New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-06-07
TAYATION OE EGLINESS.

We are glad to notice that THE Outlook has
taken up a suggestion made by The Tribune
about two years ago in favor of the taxation Of
posters and billboards. We then advocated
such tax war revenue measure, urging
that the business was q highly profitable one
which could well afford to contribute its share
to the Governments expenses that 1t was
otherwise practically untaxed, that the impost
would be paid only by those who found profit
in paying it. and that so far as it did dscour-
age billsticking it would be contributing to pub
lie comfort and municipal art. AS a matter Of
fact a trif1ing tax on posters would not affect
business. for if there is any profit in such
announcements at all 1t would not be seriously
lessened by levy of few cents on any one
lot of posters. while the aggregate collection
would amount to a considerable revenue.
France, Italy and other European countries
levy a stamp tax public notices, and it is
not found burdensome, to judge by the number
of posters 70 be seen.
The Outlook thinks that through the agency
of such a tax much might be accomplished in
the way of regulating the offensiveness Of bill
boards. In London, where evils are pro
verbally met by indrection under old laws,
the fashlight advertising nuisance has been
regulated really for aesthetic reasons. but osten
sibly TO prevent accidents, on the ground that
flasllight thrown into a street caused run
away and injured woman. Our contemporary
quotes the example Of Welsh town where an
obnoxious billboard was suppressed because the
paste was likely to drop on the clothes of
passers by. 1t thinks, hope with good rea-
son, that there is a growing sensitiveness to the
eyesoreS which stare upon at every hand,
and finds support for that view in the alarm
which the billposters themselves show at sug-
gestions of regulation. THE Advertisers Re
view" says: "The amount of money spent
yearly on outdoor advertising and on the prep
'aration of designs and posters represents a
huge sum, and any aggressive legislation
would affect hundreds of thousands of people"
This, 1.-THE Outlook" suggests, offers food for
thought, and it asks: Ought not its share of
1.-The public burden to be put upon business
that from its size is presumably so profitable
land that contributes much to make life
"hideous even in cases where it's output can
mot be called morally offensive? Why should a
public necessity, like a bank check, pay a
tax, and the too familiar eyesore go free of
"tax?"
Just at present there is no need of new Fed
eral imposts, but the possibility of more strictly
regulating billboards under State or municipal
authority is worth considering. We have laws
here forbdding bills near parks and parkways.
but they not well enforced, any more than
are our laws for the protection of natural
scenery from the sign painting fend. Public
taste is not yet educated to the point of secur-
Ing enforcement of these laws, much less of
adopting the Edinburgh plan of combining public
advertising to specified places where the ugli-
ness Of bills is least offensive But we might
take some steps TO abate the unbrldled exuber-
ance Of this most defacing and often debasing
intrusion on public attention