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 14
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
Connecting lines were also favorably considered from the Second River near the Soho Railway station, to the Third River, a most beautiful section; and thence through Bloomfield, Montclair and the mountain, through territory still further north. In the southern part of the county it was thought in time a parkway should be laid out, extend- ing from the southern or extreme southwestern portion of Newark, through Clinton, Irvington, near Vailsburgh,
1
177
THE PARKWAYS
South Orange to the foot of Bear lane at the Ridgewood road, and thence to the South Mountain reservation as a western terminus, and with the mountain crest parkway there.
While these designs for the future parkways were in- formally approved by the first commission, the whole sub- ject was tentatively considered with the view that the fu- ture, and the future alone, could determine what portion of the extensive plans should be finally adopted, and indi- cate the opportune time for carrying them out.
FOR A PARK AND PARKWAY SYSTEM.
What the commission of 1894 did, however, intend should materialize, and be put into practical form at the earliest possible date, was the plan for the parks and the parkways, as outlined-"a system of parks in its entirety," as prom- ised in the commission's formal report in 1895, already referred to. It was for this purpose that the liberal charter for the second commission was prepared; and had all the members of the first commission in 1895 been reappointed on that board, and the personnel and policy of the com- mission remained unchanged, I have now no more doubt that these plans would have been carried out and promises fulfilled, than I have of any future event which is consid- ered a certainty, yet not having transpired.
What did occur regarding the policy of the first com- mission as to the parks has been indicated in the preceding chapters. What results, in turn, followed regarding the parkways, I shall endeavor in this and succeeding chapters to correctly but briefly state.
As the second commission, immediately after complet- ing its organization, proceeded vigorously with the selec- tion of park sites to the exclusion of any consideration of plans for a park system as a whole, the question of park- ways was hardly broached for months. Indeed, under the local or piecemeal sectional policy of locating parks, why should ît be ?
118
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
In the discussions, however, favoring the reverse policy, the parkway subject was occasionally mentioned ; but it was not until the summer of 1896, after the commission had been in existence more than a year, that the question came up officially and directly before the board. At the meet- ing, June 4, Commissioner Shepard brought up the East Orange boulevard, or parkway project. A delegation from East Orange had appeared on December 19 previous, and urged that a local park or "speedway" be laid out within the limits of that city. No action was then taken.
August 25, 1896, I wrote Commissioner Peck that, com- pared with the natural reservations of the (Massachusetts) Metropolitan Park system, "We have still greater oppor- tunities in Essex. A crest boulevard or parkway, as origi- nally suggested by Mr. Haskell, with the mountain acquire- ments already outlined, will give a feature of mountain park attractions not excelled, if equaled, in any other large parkway system so accessible to a great center of population."
On October 19 Commissioner Meeker introduced the resolution which the parkway-avenue controversy has since made historic. All the commissioners not being present, the resolution was entered upon the minutes for future ac- tion. On November 12 following, at a meeting held at Commissioner Murphy's residence, the resolution was sec- onded by Mr. Shepard, and was then, by unanimous vote, passed. It was as follows :
"Whereas, It appears to the Park Commission to be de- sirable that the avenues hereinafter named should be under the control of the commission as part of the system of parks and parkways,
"Resolved, That the counsel be directed to obtain, if pos- sible, from the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the county of Essex a transfer of the care, custody and control of the avenues as hereinafter designated, to the Essex County Park Commission; as also from the other municipal cor- porations in the county a transfer of the same, so far as may be necessary, under the statute. The avenues now de-
179
THE PARKWAYS
sired are as follows : Park avenue in Newark, East Orange, Orange and West Orange; Central avenue in East Orange, Orange and West Orange; South Orange avenue, from its intersection with Ridgewood avenue, westerly to Cherry lane."
It was also agreed that a copy of the resolution "should be transmitted to the Board of Chosen Freeholders, and to each of the municipal governing bodies directly interested, viz .: East Orange, Orange, West Orange and South Orange."
CORPORATION CONTROL.
At this time the parkway question, as applied to Park and Central avenues, had been well considered. The neces- sity of using both avenues for parkways, if any creditable park system should be established, was recognized and so stated by each of the commissioners. The action was taken after mature deliberation; and, as already indicated, was in entire accord with the recommendations of all the park experts and the recorded action of the first commission on that subject. Nor was there any reason to then doubt what the attitude of the traction company's managers would be. The matter had been under public discussion for some time. Petitions from Orange and East Orange to the Park Board, as already quoted, had favored early action to se- cure these parkways.
The trolley management had laid lines to counteract any such result. James B. Dill had been employed. The in- fluences were actively at work. Within thirty days after the introduction in the Park Board of the parkway resolu- tion as above, viz., November 9, 1896, application was made to the East Orange Township Committee by the Consoli- dated Traction Company for a railway franchise on Cen- tral avenue. This was the picket gun of a battle that was raged with unceasing vigor and aggressiveness for eight years. The firing became general and soon extended all along the line. Both sides were in a measure prepared.
180
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
The Park Commission had the law and public opinion in its favor. The traction company, grown greedy and arro- gant from former franchise spoil, had the power of con- centrated wealth, and the party machine, with the resource and influence of a domineering party boss to do its bidding. For years the corporate interest, then demanding the sacri- fice of the parkway for the coveted franchise, had had full sway. The old Essex County Road Board, before it was abolished years previous by a reform Republican Legisla- ture, was their willing tool. The succeeding Board of Free- holders, in control of the county roads, although riding into power on the popular wave which in 1893 and 1894 engulfed the race-track, coal-combine, corporation-ridden State-and-County-Democracy was equally subservient. From those unsavory legislative days of 1890, '92 and '93, the street railway companies had readily passed their own bills, both at Trenton and in Essex County, as they desired, and in their own way. The law permitting a traction company to prac- tically pre-empt a street or avenue by merely filing a map and certificate of intention with the Secretary of State, and the payment of a small fee, had, prior to 1896, been availed of, and both Park and Central avenues were "on the map" of the traction company's routes as prescribed.
The Storrs bill of 1894 was intended to curb this hydra- headed giant of financial and political power by requiring the filing of consents of the owners of a majority of the street frontage before any road could be constructed under this "pre-emption law." As introduced, the bill exempted all non-taxable property from consideration in the matter of these consents. But, under this clause, the Cemetery of the Holy Sepulchre property, with its 966 feet of front- age in East Orange, would have prevented the company from procuring the necessary "consents" for appropriating Central avenue there, so the "reform" Legislature followed the example of its predecessors by amending the bill and striking out the objectionable clause as the corporations desired.
181
THE PARKWAYS
TRACTION COMPANY'S FRANCHISE.
The change in control of the county avenues from the Essex Road Board to the Board of Freeholders was, as re- gards the manipulation by the corporations, a change in name and party shadow only. The substance of corporate dictation remained the same. In October, 1894, the Free- holders granted to the Consolidated Traction Company a perpetual blanket franchise for Park avenue in Newark, East Orange, and Orange, Bloomfield avenue, and Freling- huysen avenue. The Call, in its next issue, characterized this action as completing "the surrender of the Road Board highways to the street railroads." The prodigal liberality of that "surrender" to the traction company of that most valuable grant of public property was, and is, amazing. The scheme was defeated on a technicality in the courts the same year, 1894.
In like manner, the East Orange Township Committee had, on May 1, 1891, given the Rapid Transit Street Railway Company an equally favorable perpetual fran- chise for Central avenue from the Newark terminus to the Orange line. This was before the company's lines were constructed in Newark; hence, prior to the leasing of that short line to the Consolidated Traction Company, as was afterward done, at a clear profit to the promoters and owners of "a round million of dollars." The Rapid Transit finances were not then-1891-in very flush condition. It was largely a paper company, organized to build and equip the road from the sale of bonds, and with- out the investment of much money in promotion or con- struction. The company was advised that the franchise could be extended, or a new franchise had "at any time," in East Orange, and Thomas Nevins promised the same result in Orange. The company for once failed to recog- nize the uncertainty of (franchise) human events, or to appreciate "a good thing when they had it," and the fran- chise was, therefore, allowed to lapse, and the rails, which
182
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
had been distributed as far as Harrison street, were after- ward removed from the avenue.
Locally the party organization in East Orange in 1896 was yet so overwhelmingly on the Republican side that little doubt as to the authorities again lining up on the franchise-granting corporation side was entertained by the traction people or their attorney there. And they were right. After exhaustive public hearings by the Township Committee on November 30, and at three public meetings in Commonwealth Hall in December, 1896, when the whole situation as to the needed parkways had been fully out- lined by many representative citizens, and in a way ex- plained by the Park Commission, the new ordinance fran- chise for a railroad on Central avenue was passed on first reading January 18, 1897. In the meantime, at the meet- ing of the previous week, January 11, the request of the Park Commission for the transfer of the avenues had been, by unanimous vote, declined. This declination was based, as was then stated, upon "the reticence of the commis- sioners as to what they proposed doing with the avenues if they secured them." Whatever the cause, when the rail- road franchise was passed the town woke up.
The awakening had been accelerated by the methods em- ployed by the traction company. The property owners' consents filed with the authorities, were found to be those obtained for the Rapid Transit Company several years be- fore; and, owing to the favorable sentiment for the park- ways, new consents were unobtainable-owners of two- thirds of the feet frontage, and of three-fourths of the property value on the avenue, having petitioned for the parkway.
The morning after one of the public meetings, Counsel J. B. Dill stated that "a resolution would be passed by the Park Board granting the trolley people, whom he rep- resented, a franchise for Central avenue, as soon as the avenue came in possession of that board."
Not long afterward Rev. II. P. Fleming, of St. John's parish, Orange, informed me that a well-known lawyer,
183
THE PARKWAYS
living in East Orange, had come to talk with him about the parkways, and had said, during the conversation, that, should the Park Commissioners be given control of Cen- tral and Park avenues, they would "have gates put up so as to keep the poor people out," when they thought it ad- visable or desired to do so.
These specious and misleading statements were quite in keeping with methods which were rapidly arousing an adverse public sentiment. New consents were finally se- cured and filed by the traction company, February 7, 1897.
MANY MEETINGS HELD.
The comments and rumors current did not tend to smooth the fighting ground of the traction contingent. There had been lively discussion and some warm words at the three well-attended meetings of the Township Com- mittee, December 8, 14, and 21, held in Commonwealth Hall, as also at the citizens' meeting in the athletic club rooms, January 26. At these meetings the parkway claims were well presented. The friends of the parkways had not been idle. Committees having the subject in charge
had sent out appeals. Meetings were held, and Commis- sioner's Shepard's co-operation invited. In January, 1897, after Orange had declined to make the transfer, he wrote, unofficially, "as a citizen," expressing "regret that the Town Committee should take abrupt and final action con- cerning the request of the Park Commission for the care of the avenues," adding :
"The commission made this request, believing it was for the benefit of every citizen of the county that it should be granted, and supported in this view by a written com- munication signed by a large number of the citizens of East Orange.
"If the Town Committee declines to co-operate, in all reasonable ways, with the Park Commission, it will pre- vent many things being done which will beautify the town and add greatly to the pleasure of living in it. That resi- dencé or business streets can be made attractive as park-
184
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
ways is proved in many cities, notably in Chicago, Detroit and Buffalo, where some of the finest streets are in the care of the park boards, and where there is no interruption at all of the necessities of daily life."
At the Township Committee meeting of December 14, 1896, I was present, and in response to an inquiry, stated the position of the commission as then agreed upon regard- ing the parkways. Counsel Munn also elucidated some of the points as to the intended treatment of the avenues, should the transfer be effected, "the status of the avenues to re- main practically unchanged, but with parkway embellish- ments, footpaths, bicycle ways and bridle-paths added."
But, as the town was awakened, the franchise-acquiring forces were also active, and the trolley ordinance made steady progress. At the regular January meeting of the Township Committee in 1897, with David Young and Counsel Dill representing the traction company, various amendments to the ordinance were agreed to. As the popu- lar tide for the parkways was rapidly rising, Mr. Dill stated to the committee that "the company was willing to agree that the avenue should be considered first as a park- way, and secondly as a trolley route, and, in the event of the avenue's being widened the traction company to be considered as a tenant, to pay one-third the cost, and one- third the cost of any other necessary improvements."
THE POWER OF PUBLIC OPINION.
The leverage which, in this country and under our form of government, will invariably call to an accounting and reverse the action of any legislative body-the power of public opinion-was now being actively focalized. At the very time the traction company's counsel and the members of the Township Committee were "fixing up" the trolley ordinance so as to make it satisfactory to all parties, a call was being sent out for a massmeeting in Commonwealth Hall for the evening of February 7. That call was signed by more than one hundred and twenty of the most repre- sentative citizens of East Orange, regardless of party or
185
THE PARKWAYS
other local affiliations. The object of the meeting, the call stated, was to secure "intimate co-operation with the Essex County Park Commission, to the end that Park and Cen- tral avenues be placed in their charge as parkways, and the construction of the projected north and south boule- vard be insured." Henry H. Hall acted as chairman, with a list of thirty or more vice-presidents.
The speeches by Messrs. H. H. Hall, A. P. Boller, H. G. Atwater, G. R. Howe, G. S. Hulbert, W. H. Baker, G. F. Seward and Hamilton Wallis were dignified, forceful and to the point. A letter from Mr. Shepard was read, in which he stated : "If Central and Park avenues cannot be included in the park system, then new east and west park- ways could not be constructed through East Orange, be- cause of the great cost of the land. This would compel their construction through cheaper vacant land at the north and south of East Orange."
ENTHUSIASTIC MASSMEETING.
The hall was filled. Enthusiasm prevailed. The effect of the meeting was instantaneous. The members of the Township Committee who had so readily declined the park commission's application but three or four weeks before, and were seemingly so willing to pass the traction com- pany's ordinance for one of the avenues, soon saw new light. The proceedings of the meeting, with quotations from the Park Commission's reports, and the official map showing the avenue parkways for connecting the mountain and Newark parks, was printed in pamphlet form and gen- erally distributed.
On February 15, 1897, the commission received a re- quest from the Township Committee for "a conference as to the proposed parkways." This was held February 26.
In the meanwhile the reader may wish to know what had been going on in the Park Board rooms. There was rearly as much activity over the question there as in East Orange. When the traction company showed its hands-
186
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
or at least one hand-in November, 1896, differences at once arose as to the attitude of the commission, and what position should be indicated to the East Orange authori- ties and the public.
Commissioners Shepard and Murphy were disposed to deal very lightly with the subject, and to appear non-com- mittal as to any very clearly defined position on the real issue, which all recognized was whether we should stand independently and firmly for the parkways, or climb the neutral fence, trusting the settlement to the localities where the contest with the traction interests was actively in pro- gress. Commissioner Meeker and myself favored a dif- ferent policy. It was my conviction and contention that we should clearly and explicitly define our position, as a duty both to our charter and the people of the whole county, which duty I believed transcended any and all local inter- ests. Commissioner Peck was, so far as we could discover, already on neutral ground. On November 12, before the adoption of the resolution above quoted, requesting the avenues' transfer, I proposed a substitute preamble and resolution on the lines of my conviction just mentioned. I believed a more explicit statement from the commission to the freeholders and governing boards, alike due them and desirable. May 15 previous (1896), in writing Com- missioner Murphy regarding the general policy of the park- ways, and regarding Elizabeth avenue, where the same parkway-trolley question was involved, I said: "The mat- ter of parkway approaches to our larger county parks is so vitally important I believe we should now take the initiative and clearly define our position to the local gov- erning bodies and to the public. Having accepted the trust to locate, acquire, and develop the parks, it appears just as incumbent that we take the leadership in defining the approaches. Without such approaches and connective parkways from the centers of population, the county park system will be most defective and always open to criticism."
After referring to the plans of the first commission, that "new parkway construction in the built-up portions of the
187
THE PARKWAYS
county would be prohibitory, even were our appropriation double what it is," I added :
"The situation in the Newark Board of Works brings this question to the fore, whether we will or no. We have either to meet it, or evade it. A hesitating policy will, I believe, place our board in a secondary position, alike ob- jectionable and disadvantageous. An uncertain position before the Newark local board, or elsewhere, will neither command respect for our opinions nor help public confi- dence in our official action.
"For these reasons I am in favor of prompt and de- cisive action on this question. I would make such action broad, comprehensive, yet definite and concise.
"Such a resolution as the form enclosed, will settle the question as to the attitude of our board on a very impor- tant matter, in which the people of the whole county are interested. The people have confidence in the commission ; they are anticipating a creditable system of parks and parkways, and will stand by the commission if we show by our acts that we are competent to execute the trust in laying out the park system."
A PUBLIC DEMAND FOR INFORMATION.
When I ascertained the actual situation in East Orange, in December, 1896, I took up the matter again, both at the Park Board meetings and personally with my col- leagues. January 2, 1897, I wrote each of the members as follows: "The matters referred to in the Stanley letter are so direct and important that our reply, it seems to me, should be equally explicit, if we are to retain the con- fidence of our friends and the public generally in dealing with the questions under consideration. The form of let- ter suggested by Mr. Munn will not, in my judgment, an- swer the inquiries or allay the agitation in the public mind on the matters referred to."
On January 16, 1897, I again wrote Mr. Murphy : "The governing bodies, press and public throughout the Oranges all appear to demand a clearer statement as to the atti-
188
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
tude of the Park Commission on the points raised in the Stanley letter.
"It has been, as you know, my conviction from the first, as stated at the meetings and as indicated in my letters to you and to my colleagues, that we should meet these important public questions promptly, fully and explicitly ; and it is still my firm conviction that this is our only course if we are to avoid unjust suspicion and prejudice, and retain the confidence of the public-so vital to the present and future welfare of a great public undertaking."
On January 26 I wrote Commissioner Shepard: "It seems to me that every day's delay in our defining clearly to the public the relations between the Park Commission and the local boards is resulting in serious detriment to the commission." And on February 10, "I am impressed that the action of the Township Committee last evening throws upon us an additional burden of responsibility as to our position toward that committee and the public on the matters we have recently been considering.
"If our action in asking for the transfer of the avenues for parkways was right, should we not openly so state to our Township Committee friends our position on all the ques- tions involved, as a matter of mutual interest affecting the same constituency ? It seems to me this cours is now incum- bent ; indeed, can we take any other ?"
Again, March 6, 1897, I wrote Mr. Shepard: "I feel very anxious about the affairs of the commission, both as to our financial situation compared with the commitments and needs of the department; and also as to the persistent effort that is being made to use the commission by acqui- escence in carrying out the schemes of the traction specu- lators and their allied politicians to the injury of the park system. The articles in the Newark papers of to-day, while no doubt inspired by the same influences that have all along been creating distrust and injury to the commission, yet assume a degree of assurance which makes it appear as though the commission were favorable to the sacrifice of one of the parkways at the behest of the trolley interests."
189
THE PARKWAYS
The Stanley letter, so-called, was received by the com- mission December 24, 1896. It was a long official letter from Edward O. Stanley, then chairman of the Committee on Parks of the East Orange Township Committee. The letter asked many questions, but bore the imprint of sin- cerity and desire on the part of the writer, to have brushed aside the cobwebs of misapprehension which then existed in the minds of the committee and throughout East Orange as the outgrowth of the seeds of prejudice poison that had been scattered by the traction company's representatives there against the parkways and the Park Commission, since the latter had openly favored the avenues for another pur- pose than their surrender for private uses.
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.