The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-11-22
h 06icial of Organization Init
mates Itinerant Vendor Isn't
Prosecuted Because Court
is Customer
ORDINANCE ILLEGAL,
HIS HONOR'S RETORT
Whacks Commercial Body, Say
Ing Its Constant Aim is to
Stifle Competition

Judge Connolly and the retail mer-
4 chants bureau of the Board OF Com
merce are on the outs. 1t happens
\ that an ordinance case in which the re.
tail bureau Is interested, has not been
\ brought to trial. It's this way:
A, Kent, representative of a New
\ York fur house. came TO Detroit Sc
cured q sample room in the Hotel
4 FontchArtrain, and began to sell furs.
Detroit fur dealers heard about 1t,
n and took 1t UP with the retail mer-
4chants' bureau The bureau informed
ithe police department that the ordi-
nance which requires license of 500
- day from an itinerant vendor was
oeing violated. Detective Rick was
y assigned to the matter Rick told
\ Kent to get out OF town before 4
O'Clock OF certain afternoon.
Kent went to Attorney James Muir
4 th1, who had bought an overcoat of
3him.
Don't bulge an inch" was Senator
\ Aurthas advice. So Kent stayed.
The retail merchants bureau took
3 the matter up with the corporation
eOunsers once. and Assistant Corpora
I tiOA Counsel Penniman brought ac-
ton against Kent for violating an or
d 4inance. On Wednesday, the case
ENas indefinitely postponed by Judge
Connolly, at Mr. Penniman's request.
'Theres' clear case against Kent"
nAyp Leroy NJ. Gibbs. business man.
Eat0r OF the Board of Commerce and
Toecfetary Of the retail merchants,
Il bureau. "Bnt Detective Rick SAYS
that both Senator Murtha and Judge
OonnDlly bought fur overcoats Of
Judge Connolly came rixht back at
Qibbs and the retail merchants bu-
kuon.
3 Yes, bought a fur overcoat from
Kent. and good one, too" he said.
I'm ready to try the case whenever
4 NAe retail merchants' bureau wants TO
hing Il up I'll declare the ordinance
as 1t is Similar or
Ml1n0cos I've been held umconstitu-
Io1N In four or flve decisions OF the
lcn1onn eupreme court.
~ requiring D tax Of 500 day.
s4he ordinance II both discriminatory
nnd In restraint OF trade The trouble
5U, these FUR dealers want oil the trade
ffN1ro -. and don't want any opposi-
kt1o4 HIT on the other hand. they
Wnnt to 20 into other cities and get
*o1l they can get there, too.
The Board Of Commerce as an or
Examination has Just that purpose-to
YDD10all u can for itself, and keep the
other fellow from getting anything.
RH protests against dealers coming
Into Detroit to cell goods. but II holds
zonnpal cruises TO put It's business into
ether towns. What would happen IL
Uther cities taxed representatives OF
Detroit firms who endeavored to trade
& tAere? You'd hear an awful howl
from the Board OF Commerce. They
want TO eat their cake and have it,
too.
"The Board OF Commerce might be
:asked where 1t bought the equipment
s kor IT. new building, They talk about
<bPinging trade TO Detroit. but they
didn't buy their equipment here. They
went where they could get II at the
mott favorable price. And vet they
ny to maintain high prices here by
3 utifing competition
Jddge Connolly cited the cases OF
Brooks. Va. Mangan. In which the su-
meme court held that license of SIS
day was discriminatory: Brown VS..
! The superior court Judge, In which the
tr1uUient merchants act Of 1905 was
4 held invalid; and Fayette vs.. Day. In
(which q license fee OF SIS month
I Tor selling meat from wagon In
|:6l100 Iesa than quarter OF beef was
] held illegal.
About this time. Assistant Corpora
Sticn Counsel Penniman came In. He
3 aid that he had advised local fur
dealer that the ordinance was illegal,
Y and. that It had been agreed to drop
the case, believing that the ordinance
\ d good thing TO keep on the books.
even II II is Illegal. as II gives the po-
lice a means Of putting out OF bust
nese irresponsible dealers who can't
4 afford, from the nature OF their bust
uoas. to make court fight.