THE SHOP HOURS BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9078, 12 June 1888, Page 6

THE SHOP HOURS BILL.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,-— French objects to my expresing an opinion contrary to his own on the Shop Hours Bill, " thwarting," to use his own words, " the legitimate wishes of the people." To say nothing of the fact that ft would be quite out of my power to do this, even if I wished, the doctrine underlying Mr. French's protest is one which all lovers of real liberty must emphatically repudiate. The open expression of opinion is the vital air of freedom, the great safeguard against the errors of any system of Government. Mr. French apparently thinks that democracy gives every man the right not only to be his own oppressor, but also the oppressor of his neighbour. To me it seems to be the right, and sometimes the duty, of any citizen of a free country who can form an opinion, to express it, especially when the popular cry is for something which he believes will be hurtful to the public. ' Beyond dispute the Shop Hours Bill would load to a much greater interference of the police with private affairs than has been allowed hitherto. A yoke is easily put on : it is far more difficult to put it off. The chief of the police in Auckland recently stated that there were not enough men for the duties already required. The additional duties imposed by the Bill would require more constables, who would have to be paid, and paid out of the people's money. The Bill would thus, as I said, " Increase the already heavy expenditure in the payment of inspectors." In spite of the assertions of your correspondent to the contrary this seems a truism, and it is well that before adopting such a measure the public should reflect on all the possible consequences. The additional expense is not, however, the only consequence that should be looked in the face of giving increased arbitrary power to the police. Some remarks in your local gossip of to-day relative to the cause of the failure of a well-known hotelkeeper illustrate this danger well. Policemen are not all rigidly virtuous, and a trifling payment might prevent their eyes from being too curious. In this point of view the clauses giving exemption from penalty in case of sickness would add to the danger and difficulty of working the Bill. Who must decide whether the sickness bo genuine or a pretext, the shopkeeper or the policeman ? The opening given by such clauses to corruption of policemen and untruthfulness on the part of tradesmen would be likely to do more harm morally than the liberty given would do good materially. That the Bill would in any case be evaded is certain. Just as a high tariff always produces smuggling so would a law restrictive of trade tend to produce elastic consciences, and lower still farther the present low tone in regard to truthfulness and honour. . The main plea advanced for the Bill is that, without such a law, one man who keeps open lata can compel all his neighbours to do so. Resolved into its elements this apparently means that those who work less time have to earn less than those who choose to work longer, and they wish to enjoy their own leisure at their neighbours expense. I have seen it stated, however, by a supporter of the Shop Hours Bill, that " the one shop in Newton which closes at six o'clock can prove by their takings that their trade has increased." Unless the later hours are a real necessity for the general public, probably this experience would be realised t>y all who had faith enough to try. Finally, it is at least doubtful whether it be just to prevent a man from working as long hours as he chooses. The "greatest good of the greatest number" is an unknown quantity about which the wisest of us) can never be sure. The elementary principle that it is right of every man to make the best of the talents given to him in the way that he thinks best, is comparatively easy to apprehend and to follow. What is unjust may seem for the time expedient, but will always entail disaster at the last.—l am, etc., June 9, 1888. W. Steadman Aldis. -