FRUIT HAWKERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13626, 20 December 1907, Page 4

FRUIT HAWKERS.

■■ ... IS THE COMPETITION UNFAIR l ;■'..■' ■; — — ~ A CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION■ The question of the effect of the compel i. tion of fruit hawkers upon tradespeople who have to pay rentals for shops was i, cussed by the City Council last night; J. D. Webster and four other fruiterers wrote to call attention to the great injn*. tice" they were labouring under, They stated that they were being subjected 'to ' the grossly unfair competition of & W«' number of hawkers licensed by the Council to sell fruit. These hawkers practically ' made the main street a shop, and all they paid was the ridiculous sum of 6d per week while the shopkeepers paid rates amounting to 10s to 15s per week, anil also heavy rents. The competition was becoming a very serious menace to business. Each bar. row netted about £2 per day, and could well afford to pay 10& per day' rental, and then, in comparison to the retail fruiterers -.''-' have a long way the best of the bargain! The city traffic inspector stated that street hawking was allowed in every town -' and provision had been made in law for the licensing of hawkers. The general public were very much interested in this matter and patronised the hawkers extensively* ' and where the four fruiterers objected to the presence of the hawkers 4000 people ' might object to the hawkers being removed. If the hawkers were limited to Lower Queen-street, between Custom-street and the wharf the trouble ought to be remedied. li was possible to require the hawkers to keep on the move instead of remaining in - ■ * one spot. ' - Mr. A. J. En trican moved reference of the matter to the Finance Committee. He considered that the tradespeople had a reil grievance. He did not want to prevent the - hawkers from making a living, but stands might be given to them in streets, abuttiia on Queen-street. It was not fair thiS liawkers should stand he had seen them do—in front of fruiterers' shops and sell fruit at 25 per cent. less, than the tradesman. . , , Dr. Stopford opposed ' the motion. •' Hawkers should be allowed in any street in any town. Fruit, which was necessary 1 to everyone, was exceedingly dear here, and hawkers supplied the want* of the 'poor man. ■• i .'■• Mr. R. Farrell said lie was astonished & Mr. Entrican's methods. That gentleman" • asserted that he did not want to' prevent fruit hawkers from earning a livelihood, yet proposed to relegate them to side Streets. To do so would be to deprive them of their : livings. If it were not for tbi haw] some of the fruiterers would send.fruit to the destructor rather than take lower price* for it. Mr. H. M. Smeeton thought that if the hawkers moved on after serving customer it would be all right. The trouble was, however, that they stood in front of the fruit simps, and he had had a complaint of one standing thus for twenty minutes. Mr. W. E. Hutchison suggested that the ' hawkers might be prohibited from standing , within 50 yards of fruit shops. , ~ , . The Mayor (Mr. A. M. Myers) said th* question was an old one, and he thought ' it was time something was done. The motion was carried, Dr. Stopford. di»senting. ./ . , —