FRUIT BARROWS

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1932, Page 8

FRUIT BARROWS

DIVIDED OPINIONS

W0 DECISION REACHED

HEALTH VIEWPOINT

The 'City Council was not able to roach a decision last night upon tho question whether the sale l fruit from street barrows, chiefly by Hindus, should be permitted in future. Tho question is to be further considered by the Bylaws and Health Committees and will be debated again at tho next meeting of the council.

The question was brought forward by Councillor W. Duncan, who said he did- not associate himself with either th© Retail Fruiterers' Association or tho ' Katepayers' Association; he brought tho matter forward as a councillor. The council, he said, was already charging the shopkeepers heavy and full rates, and then put opposition in their way by permitting competition from Hindu barrowmen. The return to the council from the sale of barrow licences was not large, £.1123 per year and that money was really taken from the ratepayers with whom tho barrowmen were in competition. When the barrow system was introduced 11 years ago it was said that the people of Wellington would get better and cheaper fruit, but he would challenge anyone to say that Wellington people were getting better or cheaper fruit. The conditions under which the stands were conducted were a disgrace to the city. The bylaw requiring the barrows to bo enclosed on three sides was ignored, he continued, for on several stands fruit was exposed on boxes and stands in the gutter. The barrowmon had a law unto themselves, apparently: the council sold them the stands, took their money and left them to themselves. The conditions under which the Indians lived were such as no white man would tolerate. The loss to the council of £1123 would be made up by tho .rates which would be received when shops were let. RETURN NOT GREAT. Councillor W. Appleton seconded the motion, and said that he had been a little surprised at the figure, £1123, which worked out at about 30s per barrow per week. The barrows were an obstruction in the streets, and he agreed with Councillor Duncan that the quality of the fruit sold was poor. He was satisfied that, with the competition there was in shops and the difficulty with which shopkeepers had to contend, fruit would be sold at reasonable prices if the barrows were put off the streets. THE OLD STORY. Councillor W. H. Bennett said that just the" same arguments had been used when tho barrow system was inaugurated. Then Wellington peoplo had to pay exceedingly high prices for fruit. Nine out "of ten fruit shops in the city today were in the hands of Chinese, and ho could not see that thoro was the same call upon the council to protect one class of Asiatics against another as there would be to protect their own people. If Europeans had entered into tho fruit business as they might have done the position would have been different. - Councillor S. Holm moved that the mattor should bo referred to a joint meeting of the Bylaws and Health Committees. The Bylaws Committee had already debated the question, but certain things that had beon said of the way in which some of the barrowmen lived; was really a reflection upon the Health Committee. The living conditions of the barrowmen might not be so bad as had been stated. He was not satisfied that the licences could be cancelled. The Mayor said that the licences would expire in March. WHY NOT A GENERAL RULE? Councillor Forsyth seconded Councillor Holm's proposal for, ho said, the council should have more information. The council had granted the uso of streetsfor the holding of meetings, notwithstanding that ratepayers had built expensive halls, and the council likewise allowed cars to be parked in the stroets, 1;o tho detriment of those who had erected garages: what was the difference? He would like to see barrows and cars alike cleared from the streets. Councillor W. J. Gaudin said that there were quite a number of aspects to be considered. Surely tho council should not debar the Hindus from earning a living: if that was to bo so, they should not have been allowed to come here. If they were turned off thestreets they would go into the suburbs, to ■ the detriment of suburban shopkeepers. : i Mr. Hislop: "They could still hawk in the city.' 5 Councillor Gaudin said that it had been complained that there was differentiation of treatment: that should not be.so, and ho thought a satisfactory decision could be arrived' at on full consideration. He thought the proposal too drastic. . , ; Councillor E. McKeen supported the resolution on the .ground that the stroets should bo kept clear of barrows, bowsers, and the like. He was not concerned with tho question of nationality at all. It was not right that fruit should be sold from barrows standing in the gutter. Tho European did not sell food in such a way because he recognised that there should be a certain standard of trading. The proposal was also supported by Councillor E. Semple, who said that from a health point of view the sale of fruit from barrows,was disgraceful, and that city streets' should not be obstructed by either barrows, cars, or bowsers. Trading from barrow's was not fair. The Chinaman paid rates and taxes, and the Chinaman's shop was cleaner and neater than tho street barrow. Some time ago.councillors had inspected some of the Hindu quarters, and they were no credit to the city.

The Mayor said that it was difficult to be confronted with this decision, but they had £2000 a year coming in from this' source. The resolution would not come into effect until 3.lst March, so that these people would have plenty of time. The stands were started in 1921, when the stands brought in £1500 in revenue. He did not think it likely that the shopkeepers had made arrangements in tenancy likely to extend until to-day, so that it could not be said that they were being much more affected now. He personally did not like the kind o£ people who were in charge of the stands, but there was no immediate need to decide finally. He suggested deferring the decision until the joint conference was held.

Councillor Huggins said that after eleven years' rentals, perhaps the council could afford to give the standholders three months' notice.

. Councillor Duncan said lie saw no reason to defer the decision. '

The decision was postponed until the next meeting.