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 15
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
The committee wished to know how the commission pro- posed to improve the avenues; whether, should the transfer be made, a trolley line should be run there; whether open- ings could be made by the township authorities for repair- ing gas mains, water pipes, etc., and made the request for a section plan of the avenues as they would appear when beautified and completed by the commission.
In the Park Board these questions precipitated the sub- ject for a reply. It was evident that the platitudinous gen- eralities in the previous communications from the commis- sion were not sufficient to enable the parkway advocates to overcome the counter claims and assertions of the opposing corporation agents and representatives.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS' AND ENGINEERS' REPORT.
On December 31, 1896, the landscape architects and engi- neers of the department made a report strongly reiterating their former "recommendations for extending Central ave- nue to connect with the larger mountain reservation," add- ing, "we have indicated upon the map an extension of this avenue from its present terminus at the Valley road to a point in Northfield avenue, and thence through Northfield avenue to the South Mountain Reservation. This exten- sion makes use of a depression in the mountain slope which will enable a parkway to be constructed upon an easy grade
190
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
and will give a desirable and useful approach to the mountain."
This report was in entire accord with the former reports of all the park-making specialists of both the first and second commissions. Frederick Law Olmsted who, prior to his retirement in 1897, and death in 1903, was accred- ited one of the greatest public park specialists known, had, in his firm's report of January, 1895, referred to Central and Park avenues as follows :
"Essex County is already provided with streets generally called avenues, that are essentially parkways of a formal character leading to the foot of Orange Mountain. To make them all that is desirable for your purpose it is only necessary that suitable building lines should be established on their borders; that roads should extend from them on easy grades up the mountain, and that certain improve- ments of detail should be made in them"-a concise and axiomatic statement, the correctness of which, as applied to the avenue-parkway situation in Essex County, no one has ever attempted to refute or even question.
At the Park Board meetings January 7 and 11, 1897, the reply to Chairman Stanley's letter was under consider- ation. Mr. Shepard presented and moved the adoption of a draft of letter in reply, which it was understood had been formulated or suggested by Counsel Munn. It con- tained these statements :
"As the larger parks must be outside of thickly settled districts, the commission favors every reasonable plan for reaching these, in parkways or otherwise, quickly and at the lowest cost, and without interference with the busi- ness or occupation of citizens.
"They recognize the fact that electricity is the coming power for the transportation of people in cities and su- burban places. They would like to see methods in opera- tion by which people could leave Newark and reach the Orange Mountain parks in fifteen minutes, and at a cost of three or not exceeding five cents. These same methods would, of course, enable people living in the country to
191
THE PARKWAYS
reach their business or employment in Newark day by day in the same short time and at the same low cost."
As these were almost the identical "arguments" that were then being used to secure a franchise by the traction company's representatives in East Orange, and as used before the freeholders, two years before, for the same pur- pose, and as it seemed as though any person in reading such a statement might have-as of some of the utterances on the same subject by the commission later-some doubt as to whether the commission really wanted the parkways, in preference to having the trolley on the avenues, there was immediate objection. Even Commissioner Murphy thought the statement needed modification. As I was de- cided that such a reply would increase the feeling of in- definite uncertainty as to the attitude of the commission, rather than alleviate it, I there wrote out and presented the following :
"Resolved, That a full and explanatory statement of the position of this board relative to the care, custody, and control of Central and Park avenues be transmitted to the governing bodies directly interested."
Commissioners Murphy and Shepard at once objected to the resolution. Finally, after a lengthy informal dis- cussion, the following reply, as a compromise answer to the Stanley committee's inquiries, was agreed upon, and it was promptly sent to Chairman Stanley.
REPLY TO STANLEY COMMITTEE.
"The object of the Park Commission in asking for the care, custody, and control of Central and Park avenues was to incorporate them in a system of public parks, and avoid the necessity of creating new and costly parkways to reach the mountain parks. They recognize the fact that these avenues are already great public thoroughfares, and they do not propose to interfere with the existing rights of property owners and municipal governments, but to put the avenues on a more decided parkway footing than can be done as long as they may be outside of the
192
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
control of the Park Commission. They would prefer that rapid transit ways and parkways should be kept separate, but they will not oppose the wish of the majority of the property owners and municipal governments in this mat- ter. If rapid transit tracks are to be put on Central ave- ' nue, the question should be decided at once; but it is not the part of the Park Commission to make this decision under existing conditions. It is, however, in our opinion, inconsistent to attempt to operate a trolley road on a park- way only one hundred feet wide.
"In response to the request for section plan and detail, it seems to be unnecessary for the Park Commission to take up that question until the local governing body de- cides the main proposition. If these avenues are not to become parkways, further details will not be required."
The effect of this communication was distinctly unfavor- able. The resulting action of the Township Committee was, as already stated, a prompt declination of the com- mission's request. Some of the leading papers were out- spoken in their criticism of the Park Board's position. The day following, January 12, 1897, the Newark News, under an editorial caption, "The Reticent Park Board," in referring to the Stanley letter and the commission's reply, said :
"These were fair and reasonable questions. They were not answered; they were even treated with scant courtesy by the sending of a reply that the commissioners' pro- posed to construct parkways. The reasons for secrecy which existed in regard to the purchase of lands and locations of parks certainly do not apply to the extension or improve- ment of public highways." And again, February 4, "That the application of the Park Commission was refused was partly due, no doubt, to the manner in which that body chose to preserve its air of dignified silence."
These and similar expressions were in marked contrast to the almost unanimous sentiment of the press favorable to the avenues' transfer, when the plan and resolution of the commission were made public the previous November.
-
193
THE PARKWAYS
An aroused public sentiment in East Orange was, however, doing its work. When the conference between the com- mission and the Township Committee as arranged for Feb- ruary 26, 1897, already alluded to, was held, it was ap- parent that something of a change had come over each board. The commissioners had a meeting an hour before the appointed time. All the members then recognized that something more was demanded than the previous glitter- ing platitudes as to the parkways.
Commissioner Shepard was delegated to speak for the board, and did so. A formal statement was agreed upon. It answered directly most of the questions that had been asked by the committee. Sketches were shown of the pros- pective treatment of the parkways. There was to be no obstacle to the construction or repair by the local authori- ties of gas or water pipes. Sprinkling would be consid- ered a part of the maintenance. The transfer "could not in any way interfere with vested rights," either of the property owners or of the municipality. The question as to trolley roads on the avenues "should be decided by the property owners and the municipal authorities before the proposed transfer," for, with the present width of the ave- nues, "it would not be expedient for the Park Commission to accept the care of the remaining part, with the attend- ing expense, as it is too narrow to admit of parkway treat- ment, and the expense attending the care would not be a proper use of park funds." Willingness on the part of the commission "to do everything in its power to add to the existing attractions in East Orange" was expressed, and a general spirit of co-operation on the part of the board was extended.
WHOLE SITUATION GONE OVER.
The Township Committee conferees were also to all ap- pearances in a friendly and receptive mood. The whole situation was quite fully gone over. The question of widen- ing the avenues was adversely considered, owing to the prohibitory cost. The policeing and lighting matters were
194
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
satisfactorily disposed of ; likewise the details as to surface embellishment. And the opinion was expressed by the commission, that after the transfer "the trolley people would find it necessary to have the consent of the Park Commission, in addition to that of the municipality, the Board of Freeholders and the property owners, as now." Then Committeeman Crippen put this poser of a question : "Now, I want to ask if the Park Commission proposes to bring the trolley if it gets possession of the avenues?"
The reply must have been a surprise to some of those who had relied upon the statements and insinuations of the traction company's agents and attorneys, for Commis- sioner Shepard promptly declared that "the trolley had never even been considered."
Finally the understanding was reached that the town's disposal works would, if transferred to the commission, be accepted for a park, and that if the avenues were trans- ferred, the commission would promptly proceed with the work of improving them into parkways. The conference was then closed.
When the Township Committee members met the com- mission face to face, and ascertained that there was no in- tention of running away with the avenues, or of proceed- ing at once to place trolleys upon them, or of "keeping out the poor people" by the closed gates process ; then there was, with the irresistible public sentiment of their East Orange constituents behind the transfer movement, no longer any delay or question as to the result. On March 15, 1897, the Township Committee, by a unanimous vote, passed the ordinance, as prepared by the Park Committee, transferring both Park and Central avenues in East Orange to the Park Commission for parkways, and, by the same vote at the same meeting, the "trolley ordinance" for Cen- tral avenue, then on second reading, was killed. At an- other conference soon afterward between the commission and the Township Committee all the details of transfer were finally agreed upon.
The popular verdict had won, and the curtain had been
195
THE PARKWAYS
rung down on the first act in this great play of the cor- porations against the people.
While the contest was being waged, one of the local com- mittees, in order to test the sentiment of all the people of East Orange, obtained, through a return postal card vote, an expression on the question, which declared a pref- erence, by a majority of more than three to one, in favor of the parkway for Central avenue to the exclusion of the trolley there, by a direct vote of more than one-half of the entire electorate of the township.
Soon after the transfer ordinance was passed the Park Commission, on April 20, 1897, on receipt of a certified copy of the ordinance, formally accepted the avenues as transferred. The matter was thus considered closed by the people, who had confidence in the commission, except- ing, perhaps, all of those who knew of the determination and resource of the traction company, and recognized that the transfer proposition had still to run the gauntlet of both the Board of Freeholders and the city authorities of Orange, in both of which boards the corporation interests were, as was then currently understood, well entrenched.
Again the scene of activity had shifted-not now to the court, nor for the parks, but to destroy the contemplated parkways, and to secure, if possible, regardless of cost or effort, another almost priceless county road franchise.
CHAPTER XIII.
CONTEST FOR PARKWAYS CONTINUED.
As an army, in taking every possible advantage of its opponent, uses pickets, scouts and spies in its preliminary operations ; so a great and opulent corporation, bent upon securing from the public valuable franchises, not infre- quently uses cunning attorneys and not over-scrupulous politicians, both in and out of office; and, by liberal con- tributions to both political parties, secures the service of the party boss ; who, prior to the public awakening for better civic conditions in November, 1905, and through the apathy of good citizens generally, had become such a legislative fac- tor in State, county and local affairs.
While this kind of self-interest, masquerading under the name of any party, constitutes a condition which is neither Republican, Democratic, Populistic nor Socialistic, but is essentially oligarchic-the poison germ, which soon forms the rotten core in any free government; yet this is, never- theless, a situation that must continue to be recognized and appreciated by the people, if an adequate remedy is to be applied.
At the time the incidents related in the preceding chap- ter were formulating, in December, 1896, the traction com- pany made application also for a Central avenue franchise in Orange. In the southern part of the city, as in East Orange, there was a contingent of the population which needed, and honestly favored, better east and west transit facilities to and from Newark. The large majority of the people carnestly and heartily favored the parkways and the locations of the lines of trolley extension in streets south of, and parallel with, Central avenue, where the facilities were needed. The corporate interests and in-
196
-
-
-
CHILDREN'S WADING POOL, WEST SIDE PARK.
-
197
CONTEST FOR PARKWAYS CONTINUED
fluences referred to determined that the result should be otherwise.
IN A COMMITTEE'S HANDS.
The application to the Orange Common Council from the Park Commission for the transfer of the avenue was, on its receipt, promptly referred to the Street Committee. The chairman was Henry Stetson, who was one of the few men in Orange who had, with Mayor Seymour and others in Newark, strongly objected from the first to an appointive commission. "It's all wrong," Mr. Stetson said to me, when the plans for the first Park Commission were under way. He then assured me, as afterward, that he opposed that plan on principle. That he was emphatic in his ob- jections no one who knew him, I think, had any reason to doubt. His views were not in the least modified when, in 1895, the second commission was appointed and the con- trol of that board and its large appropriation was made politically Republican. Like the Massachusetts Democrat in that far-famed home of Republicanism during the ex- citing 1860-65 war times, he was thereafter, in parkway matters, unceasingly, and it seemed almost intuitively, "agin" the prevailing order of things.
The possession of the two ordinances, in January, 1897, apparently gave Mr. Stetson and his followers their oppor- tunity. They were not slow in availing themselves of it. Theretofore the rule of procedure in the City Council had been that when the owners of a majority frontage on an avenue or street petitioned for an improvement, unless some legal or financial obstacle were in the way, the request would be granted. There had then just been presented to the Mayor and City Council petitions from the property owners on both avenues in favor of the parkways and "against the granting of any and all franchises on Cen- tral avenue for any purpose whatever, as such action on your part would embarrass the action of the Park Com- mission."
This petition for Central avenue bore the signature of
198
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
every resident on the avenue in Orange, and represented a frontage ownership of 8,106, out of a total of 9,213 feet. The Park avenue petition was still nearer unanimous of all the property owners there. All of the local civic or- ganizations, without a dissenting vote, took the same po- sition. The local papers were outspoken and emphatic on similar lines.
URGED TO TAKE ACTION.
The plans of the Park Commission, with the official maps showing the location of the two Avenue parkways, were be- fore the public. During the first six months of 1897 con- stant appeals were made to the City Council and to the members there to pass the transfer ordinance. Some of the council members joined in the request that the transfer ordinance, without further delay, be favorably reported. But it was "in committee," and there it was held, until at the council meeting, July 12, 1897, it was reported- and then adversely. The report was a rambling present- ment, criticizing the Park Commission; claiming the com- mittee could not obtain from that board information it desired and had sought at a conference held at the commis- sion's rooms a short time before ; that "Orange had not been liberally treated" in the commission's plans ; and was un- friendly in tone throughout. The principal excuse, as given in the report, was that the committee had in reality not been able to procure satisfactory replies from the com- mission. This view was apparently coincided in by some of the papers.
On June 20, 1897, when the conference with the com- mission alluded to was reported, the Newark Call made this editorial comment: "The Essex County Park Commission still maintains a discreet silence as to its intentions in regard to Central avenue, and all the attempts of the dif- ferent municipalities to find out the treatment the avenue is to receive are met with glittering generalities."
Most of the county papers took the other view, and the Orange papers were up in arms directly the action of the
199
CONTEST FOR PARKWAYS CONTINUED
City Council was known. The Newark News editorial the day following on "The Inconsistency of the Orange Coun- cil" said : "It is difficult to understand, on any ground of public spirit or public policy, the refusal of the Orange City Council to assent to the transfer of Central and Park avenues to the care and control of the Park Commission," and, after answering at length the claims of the Street Committee, added : "It would be easy to show the clumsy inconsistency of the report and resolutions. It (the Street Committee) proclaims that it knows no good reason why those avenues should continue to be special wards of the county, and just below expresses its satisfaction with their maintenance at the general county expense by the free- holders."
The Orange Chronicle said that the opposition had been centered on Central avenue, "the latter being a possible plum for a trolley line"; adding, "Will some one who be- lieves that the council did right please explain? The action was taken without a single word of open debate, and in the face of eloquent and able pleas by prominent citizens. In language, the report of the Street Committee is verbose, ambiguous, and involved in pessimistically im» pugning the Park Commission."
The Journal also commented at length upon the coun- cil's action, and said, among other things: "The Common Council has thus placed the city in a false and embarrass- ing position, which would be repudiated by its citizens if they had the opportunity to express themselves on the sub- ject at the polls."
Counsel J. L. Munn, in a statement July 13, the day after the council's refusal to make the transfer, no doubt struck the keynote of the whole situation, from his stand- point, in saying, as reported in the News: "The root of the matter is that the trolley company desires a franchise on Central avenue, and there are many who favor it. Per- haps, under the circumstances, it would not be best to transfer Central avenue into a boulevard for pleasure ve- hicles or bicycles. But that is simply one phase of the
200
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
question." Events, as they afterward transpired, duly em- phasized this statement.
In December, 1897, through the active interest of lead- ing citizens of Orange, in co-operation with some of the members of the Common Council who had become earn- estly favorable to the passage of the transfer ordinance, the matter was again taken up. An effort was made to fore- stall and answer the objections that had been raised against the previous transfer ordinance. The opposition had be- come extremely solicitous (?) for fear the property owners in and adjacent to the avenues might be assessed for spe- cial benefits, although none of the property owners resid- ing on or owning property there had made that objection. A clause was, therefore, inserted in the new ordinance, "that the Park Commission shall not institute proceedings that will result in the condemnation of rights of property owners in their land, or levy any assessment for any im- provements made to the avenues." Thomas A. Davis was then the city counsel. He advised that the proviso was sufficiently clear and explicit. Thus it seemed to the aver- age reader and those favorable to the parkways; and, at the Orange council meeting January 3, 1898, the new ordinance was passed by a unanimous vote of 16 to 0. But the anxiety of the opposition for the safety of the property owners from assessments was not appeased. A new flank movement was conceived. This is the way it was executed.
AN INTERESTING CONFERENCE.
At the Park Board meeting January 11, a communica- tion was received from the Street Committee of the City Council advising that there was to be a meeting of the committee that same evening to consider the avenue transfer question. It was decided that Counsel Munn should attend. He was present. He was accompanied by Engineer Cole to meet the city conferees of the Street Com- mittee, President Snyder of the council and Counsel Davis. The reader must draw his own inferences as to what oc- curred in that meeting, for the reports were then, as since,
CONTEST FOR PARKWAYS CONTINUED 201
conflicting as to the facts. One of the city officials who was present at the conference stated for publication the next morning: "You can take this as inspired prophecy -- that Central avenue will never be made a parkway, but the commissioners want it to turn over to the trolley com- panies for roads to the mountain parks; while Park ave- nue will be widened and the entire cost of making it a parkway will be borne by owners of abutting property, un- less a decided and united stand is taken now by those interests, and the commissioners are compelled to take the public into their confidence and tell them what they intend doing."
This and similar public comments were looked upon un- favorably as regards the Park Commission. Intimations of bad faith were, by the doubting ones, freely expressed. The counsel and, by the statements accredited to him, the commission itself, were both placed on the defensive. Coun- sel Munn soon afterward made a lengthy report of the meeting to the commission.
The gist of it was that he had previously replied to the inquiries of Counsel T. A. Davis as to widening the avenues : First, that a transfer made under Section 18 of the park act did "not alter the status of such avenues as existing public highways"; second, did not confer upon the Essex County Park Commission the power to widen said avenues ; or, third, the right to make assessments. That "no revolutionary subversion of these avenues has been thought possible by the Park Commission," but, "if at any future time it shall be deemed necessary or advisable to widen these avenues at any point or place, new and different proceedings will have to be instituted under the other powers of the park act, and the whole matter will then proceed as if this present contemplated action had not been taken."
The conference, the report stated, was of "a pleasant and agreeable character"; also stated that the ordinance pend- ing before the Common Council "was unobjectionable in form, except for one clause therein"-the restrictive clause
202
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
"not to institute proceedings at any time for the purpose of widening such avenues" or for "making any assessments," etc. This clause, the counsel reported he said to the com- mittee, "was probably against public policy and void, and the Park Commission might decide not to accept the care, custody, and control of the avenues with such a provision inserted"; and further stated that he had advised that "there was no such reason for hasty action as to require a decision upon the question by the Orange Common Council at its next meeting."
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.