New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-07
MAYOR TO ACT on " ADS"
So SAYS c. Tomkins at Architectural
League Dinner.

! vigorous appeal for the regulation and re-
ttriction of advertising signs was made by the
speakers at dinner Of the Architectural League
held last night in the Fine Arts Building II archi-
tects and the sign men co-operated to restrict the
signs as TO size arrangement and location. the city
would be better off, and would the ADVERTISERS
they declared. The subway sign question Is a iar
different proposition from ordinary advertising,
declared Calvin Tomkins president OF the Municipal
Art Society," and Charles NJ. Skinner. This, they
said. a usurpation of public property Tor
private gain and the entire city should rise against
IL Action by the Mayor against the signs was
promised by Mr., Tomkins.
Save on the elevated railroad stations cor
poration until recently has tried to pre-empt adj
Last summer the Park Commissioner began to use
the fence around the site OF the new Public Ii
company has attempted TO seize the subway streets
OF our city for this advertising privilege. While
much Of the opposition To this has been purely on
the aesthetic sde-the dislike of signs sgns-far
the greater part has been because of this attempt
10 take these rights to public property. with
the consent of The Rapid Transit Commission. The
tact, and the commission has done nothing 10
facilitate appeal TO the courts. but has allowed
the operating company to continue putting up the
signs -, ,..,... 49,. -. ....,,,,.
&c question is whether any rights were ever
siVen to the operating company save the transit
rights which pertain TO the operating OF railway
What applies TO the subway signs also applies TO
Commission has declined to take any steps toward
reaching decision and we are nor !ooking 70
4 any longer. We've turned ou- attention to
the Mayor lie may get rid Of these Signs by me
police. by suit brought by the corporation
Counsel. may determine the rights or all parties.
j has been suggested that n taxpayers suit be
brought, but I think il undesirable The response
biiity is clearly the Mayor. Unless ne makes
the attempt in a short time TO test the rights of
the sign question. these signs VIII be regarded as
the advance posters in the next campaign. be-
IieVe be will test this question soon. l am not at
very frank about this subject, and I feel that he
will take action.
Arnold ". Drummer. president Of the league. acted
POSTMASTER the dinner. He said that the
league was not crusading, not the
path. but wanted to see If there could not be de-
vsed restrictions for the benefit of the public
make the city a little less hideous. If the
architects could be allowed 70 say a little where
the advertisements should be placed great benefit
would result, he thought.
o. ]. Guide a well known advertising man, said
that II all the architects would regard the adyer-
soon TO be difficulty He believed that this
was commercial era. The success of commercial
ism the artists opportunity for perpetuty.'
Men took the earnings of the signboard, but
6emned It. The poor signboard could not help It
eeIf; 1t told good story a bad; it bore
fistic picture or a scream Of hdeous cOlors. But
s became better, the signs IN reaction would
become better until the millennium.
Charles N. Skinner agreed with the restriction
8dea. which should be carried by municipal
commission he believed. which should regulate the
signs and determine just what signs allowable.
The subway was proposition entirely different
from the rest of advertising. 1t public prop
erty. built the city's expense, which had been
seized by a private concern. This concern had no
more right TO put up signs in the subway than It
had on the front Of the City Hall the Posoffice,
he said.