St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-07-21
NEARBY MUST EAT CROW.
TIE PARK BOARD HAS POWER TO
EMPLOY MUSIC.
so SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Chamberlain CONSTITUTES the Park
Law to Empower the Board to
Run the Parks in the Custom
airy Way in All Cities-It Is
Customary TO Have Music, as
Well as Flowers, Etc.
The issue between the park board
and the city comptroller has come to a
show down. and this afternoons meet
ing of the board will be watched With a
large degree of interest. Corporation
Attorney Chamberlain yesterday sent to
the comptroller an opinion in writing.
which that gentleman claimed right
along he needed in order to have the
proper light thrown upon the subject.
After reading the opinion there will be
nothing left for Mr.. McCardy but to
audit the claim of the park board for
music at Lake Como with the best grace
possible and thereby become familiar
with the taste OF well seasoned dish of
crow. such as he has been serving to
everybody lately.
There was considerable speculation
around the city hail yesterday fternoon
as to the probable course the comptroller
would pursue in the matter. He was
absent from his office the entire after
noon, and evidently tried 10 avoid an
interview on the subject. General
opinion seemed to be TO the effect that
under the opinion McCardy had no
choice i'll the premises, and that he
would undoubtedly inform the board at
today's session that he is ready to audit
the claims.
Mr.. Chamberlain's opinion was as
follows: at is my opinion that the
park board has power TO contract and
pay for music IN parks. The power eX-
lists according to your phraseology, by
fair implication The park act con-
templates two objects. one the pur-
chase of land for parks. the other '.he
management aud control of all existing
and future acquired parks The pro-
Visions of the park act seem to clearly
contemplate something more than the
buving of land. The board is to manage
and control and employ agents and EN-
ployeS, and inter that the parks are to
be used for park purposes, as said pur-
poses are commonly and generally un-
derstood. Refreshment counters. boats.
swings, flowers, greenhouses and music
are common appurtenances OF parks
everywhere; they pertain to the use of
parks for park purposes. aud provision
for the orderly and enjoyable supply of
such things to the public, in my opinion
come within the powers of the park
board in managing and controlling the
parks. | can see no reasonable distinc-
ton between furnishing boats, swings
ami flower gardens and furnishing
music. They all cost money, and none
OF them are an absolute necessity. We
can give the law very narrow con-
Struction, and hold that the park
board can do only what is abso-
lutely necessary to hold title to the
lands and preserve from destruction the
trees thereon, or We can give it rea-
sonably broad construction. Sc that the
parks may answer the purposes for
which parks are used in other cities. l
am inclined to the latter construction
and to the broader opinion, especially
as it appears to subserve the best inter-
ests of the public. Of course, like all
questions. there are two sides to the
argument. 1t money is specifically
raised for the purpose of improving
parks. that is the purpose to which it
should be devoted. But l understand
the tax estimate provided for certain
money for public parks. and that the
resolution did not limit the use simply
to IMPROVEMENT of parks. An under
standing not expressed i'll the resUlu-
ton. and existing only in the minds of
heciiy officers. had nothing to do with
the power vi the board"