HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 28 a `
ORDINANCE NO. - 2S
PEDDLINQ ORDINANCE.
I
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD`,'
TEXAS, AS FOLLOWS:
1. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association, or corporation, to en-
gage in, act, as, conduct the busines.s of itinerant vendor, traveling peddler or
traveling merchant selling merchandise in the City of Friendswood; Texas, without
first having a license therefor.
Z. Every itinerant vendor, traveling peddler, or traveling merchant selling or of-
fering merchandise for sale in the City of Friendswood, Texas, from and after the
date of this ordinance shall pay in-advance to the City Secretary an annual license
of $100. 00 per annum, except in cases, hereinafter provided.
3. Every person, firm, association or corporation before so engaging in, acting as
or conducting a business of itinerant vendor, traveling peddler or traveling mer-
chant as herein provided, shall make a sworn application upon a blank form to be
furnished by the City Secretary for a license to so operate, wherein applicant shall
give the following information:
"Name, address, nationality, character of business or merchandise offered for
sale, method of distribution used, whether it be by direct sale from vehicle, or from
a room or vacant lot, whether merchandise offered for sale was raised, produced, or
manufactured.by applicant, and if so the location of the farm or manfacturing estab-
lishment, last place of residence, and license number of vehicle or vehicles used,
if any. 11 ,
4. Upon patyment of the license fee as. herein.provided the .City Secretary shall is-
sue and deliver to such itinerant vendor, traveling peddler or traveling merchant,
a license which shall be numbered consecutively and.shall show the date, name occu-
pation, place of residence, and the price for which such license was issued. Such
license shall at all.times be carried by licensee and shall be exhibited by him when-
ever required by any inspector, police or other authorized officer to make arrests.
Said license shall, not be transferred without the permission of the City Council of
the City of Friendswood, Texas.
5. Producers and growers of farm, dairy poultry products, fruits., vegetable.s., live-
stock, animals, meats, or any,horticulture or agriculture products shall be
governed by the following procedure:
"Licenses may be obtained by itinerant vendors, .traveling merchants or travel-
ing peddlers. dispensing or selling the above named horticulture or agriculture pro-
ducts in.the City of Friendswood, Texas, by complying with the provisions of this
ordinance except that, if desired by said vendors, traveling merchants or traveling
peddlers. they may purchase a license the price of $Z. 50 per day for each day that
they shall sell or attempt to sell merchandise named above in the City of
Friendswood,, Texas. "
6. Commercial photographers shall, be governed under the provisions of this ordinance
and must obtain a license fee of $100. 00 before engaging in any commercial photography ,
unless. said.photographer has a regular place of busimss in Friendswood, Texas, in
which event he shall be governed under the provisions of this ordinance.
7. The City Countil, of the City of Friendswood, Texas,, shall appoint an inspector
or inspectors., or shall designate .a present city employee -or employees. to suc h,
position of inspector,or inspectors, and it shall be the duty of such inspector or
inppectors regularly to inspect merchandise offered for sale in the City of
Friendswood, Texas, by all itinerant vendors, traveling peddlers. or traveling
merchants and said inspectors shall have the power to condemn. any and all of such
merchandise which is unfit for human consumption.or w1*ch shall have been mis-
represented as to grade, quality or conditions. Such inspectors are hereby
empowered to make arrests of offenders for failure to have a license as herein
provided and it shall be the duty of the City kmpantcw Council of Friendswood, Texas
i
_ , 1
Peddlers Ordinance - Frieuds-wood, Texas.-- Page 2
upon recommendation of an inspector to revoke the license of any itinerant vendor,
traveling peddler or traveling merchant who shall, offer for sale merchandise, unfit
for human.consumption or shall intentionally misrepresent the quality-or grade
of any merchandise offered for sale. In the event said.license is revoked by the
City Council.of.Friendswood, Texas, said peddler, vendor, or merchant shall not
be entitled to: any refund from the license fee originally deposited.
8. Any person, firm, association or-corporation who shall hereafter engage in-act
as., manage or .carry on, the business of,itinerant vendor, traveling peddler or
traveling merchant without first having,obtained a license as providedfor in this
ordinance, shall, upon-conviction be fined not less tharr'$1. 00 and not more than
$200. 00, and every day which said person, firm, association or corporation shall so
engage in or conduct such,business shall,be constitued a separate offense.
9. This ordinance shall not apply to those,persons who, sell only to,merchants, :man-
ufacturers., processors or curing or dressing plants:
10. In-case any section of.this.ordinance shall hereafter be declared void, or in-
operative, the. remaining sections shall nevertheleas remain in full force and effect.
11. This ordinance shall not be construed to repeal any-of the health, food or -sanr
itary ordinances of the City of Friendswood, Texas, but shall be cumulative there-
of.
12. The fact that the present ordinances.of the City:of Friendswood, Texas, are
inadequate in the protection of its. citizens from the offering for sale, to said
citizens inferior grades, and quantities of goods:, wares and merchandise by itin-
erant vendors, traveling peddlers and traveling merchants within the city limits- of
said City of Friendswood, Texas,. creates an-emergency and imperative public-neces-
sity that the rule requiring ordinances to be read at more than one meeting of the
City Council before- final passage be suspended , and this. rule is:hereby suspend,
and this. ordinance shall take .effect and be in.force immediately upon its: final;
passage .and approval.
The above ..and foregoing ordinance read, considered and pas.sed by the City Count:il
of the City of Friendswood, Texas,, Galveston. County, Texas, at.the regular meeting
at the, City Hall:of said City-at Friendswood, on this the 7L194y eC,•(JC °clLr2 �9�3
Is/
J�Ze'nneth M. Camp, yor = -
AT
/a/ . .d. e�z,e`/cam-�•,z�
Gene V. Greathouse, City Secretary
i
I
1
LAW, CFFICES
HART; BROWN, SPARKS & ERWIN :.'( I
C 902 Brown Building
0 Austin 1, Texas
Y ;October .16'-4957,. r
Mr: W„A: Hadden, .City Attorney
City,of Fort ,Stockton,-
4 . 0.' Box,743.
Fort �Stockton, Texas. : . .
(See -at bached`'ordinance): •
Dear Sir:
We-write ,you-this letter at.:the. request ,of The League of Texas Municipalities. The
City of Fort:;Stockton has a °peddling..ordinancet', requiring- itinerant.vendors to ob.
tain a city license and to pay an annual.:license-fee ;of $10O.Wai*:prerequisite to
selling their wares in the city. You have requested our opinion as to the validity
of-the :ordinance -in;.so•;far as;.it -is •applicable. to„Itinerant vendors who. go,fr,om res-
idence to residence,within-the city, without;,invitation, .to solicit ordets t r
Electrolux vacum;cleaner.s. which will thereafter, be delivered'.in i'nter,state commerce
if ordered by,theaesidents., The question-involved ,is :very difficult.. o£ -solution
and no definite answer may be given, but.we trust that-the fillowi'ng opinion maybe
of some assistance to you in reaching a solution to your,problem.
:The cases are ,in conflict on the power of_a-municipality to. regulate the :sale of,
goods In interstate commerce by peddlers.,, 35.A,L.R.. (2d) 355, 9 A.L.9.-, d) 728 and
•116 A. L. R. 1189. , In Pictorial ;Review:Cc...v. -City of Alexandra, 46 Fed.
the Feder,al• District Court o ouis•,ana,,e , ;,a.mun municipal ordinance ;to;be• unconsti�
tutional wheie;;bhe ordinanee.;r,equired'the-;vendor, of; goods..sold in-fAe'rstate .co'ms
merce;to file a,bond;with the,city.aiefore;making,such sales.,"However, later cases
have held that municipal corpoiations.,may reasonably.reguiate .such. sales,,and iri our
opinion the�;municipa3 `corporation may legally require such vendors to-obtain a,per-
mit or _l,icense.,fr6tCthe• city and, if necessary for the.-'-protection of the public,,
may require ,suc&',vendors to file.,a;,reasonabl'e.bond.
Individuals have no'inheretht right to do -business..on city streets, and a city may
regulate.,,or prohibit�the'•use of the-,public streets foi'sprivate business ,purposes ;so
Song as no -discrimination is shown. , Slater.-v. Citu. of.El Paso, -244 S., W. G .--9,27;
City of Dallas v.;Harris,-157 S. W.`' 2d .,10, .error refused; ,ana City of -Waco:v f,
o Ideal, 33 5. W. 2 2 5, _error refused. : In the last cited case.t4e court ,held: .
The;courts }iave,,uniformly held that;the individual -citizen'has'no ;vested
.right in pub,1ic .jiroperty •owned by-a, city,,and' °that ;its governing body hae .
the right, with,reasonable limitations, to control same,' and may-absolutely
prohibit the use of--its streets ,and public property for any private use
when, it determines same`is for the'best interest of the public," (33 S. W.
(2d) 206) ,
Cities have the right to require a permit as a condition precedent to doing business
on the city streets and to charge a reasonable license for the issuance of such per-
mit. However, su6h license fee.must not°be larger than is reasonably required to de-
frey the expenses involved in operating' the licensing system. Whether the license
fee is excessive or not is a question of fact to be,•determined by all of the cir-
cumstances Ex rtarteeMMihifread, 83. S. UT. 3473 'Pierce v. City` of Ste henville,
206 S. W. j2d) 040; and 1bt ton Credit 'Sales Co. v. City of ni , 2 S. W. 579.
In the Cityof Trinitycase, a -courte a a license ee o 100.00 per month
or $10.00 a cay was so large and excessive as to be manifestly prohibited and con-
fiscatory and that the ordinance imposing such license fee was unconstitutional and
void.
Dt. W. A- Haciden
Fort Stockton, Texas
Page 2
The Supreme Court of the United Siates; In Br eaw_d v. Cit of Alexandria `Louisiana,
71 Sup. Ct. 920, upheld the validity of the following ordinance:
"Be it ordained by the council of the City of Alexandrial;:,Lbuiiitiha, , in.
legal session convened, that the practice of going in and upon prlvate: ,c: Cl..
residences in the City of- Alexandria; Louisiana, by solicitors,,-.pe�ddl(itsl'-.,..-7
...... "' rchahts,loi `tiansit vendors of merchandise not
hawkers, itinerdnVie' ' - i ;
having been requested or invited so to do by the owner or owners, occd�
pant ,of .occupants of said private residences for the purpose of solicit-
-.1fid orders for;the 'sale'of goods"," wares, and' me'rl'chandise';%and/.or';di,spd6-;.7:
or hai6frigCthe 'same,t i's -ddclared' to:be,ti'-'ntii'sande
;and punishable le .as such nui sanc e-as-a misdemeanor.!'
juldihbfI 'skicit6rsj�lwhibh- the city
held that'-th s "ordinance was one''"regulating"
h 0 hat ce'ldi¬ violate the
had power to do.-- Tfe S%ipr'em6',C"uit`�field t' the',ordi
ItDqe'-pro'ce I ss 1 .provisiorel of 'the'Constitutibn a�n'crwdt'.n'btzan-,dnriasonable'burddn-�itpon
aft�'i ntd.ifere I n8e commerce and did not 'contravene ithi constitutional
uat ees'lof rfree I... ? f, I I I:_ 1"! rw
........ T-spe. e ch,an' of-'frie'e pr ess,,
The cases ofEx parte Lewis. ..147 S. W. (2d) 476 and Ex parte Faulkner, 158 S. Wit (2d)
925....shetild'be read,In-the .Lewis case:thd C6&t: of-Criminal ppe r.-als upheld an ordi
.j
,lance,similar 'toi the Cone in"question, "but -ih-'th6,,-FaUkfier- base dd"sahe 'court-'held
that`wk the 'city'fiai the ii6h�_tolregtilate soliciting; the citI'r'-;has no -right �to
prohibit so-Ifeit-o-rs city has fr,om, going, : .,in 1 .an I d I up.o I n-pi ivate-property-for *-tRe-.'jo'8 xiipe -o f. Sell-
ing their "wares.` TIf6 -Supreme CO&V Ifithe,"s66Ve':m nm6ned-bfiaar-ddidaise, 'ex,pressly
heid th'at"'the above quoted 'ordinance falls in, thd dDissifijation"of regulatibn',and
thit'the,,city :cbuadil `hii'ffie't'db:CV-of--pro I tectifi6 'iti..citiieni%a inst'lgolicitih06
- of' qu ctfc`es"'dieemed "subveir s'i'Ve' of p' i`i.`Vac'y and' dt" i
Each case must stand on its own'Actsi' It :is"pzis§ible-thzit�;tlie-"co ufts of -Texas may
hold that the $100.00 license fee is excessive and, therefore, invalid under the
fiatt9l'of the- case.- Wfii1e`the 74ud6ti&i�'fs _h"ot If iee--'fr6m 'ddubf, it"n';oui--op'Ani6n"
thaV�fhe -courts :of Texas iilf-up'hold ,a ordinance
in- diniafiicle similar to tfid:'6nd .iftvolved,4n, the
e� 'iEo� mention"ed"c'as6'.'6f Breird' exandr fa,:'emn'thdugfilinter state cormierce
is-involved. '-Al'so',,:`whife the question-,under :FoFTI—derition .iz-not,-Yie6'tfiom doubt,
it ls� our"dpin'ior'i-that' -the p"eddlifig* drdlnahce"of the"City of,Fort,Stocktcnmill,
probably-be upheld bythe .cobrts,of Texas as an ordinance reasonably regulating the
business y us is6of-jtinerant Vend6rs. -but-therle,'is a possibi�lit ' thait"'the '66urti'will hold
that";the "ruiudl fee of '$1ob.'oo,,i,s,*Iekcog-s's'ive.,I under ,t,he"6irdtaista"n"c'e'-s'.,'inyour'.�,case.
. .....
.. tygur
r. sty f Very truly
HART, BROWN., SPARKS & EHWI
x , By /s/ Jack Sparks
I_,;2
tici The League ok� Te s Municipalities"
'' -
7
`.M % J; 1,1.
yltA j�jj r, 7