City Council Refuses to Pay Artist for Civic Illustrations
A local disagreement over the value of public records erupts into a debate about the council's reliance on 'malignant' journalism.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The city council, on the basis of the distorted and malignant statement of a local paper, has refused to approve the bill of J. A. Ricker for cuts of a bird's eye view of the city and of city buildings. The work was ordered by the last city council and that action was approved by leading taxpayers. The decision of the council is most foolish and will result, no doubt, in a suit in which the city will have to pay the costs. It is strange that the men composing the council should be guided by the vaporings of a querulous scribe, who pays not a dollar of taxes and who, it is said, is not even a citizen of the United States. The work done by Mr. Ricker is far superior to anything ever attempted in this line before, and that it will prove of material value to the city is evidenced by the favorable comments of newspapers from all sections of the country.
“It is strange that the men composing the council should be guided by the vaporings of a querulous scribe.”
Local governments frequently grapple with the intersection of public contracts and partisan journalism. This 1890 dispute over the cost of promoting city branding mirrors modern municipal debates regarding transparency, public spending, and the influence of local media narratives.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.