New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-08-02
Tile p1RK IND TIE OBELLSK.

The debate upon the site for the obelisk
has not been closed 10y the recent action OF
tie Park Commission, nor Will 1t be until
some conclusive reasons are given to show
why the authorized guardians of the Park
should allow it to be disfgured by any one
who is willing to pay for the vandalism,
and also to show that it is wise and
prudent to set up the monument in place
from which it is sure to be swept away
50 soon "a the good taste of the city is aroused
to assert itself and the Park is handed over
TO enlightened supervision. This last point
is worth insisting upon, because certain his
torical facts appear to have been forgot
ten. 1t has been recently urged that the
obelisk should be placed before the
Merchants Gate, and that a fountain
be erected at the Fifth-ave. entrance.
Now it happens that fountain was once con-
structed at that very point under the Sweeny-
Hilton management, against the intelligent
criticism of the day. AS was predicted. the
wind blew the spray into the laps of the
eaylv dressed ladies in the carriages
which enter the pleasure ground in
such numbers at the Scholars Gate,
until the fountain became a nuisance, and
the next change carted it off to be erected
elsewhere. The story of the removal OF the
Scott monument and the Morse monument, not
because they lacked merit in themselves, but
because they were so placed as to destroy the
meaning and mar the beauty ofessential features
in the design of the Park, has already been
told in THE TRIBUNE. These illustrations
all teach one lesson. And if, IN violation of
all experience as well as of reason and cult
waited taste, this Egyptian stone is set upon
the hill temporarily surrendered to 1t by the
authorities, it Will come down again, and only
rest when it finds site where 1t can offer
some excuse for remaining
No one has yet contended that the knoll in
the Park was selected for the obelisk's sake
and il is not pleasant to think of this splendid
benefachon sacrificed to ignorance, reckless
ness obstinacy or even to n grateful rccOgni-
tion of the alleged wish of the benevolent In
known who il to pay for its transportation to
our island. No one has ventured to deny that
il Il an outrage against every canon of taste to
set the monolith upon an eminence. The
offence would perhaps be less fragrant if it
were lifted upon some artificial mound OF,
formal and exact construction, but nothing
could be more discordant than the rigid, aus
tere expression of the stone aud the flowing
lines of the knoll from which 1t is OK
pected to rise. Some hating excuses
for the determination of the authorities
have. it Is true, been offered. 1t has been al
legged that there is some appropriateness in
connecting it with the art treasures of the
Museum. This apology would have weight IL
the monolth were placed within the build
ing, or at least. where it bore some
architectural relation to that structure.
But the selected site is not even on
the Museum grounds. 1t fronts nothing, har-
monies with nothing, and has no connection
with the building, except that 1t can be seen
ot nm angle from some of Its windows
after the fine group OF naples On the
Museum lawn IA chopped down. 1t