Arizona republican., 1919-03-02
eorgeHagemanSpeaks

If my grievance was purely a personal one, would not go to the trouble of airing it in a public manner-the people generally are not interested in my personal af- fairs. However, the treatment l am receiving and what 1 am sub jected to by city officials is such that it interests the public for the reason that it TOUCHES THE PURSES of the people who have plumbing work done and who buy plumbing supplies.
 For fifteen years l have been doing business in Phoenix all the time buying cheaper and, conse- quently, selling cheaper than my competitors. 1 buy goods in large quantities by the carload and,
 being content to turn my goods rapidly at small profit, have been able to undersell other men in the same line of business.
 As a result of small profit and low prices combined with good workmanship, have built up business that it seems is looked upon enviously by some of my competitors. Instead of trying to equal the vol
 ume of business do by meeting my prices, they seem to have organized little ring to harass and annoy me, and will admit that, with the assistance of one or two city officials they have succeeded in giving me considerable annoyance.
 It would seem that a combination has been formed of the master plumbers and the men working for them to give all the trouble possible. The first instance or two has already cropped up, and it is possible unless the combination Is npped in the bud that further efforts along the same line will be forthcoming.
 On February 9th living on the outskirts of the city called at my place of business and said he had toilet at his house that had been installed without permit and without due regard of the plumbing or dinance. In the course of our conversation found that the work had not been done by any of the Phoe
 nix plumbers, but by the householder himself or some mechanic he had picked up. agreed to change the job and make it sanitary according to the plumb ing ordinance and at once took out permit from the city building inspector paying fee of S20 therefor
 My shop had scores of orders ahead of this and it would have been several weeks before we could do the job. However. the ring did not wait. On February 9 arrested and fined $10 in the city court, although on what grounds still remains more
 or less of mystery. Neither myself nor any of my men had ever been the job, so it seems that my only crime was that l had taken out permit is required by city ordinance. questioned the judge who fined me- and he could not give any lucid ex- planation of the why was fined. Of course, if had installed the job and it had been done in vo ation of the terms of the ordinance, would be sub iect to arrest and fine However, DID NOT do the work-I had merely agreed to put in shape job that some else had done, and at the time of my arrest HAD NOT EVEN BEEN ON THE JOB. Following the fiasco in the city court, demanded of the building inspector that he refund the amount of the fee had paid. This he refused to do. then took up the matter with the City Manager and was promised the return of the money without delay.
 Ihave been subjected to petty annoyance of this sort quite frequently in the past month and as it is matter that vtally the people of this com munity, propose to air the whole proposition.
 have been subjected to petty persecution other than
 the instance cited above, and feel that the people will
 be interested in the details, which will be furnished 1o\o