To complete the series, the Treasury Department engaged Mr. Bela L. Pratt to make a design for the Half Eagle and Quarter Eagle. This is a genuine Indian head, the first to appear upon the national coinage.

On Washington's Birthday, 1913, at the Indian monument ceremonies on Staten Island, the President of this Society was accorded by the Director of the United States Mint, Hon. George E. Roberts, the honor of distributing the first 500 examples of the new five cent nickel designed by Mr. James Earle Fraser of New York. The first was handed to President Taft and the others were given to the Indians and official guests present. On the new nickel, the Indian head replaces the head of the Goddess of Liberty which was on the obverse of the old nickel. It is in profile, and the design shows the head feathers, the coarse, halfbraided hair, and the thin, seamed face. The word "Liberty: is printed aslant in the design of this side of the coin, and down at the base in small, compressed numerals is "1913." On the reverse, the familiar wreath and "V" of the old coin are superseded by a finely sculptured American bison. In the top margin over his back are the words "United States of America," and in extremely fine letters the motto "E Pluribus Unum." At the base in very small letters are the words "Five Cents." On both sides the lettering has been subordinated to the pictorial designs.

ADVERTISING SIGNS AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Fresh Impulse to Regulation -General Consideration.

During the past year a fresh impulse to the regulation of advertising signs in New York has been given by the reports of two municipal commissions and the appointment of a third to inquire further into the subject and make recommendations.

For several years past, the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society has advocated the control of what is popularly called the "poster nuisance" by means of State laws and City ordinances, and the taxation of bill-boards after the method pursued in France and elsewhere abroad, and it hails with hope the fresh impulse given to the movement during the past year.

The basis of our argument for the regulation of these signs is, first, the right of every individual to the immunity of his senses from assault. Every citizen is entitled by nature and the Constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It would seem, therefore, as if the immunity of the senses from violence were a natural right of which the individual could not be deprived except for the public welfare of the greater number. The sense of hearing may not be offended by unnecessary noises. The sense of smell may not be violated by offensive odors. The sense of taste may not be assailed by the introduction, against one's will, of offensive flavors in potable water. The sense of touch may not be violated by the laying of hands upon the person. In many ways, the law recognizes the right of the unobstructed use of the sense of sight. But the bill-board nuisance raises the question whether this last sense is not entitled to greater protection, for it is through this sense, more than others, that the mind and emotions are reached. And the essence of this offense is that it is

forced upon one. If a man buys a newspaper or a magazine, he may read the advertisements or not, as he chooses. If a streetpeddler offers him a handbill, he may decline it; it is not allowable for the peddler to thrust his handbill upon the unwilling person. Why, then, may it not be asked, should bill-board advertisers be allowed to force their advertisements upon the sight?

These advertisements are not designed primarily for the public welfare. They are designed primarily for private gain. They are not an unavoidable public necessity. It is possible that some of them subserve the public good, but it may well be questioned whether a majority of them do so. In the report of the Commissioner of Accounts to the Mayor of the City of New York mentioned hereafter, the Commissioner says of the bill-boards of that City:

"Except in the outlying districts bill-boards are rarely used by the merchants of the City for advertising purposes. Invariably the advertisements are made up of the following: Whiskies, Wines, Beers, Gins, Tobacco, Cigarettes, Patent Medicines, Teas, Chewing Gum, Soaps, Broakfast Foods, Amusements."

Many of the signs are offensive directly and by suggestion, and force upon the minds of men and women in mixed public

company ideas which it would be grossly vulgar for them to discuss orally, and which, indeed, are discussed in private life only on necessary occasion. An enormous illuminated sign in New York harbor proclaims, not only to home-coming Americans who are somewhat inured to such offenses, but also to foreigners first visiting the City, an alleged remedy for sluggishness in the operation of one of the natural functions. The advertisement of a certain brand of tobacco containing the picture of a bull was so offensive in detail to many people that when it was displayed in the Fifth Avenue stages it aroused a protest which resulted in the removal of all advertising signs from the stages, and the essential modification of the sign elsewhere. A poster which has been placarded all over the City during the past year to advocate a patent medicine represents a woman sticking out her tongue which is supposed to indicate the state of her health. (See plate 39.)

Most of the public advertisements are offensive aesthetically, and we believe that in many cases the psychological effect is bad. The object of an advertisement is to tempt. If the advertisements of liquor and drugs are effective they are effective as incitements to the use of the thing advertised. And it is to be inferred that they are thus effective, otherwise the proprietors of the articles advertised would not pay great sums for the advertisements. If the Government can control the use of liquor and cigars by licenses, it would seem logical to place a tax upon that which incites to the use of the licensed articles.

Another reason why it seems to be proper to tax advertising signs is that they exercise what is, in effect, a public franchise. If bill-boards were erected on the edge of a man's private property facing inward, the public could not complain of what he chose to paint on the inside of his board. But the value of a bill-board is that it faces outward and projects its influence beyond the private property of the owner. In other words, by the physical vibrations of light, the advertisement is propelled out into the public places and thoroughfares, which would seem to be as real a use of public property as the erection of telegraph wires or the laying of railroad tracks in the streets. The question may well be asked, therefore, if it is not a public franchise, and susceptible of treatment as such.

These signboards are nuisances in many ways. They are dangerous to life and limb. They interfere with the fire-protection to adjacent property. They invite the commission of nuisances and crimes by the harborage which they frequently afford. They are unsanitary and militate against the public health. They promote the propagation of flies and the spread of disease. They are abominably unsightly and mar the environment of parks and public places upon the embellishment of which the people have spent large amounts of money. On the streetcar lines having fixed stations - the elevated and subway linesthey not only disfigure property but they are so numerous that they interfere with the ready recognition of the station-signs erected for the guidance of the traveling public.

We have suggested to the Mayor's Bill-board Advertising Commission that signboards and posters should be subjected to three kinds of regulation, namely, prohibition, censorship and taxation. Prohibition should be applied to signboards which are dangerous or are nuisances.

Censorship should be applied to the exclusion of abominations. Taxation should be applied to allowable bill-boards and to the signs thereon which pass the censorship.

We have also suggested that if constitutional difficulties be found in the way of taxing the signs, the end might be attained by taxing the property upon which the signs are erected at an increased valuation, based on the earning power of the signboard.

Report of Commissioner Raymond B. Fosdick.

As we have said above, the first special stimulus to the movement for the regulation of the billboard nuisance in New York during the past year was given by a report made to Mayor Gaynor on August 27, 1912, by Hon. Raymond B. Fosdick, Commissioner of Accounts. This report was the result of an investigation provoked by the numerous complaints which had reached the Commissioner's office concerning nuisances in connection with billboards. Some of these nuisances were found upon investigation to be of an aggravated nature. For instance, on one block on Riverside Drive, the most picturesque and one of the most

fashionable drives in the City, a large billboard, erected in violation of the law, shut out from the lower floors of the residences on the two adjoining streets the entire view of the Drive, both north and south. At the base of the signs unsanitary rubbish had collected. In another case, a large sign with a metal front and metallic frame was found standing on the top of a building in such a way as to prevent escape in case of fire by the ladder leading from the fire escape. In several cases there were evidences that the space in the rear of the signs had been used for toilet purposes and the odors emanating from them were nauseating. At the base of others, tin cans, stones, dirt, paper, dead dogs, and other refuse were accumulated. In 412 out of 500 cases examined, the first regulation of the code in regard to the height above the ground of billboards of certain materials were found violated. In fact, there was a general disregard of the moderate regulations which now exist.

The Commissioner estimates that there are about 3,700 billboards in the City, 25 per cent. of which are of the "doubledecker" character that is, two signs each ten feet high, placed one above the other, making about 4,600 facings for advertisements. An estimate based upon the actual measurements of 1,309 of these signs indicates that there are 3,800,000* square feet of surface for billboard advertising in the City.

The billboard companies charge for the use of this space, when it is used for bill-posting, from one to two and a half cents per square foot per month, or from twelve to thirty cents per square foot per annum. For painted signs the charge averages about 18. cents per square foot per annum. These rates are charged in ordinary locations, but the rates in choice locations, such as public squares and the intersections of principal streets, are much higher. It is estimated that the annual gross revenue from these advertising privileges is approximately $1,000,000. This applies only to billboards and does not include "sky-signs" which are erected on the walls or roofs of buildings, or electric light signs, or advertising in street cars. The report of the Commission on New Sources

According to the report of the Commission of New Sources of City Revenue, 385,955 square feet of bill-boards were erected in 1911 alone.