The City Council's Tug-of-War Over Curb-Side Commerce
An attempt to ban street peddlers in Seattle sparks a fierce debate over monopoly, public markets, and the rights of local farmers.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The board of aldermen, with Miller, Bogardus, Pontius, Ingraham, Denny, Snyder, and Korn in attendance, held a brisk business meeting last night and rushed through a vast amount of routine work. The peddling ordinance, which has been a bone of contention, again bobbed up and was in danger of passing, but on motion of Alderman Sweeney, attorney W. H. White was heard on the subject.
After listening to the remarks of Lawyer White, the ordinance was voted down. The ordinance forbade the peddling of fruit, vegetables, candies, and nuts within certain prescribed limits, providing a fine of $10 to $25 for each offense. White argued the bill was not intended to suppress a nuisance but to create a monopoly, noting it would discriminate against farmers in favor of certain private corporations. He declared it was in restraint of trade and against public policy. Alderman Korn agreed, stating it was unfair to the farmer. The bill was subsequently rejected.
“He said that the real object of the bill was not to suppress a nuisance but to create a monopoly; the city had a right to create public markets, but not such as were to benefit private corporations.”
The 1892 debate over whether street peddling was a nuisance or a vital economic lifeline echoes today’s city-wide struggles to regulate street vending and mobile food trucks. Then, as now, the tension sits between the interests of established commercial entities and the needs of small-scale entrepreneurs.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.