Evening star., 1945-10-30
Letters to The Star
Files Objection to Sacrifice
of Parks for Caraaes
To tn. Editor of Tn. Star:

To the Editor Of The Star:
have seen in your columns recently
a number Of proposals to build garages
for parking automobiles under Lafay-
ette, Franklin and other downtown
parks In Washington, citing the sue
cessful (?) underground garage in San
Francisco. think 1t probable that the
full facts concerning the San Francisco
Garage under Union Square are not
known here in Washington.
In the first place most Of the Cali
fornia planners to whom have talked
believe it was q mistake to permit 4
garage under Union Square or any
park. In the second place Union Square
existed high on the side Of one Of San
Francisco's hills. which made 1t physic-
ally possible to place several stories
of the garage underground without dam
ger of flooding.
saw Union Square during the con-
struction Of the garage. All of the
trees, shrubs and plants were removed
from the surface. After construction
topsoil was put back. grass and shrubs
were planted and trees were put out
in tubs. Imagine, If you can, what
would happen to Lafayette or Franklin
Squares II they were cleared OF their
aged and stately trees, or even IL the,
processes Of construction injured the
trees!
The American Planning and Civic
Association has long held that parks
should be protected from extraneous
structures Of any kind. 1t is q we'll
known fact that Central Park, New
York, would be covered by several layers
of buildings df that were possible) II
all OF the applications for public and
private use had been granted Parks
once dedicated to park purposes should
not be turned over to other uses. Some
park laws make this specific.
The sacrifice Of our downtown Wash
ington parks, part of the original
LEnfant plan, would be high price
to pay for securing parking place for
automobiles. Considering all the values
involved, there are less expensive
methods OF securing parking space.
1t Is my understanding that the Cap
ital Garage, in its excellent location.
has space for parking ZOO cars. Other
garages could be built and existing
open lots can be used. BY all means
let us provide adequate parking space
for automobiles in downtown WASH
ington, but let us cherish our fine
parks.
In 1850 we shall be celebrating the
l50th anniversary Of the occupation OF
the Federal City by the Federal Gov
ernment. Would 1t not be a sorry Spec
tacle to see the devastation inevitably
involved in burrowing under our down.
town parks If they were to be sacrificed
TO the parking Of automobiles? Ger
tainly this Nation can afford to protect
its parks and the grounds of the Cap
1tol and White House for this and fu-
ture generations.
HARLEAN JAMES,
Executive Secretary, American Plan
ming and Civic Assn.
Footnote on Cabinet History
To the Editor OF The Star:
AS one who has served In both the
Army and the Navy, I am unable to see
why We have to create a new govern
mental department In order to combine
the two services. OF course, it would be
logical to do 50 if we had an Army De,
partment and a Navy Department. but
1t is well to remember-what 80 many
seem to forget-that we have never had
an Army Department or a Secretary of
the Army
When the new Government was
formed under the Constitution at the
beginning of Washington's first admin
lstration. Congress, as result OF our
experience during the Revolutionary
War, placed the Army and the Navy in
a single department, the War Depart
ment. The name had no connection
with any particular branch of the armed
forces. Eight or nine years later, at the
beginning OF our quasi-war with France,
the Navy was taken out of the War De-
partment and placed under a Secretary
OF the Navy. 1t was one of the mistakes
OF the Adams administration. But
leaving that aside, cannot see why the
Navy should not be returned to It's old
place in the War Department without
any loss of dignity or prestige. The
same reasoning would apply If the
Army instead Of the Navy had been
taken out of the War Department.
The Secretary of War is the third
ranking member of the cabinet. The
head Of new department would be the
junior member. 1t is not desirable that
the head of the Army, Navy and air
forces should be the junior cabinet off,
Ger. As an Illustration of this fact. a
cabinet council ~was formed during
World War I and the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of the Treasury were
left out OF 1t in order that the Secretary
OF War should be the presiding oficer.
IT the title of the Secretary of War
sounds too belligerent, too warlike, let
1t be changed to Secretary of National
Defense, at the same time that all the
fighting services are placed in his de-
partment. In that way we should avoid
the mistake Of making the head of the
armed forces the infantile member of
the cabinet S. C. VESTAI,.
Pasadena, Calf
Objects to Military Titles
To the Editor of The Star:
AS Johnny comes marching trium-