wairarapa, Ltd., was approved by the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority, Mr P. J. Skoglund, at a sitting of the authority in Masterton yesterday afternoon. Considerable public interest was taken in the case. Mr J. Macfarlane Laing appeared in support of the transfer, and Mr H. H. Daniell on behalf of the Farmers’ Union, and Mr R. R. Burridge, on behalf of I. Allen and Son, opposed the transfer.

Mr Laing said a contract had been drawn up for the sale of the whole undertaking of Fly and Young, Ltd., to Transport Wairarapa, Ltd. The & requirements of the Transport Act had been complied with, and Mr Laing said he saw no legal grounds for objection. Mr A. Young, chief shareholder of Fly and Young, Ltd., stated in evidence that he was selling his business because he wished to retire. *

Mr Daniell said Transport Wairarapa was becoming a monopoly, and his clients could see the writing on the wall. Mr Daniell referred at length to the extent that monopolies had grown during past decades. Mr Burridge said his clients objected only to the transfer of the licence and the authorities on the grounds that I. Allen and Son had been refused a transfer some time ago on an application for a transfer on similar lines to that before the court.

Mr Laing said that it was well known that the farmers liked to see cut-throat competition among carriers. The Transport Act had restored order from among chaos in the transport industry. Unfortunately, the formation of the Transport Wairarapa company coincid-. ed with the general increase in tariff rates throughout the country. Mr Laing said he wished to emphatically deny, as he had done on other occasions, that the formation of the Transport company had resulted !n increased rates.

Mr Skoglund agreed with Mr Laing. Mr Laing said the carriers’ action in banding together meant they could stand the increased costs in running expenses and obtain an adequate living. The increased costs were not being passed on, yet farmers still persisted in saying that the Transport Company was a monopoly and caused the tariff rates to rise. The company was not getting the co-operation it deserved. Mr Skoglund, in granting the application, said much had been heard about restraint of trade. In this case the Transport Act required the main consideration to be whether or not the proposed transferee was strong enough financially to conduct the business satisfactorily. No evidence had been, offered to show that the company'Was not strong enough. The trouble yzith independent operators was that 'they could not get enough trucks. By banding together the demand could be met with a lesser number of vehicles. He suggested that Mr Daniell ask the Farmers’ Union to give more co-opera-tion and they would find they would get greater satisfaction. The farmers in the northern Hawke’s Bay district had met the transport operators and had thrashed out their differences, and were now working together amicably.' There was nothing in the argument that the joining of the companies would have a restraint on trade. Mr Skoglund said if the amalgamation of the two companies reduced the number of trucks on the road and still filled the demand, he would grant the transfer for that reason alone.