New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-11-18
ALL TO LOOK AT SIGNS.
Controller Would Stand by the
Letter of the Contract.

Fighting i'm favor of the Interborough company
and the privilege it thinks it has of erecting ad
vertisng signs in the subway. the Rapid Tran
sit Commission yesterday put off action on the
sign question. This afternoon the entire COM
mission. its engineers. Ward & Cow, the adj
vertising who began to smash tiles that
their signs might be exhibited and representa-
tives of the Interborough company and the
Municipal Art Society will make a personally
conducted trip to the Eignteenth-st. station,
which Ward & Cow have arranged sample
showing the way their signs should be hung.
There the commission will decide whether the
signs do interfere with the ready identification"
of the station. II, after this inspection, it de-
cides to permit the signs. the Municipal Art
Society will go to the courts at once.
Although 1t had yesterday the official opinion
of William Barclay Parsons that the signs did
interfere backed by his experience that
morning when he was scarcely able 10 identify
the Springs station because of the advertise
ments, the commission would not pass motion
by Controller Grout that since these signs did
interfere with the ready Identification OF sta
tions. they he kept off the walls of the stations
facing the tracks. Mr.. Orr. Morris X. Jesup
and John Clafin took determined stand in
favor of the signs. Mr.. Orr said that an ex-
animation of the Eghteeuth-st. station ana
others led him to believe that the large signs
all right Mr.. CIa1in earnestly argued that if a
small space around the name tablets be kept
free signs In the rest Of the station would aid
greatly in attracting the attention Of passengers
TO the small blank space and the name tablet
and every one save Mr. Claiin smiled.
CONTRACT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
Mr.. Orr and Mr. Jesup felt that because of
agreements they made with the contractor be-
fore he took the work they morally
Oblgated"-the phrase Mr.. Orr's-to permit
advertising no matter whether the contract al
lowed it or not. Controller Grout declared that
the contract stood fo1 itself and he not
bound by any conversations prior To the con-
tract Of which he knew nothing. The contract
nullifed all previous negotiations. he said
As to the right OF the commission to make
this contract, which by inference permitted ad-
yertising there was no opinion given. George
l.. Rives counsel to the commission, said that
that point would better be left for the courts to
decide. The commission leased the railway TO
the Interborough company. and the lease of
railway usually carried with il other privileges
Whatever rights the Interborough had. he said
emphatically came from its privileges as the
operator of the railroad not from any specific
grant in the contract.
In Il letter which read August Belmont
contended that although the Interborough Com
der of the Rapid Transit Commission that no
more signs be hung, the Commission had eX-
ceeded its power In issuing such an order
THE RIGHT CLAIMED BY BELMONT.
The letter went on:
v,aiveT of Right. we beg to say that are advised
and claim that the lease OF the Rapid Transit
TaTfy TTansify act w includes the railway constructed
nndnr the route and general plans thereof pre-
;baJ hy hp
January IA and February T. 1897, together with the
whafsoever of the said railroad not including
the equipment thereof: and that as lessee TINS
purposes Including all of the collateral uses to
which a railroad property Is customarily put oy
the companies owning and operating tlS same.
one of which is To post or eNhioI S
Somewhat restricted by the provisions in the lease
But the restriction must be reasonably construed
as restriction on and not a revocation OF the
Whether or not it is violated in any given case s
would be a question of fact the determination ot
which would depend gpo2 The circumstances z ed 'l @
qure the submission to the board IN the hrst m
uiar advertisement nor nor ,h as tbat no signs he
general sweeping tu, ,So eta fon walls facing the
rraiIwav nor that any area be reserved around me
names Of stations great as 10 s9oG4t ,ij P5afi PTa5
II in any instance any & Ta+ m bc~d NAV
require its removal
Mr. Rives. i'm his report did nor consider ~ all {
whether the commission had the right t" make I
n contract which permitted adNertiSlnS -iH lh''' [
he said that the right under which the operat- !
ing company could hold the advertising prlvI- /
Iege was not under the contract. but as part /
Of the privilege Of operating railroad
Mr. Parsons recommended thar the places /
where advertisements Nigh, 20 10 restricted /
aud the size regulated strictly. At the EtSh- /
teenth-st station, which was supposed 10 have /
a model arrangement of the signs. the long ones !
which rested the station platform interfered b
with the washing of the platforms with the anti /
septic solution which the company used. and /
wer, ..ex ,eedingy objectionable" All adver-
tiserlents should he kept off the walls of the
stations below the ornamental frjeze line, ~ as
serted They should also be put up i'm sub
stantial fashion If they were 10 be allowed at
all Some Of them. where they had been fastened,
were already loose. swinging with the move
ments of trains They were becoming tarUjshed
too as to the gaudy gilt borders and presented
dingy appearance
with the easy Identification OF stations sud
Controller Grout, why shouldn't we without /
interfering at all with the proposition Of the
Municipal Art Society, decide thar all signs ON
the station walls interfere with the identifca-
ton of the stations and order them removed
Calvin Tomkins. of the Municipal Art Society, /
tried TO address lhe commission. but was some
what unceremoniously shut off He managed 70
say however. that there We're two views as To
the signs the regulation of them by the COM
mission and the right OF the commission TO as
sumo TO make any contract permitting them. A
taxpayers suit was tedious affair and he
hoped the commission would not make one nee
~sary II