STREET HAWKERS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 4, 5 July 1910, Page 5

STREET HAWKERS.

ITINERANT TRADERS. LICENSING FEE RECOMMENDED. Th 6 Municipal Conference to-day deliberated on the question of the establishment of municipal markets, and then went on to the discussion of a somewhat kindred subject in the problem of the itinerant trader and street-hawker. The remit dealing with the question camo from the remote region of Ross. There was no delegate from Ross, and the motion was laid before the conference through the courtesy of a delegate from another borough. The motion was as follows : — That sections 344 to 346 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, be amended to enable Borough Councils to make a by-law to provide for the licensing of itinerant traders, the fee for such license to be £5, the fe» to be refunded to any trader who, for six months, remains continuously in business in the borough." After some discussion the motion was adopted. A motion that aroused much more debate was one from Auckland : — VThat powers be given to municipalities to make by-laws regulating or prohibiting hawking or peddling in and upon any or all of the streets of the borough." The president (Mr. T. M. Wilford) pointed out that prohibition was practically impossible under the law. A Canadian municipality had tried it, and its prohibition had been upset. Stringent powers of regulation were really all that the conference could recommend with safety. Prohibition would constitute that very restraint of trade which the Privy Council regarded as unfair competition on the part of the municipality. Mr. Pettit (Nelson) strongly opposed the motion. He belieyed_ that the people should get their fruit in the cheapest possible way, and if fruit-hawkers contributed to that end, well and good. He would move as an amendment that the words "or prohibiting" be omitted. Mr. Vigor Brown (Napier) suggested that hawkers should pay for their privileges. Mr. Bagnall (Auckland) showed tßat the Auckland hawkers had been given stands off Queen-street at the corners of the Dranch streets. Mr. J. A. Nash x (Palmerston North) said they suffered from th.c hawker trouble in Palmerston. Hawkers occupied sheds on odd sections at a nominal figure, and pushed their barrows and carts through the streets selling fruit at ridiculous prices. How would the gentleman from Nelson, if he were a shopkeeper, like- to have a man .standing outside cutting down prices 25 per cent. ? People had been compelled to close up their shops, as they could not pay rates in competition with the hawkers. Then the Borough Council made the hawkers take •jut licenses, and for this the hawkers had come to the council and congratulated them on their action, which gave the hawkers a stand in the community. The hawkers should be compelled to pay a license fee. Voice : Which is quite illegal. Mr. Nash : That doesn't matter. (Laughter.) Voice : No license fees shall be paid by hawkers (referring apparently to the Act). i An Auckland delegate said that the hawkeis in the northern city had caused v great deal of trouble to the inspectors. Mr. Hindmarsh : It seems to me this is % conference of shopkeepers — (laughter) — inasmuch as the discussion centres round the interest of the shopkeeper. We have a lot of hawkers in Wellington, and they behave themselves very well. We have got them into line, and they have regular stands. Things are carried/on very well under the Municipal Corporations Act. The locaJ authority has power to regulate traffic, but to prohibit is another matter. Which is the greater nuisance — the motor-car or the itinerant fruit man? (Laugnter.) Voice : Do you drive a car ? Mr. Hindmarsh : No, but the Mayor does. So far as the argument o f obstructing the traffic is concerned, - we should deal with motor-cars before we deal with iruit-barrows. The motorcars have no tfeed co go down Willisstreet; they can keep to the side streets. We must abandon the position that we object to nawkers on account of their obstruction of traffic if we are going to bu logical all found. People should have a perfect right to buy from the hawker ; no matter what effect it his on the shopkeepers." Mr. M'Ewan : How would you like to have a lawyer on the footpath outside your office touting foi business? Yoa would not like it all. (Laughter.) Another delegate : Yes, doing business at half-price. (Laughter.) Mr. W. A. Handley (Devonport) deciared nawkers an intolerable nuisance. The amendment was cai-ried. Mr. Vigor Brown (Napier) moved an amendment in the direction of charging a fcti of 5s a day — not to exceed ss. The amendment was lost, and the motion as first amended adopted.