ITINERANT TRADERS

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 March 1931, Page 12

ITINERANT TRADERS

LOCAL'FIRMS’ OBJECTION. The number of itinerant traders doing business in Greymouth has brought forward a complaint from local business men, who yesterday made representations to the Greymouth Chamber of Commerce, re- 1 questing the Chamber to recommend to the Borough Council that the fee now charged visiting traders, entitling them to do business in the borough, be increased for the purpose of acting as a deterrent to such trade. Mr P. F. Thorpy stated that there had been no less than three such sales during the past week. He considered that persons arriving in Greymouth to sell goods by auction should pay the fee of £5 which the Borough Council imposed on itinerant traders. The fee was not enough, and he contended that such traders should be made to pay a little more. They stayed «, few days and then got out with a pocket full of money. The Chairman (Mr P. J. McLean) stated that the matter was one for the Borough Council, but he thought the Chamber might well draw the Council’s attention to the number of hawkers going about. Where residents in business had to pay rates and taxes it was only right that visiting traders should be asked to pay a license fee according to Borough bylaws.

Mr Thorpy: Another point is that during the afternoon of St. Patrick’s day, the usual business places were closed, but these traders’ premises were kept open for business. Members agreed that the position should be brought under the notice of the Labour Department, which had jurisdiction in such matters. Mr Naylor pointed out that if such persons were not under the award, they could keep open. Mr Thorpy stated that a charge of £2O was made at Hokitika for licenses for itinerant traders, and he asked that the Chamber make a recommendation to the ,Greymouth Borough Council that it considered a fee of - £5 was not sufficient. Mr Kitchingham said that if an itinerant trader stayed in the town for longer than six months, the fee was refunded. There was a limit fixed by the Municipal Corporations Act. In reply to a remark made by the Chairman that the Chamber was fortunate in having Messrs Kitchingham and Carroll, both borough councillors, present, Mr Shallcrass said that a letter should be written to the, council, as the elections were coming on, and’ Messrs Kitchingham and Carroll might not stand again. The unfortunate part about itinerant traders was that they were getting ready cash from people who already owed money to business men of the town. Mr Kitchingham remarked that there might be several difficulties to overcome in heavily taxing the traders. They might put their wares in the hands of an auctioneer to sell. Mr Greenslade at this stage Arrived, and the Chairman made known to him the matter under discussion. Mr Greenslade stated that the problem had already been mentioned to him by several business people, and he had intended to see what could be done. It did appear that the present fee charged to such traders, was an insufficient deterrent to keep them from coming into the town and taking away trade from the business people. There was, however, the other side of the question. The public might say that they could buy from such traders more cheaply than from the resident business house, and would look upon the council’s action as a restriction on trade. His personal feeling was that they should look after the townspeople who employed labour and paid rates. Mr Greenslade assured' the Chamber that the matter would have the attention of the Borough Council.