Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-03-17

phHh Nbd3lhhJ ~ hbRt % uht wv o~'NN VIVA /
wna not made for thcm.
j. II. HOpk ms said one argument ad |
vHnGed against the business was that |
the company would only deal with so
many peupe in a block or certain terri |
tory. MIR. Davidson said in some cases
merchants made the contract with the
understanding that no stamps should |
DO handled by any other merchant in
the same business within certain
territory, and this agreement was in
some cases accepted by tho company.
W. +. Smalley, Dr.. counsel for the
friends Of the bill, asked If the COM
pany had lived up to its agreement
when it promised 10 advertise the mer.
chants with them in SO many news
papers certain number of times in a
month. Mr.. Davidson replied that the
company had not lived up to this part
Of the agreement. Prior to tho date Of
some trouble. be said, more than the
srecified amount Of advertising had
been given, but Binco the trouble the
contract in regard TO advertising had
not been lived up to.
Mr.. Smalley held that il one party to
the contract violated the agreement it
then became void.
Elk. Chancellor Wolcott said the
remedy was in the courts.
MIR. Cooper said he did not thinl; tho
| public generally is DESTROYS OF inter.
fering with the business of tbe Will
mington Trading Stamp Go. He ad
mtted that much had been said in tho
newspapers against the trading stamp
| business. but he thought more had
| been said in that way than public
opinion would warrant. He understood
| AE.nN fatxr h INF u1upuufaH tho
| paHnnge of the hill because they desired
| the Legislature to help them out OF
difficulty. He held that tho Legiala-
| ture had no right TO say that, If | were
merchant, when customer comea
| in to settle at the end OF six mopthe ]
cannot give him hat or pair OF
boots. neither did he behave that the
| Legislature had right to interfere
with the trading stamp business, any
more than it could, by enactment, force
the grocer in the middle of the block
| to 90 out of business because he 10 in.
terfering with the business of the
grocer ON the corner, He held that
the public did not demand any such
action.
Manager Edward Blau Of the Home
Coupon Go. said there were two forces
opposed TO the business, one was the
newspapers and the other the people
who did not 60 into the plan and were
jealous. He said he had been talking
with some Of the people using the
stamps. One had told him that it had
saved him when he was ON the brink
of bankruptcy. Another, a coal mer
chant, said it had benefited him be-
cause il changed his business from a
trust business to cash business. Mr..
Blau explained the business, and said
the people were pleased with II. lie
claimed it to be the greatest thing to
bring about cash business that was ever
in Wilmington.
j. ii. Wright, clothing dealer al
Eighth and Market streets, Whining
, ton, spoke in favor of the stamp husi
ness and explained his connection with
, the business He claimed that there
/ was opposition from certain source.
but not from the consumer. He wat
, satisfied that it had been q benefit tc
him. He pays for the stamps and die
I not believe that the Legislature had
, right to deprive him OF the privilege
. of giving away his property.
} William W. Bullock, coal dealer, also
, spoke in favor of the business. as die
also Thomas +. Finn of Finn Brothers
3 William L. Hammond of the City Stean
L Laundry, j. S. Lewis, grocer; Johr
Boyle. grocer; Thomas NJ. Monaghan
D a shoe dealer; A. II. Pyle, grocer
a and G. X. Renge, grocer.
a William F. Smalley, Jr., representing
the persons opposed to the tradinl
1 stamp business said there were man.
4 people in Wilmington opposed to it
Q but in view of the fact that thers hat
{ been delegations down before favorinl
/, the passage of the bill, he only hal
d two or three with him, but many other
/ were represented by letter or petition
. He called on some Of thuae with him
It A. b. Gillespie grocer, spoke 10 op
d position to tue business. lie could SO
!, no good in it and presented petitio
il fayoring the passage of the bill, signe
il by 600 of the merchants in Wilmington
| four fifths OF the best merchants OF tn
l. city. He said be had been in th
/. trading stamp business since last July
and had Nst money by the venture. II
+. asked how he could afford to give ava
d per cent of his profits when he pal
II s.. 80 per 100 pounds for sugar AMI sol
Of it fer So. so. He asserted that the best
1t paying business in the city was th
s. trading stamp business. He also charge
Q, the trading stamp company with viola'
ing its contract 10 three ways, while b
to had lived IN to his part of the contract
i'd Moses We'll, optician, could see n
ID good in the business. He did not fin
ID that it had advertised him any and
1T was opposed to it. He claimed that
70 went into the business by force of Gil
Id cumstances. He objected to being
1t postmaster in connection with his 9th,
IL business, when it did him no good,
l. he wanted advertising he must pa
al for it.
s; MIR. Wright, in reply to remark b
al one of the Others said he had not
e. monopoly of trading stamps in u
ee clothing business. He ia the onl
1875 clothier with one concern, but there a
nd two in the other.
ng Elk Chancellor Wolcott held the BUS
at ness to he legitimate. and claimed tn
to the Legislature had no right to int
m fere. He cited some authorities to SUI
m port his contention. lie said nobot
or had appeared in favor of the bill 9
'or cept merchants. The people had nj
appeared, and he claimeu that tbs
( a were not opposed to the business.
for said the bill would be against the Co
nd stitution of the United States al
ss- would interfere with 176 private co
he tracts, which was not within the pr
for vince of the Legislature.
me William II. Smalley, Jr., smoke
rts the other side. He said he represent
rt, GOO business men of Wilmington who b
signed petition asking for favorab
saa consideration of the bill suppressi
A. the trading stamp business. lie said
de- thought every newspaper in Wilmingt
ut, was opposed to the business. He |