I have your letter of 9th inst. enclosing a copy of Mr Galvin’s proposal for stocking the park-waters with water fowl.

This proposal can be entertained only with a view to making the parks instruments of greater efficiency for their special primary public purpose. Mr Galvin’s object must be assumed to be that of commercial profit to himself. Thus the question to be considered is: are the means and methods which a man would adopt having in view his own commercial profit the same with those which regard for the public interest would require the Commission to adopt?

With a view to a satisfactory park refectory service, a satisfactory park boating service and to a satisfactory park carriage service, arrangements have been made in several cities which may have been thought not to differ in principle from that proposed by Mr Galvin. Yet in none of these cities has such an arrangement been made with reference to water-fowl, and in every such case the licensee or contractor has been made dependent for his profits on the satisfaction which citizens visiting the parks, would obtain in making direct and specific personal use, while on the parks, of the services so arranged to be offered them. Whether the park refectories or the park boats or the park carriages are to be profitable to the persons in the direct management of them, depends, in every case on whether the people, when visiting the parks, are, then and there, disposed to make immediate and direct use of what these persons offer them and to make immediate and direct payment for it. Whether they are to be so disposed depends on the attractiveness of what is offered them and the price they are to be asked to pay for it. This is not at all the character of what Mr Galvin proposes. If his offer is accepted there would be no motive acting commercially on him by which satisfactory service would be assured, such as is acting to secure satisfactory service in the several departments of park supply to which reference has been made.

In a hundred parks that we have examined, water fowl, if provided at all, are provided as incidents affecting their scenery favorably to the public enjoyment of it as a means of recreation with reference to health. But in none of these parks are water fowl so provided by any form of license or contract. Possibly those in St. James’ Park of London may be thought to be exceptional {but} if so the exception is of the class that proves the rule, the water-fowl in St James’ Park being placed there and taken care of by the Ornithological Society with no view to pecuniary profit. So also, the swans on the Thames are the property of Societies and are maintained with no regard to pecuniary profit, but solely for the gratification of the public.

We see no reason for supposing that the management of water fowls in the public parks as a commercial speculation would have better results than [913]have been had by the public from the direct management by the Commission of the sheep on Franklin Park. It would, in our opinion inevitably lead to conflicts between agents of the Commission, zealous to guard visitors from annoyance, and the contractor, zealous to secure his private profits. Judging, also, from our experience, any considerable loss of birds would be likely to be attributed by the contractor to ill-usage by visitors or to marauding by thievish persons against which he should have been secured by the agents of the Commission, and for which he would have a claim against the Commission. In the Central Park of New York the loss of water fowl at one period of a single month was estimated to be several thousand dollars in value. It was generally believed to have been caused by poison given to them by mischievous persons and the park keepers were blamed in the public press for not having prevented this. A large loss of water-fowl, also, once occurred in the Buffalo Parks. In this case the Superintendent fully established the fact that the fowls had been stolen. Our experience in these and other cases would lead us to be distrustful of the results of such an arrangement as Mr Galvin has in view. As to the probabilities of good management if the business is left to the Commissions’ regular staff something may perhaps be presumed from the results obtained by such management of the flock of sheep on Franklin Park. These we believe have been satisfactory.

We advise the Commission to keep the management of its water fowl in its own hands, as it does the management of its sheep, believing that the interest of the public in this management differs essentially from that which would be the interest of a contractor looking to a profit to be obtained only when the birds had been killed and brought to market.