THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1895. THE PACIFIC CABLE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1247, 23 January 1896, Page 22

THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1895. THE PACIFIC CABLE.

Australasia has done exactly what we said would be done ; it lids Hot been diverted by local jealousies from a rapid and sensible conclusion upon a great Imperial question. Instead of the predicted chaos, we have before us the definite outline of a very feasible scheme. Firstly, the line of the cable on which Australasia has agreed without any hesitation is a red line; at every visible point, that is to say, within British territory. That determination no colonist who has the smallest Imperial instinct can refuse to accept. As the wdiole of Australasia is loyal and Imperialistic to the backbone, the red line chosen is sure of the unanimous support of Australasia. From Vancouver to Fanning Island —about 1000 miles soul li of Honolulu —from Fanning to Fiji, from Fiji to Norfolk Island, from Norfolk in two sections, one to New Zealand, the other to Moreton Bay—such is the lineto which Australasia is committed. It is not perfect in every detail. For example, it would be cheaper, and not worse for Australia, if the line came from Norfolk to the North Cape of New Zealand, and from there were to cross over, to Australia. But details are details, and may be left out of the question until the final settlement. The arrangement ■ with South Australia is eminently fair, for it proposes to divide the cost of the land line pro rata in case of need. We can only trust that it will bring South Australia into the Australasian coalition. As to the arrangement for dividing the loss, if any, of the cable, we frankly admit that we should have preferred the system of division according to population. The Australians seemed to think, ard argued, that the fact of getting the news a few minutes sooner must count for something. There is something to be said for that, which is only another way really of saying that New Zealand, being somewhat nearer to Vancouver, may have just one chance less of a break at a criticial time. However, the principle of equal participation is not new, for it is now being employed as the basis of the Federal Convention, at which there will be 10 delegates from each colony. It is, moreover, more honourable to the status of each colony. New Zealand can claim and does claim equality with Australia in spite of numerical inferiority. Moreover, the principle has been adopted in the matter of the three partners to the cable scheme, by making Great Britain, Canada and Australasia equal sharers iu the expenses. To be consistent, we cannot complain. It is not and it never was the bulkiest raco that rules the world. We are sorry that the Conference did not appoint Lord Jersey, as that would have been a graceful and thoughtful thing. But as it agreed to appoint two such experienced, able negotiators as Sir Saul Samuel and Sir Andrew Clark, we do not see any reason for regretting that we must bow to the decision of the majority. The great thing is that an agreement has been arrived at, which brings the Pacific cable visibly nearer. The route will bo through the deepest known water in the world, as the surveys of H.M.S. Penguin proved the other day. Whether that is good or bad for the cable depends on the nature of the sea bottom. While waiting for surveys to settle that question, we can congratulate ourselves on the fact that already the three partners in tin cable project are seriously anxious to possess a red cable across the Pacific. Nothing more truly Imperialistic has ever been done in our time. THE CHEMISTS AND THE HALFHOLIDAY. Mr Martin’s decision is according to sound logic, and agrees with the requirements of common-sense. It places chemists, i with reference to the statutory half-holi-day, exactly where they ought to be. They ought to be in the list of exemptions. If I there is reason, as there is, why fishmongers, fruiterers, confectioners, eatinghouse keepers and the keepers of railway book-stalls should be exempt, there is much stronger season why chemists should be. Under the Act of 1894 the exceptional position of chemists was recognised. Unfortunately, the intention of the Legislature was better than its action. It gave the chemists leave to be open for two named hours during the halfholiday for the sale of medicines and surgical appliances to anybody whether he urgently wanted them or not, and it permitted them to be open during the whole time for the supply of medicines and surgical appliances in cases of urgency. The chemists were, not to put too fine a point upon it, placed in the anomalous position of being at once open and closed, and the supervising Department of Labour was put to the impossible task of seeing that chemists, who sell many things that are neither medicines nor surgical appliances, confined their operations to the latter. The anomaly was quickly discovered after the Act came into operation, and was removed by the amending Act of 1895. That Act simply added chemists’ shops to the • list of exceptions. But there still re- ■ mained a point which to the department

•was obscure. , The exempted shops in tlie Act of 1894- are described as shops “.wherein is exclusively carried on” one or other of the businesses mentioned. Chemists’ shops having been added by the Act of 1895 to the above list of businesses, the question arose of the exact meaning of the qualification implied by the words “ exclusively carried on ” : were chemists allowed to sell medicmes and surgical appliances only, or were they also permitted to sell perfumery, soap, tooth-brushes, hair-brushes and other things in which chemists deal? There being a good deal to be said on both sides, the department brought a test case against a Wellington chemist in the Magistrate’s Court. Mr Martin decided that as there was nothing left in the old Act about chemists, and as there was no attempt in the new to define the character ~ of their establishments, the proper course for him was to regard the business of chemists from the point of vievr of ordinary ctistdih. He has decided, therefore, that tlie biisinesg of 'chemist is the business in all its branches as usually known. That, therefore, is the business which is “ exclusively carried on ” by every chemist who is a chemist in the customary sense of the term. We do not know whether this is a hardship to vendors of toilet requisites who are not chemists, but that is not tlie poiiit; Logic and common-sense uiiite in showing that the law can only bo read as Mr Martin read it. Obviously it cannot be read wrong in order that somebody not referred to in the law may not suffer wrong. Moreover, the expediency of the case is in the Magistrate’s favour as well as the logic and common-sense. If the law had discriminated between what a chemist can sell of his stock and what he cannot, the distinction simply could not be enforced. You might as well allow a publican to keep open for selling brandy and punish him for selling whisky. For all rea sons it was right to place chemists on the list of exemptions, and to rule that being on the list they may do any part of their customary business.