New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-29
TIE PARKS ~ DANGER AGAIN.

The common tendency to do good tning III
n bad way Is strikingly exemplihed III the III"
authorizing the construction OF pubic paths anu
lavatories. which Is now for the first time colh-
ing into discussion and disclosing Its real char-
acter With the general purpose or the Ia"
every sensible person is In full sympathy. Ihere
ought TO be, for the sake Of health ana Comfort
numerous welequipped and wellkept Da'hhg
establishments i'm great city like New-1o
especinlly when its climate is semi-tropcai. Inc
need has long been recognized by inteiiigent
citizens and the prospect that it might DE sooh
supplied in part. and that satisfactory Degih
ming would speedily lead to an extensive ih-
provcment OF the sort, was generally agreeapie
Benevolent persons have amably promoted the
novcment and have received many assurances
of public appreciation
But now that the precise terms OF the III"
are brought under consideration 1t IL discoV
cred that extraordinary powers wholly neon
sistent with an orderly system of muncipai al
mnistration. have been conferred upon the COM
missioner of Public Works. That official, whose
dtnoss for his own place Is not ut all involved
in this discussion, is authorized, so far as from
time TO time he may be able to procure funds
for the purpose, to establish baths md other
public convenienccs in the parks at such points
ms suit him, without so much as saying by your
lowe TO the Park Board The officials there
fore. who are expressly charged with the care
of the parks. who are held responsible for their
ACCOMPLISHING the object for which they exist
and ore bound to protect and develop their
beauty and utility. are thus rendered helpless
tn nreyent an encroachment which might prove
TO be n serious injury. and cannot even oner
lv nj
tinct department Such an intrusion by one
branch of the city government upon another
field is utterly illogical in principle and likely
to be exceedingly mischicyous in practice. III
the policy thus initiated is permitted to become
fixed il is well within the bounds of possibility
TINT we may see a Commissioner of Public
Works choosing the fairest meadow In Central
Park AS the site for a huge bathhouse. which,
having been built in accordance with his own
idcos Of suitabcncss, the law will then turn
over TO the care of Park Commissioners whose
intelligence and sense of proprety it grossly
affronts.
The particular proposition which has brought
this anomaly of an ill-considered statute into
notice relates to the establishment of n bath In
Tompkins Square. II will probably be said that
on that site n structure Of the kind proposed
would do great good and very little harm. But
that Is an assertion which advocates of the plan
will find 1t hard to prove. In that congested
quarter an open space Is more valuable IMAM
anything which it might be made TO contain
could be- A public bath In that neiglborhood
would be n blessing. Let 1t he conceded even
that II Is an Indispensable necessity. The IN
changcablc fact remains that II is foolish
waste to destroy n value Of one sort In order to
produce Il value Of another sort. especially when
the thing gained Is worth less than the thing
lost In our opinion this is precisely what the
project Of bathing establishment In Tompkins
square means. The people Of that neighborhood
deserve TO be- protected against the short sight
cd philanthropy which Is busy with this affair.
and we hope that the protests which are being
made 10y them and In their name Will prevail
The city can afford 10 buy n site for bath
house where bathhouSc Is needed. but II can
not afford to steal one from n park