The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-07-29
Committee Fails to Re-
gard United Protest
Of Merchants.
MEASURE NOW
GOES TO COUNCIL
Strong Arguments Presented
Against Zimmerman Ordi-
nance, Speakers Pointing
Out Heavy Financial Loss
Involved-Attack Broad
Street Loafers.

Although large delegation of mer-
chants appeared and protested vigor-
ously. the Committee on Streets last
night recommended to the Council the
adoption o fthe Zimmerman ordinance
which provides that show cases and
other distractions be removed from
the sidewalks on Main and Broad
6treets. The vote was 8 to 4.
The merchants were all OF one mind
They told the committee that show
cases enabled them to display goods
that 1t was impossible to display in
the ordinary window. None agreed
that the show cases caused congress
ton of traffic. as is contended by Al
derman Zimmerman and others who
favor the ordinance.
big Delegation There.
There were probably seventy-nve
merchants or their representatives in
the committee room, though only a
few addressed the committee. L. O.
Miller. OF the firm of Miller G Rhoads.
spoke first, saying he voiced the SEN
timent OF merchants large and small.
After explaining that the show cases
afforded an excellent means of adver-
tisinS goods, Mr.. Miller said. ..I am
here to oppose this ordinance. If we
arc required to remove the show cases
about $4,000 invested in show cases
In Richmond will be lost 1t means
that s25.o0o worth OF show cases will
be relegated to the scrap pile.
THE show cases are money getters.
They enable us. to display small arr
ticles that we cannot possibly adver-
tise in the ordinary window. Rents
have increased all out of proportion
TO business on Broad Street especially.
as any merchant will tell you. Traffic
IS not congested by the show cases.
hope that this committee will not
recommend the ordinance
Merchants Against IT.
Representing 81. Arnold & Co., Leon
DetteIbach said that the show cases
In front of the store Of the firm which
he represented meant several thousand
dollars worth of business year; that
they are in no ones way, and he
could see no reason for removing
them.
The Richmond Trunk Manufacture
ing Company was represented by n.
Karl Boschen. who said the news
papers started the; crusade against the
show cases. None Of the merchants
had asked that they be removed. and
he hoped that the committee would
vote down the ordinance.
Eugene Kass, OF the millinery firm
of Kass & Company. declared that the
show cases are the merchants friend;
that they are IN no way Objectionable
to the people and do not obstruct
traffic. THE men and boys who line
the streets In front of the stores are
objectionable. They make remarks
as ladies pass and otherwise make
themselves obnoxious. They should
be removed and the Police Department
ought to do it,, said Mr. Kass
r. Levy, Of Jacobs & Levy. said that
In Baltimore. Philadelphia, New York
and other large cities show cases are
permitted on the sidewalks on streets
more congested than Broad or Main.
He said that he hoped the COMMITTEES
would not work a hardship on the
merchants by recommending the adop-
ton of the ordinance.
Makes Strong Plea,
w. A. Clarke, Jr., secretary of the
Retail Merchants Association, appeal
ed to the committee, in behalf Of the
large number of tax-paying merchants
In the city. not to send the ordinance
to the Council. He referred to an ar
ticle in the Business Mans Magazine
about show cases in London. He said
that this article pointed out the great
amount Of business which the mer-
chants In that great city derived as a
result OF this same show case plan OF
advertising goods.
According to Mr. Clarke, a petition
with the names of 215 merchants
signed to it had been presented to
the committee protesting that the or
dinance not be passed, He said that
"surely the taX-paying merchants
should have some consideration shown
them" Mr.. Clarke said that in Wash
ington so per cent. of the merchants
have extended display windows three
feet on the sidewalks and found 1t a
money-getter. He said there is no or
dinance prohibiting the display of
goods in this manner in that city
When Mr.. Clarke concluded. Alder
man zimmerman, who introduced the
ordinance, said he was glad that the
merchants had come before tho COM
mittee and expressed their views on
the matter. IT fathered this ordi-
nance" he said '.because have rea-
son to believe that the city is going
to spend large sum OF money to
beautify Broad Street, and 1t seems to
me that the merchants should not OBJ
ject to making some sacrifice to help
the work along.
Quotes Court Decision.
IT can't see who can object or why,
If every show case Is removed, Rich
mond is no longer a small town The
city contemplates spending a large
Bum Of money for lighting and other
wise beautifying Broad Street. The
Supreme Court rendered decision
years ago that the city Of Norfolk had
no right to grant permission 20 any
pne to place distractions such as show
eases on the sidewalks. He pointed
out that streets are for the use of the
public, and no one has a right to block
them.
II know there has been a lot of
complaint about show cases an the
&streets. While had no idea they
meant as much to the merchants as
has been stated here to-day, I am still
9f the opinion that by removing all
no merchant can kick am sure I
No not want to work hardship on