The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1899-05-03


basket or pack or wagon, to peddl
goods. And to stop him they ask tina
the peripatetic merchants shall be re
quired to pay license which their bust
ness will not afford.
The excuse is that the people must b
protected from purchasing an inferio
quality of goods! The presumption i
that the innocent farmers, who are sup
posed to be capable Of helping to run
state or nation, are not fit to tell the diff
ference between cotton and woole1
goods!!
Hence hundreds of poor men, not ricl
enough to open country store, but anx
ious to support their wives and families
must not have a chance to make a liv
ing, but must stay home and starve
Thus the avenues are walled up in ever,
and there is no escape for tn,
wretched, save by crime or suicide.
We quote part of the report of thu
proceedings in the last legislature upor
another of these monopolistic bills:
The house committee on general
legislation last evening killed S. F.
172, by Senator Daugherty, which
provided for the payment OF a license
by peddlers in the organized towns
OF the state. The bill left it optional
with the supervisors Of each town to
impose the license but regulated the
fees at ST per day, $40 per month,
or $50 per year.
Senator Daughetry said the bill was
demanded by the merchants in the
mining towns in the northern part
of the state, and also by other mer-
chants who had business DESTROYED
by peddlers who came into the towns
and sold goods, paying no license or
taxes. The bill had been carefully
drawn and pronounced constitutional
in that it was LETT to the supervisors
of each town as to whether it should
be adopted The only objection to
the bill seemed to be from Minneapo-
lis and St. Paul, which would not be
in the least affected.
Mr.. Fosnes (Union), of Chippewa,
suggested that it be made to apply
only to counties of 100 900 or more,
and this would take in St. Louis
county where the request had been
made for the passage OF the bill The
author OF the bill did not care to
have it amended, claiming that this
question had been decided against
and would affect the legality of the
bill.
Judge J. w. Willis, OF St. Paul,
spoke against the passage OF the bill,
which he declared was not demanded
by the public, but by special inter
est demanding privileges. 1t was
aimed at legitimate business and
would prevent hundreds OF honest
and energetic people from obtaining
ture of a tax measure, but an attempt
to operate under the police powers
of the state The bill was absolutely
prohibitory 1t would make it diff
fcult to secure license and the rates
were too high, requiring a license in
each town and in some counties
there were fifty towns which would
make it impossible for a peddler to
pay license. The supreme court had
held that to make license hold un
der the police powers of the state it
must be reasonable. The business of
peddling was legitimate one, and if
the peddlers sold goods in ST. Louis
county to miners, why did not the
merchants do the same All laws
which sought to shut out some one
from doing business were in the in
interests Of class as against the con
sumers or others engaged in the same
line of business A bill of the kind
should be aimed at abuses in order to
make it come within the police pow
ers Of the state. There was no claim
made that the peddlers had done any
thing wrong. the only claim being
that storekeepers should be protected.
Mr.. Finland (Den,) of Ramsey,
said the bill was special legislation,
and the license was prohibitive Many
of the most prominent business men
of the state had started in peddling,
and the only reason that any en-
gagged in the business now was that
they could not afford to rent store.
Mr.. Nelson (Rep) OF Hennepin.
opposed the bill on the ground that
it would drive large number of men
out of employment, and in his opln-
ion. was unconstitutional.
J. L. Freedman and J. Gold. ped
oilers of Minneapolis. opposed the
bill for the reason that it was a one
sided affair.
The bill was recommended for in
definite postponement by vote of 7
to 3. Those favoring the killing of
the bill being Messrs. O'Connor.
Donohue. Simonson. Dwinnell. Jack
son, Sloan and Nelson. N O. Those
favoring the passage of the bill were
Messrs Fosnes, Laybourn and
O'Neill.
The bill of Mr.. Hill (Dem) of Wi
mona. requiring vendors of patent
medicine to pay county license OF
$50 was recommended for indefinite
postponement.
We are glad this bill was killed l
these monopolists had their way a bah,
could not be born without license wa
first had and obtained: and every mar
would have to wear a meter at his mouth
to measure the amount of air he con
and if he didn't pay promptly the
supply would be cut off! l. d.