PARK AND CEMETERY 
and Landscape Gardening. 
Vol, XI CHICAGO, OCTOBER, 1901. No, 8 
Entered at the Postoffice at Chicago as Second Class Matter. 
CONTEN rS. 
Editorial — A Decision in the Bill Board Case — Confer- 
ence of Improvement Associations — At Rest at Last, 
We Elope — Nature Study in the Schools — October 
in the Cemetery 140, 141 
*Westla'wn Cemetery, Canton, Ohio 142 
^Convention of Cemetery Superintendents 143 
Cemetery Planting 146 
*School Grounds, Menomonie, Wis 149 
^Improvement Associations 151 
^Garden Plants — Their Geography, LXX 153 
Seasonable Suggestions 153 
Weed Killer i54 
Park Notes 155 
Cemetery Notes 156 
Reviews of Books, Reports, Etc 157 
*Illustrated. 
c4 DECISION The recent report of Master 
IN THE in Chancery G. Fred Rush in 
BILL BOARD CASE. the case of the American Post- 
ing Service vs. City of Chicago et al., which in due 
course was referred to him, is in many respects a de- 
cided victory for the billboard abolitionists. At con- 
siderable length and with a large amount of legal ref- 
erence the master declares the ordinance of July 9, 
1900, with the exceptions of sections 4 and 5, to be 
valid and reasonable and within the powers of the city 
to enact and administer. Section 4 is excepted to be- 
cause it discriminates arbitrarily between signs and 
billboards on private property fronting on parks and 
boulevards and private property fronting on other 
streets of the municipality. Section 5 is invalid be- 
cause the city council has not authority to require 
any license for the erection or maintenance of signs 
or billboards. But the invalidity of section 4 and 5 
does not affect the validity of the rest of the ordi- 
nance of July 9, 1900, because “these invalid sections 
are separable from the valid provisions of the ordi- 
nance, having no essential or necessary connection 
with them.” It may possibly be remembered that in 
order to make the ordinance of July 9, 1900, more 
effective a second ordinance was passed by the coun- 
cil, January 28, 1901, and this is declared by the mas- 
ter to be unreasonable, invalid and unconstitutional. 
It refers to a “residence street” without giving a 
definition or method of ascertaining what is meant 
by the term, and there is no legal rule “whereby the 
meaning of such term can be ascertained.” And it 
also declares an entire class of things to be “public 
nuisances whereas only certain members of that class 
possessing certain features are in fact nuisances.” 
* * * “It depends upon the presence of certain 
features menacing the safety, health, convenience and 
good order of the public whether or not certain signs 
and billboards are nuisances.” It further discrimin- 
ates between places within the municipal limits with- 
out sufficient reason therefor, and in prescribing the 
penalty of destruction within a time limit unless re- 
moved it deprives citizens of property without due 
process of law. The report of the master is a matter 
of fact, purely legal, business-like document, going 
into considerable detail regarding the materials used 
and methods of construction of billboards and public 
signs, but carefully avoiding all reference to aesthet- 
ics. Evidence was given by men and women of ac- 
knowledged artistic tastes derogatory to billboards 
and not alone on aesthetic grounds, but also in rela- 
tion to their effect upon real estate values ; but this 
as well as the bearing of civic beauty on the general 
question was dismissed in the following; “Some of 
the witnesses who are park authorities have laid par- 
ticular stress on the objectionable character of bill- 
boards facing the parks and boulevards. It has been 
argued that foreign cities regulate improvements of 
property according to certain municipal art ideas, but 
this court will require more definite and better 
authority than this suggestion in order to support an 
ordinance that seeks to carry out some certain ideas 
of municipal art in its regulations of private prop- 
erty.” We are inclined to the belief that the master 
had better have omitted this reference from his report. 
It should have given him an opportunity to incorporate 
some progressive ideas into his effort, and have 
helped the cause of municipal art, which in this twen- 
tieth century is an essential feature of our national 
prosperity and progress. Nevertheless the fact of es- 
tablishing the validity of council control of the bill- 
board is a great stride towards further effective legis- 
lation. 
CONFERENCE A very important and signifi- 
OF IMPROVEMENT cant meeting was held at the 
cASSOCIATIONS. Art Institute, Chicago, Oct. 5, 
r uder the title of “Conference of the Improvement 
