New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-30
4 GOOD FIGHT WON.

The Mayors letter TO the Park Commissioner
On the subject Of the Public Library fence ad-
vertisements, though suitably courteous in form,
IS rather tart IN substance 1t gives Mr.. Pallas
distinctly 10 understand that the Supreme Court
order directing him to remove the advertise
znents must be obeyed without further delay.
either for the purpose of possible appeal or for
any other reason. The Mayor cannot compel the
Park Commissioner TO heed this admonition, but
he can employ an alternative which Mr.. Pallas
would probably find 1t considerably harder to
swallow. From the public point Of view, it
might be fortunate thing If Mr.. Pallas should
remain obstinate just long enough 10 insure his
own decapltation and the appointment Of a sue
cessOr for the chances are that the Mayors
second choice would be a better man. 1t is
hardly fair, though. 10 imply that his first choice
was the present incumbent 1t has always been
understood that the appointment Of Mr.. Pallas
was a concession 10 the machine. and that the
Mayor took no pleasure in It, If so. his reluct-
ance was soon publicly justified by his Commits
sioner's consent to the bargain which had been
made over bis head with Mcnamara & Co. The
lease OF the library fence for advertising pur-
poses subjected his administration while If was
still young TO general censure, not only because
the feelings Of the community were outraged by
the vulgar display, but also because the priv.
lege was worth ten times what 1t brought
Il have RETAINED" the Mayor writes to Mr..
iPallas. "from expressing any opinion On tho
Subject because I did not wish TO interfere
with the details OF your administration" He
must aow perceive that il was a mistake TO bs
80 constderate II he had frankly told the Com
missioner at the outset that since under the de-
e1sion Of the Appellate Division, sustained nv
the Coiirt Of Appeals. Mcnamara G. Co. could
not have legally secured anything more than a
TeVocable license, propriety and public sentt
msnt alike demanded that II should be promntlv
REVOKED ne would have put an end to scandal
when has Fexed him ever since and gained far
more credit than his belated action deserves
Inc Mayors opinion is that the principle In
.rolved does not require more exuress afirrnanca
and that there IS no occasion for .,ro5,,r, -, =
chance Of a reversal on appeal uDdouhtadIy
an appeal might be taken from Justina Soot4,s
decision, for the higher courts have not We. nro.
nounceo judgment on the Issue raised b, .h.
recent taxpayers suit But McNeroar. e. r.
could seemingly gain nothing BY spneaIing FOR
II MI Pallas should continue TO nrotact ,bor,
ne wouio-unless~the Mayors letter means rouch
iiess laan it appears 10 mean-be removad ora
ahother commissioner appointed who vvould In
SANITY exercise his undoubted power IN reroI-.
Their license, without regard TO The noss,h,I'tU
OF lis being determined on appeal that ha co,Is
DOT De forced 10 revoke Il by legal process Tt
is practically certain, therefore that the ubre ~
fence VIII soon be permanently cleared ~ al
verrsements, for which RELIEF public tharLs
VIII be due 10 Mr.. William r. Wilcox. who as
fsrE commissioner, made successful fob, O.
stbe courts against similar abuse: to Mr. Calvin
lolhkins, who brought the Taxpayers SUIT which
!. ustlce ccou recently decided In his favor and
us newspapers which have reflected and