Page:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu/66

 46 Sloan's Architectural Review and Builders 7 Journal. [July, " But," says the objector, " while we have been shown what to do, we have not been taught how to do it." We, the good people of Philadelphia, are easy and long-suffering. We sometimes ob- struct enterprises of great public benefit ; and, after opposition has been sur- mounted, and success is palpable, hug ourselves for our prescience. Witness the city Passenger Railways. We oc- casionally confer priceless privileges upon corporations for nothing. Wit- ness, again, the city Passenger Railways. Our neighbors, of Baltimore, bear the whole interest on the cost, and all the heavy expense of adorning and keeping up their handsome Park, by a tax upon the respective companies of one cent for every passenger who rides in any of their city passenger cars, and this with the restriction of the fares to not over six cents a trip. We think it is now five cents a trip. But our superior wis- dom and facilities compel us to pay seven cents per passage, unless we pur- chase a number of tickets at once. On this hint we should act. Of course the various charters, as granted, stand for their full terms. Yet, when renewal -shall arrive to each, the representatives of the city should see that the above provision is made for all the future. By that time the net five cents per passen- ger will give the companies a good divi- dend. Some think that even four cents the head would answer. However, no objection would ever be offered by any Philadelphian to sixteen tickets for a dollar, while he realized that over one- sixth his outlay would inure to the sole benefit of the Park, in other words, of himself; while, as matters now stand, some of these days there will be a shrewd demand for a great reduction of fares. There is the more justice in this proposi- tion, because a large proportion of the income of the companies, directly with many, indirectly with all, proceed, and will greatly more proceed, from the Park. Thus far the tangible, the material. But a far stronger argument resides in the conservation of health, by the pre- vention of the nuisances mentioned in the beginuing of this article. Besides, apart from the clearness and purity of the water, to be preserved by sequester- ing the shores of our charming streams, healthful motion and freshness in the air are always lured along down the valley, from the mountains, by the rippling flow of a well-shaded, running river. There is one point whereon we differ from the Commission. They speak of having a continuous carriage road im- mediately upon the banks of the Schuyl- kill, throughout the Park. But we are confident that a review of this matter upon the principles of landscape-garden- ing, will show them that, by filling out in the water, thus encroaching upon the width of the river, and canning this drive along in front of Laurel Hill, they will sadly injure the romantic beauty of its bosky bluffs, now plung- ing sheer into the flood. Far better let the road leave the stream at, and proceed along, the southern boundary of South Laurel Hill to Ridge avenue, and return to it again, from the latter, along the northern line of North Laurel Hill. In this arrangement, we infer that the present lane from the steamboat landing, between the two divisions of the cemetery to Ridge avenue, will re- main open to the public, with a slight meandering change of direction, to be- come, at no distant time, a beautifully shaded walk, bordered with low, thick hedges, and spanned by an elegant foot- bridge connecting the cemeteries, thus securing them from intrusion, and lined on either side with chaste memorials of the departed. To in- terfere with the craggy water-front of Laurel Hill, is wantonly to interfere with nature's pet charm of scenery within many miles, is, further, to inter- fere with the vested rights of the cor- poration of Laurel Hill, and is, finally, to interfere with the inborn claims of the citizens — lovers of nature. No mere