THE C.M.U.A. AND IMPRESSMENT LOSSES.
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Will the 0.1.11.U.A. take any action later on, when the time proves convenient to secure redress for owners who have been " hit" by the impressment of their vehicles'? We gather that this point is exercising the minds of not a few members of this country's national organization of owners, but we are unable to supply the reply to the query. The 0.M.U.A. appears to have busied itself mostly, since the early days of August, in preparing lists for the War Office. It has, in effect, thus facilitated the sieps by which owners have been deprived of their working plant. This course, under the personal direction of Col. R. E. Crompton, GB., is praiseworthy from the standpoint of military necessity, and we have nothing to write against the decision to stand by the War Office in such times of national stress. Had the Association shown any other spirit, the seizing of vehicles might have been delayed a week or more. That is all.
Lancashire owners in particular appear to have been conferring with one another of late. They have been seeking means of redress for grievances and losses, other than through the county court or the intervention of a commanding officer. They have come to the conclusion, we are told, that the circumstances of the day are disconcerting ; that concerted action to meet them is highly desirable. They feel that the C.M.U.A., either through its Manchester, Liverpool
and Counties branch or of its own initiative from headquarters, should now be up and doing something to assist the owner, and not remain content any longer with having only helped the War Office.
A specific trouble is put forward for such consideration. This is the failure of the military authorities to allow 26 per cent, bonus in respect of impressed vehicles. That bonus, as is well known, is paid to owners who have registered under the 1911 Temporary Subsidy Scheme, or who have bought subsidytype vehicles under the 1912 Subsidy Scheme. It is claimed, with all seriousness and obvious reason, that the owner who contracts to supply the W.D. On demand is by obligation prepared to meet his contract. He is also the beneficiary in advance to the extent of the annual subsidy, and on delivery to the extent of the bonus. Why, it is asked, should the owner whose vehicle is perhaps not eligible for subsidy under either scheme, and whose vehicle may even have been declined by the W.D. in times of peace, be turned to account for the national good to the great detriment of the individual ? The facts, it is maintained, constitute a sound ease for a larger bonus to the unregistered owner. We have dealt with other aspects of this question in some of our August issues. It will interest us greatly to see on which side of the controversy the C.M.U.A. throws its influence.