New-York tribune., 1882-03-12
THE IDEAL PARK BOARD.

In spite of our long familiarity with abuses
of public trust in the City Government, the
SHINING of the Park Board has been so uniquely
fragrant and revolving that our people have
ceased to regard it with any degree of allow
ance or liberation. 1t has 10 friend to utter a
syllable of excuse for its brutalities The dis
gust is so universal and the demand for some
thing to suppant it is so impOrtunate that
there is danger of accepting the first crude
substitute offered, under the impression
that any change must be an improve
ment. In his late pamphlet, entitled "The
Spoils of the Park" Mr.. Frederick Law
Omsted gives a leaf from history showing
that the best government the Park has ever
had differed materially from the projects now
before the Legislature. Twenty-Five years ago
it was determined to transform a sterile and
broken strip of rocky land in what was to be
the heart of the growing city into quiet, tree
bordered lawn-stretches as a relief and re-
freshment from formal rows of brick and
stone "The project was without precedent,
"and it remains without parallel" In those
critical days the Board consisted of eleven men.
There was an entire absence of partisanship
among these unpaid public servants. Six Of
the eleven were Republicans, but they elected
as their first president Democrat, and the
Board never divided on party lines. In it
were several men unknown to politics OF the
"practcal " sort, but standing high in every
educational and benevolent movement. The
duties were new, delicate and various. Many con-
flictng tastes and purposes were to be reconciled
The motives and objects of the plan, with all
its far-reaching purposes and the great pecu-
MARY interests involved, were to be considered
discussed and digested. The best professional
advice was secured. The fullest discussion was
invited. AS they reached definite conclusions
and carried on the work, public distrust gave
way to confidence in the Commissioners, and
to this day no one ventures TO question the
general wisdom of their management or deny
that they achieved capital success.
A large Board, then, with single executive Of
ficer who was also a landscape artist of taste and
training, has worked well. A Board of four,
In which one politician and his Me Toe" can
hopelessly obstruct, has worked diabOlcally,
when it has worked at ALL Two Commission
ers, as provided for in the Brooks bill, would
be no better A single Commissioner would be
unable to skulk behind anybody else, and
could be held answerable before the bar
of public opinion. But suppose this
man should be practically below the
reach of the most enlightened opinion
on Park matters-shamefully ignorant and
elorying in his shamef Is it alleged that q
New-York Mayor does not dare appoint such
man? 1t was New-York Mayor who ap
pointed Mr.. Lane, and has Mr. Lane ever given
any evidence that he has glimmer of intelli-
gent appreciation of what the Park means Z Mr.
MacLean knows good deal about some things;
too much, perhaps, about many things. But
no one ever suspected him of taking any
wholesome delight in the scenery Of the Park.
And yet he practically scouts at the idea that
the Board needs any professional advice, feels
personally competent to instruct Jones where
to cut his barbarOus "vistas ana TO direct
what Ihododendron groups shall be cleaned
out, and sets men to digging and dammIng for
prepOsterous puddle of water as his contri-
button to the landscape effects at the
north end of the Park. Mr.. MacL can was
selected by Mayor, and so was Mr.. olliife,