192 



MARKET PROBLEMS 



insisted that, according to an act of the legislature, the stalls 

 would have to be sold at public auction (this legislature gag 

 was a new one), and that huckster, commission man, farmer, 

 gardener, and almost anybody that had the price could buy 

 a stall and stand side by side. 



We did not relish the idea of being mixed up with the 

 hucksters, maintaining that they often bought inferior goods 

 and would sell them for less money than we asked for ours, 

 thereby cutting the price. Many times a retailer or con- 

 sumer would buy vegetables from them — thinking they were 

 growers — because their vegetables were cheap, and if the 

 goods were not first class or anything was wrong with them, 

 the producer got the blame. 



So we balked again. 



This time the city told us that we could take the stalls or 

 leave them, and further adopted a city ordinance forbidding 

 us to use the city streets unless we paid a license. In this 

 way they thought they had us. But they figured only one 

 side of the case. We immediately called a meeting, informed 

 the city that we did not want their stalls, and refused to a 

 man to attend the auction of stalls on three different oc- 

 casions. We secured an option on some property adjoining 

 the city and informed them that we would build a market of 

 our own, and as we could not use their streets, if they wanted 

 any vegetables, they could come to our market and cavrij their 

 vegetables home themselves. 



After a few reports of our deliberations had been printed 

 in the press, and the consumer realized what the outcome 

 meant for him, he demanded a fair deal for the producer. 

 I should like to read a clipping from the Rochester Union and 

 Advertiser, April 26, 1913, showing the attitude of the con- 

 sumer. 



Barring Food From Rochester. 



*'One phase of the present controversy between the market 

 gardeners of the surrounding country on the one side and 

 the Common Council, the Public Market Commission, and the 

 hucksters on the other, deserves more attention than it has 

 apparently been given by the public. This is the clause in 

 the new ordinance by which those who do not pay tlie forty 



