ge gp > 
 ere ag 
 
Ree port 
 
 OF 
 
 The Mayor’s 
 Billboard Advertising Commission 
 
 OF THE 
 
 City of New York 
 
 fo WG US cite lees Os ].5 
 
 ROBERT GRIER COOKE, Chairman 
 No. 542 Fifth Avenue 
 
 ALBERT S. BARD, Secretary 
 No. 25 Broad Street 
 
 REGINALD P. BOLTON INGALLS KIMBALL HENRY W. SACKETT 
 WALTER STABLER EDMUND B. WELLS 
 
« 
 .7 
 ‘ 
 , 
 , 
 * 
 - 
 a 7 
 t 5 
 , , bes 
 ft not bn 
 
 a 
 
 - 3066-13-1000 
 
 MB. 
 BROWN 
 PRINTING 
 BINDING 
 
PART, 
 
 XVII. 
 
 J 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 PAGE. 
 Suninary Of Work and 17 recommendations .¥.. oi de. oes ee 5 
 General Review of the Extent of the Outdoor Advertising 
 
 Dali sree Ae ante, SMe etn SEP o Puig amy Sap aw «0 13 
 Aesthetics and the Constitution. Arguments covering recom- 
 
 mendations 1, 2 and 3. Review of judicial decisions.... 22 
 Public Health and Morality. Conditions to be remedied by 
 
 TISC HATS TG EIS eg BSCS ee Badal ne aire: tera 44 
 Public Safety. Conditions involved in recommendations 6, 7, 
 
 ee LOE HESS. Pvc is EN i Boh sect hae Sirs Rt iio ee, eae oe ee 47 
 Transit Line Conditions, covering recommendations 12 and 13. 51 
 Administrative Machinery. Conditions to be remedied by 
 
 CIMT G ati OUes D4 ANC ed yaaa eee, earls at ok w cacte ea 56 
 Local Option. Argument to support recommendation 16...... 62 
 Regulation by Taxation. Review of attempted legislation. 
 
 WECOMIICH UAL OUS iy pants se ware hs AY Way oo aka. aot: ie O5 
 Municipal Regulations in New York and Other American 
 
 ETE L eS! pies SSA gs awl i” RS eet A AR eR aS 70 
 State Regulation (New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
 
 CI ae meee ee oer Pe ete te a WS wo ae Alba 74 
 iStehye fg ehlidetand’ Cu repeicn gy ekg ye ne NET RR ei aR rat ge te ee ee 76 
 Proposed Ordinances, embodying recommendations of this 
 
 ri 8/8 Nm ease 5 we Near nas) Ra Prods eZ teh Loa a CPR are pee oe a 81 
 Proposed Statute, embodying recommendations of this report.. 88 
 Proposed Constitutional Amendment, embodying recommenda- 
 
 PAO IES pUlie Li 1S COP OLE SMe A ee ie aad. Ate te ret 95 
 Existing Statutes and Ordinances to be considered in drafting 
 
 Newuteculations sor-New sy ork City 0. ee Pde 96 
 ERUSet rel Gils: Ole EXIStINO CONMITONSY ue ini Bolts Cis asthe, 111 
 
i= 
 d e 
 ro ” 
 
 . , ie Rati 
 
 A 
 
REPORT 
 
 PARTAL 
 
 SUMMARY OF WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 The Honorable Witt1am J. Gaynor, Mayor of The City of New York: 
 
 Sir—In November, 1912, your Honor informally appointed the under- 
 signed Billboard Advertising Commission and on December 24, 1912, 
 charged them with their duties in offical letters of appointment as follows: 
 
 City or NEw York, OFFICE OF THE Mayor: 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, William J. Gaynor, Mayor 
 of New York, do hereby appoint Robert Grier Cooke, Chairman, 
 Albert S. Bard, Reginald P. Bolton, Ingalls Kimball, Henry W. Sack- 
 ett, Walter Stabler, Edmund B. Wells, to constitute The Mayor’s 
 Billboard Advertising Commission, and request them to look into the 
 matter of advertising in New York City by means of billboards, sky- 
 signs and kindred devices, and to report to the Mayor thereon with 
 their recommendations. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the 
 seal of office this twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand nine 
 hundred and twelve. W. J. GAYNOR, Mayor. 
 
 (SEAL oF THE City oF NEw York.) 
 
 The Commission first met soon after its informal appointment in No- 
 vember, 1912, and during the past eight months has held many open meetings 
 and executive sessions, besides doing a great deal of work individually be- 
 tween these meetings. Our aim has been to elicit by oral testimony, corres- 
 pondence and the study of documents, evidence bearing on all phases of the 
 subject of out-door advertising; and at the outset we desire to acknowledge 
 the valuable assistance received from officials representing the Departments 
 of Police, Fire, Health and Taxes and Assessments, the Bureaus of Build- 
 ings, Highways and Street Encumbrances in the various Boroughs, the of- 
 fice of the Corporation Counsel and the Public Service Commission of the 
 First District, also from various artistic and civic societies, representatives 
 
 5 
 
of the outdoor advertising business, and many individuals. The Commis- 
 sioners of Accounts have been especially helpful. We are also especially in- 
 debted to Dr. Edward Hagaman Hall, Secretary of the American Scenic 
 and Historic Preservation Society, whose familiarity with the subject has 
 been of great service, for assistance in drafting our report. We have also 
 had the benefit of two recent official contributions to the subject, namely, 
 “A Report on an Investigation of Billboard Advertising in New York City,” 
 by Mr. Raymond B. Fosdick, then Commissioner of Accounts, made to your 
 Honor under date of August 27, 1912; and the “ Report of the Commission 
 on New Sources of City Revenue,’’* made to your Honor as Chairman of 
 the Board of Estimate and Apportionment under date of January 11, 1913. 
 To these reports we shall refer more fully hereafter. 
 
 The situation leading to this investigation has developed so gradually 
 and efforts for its control have been beset with so many complications that 
 it has been allowed to grow up practically unrestrained until it has reached 
 such proportions that the most serious efforts are now needed to bring it 
 under regulation. 7 
 
 All advertising may be classified in three general categories: (1) advertise- 
 ments printed in newspapers and periodicals, (2) circulars distributed by 
 mail or some other medium to the individual reader, and (3) advertisements 
 which are displayed in public places and vehicles, and which, for the pur: 
 poses of this report, are called outdoor advertising. With the first two of 
 these classes we have nothing to do, for it is to be observed that while their 
 subject matter may be the same as that of the third class, the manner by 
 which these advertisements are brought to the attention of the reader is 
 tadically different. It is entirely optional with a person whether he will 
 read advertisements in newspapers and circulars; but an outdoor advertise- 
 ment is thrust upon his attention whether he will or not, and therein lies the 
 first ground of objection. In the next place, the structures upon which a 
 large proportion of outdoor advertisements are erected lend themselves to 
 the creation of physical dangers and nuisances which do not accompany peri- 
 odical or circular advertising. In the respects mentioned, outdoor advertis- 
 ing so intimately affects the public welfare that its governmental regulation 
 appears to be entirely justifiable in the interest of the greatest good to the 
 greatest number. Indeed, to fail to restrain and regulate it is to abandon our 
 communities to serious evils. 
 
 In the history of commerce, outdoor advertising antedates the employ- 
 ment of the printing press. The hand-made placard or sign upon a place of 
 business is an ancient device for announcing wares for sale or soliciting 
 patronage ; but until well into the last century outdoor advertising went little 
 further, and if it were kept within those bounds today, there would be no 
 complaint. In the course of time, a few manufacturers, particularly of pat- 
 ent medicines, began to utilize fences, rocks, the sides and roofs of barns and 
 
 * The members of the Commission on New Sources of City Revenue were Mr. Edgar J. Levey 
 (now deceased), Chairman; Mr, Robert B. McIntyre, Secretary; and Messrs. Joseph French John- 
 son, William Jay Schieffelin, F, S. Tomlin and Robert S. Binkerd. 
 
 6 
 
other eligible surfaces in the country to advertise their products; and bill- 
 boards for miscellaneous advertisements were erected in towns at a com- 
 paratively few places in each. Such was the moderate, though in some re- 
 spects undesirable, condition of affairs when the individual manufacturer 
 or dealer erected his own outdoor advertisements. But with the organiza- 
 tion of great concerns which do not deal in the commodities advertised, but 
 whose sole occupation: and source of revenue are the outdoor advertising 
 business, this form of advertising has grown with startling rapidity to enor- 
 mous proportions; and, aided by electrical and mechanical discoveries and 
 inventions, has assumed not only an astonishing variety of form, but has 
 also become independent of sunlight, so that the wayfarer or citizen cannot 
 now escape their importuning by day or by night. 
 
 The ubiquity of these advertisements is an aggravating phase of the situ- 
 ation. They are no respecters of place. They are not confined to the 
 unimproved tracts and rubbish yards on the outskirts of the City. On 
 the contrary, they are thrust into the finest vistas which our public places 
 present. Beautiful churches,~ fine public buildings, monumental private 
 structures, park spaces upon which the wealth of generations has been 
 lavished, superb river views, are confronted and environed by enormous, 
 unsightly and at times disgusting billboard advertisements, which neutralize 
 the effects produced by the exercise of our finest genius and the expendi- 
 ture of vast sums of money, and rob the people of their rightful heritage of 
 natural beauty. 
 
 That such structures have an undesirable effect on the orderly growth of 
 the City, and are an injury to property values in their neighborhood, is in- 
 creasingly evident. The report of the Commission on New Sources of City 
 Revenue already referred to says (p. 5): 
 
 “In many important parts of the City there is a strong tendency 
 to secure the publicity income and to postpone the full utilization of 
 the land on which billboard taxpayers and electric signs are erected. 
 The erection of such structures also has an injurious effect upon ad- 
 joining realty values and constitutes, in many cases, a real nuisance.” 
 
 Were there no other reasons for regulation, we believe that the legislative 
 power of the government should be called upon to impose restraints to 
 which this business will not voluntarily submit. But there are further rea- 
 sons of a physical nature which emphasize this need. The evidence goes 
 to show that some kinds of outdoor advertising structures—roof-signs, hang- 
 ing-signs and billboards—are dangerous to life and limb; that billboards in 
 particular increase the fire risk of the neighborhood, afford cover for im- 
 moral practices, encourage the commission of unclean nuisances, afford con- 
 cealment for the collection of rubbish, filth and garbage, and, promote the 
 propagation of flies and the spread of disease; that billboards in the subway 
 and elevated stations interfere in many cases with the free use of the plat- 
 forms, confuse the sight and prevent the recognition of the station signs; 
 
 7 
 
and that illuminated signs, and flashing signs in particular, in some localities 
 interfere with sleep in neighboring hotels and private residences. 
 
 This situation is not confined to the City of New York, but exists in 
 every large city in the country, and for several years the public demand 
 for its amelioration has been growing in insistence. Foreign countries, as 
 we shall point out more fully in another part of this report, have dealt 
 radically with this subject; but largely on account of our different system 
 of government in the United States, our different laws and jurisprudence, 
 and the slowness with which the growing popular sentiment on the subject 
 finds its way into our constitutions and judicial decisions, the effort to 
 regulate the billboard nuisance in American cities has met with only a 
 moderate degree of success. 3 
 
 One important conclusion with respect to outdoor advertising in New 
 York City to which our investigation has led us is that the fullest and most 
 satisfactory handling of the billboard situation cannot be attained until the 
 State constitution has been so amended as to give unequivocal warrant to 
 the legislature and the courts to regulate billboard advertising on the 
 ground of public beauty. When courts hold, as in a case in Massachusetts, 
 that it is lawful to raise money by taxation and to spend public moneys for 
 aesthetic ends, but that the right of an individual property owner to mar 
 those same aesthetic.ends cannot be taken from him without compensation, 
 it is apparent that the courts of this country find themselves in a dilemma 
 from which—in the absence of a radical change of heart on the part of the 
 judiciary—only a constitutional remedy can relieve them. We believe that 
 the time has arrived in this State when public sentiment will warrant writing 
 the word “ beauty” into the constitution. 
 
 Until that desideratum is attained, however, much can be done under 
 existing laws and ordinances, and more can be accomplished under new 
 laws and ordinances which we shall suggest. 
 
 Our recommendations concerning ends to be attained and the measures 
 necessary for attaining them are briefly as follows, a fuller statement con- 
 cerning each being given in other parts of this report. 
 
 | RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 1. We recommend the prohibition of all outdoor advertising struc- 
 tures (but not shop signs, advertisements in vehicles and the like) on or 
 in the immediate neighborhood of parks, squares, public buildings, boule- 
 vards and streets of exceptional character and in other places of special 
 beauty or sentiment, as wholly incongruous with and detrimental to the 
 locality. This is to include the case where an advertising structure obstructs | 
 a fine view. 
 
 As a means to that end, we recommend a constitutional amendment, 
 covering broadly the whole question of aesthetics as a legitimate basis for 
 
 8 
 
regulation by statute or ordinance. (See Part III, near end; also Part 
 XV.) Meanwhile every billboard on any city park should instantly be 
 removed by the Park Commissioner having jurisdiction. They are illegal 
 
 (oO 2A). 
 
 2. We recommend the suppression by censorship of objectionable adver- 
 tising—not only that which passes the limits of decency (already illegal) 
 but also that which is vulgar by reason of its subject matter or mode of 
 presentation. Often the difference would be merely one of degree. For 
 administrative convenience the censorship here suggested would naturally 
 include what is already illegal as well as what is now unreached by law. 
 
 Fully to attain this end, there is need of the constitutional amendment 
 previously recommended. (See Part III, near end.) 
 
 3. In addition to the suppression by censorship of the indecent and vul- 
 gar, we recommend the regulation by censorship, on artistic or aesthetic 
 grounds, of the appearance of such advertisements as are permitted to be 
 displayed. (See also recommendation 13.) 
 
 As under the preceding heads, a constitutional amendment is necessary. 
 (See Part III, near end.) 
 
 4, We recommend the regulation of the immediate neighborhood of 
 billboards so as to prevent the accumulation of filth and rubbish, the exist- 
 ence of unsanitary conditions, and the commission of offenses against 
 decency and morality. | 
 
 We recommend (a) that the Board of Health adopt amendments to 
 the Sanitary Code making it more stringent in its requirements concerning 
 the public health; (b) in particular we recommend that said Board adopt 
 an amendment explicitly imposing upon those who occupy vacant lots with 
 billboards or other advertising structures the same responsibility for sani- 
 tary conditions as the owner (see Part XIII for our suggested amendment) ; 
 and (c) that both the Department of Health and the Police Department 
 increase their efficiency in dealing with such nuisances and crimes, (See 
 
 tea el AD 
 
 5. We recommend the prohibition of large or flashing electric light 
 signs in or near residential districts as interruptions to rest and repose, and, 
 if found necessary, the regulation of the hours of their display in the neigh- 
 borhood of hotels, hospitals and other places where they disturb sleep. 
 
 We recommend that the Board of Health adopt an amendment to the 
 Sanitary Code clearly covering this annoyance. (See Part IV; also, for 
 our suggestion for such an amendment, Part XIII.) 
 
 6. We recommend the elimination of fire and wind hazards by appro- 
 priate building requirements as to the material, construction and location 
 of signs. 
 
This may be effected by an ordinance amending the Building Code. (See 
 Part V; also recommendation 9 below; also our suggested ordinance to 
 amend the Building Code in Part XIII.) 
 
 7. We recommend the prohibition of roof-signs (posters and bulletins) 
 in residential districts and their prohibition elsewhere except on fireproof 
 buildings. 
 
 To accomplish this we recommend an ordinance amending the Building 
 Code. (See paragraphs 7 and 9 of the amendments to the Building Code 
 proposed in Part XIII.) 
 
 S. We recommend the prohibition of advertisements fastened across 
 the face of buildings and covering windows or doors; also of advertisements 
 fastened with the lower edge along the wall and the upper edge along the 
 cornice. 
 
 For this, an ordinance amending the Building Code will suffice. (See 
 paragraph 8 of such proposed amendments, Part XIII.) 
 
 9. We recommend that all outdoor advertisements and advertising 
 structures be limited in size, wherever placed and however constructed. 
 
 Until a constitutional amendment warrants the foregoing restriction on 
 aesthetic grounds we recommend action by the Board of Aldermen amend- 
 ing the Building Code so as to provide the restriction on grounds of safety 
 and sanitation. (See Part V; also recommendation 6 above; also our sug- 
 gested amendment to the Building Code, Part XIII.) 
 
 _ 10. Until the environment of parks and notable street and landscape 
 views can be fully protected by constitutional means against disfigurement by 
 billboards, as suggested in our first recommendation, we recommend that 
 the situation be controlled so far as possible by refusing to the owner of 
 the property occupied by an offending billboard or other sign the privilege 
 (which is not a right) to occupy any part of the street outside of his build- 
 ing line. This will pro tanto make for safety also meanwhile. 
 
 For that purpose we recommend an ordinance making the occupation 
 of any part of a street beyond the building line conditional upon compliance 
 with such sign restrictions as may be established by the Board of Aldermen. 
 (See paragraphs 16 and 19 of the suggested amendments to the Building 
 Code, Part XIII.) 
 
 11. We recommend that the occupation of a street or any other public 
 place (other than transit stations) by any advertising structure be prohibited, 
 excepting, in proper cases, by signs relating to business conducted on the 
 premises, and, on construction bridges over sidewalks, temporary signs of 
 owners, occupants and builders. (See also recommendation 13.) 
 
 We recommend an ordinance for this purpose. (See paragraphs 12 
 and 17 of the suggested amendments to the Building Code, Part XIII.) 
 
 10 
 
12. We recommend that the occupation of transit stations for adver- 
 tising purposes be regulated so as to permit the easy identification of sta- 
 tions, to prevent the obstruction of light, air and traffic passage-ways, and 
 to prevent the disfigurement and mutilation of public property. 
 
 We recommend that the Public Service Commission for the First Dis 
 trict exercise its powers of regulation over the subways and elevated roads 
 in this city to the fullest extent to prevent existing abuses. (See Part VI.) 
 
 18. We recommend (a) the general prohibition of advertisements on 
 the outside of omnibuses and of surface, subway and elevated cars (not 
 including, however, destination signs of museums, amusement resorts and 
 the like). Such outside signs are already prohibited in Manhattan. (See 
 Part III, Fifth Avenue Coach Co. case.) When an advertisement censor- 
 ship is possible, we recommend (b) the regulation of advertising within 
 such public vehicles and cars, and incidentally the regulation of advertise- 
 ments upon the outside of private vehicles, vessels, perambulating sign- 
 boards, etc. (See recommendations 2 and 3.) 
 
 As to (a) we recommend the adoption by the Board of Aldermen of a 
 general ordinance substantially like Manhattan Ordinance, Section 41, set 
 forth in Part XVI. (b) As to perambulating signboards and “ sandwich 
 men,” we now recommend either an extension of the conditions which are 
 sometimes attached to permits therefor, or, better yet, that the Board of 
 Aldermen refrain from granting further permits for such forms of adver- 
 Risin toceyrattey .) 
 
 14. We recommend (a) co-operation between departments having con- 
 current or overlapping powers to deal with these subjects; and. (b) the 
 transfer from the City Clerk to the several Bureaus of Buildings of the 
 duty of issuing licenses and collecting license fees for what are termed 
 “electric signs ” (overhanging the sidewalks). 
 
 Co-operative action by heads of departments and Borough Presidents 
 with a view to co-ordinating their functions is sufficient for (a). (See 
 Part VII.) For (b) an amendment by the Board of Aldermen to the 
 “electric sign” ordinance included in Part XVI below is necessary. Prop- 
 erly it should be in the Building Code. 
 
 15. We recommend (a) that the Bureau of Buildings in each borough 
 establish a system of record of all signboards or sign structures of every 
 description in its borough; (b) that as a part of that system the erection 
 of any such signs or sign structures without a permit from the Bureau of 
 Buildings be forbidden;.(c) that the duties of the Bureau of Encumbrances 
 be confined to the removal of illegal signs or structures reported to and 
 condemned by the Bureau of Buildings; (d) that the Police Department 
 be charged with authority to require the exhibition of permits for the con- 
 struction of signs and sign structures in the same manner as in the case of 
 street openings or the erection of buildings; (e) that the Police Department 
 
 11 
 
report systematically to the respective Bureaus of Buildings as to signs under 
 construction, the production of permits and conditions in the neighbor- 
 hood of signs; and (f) that wilful violations of the Building Code, at least 
 as to advertising signs, be made a misdemeanor, as are wilful violations of 
 the Sanitary Code. 
 
 For this purpose we recommend that the Board of Aldermen adopt an 
 ordinance amending the Building Code with respect to (b) and (d); that 
 the legislature amend the City’s Charter as to (f); and that the Mayor 
 and Borough Presidents give the necessary directions to the Police 
 Department and their respective Bureaus with respect to (a), (c) and (e). 
 (See Part VII; also paragraphs 4 and 13 of our suggested amendments to 
 the Building Code, Part XIII; also recommendation 4 above.) 
 
 16. We recommend that local option be given to localities within the 
 city to determine whether they will prohibit outdoor advertising within their 
 limits. 
 
 And for that purpose we recommend such legislation as will permit local 
 sentiment to be determined and become effective upon a majority vote of 
 the property holders or residents. (See Part VIII.) 
 
 17. We recommend the imposition of a graded excise tax upon the 
 business of outdoor advertising. 
 
 To provide for this, we recommend the enactment of a statute by the 
 Legislature, adding a new article to the Tax Law. (See Part IX; also Part 
 XIV where will be found the draft of a bill.) 
 
 This Commission can hardly guarantee that the ingenuity of advertis- 
 ers will not in the future require additions to this list, but were communi- 
 ties free to adopt a system of control which should include all the items 
 on this list, we think the objections to outdoor advertising as now conducted 
 would largely disappear. 
 
 Having thus submitted our recommendations in brief, we will now en- 
 large upon them and give more fully the reasons for them. 
 
PAK TeiT: 
 
 THE EXTENT OF THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING 
 BUSINESS. 
 
 As a foundation for the fuller discussion of the subject concerning 
 which we have made a brief statement in the foregoing part, we may give 
 an idea of the extent of the outdoor advertising business in New York 
 City. 
 
 New York City has probably more billboards, roof signs and illuminated 
 advertising signs than any other city in the world; for while we are still 
 second to London in population, yet in the absence of certain limitations 
 which the English impose on outdoor advertising and in the presence of 
 our greater commercial enterprise, our city of 5,200,000 population, cover- 
 ing an area of 316 square miles, appears to have gone to greater lengths 
 in the outdoor advertising business than any other city in existence. 
 
 The outdoor advertising business may be divided into the following 
 principal classes: 
 
 1. Ordinary shop signs advertising business done on the premises. 
 
 b 
 
 2. Large painted “wall signs” on the faces and sides of buildings. 
 
 3. Billboards, or fences, at the street level. These are used both for 
 posters and for painted “ bulletins.” Some are and some are not illumina- 
 ted at night with electric lights. 
 
 4. Roof-signs or “sky-signs,’ for posters, or painted “ bulletins.”’ 
 These are very generally illuminated at night. 
 
 5. Electric signs, of various sizes, some intermittent or flashing, rang- 
 ing from the modest shop sign to the enormous devices erected on blank 
 walls and roofs. . 
 
 6. Billboards and posters in transit stations and public vehicles. 
 
 7. Perambulating signs, “sandwich men,” etc. 
 
 We have no means of measuring the extent of all of these classes of 
 advertisements, but we have data about some of them. 
 
 The rate at which billboards of the third class are erected in the city 
 is indicated by statistics furnished to the Commission on New Sources of 
 City Revenue by the Borough Presidents. 
 
 13 
 
In Manhattan Borough from January 1 to November 30, 1911, the 
 
 Bureau of Buildings received applications for permits to erect billboards, 
 as follows: 
 
 Number 
 ais Number of of Signs Area, 
 Approved Applications. Applications. or Fences. Sq. Feet. 
 Wood fences not over 10 feet high.......... 31 34 36,834 
 Fences over 10 feet high and not over 20 feet.. 13 Zh 43,976 
 Fences, ‘angle “iron, -23¢ 16¢t igi... ee 3 3 15,042 
 Signs .on:roof not, over*50\ feet highs. aucune ca 78 83 106,426 
 Signs: on'root over 80. feet high..<t eres ae 1 1 Sica0 
 Signs parallél swith” walle cae ee 95 109 19,224 
 *Electric signs, right angles to building........ 1,569 1,586 44,242 
 Total eca.eteond Petes Cee eee 1,790 1,837 268,879 
 Disapproved Applications. 
 Wood fences not over 10 feet high............ 5 ! 6,830 
 Fences over 10 feet high and not over 20 feet.. Yi 7 13,803 
 Fénces, ‘angle ron, 23 21eet- hight..ee-s se abit Wi a oh ee ee ne ae 
 Signs -on roof not -overso0 street shign. sre 19 19 18,493 
 Signs onarootovere ov. 4eeb. high: <)£ os tes fan 1 1 6,390 
 Siens parallel with wav all paces ater t eee 13 13 3,430 
 *Electric signs, right angles to building........ 33 35 2,458 
 76 78 51,404 
 1,790 1,837 268,879 
 Grande Dotel ick otras roles te 1,866 1,915 320,283 
 
 *As used in this table, “ electric sign” is a ee term referring to electrical bracket signs 
 
 extending from the wall over the sidewalk, see p, 
 
 In the Borough of Brooklyn the area of the billboards erected in 1911 
 was 104,686 square feet. The area of the different kinds of signs was as 
 follows: 
 
 Roof and “‘ sky signs” erected on regular alteration 
 DELILE | ecw Score eee tines eR ane ds ne ert 10,758 square feet 
 
 Fence billboards erected on book-slip permits...... 93,928 square feet 
 Eotal area. eee en eee ee 104,686 square feet 
 
 In the Borough of Queens the total area of the billboards erected in 
 1911 for which permits were issued was 12,378 square feet. 
 
 The Borough of Richmond during the year 1911 issued no permits for 
 the erection of billboards. Permits were issued only for three electric signs 
 with a combined area of possibly 12 feet. 
 
 The total area of all signs and billboards erected in the city during 1911 
 appears, then, to be 385,955 square feet. If a fence ten feet in height were 
 to be constructed with this area, it would extend for a distance of 7.31 miles. 
 
 14 
 
That figure, it is to be observed, represents the area of billboards erected 
 in one year, and not the aggregate area of billboards in the city. The aggre- 
 gate number of billboards is estimated in the Fosdick report at approxi- 
 mately 3,700, of which one-fourth are of the “ double deck” character, 
 that is to say, they consist of two facings, each ten feet high, one above 
 the other. There are thus about 4,600 facings, and an estimate based upon 
 the actual measurement of over one-third of them indicates a total area 
 of 3,800,000 square feet or about 90 acres of billboard advertising surface 
 in the city. 
 
 As to the character of the advertisements on these billboards, the Fos- 
 dick report says that except in the outlying districts, the billboards are rarely 
 used by merchants of the city for advertising purposes; but that invariably 
 the advertisements relate to whiskies, wines, beers, gins, tobacco, cigar- 
 ettes, patent medicines, teas, chewing gum, soaps, breakfast foods and 
 amusements.* Automobiles and their accessories should be added. 
 
 Referring to the classes of outdoor advertisements in St. Louis, Judge 
 Woodson, in the case of St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. vs. St. Louis 
 (235 Mo. 99; same case also in 137 Southwestern Reporter, 929), says: 
 
 “While all kinds of business and merchandise are advertised by 
 this means of display, yet observation and common experience teach 
 us that probably the greater per cent. thereof proclaim the newest and 
 choicest brands of. liquors, tobacco, cigars and cigarettes, and 
 announcements of various plays which are to be presented at the 
 various theatres. These, however, are interspersed with information 
 regarding the comforts and necessities of life * * *. 
 
 “The amount of good contained in this class of this business is 
 so small in comparison to the great and numerous evils incident 
 thereto that it has caused me to wonder why some of the courts of 
 the country have seen fit to go as far as they have in holding statutes 
 and ordinances of this class void which were only designed for the 
 suppression of the evils incident thereto and not to the suppression 
 of the business itself. While advertising, as before stated, is a legiti- 
 mate and honorable business, yet the evils incident to this class of 
 advertising are more numerous and base in character than are those 
 
 E incident to numerous other businesses which are considered mala in 
 se, and which for that reason may not only be regulated and con- 
 trolled, but which may be entirely suppressed for the public good 
 under the police power of the State. My individual opinion is that 
 this class of advertising as now conducted is not only subject to con- 
 trol and regulation by the police power of the State, but that it might 
 be entirely suppressed by statute, and that, too, without offending 
 against either the State or Federal Constitution.” 
 
 In the first part of this report we have ascribed the growth and extent 
 of the billboard advertising business in large part to the enterprise of con- 
 cerns organized not for the sale of the wares advertised but solely for the 
 
 *On page 18 following we shall refer to the class of people to whom these advertisements appeal, 
 and under appropriate heads in other parts of this report we will speak of the repulsive features 
 of some of these advertisements, 
 
 15 
 
promotion of the outdoor advertising business. An idea of the revenue de- 
 tived by such concerns from this business is indicated by the following 
 paragraphs from the Fosdick report: 
 
 “The companies charge for the use of this space, where it is a 
 bill-poster board, from one to two and one-half cents per square foot 
 per month, or from twelve cents per square foot to thirty cents per 
 square foot per annum. The charge for painted bulletins averages 
 about eighteen cents per square foot per annum. These prices, how- 
 ever, are for the ordinary locations in the city. The prices in the 
 choice locations, such as the public squares, intersection of principal 
 streets, etc., are considerably higher. The prices include the cost of 
 posting the sheet or painting the advertisement on the bulletin board. 
 
 “An estimate of the gross revenue to the advertising companies, 
 based upon these figures, would indicate that they annually receive 
 from the billboard advertising privilege in the city approximately 
 $1,000,000. It should be borne in mind that this figure deals only 
 with billboards and does not include sky-signs, that is, signs erected 
 upon walls or roofs of buildings.” 
 
 The lucrativeness of the street railway advertising business is indicated 
 by the following statistics of receipts by the railroad companies from that 
 source during the years 1910 and 1911, as taken from their reports to the 
 Public Service Commission: 
 
 ————— ee 
 
 1910. 1911. 
 Interbor ough Rapides Tansits << scee ees ee tee $523,546 04 $573,854 58 
 Brooklyn: Rapid eCransit. Oxileang ce deol se tee eee ees 102,371 64 124,046 64 
 Manhattan ourtace (Roads ie. ws aes ee eee oe 337,972 42 356,774 73 
 Bronx, Sictace™ Roadsse-s3c.u ect ce aise lity ree ek oe 30,450 00 30,450 00 
 Other SGomipanies.3.:5. 6 weet et ee Oe Sos ane 16,109 39 21,939 18 
 Totatege ass sce. Aico. 2, teeter eer & $1,010,449 49 $1,107,065 13 
 
 ae a SRR I ES SS SR es SS a OE Ee SS a eS Se 
 
 In a suit brought in 1909 for a partnership accounting, among other 
 things, between Messrs. Ward and Gow (Gow v. Ward, 144 App. Div., 
 593), one of the partners claimed and the other denied that the value of 
 that firm’s contracts with the subway, elevated and surface transit systems 
 of the city for advertising space, news-stands and vending machines, was at 
 least $2,500,000; that the net revenue therefrom in one year had been as 
 much as $350,000; and that the contracts would probably produce $450,000 
 a year for many years. It also appeared that the partners had agreed that 
 in the case of the death of either partner his interest in the firm should pass 
 to the other at an agreed value of $1,000,000. The partner who denied 
 these values did not state what values he would concede. Whatever the true 
 amount may be, it is obviously very large. 
 
 Although public franchises—community property—are iled by the 
 railroad companies for the business which gives them the foregoing income, 
 no tax is levied upon it. The same is true of the advertising concerns that 
 
 16 
 
utilize the streets (though not physically occupying them with their signs) 
 for their profit. 
 
 The city gets a slight income from electric signs suspended at right 
 angles from buildings over sidewalks by charging at the rate of ten cents 
 a square foot for the permits. From this source the city derives the insignif- 
 icant revenue of about $9,000 a year. 
 
 Of the classes of citizens who profit pecuniarily by the outdoor advertis- 
 ing business, (a) the city as a municipality may probably be ranked at the 
 bottom as the recipient of the least revenue. Next in order probably come 
 (b) the owners of the property on which the billboards are erected and 
 whose revenue is made at the expense of owners of adjacent improved prop- 
 erty, the value of which is diminished by the billboards. We can only 
 estimate the order in which the three other classes of beneficiaries should 
 be ranked; (c) the industries engaged in the mechanical production of bill- 
 board advertising materials, (d) the billboard advertising concerns, and (e) 
 the merchants whose wares are advertised. Possibly they rank in the order 
 named. 
 
 When legislation has been sought to restrict billboard advertising on cer- 
 tain past occasions, it has been opposed by the printing and posting com- 
 panies upon the ground that it would reduce their business. Whether that 
 would or would not be the case is open to argument, but it indicates one 
 source of opposition to billboard restriction. How extensive those indus- 
 tries are in the United States we have no certain information, but we have 
 an interesting side-light on the subject in a cable dispatch from London to 
 the New York Herald dated December 22, 1912, reading as follows: 
 
 “America now threatens to capture the most important part of 
 this country’s bill-posting industry, which represents an annual 
 expenditure of $15,000,000. Mr. Edward W. Block, the foreign man- 
 ager of the National Printing and Engraving Company of Chicago, 
 who left for the United States aboard the Oceanic, has already ob- 
 tained orders from seventy-four British firms for posters to be 
 ‘designed and printed in America, and next year expects to do better 
 still.” 
 
 There is serious doubt as to whether billboard advertising is as profitable 
 to the merchant advertiser as other forms of advertising. In appendix F 
 of the Tenth Annual Report (1905) of the American Scenic and Historic 
 Preservation Society is given the testimony of firms which spend from 
 $200,000 to $1,000,000 a year on all kinds of advertising, divided in various 
 proportions between outdoor advertising and other mediums, and the range 
 of views there expressed may be indicated by the following quotations from 
 different sources: 
 
 “ Where outdoor work fits in with the kind of article to be adver- 
 tised it is an exceedingly valuable medium.” 
 
 “The results ””—of outdoor advertising—“ were not what were 
 hoped for and the advertising was discontinued.” 
 
 17 
 
“ Outdoor advertising is not profitable compared with other forms 
 unless we want to impress the name of an article on the people’s 
 minds * * *, But newspaper advertising, pamphlets, almanacs, 
 etc., are the basic principles.” 
 
 “We have used a great deal of outdoor advertising and think 
 some of itt has paid. We cannot trace results as closely as you seem 
 to desire.” 
 
 Asked: “ Are you able to trace approximately the proportion of 
 business that comes from outdoor advertising?” another firm an- 
 swered, “ No.” 
 
 “JT am inclined to believe that there is nothing that can take the 
 place of newspapers * * *, We must rely on the newspapers for 
 any great success in advertising. We have practically stopped all out- 
 door advertising in the way of posters, billboards, etc. Perhaps in 
 some new country, or with a new product, it might be profitable, but 
 we doubt it.” 
 
 One reply quoted in the report just mentioned, dated 1905, suggests an 
 interesting relation of the classes of articles advertised as mentioned on 
 page fifteen preceding. A company which spent between $500,000 and 
 $1,000,000 a year on all kinds of advertising, but practically nothing on out- 
 door advertising in the United States and Canada, spent from one-third 
 to one-half in Cuba. After saying that they could trace results only roughly 
 and that “the thing is largely conjectural,’ they add: 
 
 “In Cuba we believe that the outdoor advertising is necessary and 
 very likely the most profitable form of advertising for the reason 
 that so many of the people are illiterate and cannot be reached by 
 books or papers, but do notice picture display posted about the 
 Streets.” 
 
 The foregoing statement from a concern of large experience undoubtedly 
 represents in an extreme case a general principle underlying outdoor adver- 
 tising, namely, that its strongest appeal is to those who—if not actually il- 
 literate in this country—are of the generally unthinking class and who are 
 caught by a bold and glaring appeal to their senses rather than to their in- 
 telligence. If this be true, it may be well considered whether those to whom 
 the majority of the advertisements of the classes before mentioned make the 
 strongest appeal are to be given as much consideration as those who natur- 
 ally revolt against the unrestrained riot of outdoor advertising. On the 
 other hand, it must be recognized that posters and electric advertisements 
 may be artistic, and if so, will appeal to the intelligent. 
 
 One of the greatest causes of criticism of outdoor advertising is inherent 
 in the nature of the business. The object of the billboard is to confront as 
 many eyes as possible, and places where the most people congregate or 
 pass are naturally the most to be desired from the advertising standpoint. 
 This fact is reflected in the scale of prices charged for billboard advertising 
 in different localities. The effect of this fundamental object is naturally 
 to carry the advertisements into every possible vista in the city which com- 
 
 18 
 
mands the view of any considerable number of people. Broadway, the 
 “Great White Way,” is unique in the mass and variety of its illuminating 
 signs, but, amusing and interesting (and beautiful in spots) as Broadway 
 is in the evening, it is anything but a beautiful or dignified street by day in 
 the outdoor advertising district. Nearly every other important street is, in 
 greater or lesser degree, likewise infested with outdoor advertisements, 
 huge, crude, tasteless and disfiguring. The rapid growth of the city leads 
 to all sorts of temporary occupation of vacant lots pending improvement, 
 -and high assessed valuations impel owners to get an income out of their 
 land, if not in one way then in another. These two forces, acting together, 
 lead to the multiplication of billboards and signs in the parts of the city 
 which are not permanently and fully developed, and there are comparatively 
 few important streets in New York that are not more or less in a transition 
 stage. Judge Woodson, in the case of St. Lowis Gunning Advertising Co. 
 vs. St. Louis, before quoted, speaking of a condition which is equally true 
 in New York says: 
 
 “ Speaking generally, plaintiff’s business consists of outdoor adver- 
 tising, displayed at conspicuous points and places by means of pic- 
 tures, signs and letters. The more conspicuous and public the place, 
 the greater is the desire to cover it with that class of advertisements. 
 The privacy of the home, places of public resort, retreats for rest 
 and recreation, seats of learning, and even the sanctity of the church, 
 are as much within the shadow of the structures hereinafter described 
 as are the vacant lots and commanding views along the public thor- 
 oughfares of the City. The walls and roofs of many residences and 
 business houses are not exempt from this intrusion.” 
 
 Every word of the foregoing has its counterpart in this city. The en- 
 vironment of two of the most famous parks in the United States may be 
 cited as instances. Every coign of vantage in the vicinity of Central Park, 
 notably at the northern end of the park, has been seized by the billboard 
 advertising concerns and placarded with enormous advertisements. As it 
 is an ill wind that blows no good, these advertisements may be said, by their 
 contrast with the beauties of the park, to increase the citizen’s feeling of 
 gratitude that he has the park in which to seek refuge. But in the evening 
 the illuminated sign, to some extent, pursues him even there, with its 
 reminder of metropolitan conditions and commercial affairs. 
 
 Riverside Drive, along Riverside Park, is another example of highly 
 objectionable invasion by billboards and painted signs. This invasion is ad- 
 mitted by the advertising men themselves to be the direct result of the re- 
 fusal of one concern to be bound by the agreement of the leading advertisers. 
 The invasion of Riverside Drive by the C. J. Sullivan Company led to the 
 entry into that field of the Van Buren Bill Posting Company with the ulti- 
 mate effect that the latter drove the Sullivan Company out of the field and 
 has superseded it, although it states that it would not have entered the field 
 unless the Sullivan Company had previously done so, and, indeed, would 
 
 19 
 
voluntarily retire today if it could be assured that no other company would 
 occupy the places which it will relinquish. It is apparent, therefore, that 
 voluntary agreements cannot be relied upon, but that the strong arm of the 
 law must be invoked not only to protect the public, but also to deprive the 
 pirate of his present advantage over the public-spirited advertiser. 
 
 It ought to be said, in this connection, that it is undoubtedly the case 
 that merchants of high standing and known public spirit sometimes offend in 
 these matters unknowingly, and are prompt to appreciate and repair their 
 offenses when called to their attention. In a large concern, the details of the 
 operation of the advertising manager may frequently escape the notice of 
 its head. We have no doubt that many firms would respond to a simple 
 request to refrain from disfiguring a given spot. An illustration of this 
 ready acquiescence is afforded by the house of Siegel-Cooper which, a few 
 years ago, upon the request of one of our civic societies, removed a large 
 and disfiguring billboard from the shore of the Hudson River about forty 
 miles north of New York. A like case was that of Mr. John Wanamaker 
 who, at the request of the Fifth Avenue Association, canceled a contract for 
 a big broadside advertisement on a dead wall on that avenue. 
 
 But the spread of outdoor advertising is not due altogether to the enter- 
 prise of the merchant advertiser and the billboard concerns, but is also en- 
 couraged by the private property owner who has no regard for the inter- 
 ests of anything except his own pocket book. Such a case is presented by 
 the Riverside Drive viaduct north of Grant’s tomb. This viaduct passes 
 at a height over low property which in no sense is situated on Riverside 
 Drive; and yet, by building straight up into the air upon his own property, 
 the owner of the low lying parcels may hem in the viaduct with any kind of 
 structure he pleases. Accordingly, at 13lst street and Riverside Drive, we 
 find that one of the leading advertising concerns (The O. J. Gude Company) 
 has erected upon a roof below the level of the viaduct a structure which 
 appears above the parapet of the viaduct and interjects a series of advertise- 
 ments into the beautiful view of the river at that point, seriously marring 
 the appearance of the bridge or viaduct. Many complaints against this 
 structure have reached us. The excuse offered by the advertising concern 
 is that the owner invited the sacrilege, and that if the Gude Company did 
 not commit it, someone else would, and the result might have been even 
 worse. As to the merits of this excuse, each may judge for himself. The 
 owner below the viaduct in no real sense abuts upon the viaduct, and, per- 
 haps, can hardly be expected (in our present rudimentary state of civic 
 pride) to feel or display any spirit of neighborliness toward the owners 
 abutting upon, or the users of the drive which passes over his head. We 
 think that violations of appropriateness and good taste like this ought to be 
 made impossible, rather than depend upon the taste or public spirit of a 
 few individuals. 
 
 In spite of everything, however, we do not advocate the abolition of out- 
 door advertising. Desirable as this would be from some points of view, it 
 
 20 
 
would probably be impossible. Moreover, there is a great scope for improve- 
 ment in the business or art of outdoor advertising, and there are those 
 who believe that this business is capable of artistic development, particularly 
 upon its poster and electric light sides. There have been and are many 
 beautiful posters ; and we are not necessarily doomed to suffer forever from 
 the crude and hideous stuff now turned out by lithographers and accepted 
 by advertisers. A number of beautiful electric signs will be remembered 
 with pleasure by those familiar with Broadway at various periods. 
 Judge Woodson in the St. Louis case already quoted, says: 
 
 “There is but one virtue connected with this entire business, and 
 that is the advertising itself. This is a legitimate and honorable busi- 
 ness, if honorably and legitimately conducted, but every other feature 
 and incident thereto has evil tendencies, and should for that reason be 
 strictly regulated and controlled.” 
 
 2 
 
PART AIL 
 
 ——————___ 
 
 AESTHETICS AND THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Having indicated the extent of the billboard advertising business, we 
 will now take up in detail some of the arguments bearing on the recom- 
 mendations made in Part I. 
 
 Sense of Sight Entitled to Protection. 
 
 Our first three recommendations—for the prohibition of all outdoor 
 advertising in certain places of great natural or artificial beauty, the sup- 
 pression by censorship of vulgar advertisements, and the regulation by 
 censorship on artistic or aesthetic grounds—are dependent upon an amend- 
 ment to the constitution (unless the courts should change their point of view). 
 Those features of outdoor advertising which offend against the safety of 
 life and limb, the public health, and to a certain extent public morals, may 
 be controlled either under existing laws and ordinances or by laws and 
 ordinances which are possible under the existing constitution; but in the 
 present state of conflicting judicial decisions, the control of such advertis- 
 ing on the ground of civic amenities appears to be impracticable without an 
 amendment of the fundamental instrument of government. 
 
 That this should be the case is the more surprising when we consider 
 the large body of laws under the constitution which conserve other phases 
 of life. The law recognizes the sanctity of the human body; life, limb 
 and health are safe-guarded. The law protects a man in the ownership 
 of property; 1t may not be taken from him without just compensation. To 
 a certain extent the law fosters the spiritual welfare of the community, 
 it encourages religion and it punishes certain offenses against morality. 
 The law also goes a long way in ministering to the intellectual happiness of 
 the community, but in this direction it seems to us it has not gone far 
 enough. Of the five human senses, that of sight, the greatest of all, is 
 inadequately protected. The human person is theoretically inviolate so 
 far as the sense of touch is concerned. One man may not lay violent hands 
 upon another, nor inflict pain upon him. Odors which offend the sense of 
 smell may be restrained as nuisances, and unnecessary noises which inter- 
 fere with personal comfort may be suppressed. There are rigid laws 
 against the pollution of food and water by causes which, in addition to af- 
 fecting the health, offend the sense of taste. But the sense of sight, by 
 
 22 
 
which the quickest and most powerful appeal is made to the highest facul- 
 ties, and upon which, more than upon the other four, human happiness 
 "depends, is left largely unprotected. It is upon the broad ground of the right 
 to happiness—“ life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ”—that we base 
 our argument for the regulation of outdoor advertising. The word 
 “aesthetic ” is so little understood that we might wish for a more popular 
 word to express the same group of ideas; but for want of another we do 
 not hesitate to use it to express that form of happiness which comes from 
 the contemplation of the beautiful and lovely in nature and art. 
 
 And it should be emphasized that aesthetic enjoyment is not the ex- 
 clusive privilege of a few rare beings with sublimated natures. People 
 of every class have an aesthetic side. Children who cannot read will in 
 preference wander from a pavement to the grass, and will run from a 
 post to a rosebush. Their elders who lack book culture instinctively pre- 
 fer parks to streets of stone, brick and asphalt, and have a general appre- 
 ciation of the beauty of a noble building, even if they cannot tell the order 
 of its columns or the period of its architecture. 
 
 The greater part of the money spent on education is devoted to the de- 
 velopment of the faculties which minister not so much to the physical 
 well-being as to the intellectual happiness of mankind. We recognize that 
 man does not live by bread alone, and that life is something besides feed- 
 ing, clothing and housing the body. We shorten the hours of labor that 
 man may enjoy himself. We spend millions upon parks, playgrounds, 
 boulevards, beautiful buildings, etc., for his happiness. We make large 
 appropriations of public moneys for the creation of scenic reservations, 
 like the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, the Niagara Falls State Reserva- 
 tion, and the Palisades Inter-State Park; and private funds are given 
 liberally for similar purposes, and largely for the direct “ aesthetic ” happi- 
 ness of the people, although we recognize that indirectly and remotely this 
 happiness contributes to physical well-being also. 
 
 But when, as in the city of New York, the public treasure has been 
 spent to make parts of the city beautiful, and private wealth and civic 
 pride and the instinctive desire for attractive surroundings have led to the 
 building up of sightly properties, we find ourselves in a large measure 
 powerless to protect and conserve the happiness for which these sacrifices 
 have been made. This anomaly would be ridiculous if it were not so 
 gravely serious. 
 
 The Aesthetic Objection. 
 
 In spite of the other bad features connected with outdoor advertising as 
 now conducted, we believe that the most serious objection to the forms of 
 advertising now employed, including both billboards and roof signs, is the 
 aesthetic objection. As Mr. Fosdick’s report well says: 
 
 “Perhaps the strongest argument for their control, however, is 
 based on aesthetic considerations. Not only are billboards ugly in 
 
 23 
 
themselves, but they mar the sightliness of every structure about 
 them, so that real estate values are often affected by their presence. 
 Beauty of environment is an asset of permanent value, and the sur- 
 rounding property cannot be defaced without affecting materially the 
 property in the entire neighborhood. The City of New York annually 
 spends millions of dollars on public buildings, monuments and parks. 
 No public work is attempted without due regard to aesthetic con- 
 siderations, which enter largely into the cost of construction. Millions 
 of dollars are annually expended from private sources for the same 
 purpose. The uncontrolled erection of large and blatant billboards 
 in juxtaposition to these studied architectural effeets is not only an 
 inconsistent public policy but is unquestionably an injury to the gen- 
 eral welfare.” 
 
 It is true that considerable improvement in the quality of outdoor ad- 
 vertising over that of former years is observable. A growing public taste 
 has induced advertisers and agents to improve their advertisements and 
 the manner of the display. More or less permanent structures have been 
 devised and are becoming frequent. Standardization in size of posters 
 and bulletins and their presentation in framed spaces have promoted uni- 
 formity ; but when all is said and done, it remains true that, on the whole, 
 our posters and bulletins are crude and tasteless to a deplorable degree, 
 that the appropriation for private gain of places which, by all standards 
 of fitness, should be immune from such exploitation is frequent and shame- 
 less, that vulgarity and cupidity are the paramount factors in the practical 
 result; in short, that our advertising methods are highly offensive, and, in 
 the absence of stringent regulation, appear likely to remain so for a long 
 period. | 
 
 At some of our hearings it was suggested by several of the gentlemen 
 engaged in the advertising business that the best method of improving the 
 aesthetic situation was through the voluntary cooperation of the advertis- 
 ing concerns and their merchant advertisers. The representatives of the 
 billboard and painted sign concerns pointed out the improvement which 
 they had voluntarily brought about during the last ten years with respect 
 to the structures erected and the “copy” used by them, and also testified 
 to the voluntary censorship which they themselves exercise upon the “ copy ” 
 displayed, giving concrete instances of their refusal to display many adver- 
 tisements which would have been deemed objectionable for various reasons, 
 although not passing the limits of what is commonly termed “ decency,” 
 and which therefore would not have been amenable to the law. We are glad 
 to make due acknowledgment of this display of public spirit on the part of 
 the advertising concerns. We do not, however, agree that such voluntary 
 cooperation is all that is needed. It is true that much can be accomplished 
 by inducing the advertising concerns and the merchant advertisers to im- 
 prove the quality of their copy. Indeed, it may be admitted, and to some 
 extent is admitted by them, that this policy is good advertising. They go 
 further, however, and say that they wish to improve their copy out of public 
 
 24 
 
spirit without regard to the advertising side of the question. But voluntary 
 cooperation does not take care of the pirate or privateer who refuses to be 
 hound by agreements, and for the regulation of the subject on the grounds of 
 good taste we are obliged to seek new constitutional power for new legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 This question of legislative power is so fundamental and is so inter- 
 woven with every phase of this discussion, that it is necessary to glance at 
 the manner in which the courts of various states and of the United States 
 have ruled on the question.* 
 
 Fifth Avenue Stage Coach Case. 
 
 In 1907, the Fifth Avenue Coach Company, running automobile stages 
 on Fifth Avenue, enclosed the seating space on the top of their vehicles 
 with conspicuous signboards advertising certain brands of tobacco. Any 
 signs in such a position would have been offensive, not only to the passen- 
 gers who found themselves framed in by and made a part of huge advertise- 
 ments, but also to the pedestrians and residents of that famous thoroughfare 
 which the moving billboards disfigured; but the character of certain of the 
 designs themselves was also offensive to many people. 
 
 To secure the removal of these signs several of the civic societies secured 
 the cooperation of the corporation counsel’s office in bringing a suit under 
 a municipal ordinance which, as was claimed, prohibited such a display. 
 (See Part XVI, p. 108 below, Manhattan Ordinances, § 41, for ordinance.) 
 The coach company retaliated with a suit to enjoin the city from interfer- 
 ing. In March, 1908, Justice Leventritt, in the Supreme Court (Fifth 
 Avenue Coach Co. v. City of New York, 58 Misc., 401), sustained the city 
 and refused the sutachon and soon Hereafter the objectionable signs 
 were painted out. The decision of the court is so important that we quote 
 the following extracts. The court held that the ordinance was entirely con- 
 stitutional, and continued: 
 
 “ There is not a scintilla of evidence that any common carrier any- 
 where enjoys the privilege of displaying on the outside of its vehicles 
 signs similar to those carried by the plaintiff’s stages or even approach- 
 ing them in similarity. The ordinance is broad and bears equally 
 upon all public and quasi-public corporations. 
 
 “ But the plaintiff maintains that its vehicles are not ‘ advertising 
 trucks, vans or wagons.’ If it were necessary to decide that question 
 I would be inclined to the conclusion that the term “ wagon’ contained 
 in the ordinance embraces the plaintiff’s stages. It has been held that 
 the word ‘wagon’ is a generic term including MEN E: other species of 
 vehicle by whatever name it may be called * * 
 
 “The plaintiff was incorporated to serve the atte as a common 
 caftier tom hires itis: atithorized to use the public streets. for that 
 specific public purpose. The leasing of the exterior of its vehicles 
 for advertising is an unauthorized use of the streets for a private pur- 
 
 *Some of this ground is traversed by the Fosdick report. 
 
 25 
 
pose. Such a special and peculiar use has been condemned even after 
 it has received the stamp of municipal approval * * *. The use 
 of the exterior of the stages is not a stage use; * * * it is not 
 necessary to the performance of any corporate duty.” 
 
 The company set forth the adaptability of the exterior of its automobile 
 coaches for advertising; and asserted that the income received from the 
 advertising company which had the contract for the signs, was $10,000 a 
 year, plus $200 per stage. The court said in this connection: 
 
 “The fact that the plaintiff receives a substantial income from the 
 advertising company is without weight. The court will not approve 
 an unauthorized act merely because it is a source of profit to the 
 wrongdoer.” 
 
 The court said that the colors used—green, dark blue, white, light blue, 
 yellow, drab and various brilliant shades of red—were contrasted so as to 
 attract attention and were not blended so as to produce a harmonious or an 
 artistic effect, and the resulting painting constituted a disfigurement rather 
 than an ornament. After describing the beauty of Fifth Avenue with its 
 churches, residences, clubs and hotels, the court added: 
 
 “Tt is amid such scenes as this that the plaintiff's advertising 
 panorama of brilliant signs moves. It is along this avenue of churches 
 that on Sundays these glaring billboards are driven. It is this scheme 
 of beauty which is sacrified to the demands of modern commercialism. 
 It is along this entrance to parks and along the parks themselves, 
 preserved to attract lovers of nature and of the beautiful, that these 
 unnatural and inartistic moving picture signs are displayed. But out 
 of place, disagreeable and offensive though they are, both to civic 
 pride and aesthetic taste, and although the tendency of equity juris- 
 prudence is to extend the court’s jurisdiction to include this situation, 
 the ultimate fact remains that no authority now exists which will 
 justify the legal conclusion that the plaintiff’s signs constitute a 
 nuisance.” 
 
 Justice Leventritt said that while it is true that the courts had sustained 
 the right of the subway company to rent space for advertising signs and 
 weighing machines in the stations of a part of the subway, that decision was 
 based upon a practically universal custom. He said that the Fifth Avenue 
 Coach Company did not satisfy him by evidence that as such it has an 
 equal right, and added: 
 
 “Tt does not show that the exterior of the elevated cars, the sub- 
 way cars, or the street cars is utilized for the display of advertising 
 signs, but proves the contrary.” 
 
 The Justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First De- 
 partment, affirmed Justice Leventritt, there being some difference among 
 them, however, as to the grounds of their decision (126 App. Div., 657). 
 The New York Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the decision below (194 
 
 26 
 
N. Y., 19), holding in effect (1) that the city had the power to regulate 
 the use of its streets; (2) that it might wholly prohibit their use for other 
 than street purposes; and (3) that the display of advertisements in the 
 street was not a street use. 
 
 The case was then carried to the United States Supreme Court which like- 
 wise sustained the ordinance (221 U. S., 467), holding it to be constitu- 
 tional, and further holding that in permitting the signs of owners to be 
 displayed upon their business vehicles, and miscellaneous advertisements to 
 be displayed upon the elevated railroad structures occupying the streets, 
 while at the same time prohibiting the stage advertisements in question, 
 the ordinances did not deny to citizens the equal protection of the law; but 
 that such discrimination was based upon a legitimate classification. 
 
 Advertisements in Highways a Misdemeanor. 
 
 The same right of control over what is within the boundaries of the 
 public highways is the foundation of the recent amendment to Section 1423 
 of the New York Penal Law, making it a misdemeanor to affix any com- 
 mercial advertisement to any structure within the limits of a public high- 
 way, and permitting any such advertisement to be removed and destroyed 
 by any person (L. 1911, Chap. 316). This is the law under which adver- 
 tisements have been practically eliminated from the rural highways them- 
 selves. (For its text see Part XII.) 
 
 Advertisements in Parks. 
 
 In a Special Term case, Tompkins v. Pallas, 47 Misc., 309, Justice Scott 
 of the Supreme Court held that the defendant, Park Commissioner for 
 Manhattan, had no power to grant to an advertising concern the privilege 
 of renting and displaying advertisements upon a temporary fence around 
 the site of the present Public Library in Bryant Park, pending construction. 
 He pointed out that the general duties of a park commissioner under the 
 city charter were— 
 
 “__to maintain the beauty and utility of all such parks, squares and 
 public places as are situated within his jurisdiction and to execute 
 * %* %* all measures for the improvement thereof for ornamental 
 purposes and for the beneficial uses of the people of the city.” 
 
 And Justice Scott remarked— 
 
 “Tt is too obvious to require demonstration that business adver- 
 tisements painted upon a board fence contribute nothing to the bene- 
 ficial use of the park by the public.” 
 
 Wineburgh Advertising Company Case. 
 
 In a case decided in March, 1909 (People ex rel. Wineburgh Advertis- 
 ing Co. vs. Murphy, 195 N. Y., 126), the Court of Appeals held that the pro- 
 vision contained in section 144 of the Building Code of New York City, 
 
 27 
 
limiting the height of roof or sky signs built upon private property to nine 
 feet, was unconstitutional and void. It held that on its face this particular 
 ordinance “ was not enacted in the interest of the public health, morals or 
 safety, or to conserve public peace, order and general welfare, and the 
 ordinance so far as it relates to sky signs is arbitrary and unauthorized.” 
 The Court supports its construction of this ordinance as an aesthetic one, 
 rather than one laying down a general rule of safety and practical adminis- 
 tration, by some very inconclusive reasoning, but for us the important 
 point of the majority opinion is its assumption that “health,” ‘‘ morals,” 
 “safety,” “peace,” “ order,” and ~* general weliare -sarerthe sole bascsror 
 the exercise of the police or general legislative power of regulation of pri- 
 vate property; that beauty or aesthetic considerations are not included in 
 the terms “ good order” and “ general welfare” and that (to quote a New 
 Jersey dictum cited in the majority opinion with apparent approval) 
 “ aesthetic considerations are a matter of luxury and indulgence rather than 
 of necessity, and it is necessity alone which justifies the exercise of the 
 police power to take private property without compensation,” the Court 
 using the word “take” to mean a restriction upon its use. 
 
 City of Rochester vs. West. | 
 
 This same Court, in the case of City of Rochester vs. West (164 N. 
 Y., 510), had previously upheld as constitutional and valid and not “a ret 
 straint upon the lawful and beneficial use of private property ” an ordinance 
 of the City of Rochester prohibiting the erection of billboards exceeding six 
 feet in height, except with the permission of the Common Council of that 
 city, on the theory that such ordinance related to the “safety” or “ wel- 
 fare”’ of the inhabitants of the city or of persons passing along its streets, 
 the Court saying that “if the defendant’s authority to erect billboards was 
 wholly unlimited as to height and dimensions, they might readily become a 
 constant and continuing danger to the lives and persons of those who 
 should pass along the street in proximity to them.” 
 
 St. Louis Gunning Co. vs. St. Louis. 
 
 Leaving it to the Court of Appeals to harmonize its two decisions, we 
 may call attention to the fact that others than ourselves have had the same 
 difficulty in referring such legislation as section 144 of the New York City 
 Building Code to “aesthetics” rather than to “safety.” In St. Loms Gun- 
 ning Company vs. St. Lows (235 Mo. 99), decided in May, 1911, the Su- 
 preme Court of Missouri, in a long opinion reviewing practically all the 
 recent cases upon the immediate subject, held a municipal ordinance strictly 
 limiting the size of billboards, prohibiting their erection in close proximity 
 to other buildings, or within fifteen feet of the street line, and making cer- 
 tain other requirements, to be not only a constitutional and proper regula- 
 tion of the use of private property, but also a legitimate exercise of the 
 city’s power “to maintain the peace, good government, health and welfare 
 
 28 
 
of the city.” Moreover, Judge Woodson in delivering the opinion of the 
 Court (five other judges concurring and one dissenting), took occasion to 
 criticise the above decision of the New York Court of Appeals in the Wine- 
 burgh case as “ unsound in several particulars.’’ He said (pp. 189-190) : 
 
 “The first criticism I have to offer thereto regards that part which 
 holds, in substance, that the object of the ordinance was not to pro- 
 hibit the erection of any such sign over and above any wall or build- 
 ing, but the thing condemned thereby was ‘the letter, word, model, 
 sign, device or representation in the nature of an advertisement, 
 announcement or direction painted or pasted thereon or attached 
 thereto.’ 
 
 hese letead the ordinance, as Set out by the court, there is:no 
 language contained therein which warrants or supports the construc- 
 tion placed upon it by that Court. And, clearly, the reason which 
 prompted the Municipal Assembly to limit the application of the ordi- 
 nance to house signs, sky signs, etc., was because there is no other 
 class or character of structures attached to the walls of buildings or 
 erected upon the roofs thereof except those which are used for adver- 
 tising purposes. So, while the lawmakers, by using the language 
 contained in that ordinance, technically limited its application to a 
 special class of structures, namely, boards upon which advertisements 
 are painted or pasted, yet in truth and in fact the ordinance is not 
 special and limited in its operation, but it embraces every structure 
 which is erected in the city of the character mentioned, for the very 
 good reason, as before stated, that there are no other such structures 
 erected and used for any other purpose than those named in the 
 ordinance. 
 
 “It is true, the court in the New York case mentions in this con- 
 nection ‘ tanks, towers, chimneys, flag poles, balustrades and finials,’ 
 yet we will presently undertake to point out and show that they have 
 no connection whatever with billboards, house signs or sky signs, and 
 that they do not belong to the same general class of structures to 
 which the latter belong, either in character, durability, strength or 
 safety, and that the same nuisances cannot flow from them that are 
 incident to the former class of structures, when erected upon the 
 ground. But, however that may be, clearly there is nothing contained 
 in the ordinance involved in the case at bar which would warrant this 
 court in holding that the erection of billboards and house signs con- 
 stituted the subject of this legislation simply because they were un- 
 sightly and were used for advertising purposes. Clearly, the ordi- 
 nances in question were enacted to protect the public from injury and 
 to prevent and abate the nuisances which are almost necessary inci- 
 dents thereto as now constructed and maintained.” 
 
 The Newburgh, N. Y., Case. 
 
 The advertising concerns lay great stress on the very recent case of 
 People ex rel. Standard Bill Posting Co. vs. Hastings, 77 Misc., 453. This 
 is a Special Term decision by Justice Tompkins of the Supreme Court, 
 Orange County, N. Y., rendered in August, 1912, and not appealed. It 
 holds invalid an ordinance of the City of Newburgh regulating the construc- 
 tion of closed fences, signs and billboards in that city, on the ground that the 
 
 a 
 
drastic provisions of the ordinance applied equally to cases where such 
 regulations were proper and to cases where they were manifestly unneces- 
 sary and without legislative purpose. In other words, the Court, admitting 
 the right of regulation, held the regulation in question to be unreasonable 
 in character. 
 
 We do not concur in the claims which are sometimes made by the adver- 
 tising concerns that this and the other New York cases show that no limita- 
 tion upon the size of billboards and other advertisements will be valid in 
 New York. On the contrary, we believe that the cases show that such a 
 limitation can be imposed, provided only it is shown to have some relation 
 to the health or safety of citizens or the security of property rights or 
 values. In the Wineburgh case Judges Haight and Willard Bartlett of the 
 Court of Appeals explicitly recognize the validity of a regulation of such 
 structures which shall “limit the size or height thereof within reasonable 
 bounds ;” and the City of Rochester vs. West case upholds a limitation in 
 height unless certain conditions are observed (obtaining a permit from the 
 local authorities). 
 
 But leaving the question of the view to be taken of section 144 of the 
 New York Building Code, or of other particular restrictions on advertising 
 structures, let us return to the more fundamental question of aesthetics as a 
 permissible basis for legislation. 
 
 Rochester vs. Macauley-Fien Co. 
 
 We begin with another New York case, which, like the case of City of 
 Rochester vs. West, above, seems somewhat inconsistent with the Wineburgh 
 case. This, too, is a Rochester case—City of Rochester vs. Macauley-Fien 
 Co., 199 N. Y., 207. In spite of the fact that only a year and a half before, 
 the Court of Appeals had said in effect that purely aesthetic considerations 
 were not a permissible basis for legislative regulation of the use of private 
 property, here, in an opinion by Chase, J., concurred in by the entire court 
 (six out of the seven judges sitting being the same in both cases, and the 
 opinion of the court in both cases being written by the same judge), the 
 validity of an anti-smoke ordinance is upheld by the following argument. 
 Referring to the smoke annoyance, Judge Chase said: 
 
 Injury to Property a Valid Basis for Regulation. 
 
 “It mars the appearance, destroys the cleanliness, and affects the 
 value of the property within the circle upon which such substances 
 from the smoke so fall. * * * The courts of this State have 
 frequently exercised their restraining power against persons so using 
 their property as to unreasonably interfere with the property and 
 personal rights of others.” 
 
 All one can say as to a series of such decisions is that the courts seem 
 to be familiar with the smoke-nuisance, but have not yet gotten a realizing 
 
 30 
 
sense of the billboard nuisance, and do not seem willing to take the views of 
 the local legislature on a legislative subject. 
 
 Bryan vs. City of Chester. 
 
 In the case of Bryan vs. City of Chester (212 Pennsylvania State, 259), 
 decided in 1905, it was held: 
 
 “A municipality has no power to enact an ordinance forbidding 
 citizens to erect billboards on their own property merely because such 
 boards are unsightly or may become a nuisance. A municipality may 
 prohibit the erection of insecure boards within its limits, prevent the 
 exhibition of immoral or indecent advertisements or pictures, and 
 protect the community from any actual nuisances resulting from the 
 use of them, but it can go no further.” 
 
 Varney and Green vs. Williams. 
 
 In the case of Varney and Green vs. Williams (reported in 155 Cal. 318, 
 and in 100 Pac. Rep., 867), decided in 1909, the Supreme Court of Cali- 
 fornia, in holding a regulatory ordinance of the town of East San José in- 
 valid, said: 
 
 “ Bearing in mind that the ordinance does not purport to have 
 any relation to the protection of passersby from injury by reason of 
 unsafe structures, to the diminution of hazard of fire, or to the pre- 
 vention of immoral displays, we find that the one ground upon which 
 the Town Council may be thought to have acted, is that the appear- 
 ance of billboards is, or may be, offensive to the sight of persons of 
 refined taste. That the promotion of aesthetic or artistic considera- 
 tions is a proper object of governmental care will probably not be dis- 
 puted. But so far as we are advised, it has never held that these con- 
 ditions alone will justify as an exercise of the police power, a radical 
 restriction of the right of an owner of property to use his property in 
 an ordinary and beneficial way. Such restriction is, if not a taking, 
 pro tanto, of the property, a damaging thereof for which under section 
 14 of article I of the Constitution, the owner is entitled to compensa- 
 tion. * * * In most or all of the cases dealing with prohibitions 
 of the right to erect or maintain billboards, it is recognized that the 
 legislature may, under the police power, prohibit advertisements of 
 indecent or immoral tendencies, or signs dangerous to the physical 
 safety of the persons or property of the public * * *. We are 
 not here, however, concerned with the extent to which the legislative 
 power may, in the effort to protect the public safety or morals, regu- 
 late the manner of erecting or using billboards. The ordinance in 
 question does not attempt such regulation, but undertakes to abso- 
 lutely forbid the erection or maintenance of any billboard for adver- 
 tising purposes. We have no doubt that this sweeping prohibition 
 was beyond the power of the town trustees.” 
 
 Environment of Parks. 
 Concurrently with these efforts at general restriction upon outdoor ad- 
 vertisements occurred the efforts to protect at least certain exceptional 
 
 31 
 
localities like public parks, where billboards and the like are peculiarly in- 
 appropriate and damaging. But the courts held that these cases presented 
 no such peculiar considerations as would distinguish them from the others 
 or entitle such localities to special immunity. 
 
 Commonwealth vs. Boston Advertising Co. 
 
 The Metropolitan Park Commission of Massachusetts was given by 
 statute the power to “ make reasonable rules and regulations respecting the 
 display of signs, posters and advertisements in or near to and visible from 
 public parks and parkways,”’ and, pursuant to such authority, passed a regu- 
 lation prohibiting the maintenance of business signs so near a parkway as 
 to be plainly visible to the naked eye of persons passing along the parkway. 
 
 But in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Boston Adver- 
 tising Co. (188 Mass., 348), decided in 1905—a test case concerning a sign 
 placed near the Revere Beach Parkway—the Supreme Court of Massa- 
 chusetts declared the regulation “ not reasonable” and contrary to the pro- 
 visions of the constitution in that it took property for a public use without 
 compensation. 
 
 The Court conceded that taxes could be levied for the promotion of pub- 
 lic enjoyment and beauty; but its general point of view toward the right to 
 repress an unsightly business in the neighborhood of a public place ex- 
 
 pressly made for recreation and pleasure is illustrated by the following 
 excerpts: 
 
 “No doubt the principal and controlling object for which public 
 parks and parkways are established is that of pleasure. They are 
 distinctively and chiefly pleasure grounds. So far as they incidentally 
 serve to promote health by affording the means of being in the open 
 air and the sunlight, or of taking healthful exercise, the presence or 
 absence of signs upon neighboring lands is immaterial. 
 
 “We think therefore that the well being of the ordinary person 
 who uses a public park or parkway never can be so far affected by the 
 visibility of signs, posters or advertisements placed on other ground 
 as to injure his health. No doubt their presence there may hide 
 from him fine views, or may turn into a disagreeable ensemble what 
 otherwise would be a pleasing outlook, or the sign or poster or adver- 
 tisement may be itself ugly, or, if not so, may be displeasing because 
 of incongruity. At most, the presence of signs, posters and adver- 
 tisements upon lands or buildings near a public park or parkway is 
 an offense against good taste, and in that way alone detracts from the 
 pleasure only of the frequenters of such places. 
 
 “We agree that the promotion of the pleasure of the people is a 
 public purpose for which public money may be used and taxes laid, 
 even if the pleasure is secured merely by delighting one of the senses. 
 Higginson vs. Nahant, 11 Allen, 530. Hubbard vs. Taunton, 140 
 Mass., 467. Attorney General vs. Williams, 174 Mass., 476, 479, 480. 
 The question here is not of the power of the State to expend money 
 or to lay taxes to promote aesthetic ends, or to regulate the use of 
 property with a view to promote such ends. It is of the right of the 
 
 32 
 
State by such regulations to deprive the owner of property of a 
 natural use of that property without giving compensation for the 
 - resulting loss to the owner. 
 
 “Probably no one would care at present to deny that without 
 compensation ‘ the possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject 
 to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing 
 authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good 
 order and morals of the community.’ Field, J., in Crowley vs. Chris- 
 tensen, 137 U. S., 86, 89. Beyond the purposes named there are 
 many other of a public nature, the promotion of which may involve 
 a taking or damaging of the property of individuals, and as to which 
 there well may be differences of opinion as to whether the State must 
 afford compensation if such loss or damage is inflicted. 
 
 “One of them is the education of youth. Probably all will agree 
 that judged by any fair standard the promotion of education stands 
 upon a higher plane than the promotion of aesthetic culture or enjoy- 
 ment, and would the better justify the imposition of a burden without 
 compensation. But no one would contend that the State could 
 authorize the taking of land for a schoolhouse without providing com- 
 pensation for the owner. Ina very recent case this court, in dealing 
 with a statute requiring street railway companies to transport school 
 children at reduced rates of fare, has held that if it appeared that 
 the enforcement of the act would cause expense which the carrier 
 must bear or put upon other patrons, we should be obliged to hold 
 that there was a taking of property without due process of law. 
 Commonwealth vs. Interstate Consolidated Street Railway, 187 Mass., 
 436. If the police power technically so called will not justify a 
 taking of property without compensation to promote the education of 
 youth, it cannot justify such a taking for the promotion of merely 
 aesthetic purposes. 
 
 “ Therefore, if the rules of the Commission amount to a taking of 
 property, as no compensation is provided, they cannot be held valid. 
 The plain and intended purpose of the rule is to prohibit the use of 
 land near public parks and parkways for advertising. This has come 
 to be an ordinary and remunerative use of lands near largely traveled 
 streets, parkways, public parks, railroads and other places frequented 
 in numbers by the public. It is as natural a use of such lands as is 
 the use of store fronts and show windows for the display of goods 
 kept for sale, or for other modes of advertising. It resembles the 
 placing of advertising pages on each side of the literary portion of 
 a periodical or the placing in street cars or railway stations of adver- 
 tisements disconnected with the business of transportation. All these 
 at present are usual, common and profitable uses of property, of which 
 every one sees daily numerous instances.” 
 
 People of New York vs. Green. 
 
 A similar New York case was that of People vs. Green (reported in 85 
 App. Div., 400, and 83 N. Y. Supp., 460). Here the defendant had been 
 convicted of a misdemeanor in that he had posted advertising bills upon a 
 fence around vacant property in the City of New York, in violation of an 
 ordinance adopted by the Park Board of the city for the protection of 
 parks, parkways, squares and public places. The Appellate Division, First 
 
 33 
 
Department, by a decision of three justices to two, held the conviction in- 
 valid. The majority opinion contains the following (p. 405): 
 
 “The provision of the constitution (supra) that private property 
 shall not be taken for public use without compensation, certainly pro- 
 hibits the legislature from interfering with the use of private prop- 
 erty by its owner unless such use would justify the interference by 
 the State under what is called the police power. But the placing of 
 a fence upon private property upon which is displayed an advertise- » 
 ment, is certainly no more subject to the police power of the State 
 
 _ than would be the placing.upon the property of a shop, house or 
 other structure. The prohibition of such a use of the property does 
 not come within any of the definitions of the police power to which 
 our attention has been called. While the legislature might prohibit 
 such a structure as would expose those using the parks or streets to 
 danger, or to prevent the exhibits of immoral advertisements or pic- 
 tures, or the use of property in a way that would endanger the health 
 of the community, it has no power to prevent the owners of private 
 property adjacent to a public park from using their property to adver- 
 tise what they or others have to sell so long as the public health or 
 welfare is not affected; and being without power to prohibit, they 
 are without power to require the consent of any public officer before 
 the property can be used for that purpose. If this ordinance were 
 enforced, no owner of a house could place upon it a notice that it was 
 for rent or for sale, without the consent of the Park Board. No 
 person keeping a shop upon any street adjacent to the park could place 
 his name upon the front of a building, or an advertisement of the 
 business that he carried on, without the consent of the Department. 
 It seems to me that this is an attempt to appropriate private property 
 for public use without compensation and without due process of law, 
 and prohibited by section 6 of article I of the Constitution.” 
 
 It should be noted that this particular ordinance was not limited to the 
 objectionable forms of outdoor advertising, but included, the Court says, 
 ordinary shop signs and the usual rental and sale notices, without distinc- 
 tion; but it must be admitted that this probably made no real difference in 
 the decision. | 
 
 Welch vs, Swasey. 
 
 In 1907 came the leading case of Welch vs. Swasey (193 Mass., 364). 
 This case upheld the right of the Massachusetts legislature to divide the 
 city of Boston into two zones or districts and prescribe different limitations 
 upon the height of buildings in the respective districts, without compensa- 
 tion to the private land owners. One paragraph of the headnote sum- 
 marizing the decision reads as follows: 
 
 “ Semble, that, although the legislature have no power to restrict 
 the uses of private property for purely aesthetic purposes, yet when 
 they have determined that the public health or the public safety 
 requires the limitation of the height of buildings in a city, in exer- 
 cising the police power for such lawful purposes, they also may con- 
 sider questions of taste and beauty.”’ 
 
 34 
 
In the course of the opinion, the Court remarked (p. 375): 
 
 “ The inhabitants of a city or town cannot be compelled to give up 
 rights in property or to pay taxes for purely aesthetic objects, but 
 if the primary and substantive purpose of the legislation is such as 
 justifies the act, considerations of taste and beauty may enter in as 
 auxiliary.” 
 
 The above case was carried to the United States Supreme Court and 
 the decision was affirmed (214 U. S., 91). 
 
 Cochran vs. Preston. 
 
 In 1908, the following year, the Maryland Court of Appeals went some- 
 what further (Cochran v. Preston, 108 Md., 220; also reported in 70 At- 
 lantic Rep., 113). The case arose over the validity of a legislative enact- 
 ment providing that no building to exceed seventy feet high, except a 
 church, might be erected in a designated portion of the city of Baltimore, in 
 the center of which stands the Washington Monument. Counsel for the 
 appellant argued that the motive behind the act of the legislature was purely 
 aesthetic and that the police power does not justify a taking of private 
 property without compensation to promote a purely aesthetic purpose. He 
 referred to the statement in Tiedeman (State and Federal Control of Per- 
 sons and Property), which says: 
 
 ‘“ Regulations which are designed only to enforce upon the people 
 the legislative conception of artistic beauty and symmetry will not 
 
 be sustained, however much such regulations may be needed for the 
 artistic education of the people.” 
 
 To which the Court made this reply: 
 
 “Such is undoubtedly the weight of authority, though it may be 
 that in the development of a higher civilization the culture and refine- 
 ment of the people has reached the point where the educational value 
 of the fine arts, as expressed and embodied in architectural symmetry 
 and harmony, is so well recognized as to give sanction under some 
 circumstances to the exercise of this (police) power even for such 
 Durposes@r there. 
 
 The actual decision was in effect that the object of the Act is not merely 
 to preserve the architectural beauty of the locality, but also to avoid the 
 increased danger from fire which arises from tall buildings in the event of 
 a general conflagration, and since the object of the Act is to promote the 
 public welfare, and the means prescribed are appropriate thereto, the 
 statute is valid and is not a denial of the equal protection of the law. 
 
 Beauty a Beneficial Use. 
 
 But notwithstanding these decisions so adverse to the protection of. 
 aesthetics in civic life, there is much to encourage the belief that they repre- 
 sent, in a period of changing public sentiment and growing social con- 
 
 35 
 
sciousness, ultra-conservative views which will eventually give way to the 
 recognition of aesthetics, and that the present unsettled and inconsistent 
 state of affairs will settle down and crystallize around the idea that beauty, 
 and the happiness which it gives, are as legitimate objects of recognition 
 in the law as more material things. 
 
 The remarkable strides which we have made in this direction may. be 
 appreciated when it is remembered that it was only thirty years ago that 
 the creation of the State Reservation at Niagara Falls established the re- 
 markable precedent of the appropriation of public moneys for the creation 
 of a public reservation for purely aesthetic reasons. The State Reserva- 
 tion at Niagara Falls was not created for any physical benefit whatever. It 
 had not the justification of a city park that it was to promote public health. 
 It was created solely for the purpose of giving to the people the fullest and 
 freest enjoyment of the beauty of that spectacle. This was the first in- 
 stance in this country, so far as we know, of the actual appropriation of 
 public money for the purchase by condemnation of private property for 
 purely aesthetic purposes. There were a few federal reservations of 
 scenic beauty like the Yellowstone National Park, but they were reserva- 
 tions of public lands already owned by the government. They were not 
 bought like the so-called “ reservation” at Niagara Falls. The creation of 
 the Niagara reservation established a precedent of extraordinary signifi- 
 cance, and has frequently been followed during the past quarter of a 
 century. 
 
 We do not cite this as a precedent for billboard regulation, but as an il- 
 lustration of the progress made towards the recognition of aesthetics in 
 civic matters. The people whose property was taken for the Niagara Park 
 were compensated for it; and the only objection of the courts to the pro- 
 hibition of billboards on private property is that the exhibition of bill- 
 board advertisements is a property right which, they hold, cannot be taken 
 without compensation. But we believe that the time will soon come when 
 the maxim that a person may not use his property so as to injure another 
 will be extended to billboard regulation, and that the constitution and 
 statutes will eventually give ample warrant for restraining, without com- 
 pensation, a neighbor from marring a beautiful scene. 
 
 Cascade Town Company Case in Colorado. 
 
 In the case of the Cascade Town Co. vs. Empire Water and Power Co., 
 181 Fed. Rep., 1011, District Judge Robert E. Lewis rendered a notable deci- 
 sion bearing on this subject in the United States Circuit Court, District of 
 Colorado, in October, 1910. The case turned on the question whether the 
 Cascade Town Company, which had developed a beautiful summer resort 
 around the waterfalls at Cascade, had legally “appropriated” the water 
 according to the constitution and laws of Colorado, under which the first 
 appropriater obtains a right to the water to the exclusion of others. The 
 defendant, who owned property farther upstream, wished to divert the water 
 
 36 
 
from the river and from the waterfall of the complainant for the generation 
 of electrical power, and claimed that, although such diversion would have the 
 effect of ruining the complainant’s summer resort, the location of which was 
 wholly on account of the beauty and character of the place, which, in 
 turn, depended wholly upon the river and waterfall, an appropriation for a 
 purely commercial purpose was the only appropriation the law would recog- 
 nize. The complainant, on the other hand, claimed that an appropriation 
 for any beneficial use sufficed, and that an appropriation for beauty and 
 pleasure was a beneficial use quite as much as an appropriation for commer- 
 cial profit, and the court approved this view. 
 
 Judge Lewis quotes freely from the complainant’s argument as express- 
 ing his view; among such excerpts are the following: 
 
 “Is it no benefit to the public to spend money in making a beau- 
 tiful place in nature visible and enjoyable? * * * It is a benefit 
 to the weary, ailing and feeble that they can have the wild beauties of 
 nature placed at their convenient disposal. Is a piece of canvass 
 valuable only for a tent-fly, but worthless as a painting? Is a block 
 of stone beneficially used when put into the walls of a dam, and not 
 beneficially used when carved into a piece of statuary? Is the test 
 dollars, or has beauty of scenery, rest, recreation, health, enjoyment, 
 something to do with it? * * * When the defendant company 
 says the complainants are putting the fall of the water to no beneficial 
 use, it means that the complainants are not ruining the beautiful 
 scenery for cash.” 
 
 Matter of Wilshire. 
 
 The completest recognition of aesthetics in the case of billboards thus 
 far occurs in the case of Matter of Wilshire (103 Fed. Rep. 620). This 
 opinion goes further even than that of Judge Woodson in the St. Louis 
 case, elsewhere quoted. Here Judge Ross of the United States Circuit 
 Court for the Southern District of California, in an opinion delivered in 
 
 1900, said: 
 
 “The views in and about a city, if beautiful and unobstructed, 
 constitute one of its chief attractions, and in that way add to the com- 
 fort and well being of its people. Billboards for advertising purposes 
 erected to any great height would undoubtedly be subject to all of 
 these as well as other objections, and such structures are therefore 
 plainly within the regulating power of the governing body of the city.” 
 
 Inconsistencies of the Courts. 
 
 From the cases which we have cited, it is apparent that the constitu- 
 tional theory adopted by some of the courts leads to certain inconsistencies 
 and absurdities. 
 
 Although a city may spend large sums of money, raised by taxation, to 
 beautify the buildings which it erects, to create plazas and open spaces, 
 parks and beauty spots, with the result of incidentally benefiting the own- 
 
 37 
 
ers of private property in the neighborhood, especially the property abutting 
 upon the open spaces, it may not protect the beauty thus created or prevent 
 those same owners from so using their property as seriously to despoil that 
 beauty, and even appropriate it to their own private advantage. 
 
 The courts say to the cities and the state, “The Constitution permits you 
 to spend money for beauty, but the Constitution does not permit you to 
 prohibit ugliness, no matter how offensive. The Constitution permits you 
 to levy taxes to promote beauty, but the Constitution does not permit you 
 to avoid the necessity of those taxes by preventing the very things you 
 spend your money to wipe out.” What should we think of the courts if 
 they said to the cities and the state, ‘‘ The Constitution permits you to levy 
 taxes and spend money to erect hospitals and dispensaries, but it does not 
 permit you to prohibit the unsanitary acts which would otherwise make 
 those hospitals and dispensaries unnecessary ?” 
 
 The recent report of Prof. Paul H. Hanus on the School System of 
 New York City contains the following: 
 
 “ Public education should train efficient citizens—men and women 
 who recognize and appreciate the common interests of our democratic 
 society and are able to promote their progressive development. These 
 interests are Spiritual (intellectual, moral, aesthetic) hygienic, eco- 
 nomic, Civic.’ 
 
 Yet, although a city should and does spend money to educate the chil- 
 dren in its public schools to appreciate beautiful things, and makes an 
 effort in its instruction to improve their taste, it may not prohibit the setting 
 up before their eyes of outrageous violations of those same laws of taste, 
 thus more than negativing the instruction given. 
 
 Although a city may spend large sums of money for museums of art 
 and the exhibition of things of beauty, it may not impose upon its citizens 
 any obligation whatever to observe even the fundamental canons of good 
 taste. In other words, a city may spend millions for art in a glass case, 
 but cannot protect itself against the most flagrant violations of art in its 
 daily life. 
 
 Although the law protects the citizen against nuisances which afflict his 
 nose and ear, for no person is free to create stenches or make unnecessary 
 clamor in the street, yet anyone may afflict the eyes of the citizen with what- 
 ever visible offense he will. In other words, say the courts, beauty is a 
 public purpose and legitimate basis of expenditure, but is not a public pur- 
 pose and legitimate basis of regulation. 
 
 Did the courts admit that aesthetic considerations were as legitimate a 
 basis for social regulations as are sanitary considerations, and that the only 
 question before them was the reasonableness of the particular regulation 
 brought before them (which in our opinion is the correct legal view), the 
 community would find itself confronted only with the task of creating suit- 
 able regulations, and then of demonstrating to the sometimes somewhat 
 
 38 
 
backward courts that such regulations, though perhaps imperfect in detail, 
 were framed with at least a reasonable legislative purpose. This would 
 leave to be taken care of only that disposition on the part of some courts 
 to set up their notions of what is or is not desirable against those of the 
 department of government which is charged by the constitution’ with that 
 function—the legislature. 
 
 The Cause Hy These Inconsistencies. 
 
 It seems to us that these inconsistencies in which the courts ena -them- 
 selves arise in part from the failure of the courts to recognize the funda- 
 mental element in the offense complained of, and in confusing ‘a ial 
 right of property with that which is not such a right. ae 
 
 The whole aesthetic objection to what is called the “billboard nuisance’ 
 is due to the fact that the billboard is designed solely and entirely for the 
 purpose of projecting its advertisement out into space beyond the boun- 
 daries of the property upon which it is erected. If a property owner erected 
 a high board fence around his property and placed advertisements on the 
 inside facings, instead of the outside, nobody could: complain of ‘his adver- 
 tisements ; but, of course, billboards are not erected on that principle. They 
 face outward for the purpose of, utilizing the spaces—the property-which 
 belong to others. If a man, A, desiring to advertise his wares, projected 
 his advertisement by means of a stereopticon upon the blank wall of.a build- 
 ing belonging to B, he would be using B’s property. If, without ‘the inter- 
 position of a lens, A faces’ his billboards outward and projects his adver- 
 tisements into spaces not owned by himself upon the retinas of other people 
 without their consent, he would seem to be using the property and persons 
 of others without compensation, and his act, if offensive, is one to be re- 
 strained rather than encouraged by the courts. In other words, the courts 
 have put the cart before the horse, and by holding that the regulation of 
 billboards is a taking of-private property without compensation, instead of 
 holding that the billboard advertiser is taking other people’s property with- 
 out compensation, when he erects an incongruous billboard and injures a 
 neighborhood, or is appropriating public property to his private use, or is 
 invading the personal rights of others, they have fallen into the inconsis- 
 tencies upon this subject to which we have drawn attention. 
 
 Constitutional Amendment to Simplify Complicated Questions. 
 
 This subject is complicated by the difficulty of separating aesthetic con- 
 siderations from those of sanitation and safety,:and the present necessity to 
 avoid considerations of appearance except as incidental to other considera- 
 tions must so circumscribe ‘the exercise of legislative power (state and 
 local) that reasonable regulation, desirable both from the public and private 
 points of view, becomes quite difficult. On the other hand, were a com- 
 munity free to legislate concurrently and frankly, in part upon aesthetic 
 considerations and in part upon considerations’ of health or safety, more 
 
 39 
 
satisfactory regulation all around might well result. A good example of 
 the difficulty is the existing Section 144 of the Building Code of New York 
 City, already referred to, which the Court of Appeals holds to be unconstitu- 
 tional so far as it limits the height of roof signs, on the theory that it is 
 based upon purely aesthetic considerations. Obviously, the hmiutation of 
 the size of signs has direct relation to wind hazard and to some extent to 
 fire hazard, including obstruction of firemen at work upon the roofs of build-° 
 ings; also in some instances to light and air—the latter an important con- 
 sideration in any crowded city; and also conceivably to the wind currents 
 in our canyon-like streets, especially in the vicinity of tall buildings. Must 
 these considerations be worked out in legislation with scientific nicety? 
 Would not an effort to do so, and to make what is permissible in any given 
 case to depend upon the presence and the degree of these dangers in that 
 particular case, result in allowing and denying rights of advertisement upon 
 standards wholly impossible and unjust to apply, and also changing from 
 year to year? Why not have a simple rule easy to apply to all? Moreover, 
 why may not certain structures which are not of importance save to the 
 owner of the property on which they stand, or to a merchant or manufacturer 
 a thousand miles distant, be discouraged because of their undesirable results, 
 although such undesirable results would be tolerated if flowing from highly 
 useful structures like residences or school houses? Why, in such a matter, 
 is not the legislative power supreme, and why may it not discriminate be- 
 tween the comparative utility of structures, and on this basis foster some 
 while repressing others, even though the same undesirable by-product be 
 created in both cases? Why are not such considerations considerations of 
 health and safety? What right of real importance is served or protected 
 by the present theory of the Court of Appeals? 
 
 We believe the courts have overlooked two fundamental principles in 
 arriving at their conclusions: 
 
 (1) Any matter may constitutionally be made the basis of regulative 
 and repressive legislation which is sufficiently a public purpose to permit 
 taxes to be levied to promote it. The only constitutional question would 
 then be as to the reasonableness of the regulation; and if there is any 
 reasonable legislative basis for the regulation, the courts cannot refuse to 
 recognize its validity. 
 
 (2) Anything may constitutionally be prohibited, if the legislature so 
 desires, which, if indulged in by every land owner at the same time, would 
 be an intolerable nuisance or result in depreciating the value of private 
 property generally in a given area. And this principle includes things so un- 
 sightly that, were they to become permanent or general, they would seri- 
 ously impair real estate values in their neighborhood. 
 
 It seems to this Commission that the matter of outdoor advertising is 
 simply one of many municipal and public matters demanding regulation in 
 greater or lesser degree from the point of view of aesthetics and municipal 
 beauty, and that the present helplessness of legislative bodies (state and 
 
 40 
 
local) leads and must increasingly lead to public injury and private in- 
 equality. European communities exercise this power of regulation with 
 highly beneficial, rather than undesirable, effect upon the private owner, 
 and indeed upon the entire community, on the whole and in the long run. 
 We are the only civilized country in the world to deny our legislatures the 
 power to control these matters on aesthetic grounds. The American sys- 
 tem of permitting the private owner to assert his private rights to the 
 detriment of the general public has resulted, and must result, in direct 
 injury to neighboring property and the community at large. The modern 
 trend of population into cities demands a wider and freer application of 
 the common law doctrine of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use 
 your own property as not to injure that of another). Indeed this time-hon- 
 ored maxim should be interpreted in a still more modern and social way 
 to mean that the state may compel owners to so use their property that not 
 only will such use not injure their neighbors, but may be made to benefit 
 themselves and their neighbors, provided all are under the same compul- 
 sion for the common good of all. Accordingly, instead of recommending a 
 constitutional amendment which, like the Ohio amendment recently sub- 
 mitted to the people of that State and defeated upon a close vote in Septem- 
 ber, 1912, and which would have granted to the Ohio legislature special 
 power to regulate outdoor advertising alone, we recommend that there be 
 embodied in the New York Constitution a general power recognizing 
 beauty as a matter of public concern and a proper basis for jegislation, 
 state and local (See Part XV.) 
 
 Censorship. 
 
 Obviously, without constitutional amendment explicitly making beauty 
 a legitimate basis of regulation, no direct censorship on purely aesthetic 
 grounds is possible, and there is little hope for any more discriminating 
 censorship than is now exercised by the police courts through the penaliz- 
 ing of what is flagrantly indecent. Yet in this connection it is interesting 
 to note that § 500 of the present General Ordinances of the city prohibits 
 the exhibition of what is “ vulgar” as well as what is “indecent.” (See 
 Part XVI for the text.) 
 
 Some persons regard all attempts at censorship of anything as finical 
 and meddlesome. They do not realize that such a form of censorship as 
 is here proposed is merely a method of securing intelligence, honesty or 
 taste in the place of what would otherwise be stupid, fraudulent or 
 ugly, and still accomplishing the same or a better result. They do 
 not know with what success censorship is applied abroad to many pri- 
 vate matters which also concern the public. They do not realize that the 
 visitorial powers contained in the National Banking Act and the State Insur- 
 ance Law, or the provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act, or the Public 
 Service Commissions Law, and countless other similar devices of the mod- 
 ern state to protect its citizens, are merely varying methods of applying a 
 
 41 
 
censorship. One may disapprove of censorship in literary, dramatic and 
 other matters where what is objectionable is largely within the choice of the 
 individual, and yet not abandon the citizen to what is thrust upon him 
 whether he will or no, as in the case of outdoor advertising. 
 
 Censorship may be intelligent and fairly liberal; it need not be hyper- 
 aesthetic. But even should some injustice result therefrom to a few designs, 
 the general situation would be vastly improved. 
 
 It would be premature at this time to suggest details for a censorship 
 intended to prove satisfactory both to the public and the advertiser. 
 
 ! 
 An Indirect Method Open, However, to Reach the Same Result. 
 
 But to some extent there would seem to be an indirect method to ac- 
 complish much in New York City toward reaching the same result we 
 might reach were direct regulation on aesthetic grounds permissible. 
 
 Both the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division of the Supreme 
 Court have definitely and repeatedly held that the streets of New York 
 City are held by the City in trust for street purposes; that the City may 
 grant rights in the streets for other than street purposes which do not im- 
 pair the public easement or use for street purposes; and that, conversely, it 
 may also refrain from granting rights therein that are not for street pur- 
 poses. They also hold that while encroachments upon the streets by 
 abutting owners may be permitted (by revocable license only) the city may 
 grant or withhold the favor as it pleases. 
 
 Ackerman vs. True, 175 N. Y., 353; 
 
 Fifth Avenue Coach Co. vs. City of New York, 194 N. Y., 19; 
 City of New York vs. Rice, 198 N. Y., 124; 
 
 M aoe vs. Klaw and Erlanger Construction Co., 107 App. Div., 
 Williams vs. Silverman Realty & Construction Co., 111 App. Div., 
 
 There are few streets in New York where encroachments upon the 
 street do not exist under this power of révocable license, in the form of 
 projecting steps, cornices, ornamental columns, shop windows, marquises, 
 balconies, areas, vaults, etc. As the City may withhold this privilege it 
 may attach conditions to its grant, and we accordingly recommend that no 
 such privilege be granted to any abutting private premises, unless such 
 premises respect the regulations imposed upon such advertising structures 
 as may be erected thereon. 
 
 The regulations we recommend in this report (except so far as they 
 relate to the prohibition of advertising structures in park neighborhoods, 
 etc.), are not based upon aesthetic considerations. Nevertheless it is “our 
 idea that such a condition attached to the occupancy of the streets will give 
 an additional legal ground for supporting the restrictions we recommend, 
 and create a satisfactory legal ground where, under the existing decisions, 
 none would otherwise exist. Few owners we assume, are likely to sur- 
 
 42 
 
render lightly their present privilege of extending to some degree beyond 
 the building line. (See Parts V and XIII.) 
 
 There are two recent and notable cases which turn upon the principle 
 that where rights may be withheld, they may be granted subject to conditions. 
 
 One is the case of People vs. Rosenheimer, 209 N. Y., 115, and in- 
 volved the provision of the Callan motor vehicle law which makes it a 
 ielony for anyone operating a motor vehicle that injures any person or 
 property to depart without giving his name and address to the person in- 
 jured or to the police. The defendant argued that this law was uncon- 
 stitutional in that it compelled persons to give evidence against themselves 
 in cases where the injury was the result of a criminal act or neglect. The 
 New York Court of Appeals, however, without passing upon that question, 
 held that inasmuch as the legislature had the power to prohibit motor 
 
 vehicles altogether, it might permit their use only upon condition that the 
 "user waive his constitutional right, if he had any. 
 
 The other case is Lewis Publishing Co. vs. Morgan, 229 U. S., 288. 
 Here the United States Supreme Court upheld the recent provision in the 
 post-office appropriations law which requires newspapers and magazines to 
 file and publish the names of their owners editors, stockholders, bond- 
 holders, etc., in order to obtain the low pound-rates for second class mail 
 matter. As Congress was not bound to give special rates to the publishers, 
 it was held that it could attach conditions to the privilege. 
 
 The New York Legislature Recognies Beauty as a Public Purpose. 
 
 Whether the New York courts will hereafter recognize aesthetic con- 
 siderations as a legitimate basis for legislative regulation in view of a recent 
 legislative declaration, that beauty is in the same category with sanitation, 
 good order, public welfare and the like, remains to be seen. The recent 
 Municipal Empowering Act (L. 1913, chap. 247), amending the General 
 City Law, after referring to a long list of specific municipal powers and 
 purposes, adds: 
 
 Ҥ 21. Public or Municipal Purpose and General Welfare De- 
 fined. The terms ‘ public or municipal purpose,’ and ‘ general wel- 
 fare,’ as used in this article, shall each include the promotion of 
 education, art, beauty, charity, amusement, recreation, health, safety, 
 comfort and convenience, and all of the purposes enumerated in the 
 last preceding section.” 
 
 43 
 
PART IV. 
 
 PUBLIC HEALTH AND MORALITY. 
 
 Until a constitutional amendment such as we have suggested can be 
 adopted, or until the expression of less reactionary views by the Court of 
 Appeals, what can be done? Unwise, not to say absurd and indefensible, 
 as the existing theory of the Court appears to many, we must accept it as 
 the existing law. And the remainder of this report will be devoted to sug- 
 gestions as to what power exists and what is procurable (without constitu- 
 tional amendment), to deal with existing abuses. Accordingly, whatever 
 legislation is recommended in this report is based upon other than purely 
 aesthetic considerations. It is, indeed, supposed that legislation along the 
 lines here recommended will have the incidental effect of improving the 
 aesthetic situation; but the primary ground of such legislation is to be 
 found in such recognized fields of the police power as the elimination of 
 hazard to life and limb, the promotion of health, etc., and in the exercise 
 of the taxing power. 
 
 Health, Decency and Morality. 
 
 Qur fourth recommendation in Part I is designed to prevent the ac- 
 cumulation of filth and rubbish, the existence of unsanitary conditions and 
 
 the commission of offences against decency and morality in connection 
 with billboards. 
 
 Judge Woodson, in the St. Louis case before quoted, says: 
 
 “The signboards upon which this class of advertisements are dis- 
 played are constant menaces to the public safety and welfare of the 
 city; they endanger the public health, promote immorality, constitute 
 hiding places and retreats for criminals and all classes of miscreants. 
 They are also inartistic and unsightly * * *. The evidence shows 
 and common observation teaches us that the ground in the rear thereof 
 is being constantly used as privies and the dumping ground for all 
 kinds of waste and deleterious matters, and thereby creating public 
 nuisances and jeopardizing public health; the evidence also shows 
 that behind these obstructions the lowest form of prostitution and 
 other acts of immorality are frequently carried on, almost under 
 public gaze; they offer shelter and concealment for the criminal while 
 lying in wait for his victim; and last but not least, they obstruct the 
 light, sunshine and air which are so conductive to health and com- 
 tort « 
 
 44 
 
Mr. Fosdick’s report confirms the existence of like conditions in this 
 city. Extracts from reports made to him concerning various billboards tell 
 of tin-cans, stones, wood, dead dogs, paper rubbish, garbage, and all sorts 
 of cast-off materials at the base of and behind such structures. ‘‘ The 
 space in the rear of the sign is used for a public toilet,” was the statement 
 ef many reports. “ The odor emanating from the spot is nauseating,” and 
 The odor is sickening” are specimen characterizations of conditions. 
 
 Oftentimes billboards around vacant lots in residential sections are used 
 to conceal stables used for the horses of contractors which add their con- 
 tribution of filth and nauseating odors to those of the other accumulations 
 above mentioned. 
 
 It is also a matter of common observation that these enclosures pro- 
 mote the breeding of disease-bearing insects, and houses near neglected 
 lots are infested with flies and mosquitoes which modern science has shown 
 to be the active vehicles for the communication of yellow fever, typhoid 
 fever, malarial and intestinal diseases, etc. 
 
 It may be admitted that much of the nuisance—the word is used in 
 its extreme or legal sense—thus created is incidental to any similar fence 
 or structure regardless of its use for advertisements. On the other hand, 
 many of these structures would not in fact exist were they not erected as 
 advertising mediums. And the billboard frequently adds to the paper 
 litter which does not accompany either a mere fence or a painted “ bulletin.” 
 
 Ample legal power to deal with unsanitary conditions already resides in 
 the Board of Health of the City, composed of the Commissioner of Health, 
 the Police Commissioner and the Health Officer of the Port. The problem 
 is merely one of administration and the exercise of the powers already in 
 existence. 
 
 Chapter XIX (section 1167 et seq.) of the New York City Charter, 
 places in the Board of Health the power to regulate matters of sanitation 
 and health. Power to amend the Sanitary Code is granted to the Board 
 of Health by section 1172. It would seem that the Board of Aldermen, by 
 ordinance, may also enact sanitary regulations. (Charter, section 43.) Wil- 
 ful omission or refusal to abate a nuisance, when ordered by the Board of 
 Health, is made a misdemeanor by section 1287. Section 116 of the Sani- 
 tary Code requires “ every owner, lessee, contractor or other person having 
 the management and control of any lot or parcel of land in the City of 
 New York to keep and preserve the same at all times clean, inoffensive,” 
 etc., and also provides that “no person shall throw or deposit in or upon any 
 lot any garbage, refuse or other offensive material.’ Other sections relate 
 to dead animals and other nuisances. Were these regulations enforced 
 much of the existing cause of complaint against billboards on sanitary 
 grounds would disappear. If these existing provisions are not broad 
 enough or specific enough to compel lot-owners to keep their lots tidy, the 
 Board of Health may add to the Code further provisions to cover the omis- 
 sion. So may the Board of Aldermen supplement existing regulations. 
 
 45 
 
Much can be done to improve existing conditions by purely administra- 
 tive action, with no change in the law. Some improvement in the Sanitary 
 Code is possible, however, by amendment either by the Board of Health or 
 by ordinance of the Board of Aldermen, such as we recommend. 
 
 An increased neighborhood spirit and activity would also greatly help. 
 Offensive conditions may be both reported and followed up. Enterprising 
 officials welcome the co-operation of citizens and dilatory officials may be 
 stimulated by them. Moreover, the fostering of better neighborhood stand- 
 ards would reduce the need for official action. 
 
 Electric Signs and Health. 
 
 Roof signs, of whatever character, are obviously free from the objec- 
 tions just referred to. But the electrical sign, whether on the roof or above 
 the sidewalk, sometimes interferes with rest and repose by reason of its in- 
 tense light, especially if it be an intermittent or “ cut-off ”’ sign. 
 
 It is possible that acting under section 92 of the Sanitary Code, or in 
 ihe exercise of its general powers, the Board of Health could stop the more 
 flagrant cases of this last annoyance without change of the existing law, 
 and merely by administrative action, were complaint made; but we have 
 grave doubt whether the Sanitary Code in its present form covers cases 
 of serious and genuine annoyance not extreme enough to be clearly and 
 demonstrably “ detrimental to the health ” of specific individuals. The less 
 extreme cases may, however, in our opinion, be prevented or mitigated by 
 general regulations. The question is one of degree, and what may be per- 
 mitted in one section of the city for the whole of the night, may be re- 
 stricted in duration elsewhere or’ prohibited altogether. 
 
 In order to make as flexible a system as possible, and not to prohibit 
 electrical signs where no one is in fact injured, we would leave the en- 
 forcement of the prohibition very largely to the parties claiming injury. 
 We recommend the adoption of an amendment to the Sanitary Code by the 
 Board of Health, which is intended to have the effect of prohibiting brilliant 
 or flashing signs in residential districts, and of limiting the hours of display 
 in the neighborhood of hotels and elsewhere where rest and repose are in 
 fact interfered with. (Recommendation 5, Part I. See also Part XIII.) 
 
 46 
 
PART V. 
 
 PUBLIC  SAPETY. 
 
 Our 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th recommendations in Part I deal 
 with questions of public safety. 
 
 The Wind Hazard. 
 
 Owing to the enormous disproportion between the superficial area and 
 the solid mass of billboards and roof-signs, they endanger the public safety 
 by their liability to be blown down and to injure people in their fall. 
 
 The extent of the wind hazard is not determinate. In the precautionary 
 measures adopted in construction work the stress to be expected is a variable 
 quantity dependent largely upon the individual judgment of the designer. 
 The customary practice of such engineers may vary from an assumption 
 of an extreme pressure of wind due to storm force, or 25 lbs. per square 
 foot, to that of a severe hurricane, or 40 lbs. per square foot, a difference 
 of 60 per cent. in estimation of strains. Very cautious designers may use a 
 figure as high as 50 lbs. per square foot, a pressure which has actually been 
 observed on exceptional occasions. But it is to be noted that even this 
 great velocity has been known to be exceeded in gusts of wind, and thus 
 structures such as signs, naturally constructed with a view to economy in 
 cost, are liable, from their exposed positions, to sudden stresses which they 
 ~are by no means capable of withstanding. There are also strains of unknown 
 extent in the action of wind on plane surfaces, especially where located on 
 high places such as roofs, in which a reversal of strain may sometimes take 
 place, and the construction may receive a twisting action of destructive 
 nature. ‘The occurrence of such conditions is indeterminate, but is a con- 
 stant liability. It increases with the height at which the structure is placed. 
 The increased velocity of wind corresponding to height has been observed 
 and reduced to a formula by Archibald. The observed velocity at 100 feet 
 above sea level is found to increase roughly 10 per cent. for each fifty feet 
 of height. 
 
 Some steel! framed advertising structures of very elaborate character 
 have been. erected under the present regulations and requirements of the 
 Bureaus of Buildings, which present every appearance of security under 
 normal conditions. Some of these, erected upon old buildings, are carried 
 
 47 
 
on needles or steel columns extending down to the foundation, thus reliev- 
 ing the building of their weight and to some extent of their side strains. 
 But while it may be hoped that no such unusual wind combination will over- 
 come such structures, they, together with other forms of roof signs, con- 
 stitute obstructions to the operations of firemen, and, in case of the destruc- 
 tion of the building below them, may add to the extent of destruction by 
 their collapse, in the same way as the menacing house tank has done. 
 
 It is common knowledge that gales occasionally blow roof-signs into 
 the streets. The newspapers last winter contained a number of such in- 
 stances, the accident in at least one case resulting in serious injury to a pass- 
 ing citizen. It is significant that this particular sign had been erected with- 
 out a building permit, 7. e., in violation of law. Mr. Fosdick cites the large 
 number of violations of the building ordinances in this city by these struc- 
 tures. Testimony before us also showed that in a large number of instances 
 roof-signs and billboards are erected prior to the issue of permits therefor, 
 the owners or lessees of the spaces erecting their boards in the expectation 
 of obtaining a permit later or even defying the law successfully until the 
 structure is no longer required and the owner is willing to have it removed. 
 
 The Fire Hazard. 
 
 Frequently on account of their inflammable materials, and on account 
 of the paper rubbish which accumulates about them, outdoor advertising 
 signs increase the fire hazard. Billboards frequently enclose vacant lots 
 with barriers which impede the access of the fire department apparatus to 
 adjacent buildings. At a hearing before the Committee on Buildings of the 
 Board of Aldermen, May 7, 1913, Chief Guerin of the Fire Department tes- 
 tified that frequently fires were built by boys against the back and around 
 the supports of billboards erected on vacant lots. Roof-signs interfere with 
 the movement of firemen and the direction of streams of water, and the same 
 may be said of signs which obstruct window and door spaces. . 
 
 Limitation of Size. 
 
 Existing outdoor advertisements are not only guilty of offenses of mat- 
 ter, construction and location, but also of size. Their whole scale is too 
 Jarge, and unnecessarily so. This is true not only of certain exceptional 
 signs, such as that which greets every incoming steamer at the harbor en- 
 trance of this great port, and which is sixteen feet high and a quarter of a 
 mile long, and formerly was of a particularly offensive character, and of 
 other enormous signs which disfigure river banks and heights, but it is true 
 of almost all our posters, bulletins and roof signs. Some of the advertisers 
 themselves say that they would not object either to a reduction in the size of 
 advertisements, or to a reduction in their number, provided their same 
 relative advantages might be continued. An advertisement is valuable in 
 proportion to its conspicuousness ; and isolation rather than size makes for 
 conspicuousness. Nor would the advertising agent or the land owner re- 
 
 48 
 
ceive less rental. The advertiser pays for the value of the advertisement. 
 If the smaller scale gives him the same advertising value, he can afford to 
 pay the same price for the smaller advertisement. The same principle holds 
 good as to the number of advertisements displayed in one location. A given 
 advertisement is more easily seen in company with two or three others than | 
 when surrounded by ten or a dozen. Accordingly, many merchants and 
 manufacturers to-day will not take space at all unless they can control a 
 certain proportion of it. This tends to multiply advertising locations, while 
 limiting the occupation of any one. Thus we may say that if the available 
 locations were only one-half as many, the value of those that were left 
 would be doubled. But relief from overgrown and blatant signs cannot be 
 expected except by tax or other regulations which will tend to discourage 
 them. The poster men to-day are asking the New York Board of Alder- 
 men to increase the present limitation of 18 feet 6 inches in height for bill- 
 boards to 23 feet. Their argument is that posters must be ten feet high 
 and should ordinarily be displayed on double-deck boards. They say that 
 the presses of the country are built to turn out ten-foot advertisements, and 
 that this should be the standard size for posters all over the country. This 
 Commission recognizes the economic advantage of having a standard size 
 for posters which are turned out by the thousand and posted all over the 
 country. But we believe that this is the very reason why New York should 
 take the lead at the present time in cutting down the size of posters in New 
 York, in the expectation that what we do here will ultimately redound to 
 the benefit of the entire country, which, like our city, is rapidly becoming 
 cursed with the product of tasteless advertisers. 
 
 Perambulating Signs. 
 
 The increasing congestion of streets demands that such unnecessary ad- 
 ditions to the prevailing conditions as are brought about by perambulating 
 signs should be restricted, if not entirely disallowed. The Board of Alder- 
 men authorizes the parading of such signs, without requirements as to their 
 character or size which might readily be exacted as a condition of the per- 
 mission. As many as 32 such permits were adopted in one day’s session of 
 the Board recently, only a few of which included any restriction as to the use 
 of very crowded streets. 
 
 We recommend that the Board of Aldermen grant no more such per- 
 mits. The streets where these advertisements would be unobjectionable 
 would be useless to the advertiser. Only the crowded streets are service- 
 able to him. Wherever practicable these are being widened at large ex- 
 pense to private owners and the city. This expense is not incurred to give 
 opportunity to parade advertisements. 
 
 Failing the adoption of such a policy, we recommend that the Board of 
 Aldermen appoint a special committee to pass upon the subject matter of 
 such advertising signs, and that the Board, upon consideration, adopt a gen- 
 eral resolution barring all such perambulating sign bearers from the most 
 
 49 
 
crowded thoroughfares, such as Fifth Avenue, lower Broadway, Cortlandt, 
 Nassau and other busy streets. In Fifth Avenue, for example, such signs 
 are also wholly out.of place because of the character. of the street. ; 
 We also suggest that the concession of the right to use the streets for 
 such a purpose is a suitable subject for the payment of a proper and sub- 
 stantial franchise tax, in view of the fact that every such permit involves 
 expense to the city in the proceedings and in their recording and printing. 
 
 Indirect Control. 
 
 In-our 10th recommendation in Part I, we have suggested an indirect 
 method of controlling outdoor signs until means for direct control are pro- 
 vided by the Constitution. It is possible that legislation designed to safe- 
 guard the values of real estate upon exceptional streets like Fifth Avenue 
 against the cheapening effect of tawdry advertising would be upheld; but 
 unless the Court of Appeals retreats from its latest dictum, legislation based 
 upon purely aesthetic considerations will not be sustained. (See also Part 
 VIII.) Prohibition, therefore, is not a sure method of accomplishing the 
 objects referred to in this point. Were such prohibitions constitutional, 
 however, an ordinance by the Board of Aldermen would suffice, in our opin- 
 ion, since the passage of the Municipal Empowering Act (L. 1913, chap. 
 247). An Act of the State Legislature would, of course, be equally effective. 
 But inasmuch as the city has complete power to regulate the use of its 
 streets and squares, it may provide that no part of any particular street or 
 public place may be occupied by any private owner unless such owner re- 
 frains from using his property for advertising or uses it only in a specified 
 way. In other words, while the private owner may not be prohibited from 
 using his own land as a site for signs, he may have his occupation of any 
 part of the street outside the building line (a privilege and not a right) made 
 conditional upon his respecting sign restrictions. This may be accomplished 
 either by ordinance, of the Board of Aldermen or by statute. (For further 
 discussion of this point see Part III, near the end.) 
 
 In Part XIII, we suggest various amendments to the Building Code to 
 carry out these recommendations, 
 
 5U 
 
PAT Lev ls 
 
 TRANSIT LINE CONDITIONS. 
 
 The inconveniences which the public suffers in the use of the transporta- 
 tion lines in New York City are the source of so much annoyance that the 
 people have been predisposed more than otherwise to resent the use of the 
 companies’ franchises for advertising purposes without adequate return to 
 the city. This situation became particularly aggravating aiter tiie opening 
 of the first subway line in October, 1904. This road is the absolute property 
 ef the city, but is leased to the Interborough Rapid Transit Company to 
 operate, and by law is “ part of the public streets and highways of said 
 city.’ ‘The stations were built after artistic designs, and the walls were 
 faced with glazed tiling from floor to ceiling. There was a studied inten- 
 t1on to produce an aesthetic effect. The tiling is ornate in its arrange- 
 ment of color and is embellished with mosaic work. ‘The station signs of 
 the same material are set in inlaid mosaic panels and are artistic and legible, 
 In certain cases, the stations are ornamented in distinguishing colors, like 
 the Dutch blue at Bleecker street, or with symbolical bas-reliefs, such as the 
 beaver at Astor place (to suggest the fur trade which was the foundation 
 of the Astor fortune), the first Hudson River steamboat at Fulton street, a 
 caravel at Columbus Circle, etc. The whole effect was originally agreeable 
 to the eye, clean from the sanitary standpoint, and carefully designed to 
 make the stations easily distinguishable from each other. 
 
 When the subway was opened, it was discovered that the operating com- 
 pany, the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, had contracted with the 
 firm of Ward and Gow to display advertising signs in the stations. 
 
 These signs were so crude and out of keeping with the expensive and 
 artistic stations as instantly to arouse the just indignation of the citizens. 
 Their cheap and flimsy tinsel frames are fastened to the walls with hooks 
 and screws driven into and breaking the beautiful tiling; some are sus- 
 pended with wires. Their utter disregard of all considerations except those 
 of revenue for the railroad and for the advertising concern responsible for 
 them would fully justify the application to the subway stations of the fol- 
 lowing remark made at the time by an advertising agency concerning other 
 transit stations in the city in connection with an offer for artistic advertise- 
 
 51 
 
ments and by way of protest against the proposed contract between the Inter- 
 borough and Ward & Gow for the subway: 
 
 “The disgraceful conditions of stations in New York is due to the 
 fact that the advertising agents who handle them are unrestricted by 
 professional knowledge, and that the moral, artistic and commercial 
 ethics that govern the standard magazines are not observed.” 
 
 In response to the demand of citizens and civic societies, the right of the 
 Interborough to lease spaces in its stations for advertising purposes was 
 questioned in the courts. It was pointed out that section 63 of the Rapid 
 Transit Act (L. 1891, chap. 4, as variously amended), provided that transit 
 lines constructed under it should 
 
 “be and remain the absolute property of the city so constructing it or 
 them, and shall be and be deemed to be a part of the public streets 
 and highways of said city, to be used and enjoyed by the public upon 
 the payment of such fares and tolls, and subject to such reasonable 
 rules and regulations as may be imposed and provided for by the 
 Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners in said city,” 
 
 and that nowhere in the act were the Rapid Transit Commissioners given 
 any authority to grant to private persons any right to erect advertisements 
 in these streets. 
 
 The Interborough, on its part, claimed that although the statute said the 
 railroad was to be deemed a part of the street system, the statute showed 
 that it was primarily intended to be a city rapid transit railroad and 
 treated as such; that such roads always received and used advertising privi- 
 leges and that the custom should be imported into the act as if there ex: 
 pressed ; and that the city (through the Commissioners) had recognized this 
 right and provided for it in inserting into the lease the following provision: 
 
 “The contractor (the Interborough) shall not permit advertise- 
 ments in the stations or cars which shall interfere with easy identifi- 
 cation of stations or otherwise with efficient operation.” 
 
 The court (Justice Bischoff, of the Supreme Court, at Special Term) 
 adopted the latter view (/uterborough Rapid Transit Co. v. City of New 
 York, 47 Misc., 221). (See, also, as to vending machines Justice McCall 
 (now Chairman of the Public Service Commission, First District, suc- 
 cessors to the former Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners), at Special 
 Term, in City of New York v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 53 Misc., 
 126.) 
 
 The case was carried no further by the City, and the subway advertise- 
 ments have remained and grown in unsightliness and inconvenience to this 
 day. 
 
 Two further provisions in the contract between the City and the Inter- 
 borough should be noted: 
 
 BZ 
 
“ The stations must be finished in a decorative and attractive man- 
 ner, such as is consistent with and suitable to buildings of such char- 
 acter.” 
 
 and:. 
 
 “ All details of the stations must be so arranged as to facilitate 
 cleaning and to permit if desired a thorough washing of all parts of 
 the station and their approaches -by means of a hose.” 
 
 The first of these requirements is fulfilled only if one construes it as 
 relating solely to the subway stations as originally constructed, and as per- 
 mitting any subsequent bedevilment which the Interborough pleases to 
 superimpose thereon. Whether the second requirement is fulfilied might 
 best be determined by turning the hose on the existing advertisements and 
 watching the result. 
 
 Anyone who uses the subway can observe for himself that the further 
 provision in the contract that advertisements shall not “ interfere with easy 
 identification of stations” is flagrantly violated. 
 
 So far as we know, the Public Service Commission has taken no steps 
 to abate or minimize the subway advertising nuisance by using its powers 
 to enforce these terms of the contract. In spite of the fact that the Rapid 
 Transit Act makes the subway a part of the street system of the city, the 
 cases last cited hold that jurisdiction thereof is exclusively in the Public 
 Service Commission. 
 
 To some extent the occupation of the city’s streets by the elevated roads 
 would seem to be, or to have been, subject to local legislative power. Sec- 
 tions 77-79 of Ordinances relating to Manhattan (see Part XVI below) un- 
 dertook at one time at least to regulate the lighting of stations (occupying 
 the streets ), to prohibit the dropping of grease into the streets, and to require 
 pathways and guard rails on the structure. Since the passage of the Public 
 Service Commissions’ Law the question how much, if any, police power the 
 city may exercise over the subway and elevated roads may be difficult to 
 answer. Has it no power to prescribe regulations of sanitation, safety or 
 good order? How far may it go? 
 
 Failure to prevent through the courts the objectionable conditions thus 
 referred to, in the case of the subways, led first to a change in policy on 
 the part of the Rapid Transit Commissioners, and later to amendment of 
 the Rapid Transit Act itself. 
 
 The Commissioners inserted into “Contract No. 2” dated July 21, 1902, 
 under which the Interborough subway was extended south of Brooklyn 
 Bridge and under the East River into Brooklyn, the following: 
 
 “No posters, billboards or advertisements of any kind not neces- 
 sary in the operation of the railroad shall be allowed at or in stations 
 except with the written permission of the Board revocable at any 
 time, it being the policy of the city that public property shall not be 
 obstructed, disfigured or made ugly by advertisements.” 
 
 53 
 
And no permission was granted by the Commissioners prior to the statutory 
 amendment referred to. 
 
 In 1906 (L. 1906, chap. 472) the Rapid Transit Act itself was amended 
 to provide (§ 34-d) that no part of any road constructed under that act 
 should be used for advertising purposes. The amendment is not retroactive, 
 however, and accordingly the parts of the subway system which were built 
 under the original ‘“‘ Contract No. 1” still maintain, and indeed have in- 
 creased, their advertisements. But there are no advertisements in additions 
 to old subway stations where the platforms have been lengthened since 
 1906, nor will there be advertisements in the stations of the new lines now 
 under construction under the ‘“ dual system” plan under which the Inter- 
 borough and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit roads are largely extending their 
 lines. 
 
 The contracts signed in March, 1913, between the city and the operators 
 of these new lines, the Interborough Rapid Transit Company and the New 
 York Municipal Railway Company (Brooklyn Rapid Transit) contain the 
 following article, numbered LXIII in each contract, quoting verbatim the 
 statute in part, but wisely reserving control to the Public Service Commis- 
 sion should the statutory prohibition be lifted: 
 
 “No part of the railroad or stations or other appurtenances 
 thereof shall be used for advertising purposes, except that the lessee 
 may use the structure for posting necessary information for the public 
 relative to the running of trains and to the operation of the railroad; 
 nor shall any trade, traffic or occupation, other than required for the 
 operation of the railroad, be permitted thereon or in the stations 
 thereof, except such sale of newspapers and periodicals as may from 
 time to time, always with the right of revocation, be permitted by 
 the Commission. In case the present provisions of the Rapid Transit 
 Act in respect of advertising or the carrying on of any trade, traffic 
 or occupation are amended, the Commission, under rules and regu- 
 lations to be prescribed by it, may permit the lessee to carry on such 
 advertising or such trade, traffic or occupation in accordance with 
 the Rapid Transit Act, as it may be amended from time to time. 
 
 “The lessee shall, under regulations (including the form of con- 
 tract) prescribed by the Commission, advertise for proposals for the 
 privilege of selling newspapers and periodicals in the stations of the 
 railroad in such manner as to permit of the contracting for such 
 privilege separately for each news-stand.”’ 
 
 Of late years, the poster-boards have been multiplying in those parts 
 of the subway where they are not prohibited altogether. They now crowd 
 the railings dividing the different parts of the station; they darken the 
 vicinity of the stairways; they collect dirt and microbes; in short, they are 
 unnecessarily inconvenient and unsanitary. 
 
 The situation on some of the elevated railroad stations is worse than 
 that in the subway. In the testimony given before this Commission the At- 
 lantic Avenue Station of the elevated road in Brooklyn was cited as an 
 instance in which the single narrow station platform, used by both tracks, 
 
 34 
 
at a point of great interchange of traffic between subway, surface and ele- 
 vated roads, is obstructed by billboards ranged along the center of the plat- 
 torm. ‘These billboards not only prevent the free circulation of the throngs, 
 but require the utmost precautions on the part of passengers to prevent 
 being crowded off the station platform onto the tracks. Furthermore, the 
 station sign is so nearly lost amid the advertisements as to be picked out with 
 difficulty. 
 
 To a considerable extent these and kindred matters are already within 
 the control of the Public Service Commission, whose manifest duty it is to 
 rectify the present conditions—or at least to use to the utmost such powers 
 as the courts will sustain them in the exercise of. (Recommendation 12, 
 Rart 1°) 
 
 In Part II of this report we have given figures showing the revenue 
 derived by the transit companies from the advertising business, and in Part 
 IIT have alluded to the Fifth Avenue Coach Company case which, happily, 
 was successfully controlled under a city ordinance. 
 
 It is interesting to note in this connection the new ordinance adopted by 
 the City of Chicago. 
 
 During the past year, the “poster war” has been waged effectively in 
 that city, and on July 1, 1912, the City Council passed almost unanimously 
 an ordinance prohibiting street railway lines, both surface and elevated, 
 from displaying advertising of any kind in the cars. The ordinance which 
 went into effect soon after its adoption, is drastic, preventing even adver- 
 tisements of amusement parks. The Council took the ground that the car 
 companies’ franchises allowed them to operate transportation lines only 
 and did not allow them to enter the advertising field. The law also pro- 
 hibits the display of advertising matter in stations and on platforms of sta- 
 tions. It was bitterly opposed by the transportation companies. 
 
 55 
 
PART VII. 
 
 ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY. 
 
 Lack of Co-ordination. 
 
 Recommendations 14 and 15, Part I of this report, look toward greater 
 co-operation between different departments of the City government in ad- 
 ministering the laws in regard to outdoor advertising. To the extent that 
 considerations of sanitation are involved, the existing administrative ma- 
 chinery seems to be complete, but it should be more effectively used. So 
 far as preventing the erection of illegal structures is concerned, or securing 
 their abatement if erected, there is lack of co-ordination and co-opera- 
 tion between the various departments having jurisdiction or opportunity 
 to. enforce the law. There is also an overlapping of authority and an un- 
 necessary duplication of duties, while in other directions there is a complete 
 lack of necessary jurisdiction. 
 
 - Several public officials have stated to this Commission that their work 
 was carried on under restrictions which rendered much of it of little practi- 
 cal value, and there was also a general expression of opinion as to a lack 
 of co-ordination between the rather numerous bodies charged with some one 
 or other part of the work of controlling or supervising the erection and 
 maintenance of signs and billboards. Thus, it appears that the Building 
 Bureaus under the several Borough Presidents have a certain control in 
 the matter of the construction of signs placed within the building line and 
 erected under the provisions of the Building Code. Signs which are 
 placed exterior to the building line are not, however, so controlled, as they 
 are governed by a section of the General Ordinances and they come within 
 the province of the respective Bureaus of Highways under the several 
 Borough Presidents, in which the Bureau of Street Encumbrances is in- 
 cluded. . 
 
 These Bureaus are evidently active and interested in the subject of the 
 regulation of signs and billboards, but both complain of lack of powers 
 adequate to deal with the infractions of the regulations, and of the lack 
 of a sufficient force for the purpose of providing an effective observation 
 and inspection of signs and billboards. Thus, the Bureau of Buildings 
 in the Bronx stated that their entire force of inspectors for the Borough 
 
 56 
 
is only twenty-eight in number, and these men have to cover an area of 
 Iorty-three square miles. Nevertheless, it is a significant indication of how 
 the laxity of the law is taken for granted and how indifferent would-be vio- 
 lators are toward the penalties nominally prescribed, that the roof-sign 
 which is referred to on page 48 as having been erected in violation of law 
 and having fallen and injured a citizen last winter, was erected directly 
 across the street from the offices of the Building Department in the Bor- 
 ough of the Bronx. 
 
 The opinion expressed by Mr. Rudolph F. Miller, Superintendent of 
 Buildings of the Borough of Manhattan, was endorsed by the superin- 
 tendents in other boroughs and may therefore be regarded as representa- 
 tive. Mr. Miller stated that the procedure now required to procure the re- 
 moval of an offending sign, constructed in violation of the regulations, 
 was so slow that it had little practical effect and that a more direct au- 
 thority should be given to the department to remove such signs without 
 waiting for court action. He pointed out that if the powers given by the 
 Building Code were enlarged so that any violation would be a sufficient 
 ground for stopping the work of construction at once, without going through 
 a legal procedure, the effect would be very beneficial. 
 
 Our inquiries elicited the fact that little aid is afforded to these depart- 
 ments by the Police Department. Police officers do not appear to be charged 
 with any responsibility as to reporting upon the existence or construction 
 of signs, a duty which would not apparently add seriously to the work of 
 the Police force and would greatly enlarge the means of ascertaining the 
 construction of unauthorized signs and boards. Nor has the Police De- 
 partment made a practice of reporting or dealing with conditions arising 
 from the construction of signs and billboards enclosing vacant property in 
 such manner as to allow of the use of the space thus enclosed for immoral 
 and unhealthful purposes, but has concerned itself only with the particular 
 infractions of the law to which the existence of such billboards has con- 
 tributed. Yet sections 310 and 1202 of the Charter affirmatively charge 
 the Police Department with the duty of aiding the Health Department in the 
 discharge of its functions. 
 
 The Fire Department, and the Fire Prevention Bureau in particular, 
 have taken an active interest in this general subject, from their own de- 
 partment’s point of view, and express some strong objections to certain 
 forms and constructions of signs, particularly those which close the front 
 of wholly or partly disused buildings. While the powers of the Fire Pre- 
 vention Bureau appear to be wide enough to deal with such signs as are a 
 direct menace to the security of buildings, the Bureau apparently hesitates 
 to attempt the removal of such signs as constitute only an indirect menace 
 1o the security of property. 
 
 The Bureau of Buildings, the Bureau of Highways, and the Department 
 of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity, through its Bureau of Light and 
 Power, are all concerned with and deal in part with electrical signs upon 
 
 ay 
 
the fronts and tops of buildings. The work of these departments in this 
 respect is comprehensive and satisfactory, but nevertheless it would. ap- 
 pear that there is a considerable duplication of work in the matter of in; 
 spection and licensing which might well be simplified if one department were 
 charged with the entire duties. 
 
 The Bureaus of Encumbrances in the several boroughs, are, according to 
 the testimony which we received, very active and effective in dealing with 
 such signs as are constructed over the public streets in a manner not per- 
 mitted by law provided they constitute actual encumbrances upon the high- 
 ways. The Division of Sidewalks of the Bureau of Highways has little 
 practical difficulty in such cases. In some of the boroughs, under the pres- 
 ent administration, these Bureaus themselves have not hesitated to remove 
 offending signs, steps, showcases, etc., after due notice to the owner, with 
 the result of an increasing respect for an official notice. But there ap- 
 pears to be doubt on the part of these Bureaus as to their powers over the 
 rather numerous forms of advertising signs which do not actually consti- 
 tute an encumbrance upon the street. Signs secured to the front of build- 
 ings and partly extending beyond the building line, signs partly within and 
 partly outside of the limit permitted by the Building Code, signs erected 
 upon temporary bridges at new buildings, and signs attached to the elevated 
 railroad structure, are matters in which these Bureaus appear to be in 
 some doubt as to their powers. Here again the effectiveness of the work 
 of these Bureaus is restricted by the procedure rendered necessary by 
 legal process in order to remove offending encroachments, and in addition 
 these Bureaus also lack an inspecting force sufficient to cover effectively the 
 very large area of streets under their jurisdiction. Adequate control over 
 signs upon the elevated structure is denied by all the city bureaus and de- 
 partments, and it thus comes about that large billboards have been at- 
 tached to the entrances of certain elevated railway stations in a position 
 practically a part of the sidewalk and dangerously blocking the stairways, 
 which the city departments seem unable to remove.* 
 
 The ordinances of New York City contain a series of special regula- 
 tions concerning what they inaptly term “ electric signs.” This term does 
 not refer to what are popularly known as electric signs (signs composed of 
 incandescent lights fixed in frames and usually erected upon the roofs of 
 private buildings), but, by definition in the ordinance itself, the term is 
 limited to signs “illuminated by electricity” and “extending beyond the 
 building line.” These are ordinarily shop signs overhanging the sidewalks, 
 with letters outlined with incandescent bulbs, or perforated boxes with 
 lights concealed inside and letters showing as in an old-fashioned “ trans- 
 parency,” and the like. The present regulations are found in the ordinance 
 approved by the Mayor July 24, 1912 (superseding sections 260a-260d of 
 the General Ordinances). (For text see Part XVI below). Such signs 
 
 *Since this report was written Borough President McAneny of Manhattan has notified the 
 elevated roads to remove certain of these signs. 
 
 58 
 
may not extend more than eight feet beyond the building line; must leave 
 ten feet in the clear above the sidewalk; must be of incombustible material ; 
 and are illegal and subject to penalty unless erected upon a permit and 
 according to the following procedure: The applicant for a permit first 
 files his plans, etc., with the Superintendent of Buildings in the Borough in 
 which the sign is to be erected; the Superintendent of Buildings then (in 
 a proper case) approves of the sufficiency of construction and method of 
 attachment to the building; concurrently the approval of the Department 
 of Water, Gas and Electricity is obtained as to the wiring, etc.; then 
 the City Clerk issues a license, upon payment of a fee of ten cents per 
 square foot for the area of the sign, which license is good for one Wek and 
 then must be renewed. 
 
 Concerning this type of sign, the Commission on New Sources of City 
 Revenue had this to say (pp. 19-20, Appendix V of its report) : 
 
 “ The present method of collecting the revenue derived from the 
 licensing of these signs is undoubtedly susceptible of great improve- 
 ment, and, it is believed, with a considerable increase in the amount 
 of same * * *, 
 
 “The functions of the Bureau of Buildings and of the Depart- 
 ment of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity in respect to the ordinance 
 governing these signs cease with the issuance of the certificate of 
 approval of the proposed method of construction and attachment to 
 the building and the electric wiring and electric appliances, and the 
 enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance rests entirely with the 
 Police Department. 
 
 “The licenses issued for these signs average about 5,000 per 
 annum, and the fees range from 26 cents to $195. The revenue for 
 the year 1910 amounted to $8,688.12, and for the first ten months of 
 1911 $9,780. 
 
 “The City Clerk, upon whom devolves the duty of collecting the 
 revenue, has no facilities for the necessary inspecton to insure com- 
 pliance with the ordinance. He claims that many of these signs 
 remain unlicensed and that the revenue from the same could be 
 doubled by a thorough and efficient system of inspection. A report is 
 made monthly to the Police Department by the City Clerk showing 
 the licenses that have expired and have not been renewed and any 
 violations of the ordinance that may have come to his attention, and 
 it is likely that the activities of the Police Department are limited 
 to these particular instances, although the Commissioner claims that 
 the police require a permit for all signs of this character displayed. 
 
 “It is suggested that the collection of the revenue from these 
 licenses be transferred from the City Clerk to the Bureau of Build- 
 ings, where the first certificate for the erection of the signs is issued. 
 This would at least insure to the city the revenue from all these signs 
 for which a certificate is issued. Should this not be deemed feasible, 
 however, an arrangement might be effected to have a notice sent 
 either from the Bureau of Buildings or the Department of Water 
 Supply, Gas and Electricity to the City Clerk, of every sign for which 
 application is made. To insure to the city all of this revenue to 
 which it is entitled, however, a complete census of all of these signs 
 should be made, and with this end in view, the Commissioner of 
 
 59 
 
Police has been asked if it is within the province of his department 
 to make the same.” 
 
 We concur in the recommendation that the collection of the license 
 iee for this class of signs be transferred to the Bureau of Buildings. We 
 think the entire machinery of licensing such signs and initiating prosecu- 
 tions should be concentrated in that Bureau; that is, violations of this 
 ordinance should be treated like violations of the Building Code. 
 
 Yet an opinion generally expressed by various heads of bureaus was that 
 the class of electrical signs above referred to are those which are con- 
 structed and maintained under the best conditions, and credit for this con- 
 dition was given to the electric lighting companies whose co-operation in 
 refusing to supply electric energy to unlawful signs has proven most ef- 
 fective. 
 
 The method pursued by the Corporation Counsel in dealing with the 
 legal procedure in connection with signs has been well organized and is 
 becoming perhaps as effective as such procedure can reasonably be made. 
 As already stated in Part III of this report, the legal rights of property 
 owners to construct billboards and roof signs on private property to any 
 size and height have heretofore been maintained by the Courts and thus the 
 legislative efforts to regulate such structures have been frustrated so far by 
 the action of the courts. The Law Department is active, however, in prose- 
 cuting violators of the Building Code where construction is undertaken 
 without first obtaining an approval of plans by the Building Department, so 
 far as these cases are brought to the attention of the Corporation Counsel. 
 
 Formerly where a prosecution resulted in the cessation of the violation— 
 as, for example, by the submission or amendment of building sketches or 
 plans so as to comply with the law—prosecutions were dropped. But 
 this policy encouraged violations, because, when caught, the violator had 
 only to comply with the law and there was an end to his trouble. More 
 recently, however, the Building Department has instructed the Corporation 
 Counsel, when he has once begun a case, to prosecute it to a conclusion and 
 a collection of fines, regardless of intermediate compliance with the law. 
 The result has been wholesome in bringing about prompter compliance 
 when ordered. 
 
 So far as the prosecution of legal action is concerned, the establishment 
 of a method of trying all such cases in one or more selected courts would 
 be of advantage. It is probable that in consideration of the New Building 
 Code by the Board of Aldermen, the suggestion of Assistant Corporation 
 Counsel O’Brien may be acted upon. This is to the effect that infractions 
 of the Building Code shall be made a misdemeanor. If this principle were 
 established, the Building Department could then take much more summary 
 and prompt action in the Police Courts for the removal of offending 
 structures. | 
 
 As we have stated in Part VI of this report, the power to regulate 
 signs in the subway is lodged with the Public Service Commission. 
 
 60 
 
Departmental Co-operation Recommended. 
 
 The general situation which we have described in this part of our report 
 appears to have grown up gradually around the system of limited powers 
 over a limited portion of the subject, so that the several departments are 
 each striving to the best of their ability to deal with one phase of a matter 
 which needs a concentrated control. Some immediate relief might be af- 
 forded and benefits secured by the issuance of directions to the heads of de- 
 partments to organize a system of inter-communication of reports upon 
 this general subject, and a direction to the Police in particular, to report 
 upon the existence of signs or the construction of new signs, such report 
 being promptly directed to the Building Bureaus. Such extra inspection 
 might go far towards remedying the existing deficiencies in the inspecting 
 capacity of the departments of buildings and bureaus of encumbrances. 
 
 We therefore recommend that an inter-departmental system of inter- 
 change of information should be established upon the subject of signs and 
 billboards, by which the results of the work of one department in the mat- 
 ter of inspections would be made known promptly to others. 
 
 Severer Penalty Proposed. 
 
 We also recommend the inclusion in the City’s Charter of a provision 
 rendering infractions of the Building Code in connection with the construc- 
 tion of signs and billboards a misdemeanor, and we recommend that the 
 removal of signs secured to, or extending beyond, the building line over the 
 area of the public highways, be more thoroughly followed out by the Bureau 
 of Encumbrances. Wilful violations of the Sanitary Code are already mis- 
 demeanors by virtue of section 1287 of the Charter, as are violations of 
 the ordinances relating to parks under section 610. 
 
 Bureau of Records of Signboards. 
 
 Our recommendation for a Bureau of Records of Signboards in the 
 Building Bureaus (15(a), Part I) is closely connected with our recommend- 
 ation for departmental co-operation. There ought to be some one place 
 where all the material information on this subject is lodged. A record of 
 the locations, sizes, and descriptions, of all kinds of signboards and sign 
 structures, the owners of the properties upon which they are erected, the 
 advertising concerns which manage them, etc., would be of great assistance 
 in enforcing the law and would form a valuable basis for a revenue by 
 taxation. 3 
 
 61 
 
PART VIII. 
 
 LOCAL OPTION. 
 
 Our 16th recommendation (Part I) is for a statute granting local 
 option to limited districts of the city to determine whether the billboards 
 shall be regulated within their bounds. If the rigid and equal regulation of 
 billboards in all parts of our city covering an area of 316 square miles be 
 regarded as too extreme, a local option law on this question would provide 
 a flexible means for controlling the situation where control is most needed 
 and desired. It may be conceded that the occasion and the desire for such 
 regulation are not equal in all parts of the city. Civic pride varies in degree 
 in different sections. Some parts of the town have parks, architectural 
 monuments, street vistas and natural landscapes which are entitled to pro- 
 tection and some parts have not. Property values in some localities are ad- 
 versely affected by billboards while in others billboards would not de- 
 preciate a neighborhood. If the citizens in one region wish to make or keep 
 their neighborhood attractive, it would seem only reasonable not to shackle 
 them with the indifference and slovenliness of a different class of fellow- 
 citizens, and not to subject their property to hazards not affecting the 
 property of others. 
 
 Without some legal provision for enforcing the prevailing sentiment of a 
 locality, there is at present no way by which the majority can compel a 
 selfish recalcitrant to co-operate. There is occasionally a human 
 rhinoceros whom it is impossible to inoculate with the serum of civic pride. 
 Fifth Avenue below Central Park, by general agreement among the mer- 
 chants, has been kept clear of advertising signs except at Forty-second 
 Street, where the owners of several buildings have leased them without 
 restriction against signs, and where the lessee has refused to conform to the 
 practice of his neighbors. Such persons are accustomed to claim that they 
 are likewise beyond the reach of legislation. 
 
 Although ninety-nine land owners in a locality like Fifth Avenue, they 
 say, come to the conclusion that the complete elimination of out-door adver- 
 tising from their street is a benefit to the street and enhances their land 
 values by raising the tone and character of the locality, one owner has an 
 absolute right, guaranteed by the Constitution, and beyond the reach of any 
 legislative action whatever, to thwart the will of the ninety-nine. Worse yet, 
 he may even take advantage of the value created by the ninety-nine who by 
 
 62 
 
exclusion of all advertising from their premises make his advertising the 
 more conspicuous, and thus appropriate to himself what is really their 
 property. Yet it is safe to say that were Fifth Avenue to be given up gen- 
 erally to advertising signs such as exist on Broadway, there would be a 
 serious depreciation in the real estate values along that street. Its character 
 as a high-class and elegant retail shopping district would be seriously 1m- 
 paired—to the detriment of both public and private interests. 
 
 The ‘ Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907,” of England (8 Chitty’s 
 English Statutes, 6 ed., p. 178), empowers local authorities to frame by- 
 laws “for regulating, restricting or preventing the exhibition of adver- 
 tisements in such manner or by such means as to affect injuriously the 
 amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade or to disfigure the beauty 
 of the landscape.”’ In the practical operation of the law, the Home Office 
 requires the local councils to “schedule” defined areas, thus giving it an 
 application to small districts within municipal localities. But while that 
 is a sort of local option law, it is not exactly what we now have in mind. 
 Our idea is to permit the majority of property owners in a given part of 
 the city to file with a proper officer a declaration of their wish to protect 
 their property values by restricting outdoor advertisements within certain 
 declared bounds, and to make that act in itself binding and enforceable by 
 law within the restricted territory until altered by a like vote of the prop- 
 erty owners themselves. If a majority of the property owners in a given 
 area determine that a few minority owners, by erecting disfiguring sign- 
 boards, are impairing the value of the majority’s property, it would seem 
 to present a case in which the minority were “taking” the property of the 
 majority without compensation, which, in a proper case and within certain 
 limits, as the courts have held in the decisions previously quoted, can be 
 prevented. 
 
 Local Option to Exclude Business from Residential Districts. 
 
 A somewhat analogous but much more radical restriction upon the use 
 of private property by individuals for the common good, is the creation of 
 residential and industrial districts in cities, and the prohibition against busi- 
 ness invading a residential district. The legality and desirablity of such 
 restrictions are well recognized abroad; but the effort to create and enforce 
 such restrictions in this country is more novel, except so far as such 
 restrictions have been applied to a business so highly undesirable as to con- 
 stitute a nuisance to even the reactionary type of mind. 
 
 Recently Chicago, finding the real estate values in its residential dis- 
 tricts unstable owing to the invasion of such districts by business, deter- 
 mined to obtain permission to do by law what owners might do by volun- 
 tary restrictions of their property, except that, unlike a voluntary restric- 
 tion, the Chicago restriction would operate against the will of a minority in 
 the district. A bill known as the “ residential district bill”? was approved 
 by the Chicago City Council and recommended by that body to the Illinois 
 
 63 
 
legislature. The legislature passed the bill, but it was vetoed by the Gover- 
 nor on the ground that it was “ unconstitutional.” The bill, among various 
 additions to the power of the city councils in cities and of the president and 
 village trustees in villages, undertook to give such local authorities the fol- 
 lowing powers. ; 
 
 “ Eighty-second A. To establish and create exclusively residen- 
 tial districts, to prohibit the erection therein of buildings other than 
 residences and the usual outbuildings appurtenant to residences, to 
 prescribe the general character of residence buildings to be erected in 
 such districts, and to prohibit the carrying on of any business in such 
 districts except upon the consent of all or any specified major frac- 
 tion of the owners of lands therein, measured by street frontage, 
 within the limits of the city or village. 
 
 “ Eighty-second B. To direct the location and regulate the con- 
 struction and maintenance of factories, manufacturing or business 
 establishments, and stores, in residence districts in which a majority 
 of the street frontage is used exclusively for residence purposes.” 
 
 Minneapolis and Los Angeles, by ordinance, have established residential 
 and industrial districts and restricted the use of land therein. 
 
 We have not undertaken to draft a local option statute to carry out our 
 16th recommendation. When such a bill is drafted, we would recommend 
 that the creation of local districts from which outdoor advertising shall be 
 excluded or within which it shall be strictly limited, be left as flexible as 
 possible, so that changing conditions may operate freely. 
 
 64 
 
PART IX. 
 
 REGULATION BY TAXATION. 
 
 Our seventeenth recommendation, to regulate billboards by taxation, is 
 not a new one. The taxation of billboards in France, Belgium and other 
 foreign countries has long been practised, and it is a means of regulation 
 which is entirely practicable under our constitution. In fact, many at- 
 tempts have been made to enact legislation in this State in this direction. 
 
 In 1902, Hon. Francis G. Landon introduced a bill levying a tax of one 
 cent for every two square feet of surface of every poster displayed in pub- 
 lic except those placed upon lands or structures indicating the business con- 
 ducted thereon or therein, excepting also legal notices. ‘The tax was to be 
 paid by means of adhesive stamps prepared by the State Comptroller and 
 sold by the County Treasurers and the Comptroller of the City of New 
 York. One third of the proceeds was to go to the State, and in this city 
 two thirds were to go to the city. 
 
 In 1903, Hon. John C. Fitzgerald introduced in the Senate a bill of 
 similar tenor. 
 
 In 1904, Hon. Peter P. Sherry introduced in the Assembly a bill requir- 
 ing a license to erect a sign or billboard, and providing that every applica- 
 tion for such license should be accompanied by an offer to pay annually such 
 sum as should be adopted by ordinance or resolution of the municipality, 
 provided that such sum should not be less than fifty cents a square foot. 
 
 In the same year, Hon. Samuel Prince introduced in the Assembly a 
 bill to limit the height of billboards to 8 feet and the height of roof signs 
 to 4 feet. 
 
 In 1906, Hon. Alfred E. Smith introduced in the Assembly a bill similar 
 to the Landon bill before referred to. ; 
 
 In 1907, Hon. Merwin K. Hart introduced in the Assembly a bill 
 similar to its predecessors, proposing to place an annual tax of 12 cents a 
 square foot on all signs over 32 feet square. 
 
 In 1911, Hon. Mauritz Graubard introduced in the Assembly a bill “ to 
 amend the Tax Law in relation to public advertisements.” It provided in 
 substance that wherever an advertisement was erected upon any real prop- 
 erty publicly advertising any business or announcement or giving public 
 notice of any sort, the real estate should be assessed, in addition to the 
 ordinary assessment, for each square foot of the advertisement at the rate 
 
 65 
 
of one-tenth of one per cent. of the assessed valuation of the property in 
 cities of the first class, at the rate of one-fifteenth of one per cent. in cities 
 of the second class, and at the rate of ten dollars elsewhere. Legal adver- 
 tisements and advertisements of business on the premises were of course ex- 
 cepted. The term public advertisement was defined to include electric 
 signs. 
 
 In the same year, Hon. Denis J. Harte introduced in the Senate a bill 
 “to amend the tax law by adding Article Sixteen thereto relating to taxa- 
 tion of advertisements in cars and other vehicles on public highways and on 
 the display of advertisements and on mercantile privileges in public high- 
 ways and on railroad property.” The provisions of the bill so far as they re- 
 lated to the City of New York were as follows: For displaying adver- 
 tisements in or upon each car or other vehicle on the public highways of 
 the State, an annual tax of $150; for each stand for the sale of books, 
 papers, flowers, fruit, candy and other merchandise and for each stand 
 for the blacking, cleaning or polishing of boots and shoes or for the render- 
 ing of personal services for hire, in or upon the platforms, stations or 
 grounds of any railroad or street railway within this state, an annual tax 
 of $50; for each slot machine maintained upon a public highway or place 
 or upon the property of any railroad company, an annual tax of $10; and 
 for the privilege of displaying advertisements on each billboard or frame- 
 work or other contrivances for the display of advertisements on the plat- 
 forms, stations, grounds or other property owned, leased or operated by a 
 railroad or other transportation corporation, an annual tax at the rate of 
 50 cents a square foot for each square foot of the billboard, frame-work or 
 other contrivance used in the display of said advertisement. The taxes im- 
 posed by this bill were to be collected by the State Comptroller and by him 
 paid into the State Treasury, to be applied to the general fund. No pro- 
 vision was made for any portion of the revenue to be derived under this bill 
 to go to the City of New York, although it is safe to say that probably eighty 
 per cent. of the revenue would come from the city. 
 
 In 1913, Hon. George F. Small, of Buffalo, introduced in the Assembly 
 a bill to amend the General Business Law in relation to persons conducting 
 the business of furnishing advertising on railroad cars. It contained the 
 following provision: 
 
 “Every corporation operating a street surface railroad, steam 
 railroad or subway railroad receiving money for advertising or for 
 doing an advertising business in the State of New York shall, in 
 respect of such business, be under the supervision of the Secretary 
 of State. Each such company must make an accounting to the Secre- 
 tary of State annually, on the first day of January, of all moneys 
 received for advertising in its cars or upon any property owned or 
 controlled by it, and shall, within. thirty days thereafter, pay to the: 
 Secretary of State a tax hereby imposed of ten per centum of the 
 gross receipts from such source during the year. The Secretary of 
 State shall appoint an inspector of advertising, at the salary of $2,500 
 
 66 
 
annually, and traveling expenses, to be paid as other salaries and 
 expenses in the office of such Secretary. It shall be the duty of such 
 inspector to oversee and inspect cars and property of any such com- 
 pany having advertising matter displayed thereon or therein. Any 
 such company failing to make the report or pay the tax herein im- 
 posed, or wilfully omitting to include in said account any item of 
 receipts for advertising during the year for which the account is 
 rendered, shall suffer a penalty of fifty dollars for each offence.” 
 
 None of the foregoing bills became a law. 
 
 In Part XV of this report will be found a draft of a bill which was orig- 
 inally drafted in somewhat different form by Hon. Edward L. Heydecker, 
 Assistant Tax Commissioner of the City of New York, and Mr. A. C. 
 Pleydell, Secretary of the New York Tax Reform Association, in co-opera- 
 tion with a committee of the Municipal Art Society of New York City. It 
 levies an excise upon the newly created business of outdoor advertising and 
 provides for the summary abatement of advertisements erected in violation 
 of it. The amount or rate of tax originally suggested by these gentlemen 
 was based upon the income actually derived from the advertisement or sign, 
 this feature of their bill, however, being purely tentative, their main object 
 being to frame a workable system which should be simple and easy of ap- 
 plication, and thus avoid the disgrace of persistent violation. 
 
 Their bill is referred to with approval by the Commission on New 
 Sources of City Revenue hereinbefore mentioned, except that that Com- 
 mission recommends that the front-foot value of the land occupied by the 
 sign be adopted as the basis of tax; in other words, that the more valuable 
 the land, the higher the tax be made, and that for advertising purposes, the 
 value of the front-foot be taken as the basis. Now that the city has maps 
 showing approximate front-foot values of land all over town, which maps 
 are kept up to date, the basis may readily be estimated. In places where 
 the information is not already at hand, the front-foot values may be figured 
 out. 
 
 We, on our part, think that certain other considerations should also be 
 taken into account in fixing the basis of the tax. Signs may he erected upon 
 {wo properties of equal front-foot value, but the one sign may be visible 
 for only a short distance, while the other subtends a very large vista and 
 is visible over a much greater area. The height at which a sign is erected 
 may also affect the area over which it may be seen. Signs may be placed 
 too high for near view and too low for a far view. “ Bulletins” (painted 
 signs) and posters cease to be visible—at least as useful advertisements— 
 at a certain maximum distance, even when not blocked by intervening build- 
 ings; but the larger they are, the further they carry. The large electric 
 signs carry a long distance, and the higher they are the further they may 
 be seen, as a rule. 
 
 It is true that there are so many considerations entering into the front- 
 foot value of a particular piece of property more important than its value 
 as an advertising site, that, although front-foot values may be said to be 
 
 67 
 
roughly proportionate to the number of persons passing such lots, this basis 
 does not necessarily reflect advertising values sufficiently closely to make 
 it a perfect standard. Properties in the same neighborhood may have 
 an approximately equal front-foot value, but one, by reason of its position, 
 will have its roof visible from a much longer distance down the street than 
 the other, or from more streets and over a much larger area. 
 
 But not to introduce too many complications into the method of fixing 
 the rate, and as, on the whole, an equitable rate, we recommend a progres- 
 sive tax varying (1) with the size of the sign, and (2) with the height of the 
 sign above the street level; (3) an illuminated sign (lighted by reflected 
 light, not self-illuminating), which is visible both by day and by night, has 
 its rate doubled. These factors are all capable of precise ascertainment. 
 We make these progressive rates multiples of a unit based on front-foot 
 values, as recommended by the Commission on New Sources of City Reve- 
 nue. In other -words, we adopt the unit recommended by the latter, but 
 recommend a progressive rate varying with circumstances. So that as to 
 the rate and basis of tax, our bill differs from the original draft of Messrs. 
 Heydecker and Pleydell; and as to the rate, in part from the recommenda- 
 tion of the Commission on New Sources of City Revenue; but in other re- 
 spects (as nearly as may be) it is the bill drafted by the former and ap- 
 proved by the latter. As subway and elevated railroad station advertising 
 cannot be taxed on a front-foot basis, a separate rate is provided for it. 
 
 In our opinion, the potential values of particular parcels of land as sites 
 for advertising signs are not reflected in the assessed valuations of the par- 
 cels as between themselves. Of course, in one sense, the value of any New 
 York City property as a site for an advertisement is reflected in its assessed 
 valuation. Its value for that and other purposes depends on its situation in 
 a congested community. But we are speaking of its value as compared 
 with its neighbors. So many other considerations enter into that value, 
 and the art of outdoor advertising is as yet so young, and further, the values 
 of properties for this purpose have been as yet so imperfectly standardized, 
 that in our opinion these potential values are not generally reflected directly 
 or completely in the existing valuations of real estate. Suppose that a 
 low “taxpayer” with illuminated bulletins on its roof were supplanted by 
 a lofty building too tall to be adapted to such bulletins, does anyone sup- 
 pose that the assessors would reduce the assessed valuation of the land 
 because it could no longer be used for advertisements? (Persons familiar 
 with the method of assessing real estate in New York City know that assess- 
 ments of improved property are here divided so as to show the assessed 
 value of the land separately.) We think that the potential value of a par- 
 ticular piece of property as a site for an advertisement should be wholly 
 eliminated from its assessed value (if it is now included in any case), and 
 thus eliminated from taxation. It would be unfortunate for the city if 
 property which is not used as the site of an advertisement should be taxed 
 nevertheless because of its potential utility for such purpose. This would 
 
 68 
 
put a pressure upon the owner to use his property for the purpose. As a 
 result, advertising might be resorted to much more generally than has yet 
 taken place. Thus while the city would become more and more hideous, the 
 advertising advantage of everybody would depreciate. 
 
 It seems to us much better that so far as a tax is or may be imposed 
 upon real estate because of this value, it should be imposed only in cases 
 where the particular real estate is actually used for the purpose. This result 
 can be accomplished through the imposition of an excise upon the business 
 of outdoor advertising, as suggested. There seems to be no reason for any 
 change in the tax law to direct the appraisers to eliminate the element of 
 potential advertising from their assessments. That value is so vague, and, 
 in our opinion, has found its place in assessed values to such a slight extent, 
 that it may be disregarded. Were we wrong an administrative instruction 
 would suffice to eliminate it. 
 
 In our opinion, also, the imposition of an excise upon the business of 
 advertising, when and where indulged in, is much wiser and more practical 
 in its administrative details than would be the imposition of an additional 
 real estate tax upon the land, as such, where the advertising is carried on. 
 
 The progressive rates in force in Paris, and some of the rates in other 
 cities, both in our country and abroad, are indicated in Parts X and XII 
 Giatiiicehepor tin, 
 
 69 
 
PART X. 
 
 oe 
 
 MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS IN NEW YORK AND OTHER 
 AMERICAN CITIES. 
 
 As bearing upon our discussion of outdoor advertising in the foregoing 
 portions of this report, we refer here to certain municipal regulations in New 
 York City and in some other American cities, notably Chicago. 
 
 New York City. 
 
 A long list of statutes and ordinances affecting the City of New York is 
 given in Part XVI. A perusal of them will indicate the somewhat con- 
 fused state of the law. Most of them must be consulted, however, to ascer- 
 tain what may be done and who may do it. 
 
 The regulations of the ordinances of the City of New York which apply 
 directly to billboards and sky signs are embodied in that part of section 144 
 
 of the Building Code, which reads as follows (the entire section is given in 
 Party x Vay 
 
 “Fences, signs or billboards shall not be at any point over ten 
 feet above the adjoining ground; except that when any fence, sign 
 or billboard shall be constructed entirely of metal or of wood, covered 
 on all sides with sheet metal, including the uprights, supports and 
 braces for same, it shall not be at any point over eighteen feet six 
 inches above the adjoining ground. 
 
 “Any letter, word, model, sign, device or representation in the 
 nature of an advertisement, announcement or direction, supported or 
 attached, wholly or in part, over or above any wall, building or struc- 
 ture, shall be deemed to be a ‘ sky-sign.’ 
 
 “ Sky-signs shall be constructed entirely of metal, including the 
 uprights, supports and braces for same, and shall not be at any point 
 over nine feet above the front wall or cornice of the building or 
 structure to which they are attached or by which they are supported. 
 
 “All fences, signs, billboards and sky-signs shall be erected en- 
 tirely within the building line, and be properly secured, supported 
 and braced, and shall be so constructed as not to be or become 
 dangerous. 
 
 “Before the erection of any fence, sign, billboard or sky-sign 
 shall have been commenced, a permit for the erection of the same 
 shall be obtained from the Superintendent of Buildings having juris- 
 diction, as provided in part 2, section 4 of this Code. Each applica- 
 tion for the erection of any fence, sign, billboard or sky-sign shall 
 be accompanied by a written consent of the owner. or owners, or the 
 lessee or lessees of the property upon which it is to be erected.” — 
 
 70 
 
As stated in Part III preceding, in referring to the Wineburgh Adver- 
 tising Company case, that portion of the foregoing section which limits the 
 height of roof signs to nine feet was declared unconstitutional by the Court 
 of Appeals in 1909. 
 
 City of Rochester. 
 
 In Rochester, N. Y., the permission of the Bureau of Buildings is neces- 
 sary for the erection of a billboard over six feet high. If the billboard is 
 to be of combustible materials, the applicant must give one week’s notice to 
 the owners, occupants or agents of all houses and lots within 100 feet of 
 the site of proposed erection. Billboards more than seven feet high must 
 be made entirely of incombustible materials, securely braced and in accord- 
 ance with plans approved by the Bureau of Buildings. 
 
 City of Buffalo. 
 
 In Buffalo, N. Y., the permission of the Fire Commissioner, the Deputy 
 Building Commissioner and the Common Council is necessary for the erec- 
 _ tion of any fence or billboard over 7 feet high. A penalty of from $25 to 
 $150 is provided for a violation of the ordinance. 
 
 City of Chicago. 
 
 “During the year 1911 the City Council of Chicago, Ill., has passed an 
 ordinance which is the most far-reaching in its control over billboards of 
 any in the United States. Under this ordinance no billboard or signboard 
 may be erected or placed above the roof of any building within the city 
 limits. Billboards on the front, side or rear walls of a building are pro- 
 hibited unless placed flatly against the surface of the building and so 
 fastened and anchored as to satisfy the Commissioner of Buildings as to 
 their safety. Within the city’s fire limits, no billboards may be erected ex- 
 ceeding twelve feet in height and then only of incombustible material. The 
 name of the person owning each billboard must be plainly printed at the 
 billboard’s top. Before a billboard may be erected in any block where one- 
 half of the buildings on both sides of the street are exclusively used for resi- 
 dence purposes, the written consent of the owners owning a majority of the 
 frontage on both sides of the street in the block must be filed with the Com- 
 missioner of Buildings. 
 
 Permits for the erection of billboards and signboards in Chicago are 
 charged for at the rate of two dollars for each twenty-five linear feet. An 
 annual inspection fee is also charged for at the rate of thirty-five cents for 
 each twenty-five feet of billboard or fractional part thereof. Each person, 
 firm or corporation engaged in the billboard business is required to file with 
 the city clerk a penal bond, with sureties to be approved by the commis- 
 sioner of buildings, of $25,000. This bond is demanded not only for the 
 
 *This_and the next two paragraphs are quoted from the report of the Commission on New 
 Sources of City Revenue. 
 
 ra. 
 
purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of the ordinance, but 
 also to indemnify the city against all claims and liabilities that it may 
 incur through the erection of billboards. This bond is supplemented by 
 the imposition of heavy penalties in the way of fines for any violation of the 
 ordinance. 
 
 The ordinance passed by Chicago in 1911 to regulate billboards also con- 
 tains a few provisions with reference to the control of illuminated roof 
 signs. A space of at least five feet must be left between the roof and the 
 lower edge of such signs. The height of any sign measured from the roof 
 of the building on which it is erected may not exceed sixty feet. Illuminated 
 signs more than twelve feet in height are not to be erected on the roofs of 
 buildings that are more than eight stories. Signs of twelve feet in height 
 or less may be erected on higher buildings. Before any illuminated sign may 
 be erected, both the commissioner of buildings and the city electrician must 
 give their approval. The commissioner of buildings must make an annual 
 inspection as to the safety of each sign. As in the case of billboards, a penal 
 bond must be filed with the city to indemnify it against all losses sustained 
 through the erection of illuminated signs. Permits for the erection of il- 
 1uminated signs are charged for at the rate of fifty dollars for the first five 
 hundred square feet of superficial area or fraction thereof, and two cents 
 for each additional square foot. In addition to this charge both the com- 
 missioner of buildings and the city electrician collect annual inspection fees, 
 the fee of the former being at the rate of fifty dollars per sign, and that of 
 the latter, at the rate provided by the general city ordinances. 
 
 At the end of Part VI above, we referred to the drastic ordinance con- 
 cerning advertising in street cars adopted by Chicago, July 1, 1912. 
 
 City of St. Louis. 
 
 The height of billboards in St. Louis, Mo., is limited to 14 feet above 
 the ground, and for sanitary reasons there must be a space of 4 feet be- 
 tween the lower edge of the billboard and the ground. A billboard must 
 be at least 6 feet from any building, at least 2 feet from any other billboard, 
 and at least 15 feet from the street. A fee of $1 for each five linear feet 1s 
 required for the permit. 
 
 The billboard advertising business is in the hands of three companies 
 which pay a license fee of only $10 each, for permission to do business in the 
 city, although it is estimated that they do a business of at least $450,000 
 annually, and have property valued at approximately $140,000. It is pro- 
 posed to increase the license fee to not less than $50 each per annum, and 
 impose a property tax of not less than three cents per square foot of bill- 
 board area. 
 
 City of Milwaukee. 
 
 In Milwaukee, Wis., billboards are limited to a height of 12 feet, and 
 there must be an open space of not less than 2 feet under them. They must 
 
 72 
 
be strong enough to resist a wind pressure of at least 40 pounds per square 
 foot, and if within the fire limits must be incombustible. A metal plate is 
 issued with the permit and must be attached to the billboard. A fee is 
 required for the permit and a charge is added for the plate. 
 
 City of Los Angeles. 
 
 In Los Angeles, California, the erection of billboards in residential 
 sections of the city was forbidden by an ordinance passed in 1911; but, like 
 so many others, it was not sustained by the courts. 
 
 An effort was recently made to pass an ordinance fixing the license rate 
 at fifty cents a square foot, but it was not successful. 
 
 City of San Francisco. 
 
 An ordinance adopted March 17, 1913, by the City of San Francisco, 
 to take effect July 1, levies an excise upon the “ business or occupation of 
 bill-posting or bulletin sign painting or outdoor advertising or maintaining 
 billboards or bulletin boards.” The tax is proportionate to the gross earn- 
 ings of the business, which have to be reported each quarter, and is $50 a 
 quarter if the gross earnings for the preceding quarter were $1,000 or less: 
 $75 for earnings up to $2,000; $100 for earnings up to $5,000; $200 for 
 earnings up to $10,000; $300 for earnings up to $25,000; $600 for earnings 
 above $25,000. 
 
 73 
 
PART XI1, 
 
 STATE REGULATIONS. 
 State of New York. 
 
 The unsuccessful efforts to secure billboard legislation in New York 
 State have been recounted above in Part IX. The most progressive action 
 taken by our Legislature on this subject was the enactment of chapter 316 
 of the Laws of 1911, which was secured largely through the efforts of the 
 Automobile Club of America. The law amends section 1423 of the Penal 
 Law, and provides that: 
 
 “A person who willfully or maliciously displaces, removes, in- 
 jures, or destroys a mile-board, mile-stone, danger sign, or signal or 
 guide sign or post, or any inscription thereon, lawfully within a public 
 highway, or who in any manner paints, puts, or affixes any business 
 or commercial advertisement on or to any stone, tree, fence, stump, 
 pole, building, or other structure, which is the property of another, 
 without first obtaining the written consent of such owner thereof, or 
 who in any manner paints, puts, or affixes such an advertisement on 
 or to any stone, tree, fence, stump, pole, mile-board, mile-stone, 
 danger sign, danger signal, guide sign, guide post, billboard, building, 
 or other structure within the limits of a public highway, is guilty of 
 a misdemeanor. Any advertisement in or upon a public highway 
 in violation of the provisions of this subdivision may be taken down, 
 removed or destroyed by any one.” 
 
 Under this statute the state highways have been rid of large numbers of 
 offending signs. 
 
 The foregoing law, however, does not touch the evil of offensive signs 
 in cities, nor those situated upon private property with the consent of the 
 owner in suburban and rural districts. The same may be said of the state 
 laws of Connecticut and Massachusetts following: 
 
 Connecticut. 
 
 Section 1245 of the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, Re- 
 vision of 1902, reads as follows: 
 
 “Every person who shall deposit, throw, or affix any paper or 
 advertisement in any public highway, or on private premises or prop- 
 erty, without the consent of the owner of said premises or property, 
 unless the same be left at the door of a residence or place of busi- 
 ness; or who shall affix to any tree, rock or structure, within the 
 
 74 
 
limits of a public highway, any paper or advertisement, other than 
 notices posted in pursuance of law, or who shall affix to the prop- 
 erty of another without his consent, any word, letter, character or 
 device, intended to advertise the sale of any article, shall be fined not 
 more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six 
 months, or both.” 
 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 Section 115 of chapter 208 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts reads 
 as follows: 
 
 “Whoever paints or puts upon or in any manner affixes to, any 
 fence, structure, pole, rock or other object which is the property of 
 another, whether within or without the limits of the highway, any 
 words, device, trade-mark, advertisement or notice which is not re- 
 quired by law to be posted thereon, without first obtaining the written 
 consent of the owner or tenant of such property, shall, upon com- 
 plaint of such owner, or of his tenant or of any municipal or public 
 officer be punished by a fine of not more than ten dollars. Any 
 word, device, trade-mark, advertisement or notice which has been 
 painted, put up or affixed within the limits of a highway in violation 
 of the provisions of this section, shall be considered a public nuisance, 
 and may be forthwith removed or obliterated and abated by any 
 person.” 
 
 Ohio. 
 
 As a preliminary to intended regulation in Ohio, the people had pre- 
 sented to them in September, 1912, the following, among a large number of 
 proposed constitutional amendments, this being No. 38 out of a list of 42 
 amendments submitted to vote: 
 
 “Laws may be passed regulating and limiting the use of property 
 
 - on or near public ways and grounds for erecting billboards thereon, 
 
 and for the public display of posters, pictures and other forms of 
 advertising.” 
 
 The amendment was lost by a vote of 261,361 in favor, to 262,440 
 against. But one or two of the other questions elicited a larger total vote, 
 showing a popular interest in the subject. 
 
 75 
 
PART XII. 
 
 —_—— 
 
 . FOREIGN REGULATIONS. 
 English Regulations. 
 
 The lead in the movement for the regulation of outdoor advertising in 
 England was taken ten or fifteen years ago by the Society for the Preven- 
 tion of Abuses in Public Advertising—called ‘“‘Spapa”’ for the sake of 
 brevity. With respect to the English law, we cannot do better than quote 
 from an article which appeared in the London Spectator, September 28, 
 1912. Referring to the ‘‘ Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907,” adopted 
 by Parliament (8 Chitty’s English Statutes, 6 Ed., p. 178), the writer says: 
 
 “It empowers local authorities to frame by-laws ‘ for regulating, 
 restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such 
 manner or by such means as to affect injuriously the amenities of 
 a public park or pleasure promenade or to disfigure the natural 
 beauty of a landscape.’ It is only now that local authorities are 
 showing a general disposition to avail themselves of the provisions of 
 the law. The delay was not due to indifference. For several years 
 the Home Office was naturally reluctant to sanction by-laws which 
 followed the simple wording of the section. The method preferred, 
 and indeed prescribed, by the Home Office was that of scheduling | 
 defined areas; and no surprise need be felt that the Council, say, 
 of such a county as Devonshire, could not easily prepare a list of all 
 the spots which should be saved from disfigurement. The three Lake 
 Counties found a way out of the difficulty by scheduling parishes by 
 the dozen; but though this was approved at Whitehall, it was inti- 
 mated that regions to which Nature was less prodigal in gifts must 
 catalogue their treasures. Happily the Hants County Council was 
 able to propose an arrangement which found favor with the Secre- 
 tary of State. Their by-law ordains that ‘no advertisement shall 
 be exhibited on any hoarding, stand, or other erection visible from 
 any public highway (whether carriage way, bridle way, or foot way) 
 and so placed as to disfigure the natural beauty of the landscape.’ 
 The way being thus opened, other local authorities have followed 
 the lead, the by-law in the later forms being improved by the inser- 
 tion of words specifically including the view from railways, rivers and 
 public places. The process of protection being once started, it will 
 go on apace. It is worthy of note that famous pleasure resorts such 
 as Scarsborough and historic cities such as Exeter have been able to 
 schedule fairly extensive areas.” 
 
 The above Advertisements Regulations Act, 1907, also permitted the 
 local authorities to “make by-laws for the regulation and control of hoard- 
 ings (billboards) and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising 
 when they exceed twelve feet in height.’ By another act of the same year, 
 
 76 
 
Part IX of the “ Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907” (11 Chitty’s 
 English Statutes, 6 ed., p. 511), Parliament prohibited all new “ sky-signs ” 
 as defined in the statute (any sign visible against the sky from any public 
 place), and limited the life of the then existing sky-signs to three years, 
 making the prohibition operative throughout England, Ireland and Wales, 
 except in the administrative county of London, when and as applied to 
 specific localities by the Secretary of State (section 2). This statute pro- 
 vides in part as follows: 
 
 “ Sec. 91—(1) (a). It shall not be lawful to erect or fix to, upon 
 or in connection with any building or erection any sky sign, and it 
 shall not be lawful to retain any existing sky sign so erected or fixed 
 for a longer period than three years after the commencement of this 
 section, nor during that period except with the license of the local 
 authority, and in the event of such license being granted then only for 
 such period not exceeding three years from the commencement of 
 this section and under and subject to such terms and conditions as 
 shall be therein prescribed. 
 
 “(b). Provided that in any of the following cases a license of the 
 local authority under this sub-section shall become void (namely) : 
 
 “.) If any addition to any sky sign be made except for the pur- 
 pose of making it secure under the direction of the surveyor ; 
 
 “ Ci.) If any change be made in the sky sign or any part thereof; 
 
 “(il.) If the sky sign or any part thereof fall either through ac- 
 cident, decay, or any other cause; 
 
 “ Civ.) If any addition or alteration be made to or in the house, 
 building, or structure on, over, or to which any sky sign is placed or 
 attached if such addition or alteration involves the disturbance of 
 the sky sign or any part thereof; or 
 
 “(v.) If the house, building, or structure over, on, or to which 
 the sky sign is placed or attached become unoccupied or be demolished 
 or destroyed. 
 
 “(c.) Provided also that if any sky sign be erected or retained 
 contrary to the provisions of this act, or after the license for the 
 erection, maintenance, or retention thereof for any period shall have 
 expired or become void, it shall be lawful for the local authority to 
 take proceedings for the taking down and removal of the sky sign in 
 the same manner and with the same consequence as to recovery of 
 expenses and otherwise in all respects as if it were an obstruction 
 within the meaning of section sixty-nine (Future Projections of 
 Houses, etc., to be removed on Notice) of the Towns Improvement 
 Clauses Act, 1847.” 
 
 The act excepts from its prohibition a few signs erected on railroad sta- 
 tions and elsewhere, it being expressly provided, however, that such signs 
 must be so located that they cannot fall into any street or public place. 
 
 Prior to the more general act referred to, the “ London Building Act, 
 1894” (8 Chitty’s English Statutes, 6 ed., p. 279), had prohibited new 
 sky-signs in London and had strictly limited the terms and conditions upon 
 which existing sky-signs could be continued (secs. 127-134). We quote 
 from Cubitt’s “ Building in London ” (1911), p. 180: 
 
 77 
 
“Large signs of swinging letters or other devices were of fairly 
 frequent occurrence in the early nineties, but the unsightliness of 
 these structures, coupled with the risk of danger in a high wind, was 
 responsible for the stringent and retrospective provisions contained 
 in Part XII of the 1894 Act. Under these provisions the license for 
 an existing sky sign was allowed to be in force only at the most for a 
 further period of six years, and by section 127 no new sky sign was 
 allowed to be erected. The licenses for sky signs existing at the com- 
 mencement of the 1894 Act have long expired, and sky signs are now 
 unlawful. Under section 134 the proceedings to be taken for ob- 
 taining the removal of a sky sign are similar to those applying to 
 structures which have been certified to be in a dangerous state, except 
 that the occupier of the premises is deemed to be the owner of the 
 sky sign and that such ‘ owner’ has no right of arbitration.” 
 
 Billboards or “ hoardings ” in London are subjected to some regulations 
 as to size, material and location by the ‘“ City of London (Various Powers) 
 Act, 1911” (Local Acts, chap. 84); the advertisements placed thereon are 
 also regulated to some extent; also signs projecting from buildings; but 
 not much has been done in the way of specifically regulating billboard adver- 
 tising, except that they are taxed. The maximum height of “ hoardings ” 
 around vacant land is fixed by the London County Council at 12 feet. For 
 the right to place advertisements upon temporary “ hoardings” around 
 building operations in London, the city charges (in addition to other fees 
 for the “ hoardings ” themselves) 10 shillings per month of four weeks for 
 100 square feet, equivalent to about 32 cents per square foot per annum. 
 
 In Liverpool, it is unlawful to erect any billboard abutting or adjoining 
 a street to a greater height than 15 feet above the street level without the 
 consent of the corporation and the approval of plans. Billboards must be 
 kept in repair and litter therefrom promptly removed. The act imposes a 
 general penalty of five pounds and a daily penalty of 20 shillings during the 
 continuance of a violation. 
 
 Manchester licenses billboards not exceeding 15 feet in height. 
 
 Regulations in France. 
 
 The movement in France began in 1906 with the enactment of the law 
 providing for the protection of sites and natural monuments. Under this 
 act, each Department has a Commission which makes a list of lands which 
 should be preserved on account of their natural, historical or artistic inter- 
 est. The Commission invites the owners of scheduled places to enter into 
 an agreement with the Commission not to destroy or alter the condition of 
 their properties, and if the owners do not consent willingly, measures may 
 be taken to appropriate their places. Continuing the story from this point, 
 the London Spectator of September 28, 1912, says: 
 
 “The ‘sites’ having thus been saved, the next step was to ob- 
 tain legal powers for preventing defacement. These were readily 
 
 78 
 
granted by the Legislature. The law of April 20, 1910, prohibits ad- 
 vertising within a zone to be defined by a prefectural order. 
 
 ‘“ A basis of principle was thus surely laid. But the scope of its 
 application was narrow, and the process of ‘ scheduling’ was, by the 
 nature of the case, slow. Meanwhile, the larger evil called aloud for 
 remedy. It was at this point that the Government and Legislature 
 had recourse to the prompt and drastic method of taxation. The 
 Statement of Objects and Reasons given by M. Klotz, the Minister 
 of Finance, tells the whole story. ‘ It is intolerable that entrepreneurs 
 de publicite should prevent promeneurs from enjoying the beauty of 
 scenery. That beauty is part of the national patrimony.’ 
 
 “* Tt appears that an immediate result may be reached by imposing 
 on the advertisments in question a tax which would have in some sort 
 a prohibitive character, and, as the injury done by the advertisements 
 is proportionate to their size, the tax must be progressive.’ The scale 
 varies from 50 francs a year per square metre for notices below six 
 square metres in superficies to 400 francs per square metre for those 
 above 20 square metres. The owner of the site would share the re- 
 sponsibility of the person erecting the notice, and is liable further to 
 a special duty on his gains from this source. 
 
 “It remains only to record that the Chamber of Deputies on the 
 8th July, and the Senate three days after, adopted the Government 
 proposal unanimously and without discussion. On the 12th it was 
 promulgated. The only modification was the postponement to July 
 Ist, 1915, of its enforcement in the case of current contracts. But 
 this exemption does not apply to advertisements on the scheduled 
 sites. 
 
 “Tt must be explained that the tax will fall only on advertise- 
 ments exhibited at a distance of 100 metres from an inhabited place 
 (agglomeration de maisons et de batiments), and that advertisements 
 on walls of houses or enclosures are exempt.” 
 
 Under the French law of July 12, 1912, thus referred to, the rates for 
 advertisements taxed by it, reduced to American standards, are as follows: 
 
 Annual rate Approximate 
 per square meter. Size of Advt. American equivalent. 
 50 francs up to 6 sq. meters $0.93 per sq. ft. 
 100 Gto.l0e" - PeSOmo ie es 
 200 66 10 6c“ 20). “é ce a7 2 “6 sé 66 
 400 “ over 20 “ -" TA a eee is 
 
 These rates are doubled if the billboard contains two advertisements; trebled 
 if it contains three; and quadrupled if it contains four or more. The rates for 
 illuminated signs are doubled. 
 
 Paris has municipal rates for signs and advertisements not coming under 
 the above tax. 
 *France has always kept a close supervision over outdoor advertising 
 and fixes a tax upon every poster upon a wall or building. * * * No 
 one is permitted in France to deface streets and public places with crude, 
 
 *This paragraph is quoted from the report of the Commission on New Sources of City Revenue. 
 
 79 
 
ostentatious announcements of his business or other subject. Billboards 
 are infrequent in Paris and are generally built permanently into a 
 wall, where they are taxed according to their superficial area. The adver- 
 tising kiosks have become a permanent feature of Paris streets and boule- 
 vards. In addition to these forms of advertisements, permanent frame 
 billboards are erected on the walls of market houses and considerable space 
 in the stations of the Metropolitan Subway is utilized by the merchants. 
 
 German Regulations. 
 
 *Outdoor advertising in most German cities is closely supervised and 
 severely restricted. Billboards, such as line the streets of American cities, 
 are absolutely prohibited. In place of these, neat advertising kiosks are 
 used, especially in such cities as Berlin, Dresden and Munich. In Berlin, 
 these kiosks are 12 feet high and 3 feet in diameter and are located at 
 prominent street intersections. The city grants a ten year franchise to a 
 private company to erect and maintain these columns. In return for the 
 privilege the company pays to the city $95,200 annually. The design and 
 location of every kiosk is subject to the approval of the police authorities 
 and these columns at once become the property of the city. The interior 
 of the column is used by the city for storing street cleaning utensils and other 
 municipal materials. 
 
 In Frankfort-on-Main the concessionnaire of the advertising monopoly 
 pays to the city 37 marks per annum per square meter of surface (about 90 
 cents per sq. ft.). No red can be used in posters. That color isreserved for 
 official notices. 
 
 Regulations in Belgium. 
 
 Belgium also levies a State tax on posters. Our advices concerning the 
 Belgian regulations are not very recent, but unless the law has been changed 
 since the date of our information the tax is one cent upon a poster 20% 
 inches long and 13% inches wide, and for every two inches square (4 sq. in.) 
 an additional one fifth of a cent is levied. In a single year this tax yielded 
 a revenue of $70,331. 
 
 South American Cities. 
 
 *In the large South American cities, such as Buenos Ayres, Rio Janeiro, 
 Lima and Valparaiso, outdoor advertising is strictly regulated and taxed. In 
 Buenos Ayres the city puts up the boards and rents the space. A tax is 
 placed on every kind and variety of advertising. The tax on wall advertise- 
 ments is $2.13 per square meter per year. Taxes on other kinds vary from 
 $5 to $15 per meter, according to the class, size, etc. The revenue derived by 
 Buenos Ayres from advertisements amounts to more than $100,000 per an- 
 num. In Rio Janeiro every sign is taxed. Permanent signs are taxed on a 
 permanent basis; temporary signs on a stamp basis. The advertising kiosk 
 is used to some extent; and nets the city in taxes $9,660 annually. 
 
 *This paragraph is quoted from the report of the Commission on New Sources of City Revenue. 
 
 80 
 
PART XIII. 
 
 PROPOSED ORDINANCES. 
 
 The following is the form of an ordinance for the regulation of fences, 
 billboards, sky-signs, etc., embodying restrictions which we believe it legal 
 to put into effect at the present time, without constitutional amendment. 
 
 We recommend that the Building Code be amended substantially as 
 contained in the following ordinance: 
 
 AN ORDINANCE 
 
 To amend the Building Code of The City of New York with respect to fences, 
 signs, bill-boards, roof-signs, sky-signs, advertisements and other structures. 
 
 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Aldermen of The City of New York, as 
 follows: 
 
 Section 1. That the Building Code of the City of New York be and it hereby is 
 amended by inserting therein after Section 144 thereof a new section to be known 
 as 144a and to read as follows: 
 
 144a (1) No fence, sign, screen, bill-board, bulletin, roof-sign, sky-sign, electrical 
 sign, advertisement or any other like structure supported wholly or in part by any 
 framework, posts, uprights, brackets or braces, whether upon the ground or over or 
 above any building or structure or otherwise, shall be so constructed or maintained 
 as to be or become insecure or in danger of falling, or so as to interfere with free 
 ingress to or egress from any building or to or from its roof by means of fire-escapes, 
 fire ladders or scaling ladders. or with the use of any roof in the fighting of fire, or 
 so as to be in danger of falling or collapsing in case of fire, or so as to increase the 
 danger from fire or obstruct the laying of hose or playing of water upon or across 
 any roof in case of fire, or so as to invite or give special opportunity or concealment 
 for crime, vice, nuisances, litter, unsanitary conditions, or violations of law or good 
 order; nor shall any such structure be erected or maintained of such a size or char- 
 acter as shall reduce or injure the values of real estate in its vicinity; and it is hereby 
 declared that each and every structure hereinbefore mentioned and hereby regulated, 
 or of a similar nature, which does not conform to the regulations herein provided, 
 is or is likely to become insecure or in danger of falling or does or is likely to inter- 
 fere with free ingress or egress to or from a building or to or from the roof by 
 means of fire-escapes, fire ladders or scaling ladders or with the use of roofs in the 
 fighting of fire, or to be in danger of falling or collapsing in case of fire or to increase 
 the danger from fire, or to obstruct the laying of hose or playing of water upon or 
 across its or neighboring roofs in case of fire, or to invite or give special opportunity 
 or concealment for crime, or vice, or nuisances, or litter, or unsanitary conditions or 
 violations of law or good order, and tends to reduce or injure the values of real 
 
 81 
 
estate in its vicinity, and is a nuisance, and is hereby prohibited. For the purposes 
 of this ordinance the supporting framework, posts, uprights, brackets and braces shall 
 be deemed a part of such structure. 
 
 (2) Except as hereinafter provided in paragraph (20), no structure subject to 
 regulation by paragraph (1) of this section erected upon the ground and having a tight, 
 closed or solid surface, shall exceed ten feet in height at any point, nor shall the tight, 
 closed or solid surface of any part of any such structure having an open section exceed 
 ten feet in height at any point. No such structure erected upon the ground and ex- 
 ceeding seven feet in height at any point shall be erected or maintained unless it shall 
 be designed and built with an open section or sections in its surface sufficient to give 
 a view of the premises behind such structure to at least the extent herein prescribed. 
 Such open section or sections may be built with slats or with any open work con- 
 struction which shall permit a view through the structure in daylight by a person 
 standing within three feet of its face, and such open section shall be either (a) a 
 horizontal open section not less than two and one-half feet in height running approxi- 
 mately the entire horizontal linear dimension of such structure, some part of which 
 horizontal open section shall at every point be within five feet of the ground, or (b) 
 a vertical open section not less than one foot in width and extending from four feet 
 or less above the ground approximately the entire height of such structure, which 
 vertical open section must be repeated at each horizontal linear distance of not ex- 
 ceeding twenty-two feet for as many times as the length of the structure may allow. 
 No such structure exceeding seven feet in height shall be built with a tight, closed 
 or solid surface, or without such a vertical open section, for a greater horizontal 
 distance than twenty-two feet, unless such structure shall have a horizontal open 
 section of the kind hereinbefore designated in (a) running approximately its entire 
 linear distance. 
 
 (3) No structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section erected 
 upon the ground, and exceeding seven feet in height at any point, shall be built or 
 maintained within the fire limits, as now or hereafter established for the City or any 
 part thereof, unless the same and all supports and braces shall be constructed approx- 
 imately entirely of slats or other open work as defined in the preceding paragraph, 
 or else constructed entirely of incombustible material, except that paper posters may 
 be pasted over the tight, closed, or solid surface thereof; but no open work sec- 
 tion, nor the view afforded of the premises thereby, shall be covered or interfered 
 with by posters or other materials affixed to such structure. 
 
 (4) No structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section erected 
 upon the ground and exceeding seven feet in height at any point, except an open- 
 work trellis, shall be built or its construction be begun within or without such fire 
 limits except after receipt of a permit from the Bureau of Buildings of the Bor- 
 ough in which such structure is to be erected. Every applicant for permission to 
 erect upon the ground any such structure exceeding seven feet in height at any point, 
 except a fence wholly of open work as defined in the preceding paragraph, shall sub- 
 mit to the Bureau of Buildings with his application the written consent, duly 
 acknowledged, of the owner or owners in fee of the premises upon which the same 
 is to be erected, and shall also give at least two weeks previous notice in writing either 
 personally or by mail of such application and the time and place thereof, to the own- 
 ers, occupants or agents of all buildings and lots of land within a distance of two hun- 
 dred feet from any part of the proposed structure. No such application shall be 
 considered by the Bureau of Buildings unless the same is duly filed with said Bureau 
 at least two days previous to the said date of hearing accompanied by duly verified 
 proof of service satisfactory to said Bureau of said notice of application upon the 
 said owners, occupants or agents aforesaid. Provided, however, that the written con- 
 
 82 
 
sent to the erection of any such proposed structure given by any party entitled to 
 notice of such application shall be equivalent to notice to and proof of service upon 
 him. 
 
 (5) Every structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section with 
 a tight, closed or solid surface, erected upon or above any roof, shall be of such size 
 and construction as to admit of easy inspection in each and every part thereof from 
 the roof upon or above which it is erected, and no such structure shall exceed ten feet 
 in height at any point, measured from the roof immediately below it, or exceed in any 
 linear dimension seventy-five per cent. of the front, rear, side, diagonal or other 
 linear dimension which it occupies of the roof upon which it is erected, nor exceed 
 in any event forty feet in any linear dimension; and every roof upon which any such 
 structure is erected shall have free and clear of all such structures at least twenty- 
 five per cent. of each and every linear dimension thereof. 
 
 (6) Every structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section not 
 having a tight, closed or solid surface, erected upon or above any roof, whether an 
 electrical sign or otherwise, shall be of such size and consttuction as easily to admit 
 of inspection in each and every part thereof from the roof upon or above which it is 
 erected, and no such structure shall exceed twenty feet in height at any point measured 
 from the roof immediately below it, nor shall it exceed in any linear dimension seven- 
 ty-five per cent. of the front, rear, side, diagonal or other linear dimension which it 
 occupies of the roof upon which it is erected, unless it have a space or spaces of at 
 least six and one-half feet in height between it and the roof immediately below it 
 wholly open and free from obstruction, and equal in its aggregate linear dimension to 
 at least fifty per cent. of such linear dimension of the structure, which spaces must 
 not be less than three feet in width each, nor more than three feet apart, nor unless 
 such structure shall also be sufficiently open above such line six and one-half feet 
 above the roof to permit the playing without substantial obstruction of water from 
 hose from and across such roof. 
 
 (7) No structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section shall 
 be erected on the roof of any tenement house, hotel, or other dwelling, except upon 
 a wholly detached private dwelling, which shall be at least forty feet distant from 
 any other dwelling, and except that a hotel shall be permitted to have such a struc- 
 ture upon its roof when the same shall be used to identify or advertise the hotel 
 itself only and is under the immediate and complete control of the owner or man- 
 agement of such hotel. 
 
 (8) No sign, bill-board, bulletin or advertisement of any description shall be 
 placed or maintained across any doorway, window opening or other opening in the 
 wall of any building occupied for business or dwelling purposes or beneath the cornice 
 of any such building between the face of the wall and the edge of the cornice, except 
 that signs, when otherwise permissible, may be painted upon a door or a window, or 
 the shutters thereto, or fastened to a door or to a window sash on the inside thereof, 
 provided they move with such door or window and do not obstruct or hamper the 
 normal movement thereof, and except also that an unfastened sign may stand on the 
 inside of any window, if the sign be easily and instantly removable. 
 
 (9) No structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section with a 
 tight, closed or solid surface, shall be erected or maintained upon or above any roof 
 except upon or above the roof of a fire-proof building, as the same is or may be de- 
 fined in the Building Code. 
 
 (10) No structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section which 
 shall at any point exceed seven feet in height above the ground immediately below it, 
 if erected upon the ground, and no such structure whatever erected upon a roof, and 
 
 83 
 
no other superstructure upon any roof or building and having a large flat surface 
 and being similar in structural character to the structures subject to regulation by 
 paragraph (1) of this section, or any of them, shall be erected or maintained unless it 
 shall be designed and constructed in such manner as to sustain a wind pressure of at 
 least forty pounds to the square foot. 
 
 (11) No restriction as to size or dimensions imposed by this section shall apply 
 to walls constructed wholly or principally of stone, marble, brick, terracotta, con- 
 crete, or other like materials composing a masonry or monolithic wall. 
 
 (12) Except as hereinafter provided, all structures subject to regulation by para- 
 graph (1) of this section shall be erected entirely within the building line, and no part 
 thereof or appendage thereto shall extend outside the building line. They shall be so 
 constructed, supported, braced, secured, and, where not erected on the ground, so at- 
 tached to the wall, building or structure as not to be or become dangerous. 
 
 (13) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (4), and except the structures 
 referred to in clauses (a) to (f), inclusive, of paragraph (17), and existing structures 
 whose maintenance may lawfully be continued under paragraph (18) of this section, 
 no structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section shall be begun, 
 erected or maintained until the owner thereof or the person maintaining or intending 
 to maintain the same shall file with the Bureau of Buildings the plans and specifica- 
 tions thereof, and shall have obtained from said Bureau a written and numbered 
 permit to erect the same after the same notice to neighbors of such application as is 
 provided for in paragraph (4). The name of the person holding such permit must 
 at all times appear legibly upon the face of such structure with the number of the 
 permit, under such regulations as the said Bureau may prescribe, which regulations 
 must be printed or written upon such permit, and every owner or person erecting or 
 maintaining such structure shall exhibit such permit whenever requested by a police 
 
 officer or an inspector of any City department or bureau or any other competent 
 official. 
 
 (14) For every such permit a license fee of two dollars shall be paid to the 
 Bureau of Buildings before it is issued. Every structure for which a permit is issued 
 shall be inspected at least once in each calendar year by the Bureau of Buildings. 
 
 (15) Should any such structure be or become insecure or in danger of falling 
 in the opinion of the Bureau of Buildings, the owner thereof or the person main- 
 taining the same shall, upon notice from the Bureau of Buildings, immediately in 
 case of immediate danger, and in all events within ten days, secure the same under 
 the supervision of and in a manner to be approved by said Bureau. 
 
 (16) No structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section and 
 used for advertising purposes, except such signs as are permitted by paragraph (17) 
 of this section, shall be erected or maintained upon any lot or building fronting upon 
 that part of any street which is opposite to or forms the outer boundary of any public 
 park, parkway or land under the jurisdiction of the Park Department, or which is 
 within three hundred and fifty feet of any such outer boundary; or that part of 
 any street which is opposite to the site of any public building, schoolhouse, church, 
 
 college or university, or which is within three hundred and fifty feet of the outer 
 boundaries of any such site. 
 
 (17) No structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section shall be 
 erected or maintained within the lines of any street, park, square or other public place 
 or outside of the building line of private property, except the following: 
 
 (a) Signs required by law or lawfully erected or maintained for public pur- 
 poses by public officers or civic, historic, scenic or other like organizations. 
 
 84 
 
* 
 
 (b) Shop signs or other usual signs relating solely to the premises to which 
 they are attached or to business conducted thereon, and which otherwise comply 
 with section 260 of the Code of Ordinances. 
 
 (c) Electrical bracket signs relating solely to the premises to which they 
 are attached or to business conducted thereon, and which otherwise comply with 
 the provisions of the ordinance relating thereto approved July 24, 1912. 
 
 _ (d) Signs attached to or composing a part of a structure lawfully occupy- 
 ing a street, park, square or other public place and which relate directly and solely 
 to such structure or to the business or premises to which such structure is ap- 
 purtenant or to the highway; or are for the sole benefit of the public, and which 
 otherwise comply with all regulations and restrictions applicable thereto. 
 
 (e) Temporary signs on construction sheds, bridges or trestles erected dur- 
 ing demolition, alteration or construction of buildings or other work lawfully 
 occupying a part of the street, and which relate only to the owners, builders or 
 contractors, or tenants removing from, occupying or intending to occupy the ad- 
 joining premises; but no such sign shall contain more than 60 square feet of 
 superficial area measured on one side only. 
 
 (f) Signs and advertisements in the stations of transit lines, subway, sur- 
 face or elevated, when such signs or advertisements are otherwise permitted 
 and wholly comply with all regulations applicable to them. 
 
 (18) Within sixty days after the adoption of this amendment to the Building 
 Code every owner of a structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this sec- 
 tion which is in existence at the time of such adoption except an open work trellis, 
 a fence erected on the ground in the interior of a block and not exceeding ten feet in 
 height, or other fence erected upon the ground and not exceeding seven feet in 
 height, shall register the same with the Bureau of Buildings, under such regulations 
 as the said Bureau may impose, or shall either take down and remove such structure 
 or alter it so as to bring it within one of the excepted classes aforesaid; and after 
 the expiration of said sixty days’ period the maintenance of any existing structure of 
 which the registration is hereby required shall be illegal unless the same is duly regis- 
 tered, but otherwise this ordinance shall have no retroactive effect upon structures 
 conforming to existing law. The said Bureau shall issue a certificate of registration 
 bearing an identifying number for each such structure so registered, for which a fee 
 of two dollars shall be collected. Such certificates shall give the location, dimensions 
 and character of such structures as stated by the applicants. After the adoption of 
 this amendment no new structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) shall be 
 erected except in accordance with this amendment, and the enlargement or rebuilding 
 or material alteration or relocation of any such structure in existence at the time of 
 such. adoption shall be deemed the erection of a new structure, nor shall temporary 
 removal and re-erection be allowed, only the making of ordinary repairs being per- 
 missible without application for a new permit hereunder and in conformity with the 
 restrictions hereby imposed upon new structures. But no certificate shall be issued, or 
 if issued shall be valid, for any existing structure which violates the existing regula- 
 tions applicable to the same; but every such structure shall either be immediately 
 taken down and removed, or an application for a permit therefor shall immediately 
 be made as for a new structure hereunder and such structure shall be made to conform 
 to the new regulations hereby imposed. 
 
 (19) Notwithstanding any provision of law or ordinance or permission given, 
 whether in or by this code, or by ordinance, regulation or administrative order of any 
 board, commission or officer or otherwise, no land-owner, tenant, or other person 
 shall have any right to occupy any part of any public street, park, square, or other 
 public place, or any land belonging to the City, with any stoop, steps, courtyard, area, 
 vault, building or structure of any description or with any part or projection thereof 
 or appendage thereto, or to permit any stoop, steps, courtyard, area, vault, building or 
 structure or part or projection thereof or appendage thereto, to extend beyond the 
 building or lot line, either above, below or upon the ground, unless the said land- 
 
 85 
 
owner, tenant or other person and the building and lot with respect to which or in 
 favor of which any such occupation or extension is claimed or exercised, shall com- 
 ply in all respects with the restrictions imposed by this code and by any other law 
 or ordinance now or hereafter adopted upon the structures subject to regulation by 
 paragraph (1) of this section; and any such occupation or extension knowingly made 
 or maintained, whether legal or illegal, and whether made or maintained under a 
 claim of right or otherwise, shall operate as an election in favor of such occupation 
 or extension and as a waiver by the person making or maintaining the same, with 
 respect to the building or lot in favor of which such occupation or extension is claimed 
 or exercised, so long as such occupation or extension shall continue, of all and every 
 right, if any, to erect or maintain upon or in connection with said building or lot or 
 any part thereof, any structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this sec- 
 tion except in strict conformity with the restrictions so imposed. But no such election 
 or waiver with respect to such structures shall operate to create in favor of any person 
 or lot any right of occupation or extension beyond the building line except in the 
 cases and to the degree such occupation or extension is otherwise lawful. All per- 
 mits, whenever and however granted, for such exténsions or occupations across the 
 building or lot lines, except upon the conditions here imposed, are hereby revoked. 
 
 (20) The Bureau of Buildings of the Borough in which is erected or maintained 
 any structure subject to the regulations of paragraph (1) of this section may, however, 
 accept and approve of plans and specifications for such a structure erected upon the 
 ground having a tight, closed or solid surface, which structure is to exceed ten feet 
 in height, in case such structure is erected upon a vacant lot, provided that all other 
 requirements of these regulations are observed in the erection and maintenance thereof, 
 that no part of such structure is within a distance of one and one-half times its own 
 height of any street line bounding the lot upon which it is erected, or within the same 
 distance of any building, and that no conditions exist which, in the opinion of said 
 Bureau of Buildings, will make such structure directly or indirectly dangerous or un- 
 sanitary in its effect or tendency or injurious to property values. But no such struc- 
 ture shall in any event exceed twenty feet in height. Any authority granted by said 
 Bureau under this paragraph to erect or maintain any such structure to a height ex- 
 ceeding ten feet shall be revocable at any time upon one month’s notice, in case said 
 Bureau shall find such structure to be or become directly or indirectly dangerous or 
 unsanitary in its effect or tendency or injurious to property values. 
 
 (21) Any structure subject to regulation by paragraph (1) of this section erected 
 or maintained in violation of this section shall, in addition to all other penalties pre- 
 scribed, be subject to abatement by any officer, bureau, board or other local authority 
 having jurisdiction thereof. 
 
 §2. Be it ordained further that all ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby 
 repealed. 
 
 § 3. Be it ordained further that this ordinance take effect on the Ist day of 
 FMABE 
 
 86 
 
BOARD OF HEALTH REGULATIONS. 
 
 We also recommend that the following resolution be adopted by the 
 Board of Health of The City of New York. 
 
 Be it resolved by the Board of Health of the City of New York, that the follow- 
 ing addition to the Sanitary Code, to be known as Section 4l-a thereof, be and it 
 hereby is adopted: 
 
 §41-a. Any person, firm or corporation that shall occupy any vacant lot or 
 premises with a billboard or other advertising structure or device, shall be subject to 
 the same duties and responsibility as the owner of such lot or premises with respect 
 to keeping the same clean, sanitary, inoffensive and free and clear of all noxious sub- 
 stances in the vicinity of such billboard advertising, structure or device; and if such 
 billboard, or advertising structure or device is erected upon or within twenty-five feet 
 of the street line, shall also be subject to the same duties and responsibility as the 
 owner with respect to the care of the sidewalk, flagging and curbstone in front of 
 such lot or premises. 
 
 Also the following resolution: 
 
 Be it resolved by the Board of Health of the City of New York, that the follow- 
 ing addition to the Sanitary Code, to be known as Section 92-a thereof, be and it 
 hereby is adopted: 
 
 §92-a. No person shall erect or maintain in or near a residential neighborhood 
 or a neighborhood in the city where numbers of persons sleep, any brilliant or inter- 
 mittent or flashing. electrical sign or advertisement which shall interfere with the 
 reasonable rest or repose at night of persons in such neighborhood. 
 
 87 
 
PART XIV. 
 
 PROPOSED STATUTE. 
 
 The following is the form of bill relating to the taxation of advertise- 
 ments and advertising devices referred to in Part IX. 
 
 PAWN POMP 
 
 To amend the tax law by adding article sixteen thereto, relating to the taxation of 
 advertisements and advertising structures and devices. 
 
 The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do 
 enact as follows: 
 
 Section 1. Chapter sixty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred and nine, entitled 
 “An Act in relation to taxation,” constituting chapter sixty of the consolidated laws, 
 is hereby amended by adding thereto a new article to read as follows: 
 
 ARTICLE. 16: 
 TAX ON DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND ADVERTISING DEVICES. 
 
 Section 350. Tax on display of advertisements and advertising devices, 
 
 351. Rate cot tax. 
 
 352. Annual tax, when due. 
 
 353. Computation of taxable area. 
 
 354. Application for tax receipt and payment of tax. 
 
 355. Changes in advertising structures. 
 
 356. Identification plate or label. 
 
 357. Disposition of tax. 
 
 358. Removal of unauthorized advertisements, penalties for unauthorized 
 display or removal of notices. 
 
 359. Exceptions. 
 
 360. Enforcement. 
 
 Section 350. Tax on Display of Advertisements and Advertising Devices. 
 
 1. A tax is hereby imposed and shall be due and payable annually in advance 
 for the maintenance and public display upon any real property of any advertisements 
 or advertising devices, whether painted upon or otherwise affixed to the real property 
 or to any building, billboards or other structures on the property. The term “ advertise- 
 ment,’ as used herein, shall apply to any such display. 
 
 2. The tax hereby imposed shall be deemed to be imposed with reference to each: 
 separate advertising structure or in the case of a wall advertisement to each separate 
 surface occupied with advertising matter, for the time for which said tax is paid, 
 
 88 
 
whether the advertisement displayed upon such structure or in said space shall be the 
 same or shall be changed from time to time. But the payment of said tax shall not be 
 construed to permit the erection, display or maintenance of any advertisement or 
 advertising device contrary to any statute, ordinance, or other public regulation. 
 
 3. The tax hereby imposed and the provisions of this article shall apply also to 
 advertisements or advertising devices maintained and displayed on any structures, 
 walls, fences, railings, platforms or stations erected or constructed in, under or upon 
 any public highway or place, and the owner or lessee of any such stations, platforms 
 or other structures shall be deemed to be the owner or lessee of real property for the 
 purposes of this article. 
 
 § 351. Rate of Tax.* 
 
 1, The tax herein provided for shall be a progressive tax increasing in multiples 
 of the respective units of taxation as hereinafter defined and shall be paid for each 
 square foot of the area of the advertisement to which it shall apply, computed as herein- 
 after provided. 
 
 2. In the case of all advertisements subject to tax hereby, except such advertise- 
 ments as shall be parts of or erected or displayed in or upon a station or structure 
 of a subway, elevated or other rapid transit road, street railroad or railroad, the tax 
 unit shall be two one-hundredths of one per cent. per annum of the value per front 
 foot of the lot occupied by the advertisement according to the last preceding assess- 
 ment. Where such lot or parcel fronts on more than one street and no front foot 
 value is given by the tax department upon the minor street or streets, the tax unit for 
 the minor street or streets shall be 75 per cent. of the unit for the major street. But 
 in no case shall the tax unit be less than fifty cents per square foot in cities having a 
 population of 1,000,000 or over, nor less than thirty cents per square foot in other 
 cities of the first class, nor less than twenty cents per square foot in cities of the 
 second class, nor less than ten cents per square foot elsewhere. 
 
 3. If the superficial area of such an advertisement, computed as hereinafter pro- 
 vided, shall not exceed one hundred square feet the rate per square foot shall be the 
 tax unit. If such area is greater than one hundred square feet, but does not exceed 
 two hundred square feet, the rate shall be twice such tax unit. If such area is greater 
 than two hundred square feet, but does not exceed three hundred square feet, the rate 
 shall be three times such tax unit; and the rate shall progress in like manner for each 
 additional one hundred square feet of superficial area of such advertisement. 
 
 4, If no part of the advertisement shall be more than ten feet above the curb level 
 the rate per square foot shall be the tax unit or multiple thereof computed according 
 to the last preceding paragraph. If any part of the advertisement is more than ten 
 feet above the curb level but not more than twenty feet the rate shall be twice such 
 tax unit or multiple thereof; if more than twenty feet but not more than thirty feet 
 the rate shall be three times such tax unit or multiple thereof; and the rate shall 
 progress in like manner for each additional ten feet in height above the curb level to 
 or at which the highest part of the advertisement shall be erected or shall occupy; and 
 the rate to be paid for the whole advertisement shall be the highest rate to which any 
 part of the advertisement is subject. 
 
 5. Every advertisement which is illuminated at night by lights attached or appur- 
 tenant thereto, but not self-illuminating signs on skeleton frames in which the picture 
 or device is itself made with lights, shall pay double the rate as computed according to 
 the last two preceding paragraphs, 
 
 *Note: The rate inserted in parag. 2 as the unit is the rate suggested by the Commission 
 on New Sources of City Revenue. The rate in parag. 6 is merely tentative. The matter of rates 
 will no doubt receive careful consideration when this or any other taxing bill comes before the 
 Legislature. 
 
 89 
 
6. The tax unit per annum of advertisements which are parts of or erected 
 or displayed in or upon a station or structure of a subway, elevated or other rapid 
 transit road, street railroad or railroad shall be, for each square foot of surface of such 
 advertisement, computed as hereinafter provided, as follows: In cities having a popu- 
 lation of 1,000,000 or over, one dollar; in other cities of the first class, fifty cents; 
 in cities of the second class, twenty-five cents; and in other places ten cents, If the super- 
 ficial area of such an advertisement, computed as hereinafter provided, shall exceed 
 ten square feet the rate shall be doubled; if it exceed twenty square feet the rate 
 shall be trebled; and the rate for the whole surface shall progress in like manner for 
 each additional ten square feet of surface of the advertisement, 
 
 7. Where a single advertising structure shall have more than one surface or 
 plane of display, all surfaces or planes of display shall be treated as one surface 
 which are visible from any one point in a street or other public place, for the purpose 
 of fixing the area of such sign. 
 
 § 352. Annual Tax; When Due. 
 
 The tax imposed by this article shall be for the calendar year beginning January 
 first and shall be payable in advance. If any taxable advertisement shall be first 
 maintained and displayed after January first in any year, the tax shall be computed by 
 monthly parts and shall be payable for as many twelfths as there are months or parts 
 of months remaining in the calendar year for which the tax is paid, but not for less 
 than three months. At the option of the payer, a tax may be paid and received for a 
 period after October first in any year and until the end of the next calendar year, 
 computed according to the number of months. The minimum tax for any period shall 
 be one dollar. 
 
 § 353. Computation of Taxable Area. 
 
 The number of square feet in any advertisement, advertising structure, or adver- 
 tising device or space taxable under this article shall be computed by measuring its 
 longest horizontal and vertical dimensions between the most extended points, so that 
 the area taxed shall be a rectangle whether or not the entire space is covered by the 
 advertisement or device. The area of any advertisement, advertising structure or ad- 
 vertising device which is raised on supports above the ground or above the roof of a 
 building shall be computed by measuring the total height from the surface of the ground 
 or above the roof of the building directly under it, as the case may be, and the 
 determination of the local official charged with the collection of the tax upon the 
 points of measurement shall be final. 
 
 § 354. Application for Tax Receipt and Payment of Tax. 
 
 1. The owner or lessee of any real property desiring to maintain and display 
 or to permit to be maintained and displayed upon such real property any taxable ad- 
 vertisement or advertising device or to increase the dimensions of one upon which a 
 tax has been paid, shall make application in writing to the proper official of the district 
 in which such real property is located. Such application shall be duly verified and in 
 addition to the name and address of the applicant and location of the property shall 
 specify in sufficient detail to enable the amount of tax to be computed, the dimensions 
 of the advertisement or advertising device, the height above the curb to or at which 
 the highest point of such advertising structure or space shall be erected or extend, 
 all computed as hereinbefore provided, and whether the advertisement is to be 
 illuminated or not. There shall also be submitted with such application a sketch or 
 plan showing the location of the advertising structure, space or device upon the 
 premises and a brief description sufficient to identify and classify the advertisement. 
 
 90 
 
In the City of New York such application shall be made to the bureau of buildings of 
 the borough in which the advertising structure or device is to be erected or displayed. 
 In other cities such application shall be made to the mayor or an officer designated by 
 the common council, in villages to the collector of village taxes, and in towns outside 
 of villages to the collector of town taxes. In the case of advertisements in or upon 
 stations or structures of rapid transit roads, street railroads or railroads, the public 
 service commission having jurisdiction thereof shall have all powers and be charged 
 with all duties granted or imposed by this article upon local officials. 
 
 2. Upon receipt of such application, and if satisfied that the statements therein 
 contained are accurate and in sufficient detail, such official shall furnish a statement to 
 the person applying setting forth the amount of tax due and payable for maintaining 
 an advertisement or advertising device in accordance with the description given in the 
 application, or due and payable upon any proposed increase in dimensions of an ad- 
 vertisement or advertising structure, space or device upon which a tax has been paid. 
 Upon payment of the tax due such official shall issue a receipt therefor bearing an 
 identifying number and stating the amount of tax, the period for which it is paid, 
 and the location of the real property. Such official shall preserve such application 
 for five years and shall keep a dated record, open to public inspection, of the issue of 
 such receipts, specifying the identifying number thereof, the name of the applicant, 
 the location of the real property, the description of the advertisement and the 
 amount of tax paid. Such official may institute proceedings for the collection of 
 taxes due and for penalties for unauthorized displays and if no application has been 
 made, or the application made is incomplete or unsatisfactory and the applicant neglects 
 or refuses to correct or amend the statements therein, may estimate and impose the 
 tax according to his judgment and belief. 
 
 § 355. Changes in Advertising Structures. 
 
 If at any time the person who has paid a tax for the maintenance and display of 
 any advertisement or advertising structure, space or device as provided in this article 
 shall, during the term for which such tax has been paid, desire to enlarge or relocate 
 the same upon the same premises, or make any structural changes therein, other than 
 those incidental to the repair of the same or to changing the advertisement in the 
 space thus occupied, for which the tax has been paid, he shall make a new application 
 therefor stating also briefly the particulars of the old application and the amount 
 of tax paid thereon, and if the tax payable upon the new advertising structure, space 
 or device shall be greater than that upon the old, deduction shall be made from the 
 amount of such greater tax of whatever sum has been paid on such former application 
 for the same period. 
 
 § 356. Identification Plate or Label. 
 
 Every taxable advertisement or advertising structure or device shall have firmly 
 affixed to or painted upon it a plate or label in a form satisfactory to the official or 
 bureau having jurisdiction thereof, which shall legibly state the person, firm or cor- 
 poration maintaining such advertisement, structure or device, and there shall also be 
 affixed to or painted upon said advertisement, structure or device, in a form satis- 
 factory to said bureau, the number of the tax receipt evidencing the payment of the 
 tax payable with respect thereto. The absence of either of such plates or labels 
 shall be prima facie evidence that the tax has not been paid upon such advertisement, 
 and in a suit to recover such tax or the penalty prescribed for the maintenance of an 
 advertisement which is in default with respect to the tax thereon, no evidence of the 
 payment of such tax shall be received while such advertisement, structure or device 
 is in default with respect to such plates or labels or either of them. Any authorized 
 
 91 
 
representative of the tax department or of the bureau of buildings having jurisdiction 
 thereof and any member of the uniformed police force shall have the right to inspect 
 any such advertisement, structure or device at any reasonable hour of daylight and 
 for such purpose may enter the premises upon which the same is erected or to which 
 it is attached or appurtenant. 
 
 § 357. Disposition of Tax. 
 
 The taxes collected by the mayor, collector, or other officials, under the authority 
 of this article, shall be paid into the general fund of the city or village in which the 
 taxable advertisement or advertising devices may be located, or if in a town outside 
 a village, then into the general fund of such town, in such manner and to be used for 
 such purposes, as other general revenue. The tax hereby imposed shall be in lieu of 
 any and all taxes imposed by any local authority, but not license or inspection fees. 
 
 § 358. Removal of Unauthorized Advertisements; Penalties for Unauthorized 
 Display or Removal of Notices. 
 
 1. If any taxable advertisement or advertising structure or device shall be main: 
 tained or displayed upon any real property before the tax due and payable thereon 
 has been paid, the official charged with the collection of the tax may estimate and 
 assess the amount of tax due in accordance with this article upon said advertisement 
 or advertising device according to the best information in his possession. Such official 
 may thereupon serve notice of the amount of tax due upon the owner of said real 
 property in person or by mail to his last known address or by posting it upon said 
 advertisement or advertising device. If the tax due is not paid within thirty days 
 after notice as herein provided, such official may at his option remove or cause to 
 be removed such advertisement or advertising structure or device, or if it be painted 
 upon or affixed to the structure may cause it to be painted over and obliterated, and the 
 cost of such removal or obliteration shall be collected in the same manner as the pen- 
 alty herein provided for unauthorized display. Such official may, however, at his 
 option, allow such taxable advertisements or advertising structure or device to remain, 
 and may bring suit in the name of the city, town or village against the owner or the 
 lessee of the real property who is responsible as provided in this article for permitting 
 the maintenance or display of such advertisement or advertising structure or device, 
 for the amount of the tax due as estimated by such official and stated in the notice 
 herein provided for, and also for the penalties as provided in this article. 
 
 2. No taxable advertisement or advertising structure or device may be displayed 
 upon any real property or its dimensions increased until the tax imposed by this 
 article shall have been paid. The owner of any real property displaying or permitting 
 to be erected, maintained or displayed thereon except by a lessee of said property any 
 taxable advertisement or advertising structure or device upon which the tax imposed 
 by this article shall not have been paid, shall be liable, in addition to the tax, to a 
 penalty of twice the amount of the tax due, to be collected by suit in the name of the 
 city, village or town, by the official charged with the collection of the tax, provided, 
 however, that if such advertisement or advertising structure or device shall be erected, 
 maintained or displayed or permitted to be erected, maintained or displayed by a 
 lessee of the property without the consent of the owner, then such lessee shall be liable 
 to said penalty and for the tax. 
 
 3. Any taxpayer, resident within the city, town or village, as the case may be, or 
 any corporation or association having as one of its purposes the encouragement of art 
 or the promotion of civic advantages of the city, town or village in which it is 
 located or the preservation of natural scenic beauty, may notify in writing the official 
 charged with the collection of taxes under this article, that an advertisement or adver- 
 tising structure or device (specifying the location thereof) exists within the city, town 
 
 92 
 
or village, as the case may be, upon which no tax has been paid, and notifying him to 
 remove the same or begin an action for the tax and penalty as provided in this 
 section. If such official shall not within thirty days, after the giving of such notice, 
 have collected the tax or have removed the advertisement or advertising structure or 
 device described in such notice, or begun an action as aforesaid, the taxpayer or the 
 corporation or association giving such notice, on giving security for costs to be 
 approved by a judge of the court in which the action is brought, may bring such 
 action and recover in his or its name such tax and penalty and shall, out of the 
 proceeds of any judgment which may be entered in such suit, be entitled to one-half 
 of the amount so recovered; and the balance shall be paid to the official charged with 
 the collection of taxes under this article. Notice of the commencement of such an 
 action shall be given to such official within fifteen days after the service of the sum- 
 mons therein, and failure to give such notice shall be a defense to the action. The 
 official charged with the collection of taxes under this article shall not be entitled to 
 any fee for the collection of taxes which are collected by action brought by a tax- 
 payer, corporation or association, as above provided. 
 
 4. No person shall be taxable or liable to a penalty on account of an adver- 
 tisement or advertising structure or device maintained and displayed upon his property 
 without his knowledge, and for which he received no compensation, provided he re- 
 moves the same within thirty days after knowledge of the same, and also informs 
 the proper official of the facts within thirty days after receiving notice that a tax 
 thereon is due and unpaid. 
 
 5. Any person who shall erect, maintain, post, paint or otherwise attach or affix 
 any taxable advertisement or advertising structure or device upon any real property 
 without the consent of the owner or lessee, or shall remove or deface or destroy, 
 without reasonable cause therefor, any notice affixed under the provisions of this sec- 
 tion, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 § 359. Exceptions. 
 There shall be excepted from and not taxable under this article: 
 
 1. Signs, announcements or devices advertising goods manufactured, or the 
 business conducted, or a performance given upon the premises, or giving the name of the 
 person, firm or corporation manufacturing the goods or conducting the business or giv- 
 ing the performance, or stating the location of the premises or of other places of busi- 
 ness of the occupant. Except in the case of the owner or the lessee of the entire parcel 
 of real property or building, the exceptions of this paragraph shall apply only to that 
 portion of the property or building occupied by the business to which the sign, announce- 
 ment or device relates. 
 
 2. The name or address of any building and of any person doing business therein 
 put upon said building; notices upon any real property stating that the property is for 
 sale or rent; danger or cautionary notices relating to the premises; advertisements 
 or notices required by law or in any legal proceedings or put up by public authority. 
 
 3. Signs containing only (a) the name of the adjacent highway, or (b) warning of 
 the condition of or dangers of travel on a highway, or (c) the distance or direction of 
 any city, village or public place, or (d) the name of any automobile association or 
 club, or board of trade or similar civic organization erecting such signs, or (e) either 
 or both of such designations. 
 
 4. Notices of any railroad or other transportation or transmission company neces- 
 sary for the direction or information or safety of the puplic or announcing the name 
 of any station or office of such company. 
 
 93 
 
5. Signs or advertisements or advertising devices (a) maintained and displayed in- 
 side a building, or (b) within a show window actually and chiefly used for the dis- 
 play of merchandise of the class or character of the articles described in the adver- 
 tisement, and notices so displayed announcing a lecture or entertainment not a pro- 
 fessional theatrical performance. 
 
 § 360. Enforcement. 
 
 The state board of tax commissioners shall have the same powers and duties in 
 regard to the provisions of this article as may be exercised by them in relation to the 
 assessment and taxation of real property, and the said board is hereby authorized 
 and empowered to make rules to secure the proper application and enforcement of the 
 provisions of this article. 
 
 Section 2. This act shall take effect , 1914. 
 
 94 
 
PART XV. 
 
 PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
 
 Following is the draft of a concurrent resolution proposing to amend 
 the constitution of the State of New York. 
 
 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY 
 
 Proposing an amendment to Article III of the Constitution relative to legislative 
 powers. 
 
 Section 1. Resolved (if the Assembly concur) that Article III of the Constitu- 
 tion be amended by the addition of a new section reading as follows: 
 
 Section 30. The promotion of beauty shall be deemed a public purpose, and any 
 legislative authority having power to promote the public weltare may exercise such 
 power to promote beauty in any matter or locality, or part thereof, subject to its 
 jurisdiction. Private property exposed to public view shall be subject to such power. 
 
 Section 2. Resolved (if the Assembly concur) that the foregoing amendment be 
 referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election of senators and, 
 in conformity with section one of article fourteen of the Constitution, be published 
 for three months previous to the time of such election. 
 
 95 
 
PART XVI. 
 
 EXISTING STATUTES AND ORDINANCES—NEW YORK. 
 
 The following is a list of the principal statutes and municipal regula- 
 tions which should be consulted in studying the subject of the control of 
 outdoor advertising in the City of New York. From some, copious extracts 
 are made; in other cases, only their effect or subject matter is indicated. 
 Some relate directly to the subject; others are germane to the question of 
 legal control. 
 
 NEW YORK CITY CHARTER. 
 
 L. 1897, chap. 378, as completely revised by L. 1901, chap. 466, and variously 
 amended since., 
 
 § 43. Powers of Board of Aldermen; Ordinances; Police, Health, Park, Fire and 
 Building Regulations; Exceptions. 
 
 “The board of aldermen shall’ have power to make, establish, alter, modify, 
 amend and repeal all ordinances, rules and police, health, park, fire and building 
 regulations, not contrary to the laws of the state, or the United States, as they may 
 deem necessary to carry into effect the powers conferred upon The City of New York 
 by this act, or by any other law of the state, or by grant; and such as they may deem 
 necessary and proper for the good government, order and protection of persons and 
 property, and for the preservation of the public health, peace and prosperity of said 
 city, and its inhabitants, except so far as power is conferred by this act upon presi- 
 dents of boroughs, the police, health, park and fire departments respectively to make 
 rules for the government of the persons employed in and by said departments. * * *” 
 (As amended by L. 1905, ch. 629, sec. 4.) 
 
 § 44. Enumeration of Powers of Board of Aldermen Not Restrictive. 
 
 “No enumeration of powers in this act shall be held to limit the legislative power 
 of the board of aldermen except as in this act specifically provided and the board of 
 aldermen in addition to all enumerated powers may exercise all of the powers vested 
 in The City of New York by this act, or otherwise, by proper ordinances, rules, regu- 
 lations and by-laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, or with the con- 
 stitution or laws of the United States or of this state; and, subject to such limitations 
 may from time to time ordain and pass all such ordinances, rules, regulations and by- 
 laws, applicable throughout the whole of said city or applicable only to specified por- 
 tions thereof, as to the said board of aldermen may seem meet for the good rule 
 and government of the city, and to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act 
 or of other laws relating to the said city, and may provide for the enforcement of the 
 same by such fines, penalties, forfeitures and imprisonment as may by ordinance or 
 by law be prescribed.” (As amended by L, 1905, ch. 629, sec. 5.) 
 
 96 
 
§ 49. Fire Limits. 
 
 “The board of aldermen shall have power to make, amend and repeal ordinances, 
 rules, regulations and by-laws not inconsistent with this act, or with the constitution 
 and laws of the United States or of this state, for the following purposes * * *: 
 
 “15. To enlarge or extend from time to time the limits of the fire districts of the 
 city, and to establish additional fire districts, and from time to time to extend the 
 same.” 
 
 $50. Use of Streets; Character and Contents of Ordinances. 
 
 Gives the Board of Aldermen the power, subject. to the Constitution and laws 
 of the State, “to regulate the use of streets and sidewalks by foot passengers, animals 
 or vehicles * * *; to prevent encroachments upon and obstructions to the streets 
 and to authorize and require their removal by the proper officers * * *; to regu- 
 late and prevent the throwing or depositing of ashes, garbage or other filth or 
 rubbish of any kind upon the streets; to regulate the use of the streets for signs, 
 sign-posts, awnings, awning-posts, horse troughs, urinals, posts for telegraph or other 
 electric wires, and other purposes * * *; to regulate the exhibiting of banners, 
 placards or flags in or across the streets or from houses or other buildings; to regu- 
 late the exhibition of advertisements or handbills along the streets. * * * The 
 board of aldermen shall not have power to authorize the placing or continuing of any 
 encroachment or obstruction upon any street or sidewalk, except the temporary occu- 
 pation thereof during the erection or repairing of a building on a lot opposite the 
 same, nor shall they permit-the erection of booths and stands within stoop lines, 
 except for the sale of newspapers, periodicals, fruits and soda water, and with the 
 consent in such cases of the owner of the premises. The board of aldermen shall 
 not pass any special ordinance in relation to any of the matters mentioned in this 
 section. All ordinances in relation thereto shall be general ordinances which may 
 either apply throughout the whole city or throughout specified portions thereof, and 
 shall provide for the enforcement thereof as specified in section 44 of this act as 
 amended. * * * All general ordinances relating to authorized structures, en- 
 croachments or obstructions in or upon the streets or sidewalks by persons other 
 than the authorities of the City of New York, or other public authorities, shall fix a 
 definite license fee for every such authorized structure, encroachment or obstruc- 
 tion, according to the character, extent and duration thereof, and shall provide for 
 the issuing of revocable licenses therefor, which shall be according to an established 
 form and shall be regularly numbered and duly registered as shall be prescribed by the 
 board of aldermen. But no ordinance hereafter adopted or power hereafter exercised 
 by the board of aldermen shall limit, apply to or affect any franchise, grant, contract 
 or resolution in the nature of a franchise hereafter made, appreved or authorized 
 by the board of estimate and apportionment as in this act provided, or by the board of 
 rapid transit railroad commissioners of the City of New York.” (As amended by 
 L. 1905, chap. 629, sec. 9.) 
 
 (Note—The Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners have now been succeeded 
 by the Public Service Commission, First District, under the Public Service Commis- 
 sions Law. See below.) 
 
 § 51. Licensing and Regulating Certain Businesses. 
 
 “ Subject to the constitution and laws of the state, the board of aldermen shall 
 have power to provide for the licensing and otherwise regulating” various specified 
 businesses. The list does not include advertising. (As amended by L. 1910, chap. 262.) 
 
 Of 
 
§ 310. Police Department to Co-operate with Department of Health. 
 
 “Tt shall be the duty of the police department (and of its officers and men, as said 
 police commissioner shall direct) to promptly advise the department of health of all 
 threatened danger to human life and health, and of all matters thought to demand its 
 attention, and to regularly report to said department of health all violations of its 
 rules and ordinances, and of the health laws, and all useful sanitary information. 
 Said department shall, so far as practicable and appropriate, co-operate for the pro- 
 motion of the public health and the safety of human life in said city. It shall be the 
 duty of said police department, by and through its proper officers, agents and men, to. 
 faithfully and at the proper time, enforce and execute the sanitary rules and regu- 
 lations, and the orders of said department of health (made pursuant to the power 
 of said department of health), upon the same being received in writing and duly 
 authenticated as said department of health may direct * * *.” (See sec. 1202 
 below.) 
 
 § 383. Borough Presidents; Powers and Duties. 
 
 “The president of a borough shall, * * * within the borough for which he 
 shall have been elected * * * have cognizance and control: * * * 
 
 (Tiga esd 
 
 5. Of the filling of sunken lots, fencing of vacant lots, digging down lots, and 
 of licensing vaults under sidewalks. : 
 
 “6. Of the removal of incumbrances. 
 
 = 
 
 “7. Of the issue of permits to builders and others to use or open the streets * * *. 
 
 “He shall have such other powers as are expressly conferred upon him by this 
 act, and such other powers as may be conferred upon him by the Board of Alder 
 men * * ¥*,” (As amended by L. 1907, chap. 383.) 
 
 (See §612 below.) 
 
 § 407. Powers of Aldermen Over Building Code. 
 
 “The Board of Aldermen is authorized by ordinance to regulate and restrict the 
 height of buildings to be hereafter erected in the city * * *, The building code 
 which shall be in force in The City of New York on the Ist day of January, Nineteen 
 Hundred and Two, and all then existing provisions of law fixing the penalties for vio- 
 lation of said code, and all then existing laws affecting or relating to the construction, 
 alteration or removal of buildings or other structures within The City of New York 
 are hereby declared to be binding and in force in The City of New York, and shall 
 continue to be so binding and in force except as the same may from time to time be 
 revised, altered, amended or repealed as herein provided * * *, The Board of 
 Aldermen shall have power from time to time to amend said building code and said 
 laws and to provide therein for all matters concerning, affecting or relating to the con- 
 struction, alteration or removal of buildings or structures erected or to be erected in 
 the City of New York * * *. The said building code which is in force May first, 
 Nineteen Hundred and Four, shall constitute a chapter of the code of ordinances of 
 the City of New York.” (As amended by L. 1904, chap. 628, §2.) 
 
 § 610. Powers of Aldermen Over Park Property. 
 
 “The board of aldermen shall by general ordinances from time to time establish 
 all needful rules and regulations for the government and protection of the public 
 
 98 
 
parks and of all property placed in charge of the park board and under its control 
 by the provisions of this chapter, and the same shall at all times be subject to all such 
 ordinances as to the use and occupation thereof and in respect to any erections or 
 encumbrances thereon. * * * The rules and regulations for the government and 
 protection of the public parks and of all property in charge of the said board or under 
 its control, which are in force May first, nineteen hundred and four, shall, together 
 with the ordinances adopted by the board of aldermen, constitute a chapter of the code 
 of ordinances of the city of New York. On or before the fifteenth day of May, 
 nineteen hundred and four, the secretary of the park board shall file with the city 
 clerk all such rules and regulations which were in force on May first, nineteen hun- 
 dred and four, and upon the filing of the same, they shall thereby become general 
 ordinances of the city of New York. No such rule or regulation adopted by the 
 park board subsequent to May first, nineteen hundred and four, shall become valid 
 and effectual until a copy of such rule or regulation, duly certified to be a correct 
 copy by the secretary of the park board, be filed with the city clerk. Upon so filing 
 such rule or regulation shall become a general ordinance of the city of New York. 
 Any person violating any ordinances relating to the parks or other property mentioned 
 in this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction before a city 
 magistrate be punished by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or in default of payment 
 of such fine by imprisonment not exceeding thirty days.’ (As amended by L. 1913, 
 chap. 333.) 
 
 § 612. Powers of Park Board and Park Commissioners. 
 
 “Subject to such general rules and regulations as shall be established by the board, 
 each commissioner shall have charge of the management and be responsible for the 
 care of all such parks, parkways, squares and public places as are situated in the bor- 
 ough or boroughs over which he has jurisdiction and of the streets and avenues imme- 
 diately adjoining the same; but such jurisdiction shall not extend to nor include the 
 buildings which are now or may hereafter be erected in such parks, squares or public 
 places for governmental purposes, other than those of the Department of Parks. It 
 shall be the duty of each commissioner, subject to such general rules and regulations 
 and in conformity therewith, to maintain the beauty and utility of all such parks, 
 squares and public places as are situated within his jurisdiction, and to institute and 
 execute all measures for the improvement thereof for ornamental purposes and for 
 the beneficial uses of the people of the city. Subject to the general rules and regula- 
 tions established by the board, and excepting as otherwise provided in section six hun- 
 dred and twelve-a of this charter, each commissioner shall have power to authorize 
 and regulate the projections on and determine the line or curb and the surface con- 
 struction of all streets and avenues lying within any park, square or public place in his 
 jurisdiction, or within a distance of three hundred and fifty feet from the outer 
 boundaries thereof * * *.” (As amended by L. 1908, chap. 135, $1.) 
 
 (The Commissioners of Parks, formerly three in number, were raised to four 
 by L. 1911, chap. 644.) 
 
 § 612-a. Certain Streets in Brooklyn. 
 
 This section transfers jurisdiction of certain streets in the Borough of Brooklyn 
 from the Park Department to the President of the Borough. (As amended by L. 1913, 
 chap. 34.) 
 
 (Note that this power of jurisdiction to be exercised by the individual com- 
 missioner is by the charter made subject to the general regulations of the Board of 
 Park Commissioners. Query as to jurisdiction of Aldermen. See § 407.) 
 
 99 
 
§ 774. Powers and Duties of Fire Commissioner. 
 
 “The commissioner shall enforce all laws and ordinances and the rules and regu- 
 lations of the industrial board of the department of labor in respect of— 
 
 “1. The prevention of fires. * * * 
 
 “4, The means and adequacy of exit, in case of fire, from all buildings, structures, 
 enclosures, vessels, places and premises in which numbers of persons work, live or 
 congregate from time to time, for any purpose except tenement houses and except 
 factories as defined by the labor law.” (As amender by L. 1913, chap. 695.) 
 
 § 775. Prescribes What the Fire Commissioner May Do in the Exercise of his 
 Powers. (As amended by L. 1913, chap. 695.) 
 
 § 1202. Police Department to Co-operate With Department of Health. 
 
 Another section in almost the same language as section 310 above, requiring the 
 police department to co-operate with the board of health. The earlier section is in that 
 part of the charter relating to the police department. This section is in that part relating 
 to the department of health. 
 
 § 1287. Nuisance Defined. 
 
 “A wilful omission or refusal * * * to conform to any ordinance of the sani- 
 tary code or any sanitary regulation of said board (board of health), duly made for 
 the protection of life, or the care, promotion or preservation of health, pursuant to 
 its power or authority, shall be a misdemeanor. * * * In addition thereto every 
 person, body or corporation that shall violate or not conform to any ordinance of the 
 sanitary code, or any rule, sanitary regulation, or special or general order of said 
 board, duly made, shall be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars for each 
 offense, which may be sued for and recovered by and in the name of the said depart- 
 ment of heath * * *.” 
 
 § 1456. Filth, etc., in the Streets. 
 
 “No person or persons shall throw, cast or lay, or direct, suffer, or permit any 
 servant, agent, or employe to throw, cast or lay any ashes, offal, vegetables, garbage, 
 dross, cinders, shells, straw, shavings, paper, dirt, filth or rubbish of any kind whatever, 
 in any street in the City of New York. The wilful violation of any of the foregoing 
 provisions of this section shall be and is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor * * *.” 
 
 (This section of the charter remains in effect only until ordinances are passed 
 covering the same subject. See amendatory act of 1901, chap. 466, § 3, at end of 
 cre) 
 
 OTHER NEW YORK STATUTES. 
 
 L. 1911, Chap. 521. Prohibits the depositing of advertising circulars, etc., in 
 the letter boxes of apartment houses in The City of New York unless enclosed in an 
 envelope or wrapper addressed to the persons for whom they are intended, and 
 makes the offense a misdemeanor. 
 
 L. 1912, Chap. 13. Defines a tenement house. 
 
 Penal Law, § 121. Penalizes the fixing of any advertisement to property without 
 the consent of the owner. 
 
 100 
 
Penal Law, § 1530. Public nuisance defined. 
 
 “A ‘public nuisance’ is a crime against the order and economy of the state, 
 and consists in unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or 
 omission : 
 
 “1. Annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of eny 
 considerable number of persons; or, 
 
 “2. Offends public decency; or, 
 
 “3. Unlawfully interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct, or renders dan- 
 gerous for passage, a lake, or a navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or a 
 stream, creek or other body of water which has been dredged or cleared at public 
 expense, or a public park, square, street or highway; or, 
 
 “4. In any way renders a considerable number of persons insecure in life, 
 or the use of property.” 
 
 Penal Law, $1532. Maintaining Nuisance. 
 
 “A person who commits or maintains a public nuisance, the punishment for 
 which is not specially prescribed, or who wilfully omits or refuses to perform any 
 legal duty relating to the removal of such public nuisance is guilty of a misde- 
 meanor.” 
 
 Rapid Transit Act of The State of New York (L. 1891, chap. 4, as variously 
 amended from time to time.) 
 
 § 34-p. Advertising, Etc. 
 
 “No part of any road or roads or of its or their appurtenances, constructed under 
 the authority of this act, shall be used for advertising purposes, except that the 
 person, firm or corporation operating such road or roads may use the structure for 
 posting necessary information for the public relative to the running of trains and to 
 the operation of the road or roads. Nor shall any trade, traffic or occupation, other 
 than required for the operation of said road or roads, be permitted thereon or in the 
 stations thereof, except such sale of newspapers and periodicals as may, from time 
 to time, always with the right of revocation, be permitted by the board of rapid 
 transit railroad commissioners.” (This section added by L. 1906, chap. 472.) 
 
 § 63. Roads Constructed at City Expense to be Part of Public Streets. 
 
 “In case it shall be determined by vote of the people as provided by sections 
 twelve and thirteen of chapter seven hundred and fifty-two of the laws of eighteen 
 hundred and ninety-four, to construct by and at the city’s expense, then and in that 
 event the road or roads so constructed shall be and remain the absolute property 
 of the city so constructing it or them, and shall be and be deemed to be a part of the 
 public streets and highways of said city, to be used and enjoyed by the public upon 
 the payment of such fares and tolls, and subject to such reasonable rules and regu- 
 lations as may be imposed and provided for by the board of rapid transit railroad 
 commissioners in said city.” (As amended by L. 1895, chap. 519.) 
 
 (The Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners originally created by 
 this act was succeeded by the Public Service Commission for the First District under 
 the Public Service Commissions Law below.) 
 
 101 
 
Public Service Commissions Law of the State of New York (L. 1907, Chap. 429, 
 as wholly revised by L. 1910, Chap. 480, and made Chap. 48 of the Consolidated 
 Laws, and since amended from time to time). 
 
 Section 123 (originally numbered sec. 83) abolished the Board of Rapid Transit 
 Railroad Commissioners and transferred all their power and duties to the Public 
 Service Commission of the First District. 
 
 For the powers of the two Commissions the act itself should be consulted. 
 
 Municipal Empowering Act (L. 1913, chap. 247). 
 
 This act amends the general city law (Chap. 21 of New York Consolidated Laws) 
 by adding a new article intended to enlarge the powers of self-government of cities. 
 It transfers no powers from one officer to another, but is intended to remove restric- 
 tions now operative upon local authorities. 
 
 SANITARY CODE (N. Y. CITY). 
 
 Chapter 14 of the General Ordinances of New York City. The citations are to 
 Cosby’s Code of Ordinances, 1913. By section 1172 of the Charter, as amended by L. 
 1904, chap. 628, § 3, the Sanitary Code, in force May 1, 1904, was made a chapter of the 
 ordinances of New York City. Amendments to the Sanitary Code may be made 
 either by the Board of Aldermen or the Board of Health. By section 1167 of the 
 Charter the Board of Health is composed of the Commissioner of Health, the Police 
 Commissioner and the Health Officer of the Port. All amendments take effect when 
 filed with the City Clerk. 
 
 § 41. Sidewalks, Areas, Yards. 
 
 “Every owner, tenant, lessee and occupant of any building or lot (whether vacant 
 or occupied) within or near the built-up portions of said city, shall keep and cause 
 to be kept the sidewalk and flagging, and curbstone in front thereof, free from 
 obstructions and nuisances of every kind, and shall not allow anything in the area 
 or yard or on or about his premises to become a nuisance, or dangerous or preju- 
 dicial to life or health.” (Cosby, p. 141.) 
 
 § 92. Unhealthful Business. 
 
 “No occupation or business that is dangerous or detrimental to life or health 
 shall be established or carried on in the City of New York.” . (Cosby, p. 154.) 
 
 § 116. Lots; Fences. 
 
 “Tt shall be the duty of every owner, lessee, contractor or other person having 
 the management and control of any lot or parcel of land in the City of New York to 
 keep and preserve the same at all times clean, inoffensive and free and clear of any 
 water which may gather or collect thereon; and to provide and maintain around or 
 in front of any lot which is sunken, excavated or below the grade of the sidewalk 
 adjacent thereto, a proper fence to protect persons from falling therein. 
 
 “No person shall throw or deposit in or upon any lot any garbage, refuse or other 
 offensive materials.” (Cosby, p. 159.) 
 
 102 
 
BUILDING CODE (N. Y. CITY). 
 
 Chapter 15 of the General Ordinances of New York City. The citations are 
 
 to Cosby’s Code of Ordinances, 1913. The Building Code in force May 1, 1904, 
 
 was made a chapter of the City Ordinances by L. 1904, chap. 628, §2. It can be 
 
 amended by the Board of Aldermen under L. 1901, chap, 466, $407. Such ordi- 
 
 nances so passed have the same effect as an act of the Legislature: City of N. Y. 
 
 1S iid Sailors Snug Harbor, 85 App. Div., 355; Post vs. Kerwin, 133 App. 
 iv., : 
 
 § 8. Defines private dwelling. (Cosby, p. 183.) 
 § 9. Defines apartment houses. (Ib.) 
 
 §10. Defines hotels. (Ib.) 
 Tenement House. For definition see L. 1912, chap. 13. 
 
 § 12. Defines All Frame Buildings. 
 
 “Wood frames covered with metal shall be deemed to be wood structures.” 
 (Cosby, p. 184.) 
 
 § 80. Construction Sheds Over Sidewalks. (Cosby, p. 211.) 
 
 § 143. Fire Limits. 
 
 Gives fire limits for the Boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. 
 None for Richmond. 
 
 § 144. Frame Structures Within the Fire Limits. 
 
 “The provisions, in this section contained, shall apply to buildings and structures, 
 whether temporary or permanent, within the fire limits, as the said fire limits now are 
 or may hereafter be established. 
 
 “Temporary one-story frame buildings may be erected for the use of builders, 
 within the limits of lots whereon buildings are in course of erection, or on adjoining 
 vacant lots, upon permits issued by the Commissioner of Buildings having jurisdiction. 
 
 “Temporary structures shall be taken to mean and include platforms, stands, elec- 
 tion booths, temporary buildings and circus tents. 
 
 “Sheds of wood not over fifteen feet high, open on at least one side, with the 
 sides and roof covered with fireproof material, may also be built, but a fence shall 
 not be used as the back or side thereof. Such sheds shall not cover an area exceeding 
 two thousand five hundred square feet, except by permission of the Board of Buildings, 
 
 “Fences, signs or bill-boards shall not be at any point over ten feet above the 
 adjoining ground; except that when any fence, sign or bill-board shall be constructed 
 entirely of metal or of wood covered on all sides with sheet metal, including the up- 
 rights, supports and braces for same, it shall not be at any point over eighteen feet six 
 inches above the adjoining ground. 
 
 “Any letter, word, model, sign, device or representation in the nature of an ad- 
 vertisement, announcement or direction, supported or attached wholly or in part, over 
 or above any wall, building or structure, shall be deemed to be a ‘ sky sign.’ 
 
 “Sky signs shall be constructed entirely of metal, including the uprights, supports 
 and braces for same, and shall not be at any point over nine feet above the front wall 
 
 103 
 
or cornice of the building or structure to which they are attached or by which they 
 are supported. 
 
 “All fences, signs, bill-boards and sky signs shall be erected entirely within the 
 building line, and be properly secured, supported and braced, and shall be so con- 
 structed as not to be or become dangerous. 
 
 “ Before the erection of any fence, sign, bill-board or sky sign shall have been com- 
 menced, a permit for the erection of the same shall be obtained from the Superintend- 
 ent of Buildings having jurisdiction as provided in part 2, section 4, of this Code. 
 Each application for the erection of any fence, sign, bill-board or sky sign, shall be 
 accompanied by a written consent of the owner or owners, or the lessee or lessees of 
 the property upon which it is to be erected. 
 
 “ Piazzas or balconies of wood on buildings other than frame buildings which do 
 not exceed eight feet in width, and which do not extend more than three feet above the 
 second story floor beams, may be erected, provided a permit from the Commissioner of 
 Buildings having jurisdiction, be granted therefor. In connected houses such piazzas 
 or balconies may be built, provided the same are open on the front and have brick 
 ends not less than eight inches thick, carried up above the roof of such piazza or 
 balcony, and coped with stone. The roofs of all piazzas shall be covered with some 
 fireproof materials. Frame buildings already erected may have placed on any story 
 piazzas, balconies or bay windows of wood, the roofs of which may be covered with 
 the same material as the roof of the main building. 
 
 “Exterior privies, and wood or coal houses, not exceeding 150 square feet in 
 superficial area and eight feet high, may be built of wood, but the roofs thereof must 
 be covered with metal, gravel or slate.’ (As amended by ordinance approved July 14, 
 1902. Cosby, p. 257.) 
 
 (This is the section of which a part—the limitation upon the height of sky 
 signs—was declared unconstitutional in the Wineburgh case. See Part III.) 
 
 § 150. Violations of the Building Code and Penalties. 
 
 Prescribes a penalty of $50 for violation of or failure to comply with any detailed 
 order or regulation or for building in violation of any detailed statement of specifica- 
 tions or plans submitted and approved under the code or any permit issued thereunder 
 except that a violation of certain enumerated provisions shall be punished with a fine 
 of $100. In case of removal of violation within 10 days the Commissioner of Buildings 
 may remove the penalty or the Corporation Counsel, at his request, shall discontinue 
 the suit to recover the penalty. Failure to remove violations are punished by a penalty 
 of $250, and these penalties also may be removed by the Commissioner of Buildings 
 if the violation is removed. (Cosby, p. 262.) 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS ORDINANCES (N. Y. CITY). 
 
 The following are general ordinances applying, throughout the city unless 
 otherwise specified. The citations are to Cosby’s Code of Ordinances, 1913. 
 
 § 161. General Ordinances. 
 
 Requires the captains of the several police precincts to require the person making 
 a street opening to exhibit to him the authority or permission for such opening. In 
 default of its production a complaint must be made to the Corporation Counsel and 
 to the President of the Borough. (Cosby, p. 34.) 
 
 104 
 
§ 181. General Ordinances. 
 
 Limits areas, steps, courtyards or other projections, except show-windows, upon 
 Broadway, south of Fifty-ninth street, Manhattan, to not exceeding 18 inches, and 
 provides that signs shall not project more than twelve inches from the house line. 
 (Cosby, p. 39.) 
 
 § 183. General Ordinances. 
 
 Makes a similar restriction with respect to Fourteenth street, between Broadway 
 and Sixth avenue. (Cosby, p. 40.) 
 
 §§ 209-218, General Ordinances. 
 
 Requires excavations to be safeguarded with a fence or railing. (Cosby, pp. 
 43-46.) 
 
 § 219, General Ordinances. 
 
 “No person shall incumber or obstruct any street, roadway or sidewalk which 
 has been opened, regulated or graded, according to law, in the City of New York, 
 with any article or thing whatsoever, except as provided in section 262 of these 
 ordinances, without first having obtained written permission from the president of 
 the borough in which such street, roadway or sidewalk is situated * * *.” (Cosby, 
 p. 46.) 
 
 § 221, General Ordinances. 
 
 Requires the President of any Borough whenever directed by the Board of 
 Aldermen to order removed anything which may incumber or obstruct any street. 
 (Cosby, p. 48.) , 
 
 § 224, General Ordinances. 
 
 “The borough presidents and the park commissioners having jurisdiction, shall 
 issue permits for the erection of bay windows projecting beyond the building line, 
 provided, in the opinion of the officer having jurisdiction, no injury will come to 
 the public thereby. Permits for the erection of bay windows lying within any park, 
 square or public place, or within a distance of 350 feet from the outer boundaries 
 thereof, shall be issued by the park commissioner having jurisdiction, as provided in 
 section 612 of the Charter, as amended by section 1, chapter 723 of the Laws of 1901. 
 Permits for the erection of all other bay windows shall be issued by the Borough 
 President having jurisdiction.” (Cosby, p. 48.) 
 
 § 225, General Ordinances. 
 
 Requires a written application to be made for such permit, with drawings of the 
 proposed bay window, and further requires the written consent endorsed upon the 
 application of all the adjoining property owners within a distance of fifty feet from the 
 center of the bay window on the same side of the street where the proposed bay is to 
 project more than one foot beyond the building line. (Cosby, p. 49.) 
 
 § 226, General Ordinances. 
 
 Requires in the case of each bay projecting more than one foot beyond the build- 
 ing line that the application shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the last 
 
 105 
 
assessed valuation of the property, and that compensation shall be paid to-the City 
 at the rate of ten per cent. of the assessed value per square foot of the property 
 on which the said bay window is to be erected for each story through which the 
 bay is to be carried. (Cosby, p. 49.) 
 
 §§ 227-234, General Ordinances. 
 
 Prescribe further conditions and restrictions, and in some cases permit a bay 
 window to extend for three feet beyond the building line. 
 
 § 232, General Ordinances. 
 
 Provides for permits for the continuance of existing bay windows without ihe 
 consent of adjoining property owners. Under section 229 all permits for bay windows 
 are issued expressly subject to revocation by the Board of Aldermen. (Cosby, pp. 
 50-52. ) 
 
 § 235, General Ordinances. 
 
 “The borough presidents and the park commissioners having jurisdiction, shall, 
 subject to the restrictions of this ordinance, issue permits for the construction of 
 ornamental projections which project beyond the building line, provided, in the 
 opinion of the officer having jurisdiction, no injury will come to the public thereby. 
 Permits for the construction of such projections, lying within any park, square or 
 public place, or within a distance of 350 feet from the outer boundaries thereof, 
 shall be issued by the park commissioner having jurisdiction, as provided in section 
 612 of the charter as amended by section 1, chapter 723 of the Laws of 1901. 
 Permits for the erection of all other ornamental projections shall be issued by the 
 borough presidents having jurisdiction.” (Cosby, p. 52.) 
 
 § 243, General Ordinances. 
 
 Such projections must not conflict with the Building Code; nor shall the plans 
 be approved by the Superintendent of Buildings until the permit for projections is 
 filed. (Cosby, p. 54.) 
 
 $$ 246-248, General Ordinances. 
 
 Regulate porches, platforms, stoops within the street lines. (Cosby, pp. 54-55.) 
 
 §§ 249-251a, General Ordinances. 
 
 Regulate the erection of balustrades and awnings within the street lines and 
 require the permission of the Board of Aldermen for the erection of balustrades. 
 But awnings of tin or other light metal or canvas may be erected with the consent 
 of the Borough President, except in certain restricted localities. (Cosby, pp. 55-57.) 
 
 § 260, General Ordinances. 
 
 “Signs, showbills and showboards may be placed on the fronts of buildings, 
 with the consent of the owner thereof, and shall be securely fastened, and shall not 
 project more than one foot from the house wall, except that signs may be hung or 
 attached at right angles to any building and extend not to exceed three feet there- 
 from in the space between the second floor (the ground floor being considered the 
 first floor) and a point eight feet in the clear above the level of the sidewalk 
 
 106 
 
in front of such building. Signs may be attached to the sides of stoops, but not to 
 extend above the railing or beyond the stoop line of any stoop. No sign, showbill 
 or showboard shall be placed, hung or maintained except as in this section pre- 
 scribed, under penalty of ten dollars for each offense, and a further penalty of ten 
 dollars for each day or part of a day the same shall continue.” (Cosby, p. 57.) 
 
 §§ 260a-260d, General Ordinances. 
 
 Provide for electric signs hung or attached to buildings and extending into the 
 streets, but have now been superseded by an ordinance approved by the Mayor, July 
 24, 1912 (Cosby’s Code, pp. 446-448, see below). (Cosby, pp. 57-58.) 
 
 § 260e, General Ordinances. 
 
 Hospital street signs may be erected by the Borough Presidents. (Cosby, p. 58.) 
 
 § 263, General Ordinances. 
 
 Permits show cases in areas:or on the sidewalk within the stoop line not beyond 
 five feet from the house line (subject to certain restrictions as to size), barber-poles, 
 ornamental lamps and illuminated signs on the stoop, or within the stoop line, drop 
 awnings not extending more than six feet beyond the house line, and certain stair- 
 ways and hoist ways. (Cosby, pp. 59-60.) 
 
 § 264, General Ordinances. 
 
 All such privileges are subject to alteration, amendment or repeal by the Board 
 of Aldermen. (Cosby, p. 60.) 
 
 § 404, General Ordinances. 
 
 An ordinance prohibiting the throwing of garbage, paper, dirt, filth, etc., in any 
 street in the city, the language of the ordinance being very similar to section 1456 
 of the Charter above. (Cosby, p. 97.) 
 
 § 408, General Ordinances. 
 
 Prohibits the throwing or distributing of handbills, etc., in any street or public 
 place. (Cosby, p. 98.) 
 
 § 500, General Ordinances. 
 
 “No person shall expose, display, post up, exhibit, paint, print or mark, nor place 
 or cause to be placed, any placard, poster, bill or picture of any show, exhibition, 
 theatrical or other performance in or on any building, bill board, wall or fence on 
 any street, nor in or upon any public place, in the City of New York, which shall be 
 of lewd, indecent, immoral, immodest, vulgar or suggestive character, calculated to 
 debauch the public or shock the sense of decency or propriety.” (Ord. app. Oct. 24, 
 1905. Amend. by ord. app. July 2, 1906.) (Cosby, p. 117.) 
 
 § 501, General Ordinances. 
 
 Prescribes a penalty for the violation of section 500. (Cosby, p. 117.) 
 
 § 548, General Ordinances. 
 
 Prohibits the posting, painting and nailing, etc., of any handbill, poster, notice, 
 etc., upon any curb, tree, lamp-post, etc., in any street in Manhattan or Brooklyn. 
 (Cosby, p. 127.) ; 
 
 107 
 
§§ 1-9, Manhattan Ordinances (Part II of Ordinances). 
 
 Regulate peddlers, venders and hawkers and their use of the streets in Man- 
 hattan. Such persons are wholly excluded from certain specified streets. (Cosby, p. 
 285-6.) 
 
 § 41, Manhattan Ordinances. 
 
 “No advertising trucks, vans or wagons shall be allowed in the streets of the 
 Borough of Manhattan, under a penalty of ten dollars for each offense. Nothing 
 herein contained shall prevent the putting of business notices upon ordinary business 
 wagons, so long as such wagons are engaged in the usual business or regular work of 
 the owner, and not used merely or mainly for advertising.” (Cosby, p. 290.) 
 
 § 53, Manhattan Ordinances. 
 
 “All outside boundary fences and all fences erected on the line of any public 
 road, street, lane or avenue in the Borough of Manhattan shall be at least five feet 
 high, and shall be built of good and substantial materials, and sufficient in all re- 
 spects to keep out and prevent the encroachments of cattle, sheep, hogs and other 
 animals, and shall be kept in good repair and of the height above mentioned.” (Cosby, 
 p. 291.) 
 
 §§ 77-79, Manhattan Ordinances. 
 
 Regulate the lighting of stations of the elevated roads at night, prohibit the. 
 dropping of grease, water, etc., from the tracks into the streets, and require the 
 erection and maintenance of board pathways and guard-rails the entire length of the 
 elevated structure; and prescribe penalties. (Cosby, p. 296.) 
 
 § 81, Brooklyn Ordinances (Part III of Ordinances). 
 
 “Billboards or signs (not exceeding two in number) to advertise theatrical 
 performances or public entertainments, may be placed upon the sidewalk in front of 
 theatres and places of public entertainment adjacent to the curb, but each of said 
 billboards or signs shall not occupy a space across the street of more than nine 
 inches and shall not be more than three feet in width parallel to the street, and shail 
 not be less than fifteen feet apart.” (Cosby, p. 314.) 
 
 § 17, Arverne-by-the-Sea Ordinances (Part X of Ordinances). 
 
 “No person shall paste, nail or in any manner place, or cause to be placed any 
 advertisement, placard, poster or sign, written or painted on any building or other 
 property belonging to the City of New York, or on any fence or building belonging 
 to any individual, company or corporation, without first obtaining the consent of the 
 owner thereof, under a penalty of five dollars for each offense.” (Cosby, p. 337.) 
 
 ELECTRIC SIGNS. 
 
 “cc 
 
 (This is the ordinance of July 24, 1912. . Note the narrow definition of an “ elec- 
 
 tric sign” in §1. The large self-illuminating roof signs are not included.) 
 
 “AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ‘AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE 
 PLACING OF ELECTRIC SIGNS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND 
 PROVIDING THAT THE SAME SHALL BE LICENSED,’ 
 
 108 
 
“ Be it ordained by the Board of Aldermen of The City of New York, as follows: 
 
 “Section 1. ‘An ordinance regulating the placing of electric signs in the City of 
 New York, and providing that the same shall be licensed,’ adopted June 22, 1909, 
 and approved July 1, 1909, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: 
 
 “$1. Any letter, word, model, sign, device or representation used in the 
 nature of an advertisement, announcement or direction illuminated by electricity, 
 erected on any building of the City of New York, and extending beyond the building 
 line, shall be deemed to be an electric sign. 
 
 Ҥ2. Electric signs are permitted in The City of New York, and the City 
 Clerk is empowered to issue licenses therefor under the following terms and con- 
 ditions, to wit: 
 
 “(a) Upon the payment by the applicant of an annual license fee of 10 cents 
 for each square foot of sign space or part of square foot of-such sign space displayed 
 on such electric sign, to be computed and collected by the City Clerk of the City of 
 New York. The square feet of sign space on one side of an electric sign, however, 
 shall be deemed to be the entire number of square feet of sign space for the pur- 
 pose of computing the license feet herein referred to and required to be paid. 
 
 “(b) That no electric sign shall extend more than 8 feet from the building line 
 in the City of New York. 
 
 “(c) That no electric sign shall be less than 10 feet in the clear above the level 
 of the sidewalk beneath such sign. 
 
 “(d) That electric signs shall be constructed entirely of metal or other in- 
 combustible material, except the insulation thereof, including the uprights, supports 
 and braces for the same, and shall be properly and firmly attached to the building, 
 and shall be so constructed as not to be or become dangerous, 
 
 “(e) That no electric sign shall be so erected as to obstruct or prevent free 
 ingress and egress to any window or fire escape on any building in the City of New 
 York. 
 
 “(f) That prior to the erection of any electric sign in the City of New York, 
 a license therefor must be obtained from the clerk of the City of New York, and 
 before the issuance of any license herein by said city clerk for the said electric sign, 
 the applicant shall first file with the superintendent of buildings of the borough 
 wherein the said electric sign is to be erected, plans and statements of the proposed 
 electric sign and method of attachment of same to the building duly verified and 
 executed in triplicate on appropriate blanks to be furnished by the said superintendent 
 of buildings and such structural drawings as the said superintendent of buildings 
 may require. The applicant shall also set forth the full name, residence, and busi- 
 ness address of the owner of the building upon which the said electric sign is to be 
 erected, the name and address of the party erecting the said electric sign, and state 
 his authority so to do. 
 
 “Upon compliance by the applicant with the above conditions the superintendent 
 of buildings is authorized to issue a certificate of approval as to the sufficiency of 
 the construction and method of attachment of the proposed electric sign to such 
 building. All approvals of applications, plans, drawings and amendments thereto 
 shall expire by limitation six months from the date of same unless a license is 
 procured within said period. In addition, a certificate must also be procured from 
 the Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity certifying that the electric 
 wiring and electric appliances of the proposed electric sign are in conformity with the 
 rules and regulations of that department. 
 
 “(g) A license issued hereunder upon the expiration thereof or within thirty 
 days thereafter must be renewed; and upon the payment by the applicant of the license 
 
 109 
 
fee and the surrender of the old license, accompanied by satisfactory proof in the 
 form of an affidavit that the electric sign is the same as when originally licensed 
 and that the wiring of the same is in good condition, the city clerk may license the 
 said sign for another year. 
 
 “$3. The superintendent of buildings shall not give any certificate, nor 
 shall the city clerk issue any license for the erection of any electric sign or signs on 
 any building in the City of New York when such building adjoins a building used 
 exclusively as a private residence, unless the applicant first obtain the written consent 
 of the owner or owners of said private residence for the erection of the proposed 
 electric sign. 
 
 “$4, No electric sign shall be erected on any building in The City of New 
 York, except as in this ordinance provided, under a penalty of one hundred dollars 
 for each offense. No electric sign shall be maintained in the City of New York 
 contrary to the provisions of this ordinance under a penalty of ten dollars for each 
 day or part of a day the same shall be so maintained. 
 
 Ҥ 5, All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent or conflicting with 
 the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. 
 
 “$6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately.” 
 
 Adopted by the Board of Aldermen July 9, 1912. Approved by the Mayor 
 July 24, 1912. (Cosby, pp. 446-448). 
 
 110 
 
PART AVII. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 A number of illustrations portraying actual conditions in New York 
 City are added in an Appendix to this Part (see p. 113 et seg.). Many of 
 these are reproduced from the Fosdick report. A few others have been 
 added; also three of typical street advertising structures abroad. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 ROBERT GRIER COOKE, 
 Chairman, 
 
 ALBERT S. Barb, 
 Secretary, 
 
 REGINALD P. BOLTON, 
 INGALLS KIMBALL, 
 HENRY W. SACKETT, 
 WALTER STABLER, 
 EpMunND B. WELLS. 
 
 111 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 FORMING AN APPENDIX TO PART XVII 
 
 113 
 
‘IDALY UOSPNY 9y} JO SMOIIA [NJIjNvIq O}UT J[IS}I S}sn1iy} pue 
 JONPLIA JY} JO [AAI] JY} MOTIQ p2}eNjIS ZuIp[ing poumo ATo}eATId B JO Joor ay} UOdN podjdaI9 SI UBIS SIFY 
 
 SOS BAR 
 $5052 EE 
 ie 
 
 $253 
 
 whys ERR HEE 
 
 aH Ps “gat 
 
 dot) ysineil 3 
 
 *JONPRIA BPISIOATY puv 490I}S ISTET 1e 
 
 115 
 
A Building in Park Row, March 3, 1913 
 
 A Billboard Which Was Not Within the Law. 
 116 
 
F FF 
 
 LAF BLOF 
 
 FoF oe 
 
 Cf 
 
 t £/ 7 
 SEW ch BBM SF eh I 
 
 “ 
 
 Unsightly Advertising Signs at 42d Street and Fifth Avenue which the Fifth Avenue 
 Association is Striving to Have Removed 
 
 Ly 
 
POAOWUISY SAH 0} BUIAIIZS SI UOT}EIDOSSW aeNnUeAY Yq 94} YIM onusAY YIIA 
 
 BRD WIERVUL- 
 RBIS, SBR 
 
 POL 
 
 : LS az 09 » WAWENASOY 
 
 pue 199119 PZP }e SUsIC BuIsIoApy AT} YsIsuQ 
 
 118 
 
}0911S YIgE puv onudAY YIIq Jo JouI0D “A ‘N 
 
 Op-cralW¥ SAVinio fee or 
 
 WYER YT AVCHAS 
 BaP ig 1OjG) quad 
 
 $T1hd ALNNG) ) § 13, bast FA) GD eek eS RS vem tian aH 40 
 ‘opraperima & 2 “ana Wat SHdVASOLONd BVA ADVUS 
 
 AY oy 
 
 ¥420 UVa SUINAE OIUNNS. % 
 
 119 
 
ait 
 
 => 
 
 x 
 
 8 
 
 Hird [esjusD survey ‘syoo0lg 
 
 oA SuIpug}xy 
 
 SUZIS JO MAA V 
 
 J99T4S PZOT 
 
 puv onusay yYyIq jo 1auI09g 
 
 “ad °N 
 
 120 
 
SJUIWISTIVAPY JO ssvig 
 
 IZNS 9y) 20S YISOT pue snusAy YyYyIY 
 
 N 
 
YlVq [esju9Dg 0} souvju_q oy} o}soddO ‘j9011g YIOTT pue enusAY YA 
 
 sc 
 aN (Sy i Peis. 
 DQ : Me, : a VV SEH 
 
 t 
 t 
 t 
 
 aa 
 
 122 
 
Aun 
 Ss 
 
 MRE 
 
 conneareptennentneoniiey Sa 
 
 Central Park West and 62d Street, Adjoining Century Theatre 
 
 Double-deckers Opposite Central Park, Fifth Avenue and 103d Street 
 
 123 
 
In West 177th Street, Billboard Outside the Building Line. Notice the Litter 
 
 x 
 
 ES Ris BH 
 * 
 
 see 
 
 Fifth Avenue and 109th Street 
 
 124 
 
Rear coher nena 
 
 BIBS ty 
 
 Entrance to Central Park at 110th Street, Lenox Avenue and St. Nicholas Avenue 
 
 accurare 
 pepexds Bit 
 
 Fifth Avenue, 89th and 90th Streets, Opposite Central Park, Adjoining the Residence of 
 Andrew Carnegie 
 
 14 
 
AeMpevolg pue 39911S YI09 “ISOM HIV [eI}usD 
 
 SPOOR RARE, 
 
 HoOlWwdS 
 OS: INYT ADA 
 rere eS es 
 
 RMR Od BRT 
 
 ddty FSIGOIE 
 
 "WHOA MAN 40 SNH FHL, 22 
 
 eos 
 
 ee 
 
 aay a 
 
 126 
 
yeas 
 
 4196 pue 
 
 » @ 
 fopyre 
 
 VALIG, OPISIOAIY 
 
 127 
 
IayIep-so1IYL & JO UOHKIISNI]] ‘9AtIIq epIsIaATY pue 399119 4196 
 
 LHOnvad: ‘NO ‘osiv 
 
 AsaMaig ayy S18[e3q IIV 
 42 Peleg . ARIES HOt 
 
 S3lISUVS LWHL 39 SHL 
 
 vasnion Pane cee) | OQY ISS 
 
 ee ea 
 
 SEA) Se | | sladdany s0ove 
 viniNvA) 
 
 ‘HOIT3u4 BIZZI1 anv NASNVYP SWAOHaIA 
 
 suanossa ita ne 
 
 andsaTana PEE AWG AUGAR 
 AvAGWONd ey tavst=| JaNILVW 
 
 ace 
 
 AVG=-OL LI AWL 
 
 NINSIUNON - ~ aNOSITOHA- -snoinad 
 
 BEE 
 Ree 
 
 haven do caee 
 
 4 
 Hit 
 
 ie 
 
 mm 
 
 Es 
 = ‘z 
 
 ee 
 
 i 
 
 Bea 
 mae 
 
 7 
 ! 
 : 
 
 f 
 
 Say 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 = 
 3 
 
 SaIMYSBaEMVALS a NY 
 
 LVSHM 2G GadHs 
 
 128 
 
Ysiqqny puy 103,17 94} osye ‘uoT}ONIySUOD 9} 9}0N 
 
 ‘QALIGQ: OPISIOATY UO UBIC jo Iv9y 
 
 129 
 
joo1 
 IS WILOT pue aaliq episieary 
 
 Sere cont 
 
 rs ~ 
 peril =< SHOES 
 5.2 
 
 quinsisaon -3Re 
 
 130 
 
20uRsIq 9Y} 
 
 Ul aAIIG epIsIsAry 
 
 ‘aZa][0D pieuieg o}isoddg 
 
 3929S YSTT Joul0d jsomyiION 
 
 - Tpniusianoycamassioun-Sn 
 
 WOSSIOHN- SAOIITIG | 
 ; 
 
 ‘anuoay 
 
 JUOUIIIEID 
 
aoue}SIq oY} Ul quIOy, S.juPID 
 
 UB2f} OL PABH 
 Suryjauios ug 
 
 'J29019 WIGTT pue ealsq opisroary 
 
 132 
 
Entrance to Riverside Drive, at Cathedral Parkway 
 
 “iit eparonay 
 4 Y 
 
 Ye 
 Wee ep pnings 
 
 Riverside Drive, 142d and 143d Streets 
 
 133 
 
ive Ribbon 
 Seek 
 
 Sees 
 
 A Fi 6 er 
 PR ARTERY LMR Ss on: 
 
 Riverside Drive and 105th Street 
 
 Riverside Drive and 109th Sireet 
 
 134 
 
Eastern Parkway Opposite Prospect Park Plaza. Signs to Left on City Property 
 
 Yate 
 
 Signs Along’ Eastern Parkway Opposite the Brooklyn Institute Museum 
 135 
 
HEARN 
 
 Dry Goods 
 
 eat 14th St. 
 a Morning Specials 
 
 SEES , = Great Savers 
 
 Res 
 
 Plaza at Entrance to Williamsburg Bridge, North Side, Brooklyn 
 
 DISTLER & Van INWEGEN, sccm. 
 EDW. T JENKING, acann 
 A.B. AVERY, cern, 
 
 Plaza at Entrance to Williamsburg Bridge, South}Side 
 136 
 
sense oF TOE. 
 
 (| ELITE T Ag, 
 
 ver 
 
 Street Poster Column, Berlin 
 
 137 
 
Street Poster Stand, Munich 
 
 138 
 
YyorunyAl 
 
 ‘TIEM 0} PoxIBV 
 
 pivog 
 
 I9jSsOq 199115 
 
 139 
 
aS 
 in 
 
 ot peer 
 
 y 
 =e ~ 
 i _ 
 r H v's i 
 a \ aa ., 
 i , / ® P< - 
 t if or o 
 ay 
 
 i 
 = 
 
 a> 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Poclnowledpinents: Of: assistance... oo nea eee ea aes eee ierer 5 
 
 Mea eziiT bee Lever in tier Vike Ape an eee ns ko chet Go hehe bes act 56 
 
 Advertising: , | 
 APCS POT eal A Uae a) lee ES aie a eae ee aR Mics 6,13 
 Control of (see Control) 
 
 History of (see Outdoor advertising ) 
 Outdoor (see Outdoor advertising) 
 
 PrcoReicar SG -ais0 « WICW.S ona agerdcrenel Ge let. ees 22-43, 48, 62, 63, 76-80 
 mesthetics and the-constitition.. 605 2c. ae ECA heen pear es 22-43 
 Argument for constitutionality...... Nob ree ee sats 35-41, 44, 62, 63 
 Compensation (see Taking of property) 
 
 POMEGR OVC LIC yc as aa eee STA Rs |e ee a aw ek oe Re 22, 44, 47 
 Pakinew6t property. i sree. pak eee AE ye iia ee eae even oe 36, 39, 62, 63 
 
 Aldermen (see Board of Aldermen) 
 
 Amenities (see also Aesthetics)............0.000 00 nap ee US oe ‘ 76 
 
 American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society............. 6, 17 
 
 Pe aLC IM OLRM On UN code Note acc etry Pet ein hee elses 5 rs wep@ eles whalers 6 § 103 
 
 Appointment of this commission.......... Se in ene eee Pe ene 5 
 
 marverie-by-the-sea- Ordinances % i... 6 vee ae oe ta as Swe ion: 108 
 
 TE CORT ER Tos he 8 BPS EG eee ous ots te gl ar eee el te tet a 35 
 
 Beauty (see Aesthetics) 
 
 ReDim VOOECOCUILION OL atv pcre! trae ee ek ee Cee we es eet 43 
 
 Belgium (see Foreign regulations ) 
 
 Billboard Advertising : 
 
 Pom ininsiotin a ppOultinentaOl war s5Gs Pas +. AubnteA prota sees 5 
 Report on (see Raymond B. Fosdick) 
 
 pi SemiseU plat yea, Mrs rete Sis tale ope tinct ROK Sree akg te 63, 65, 88 
 
 De AVRO USD IaT Vee a atl ne /98 Kag hy alegre Seats va Sw EE eS 52 
 
 Board of Aldermen (see New York City) 
 
 Board of Health (see New York City) | 
 
 jer spasewelat hg pues ag ania] o Ge Le kihede<\Onpr R UOkt Aa Ge para iit a ALA gnc Sa 34 
 
 Broadway (see Streets) 
 
 Brockivne cia c  irittel SOY ee Ree Pa le, SMES CTO 14, 53, 54 
 ISAC MEHR ACen ahs Steet eo wah nig. ned SRI wy ce Els ee 108 
 PEAS Meer ISU eee re nn Va ere et eros ARE SE le aes 54 
 
INDEX 
 
 7 : PAGE 
 Buttalo lesa cakes eae bb ok ates eee ee ee re ae be Pe ee 71 
 Building Code (see New York City) 
 Bureau of Buildings (see New York City departments) 
 €andila €or, oe eee Wet Be Pee FRR Mag ehent e cen ested 18 
 Gases vier. lane te At 
 Ackerman? oT rie GN Ye) sc54 a oe aes eee names re eat ee 
 Bryan>v. City_of- Chester (GPa) ep wece aoe Dini pee pe os 31 
 Cascade Town Co.. v. Empire Water & Power Co. (U. S: 
 Dist Cty Galas a. cates a hehe Rive es tenn Ute ng hs igs Fontan 
 City of New York v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co: (N. =p SZ 
 Cityob New York a) Rice GN bev) scorn there es ee renee ? 42 
 City of Rochester v. Macauley-Fien Co. (N, p's ) Perce at pee Oe) 
 City ob Rochestersy: Wiest" (Naa) oer a eer nae sent eee PALS, 
 Gochran:-.g--bcestote( Mido se once Caio bee eS Sh I 53 
 Commonwealth v. Boston Advertising Co. (Mass. ait e eins tion 
 Fifth Avenue’ Coach “‘Cov( Neyo and (O25) cn. tite se eee rae ere 
 Gow. ae Weardse CN SVS) cre Soa as pale ata ee oe <6 
 Interborough Rapid Transit Co. wv. City. ot New Yorke (No¥ 4 aioe 
 Lewis Publishing Cos. Morgan’ (UO. S220) ves teenie eee 43 
 McMillan v. Klaw & Erlanger Construction Co. (N. Y.)..... : 42 
 
 Massachusetts v. Boston Advertising Co. (see Commonwealth, 
 etc., above ) | 
 Matter:of Walshire-(U-2S 7 Circuit-Gt Gaby ose ere see 37 
 Newburg, N. Y., case (see People ex rel. Standard Bill 
 —~ SPosting Co., ete.) 
 New York (see City of) | 
 People:ds Green JON LY syn das Owe ew cee tiga ea eee ee alae eee 33 
 
 People:.z, “Rosenheimerc(.Nei Ys). Spo e ses apt ea 43 
 People ex rel. Standard Bill: Posting Co. v: Hastings (x. WY) 29 
 People ex rel. Wineburgh Advertising er v. Murphy oo Ny) ee 
 
 a5 104 
 
 baer (see City of) 
 St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. wv. St. Louis (Mo) 15, 19, 21, 28, 44 
 
 Tompkins vic-Patlas=CNd Yo.) eran os age ey Oe ee eas 27 
 Varney & :Greén Williams ( Calin ans vette oe yn smeuche ee me! 
 Welch v. Swasey (Mass. and U. S.)...... Peggy wae 34 
 Williams vw. Silverman Realty & Construction Go: (N. Yas 42 
 
 . Wineburgh Advertising Co. (N. Y.) (see People exirel.)o mpeg ce 
 Eensorship Safiya eels Pian BE ESE oe TOE RE ade i nd ea 
 
 Central Park (see Parks) _ 
 Charter (see New York City) 
 
 142 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 SA CER Sdy ECT Rel SST Gh a he de ams ant a er Raat SS OR RC al a a 30 
 RECA re ies ies ee OM Tot ti aay cee ere ie Seale ata erate Sea yt tr ees Lo 
 Commission, Mayor’s Billboard Advertising, appointment........ a 
 S on New Sources of City Revenue (N. Y. City).-6; 7, 13759 
 67, 68, 71, 79, 80, 89 
 Compensation for taking of property (see Aesthetics) 
 das Oi Yess Sh ava sean ered tba pa 5 ADR: NEUEN a OF rior Cn ORE aiR Roary athe. 74 
 SOIISTIDITIOM Ar aT CUGIHEN Let fn credit oes Giedin Aecie aes Seg A aps Wale ee 8,95 
 Constitutional questions (see also Aesthetics) PMR aa reign oes 8, 22 
 Control of advertising (see also Regulation, Taxation).......... 42,50 
 Cornices.:(see also Indirect. control) -.. 25. ose ee es aa 10, 105 
 Cortlandt street (see Streets) | | 
 Courts (see Administrative machinery, Aesthetics, Cases), selected 
 courts for sign CASES... ee eee eee ee eee eee eee GN ene Geode uate) OU 
 SRST RUE Naps Reng ieee ki RON aces aN Stel SRE ee itch isei  kO 
 Cubitt, Horace, “ Building in London ” Rta Midori oni cate os fig 
 Decisions (see Cases) 
 Definitions: | | 
 Bulletins cya Bee ee ee ee PASS, a) ae oe es A 13, 45, 67 
 PACCUTICOSIOTIS cw sates eh ee vee bee Pas ee Ae e. cae 108 
 DVESIO MSs iste ant heheh eae Pe Pa whites Pa Oslo Re he Ser S 70, 77, 103 
 Disease (see Nuisance, Health and morality) 
 POLes Alte WIL yirek ct  L oe ag eh aa oR eee s 10, 57 
 PIC ern ee erro nem eer eee ER a erate ee CIS y Une De ee waa ays 103 
 ani Selmean® C5 Ugg) fone tg Me gochey are an aera Pe ara a 9, 13, 17, 46, 57, 58, 108 
 recur sta Gath ees attache be nes te aA E ah SATE DS HE ae 58, 108 
 CMC DH ATION SGIOTIS ee on ous geese uae a ee Pret ree Denes 59 
 REVERIE! LOM eS) sc ne rok She or ha PEN sty oan ieee $s : 59 
 Si also Electrical signs, Sky- signs) | 
 Electrical SioTS ste ce eee EM eer Peer ee ete iareie Oss OF 
 Elevated roads (see Subways and elevated roads) 
 Encroachments (see Streets) 
 England (see Foreign regulations) Pir taceae ohne 
 PRUCES I PR MRO SW inrs eat Capote hea ieee chee tne n FO, eee, dO. 08 
 Fifth Avenue (see Stiecs) seat ae eet 
 Fire rennet teeta eters dete cet eee etre sD, 9, 10, 48, 97, 103 
 Leo bar st ake wie ean ie eee rare rea Bie tena as PE SRE Sh no 82, 103 
 Fitzgerald, EMM anata eoite, ooh a at eta Det) Sa tN me eat he ee eect et OD 
 PUACHVYP AMIN a nieoc malt amet pee See. a eee nes ae gerd Cea cas aed he 2s 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 ‘Flies (see Nuisance) | 
 Poféign .regulations shes abvon! tecue ccc oe ee ee dee are 41,76 
 Belen as ees Rice ee eins AE oR eaten 65, 80 
 Prelandss ik PET A eae Pere ae 2 ON Peseta yee ® 63, 76 
 Liverpool: iscicp. atc uss tien bo he ak et aa eee ere ee 78 
 London. 56 3.22 Asie ae ee 77, 
 Manchester 22 Sect ct reos Ceara) rere tein ner eee 78 
 Frarice sik rernb 2h. Piste a ralvel eat cs oP a ek ai escent ne 65,78 
 Germany oo 6a 64. Pe SESE ake ep ck ee 80 
 South: Americans cues ais. : eter ieee ae ene ne eee een 80 
 Fosdick, Raymond B., Report on Billboard Advertising........ spa Leper AS 
 
 | 45, 48, 111 
 France (see Foreign regulations) 
 
 Gaynor, William J. (see New York City, Mayor) 
 Germany (see Foreign regulations) 
 Gow (see Ward and,) 
 
 Graubard § MauritZ.n Sos tk hot eee a eee ee eee oe: 65 
 Gude. Gas Os Ee cg ofa once pm Sega garetts ae rt ee 20 
 Hall Dr. sdward- Hag aman. le stan outers Ee ee er as | 6 
 Harlus “Prof Pankv se M4 2 ence ee ee ena eee 38 
 Harts Merwin tke ss ce ee ee 8 os Aa te ean} 65 
 Harte, Dénis®] jt: c2 ch aes ep ai oer eee ae eee te a S800 
 Health: and morality sso hed aoe ce te ete ce ee 44 
 (See also Board of Health, Police power, Sanitary Code) 
 Heydeckér; Edward: L.; Asst. Tax Comimiissionet eae : 67 
 History of advertising (see Outdoor advertising) . 
 Bhotel 6 osc 5e i Ss Se DR IR ae aiied ane ne ee en 103 
 Illegal signs (see Violations) 
 Jilirigis’: Soe ee Saar eoaae a Fils diate, Cilceegns te Gigs ies Nee te 55,63, 71 
 _ Nustrationts iyiek. (Se cae pe ee eee ee rae 111-139 
 
 Sign at 13lst Street and Riverine Viaduct. _ This sign is 
 erected upon the roof of a privately owned building situ- 
 ated below the level of the Viaduct, and thrusts itself into 
 
 beautiful views of the -bindsen’ havet ore eas fete 115 
 A- Building in-Park' Row,-March 31913-2282: Te ear 116 
 A Billboard Which Was Not Within the Law............:. 116 
 
 Unsightly Advertising Signs at 42d Street and Fifth Avenue- 
 which the Fifth Avenue Association is Striving to Have 
 Rethoved <'.2sis 25,05 ctoad son OT ee Rea ee ed a nec 
 
INDEX 
 
 : PAGE 
 illustrations—( Continued) : - 
 Unsightly Advertising Signs at 42d Street and Fifth Avenue 
 
 which the Fifth Avenue Association is Striving to Have 
 
 CU OV CLpe att cermin Oo we Pek ce ns ee Ay Se ae, 118 
 N. E. Corner of Fifth Avenue and 98th Street............. 119 
 N. E. Corner of Fifth Avenue and 102d Street. A View of 
 
 Signs Extending Five Blocks, Facing Central Park.... 120 
 Fifth Avenue and 108th Street, the Usual Class of Advertise- 
 
 PRES Hee ae eererevenay tak eih rots Cheese ne) ig ate fe eee ea crwt 121 
 Fifth Avenue and 110th Street, Opposite the Entrance to 
 
 TTB SPN BRIG ale a a a ea Wz 
 Central Park West and 62d Street, Adjoining Century Theatre 123 
 Double-deckers Opposite Central Park, Fifth Avenue and 103d 
 
 SNE AG ea rege See, IR Aa et grrr oe ane ea a 123 
 In West 177th Street, Billboard Outside the Building Line. 
 
 Os MELE aA EN aod dc eee eet Be igs SO ore ee, er a 124 
 Piiierrchierait sot ne treet. ia ..t cy Sues cess hag este Bees 124 
 Entrance to Central Park at 110th Street, Lenox Avenue and 
 
 SIC alder MENUO THe me aor) aad oo er elelsle hoo so te ek, ele 125 
 Fifth Avenue, 89th and 90th Streets, Opposite Central Park, 
 
 Adjoining the Residence of Andrew Carnegie.......... fern 72. 
 Pentidierareavyest, OULiamiteet-and broadway... . 2... cs... 126 
 Ravencides Mivenand Ot, Strcetins (20), vaste ve cs'Gce nate eee 122 
 96th Street and Riverside Drive, Illustration of a Three-decker 128 
 Rear of Sign on Riverside Drive. Note the Construction, also 
 
 PE LET WAPiMutS Oot re sk eats Oe oy niet p cates seve k.t eos 129 
 eve tet Oma CENCE aH p LOL SET CEL wari i stat cc os w Ole vnierd sale 20k os. 3 130 
 Claremont Avenue, Northwest Corner 119th Street, Opposite 
 
 Barnard College, Riverside Drive in the Distance........ 131 
 Riverside Drive and 119th Street. Grant's Tomb in the Dis- 
 
 UM 5 eae Eis ik TES Ce ee a A Ag a ea 132 
 Entrance to Riverside Drive, at Cathedral Parkway........ 133 
 Inivereniosiorive 47 deande tad: Streetsia. i Sx ares niet cy Ue 133 
 PCC ESIeNE) Civerdile mot in so tUCeh. : cy cs sass ta teta ph iana Bia, Se 134 
 Bey Sie Uw Pty eatie (PUL in tL Celie 25 srs ~ witia Sons V Mie oie og tn ae 134 
 Eastern Parkway Opposite Prospect Park Plaza. Signs to Left 
 
 BUENA AIO ON ee Oy. gakire erry otra eine Ca ey er Pee Ree L 135 
 Signs Along Eastern Parkway Opposite the Brooklyn Insti- 
 
 Cem ad ae ideo mnie ee eg Raha ore Id idl. aan wh sana ww A> 133 
 Plaza at Entrance to Williamsburg Bridge, North Side, Brook- 
 
 Vie ern eee or NG sn 3 ee bod RNG Rae eas 136 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 Illustrations—( Continued) : 
 Plaza at Entrance to Williamsburg Bridge, South Side...... 136 
 StreetPoster-GolumnjBerlins<-cttat..4 sates ae cere teat 137 
 Street? Poster. Stand; Munich 4s. sey te oc ee ee ee es 138 
 Street Poster Board Affixed to Wall, Munich.............. 139 
 Indirect control (see Control, Taxation) 
 THS pections x2As cic, cians Bees aot cetera ee es eee 45,57, 58, 59, 61 
 Intéerborouch. Rapid “Transit: Cox 3 soars os tee ees eer 51, 52, 54 
 Bandon se rancis Gases sence ee ee RS cae Wc Ogee AOR aie eres 65 
 Leventritt; Justice: CNY ants et tic ree ee a oe ee eee 25 
 Lewis, Judge (UU) S.Diste Gti Golo es sivnss wie ee ey 36 
 License (see Permits) | 
 Limitations on heirht-andssizeng . or.q- sss ee tee cere ee 10, 48, 103 
 Liverpool (see Foreign regulations) 
 Local option. aes ma ee See eer tae SN aS ai a oo 125.62, 
 London (see Cubitt, Foreign regulations) 
 168 Angeless acs eit pe cit pe ee De TE RU eee ee teat 64, 73 
 Manchester (see Foreign regulations) 
 Manhattah* ordinances 2640s ols a oe ne Pe ee ee 53, 108 
 Massachusetts (see Cases) . 
 Massachusettssreculdtions: 242. eet Sid, at pee ae aS 
 Mayor William J. Gaynor (see New York City) 
 Mayor’s Billboard Advertising Commission, appointment......... 5 
 McCall Justice <CNG Vat sak ak oh Gay ena ta ee geet eta ue 
 Miller, Rudblph kas ce eet ok Gree Sie ee eee a ae 57 
 Milwattkee ere ee ee tee ee ee ie eres nee ee eet, eran ae LZ 
 IM intttea polis ss, 2s oeicy aly Wi ogebe EM mereicuc sue out ary tactaps cs ie eee prea ak aan 64 
 Municipal -Art iSociétys yay on ok cere ee aa ee ee ee ae 67 
 Municipal regulations (see also Permits, Taxation).............. 70, 76 
 Nassau Street (see Streets) 
 New York City: (see also Ordinances) 
 Board of Aldermen— 
 Powers Of a: igescte casera we eee nie coer kestriee 45, 50, 60, 96-99 
 Recominietidatiofis “t0" ess eee ee eee 9, 10, Lt 12, 49, 50, 81 
 ‘Testimony.betore si. 22a 5 see oe ne eee 48, 60 
 Boatd sof Heéalth:..2 S520, pa ee aes Sie eae 5 
 Powers? Of ira. aes ane epee ta teats tats Hee eee 9,45, 100 
 Recommendations to, 2. . Puertateae der er Rees eae .9, 45, 87 
 Building Codec wea See LOsi alee ne ou: 56, Ves 60, 70, 98, 103 
 Amendments ito. sae sae in et «asia a ee ee eee 81 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 New York City—( Continued) : 
 
 TET on heh nize heh Ae ee ec ity RE EE Se 12, 45, 57,61, 96 
 
 Ue ct re, aire arte an ie tte or Me aeatets ALE fo SOE RS dg 59, 109 
 
 Departments— 
 
 Board of Aldermen (see Board of Aldermen) 
 Board of Health (see Board of Health) 
 ESGTOUM ater ORIACNiS 25 ss ae cs Paw rc eo he ah ooh 12, 56, 98 
 OLCHHS Olen CIOs chests es eu 5, 11, 12, 47, 56, 57, 59, 60 
 Py eai le Crea Ty d Vise eines hie crete cost cea etre! «Sie Fh a «a 5,11, 57, 58 
 Bureau of Street Encumbrances................. ay Lame jriete pe od! 
 City Clerk (see City Clerk above) 
 Otago CTs UT Ce ager. Che ulster e fig be go Pv ola te oes etek tens 5, 60 
 Division of Sidewalks (see Bureau of Highways) * 
 Perm elt LIMEM Ma re pea hae oe mening. AA doses 3% 5, 48, 57, 100 
 Rett oes eevee OM SUTCAT TR iinet ce that Oe Aol isrk ts ae reg dos 5 LOW 
 Health Department (see Board of Health) 
 Law Department (see Corporation Counsel ) 
 WED Tiye 2x GE WE fee ag Re be Na ane Vw Ol er tis GR 9 ae ale a ae 
 PROUT ees RISUUD Al tie kot ve Liege, Chie eis Gh Miele SO vcd 102-110 
 “ PTODOSE Cath sree mts Acts W, Std a ees 81-87 
 Pat iSOAEU toe ce or en Ce I oe Ras ORO OOS 9, 33, 61, 98, 99 
 Roltee-Wepartinent= o tte e tec bse vt 5,9, 11, 12, 45, 57, 61, 98,100 
 YT Axe ANG AN SSESSINIEENS Fee OA? Pere ee oe ee RSS 5, 67 
 Water supply, Gasedr, HIGctricily «2 o7 os ar yeht ows eae 07, 09,109 
 
 INGA VOOR feet titan crtets eed eta Vee eas. 7. Ae Wie tien Cae eile aS Ears nik 
 
 REE Soe pic’ UST ala kG erie aa Biel ome an re eran aie Sem 9, 12, 45, 46, 61, 102 
 eman-Orks VitinicipalsRaiwway: CO oie soc ak, icf fie ee bie ene e beads elas 54 
 New York State: (see also Cases, Statutes) 
 
 CCEA HOLES meee Pale, ina Stk. Viet oases RS ea a, RS 65, 74 
 Mew One bax Retort Association ty ia 2k ores wiene ote 6 ee 67 
 Plinearat teas! Reservations pict Preece EEE Be EL 36 
 NSAI eee PN ee CPV GAS huss Siecaee a sek hak jh wle wees J=9 730. LOGPIOE FIZ 
 
 SARIS SE STAT Ri Peto? oo OE, Socios ee an AP Pe aI CR eR a eg 30 
 CMBR IR MOR Od a are corn se Sich OG okie Sere, gina nes thege wre pce Wl tay. 41,75 
 
 Ordinances (see New York City) 
 Outdoor Advertising: 
 Character of (see also History of, below)... .6,7, 13, 15, 19, 23, 26, 44 
 
 TR SE pe CE oT ae es Sain EI a OE A aap OR PR 13 
 Classes of persons to whom it appeals.......0...........5..- 18 
 Dangers of (see also Wind, Fire, Sanitation)............. 44 
 UU Sah BP La | Vag TBAT Hs Toke SSO egal re Pa on IP 2 Seay nian a 13 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 Outdoor Advertising—(Continued) : 
 Extent-.of, in aNew= VY orketes tia ee ee 13 
 Historyol saa ates aes 6, 13, 23, 44, 47, 49, 51, 58, 62, 65, 70, 74, 76 
 Injury to/land valuese(seéealso Localcoprian), ae oe 7 
 Revenues from (see also Municipal regulations)............ Lop Teno 
 Undesirability of (see Outdoor advertising, character, also 
 history) 
 Paris (see Foreign regulations) 
 Parks, squares, public buildings (see also New York City) : 
 Gerneral- considerations 32S ssw: } San a eee 8,910, 27,.51 
 Bryant Parke: 7... inthis aod rd hen eetiy  etee ee Pas 
 Central Park: 2") ei aia ee oe ee cee 19 
 Metropolitan -Parks#(Wiass.) 2 .inq ccc ee ee 32 
 Revere. Beath Park -{ Mass. 0.8 ofa soln w 5,t Aol ee eee ee OZ 
 
 Riverside Drive (see Streets) 
 Penal Law New York (see Statutes) 
 Penalties’ (see “also -V tolations.) 72) Si, 2k ee eee ee 61 
 Perambulating signs (see Signs) 
 Permits for signs (see also Foreign regulations, Municipal regula- 
 
 Hols) Viggen ees 11, 59, 70, 82, 84, 85, 86, 91, 97, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109 
 Pleydell, A.C 3 Secyo Nays lax Retotm. Assis eee ee 67 
 Police power (see Aesthetics, Fire, Health and morality, Public 
 
 safety, Sanitation, Wind) 
 
 Prince; Samelys ein et oe om: ole ee, ce ee 65 
 Public health and morality (see Health and morality) 
 
 Public safety (see also Fire, Health and morality, Sanitation, Wind) 47 
 Public’ Services (Gommissions sya cat ree 5. 11, 52,53; 54555 AOL aloe 
 
 Publie Service Commissions Law (see Statutes) 
 Qneertsborotighs sie 5 ante eh a carey oa cece po eae Cae fee a 14 
 
 Rapid Transit (see Subway and elevated roads) 
 
 Rapid Transit Act (see Statutes) 
 
 Rapid Transit Commissioners (see also Rapid Transit Act). .52, 53, 54, 97, 
 
 1012102 
 
 Recommendations: 1=17-ot: this. Commission on tae eee eae 8-12 
 See also the following: 
 
 Censorship, 
 
 Constitutional amendment, . 
 
 Control 
 
 Cornices, 
 
 Courts, 
 
 Doors and windows, 
 
 148 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 Recommendations 1-17 of this Commission—(Continued) : 
 Electric signs, 
 Fire, 
 Indirect centrol, 
 Local option, 
 Nuisance, 
 Ordinances proposed, 
 Parks, squares, public buildings, etc., 
 Perambulating signs, 
 Permits for signs, 
 Registration and records of signs, 
 Rest and repose, 
 Roof signs, 
 Sanitation, 
 Shop signs, 
 Signs, 
 Size of signs, limitations, 
 Sky-signs 
 Statute proposed, 
 Sireéts; 
 Subway and elevated roads, 
 Taxation, 
 Vacant lots, 
 Vehicles, 
 Violations, 
 Registration and records of signs (see also Permits)........ bE bo O10) 
 Regulation of advertising: (see also Control) 
 Pricer PIeIINOU OL LCOUTT OIL 45.4. ecueas Fcc: socwck sa ore sw cle Selp s 10, 42, 50 
 Regulation of, heretofore ineffective (see also Advertising, 
 ies Ce eee Bee et AY. oe poh Fa. ah nye os eters 8, 58, 60 
 PE emiciulaiedisiticts. (see-also* Local optioti oo lac bee ea oss ID5G3<73 
 Peemanverepusr «cee-also-tiealth and morality ic. seso). kee. s 9, 46 
 Tes dling (7 SUSE wk COYNE gS Sea 0, Oe la ee Rc ay oy ar a a ee ae ee 14 
 Riverside Drive (see Streets) 
 Meee MNODE BEC RLESG CNCS) farce Irs SLEk cos ad g AOI ethene a eh Soceies 71 
 Roof signs (see Signs) 
 Bam eemiseierty: Croc te Goals yen os oiled b sue clei Compa tae Sieke's OZ 
 Rubbish (see Nuisance) 
 Sandwich men (see Signs, perambulating) 
 SPE NYS yaa Si OS Be ics mn, Ser ar A a se reer és 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 Sanitary Code (see New York City) 
 Sanitation (see Health and morality, Police power) 
 Scott, Justice CN AW faces, es ee par ene oe em 27 
 Sherry; SReters Pay 5 i nea Pw eer Me nee ee ee ee 65 
 Shop signs (see Signs) | 7 : 
 Sidewalks 3359 > Paste ay sees aoe wpe TENS ane e Cote mre 10, 102, 103 - 
 Division of (see New York City departments) | 
 Signs overhanging (see Electric signs, Shop signs) 
 SiegelsCooper (Corsi aot ceiercl c eee in eer orca a nate 20 
 Signs: (see also Regulations ) Eee 
 Classification ror netic tata tee toi ee eae aes eee ere 13 
 Falling signs (see Wind) 
 Plashino’-Siens* Sor se so oe een ae ene, ee eee eee ee 9, 46 
 Illegal (see Violations) 
 Perambulatingss +05 steer oc, tes fee ee eat are en ace 11,13, 49 
 Registration and records of (see Registration) | 7; 
 Roof signs (see also Foreign regulations, Municipal regula- 
 
 TIONS} ICV SIONS ) Vos ccn tes were ote ee oe ee ee 10, 81 
 RemOval Stes a ee ae Sane eee a a eee Fed eno Lapa 
 Reporting OLeeye aie sre et i thakels Pte eo ices ian ne Se Thy 
 SLOP + SIPITS Sree eae eaee tat te aceon oe ete 8, 10, 11, 13, 58, 85, 93, 94 
 Size of (see Limitations on height and size) 
 
 DISY NSIPTIS | be Cees ne ee 13, 58, 60, 70-73, 76-80, 81, 88, 103, 104 
 Subway and elevated (see Subway and elevated roads) 
 Sky signs (see Signs) 
 Simall, “Georve* Fc) aye ae ie Coe oiees a ese een aie ee ees 66 
 Smiths Alfred hk en ay tH pete een ohare Gatco ieee ara, eee ee eas 65 
 Smoké shtlisahce S73 Aleta eae eee Bee reer te eee ee 30 
 South American Cities (see Foreign regulations ) 
 Statutes: (see also Bills) 
 Municipals HimpowericvA ch Gin ay s)mtea erase, | eines 50, 102 
 New York City Charter (see New. York City) 
 Penal: Law= <a eh aren eee ee eee ee 27, 100, 101 
 Proposed statute, taxinge advertisements -sv24,3.2- 0. sears 88 
 Public: Service-Commissions LawiCN AY.) cess uae 102 
 Rapid iransit Achst 2 vin tex oe ees oh cates Re eee eee ee 101 
 ot. Louis :(sée: alsotCases;)7'54e arr > eal eileen ernie ae ee eee 72 
 Streets: (see also Illustrations) 
 Broadwa ys. sa aes cae eo pis eke rie eae eee ae ee 1h ieee bance, dre 05 
 Controk Gf. SAn5s baie ae he ate ee ee eer 10, 11, 42, 50, 97, 98 
 Cortlandt). soe aceaccke em a ieee a eee ee 50 
 Bifth  Avenubss. ae A 206 ease ee ee eee ee oe 2020-00, 02200 
 
INDEX 
 
 Streets— (Continued) : 
 ING SEAT aa ne oie aire Sie kid Rll AN ote eee SNE ee ER aE w Oe 50 
 
 eG sae GOES DAT MS AER pe i pS eS i RN SN SORA a Te 19, 20 
 
 Ime de eRe 205 8 (nets oe met cp taradeaae (rok Ay aed gmp ae ar Ge 20 
 Wave Alc eCloVateGd sLOAGS vik 4 iris ese hag Scie cacao ce oh OBL 11, 16, 51-55, 58 
 Sle pigey eae dead Rn tt Nice ee Ga ng Miva ona re eee Rare ae RN aa 19 
 peaking “Oi property<(See-alsg. LVeSLeLiCs } ou jit sabe ase g poe ws tes wove 39 
 Taxation (see also Electric signs, Foreign regulations, Municipal 
 
 regulations, Outdoor advertising, Perambulating signs, Stat- 
 
 BUS RR tk a pha AP ta ote Io a a a 12 OF, 00 ueo 
 EH CMEIE SUOUSE sia Morea gene eee ssn d ase Batis npets Sac t eet ce 103 
 VST ARS RP TEG IS hE) ee eg iat as eae 29 
 Transit, Rapid (see Subway and elevated roads) 
 
 PCED IOMSINS ae nt hg e Sa ain cp arto) s Rar ett Ane A ee Ne rs eines 9,98 
 Van Buren |Bill’ Posting Go fn bioes, 220. 0.508 ae es bes 19 
 SEA EINCIES, SE IDUCS Birt, Se Dee near ea ers ae are teen. Bl 
 eee kt! 1iieae Pkt eee tet teil BIAS ee Regh AN ED ergy ia Saeatel. a ae 8, 10, 76, 79 
 OTS GT Se TEs RN I Sn Re a ee tae a La 45, 48, 53, 56-61 
 nea es te iit oertmee Thea eee ya en CUS U sy ata Gi chee eseiy Siar 5 20 
 NNPAY Che aie Cveeae ort rata al as eign ee ap ora bie os Sake a optics sp eos 167,51 
 Wl Sg oe id oa pdt) taxa Mente rer Ot ROME, Ors ooo ane ARN oon, aia Para 9,47 
 
 CAL PSAP TAGs AY Pad eee stand i Segre ety Re Nc wpa nce Fe neve os 48, 57 
 Windows (see Doors and windows) ° 
 PC MICL SCHL TP VIND Fie Sai cid ap hahy ose crv segs wie Sta vies Pes 15, 19, 21, 29, 44 
 ESS SATE NINE ol ged Og! Sie hd So pare nner ee ee SEE 36 
 
 151 
 
ti 
 
 * 
 “a 
 
 a) 
 ify 
 
 zee 
 
7% 
 
 A 
 —— 
 
 9 
 
 i" @ 
 
 . 
 * 
 
Nnoig 
 
 ek 
 
 w 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 MMLC 
 01120 ] 
 
 61924137 
 
 3