Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1929-03-03
Unrestricted

- continued from page one.)
ing sign OF motor fuel, and a sign
StucK n a river bed says: Vote Tor
oo-and-So for Sheriff.
The National Association of
real Estate Boards has held that
the view from the highway does
not belong solely to the individual
VINO owns the property along the
right OF way but in part to the
community.
up to date practically all at
tempts at regulation have been
aimed at billboards Early deci-
Slons OF courts in this country have
neld that the regulation of outdoor
advertising is a restriction upon
the use OF private property but
many states have barred billboards
from their highways declaring that
tnls action comes within the prov
lnce OF their policing power. Such
control In many places has been
passed on the theory that the courts
nave a right to protect the public
against billboardS that offend the
eye as they have a right to protect
n public against noises and odors.
Al to whether or not billboard
control is a violation Of private
property rights, some courts have
neld that the erection of billboards
is IN TACT and in intention a use
OF the highways and an expIoita-
t!on OF the travelling public. Jus
tlce Trent OF the Supreme Court of
the philippines, in a decision which
sustained a statute empowering the
removal Of b~illboards, if they are
objectionable to the sight, said:
Should be on Highways
THE success of billboard adver-
Using depends not SO much upon
the use OF private property as it
does upon the use of the channels
OF travel used by the general pub
lie: Suppose that the owner of pri-
Vate property, who so vigorously
objects to the restrictions of this
form OF advertisement, should re-
qulre that the advertiser paste his
posters upon the billboards SO that
they would face the interior of the
property instead of the exterior.
Billboard advertising would die a
natural death.
THE real dependency of billboard
advertising is not upon the unre-
Strlcted use OF private property but
upon the unrestricted use of the
public highways.
1.-THE decision of Justice Trent
referred to above, regards the re-
moVai OF blllboards as a proper
exercise OF the police powers of the
state, and other commemorative
tnaG nave barred billboards on their
highways have done so on the same
basis.
1.-The Minnesota Supreme Court
has held that the state commits
Sloner OF highways has regulatory
powers over state trunk highways
within as well as outside city linn
It's and may forbid the erection of
advertising signs on such high
ways. In 1924, the state highway
department removed more than a
half million signs from Minnesota
highways, in a campaign in which
newspapers, railroads, housewives
and civic organizations participated.
At this time the Chicago, Milwau-
kee and st. Paul Railway Co.. an
nounced that it would revoke all
permits for billboards along the
road right-of-way encircling Lake
Calhoun, n Of the beauty spots
of Minneapolis.
Under the rule made four years
ago abolishing all advertising from
state highways the state highway
commissioner of Indiana recently
requested political candidates to
keep their posters and placards off
the right Of way of state roads.
In Florida in 1925 more than
twenty counties wrote bylaws into
their highway regulations forbid
ding all signs o. the rights Of way.
except those which have the ap-
prevail of the board of county COM
m%issioners.
Banned by Road Heads
"In the state of Oregon, while no
statutory provision has been made,
the state highway commissioner
has ruled that all advertising bill
boards are banned from the right
of-way on all highways within
their jurisdiction in the state. Wis
consin has recently passed a law
prohibiting all signs on the right
of way, and thousands of billboards
have been removed there. The
court of common pleas has held
that the city of Pittsburgh has a
right to restrict signboards in resi-