THE CHINESE QUESTION.

NZ Truth, Issue 60, 18 August 1906, Page 5

THE CHINESE QUESTION.

WHEN IS A GROCER NOT A GROCER?

Are Chows Exempt From the Shops and Offices Act.

The Magistrate Says They Are Not.

Another phase, and a serious one, of the Chinese encroachment upon the retail groceries and tobacco trades of Wellington and suburbs was discussed m the Magistrate's Court on Friday, 10th August, the upshot being that Dr. McArthur, S.M., reserved judgment for a few days on two important points raised m connection with -the administration of the Shops and Offices Act, of 1904, as regards grocers. Four Chinese storekeepers of Petone, two of whom are not naturalised, were summoned by Inspector Lindsay for that they did, at Petone on July 28, keep their shops open after 9.45 p.m., the time for closing set forth m the requisition of Petone grocers. Under section 21 of the Act m question, it is set forth that on a requisition m writing of a majority of the occupiers of shops m, any district desiring that all shops therein shall be closed on the evening of every work day. at, ah hour specified, the Minister shall put a notice m the " Gaze iae" directing that all shops shall close m accordance with the requisition. Sub-section 5 of that section says" that for' the purposes of section 21, the interpretation of "occupier" is so far modified as to include only British subjects, whether by naturalisation or otherwise.

That trade was carried on after 9. 45 p.m. on the day m question was not denied. The following points, however, were raised, one being a question of Law and one of fact. It was first of all contended that section 21 could not be applied to Chinamen, and secondly that the defendants were only fruiterers and could not be classed as grocers.

Dr. Findlay, who prosecuted, admitted the importance of the points which were raised by Mr Skerrett on the defendants' behalf. A similar case regarding the exemption of Chinese from section 21 had been heard before a Blenheim magistrate, but he had decided against the Chinamen. The section had either to read that it excluded Chinese occupiers of shops altogether, or as he (Dr. Findlay) contended, it only excluded the Chinese, as occupiers; from sighing the requisition. If the interpretation was placed on it that the Chinese were exempt from the provisions it meant that the European shopkeeper would have to close at a specified hour, while the Chinese could remain open all night. He maintained, that the Chinese were excluded only from participating m the requisition,- as they would probably be m a majority and over-rule the Europeans. He did not propose to labor his argument, but invited the Magistrate to place a libr eral interpretation on the section. If any other interpretation was placed on it the Tesult would be startling. He submitted, m conclusion, that the Chinese, naturalised or unnaturalised, were occupiers of shops subject to the section, but not occupiers fox the purpose of signing requisitions. The Inspector then went into the witness-DOx and gave evidence ; the purport of whioh was that all the defendants, by name, Ah Lun, Hop Wah, Wong Tv and Jin Ying, were grocers at Petone. In addition to groceries they sold tobacco and fruit. In each instance the stock of tobacco was less than the groceries. Mr Skerrett said that two of the defendants, Ah Lun and Hop Wah, were not naturalised. He submitted that section 21 did not apply to them. Who was it that had to perform the duty of closing the shops ? The occupier. Section 32 denned who it, was that had to olose the shop and sub-section 5 of section 21 modified it to exclude unnaturalised foreigners. If the defendants were to have no say m the requisition determining the hour their shops were to be closed, surely where there was no representation there should be no obligation ? He had read the judgment of the Blenheim magistrate, "but he had not t-he moral courage to decide on the t\icial point. Js7idence was then oalled to show that the defendants' stock was mostly fruit, though they traded m tobacco and groceries. The decision on the points raised was given' by Dr. McArthur, S.M., on Monday afternoon last. The whole question, he said m the course of his judgment, rested -on the words "for the purposes of this section. m subsection 5 of section 21, as to whether it was intended thj-jfc unnaturalised foreigners should "be excluded from the provisions of the AY-;, or only from signling the requisition. It was the duty of the Court to give a fair interpretation and not to strain the meaning of the words. The Court's duty was judicial and not legislative and the intention of the Legislature must be gathered from its own language. He thought that the? meaning; of the section, m which ...the word ''occupier" occurred twice, ( . could be gathered by adding the words Mbeing British subjects" after occupier and it was plain that unnaturalised foreigners were occupiers within the meaning of the Act < and. they were excluded from taking parti \ n the reouisition. Though it jmav^be taxation without representation, that was a matter which did not -concern him. He was satisfied: on the evidence that all the defendant:-; were grocers, notwithstanding .. that they sold fruit. He considered' that the defendants must be convicted, /but he would only impose a nominal penalty. Each defendant? was 1 fined £l with/£l 18s 6d costs'. ; i