USA > New Jersey > Essex County > The first county park system : a complete history of the inception and development of the Essex County parks of New Jersey > Part 12
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23
Others joined in the effort to repel the attack, and the conflict of words soon had the appearance of a drawn battle, yet actually leaving the appointive commission in possession and victor of the field. The discussion, however, bore fruit in largely extending in the public mind the objection to an appointive commission. This was manifestly the result, as shown by the resolutions of disapproval of that system in the different political conventions since. Published indi- vidual opinions then and since have reflected a similar sen- timent as existing in the minds of officials and publicists, , both in Essex and in Hudson counties and elsewhere, in conformity with the generally accepted objection to specially appointed public boards.
One of the persistent advocates of the elective plan con- tended that the only answer to the claim that the appoint- ive system is in every way contrary to the fundamental structure upon which our entire political and representa- tive system of government is based, has been that "the law so provides," and that such legislative results are "accom- plished by log rolling, scheming and jollying of ignorant,
151
MORE BONDS AND "HIGH FINANCE"
inexperienced and ambitious legislators." "The park com- mission law" is thus pronounced "radically wrong in its conception and construction."
Answer was made that such views belonged to the "Rip Van Winkle order of observation," ignored the teachings of experience with elective boards in inaugurating large schemes of public improvements, and disregard the fact that park making is in itself a special undertaking quite unlike the ordinary administration of public affairs.
The converts to the elective plan side of the question have apparently continued to rapidly grow in numbers. Since the discussion over the last million-dollar appropriation, and the question of mandatory maintenance in 1902, and the war for eight years waged over the parkways, it is extremely doubtful whether the number averse to an appointive park board has not been materially augmented : And equally doubtful whether if the proposition to continue the present appointive system were now submitted to the voters of Essex County it would not be by a liberal majority defeated.
PUBLIC NOT ENTHUSIASTIC.
In 1897, however, the agitation soon ceased. As there was no immediate prospects of the law's being changed, the discussion in January of that year soon turned upon the financial aspects of the enterprise. The attitude of the public, as voiced by the press, was not enthusiastic. It was, indeed, largely apathetic or distinctly unfavorable. Aside from the generous view taken by Monsignor Doane and a few ardent supporters of the commission, the comments not infrequently conveyed a tone of severe criticism. The pub- lic was reminded of the promise of the first commission as to the completion of the parks and parkways for the $2,500,000 appropriation.
While many readily accepted the theory that all such ap- propriations were subject to additional or later demands, others were outspoken in their objection to the way the af- fairs of the Park Board had been managed. No charges of bad faåth, which I can recall or find in the various records
152
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
I have examined, were made; but rather a subdued feeling of disappointment and of disapproval permeated more or less the mental atmosphere throughout the county. This sentiment was forcefully expressed in the editorials of the Newark News, January 6 and February 13, 1897, the former referring directly to Commissioner Murphy's state- ment above quoted.
As these articles then embodied a clear and evidently cor- rect expression on this subject, the salient portions may here be of interest. Under the caption "The Cost of the Parks. and the People's Power Over the Outlay" it was stated : "The letter, the spirit and the intent of the law under which the Park Board is acting require that, with the expenditure of $2,500,000, all the parks and parkways which they have the right to establish, shall be completed and turned over to the county of Essex. The commissioners, presumably acting with forethought and good intention, have chosen to set up a law for themselves by purchasing large tracts of land, to be held for future development, with increased cost to the people. * *
* The park commissioners are going to spend $2,500,000 in the development of a few parks in Newark, and the purchase of certain lands outside. To im- prove these lands very large additional expenditures will be necessary. The present board, or its successors, will prob- ably make an appeal to the Legislature for authority to issue more bonds. If the practice sought to be established by the present board be allowed to stand, and be imitated in the future, the legislative restrictions regarding public expenditures for parks will have no meaning. If the parks of Essex County are going to cost more than $2,500,000, who may say what they are going to cost? Will the total run up to $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 ?"
In commenting upon the report of the commission for 1896, issued early in February, 1897, the News, February 13, said: "The scheme of parkways is not discussed in the report. The commissioners have not yet determined as to the character and the scope of those great avenues which are to connect the various parks, and which are to add new
153
MORE BONDS AND "HIGH FINANCE"
charm to the beauties of the county. It is reasonable to expect that the improvements of these broad avenues will involve a large expenditure, and that this work, taken in connection with the improvement of the great areas already secured in the Orange Mountain district, will necessitate an expenditure of at least $2,500,000 more, and perhaps a sum in excess of that amount."
The correctness of this prophetic statement as regards the application for additional funds for the parks, was vindi- cated within a year by the issuance of the commission's re- port for that year (1897), in January, 1898. In the clos- ing paragraphs of that report appears (page 18) the following statement :
MORE MONEY NEEDED.
"The Park Commission can expend the balance still on hand in completing as far as is possible the land purchases within the areas already selected, and in bringing the city parks to such condition as will make them useful, in a measure, to the public. But for more perfect development of the parks, for the acquirement of some further lands to improve the outlines of these parks, and especially for the expense of parkways, the need of which becomes more ob- vious as the system is developed and appreciated, the com- mission estimates that the further sum of $1,500,000 is needed. And this sum is, in the estimation of the commis- sioners, all that ought to be expended for acquirement and development of the system as laid out and designated."
This official intimation of the needs and the intention of the commission was put into practical shape by the prepara- tion of a bill, which, at about the same time, early in 1898, made its appearance in the Legislature. This bill, contain- ing a referendum clause providing for its submission to the electorate of the county in April, was soon passed by both houses of the Legislature, and was approved February 21, 1898. At the election of April 12, following, the vote stood for the law, 14,737; against, 9,954; or a majority in favor of only 4,783, although the Newark Board of Trade, the
154
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
New England Society, the Roseville Improvement Associa- tion and other organizations had, just prior to the election, passed resolutions favoring the adoption of the law, and the approval of the act by the voters.
Another factor which might have been favorable in de- ciding the vote was the impression and promise given out by the commission that the additional $1,500,000 asked for would be sufficient to complete the park system plans. The News of January 21, 1898, gave a detailed account of a con- ference upon the new appropriation bill "held at the home of Franklin Murphy, treasurer of the Park Commission," the night previous, at which meeting Senator Ketcham, a number of the Essex County assemblymen, and all of the park commissioners, excepting Mr. Bramhall, were present. It was there stated, according to this report of the confer- ence, that while the amount ($1,500,000) "would not do all that might be done, for the commission could expend $5,000,000 if all the suggestions advanced were followed, yet it would, he said, be sufficient to leave the county in possession of a park system, properly connected by park- ways, second to none in the country, and all secured for a total outlay of only $4,000,000."
SIGNIFICANCE OF SMALL VOTE.
The comparatively small total vote of 24,691-only a lit- tle more than half in the county-and the reduced majority of only 4,783, as against a majority of 8,321 for the first appropriation, April 15, 1895, clearly reflected the reduced interest in and lack of popular support of the commission and of the county park undertaking, as it was then before the public. On January 11, 1898, the commission made a requisition on the Board of Freeholders for the $1,500,000, as provided in the bill, "on approval of the bill by the peo- ple," and in April, directly after the vote on the bill, an unconditional requisition was made for $500,000 of the ap- propriation as then available.
The issuance of these bonds was delayed for several months. A technical question had arisen as to the legality
155
MORE BONDS AND "HIGH FINANCE"
of the referendum feature of the new law. Able lawyers differed upon the question. The freeholders declined to issue the bonds "until directed to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction." The question was taken into the courts by the friendly suit method. On July 8 the new act and the proposed bond issue was, by the Court of Errors and Ap- peals, declared valid. An instalment of $500,000 of the bonds was then, in August, 1898, sold. They were four per cent. gold bonds, similar as to form and time of ma- turity to those last issued. The sale was made under the sealed proposal method, as before.
There were seventeen bids. The award was made to the Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, Chicago, and Mason Lewis & Co., Boston, on their joint bid of 112.199. The remaining $1,000,000 bonds of that authorized issue also brought a good premium. They were disposed of in like manner, $500,000 in 1899 and $500,000 in 1900.
In the meantime methods had been devised for turning over to the Park Commission the premium realized on all these bonds, instead of retaining it in the sinking fund as theretofore. On August 3, 1900, the last $500,000 of this appropriation, together with $80,000 premium on the bonds, was turned over to the commission.
Thus, within five years, the people of Essex County had raised and contributed in cash for the park system promised them for $2,500,000, more than $4,000,000.
CHAPTER X.
EXPERIENCES WITH COUNSEL.
SOME of the causes indicating the increased cost of the parks over the previous estimates have been stated in pre- ceding chapters. Another reason for the enlarged expendi- ture was the persistent inattention of the counsel to the duties of his office. This continued neglect by Counsel Munn of the interests entrusted to him began almost simul- taneously with his appointment in May, 1895.
Any one having had practical experience in great enter- prises where large financial operations, and intricate or varied legal questions are involved, recognizes the necessity of having in charge of the legal department not only a man of ability, but one alert in the grasp and direction of legal affairs. While this is directly applicable to all large under- takings, the principle applies with special force to a public enterprise, where there is such a temptation and tendency with people generally to take any and every advantage pos- sible in securing from the public treasury the maximum amount of cash, for the minimum amount of land, goods or service, or whatever is to be given in exchange.
In the organization of the park department these condi- tions were supposed to be well understood, hence the impor- tance of the care to be exercised in the selection of counsel. Relying largely upon Commissioner Shepard's strong advo- cacy of Mr. Munn's appointment, based upon his experience with Mr. Munn as his own counsel and neighbor, I had, as previously stated, reluctantly supported him for the posi- tion. This tentative confidence that he might prove the right man for the place was somewhat strengthened by the receipt of a letter soon after the appointment was made. In this letter Mr. Munn stated :
156
157
EXPERIENCES WITH COUNSEL
PARK POSSIBILITIES IN ESSEX COUNTY.
"My imagination was fascinated years ago by a state- ment from Llewellyn S. Haskell as to the possibilities of converting Essex County into a world-famous park. The present county avenues-radiating from Newark-were a part of his plan, and we are indebted to his heroic advocacy for the limited success achieved. If he had lived he would be the enthusiastic supporter of the present park commis- sion. I count it a great honor to be identified with a project so noble, and the prospect of its success, in the hands of commissioners so high in character and ability, constitutes an incentive to all who are identified with the work to give to it their best endeavor. To be able, also, to feel that cordial relations subsist with the members of the commis- sion, makes the work a pleasure, apart from its intrinsic interest."
What more could one ask as to implied intention, or an ideal sentiment in undertaking the work of a new enter- prise, than was apparently by this letter expressed? But the reality, and what soon afterward followed, was a very different matter. At first, and during the early part of the summer of 1895, Counsel Munn evinced a disposition to fulfil the obligations of his office and thus to vindicate the ideal sentiments above quoted. In looking up matters per- taining to the bond issue, he was reasonably attentive and helpful. In the ordinary legal routine also, there were, at first, no noticeable lapses. When, however, the work of the legal department began to increase, his care and attention to it commenced to decrease in a corresponding and ever increasing ratio.
On the determination of the lines of Branch Brook Park in July, 1895, the requirements in condemnation proceed- ings and other legal questions were rapidly augmented. Aside from the reservoir property in that park, the entire area was in city lots. With the desire of the commission to obtain possession of all the property at the earliest practi- cable date, all the small holdings that could not be pur-
158
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
chased required prompt and vigorous attention. Later in the summer the work of the counsel began to get badly in arrears. In the autumn and early winter, when the East Side, Eagle Rock and South Mountain Park locations had been decided upon, matters went from bad to worse. In almost every direction there was evidence of negligence. The counsel, instead of attending the board meetings, where, with all the important matters then in his charge, it was considered his place to be, was frequently conspicuous by his absence.
LACK OF INTEREST SHOWN.
The suggestions and requests for better service and atten- tion to duty met with no appreciable response. 'Through the spring and summer of 1896 matters went on in this way. The neglect was not only costing the county dearly in money, but was preventing progress in the development of the parks. This was having a demoralizing influ- ence on the entire department. When the active work of the commission was taken up early in the autumn, I determined that I would not acquiesce in the prevailing conditions longer. First one commissioner, Mr. Meeker, then another, Mr. Peck, declared the same view. This was a majority of the board. Something must, therefore, be done, and that speedily. It was done-and this is the way it was done :
At the board meeting of October 6, 1896, immediately after roll call, the commission went into the most executive of executive sessions. Even the secretary, always present at our meetings, was excused. Only the commissioners were present. Counsel Munn's case was at once taken up. When he was appointed the "votes were there" to elect him. Now the votes were there to dismiss him. The question was well gone over. All concurred, or admitted, that his conduct was inexcusable ; its continuance intolerable. The remedy sug- gested was immediate dismissal. One or both of the com- missioners just mentioned concurred in that view.
At this juncture Commissioner Franklin Murphy began
159
EXPERIENCES WITH COUNSEL
to interpose palliatives and to plead for Munn. Commis- sioner Shepard joined in the pleadings. It would be very trying, they said, for Mr. Munn, as it would be for any attorney, to have a peremptory dismissal from such a board. We should not act hastily, they contended, in so important a case as this. The official relations with the freeholders were friendly. Might not differences arise, should the pro- posed dismissal be made effective? Give Mr. Munn a trial -another opportunity, provided he would promise to do better, they urged. His salary was not large for a counsel in so responsible a position. Perhaps this may, in part, ac- count for his lack of attention to his duties, they continued.
It was decided to call Mr. Munn in, explain the situation to him, and, unless he would promise to do better forthwith, that he should go. He entered. His manner was serious ; his bearing courteous but grave. He took a seat at the end of the commissioners' table, where he could be closely ob- served. The status of matters was explained to him. He listened attentively, scarcely uttering a word. He was told how the business of the commission in his charge was suf- fering from his neglect ; how serious the result was becom- ing ; that it must be stopped, or a change made. His man- ner indicated more clearly than words that he realized the truth and the force of the charges made. I then looked him directly in the face and said : "Mr. Munn, if we retain you, can we rely upon your properly attending to your duties here ?" In a subdued but clear voice he replied : "Yes, you can !" He was excused.
The pleadings of Messrs. Shepard and Murphy for his retention then continued. He had made a pledge in the presence of us all ; why not at least give him an opportunity to redeem that pledge. Who else could be selected, of all the attorneys in Essex County, who could then come into the department and have the grasp of the legal situation that Mr. Munn already possessed ? These arguments prevailed.
It then seemed logical and consistent to give him a further trial before exercising our right of peremptory dis- missal. Those of us favoring this latter course hoped for
1
160
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
better results, and agreed to the time-and-trial extension proposition. Munn's answer to my question, as quoted, to- gether with the arguments on his behalf, inspired that hope.
THE COUNSEL RETAINED.
As it was now agreed to give Counsel Munn the oppor- tunity of redeeming his promise for proper service, Com- missioner Murphy promptly offered the following resolu- tion : "That the counsel's salary, from October 15, be $3,000, it being understood that, in view of the increased compensation, the counsel shall give additional time to the work which has now become necessary,." After further discussion, in effect, that if he did not thereafter adequately attend to his duties he should be dismissed, the motion was agreed to, and Mr. Munn was thus retained in that respon- sible and, at that time, most important position. Did he fulfil his new obligation? Never, to my knowledge, with the exception of a slight temporary improvement for a few weeks immediately after the described incident, and tem- porary, spasmodic efforts on exceptional occasions since. Nor was he dismissed until more than seven years after- ward, when he had drawn from the taxpayers more than $20,000 in salary, and his negligence had caused losses to the commission difficult to estimate.
The incident in then retaining Counsel Munn, as detailed above, cannot in a few words be more forcibly or accurately expressed than in the humorous comment of one thoroughly conversant with the circumstances then and since, who has repeatedly said to me in referring to that incident: "You agreed to discharge Munn for cause, then turned immedi- ately around and hired him over again at an increased salary."
INATTENTION TO DUTIES.
But the efforts to secure another counsel who would prop- erly attend to the duties of the office did not rest here. When in April, 1897, George W. Bramhall succeeded me as commissioner, the affairs in the legal department were
161
EXPERIENCES WITH COUNSEL
found to be in the utmost confusion. As a man of experi- ence in model business methods, Mr. Bramhall's attention was at once attracted to this situation. It was not long be- fore reports were in circulation of the conditions being so bad that some of the leading attorneys were considering the advisability of sending a protest to the Park Board against Munn's retention. Some remedy must be found. Two of the commissioners determined to get rid of him. They made an earnest effort with that end in view.
Upon further investigation, it was found there was ample cause. The neglect to advance the very many cases in con- demnation proceedings was resulting in higher awards. These awards for increasing liabilities against the commis- sion could have been secured for less amounts, earlier in the proceedings, when lower values on contiguous property had, by purchase and otherwise, been established. The failure to have deeds and other legal papers of the land acquire- ments promptly and properly recorded, as required under the Martin act, was making the commission liable for taxes and other charges. Valuable papers of the law department could not be found when wanted. Much inconvenience, de- lay and loss was being occasioned by the absence of the counsel when important meetings of the commissioners were held to take testimony in condemnation proceedings. The failure to attend meetings of the commission when matters of great importance and urgency were to be considered, continued.
With these conditions before them, the minority mem- bers endeavored to secure the necessary third member to constitute a majority for action. Commissioner Peck's atti- tude was felt to be too uncertain. Commissioner Shepard's position, in persistent advocacy of Counsel Munn, was well known. Commissioner Murphy went to the Park Board rooms, looked over the situation there with one of the other members, and admitted that the case was serious. The im- pression received was that he would unite in the vote for dismissal.
At the next board meeting the subject was brought up.
162
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
The secretary was again excused. It was warm weather, and the temperature was soon increased inside the Park Board rooms. The minority members, when they came into the meeting, thought there would be no doubt as to the result. They were mistaken. Commissioner Murphy at once joined Commissioner Shepard in a repetition of the pleadings of a few months before. The time had "not come for the dismissal of Counsel Munn." They would not vote for it. Commissioner Peck reversed his previous position and holding, as he then did, the deciding vote, gave the necessary majority to that side. The counsel was, therefore, retained. The incident was closed.
When legal work of importance must be done, special counsel was employed. On February 11, 1898, W. B. South- ard was thus employed at an expense of $125 per month "to expedite condemnation proceedings." At the Park Board meeting, March 11, following, a bill of $300, of Riker & Riker, attorneys, "for services in the S. Howell Jones condemnation case," was ordered paid. On July 7 a bill of Robert H. McCarter for $500 in attending to "the park law mandamus case before the Court of Errors and Appeals," was presented. October 1, 1901, Cort-and Par- ker's bill of $184.45 in the Watkins insurance case-the property on Orange Mountain then in process of condemna- tion-was paid. April 8, 1902, a bill of Corbin & Corbin of $200 for an "opinion on the constitutionality of the park law" was approved. August 19 of the same year Robert H. MeCarter was retained as associate counsel in the matter of the certiorari proceeding of the Forest Hill Association against the Park Commission," and was paid $500 for that service. January 20, 1903, Henry Young was "retained in the litigation to test the constitutionality of the park act" and paid $250, with $250 more the following April. On the same day, April ?, 1903, Corbin & Corbin were paid $500 in the same case for services before the Court of Errors and Appeals.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.