St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-20
TO HANDLE PARKS.
The Joint Charter Committee Dis
cuss the Matter.

The Joint Charter Committee Dis
cuss the Matter.
The senate and house committees on
municipal corporations held a rather
interesting session in the senate cham
Der yesterday afternoon, when gentle
men interested in parks and park
boards appeared before the committee
to air their views and induce the COM
mittee to provide for park commits
sions. The session lasted all the after
noon, but no conclusions were reached.
J. a. Wheelock, of st. Paul, was
called on first, and he said that both
CO the plans proposed for the park
commission were unacceptable. He
spoke of the manner in which city
councils neglected park work. The
council has power to plant trees, but
does not exercise that power very gen
orally. Park boards should be ap-
pointed by the mayor, in his opinion,
but not elected by the people anyway.
He believed no oneSin st. Paul IA
vored an elective board.
Prof. Folwell, president of the Min
neapolis park commission, said he be-
lieved that boards were necessary, the
members of which could remain in Of
flee longer and turn over valuable in
formation in better shape. The board
principle he believed to be good, both
in state and municipal government.
The park board he believed one of the
necessary boards Parks were works
of art, and park commissioners should
have expert knowledge. No commit
tee of the council could inform them
selves in the short time allowed them,
so as to be valuable as park directors.
Mr.. Wheelock referred to the clause
of the Howard bill giving the city en-
gineeer the direction of the park
work, saying that he wouldn't trust
the st. Paul city engineer to do any
such work for he believed he would
destroy the park system in two years,
as the nature Of his functions made
him incapable of performing the du-
ties of a landscape engineer. He did
not mean anything derogat tory to the
ability of the city engineer, either.
They had had experience in st. Paul
which showed that city engineers al
ways wanted to run streets and boule-
wards on a dead level
DR.. FolwelI said that he favored a
large park board.
Mr. Wheelock favored a smaller
board but he would never favor an
elective board in st. Paul: He did not
believe in ward parks.
Representative Warner of st. Paul,
said that there were men in st. Paul
who believed in having park commits
sioners elected. He believed in park
board, and then he began to speak of
the committee work. He said that
the committee was adopting no mans
bill, and should not be censured the
way they had been.
Senator Howard said that he believed
in giving a city as few boards as pos
sible, and believed it was just as pos
sible to elect good councils as it was
to elect good park boards. Minneap-
oils, he said, had practically a council
administration, and the affairs of the
city were in good shape. They were
not coming before the legislature ask
ing for special legislation, and they
were not afraid of heads of departments
being thrown out of office every two
years. He had great faith in coun-
Gil administration.
Park Commissioner Ryan, of Mime
apolis, said that he had looked over the
Howard bill, and he could not see
ers. On the contrary, he believed
that, in the end, it would cost the
people more.
T. n. Hendricks, of Minneapolis, re-
! ferred to the park system of Minneap-
oils as being unfair to certain citizens,
and being a burden. He declared the
| system of acquiring land as the most
nefarious scheme ever devised in this
connection. He referred to the Fogg
and Butler donation as a case where
| the park board system had got in its
deadly work. There $4,000 was assessed
| for acquiring land that cost but $16000
and the rest of the money went into
| the park board treasury.
| Commissioner Ryan rather got back
! at Mr.. Hendricks by saying that the
| honest councilmen had robbed the peo-
! pie of 100000 for the sake of Jimmie
| Hill" These were the honest men
with whom Mr.. Hendricks would trust
the park system.
c. J. lockwood, attorney for the park
board. stated that Mr.. Hendricks
statements were partially untrue, and
as q whole unfair. He and Mr.. Hen
bricks had a lawsuit on hand but he
would not try it there.
! Mr.. lockwood also referred to the
! fact that the success Of the park sys-
| tenn depended, to a great extent, on
| personal work by a class of men who
did get into the park board, but in Min
neapQlis they were a class of men who
did not get into the city council.
J. NJ Bartlett said that the system of
the Minneapolis park board was wrong
for more people had dropped their prop
| erty because of the system than for all
| other reasons together The assess
ment system was all wrong. 1t was
vicious. He also favored park board
! of not to exceed five members.
| A. H. Lindeke, of St. Paul, was an
| other who thought the board system
| the best. They never got anything in
the way of parks until they got park
| board,