Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1912-05-11

of non-productive industries.
 We found, for instance, that next following liquor, tobacco, and thea tres were breakfast foods and whea, products If more or less dubious good. Next was furniture, then clothing up, on the installment plan-pay twice as much and pay it twice as often.
 Then, with the exception of the raA roads, which could be recognized as a productive advertisement, followed soft drinks patent medicines, confec- tionaries, and coffees; and the next larges,t advertisement was only 23,O0O square feet; and there followed then about thirty advertisers with less than 23,O00 square feet apiece.
 So that the large advertisers, or probably 90 or 95 per cent of the en- tire surface area of the billboards of St. Louis at that time, were houses or businesses producing the follow ing commodities:
 Liquors, tobacco, theatres, wheat products, furniturefi clothing, rail- roads, soft drinks, medicines, confec- tionaries, coffees.
 We found that the billboard people had invested in ths' industry at that time in the city of St. Louis about $140,0o0, and we found the prices paid to property oWnars for the use of their vacant lots ran from 9 cents 8 front foot to $500 front foo'.. We found no lot that paid a larger reve- nue to the property owner from per- mitting a billboard upon that vacant lot, at $G0O . front foot, was inf nitely larger, or considerably larger than he would receive from erecting a one story building, as is frequently done in order to carry the property, upon which he would have to pay taxes to the ely. But, the property not being improved by the erection of the billboard either ill the property owners view or anybody else's vew, and not being improved property, he would not have to pay any taxes to the city, and therefore he got bet ter financial return than he would by improving the property, if he only i'm proved it to the extent necessary to carry the property until the growth of the city around him would permit him to put a pretentious and perma- nent bu lding.
 advertising companies was about $450,000 a year, that was taken out of the city of St. Louis, and which of course was .aken out of the profit , of the citizens of St. Louis to pay for making the city ugly. In other words,
 the citizen each time he went to the theatre. or each time he bought his drink or his cigar or other product 'hus advertised, paid few cents for
 the purpose of keeping up the bill- boarding and making the city as ugly as possible.
 We found that St. Louis received
 during that year an increase in pub
 lie revenues because of those bill-
 boards, to the extent of $3O.00 con-
 sisting of three $10 advertising li- censes. | The same year the city of Rio Jener'o received fer advertising upon l it's public streets the sum of $92,500 I want in conclusion simply to say | that this entire billboard question will
 ultimately be a question of public | opinion.
 The courts, as I have said, balk al
 the artistic feature, but it will be
 ultimately solved by public opinion | first, because no advertiser wants to
 use a mode of publicity that will
 alienate trade instead of gaining it l He wants to make friends with +he pubic instead of antagonizing the public, and if public opinion were srystalized against billboard advert's' l ing, there is no question but what | no advertiser would ever think ol
 using billboards. Consequently, a; l regards legal remed es, the attitude ol
 the court always reflects public opin' ion, and if it is public opinion that ,,hese billboards constitute hui sance. the courts are surely going te
 declare them.
 FOND ISSUE