THE SHOP CLOSING BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9722, 18 January 1895, Page 6

THE SHOP CLOSING BILL.

TO THE EDITOR. j Sir,—-Oblige me by inserting this letter in your issue of Friday morning, the ISth J instant, in re Shop and Shop AssistantsBill. lam of opinion that it is contrary to the constitution of New Zealand, and that an appeal to the Privy Council would upset it, as an infringement of the rights and liberty of the subject. If our conference on Friday decide upon a day on which we are to close our shops, that day must be or should\be observed by all, as it will never do to spoil two days in each week. The main facts to be looked at are: First, the factories, warehouses, banks, and offices close on Saturday afternoons ; (b) 332 shopkeepers have signed a petition for Saturday ; (c) 8000, nearly, of assistants and purchasers have signed for Saturday; (d) the butchers (some of them) say Saturday will suit them, and be money in their pocket. Whilst the advocates for Wednesday are very energetic, and in some cases noisy, they are certainly in a minority. With regard to the Bill itself, it is the most absurd composition ever put ■ before a coufiding public by any Parliament, and is no credit either to the framer or the Legislative Council, who mutilated it so badly. The only wonder is that the framer would accept it so fearfully cut to pieces and altered. The amendments have rendered ib bo objectionable that in all human probability it will cause more litigation (until it is repealed) than is good for any country or people. Framed entirely in the interests of shop assistants it is so oppressive to the shopkeeper that he is (especially in those billies of depression) almost at bis wit's end how to provide employment for the very assistants whom the law is compelling, in many cases unwillingly, to assist in ruining him and his trade. There really was no need for the interference of Parliament in New Zealand, for the tendency has been, arid is too much in favour of short hours and holidays, the latter being resorted to on the flimsiest pretext whatever. The strong mutual good feeling existing in most cases between employer and employed was quite sufficient to regulate all these matters, and now the introduction of this Bill will possibly result in great numbers of hands being thrown out of employment as a setoff to the loss sustained by the employer.-— I am, etc., W. H. Shakespear. Queen-street, Auckland, January 17, 1595. •