PARK AND CEMETERY. 
176 
CONTINUED PROGRESS OF BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN 
Crux of the Billboard Qyestion 
Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Secre- 
tary of the American Civic Associa- 
tion, contributes to the Independent 
of August 15, the following interest- 
ing account of the methods of fight- 
ing the billboard used by the North 
End Improvement Society of Taco- 
ma, Wash., to which reference has 
been made in these pages: 
Tacoma, Wash., has a vigorous lo- 
cal society known as the North End 
Improvement Society. It is “dead 
set” against billboards, and it has 
adopted a plan of campaign which is 
rapidly proving effective. In essence 
it involves the principle of th& boy- 
cott. 
The society has made a list of bill- 
boards in its district, and it writes to 
each advertiser that uses them asking 
him to abstain, as the boards are ob- 
jectionable. If the first letter does 
not bring results, a second and 
stronger letter is sent, and this is fol- 
lowed up until something happens, 
the last step in the procedure being 
a rising vote at a public meeting, at 
which the members pledge themselves 
to abstain from purchasing articles 
that are advertised by billboards in 
its district. 
Here are the results of the society’s 
efforts to date: 
The billboard people have stopped 
extending their available space and 
have curtailed their working force. 
The tax against the boards in Ta- 
coma has been doubled. Most of the 
old advertisers have ceased to adver- 
tise, and not very many new ones are 
appearing. Several large boards have 
been taken down. One immense bill- 
board near the University of Puget 
Sound is down. This was a very 
large double-decker. Mount Tacoma, 
a beautiful mountain about three 
miles high, covered with snow and in 
plain sight from many parts of this 
city, was actually cut off from the 
view of the residents of the North 
End. 
The society’s correspondence with 
advertisers has been most illuminat- 
ing and instructive, and the following 
letter and reply contain, in my judg- 
ment, the crux of the whole question: 
“We have yours of the 21st ult., advising 
us that you do not approve of billboards in 
Tacoma, some of which contain our posters. 
We do not agree with you that our posters 
are ugly and unattractive, although the 
putting up of posters generally does not 
tend to beautify a city. We do not know 
how we can help you at the present time, 
as we have let a contract with the bill 
posters to post your city for two or three 
months’ standing. After that has expired 
we may not place any more. But we think 
the best way to get at this would be for 
you to have a law passed in your city pro- 
hibiting billboards from disfiguring the city. 
“It is natural for a manufacturer to ad- 
vertise his wares in every possible way, and 
you could not expect us to have much con- 
cern for the beautifying of cities. That is, 
we might individually, but not as adver- 
tisers.” 
This is a very frank avowal of the 
attitude of the advertiser, who '‘is not 
in business for his health.”. The reply 
of the improvement society, however, 
is most effective. Here it is in full; 
“If you will read out letter again care- 
fully you will see that we did not say that 
your posters were ‘ugly and unattractive,' 
but that the billboard system of advertis- 
ing is. 
“You state that you ‘do not have much 
concern for beautifying cities. That is, 
we might individually, but not as adver- 
tisers.’ The people whom you are trying 
to reach are ‘individuals’ and take pride in 
beautifying their city and ‘have concern’ in 
so doing. It appears to us that you as 
‘advertisers’ must take note of this feeling 
of the people of a city in opposition to bill- 
boards that disfigure the city, because if a 
system of advertising is distasteful to peo- 
ple it is not a good system, is it? Tour 
object is not to offend people, but to at- 
tract them, is it not? 
“You, possibly, would not desire to have 
billboards placed near your own home. 
Other people feel the same way. 
“How many goods would you buy of a 
traveling man who came into your office 
and presented his wares to you in an offen- 
sive manner? The manner of your adver- 
tising strikes other people the same way. 
“If you will cease to have your posters 
placed here you will oblige and receive our 
thanks.” 
When advertisers appreciate this po- 
sition fully and realize that 300 live, 
vigorous heads of families are ready 
to back it up by their personal co- 
operation, it will not be long before 
all the billboards in the North End 
district of Tacoma will remain un- 
used. 
A good suggestion comes from 
Bufifalo, where the Courier proposes 
that the names of all persons who 
rent their vacant lots for billboard 
purposes should be published in the 
paper. This for two reasons — so that 
the tax assessors may take such rent- 
als into consideration in assessing the 
property, and so that the people may 
know who are selling their civic pride 
and patriotism for cash. 
Mr. Woodruff also contributes a 
more extended account of the cam- 
paign against billboards to the Sep- 
tember issue of the Review of Re- 
views. 
Prosecution Active in New York 
Judge Hendrick, in the Supreme 
Court of New York, has ruled that 
the advertising sign on the roof of a 
building at the southwest corner of 
Broadway and Forty-second street. 
New York City, is up in violation of 
the law and granted an order com- 
pelling its removal. Closely follow- 
ing the rendering of this opinion, 
which is a striking victory for the 
crusaders against signs which violate 
the law, Julius. M. Mayer, attorney 
for the O. J. Gude Company, which 
owns the sign, applied to Judge Day- 
ton for a stay pending an appeal from 
Judge Hendrick’s decision. The ad- 
vertising companies, while admitting 
that the city is dotted with signs two 
and three times as big as the build- 
ing code permits, are determined to 
take the test case now pending to 
the Court of Appeals on the ground 
that the ordinance is unconstitutional. 
While ultimate victory seems reason- 
ably certain for the city authorities 
v;ho are pressing the case against the 
Gude company, it is not likely that 
final decision will be obtained before 
late in the autumn. John P. O’Brien, 
Assistant Corporation Counsel, has 
carried the test case along as speed- 
ily as possible and it is is his intention 
to hurry it on to final decision. One 
of the interesting facts which devel- 
oped during the argument was that 
the O. J Gude Company pays $8,400 
a year for the use of the roof on 
which the objectionable sign at For- 
ty-second street and Broadway stands. 
Should the Appellate Division and the 
Court of Appeals sustain the ruling 
of Judge Hendrick, hundreds of signs, 
(Continued on page VID 
