The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-02-20
TO PAY OR NOT TO PAY,
THAT IS THE QUESTION
Puzzles Authorities Regard
ing an Electric Sign.
SAY LICENSE IS REQUIRED
Owner Contends Roof on Which Sign Is
Displayed Is Rented to Parties
Who Violate No Law.

An electric light sign upon the roof
OF the Darby Building. on the west
side Of Fourteenth Street, which has
nightly flashed down Pennsylvania Ave
me the virtues OF a household COM
modify has been the subject OF discus
sion among the municipal officials for
the last ten days. II is not a question
whether long life. prosperity, and hap
pincss will attend the consumption Of
the pickles, but whether the sign has
right 20 exist without the payment OF a
special license Of $50 per aanum.
This ingenious sign had no sooner be
CUR 10 fash forth its message 20 wait
ing public than the eyes of the energetic
inspector OF licenses caught its glim-
mer and he reported the matter 10 the
District authorities. The Assessor con-
ferred with Commissioner West and tins
latter directed an inquiry into the main
tenance Of the sign and whether the per
son responsible for its erection had COM
piled with the law in the payment OF
license.
Permit Within the Law.
Reports from the Police Department
revealed the fact that r H Darby,
owner Of the building. had obtained a
hermit for the erection Of the sign under
the general provisions for advertising
ones business on the premises. II was
also shown that a line setting forth Mr..
Darbys business formed part OF 'he
advertisements shown in lights from the
roof. The Inspector Of Buildings for
warded to the Commissioners copy Of
AT
nothing was said at the time the per-
nit was issued about the advertisement
of matters other than those pertaining
to the printing establishment The In
spector also said he was Of the opin-
ion the permit was not violation OF
the law From q personal inspection o.
the sign in operation, however. the In
spector believed it was in fact vio-
lation OF the statute.
The Superintendent OF Police then sub
ruitted a report in which he said the roof
OF the building was rented TO Pitts
burg company whose goods we're ad-
vertised and the United States Elec-
trio Light Company furnished the cur
rent to operate the lights. The Super
intendent expressed the opinion that the
advertising was in violation OF the law,
except by the payment Of a special IL
-cense OF SIG, the amount paid by the
Washington Bill Posting Company and
other concerns exhibiting large painted
signs on the walls OF buildings.
AmicabIe Settlement Probable.
Yesterday there was a conference be-
tween Mr. Darby and Commissioner
West in regard to the matter, and it is
understood that an amicable arrange
naent viii be reached. and the sign al
lowed TO remain. Mr.. Darby Informed
the Commissioner that he rented the
roof Of the building to the Pittsburg
company. and he cOntended the company
owned the premises just the same as
they would own an apartment within tho
building. and under the law he believed
this company had the right TO erect and
operate the sign.
This view OF the matter has been sub
mitted TO the Corporation Counsel FOL
an opinion. and the municipal officials
will be guided thereby.
Mr.. Darby said 10 a Times reporter h
did not consider he was called upon Il
pay the license as the roof was really II
the temporary possession Of the Pitts
burg company under lease. He said m
should communicate with the company
and II the authorities insisted on the
payment OF the license the lessee would
have il to pay or remove the sign