The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-07
VETO IS SUSTAINED
RETAIL FRUIT DEALERS LOSE FIGHT AGAINST PEDDLERs.
The Ordinance Was to Prohibit Sale of Fruits and Candies by Ped .dlers Except in Front
 of Residences.

Rv A vote of 2 to in the City Council last night the veto of Mayor Josepn upo,. .'oa a the fruit and candy peddler ordinance wan sustained. the retail deaiers ot lH ,ut .hase thereby losing their fight to restrict these neddlers to operating only within the residence district. , ,,,aaLs before Christmas Duncan May ana o%tnel % retai, dealers appeared before the Clty Counci and advocated the passage ot such an ordinance on the ground Una. neddlers of fruit and candies were m frtnging upon the business or merchshSS who paid big licenses to tne cIty. tha seouently an ordinance covering the ncatter was adopted This ordinance Wds vetoed by the Mayor. who declares thet it ia of such sweeping character that II will deprive worthy poor persons iron' Iaahins an honorable ltvellhood- .
 The veto message of the Mayor was read to the Council immediately atter the body assembled last night. IL lS aS Office of the Mayor, Montgomery, December 70. To the City Council of Montgomery Gentlemen-+I return herewith TOT youE further consideration an ordinance I. en. titled "an ordinance to prohlDlt the sdIe wagons, baskets. moving stands or mov- ing booths except in front or reSloehcee, within the fire limits of Montgomery. as adopted by you at your last regular meeting. - ..aoA as exnlained by the gentlemen both to the Council and to myself. at whose instance the ordinance was adopted: mat ID: to prohibit licensed wagon sellers or tfuis from stoppinC and dlsposing or tneir goods in the most desirable business DOT tions of the city. or in other words, prac- ticallv selecting their stands. regaroIess of how much they may interfere "ltn store dealers and the convenience or the ahlV the manner III which some of these wagon owners nave acted calls for Legislation. and much regret that other portions Of the orolI nance prevent my approval Tn us present shape. IA.
 The ordinance Is very sweeping in It's character It embraces in its prohibition the peddling of these commodities III baskets, thus preventing what mas TOT ing poor. blind, lame and hecrepit people of our city from ektng out nara put honest livelihood instead Of being oo- jects of charity.
 A few of these pay a small license. Most of them. however, operate under permits granted by the Mayor, by au- thority of existing law. This has been allowed in our city, so far as l know since its incorporation, and In my opih- ion. It would be very bad public policy to discontinue 1t.
 am advised by the City Attorney that the ordinance now before me- would re- peal this charitable provision Tn so Tar as 1t relates to fruit and candy l am assured by some of the gentlemen who had the ordinance drawn that this was not intended and feel sure that 1t was not intended by your honorable body.
 Respectfully submitted,
 F. E. Joseph, Mayor
 The question was Shall the ordinance stand the veto of the Mayor notwith- standing?' and the vote was as follows
 Ayes-Aldermea Gunter Hartley, Iud- son, Johnson. May, Mcintyre, Rushtoh-I.