The New York herald., 1871-10-23
THE PUBLIC PARKS.
E AttN 1T, M rr7r"~-~~~'~~ll r7r"~-~~~'~~l G1C
The Charges Of Extravaganza Against
the Department Of Public Parks. 4
Expenditures Under the Old Commission and
the New Board. .oo.ss :
Interview with a Park Conn
at missioner.


i missioner.
Nan 81 ---- 3
In consequence Of the charges or inslnuati0ns OF
extravagant expenditures made against the Depart
ment OF Public Parks, reporter OF the HERALD
visited the department and Obtained an Interview
with Judge Hilton, one OF the Commissioners, when
the following convers alton ensued:-- Ees
QUEsroN-I have come TO learn whether you have
anything TO add to our former interviews, which
have been given in the HERALD, about the parks,
their cost OF maintenance, &c, as see Mr.. Green,
in his late letter, refers to tnis point ANswBRNo.
l have nothing special tU add 70 what you nave
already published IRON me on the subject Our first
etter TO Mr. Gresn with the reports OF Engineer
inChiefa and other onicers appen ded. respecting the
works In progress under and the enect OF their
stoppage, answered all that Mr.. Green now desires
TO reopen. His last letter, judging from the tone
and contents, IL seems TO me should nave been
signed as PARK Commiss oner, ana late chief onicer
OF the Central Park Com MISSION. 81 i lFAa
Q. He appears to complain OF the extravaganza OF
the present Board. How does the cost OF maintain.
Ing Central Park under your departm, ,nt compare
with It's cost under the former Commission wnen
Mr. Green had charge OF iJf A. Central Park while
under the care oil the late Central Park Commits
siOners had an annual APPROPRIATION BY .aw for its
maintenance Of $500 900. There was also an annual
Appropriation BY Law for the maintenance OF the
Museum and Observatory Of $4,000. These amounts
were usually found insufficient, and then
moneys were taken by the Treasurer from
the other amounts in his hands for assessments
and oher purposes, and used TO the extent
required This deficiency was an expenditure
In excess Of the legal appropriation for the Park
maintenance and was usually ABOUT $4,000 per
year. This was the expenditure upon Central Park
alone, and amounted to about $780, 600 per annum
for police and maintenance.
q But have heard said tnat you have materially
increased the PARK police force A. Yes, and you
might add, materially improved II. There was GER
taiuly need for both increase and improvement.
Formerly the force, with gaekeepers &C, all told,
amounted to seventy-seven men; but there was
constantly being detailed to assist them wOrkmen
aud laborers engaged upon Park constructions, and
who were paid out Oi another lund than the main
teuance. This system we did not approve Inc labor
ers sometimes appeared rude and often incompetent
because they had not tne experience OF trained
park keepers. whose duty is 70 bear with llt.le
public places We nave increased tnis i0rce to l17,
and six OF which are detailed temporarily to care
No object to this increase, AZ II must be APP
parent TO all that there are not policemen enough
as most eiiclent 0llicer, complains equently OF
being short hauded and or the imposslbility OF
Ss G Of te 'u K no VIII
fhey are capital body OF men, bur they are not har
numerous enough 10 paroi 500 acres o park founds
average for pay and clothing aoout fifteen hundred
dollars Tor eac man; so Chat the lorty aad.tlona.
men put on by uS adds to the cost Of Central Park
. O. WHAT does mat make the whole expense for
all Lhe parks A.. An, you must not forget thAI We
have large expense In park keepers on our city
parks, and when should he largely Increased. Be-
necessary 10 say what tney heretofore, now
tney we're cared tor-there were certaluly none OF
Keepers TO look aer them. When we improved
Them ana made them invitiAg 70 The pubic We
TO protect the public IN Its enJoyments. wltn tn.s
view we nave appointed thirty eight parkkcepers,
the city parks over twenty IN numDer VINO, with
the gardeners and sweepers, constitute . lorce for
| their protection 4.e
tenance OF all the parksS a: Yes; but you should
add the cost Of the aud dreworks The music
M M Of m snd as sdass @
recollect that iormery nrsworks @ FOR the ,Four.l'
nos mnca of asSie i Wsii INK Know @ ils VIVA, We We
nave given the last i two years ~ the way ohre
that Immediately after we had charge given us Of
erect producing marked difference In the cost or
all gardening and other similar work. such as taking
man Is Employed is Very material. CONSIDER that
Its effect was 10 increase the cost OF maintenance or
the parks one-bnh, The difference between eight
Z. DO you consider that TO be ifs general effect
4. No do not; out the parks require the men to
ject to dlnerent rules from those applicable TO Or
uinary mechanical work. Heie A.yl 4iee
OF the parks with that OF former years. A. Very
easily. Thus, the Central Park Commissioners cx-
iiith for Inc Eight Hour law would bring It up 10
$4,000. The lorty additional policemen cost
Park alone, npOn the basis OF the expenditure OF
the iormer Commissioners, $5o4,ooo per annum.
for care alone was from $4,000 to ss5ooO per year.
faking the latter sum as basis, adding Oneflit
for the reduet on ol hours Of labor, makes II up
to $4,000. The police force winch Is addi iona,
amounts To s47.0oO per annum. Fireworks and
mse q m Gsna ara Ssg oO d;s yaT 20
! Central Park maintenance, swOnld show that upon
the basis OF the expenditures OF former years i
NOW, look al the other side and see what we nave
months from October l TO January next are not
near as expensive DUNG the summer and spriug
9ardensrs SaS sn are reqnre & % Can these mouths then
equal to 0nesixth of the year In cost, and we have
the following iesnit:-EXpended on Central PARK To
October /, S36S,o,o; the city parks, ssl,ooo-in
Guiding police, music and every thing-gviDg total
OF $4,000; add one.sxan ior me residue OF lne
num-iess than III FORMER years when the city su.
thorites had charge or the cLy parks aud our pre-
tecessors had charge OF central Park.
q. ITncn you claim mat Instead OF beng extrava-
your prelecessorss A. I give yon Ine actual
figures; they explan themselves; and rs to tne |
parks certainly no one will deny that all tncfuiling
Central Park been far better ctre, Tor than al
any time heretofore. Most Of them previously were
but desert wastes; we have made them garden /
spots, aud the public has appreciated them ny flock
ing 10 them by millions.
q. Now, as 10 the expenditures on the parks for |
permanent Improvements, upwards OF two million |
dollars since May, fs7oY A. Well about two.tnirds |
Of mat sum has been spen. on the - Battery, Tomp-
kin's Square, Washington square, Reservoir Square,
Mount Morris square, CITY Hall Park and the number
less city squares. Let any sane man ook at these |
separately examine the work done, and then see II
ne can say as puDlc works, whether they could be
done for less. On central PARK we have left the |
legacy Of many expensive structures 10 complete,
winch were designed and commenced by the
FORMER Commissioners. The Belvidere, Q very ex-
pensive toy; the Conservatory, badly lucated and
terribly expensive; the old PaIeozo &c Museum
which We were forced 70 abandon: the Dairy, q