New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-22
KEEP OFF THE GRASS.
VOICES AGAINST THE PARK SITE
o,,~,oxs OF JOHN t. AGNEw, W. W. AsroN
CORNELIUS N. BLISS, ANDREW H.
GREEN AND OTHERS.

eo , y, a site for the Exposition. does not make
.sr,a,n that any part OF Central PARK VIII DC uSeu'
,.ko,cb II was evident that large majority VI mem
'- uore IN favor of using the northern enu Oh the
-. ~ n should become necessary. punng 'ne noh'n
re-" ~ agitation of the subject many peculiar CIR
VI .oos have been manifest. The one feature that
-, concerned the public. and was most talked ABOUT
.n~,nr this preliminary stage, was the delay IN the
uU ,I4,or ~ a site and in the adoption Of financial
-, This delay attributed to a lack Of confer
u hatwecu the committees The Executive Con-
'.. ., the Committee Finance, II said, was
n q, The Executive Committee of the Committee
SITE and Buildings to act, and the latter committee
O . hold,nc back until financial scheme should be
adopted
,,,ecs however. there frequent interchange Of
,,ows between individual members of the two com
,,ttees The members OF the Finance Committee
mode IL point to urge that the selected site should
he as near as possible to the centre OF population
If was argued that If site were chosen which would
be so accessible that the admission fees
alone would guarantee success there would
he no difficulty in raising funds
whatever the financial plan might be. but that If
outof the-way place should be decided upon it would
not be easy to the necessary funds. 1t was
maintained that it would be better TO take site
somewhere in the centre of the city, even If should
cost large of money for the transportation OF
exhibits from The waterfront and for Pntals, than
10 choose free site with absolute certainty that
the enterprise would lose money for the subscribers
As individuals, the members of the Finance committee
urged these oonsiderato upon the site commit men,
with the further contention that it would be wiser TO
allow some other city TO have the Exposition. with
fair prospect of success, than TO have II held here
with a predsposton toward failure because of the
injudicious selection of a site.
The Committee on site and Buildings at its first
meeting entertained and discussed resolution pro-
yidng that under no circumstances should any part
of Central Park be considered a site for the EX-
position. This resolution was laid upon the table
for the alleged reason that it not courteous TO
restrict the Executive Committee In its deliberations
uron the question of site. But the Executive Com
m ttee at its first meeting adopted resolution exclud
ing Central Park a site from its present cOnSdera-
ton and the people of the city supposed that the
discussion of Central Parks availability ended there
Within the last two weeks the members of the En-
eccutve Committee of the Committee on Finance and
the Executive Committee of the Committee site
and Buildings had frequent conferences. Prior to
these discussions the site comtteemen were strongly
opposed to Central Park site 1t shown to
them, however, that many of wealth In this
city who willing 10 subscribe freely. should
central situation be decided upon, were averSe to in
vesting I'm scheme In which there any chance of
failure.
There is no doubt that majority of the Executive
Committee Of the Committee Site and Buildings
were Influenced by these representations. When the
excursions of sitenspecion were organized all the
other sites than that Of Central Park and the con
tguous lands were first visited The last visit was
10 Central Park on Wednesday. When the committee
returned II settled that majority of the full
Committee on Site and Buildings would vote for site
which would include part Of Central Park If 1t should
be found necessary TO use it
That in spite of all arguments in its favor there
Is substantial ground for the opposition to taking any
part of Central Park Is shown by the expressed con-
victions of representative men on the committee
John T. Agnew treasurer of the Committee on Site
and Buildings, SAM yesterday that he OPP
posed the taking of any part of Central
Park for the purposes Of the Exposition, because IL
was necessary do because was taking from
the people part OF their possessions and because it
was contrary Ia the law. There an abundance OF
land on Manhattan Island, he said, which could be
obtained for the Of the Exposition without taking
from the people that which had been given TO them to
meet their needs. Mr. Agnew said that there were
,ther sites fully as accessible. which could be made
INST as convenient Central Park Is, and In his
Judgment the Park should not be touched.
If Andrew H. Green has bobby it is the city
parks For many years he has made these pubic
pleasure grounds careful study, and It was through
his efforts that Central Park extended from One
-and-sxth-s TO One-hundred and-tenth-st Mr.
Green said that he was opposed 10 using Central Park
bcausc Central Park intended TO be place where
all classes could go breathe the oepn air and enjoy
The loveness of the country in the midst of great
city, To deprive the people of any part OF this ben
eft was 10 do them a grievous wrong. In fact IL
was preposterous to talk of using any part Of the
Park as a SITE inasmuch the law plainly declared
that 1t was exempt from any such purpose. The
idea that Central Park was the only accessible
site was absurd People used TO think that Harlem
fTOm
elevated roads were built but after that they found
that a ride of only a f5w minutes more brought them
10 the open country where they could get free air ana
cheap rents so it would be if the Fair were situated
on ore OF the sites north Of the city. with railway
facilities extended, the ride would be only few
minutes longer than TO Central Park and an abundance
Of room could be provided for the crowds. Mr. Green
said that the Inwood site was within thirty minutes
tide from the city By express train, and the territory
there was large that any crowd
would dspeIse itself as freely at any site in the
lower central part Of the city.
william Waldorf Astor said that he considered 1t
10 be unwise and unnecessary to sncroach upon Cen
trail Park when many vast open spaces NORTH OF
the city were available. The northern part OF the
city needed development, and 10 put the Exposition
In an unimprOved section would add largely 10 the
assessed valuation of the contiguous property, by
which the city itself would directly benefit. Per
sonaly' he did not care what site was selected, so
long as Central Park did not form part of it, but he
would oDeel On principle to Selling upon any part OF
the peoples land There was 10 doubt in his mind
he said, that the use Of any part Of Central Park
would seriously iniure the section taken. Trees
would be removed, the topography of the land would
be changed, and it would take a generation at Least
10 repair the damage.
Cornelius y. Bliss said he was opposed 10 taking
Central Park, because it was against the law and be-
cause there other places equally suitable which
could be secured without running counter 10 the in
terests Of the people
Ooi"hel John A. CockeriE was not willing, he said
mat any part Of Central Park should he taken unless
1t could be shown that 1t was necessary in order 70
nave me Exposition held in this city. He did not
thhK II Necessary, because other sites equally
available which could be used, and which could be
Mlale. VI lheN not f.1Ll