Deputation OF Brokers to the Borough Council.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2585, 20 April 1877, Page 3

Deputation OF Brokers to the Borough Council.

A deputation of the sharebrokcrs, consisting of Messrs Salmon, Frater, Wickham, Fairbu'rn, Vidal, and Gellion, waited on tho Borough Council yesterday afternoon to discuss the question of enforcing the fciharebrokers* Licenses. Of the Borough Council there were present—His Worship the Mayor, Cra Rowe,. Macnab, Kilgour, Gibbons, Ehrenfried, liens'haw and Bead. . The Mayor said that he had called tlie Council together at the request of the Brokers* Association. The brokers had not waited on. him personally, but he had been informed by Mr Dean of what they wanted. He had been' looking through the law on the subject, and he had found that the brokers were bound to takeout a license or be subject to a penalty. That was according to the Act of 1871. - The Act had only been acted upon for one year, and had now become a dead letter. : It would have been practically a dead letter last session, only the Government would not undertake the responsibility of revoking the Act at the late period of the session , that the matter was brought .up. The Act was permissive, and the Governor,could have revoked it in the districts where it was in force, but had not done so. However, the fact EOWjStood-that they were liable to a penalty for carrying on business wij^iout a license. He supposed that they wanted to give :a reason why the law should not be 'put in to 'operation. If good cau"e was not shown he supposed the law would take its course. .".'■■• Gt Macnab questioned if the meeting was not illegal, as two clear days' notice had not been given. . • The i Mayor .said it was illegal as a special ineeting.iVhich it practically -was not.'..; .■.'.';;, : ::i^ :; ;,.it: '■ :■■ - ; ;■•■■■■ -; Mr Salmon thanked the Council for the ■ courtesy in meeting/ them so promptly. Theyi(thesshareholders) had all tried at first to makaithe Act- of 1871 work, but in a short time they/'fotrad that anybody could go outside and trade. ', They then found themselves in the position that their fee was forfeited if they made a misdemeanour, and if the fines were- not patd the; authorities could come on the oondsmSi."; Anybody contravening ilhe Act Wbujd not be let' to trade again. They alac; found 'that, they could not get protection, as there was no clause in the Act pro&ciing them. They had simply to stand and be shot at by those outside. A licensed sharebroker now could get no protection. They were quite willing to pay a reasonable fee, say-as'much as an auctioneer, if the Act was workable, but it was not; so; :and the Government had admitted the fact. They were worse off than garroters, as if they made a trivial breach of the Act they were-heavily fined, and were not let to trade as sharebrokers as long as' they lived;, while if a.garroter was a blacksmith, and was punished, he was not prohibited from carrying on blacksmithinj^ after his punishment was orer. * Mr Frater said he thought Mr Salmon had mentioned everything that could be mentioned for the brokers. Cr Howe said_ that the Act was unworkable and unjust* and was a piece "of. " panic legislation;'' and the Government' acknowledged it by leaving the matter alone. There* was a prbjtnise obtained: that thisf matter \ would. - be set straight next ;Sessi6n'.; He thought it was not wise for the G6uricil to take any steps to put tHe Act into force until a workable Act was made. He thought that the Government knew, that, and would not countenance the act of any local body that made them pay. The Act was unworkable,, unjust, and abominable, and he thought, it should be left .alone. He thought that a treasonable Act could be brought ia next session. Mr Salmon said that there were some five or six who had stuck to the business, but many had become sharebrokers since this last "move," but they had not made enough toe pay" the £25 for the license. The result of. the operation of the Act. would 'be, that all but those five or six would take^ down theirsigns, and justly bo, as it would be better to go gum digging instead, clauses of the Act were penalvin some^casesj-and made them out blackguaTds, Cr Gibbons was under the impression that they must have the whole Act or none.,-., There was. nojdenying [that'it was an oppressive Act. ; Cr Ehrenfried said'that even Mr Salmon acknowledged that they were, liable, and if all butfive of six Had. to give it up it would be better for those that remained. Even, the new Act might,not suit the sharebrokers.:;' -And then there was the fee. The sharebrokers might not. think that the%ame lee was' a reasonable one, as the BojoughiiGouhcilior the; Government did. +He knew,,the Act was not quite as, it should be, but he thought that they should' payii: *H& suggested thatthey make a guarantee that they would comply with another Act. :- : > Mx-.^ickham thought, the suggestion was a good one. \ .He. ywas ; willing to give £50 for proper "protection. He thought that the Stamp Act ; also should be amended. ... ■ .... r Cr Kilgour thought that they Should come to no vote just now, without any deliberation. - . . .'. \.• / Cr Ehrenfried" moved,' and Cr Gibbons that the further consideration * be postponed till itie next meeting of the Council, and they could then r'give the brokers an answer. This:waS;carriedir "■';.* ; ' Mr Salmon^said: that ;tb; prevent misunderstanding'in the matter Be might say that . ( the. brokers \ : were willing to deposit £lO;:e'ach,'as a guarantee, in one of the banks that they would carry out a workable Act. . ' The deputation then withdrew, and the Council adjourned. :""■"