’ 
. 
Aug. 4, 1916. 
NORTH SHORE BREEZE and Reminder 59 
Vendors Law to be Enforced 
Many Shops Along North Shore 
Will be Considered Itinerant 
/ From Salem Chamber of Commerce 
RETAIL merchants of the large cities like Boston and 
New York accustomed to opening shops for the season 
at seaside and summer resorts are now to be considered 
itinerant vendors and accordingly will come under the 
Mass. Itinerant Vendor law passed at the 1916 session of 
the legislature on the petition and backing of Arthur H. 
Palmer, Frank A. Neff, Harry P. Gifford,. J. Clarke 
Brown, John H. Jenkins and Seth F. Low as the directors 
of the Mercantile Division of the Salem Chamber of Com- 
merce who also secured the support of many other com- 
mercial organizations in various parts of the state. 
This means that although merchants in large cities 
like Boston have already paid a state corporation tax for 
conducting their regular business they will under the new 
law be required to pay additional charges for temporary 
trade. 
What this will cost is determined by individual con- 
sideration, only the extra tax to the state being fixed, 
which consists of a charge of $25 for the itinerant vendors 
license, and the deposit of a $500 bond, which is in each 
case returned 60 days after the merchant has closed his 
temporary shop. The license fee, in the particular locality 
where the shop is opened, is decided after consultation 
with the local authorities. The charge is based on the 
amount of stock carried and the duration of the stay to- 
gether with a consideration of the local tax rate. 
This new interpretation of the law is part of the cam- 
paign of the Mass. Commissioner of weights and measures 
to secure more rigorous enforcement. The commissioners’ 
inspectors are in constant duty all over the state and hence 
are in excellent position to gather information relative to 
merchants setting up in temporary business in the various 
cities and towns. Although Massachusetts had a so-called 
itinerant vendor law for several years it was really a dead 
letter but with the changes and amendments secured at 
the last session of the legislature through the initial efforts 
of the Salem Chamber of Commerce such merchants as 
are in the habit or practice of opening such temporary 
shops may now expect to pay out more money for taxes. 
Several of the larger merchants in Boston and New 
York, who in past years have conducted establishments 
along the North Shore have strenuously objected to the 
enforcement of the new Itinerant Vendor law, but in re- 
sponse to several inquiries the state sealer of weights and 
measures has decided to give publicity to the following 
letter, which clearly sets forth the situation and shows how, 
through the efforts of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, 
regularly established year-round merchants along the 
North Shore will not have as competitors for the business 
of the summer residents those dealers who only stay dur- 
ing the few months in the height of the summer season 
and have heretofore escaped paying their proportion of the 
community expenses through taxes, fees, etc., to the state 
and the city or town in which they locate. 
The letter: 
“You ask for an opinion upon the Itinerant Vendor 
Law in its application to certain Boston merchants and 
Massachusetts corporations who conduct stores at a sea- 
shore resort for the summer season, or, in some cases, 
only for a week or ten days. You state that in the case of 
the corporations the State has already collected. its taxes 
and ask what right the towns have to tax these merchants 
who do business only during the summer, or part of the 
summer season. 
“Fortunately, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has 
already construed this law in the cases of Commonwealth 
v. Crowell (156 Mass. 215), and Comxonwealth v. New- 
hall (164 Mass. 338), so that, instead of giving my per- 
sonal opinion, I am able to answer your queries definitely, 
having in mind the court decisions to which I have re- 
ferred. 
“In the Newhall case the defendants contended that 
the statute is a revenue statute and that the licenses 
were merely for revenue. The Court ruled that ‘The 
statutes purport to be and are passed under the police 
power of the Commonwealth for the purpose of 
preventing and punishing fraud in sales by itinerant ven- 
dors, and an examination of the statutes makes it appear 
that such is their real design, and that the provisions for 
state and local licenses are merely incidental means ot 
compensating the State and the localities in which the 
itinerant vendors ply their business for the expenses ot 
necessary state and local supervision.’ 
“In the Crowell case, the Supreme Court. rules that 
‘A party may be engaged in selling temporarily or tran- 
siently in one city or town while having a permanent 
place of business in another. So far as he is engaged in 
selling temporarily or transiently he comes within the pro- 
hibition of the statute, without any regard to the fact that 
he is also carrying on an established and permanent bust- 
ness elsewhere. Whether his whole business is selling 
temporarily or transiently, or whether he does it more or 
less frequently in connection with a permanent business 
at a fixed place or places, does not matter. He comes in 
either case within the statute.’ 
“In view of these decisions it appears that the tem- 
porary business conducted by parties at a seashore resort 
would come within the statute and it would be necessary 
for the persons conducting such temporary stores to 
secure state and local licenses. 
“Several licenses have been issued by this department 
since the recent amendment of the law and I believe that 
in each case the local license fee has been fixed by agree- 
ment between the licensee and the local authorities, in- 
stead of requiring the payment of a fee equal to the value 
of the average amount of stock carried. As the licensee 
has the benefit of the local police, fire and other depart- 
ments during his stay in the locality and more or less 
inspection is necessary to protect him from unlicensec 
competition, he cannot reasonably object to the payment 
of 1 moderate license fee. 
“Tt is generally understood that a law of this nature 
mist apply equally to Massachusetts firms, as well as to 
non-resident or foreign concerns, as it would otherwise 
be discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. 
“T trust that all merchants will co-operate in the 
enforcement of the law by informing this department 
whenever a temporary business is opened in their neigh- 
borhood, particularly when the sale is advertised=as a 
‘fire,’ ‘bankrupt’ or ‘receiver’s’ sale, or other sales of that 
nature. 
Yours very truly, 
(Signed) Tuure HANson, 
Commissioner.” 
