New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-11-24
DEFY RI BOARD: SIGNS UP
MORE NAILED TO TILES.
Lcn0r-aue. Extension Threaded, 100
Question for Courts, No7c.

IN open defiance Of the Rapid TRANSIT ~
MISSIONS resolution passed on November o. vac.
no more advertising signs should be pun "p -
80 e,,rv.av riu the commission had passed on
the location and method of placing theih' ""'o
& Cow, on Tuesday night sent out loree %
,t--- o, doubje wages to nail to the uleo
,f.. al, tba signs which had not been placed
,-.ster5ay morning saw the signs affixed 10
4,a wills Of almost every station up 10 One
and thfrty-seventh-st Last night tie
advertising firm invaded the LenoN-aVe extern
sion. beginning at One-hundred- and-sixteehth-
St There the signs were not nailed TO the "ai's
that win probably come later IN the campaign
Of yandaIism-but were affixed to the ratings
near the ticket booth and the stairways. after
The manner of the Grand Central Station ar
yapgenent shutting out air or which the sub
way 17anasenlert relies for ventilating the tun-
mel
This direct defiance of the orders of the Rapid
Transit Commission is part of a well organized
plan in which the advertising men have the
hacking Of the PETERBOROUGH company, to force
the Rapid Transit Commission TO take their
case TO the courts.
A conference Of the Interborough officials
their lawyers and representatives of Ward
Cow was held yesterday, at which the plan of
campaign was outlined definitely A communi-
cation will probably sent to the Rapid Tran
git Commission by the next meeting No official
statement was forthcoming; merely an unofficial
intimation that if the city wanted so badly to
stand on the exact terms OF the contract with
the operating company the operating company
would be infinitely pleased to accommodate the
city No lawsuit would ever be begun by the
operating company, il was said definitely. II
the case got to the courts it would be because
the Rapid Transit Commission took it there At
the same time neither the operating company
~ ad7 irving
an issue and If a suit came both would be well
pleased 70 present their views to the courts
Incidentally the question OF damages for breach
Of contract might enter largely into any such
suit.
Just what steps will be taken by the Rapid
Transit Commission IN the face of this defiance
could not be learned yesterday. The resolutions
passed by the commission have not specified any
punishment for infraction of its orders. 1t
also believed It had the PETERBOROUGH company's
agreement that no more signs would be erected
until Mr. Parsons and Mr.. Bryan agreed on a
method for erection which should have the sane
ton Of the commission
If the Rapid Transit Commission wants tech
nicalties II will get technicalities. according TO
q representative Of the marlborough company.
The contract specified that signs which inter
fered with the easy Identification Of the stations
should not - permitted. If signs were devised
D
and method Of hanging them which did not
deface the walls what possible objection could
the commission make then? Besides all this.
the resolutions adopted by the commission were
not exactly explicit.
The opinion Of the board might be all right
rs a bit Of courteous attention TO the INTERIOR
ouch company but what legal value did II have?
II 1perating company had the contract, and
its terms were plain. In accordance with that
contract, II had made contract with Ward Dc
Cow to the terms Of which that firm would
hold the marlborough. What was there left
save for the marlborough 10 demand the full
flment of its contract, rather, to ASSUME
that It would be fulfilled and TO ignore all reso-
lutions and attempts TO interfere with the con-
tract az side issues merely trivialities?
Ward & Cow said yesterday that there was
nothing to be said about signs-'too much had
been said already" The firm had its contract"
# was declared.
Controller Grout said that probably action
would be taken regarding the putting uT,Sof more
signs until the next meeting Of the Rapid Transit
Commission. when Mr.. Parsons would present
his report on the rules and regulations" to gov
ern the erecting Of signs. The defiance of the
commission would cause an appeal TO the courts
which would bring up the question, not only Of
advertising in the subway, but Of advertising
in all railway cars and stations
In The Scientific American" issued yester-
day, appears the following letter from DR.. Rob
ert j. Wilson, instructor in bacteriology in
Bellevue Hospital Medical College, announcing
the subway advertising signs as a menace to-
health:
II seems incredible that at this time lust
Nheh the city has appropriated a large sum Of
money 10 investigate respiratory diseases a
conalLon such as that represented by the sub
way stations should be allowed to exist The
subway under the best conditions will be a
good lurking place for disease bacteria and
every possible means should be used to prevent
this. ~ W
The more modest of the citizens who practise
tle Lltly habit OF splitting will use these sub
way ornaments TO hide the evidence of their
uhcleanllness, and each may become the
FOCUS for the dissemination Of respiratory dis
ease '
When future generations come to better
knowledge Of conditions influencing the spread
OF disease. they viii have TO acknowledge a
qebt OF gratitude to the press that is now
uolIg 50 much TO aid science in the adoption
OF the right kind Of hygienic laws
~ the meeting Of the Board Of Trade and
transportation yesterday the committee on CITY
aralrs presented a resolution protesting against
advertising signs and slot machines in the sub
way. The resolution adopted