Waterbury evening Democrat., 1889-05-07
THE pEDDLERs, LICENSE BILL.

maCIef OI weekly payments.
 | THE PEDDLERS' LICENSE BILL. There has been considerable interest | among local merchants and others with | whom itinerant vendors come into com petition as to the fate of Mir O'Neilrs ped dlers' license bill. They have been looking anxiously for some disposition of it by the house, and it would seem from the action of the senate yesterday in passing it that | the house cannot much longer delay some action on the bill. Perhaps the bill as amended by the senate to except products of farms and waters of this state may be acceptable to the house and it may see it's way clear to extend much needed relief to resident mer- chants and tradesmen of cities and towns from the incursions of tramp vendors who can underseu them for the reason that they have no burdens in the way of rents or local taxation.
 | The city fathers of Waterbury, by an ordinance which was approved July 13, | 1880, made it obligatory on all transient | traders and peddlers and vendors to secure license from the mayor and city clerk in a sum ranging between one and ten dollars a day for the time specified in the application. This ordinance has become imperative, however, for the reason that it was unconstitutional and was practically so declared by the supreme court, which in a test case brought up a few years ago by Judge Blydenburgh of New Haven ruled that similar ordinance passed by the court of common council of the Elm city was contrary to the constitution of the state. It is to remedy-this and give statutory power to the towns and cities to protect their local tradesmen that is the intent and purpose of MT ONeills bill.
 There can be little question that the bill ought to pass. The men who pay local taxes. who have their homes in the community in which they do business. who are identified with it in all its in- terests, who bear the burden of local improvements and share in all local eX- penseS should be protected in their right to the local trade, at least to that extent that there shall be no discrimination in favor of the visiting tradesmen. It is to place the local merchant on equal foot ing with his peripatetic competitor that a license eXaction is asked rather than any purpose of interfering with the citizens right to buy where he can ,l
 under the present system that throws the cities and towns open to the
 raids of outsiders who have no interest
 therein but the selfish one of grabbing the trade, it is impossible for resident tradesmen, with their taxes or rents and
 expenses of conducting their business, to compete as to price with men whose only expense is an occasioned car fare or
 cheap hotel bill. The latter can under sell the former every time, as i'll fact
 they do. We have been credibly in
 formed by local jeweler that thou
 sands of dollars worth of jewelry is sold every month in Waterbury by these ,, tramp vendors, taking just so much,
 through an unfair competition, from the sales of the local jewellers. In the cloth ing and book business it is the same, and
 there is no doubt that many other lines
 of business feel the burden of similar
 unequal and unjust competition.
 As we remarked above, it is to make
 the competition fair and equal that a li-
 cense fee should be eXacted from tran
 sent tradesmen. If they are to eat the
 pudding let them pay for the spoon
 with which they eat it. If they are to
 take away portion Of the profits that
 belong to the local tradesmen let them
 bear their share of the local municipal burdens by paying a fee that will be a tax into the local treasury. In such g way only will justice be done to those who are identified with local interests. There ought to be no hesitation in pass
 ing MT O'Neill's bill, and with the provi- sion exempting farmers from it's provi- sions it is probable that it will not be ob-
 jectionable to the country members in
 the house.
 By all considerations of fairness, of right and justice Mr O'Neilrs bill should
 be passed, and passed toe without de lay.
 T),,1Is 4 T