New-York tribune., 1903-07-12
TIE PosrER KUIs4NcE BY TIE p.nr

TIE POSTER NUISANCE BY TIE PARKS
Lovers Of beauty should not be discouraged
by the decision OF the Appellate Division set.
ting aside the ordinance forbidding The disnlqv
OF advertisements overlooking the CITY marks
They should. instead, be aroused TO mora
active work Of education, and turn their at
tention 70 the powers competent TO suppress
the poster nuisance. The court holds that the
Park Board had no authority 10 make an ordi-
nance relating 10 property outside its jurisdic-
ton. Assuming that this decision would be
upheld by the Court of Appeals and that the
charter provision conferring on the Park Board
power to regulate and beautify streets for
three hundred and fifty feet from the outer
boundaries of any park does not give it the
same right 10 regulate street signs possessed
by other departments OF the city government
elsewhere, then the remedy is obviously TO be
sought in the legislature.
The Appellate Division suggests doubt as to
the consututionality Of any such regulation,
however made. 1t says the ordinance was In
fact an attempt 10 appropriate property with
out due process Of law. Carried TO its extreme
limit il might be used TO prevent property
owner from putting up 8 sign 10 let or sell.
This doctrine however, carried 10 It's limit
would prevent any regulation Of signs AT all
It ignores the police power which in hun
dreds OF ways limits the use Of private prop
erty in conformity with the general welfare.
II likewise ignores the growing conviction that
unpleasant sights are as much a legitimate con
cern Of the State as unpleasant smells and
sounds There is hardly a civilized country in
Europe, republic or monarchy, in which the dis
play OF advertisements is not strictly regu-.
lated. In some posters are not merely forbid
den near parks. but forbidden anywhere ex-
cept on designated bilIboards.
II is simply preposterous 10 say that city
should spend millions Of dollars in building
parks and taking measures, as the law says,
for the Improvement thereof for ornamental
purposes and for the beneficial uses Of the peo-
pie" and should then be unable 10 prevent the
utter ruin Of the beautiful effect by the erec-
ton OF all sorts OF ugly monsrosites on pri-
vate property adjoining. We do not know that
the odor OF asafRtida Is unhealthful, but does
anybody suppose that property owner could
make impossible the enjoyment OF a nook in
public park by keeping large quantities Of that
or some other III smelling but harmless article
on private property close by, and that the State
could not stop him lest il should take private
property for public use without compensation?
Is the nose more sacred than the eye? Is our
law so lagging in Middle Age barbarism that
fl takes no regard of beauty? No! In the case
Of the City OF Rochester against West the
Appellate Division In the Fourth Department,
through Presiding Justice Adams, said:
Il is g fact so patent that judicial notice may
fairly be taken OF its existence that the modern
system of advertising by posters is such that
one can hardly pass along the streets OF any
large town without being compelled to gaze
r1pon advertisements which enormous IN size
and not infrequently offensive in their char
acter.
ne affirmed that this offence 10 the eve was
one which the police power might prevent and