New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-23
FENCE AND SLBNAY.

Justice Scott's decision that Park Commits
sioner Pallas had no authority to grant the
license under which the fence around the fuulIc
Library is covered with advertisements, ana
that they must be removed, is valuable III ltself
and interesting because of what may follow. 1t
is probable that Mr. Pallas has long wished that
he had never consented to the arrangement
which gave a lucrative privilege to Mcnamara
& Hart and would be glad to end his troubles
by promptly obeying the courts orders There
is sufficient eason to believe that he did not
initiate the scheme or have anything to do with
Il beyond giving his official sanction alter the
preliminary negotiations with Tammany had
been concluded. He has, TO be sure, defended
his action, but apparently from necessity rather
than with conviction.
The Commissioners plea that the city was de-
irving a substantial pecuniary advantage from
the bargain always seemed half hearted, and
no wonder, inasmuch as the city might unqueS-
tionably have obtained a far larger return for
the license if the business had been properly
managed in the public interest instead OF pri-
vately transacted for the benefit Of Iammany
favorite. 1t may happen, however, uat MT.
Pallas Will not be permitted TO remove the ad-
yertisements without further litigation, for Nc
Namara & Hart are doubtless depressed at the
prospect Of losing an extremely profitable prlVl-
lege, and 1t is reported that they Intend TO ap-
hope TO gain anything by carrying the case TO
n higher court in view of the decision Of the
Appellate Division, while Mr.. Wilcox was Com
missioner that q license for such use OF public
property was revocable at any time. II, as
seems not improbable Mr.. Pallas is ready 70
obey Justice SCOTS order, Mcnamara & Hart
can hardly expect TO prevent him from doing
SO. If, on the other hand, whether voluntarily
or under Tammany compulsion. he stays on
their side it seems certain that he will be de
feated in the end. with added humiliation
This decision in particular case may, as we
have said, lead to still more important action.
but there is some risk Of basing too large eX-
pectations upon it, Mr.. Calvin Tomkins, presi-
dent Of the Municipal Art Society. who deserves
credit for bringing suit as a citizen for the re-
moval of the library fence advertisements,
serts that the Rapid Transit Commission had
no more power to authorize advertising In the
subway than Mr.. Pallas had to grant to Nc
Namara & Hart the license which Justice Scott
has annulled. But that remains TO be judicially
determined. Because under the charter the Park
Commissioner exceeded his authority, it does
not necessarily follow that the Rapid Transit
Commissioners exceeded theirs, for the reason
that the charter contains in Chapter IL, Section
IL, this express condition: Nothing in this act
contained shall repeal or affect in any manner
'the provisions of the rapid transit acts appli-
cable to the corporation heretofore known as
the Mayor, aldermen and commonalty Of the
city of New-York" It has seemed probable
from the first that the question of the subway
advertising would be taken into court sooner or
later and Justice SCOTS decision will strength
en- the demand that It should be; but the public
should not hastily assume that the law applied
| IN the one case will be found to govern the
! other.