The San Francisco call., 1904-06-18

q hermit IS taken away under the
Woodward law IL is necessary only 10
nav $50 for a new permit and 10 Sc
cure the favorable action Of the Com
r,issionars. The firms of IvancOvich
& Co. Mitchell & Goodall. Garcia q
Arargiuf and G. Berti g. Co. had neg
lected 10 deposit $50 with each of
their several applications. The sec
retary Of the board was instructed to
notify these firms that their petitions
would not be considered until the
money was deposited.
AN UNEXPECTED TURN.
The proceedings took a somewhat
rnexpected turn yesterday. Attorney
Wise had argued at great length that
the agreement among seventy or
more wholesale firms to sell no less
than fifty sacks Of potatoes or twenty
five sacks Of onions 10 any member OF
the combine was in violation Of the
Woodward law. which provides that
no discrimination shall be made as be-
tween solvent purchasers. He con-
tended that such an agreement
would enectually shut out OF
business the dealers Of small
means, who could not afford to buy
large quantities. Attorney Reinstein
replied that the agreement was all
right. that the provision TO which Mr..
wise especially excepted and which
provided that any quantities Of onions
or potatoes less than those specified
in the agreement should bring a high
er price proportional 10 the smallness
of the lot. was just.
gument. Attorney Wise said that he
would challenge J. T. Nash 10 deny
that the intent Of the agreement en-
tered into after the Produce Dealers
Protective Association dissolved was
that the members Of the new COM
bine would not sell less than fifty
sacks Of potatoes or twenty-five sacks
Of onions TO any member Of the COM
bine.
Nash rose 70 accept this challenge.
Attorney Reinstein tried 10 dissuade
him from making any statement, Nash
having said that ne would like to an
sver. but would not confine himself
70 any categorical statement, affirm
atively or negatively. Despite Rein
STEMS advice. Nash made his state
rnent and incidentally issued a def"
20 the dealers who withdrew from the
Produce Dealers Protective Associa-
ton and who appeared as complain
ants against L Scatena 6, Co, Wolf
e. Son and the American Produce
Company.
7 challenge them" shouted Nash.
pointing at the hostile camp Of prod
uce men arrayed on the opposite side
Of the Harbor Commissioners board
room, ito say that they wish this
agreement OF which Mr.. Wise, their
attorney, complains TO be changed"
There was response from the other
camp. Charles ]. Lercari accepted
the challenge and said it was desired
that the agreement among the mem
bers OF the combine should be discon-
tinued.
TALKS ABOUT JOBBERS.
The agreement" went on Mr..
Nash, 'Is for the benefit OF the Job
bers in perishable products and not
for the good OF the men who have
signed it. II Is a measure Of protec-
ton TO the jobbers and not to us. It
prevents the retailer and restaurant
keeper from going on the wharf
20 buy one sack Of produce at a time.
II enables the jObbers 70 take produce
20 their stores and sell il to the retail
ers. The larger dealers do not OBJ
ject TO retailing on the wharves, but
they have placed these limits on the
minimum quantity TO be sold entirely
10 protect the sjObbers."
When Mr.. Nash had concluded the
Commissioners went out with W. II.
Davis. the attorney Of the board. This
gave the rival produce dealers a
chance to discuss openly among them
selves the various statements that had
been made. especially those that had
been made by Nash. The smaller
dealers ridiculed the statement that
the combine was working in their in
terest. Remarks were made that
might have led 10 uppercuts and
other varieties Of hsticuffs, but moth
ing OF the sort resulted.
The entire section Of the wharves
where perishable products are sold
VIII be the scene Of animated discus
sion until next Monday forenoon at
least. Then the Harbor Commission
ers viii decide whether the dealers
who have just been deprived Of their
permits shall receive new ones to sell
90 1or-rrpc If fba