"THE SHOP AND SHOP ASSISTANTS ACT, 1894."

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 170, 17 January 1895, Page 2

"THE SHOP AND SHOP ASSISTANTS ACT, 1894."

TO THE KDIT«>n OF THE STAR. Sir,— Although this arbitrary statute is, in my opinion, a gross and unnecessary interference with the liberty of the subject and an infringement of the extensive rights and privileges of Englishmen with respect to trade and commerce granted to cities and boroughs by the famous Magna Charta of King John at Runnymede, yet, on a careful perusal of the Act, it would appear that some consolation may be derived by owners and conductors of shops (who keep no assistants and who look upon the Act as a hardship), from the fact that it does not apparently apply to them— -for instance, our ingenious friend Mr Fowles (who, I believe, has no assistant) may keep his shop open at all times in defiance of this statute. I have come to the above conclusion from tbe fact that in the interpretation clause the meaning-of the word shop " docs not include a shop "the business whereof is bona fide owned "and conducted by any person of New " Zealand or European extraction, "whe'her solely or with the assistance of " members of his or her family below the " age of eighteen years who reside on the " premises " ; that the meaning of the word " closed " with reference to shops means " closed against admissio?i of the public for purposes of trade'" ', aud that in the body of the Act the word " closed" does not occur, except with reference to shops as denned in the interpretation clause. Mr Stevens' letter, published in last (Tuesday) evening's Star, appears to show conclusively that the Act does not require country shops to be closed on any half -holiday ; but is not this very uujust towards their fellow tradesmen, who may be close neighbours but reside within tbe prescribed districts ? And, moreover, will there not be some difficulty in defining the area which is " outside the limits of cities, boroughs, and town ' districts ' ?" With reference to shop-assistants, what will their position be ? There is nothing in the Act to prevent their employers from docking their salaries, and therefore they would rather not have a half-holiday. W T hy should they be compelled to take one ? The Act itself is altogether an excellent example of tbe absurd grandmotherly legislation which, has become so prevalent iv these days. I am, etc., Saml. Goodbehere. Feilding, 16th January, 1895.