Waterbury Democrat., 1901-06-12
ITINERANT VENDORS.
Waterbury Merchants Helped to Make
 the Measure a Success.


 The following article taken from the Hartford Times will be of interest to the merchants of this city. The Water bury Merchants association, through President Ziglatskf had a hand in the success of the measure, which deals with itinerant vendors and affects Wa terbury as much as any other city. The article is as follows:
 The house and senate have taken proper action in striking out por- ton of the state amendment to the itinerant vendors bill. This amend ment exempted from the provisions of the bill persons engaging in business for the summer season of any summer resort" and also agricultural fair as- sociations. The amendment was evi- dently presented under misapprehen- sion.
 To make the matter clear 1t is we'll to recall the history of the attempted leg islation. Serious injustice has been done local dealers all over the state by the competition of those who come from elsewhere and sell for a short time, having little to pay for rent or taxes and thus obtaining an advantage in the market to which they have no title. The intent of laws regulating trade is that all shall have a fair chance, those who live here constantly and those who come for short time. But there is no fair chance when the local man has to pay in rent and taxes more in proportion than the visitor who comes today and is gone next week or next month. The visitor escapes with less payment for his authority to do business than the permanent resi- dent whose interests are all with the place in which he lives and whose money circulates there. The mere statement of the case is enough to show the injustice that exists and which the bill seeks to remedy.
 But when the matter came up in the senate member of that body. evident ly misled by statements that had been made to him, proposed an amendment, which was adopted. exempting tram sient vendors at summer resorts, and also agricultural. fairs. The latter were sufficiently protected in this re- spect already by, a law previously passed On full explanation of this point the house on Monday amended the bill as passed by the senate with the amendment made there as already describedD by striking out of the sen- ate amendment the clause exempting vendors at summer resorts from the effect of the law. The second clause, that as to fairs, was allowed to stand in order to prevent any question of it's having been repealed by the later bill, and the senate to-day concurred in this, section. The gentleman who proposed the senate amendment was ready to support it's withdrawal, and other influential members of that body shared his present view of the situa- tion- Nor does the new law work any hardship on those who come here to conduct permanent business. Any man who brings stock here and rents a store for year has the same rights as one who has spent his whole busi- ness life here.
 Even. apart from this, it has to be remembered that the bill as amended in the senate Is held by able lawyers to beocleaflH unconsti6itional.9 As to the agricultural societies there fss no trouble That class stands by itself. Every one knows the position of such an association. It has its charter, it's rules, it's property. It is a perma- nent, recognized factor. But tram sient vendors at summer resorts is a phrase which may mean anything or nothing. Almost any place may be a summer resort. For indefiniteness, if for no other reason, it would be void, but there are other grounds for hold ing it unconstitutional. For both req sons it should have been stricken out.
 The bill as it stands. without this clause has the strong approval of the 2, ,5O0 members of the Business Mems association of Connecticut and notably of the 250 members who live in Hart ford and embrace nearly all the busi- ness men of the city whose opinion carries weight. A backing like this is not to be forgotten in considering the treatment of bill which affects partfc- ularly this very class. They under stand the situation, and have made it clear to the legislators They asked for nothing more than> equal opportunity with temporary business visitors, and to this they were clearly entitled.