THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1905 THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13250, 5 April 1905, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1905 THE SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT.

A TjAXcuid interest is all that the public can bo expected to evince over tjie decision of the Pull Supreme-Court in the so-called teat case under the provisions of the Shops and Offices .Act of last session. From the fact that the Labour Department has, pending the result of tlio appeal, deliberately refrained from enforcing in the specified " combined districts" the early-dosing section of the Act, which it is its duty to administer, a fictitious importanco lias been bestowed upon the proceedings in the Court. But it cannot be too frequently or too strongly affirmed that the case has absolutely, no bearing upon the present position of tlio law in relation to the hours of the closing of shops in the combined districts of which Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Duncdin respectively are constituent parts. As to that there is not tho slightest doubt. The issue that had to bo decided in the case upon which elaborate argument was heard last week and learned judgments, all of similar purport, have been severally pronounced this wee!: by six judges of the Supreme Court, was whether upon a certain date in November last any combined district of Wellington was in existence. If such a district was in existence, then, it was admitted, shops which were not closed until ]0 p.m. upon the date in question should have been closed at 9 p.m. And the argument upon this issue practically narrowed itself down to a consideration of the question of whether the Act per sg created the "combined districts" or whether the issue of a Gazette notice, as provided for in one of tho sections of the measure, was a necessary ingredient in their creation. The raembcrs-of the Full Court showed a somewhat rare unanimity in their judgments upon this point. Without exception ■ tlioy held that, the law dm not possess the ambiguity which 'the' stipendiary magistrate at Wellington discovered, in it and

tlinf, the Act itself crotitcd the combined districts, the section containing tho provision that tlio Minister of Labour should by notico iti the Gazctto spccify the districts being, in their opinion, inserted in the law for evidentiary purposes only and for obviating the need, in the case of a. prosecution, of calling evidence respecting distances and localities of boroughs or town districts ,in n combined district. For these reasons the appeal against the magistrate's decision was sustained, and the case was referred back to the inferior court in order that a conviction might be recorded against the shopkeeper who was charged with a breach of the law. The decision does not, however, make an atom of difference so. far as the present position of s]iops iii' combined districts is concerned. 'Tlie conditions that now obtain are entirely different from those under which the prosecution was instituted in the case that has now been decided by the Full Court. Even if it had been decided that gazetting was necessary to complete the creation of a combined district, the necessary formality in that respect was'complied with as long ago as on the Bth December last. When that is realised the public will understand what an utterly hollow and farcical thing this reference to the Full Court of this so-called test case from Newtown has been. For over three months any vestige of doubt as to the ability of the Labour Department to enforce in the combined districts of Auckland, Wellington, Christclmrch, and Dunedin the early-closing provisions that arc especially applicable to them lias been removed. Yet the officers of the Department, under instruction? from their political head, have refrained from stirring a hand in the performance of their duties in this respect. They have, as an excuse for their inaction, alleged the fact that this test case, which, as we have shown, has absolutely not the remotest bearing upon the existing situation, has been awaiting the decision of tlie Court! 'flie early-closing section that operates in the four combined districts we have mentioned may be ludicrous iii its terms—for it apparently leaves it open to the shopkeeper to keep his premise? open until midnight on .jaiurdnys,—but so long as it. remains on the Statute Book it must be taken to represent tlie will of the Legislature that put it there, and the officers of the Department which is specially cliaraed with the administration of the Act have been guilty of a clear dereliction of duty in having failed to take any steps to enforcp the provisions of the section. The decision of the Full Court has now deprived the Department of the prop upon which it clumsily based its refusal to administer the law in this particular, for it shows that, even if it had been possible for the Government to neglect to issue the Gazette notice specifying the combined districts, the earlyclosing provision would still have been in operation in tho four speciallymentioned districts to which it applies. Mr Seddmi has been deprived, in short, of the pretence which, paltry though it was, has served his purpose for three whole months and has been used by him to justify the improper and unconstitutional suspension of his own Act,