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 18
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
As the policy of that same freeholder's board had all
228
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
along been to obstruct the transfer and thus, to all appear- ances, serve the corporate interests desiring that object, the action of the full board at the July meeting, in sustaining the Road Committee's recommendation, caused little sur- prise. It was only another indication of the tenacious con- trol the traction interests held over the proceedings of that board. The ostensible reasons for the action then taken were, as usual in such cases, specious and misleading. For four years the position of the freeholders in not taking any action favorable as to the parkways had been, that the municipal authorities should act first; while, for all that time, both in law and in fact, the entire control of, and jurisdiction over those county avenues, with the exception of very minor rights in the cross streets, were vested abso- lutely in that board. What logic or justification, therefore, could there be in the announced excuse for persistent inac- tivity, that the local boards, holding only these insignificant right, "must first make the transfer ?": Then, years after East Orange had thus acted, in adding the farther excuse that "it was not good policy on the part of the Board of Freeholders at any time to relinquish control of a limited section of a county avenue"-which was the additional "reason" included in the report of this latter refusal of the Park Board's request.
The inconsistency of the other alleged reason, as to trans- fer, "that such avenues shall be permanently maintained in at least as good condition as heretofore," when the dis- tinct object of the transfer was to improve them as park- ways, is apparent. The Newark News of May 24, 1900, editorially gave the gist of the matter in a few words in commenting upon the hearing referred to, as follows: "It is not difficult to discern corporation influences behind the opposition to parkway development through the Oranges, that was manifested at the hearing before the Board of Freeholders' Road Committee on Monday."
In December, 1900, there was introduced into the Orange Common Council, for the third time, an avenues transfer ordinance. This document was carefully drawn with the
229
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
view of removing every tangible objection that could be made against it. It provided that the commission should not restrict the ordinary uses of the avenues, or debar exist- ing privileges ; and that the avenues should not be widened, without consent being first obtained from the City Council of Orange.
On March 5, 1901, a copy of the ordinance was sent to the Park Commission by the city clerk with the inquiry as to whether that board "approved the ordinance." Under date of March 19, 1901, the board, on motion of Commis- sioner Shepard, replied :
"Since the request of the Essex County Park Commis- sion for the transfer of those avenues was made to the Com- mon Council of the city of Orange on November 13, 1896, circumstances have very greatly changed.
"The Park Commission, on the failure of their request, took up other work, and have expended and appropriated the funds at their command to such an extent that it is now impossible to undertake any improvement of said avenues.
"The Park Commission is giving very serious considera- tion to the question of completing the work already under contract and definitely planned, with means remaining at its disposal.
"It should, therefore, be understood that this commission cannot take up any improvement upon these avenues, and if they should be transferred to the commission they would necessarily remain in their present condition until funds should hereafter be provided by the Legislature for their improvement and maintenance.
"The ordinance, known as the Cuddy ordinance, is ac- ceptable to the commission."
TRACTION COMPANY'S NEW MOVE.
Meanwhile, the traction company had become so much en- couraged and emboldened by its success with the freehold- ers and the corporation's representatives in the Oranges,
230
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
and the absence of any action by the Park Commission toward defending the parkways, that, on January 14, 1901, it filed a new application for a Central ave- nue franchise in East Orange. The application was
received, as stated at the time, "with the under- standing that it was done simply to permit of a conference between the city authorities and the railroad representa- tives with the view of learning just what would be de- manded on the one side, and what would be conceded on the other." No new property owners' consents were filed. James B. Dill and David Young were, as in 1896-7, the active sponsors for the new application.
Concurrently with its appearance were persistent rumors that the Park Commission had decided to abandon Central avenue for a parkway, and that the question of a railroad on the avenue was, therefore, before the East Orange authori- ties on its merits. On May 13, 1901, the City Council adopted the report of the railroad committee, favoring the drafting of a franchise ordinance.
At one of the meetings of this committee Counsel Munn was present. When he was asked if the Park Commission wanted Central avenue for a parkway he replied: "Not that I know of. Do what you please with the avenue."
By October the reports in regard to the Park Commission had become so unfavorable that an East Orange neighbor of Commissioner Shepard's wrote him on the subject, and, under date of October 14, 1901, received this answer :
"In reply to your favor of the 10th inst. The report that has come to you, viz., 'that the Essex County Park Com- mission were hoping to get rid of Central avenue by turning it over to the Consolidated Traction Company, and that possibly Park avenue might follow in time, in which case the crosstown parkway would be abandoned, except that por- tion nearly completed,' is untrue, and there is no shadow of a foundation for such a report. The Park Commission, act- ing on their adopted plans, and in accordance with the ex- pression of the opinion of large delegations of citizens from the Oranges, asked from the freeholders and the authorities
231
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
of Newark and the Oranges, for the care, custody, and con- trol of Park avenue and a portion of Central avenue.
COMMISSION CAN DO NOTHING.
"The authorities of East Orange and West Orange granted this request, but the freeholderszand the authorities of Orange and Newark have not yet granted this request, and until they take such action the Park Commission can do nothing further.
"In the matter of the East Orange Parkway, from Cen- tral avenue north to Watsessing Park, the Park Commis- sion is waiting for the report of the Appraisal Commission, which was appointed by the court last spring, and which has been at work ever since. We are informed that they will probably present it to the court in November.
"I beg you will make public use of this letter, as it cor- rectly states the present condition of the matter."
Directly this letter was made public the opposition set up the contention that it was a personal, not an official, com- munication, and hence of no effect as a binding document from the commission; that it was intended as a personal letter ; that the board had not shown any very great anxiety over securing the parkway, and that, as Counsel Munn, in his. official capacity, represented all the commissioners, his statements and representations should have precedence over those of any single commissioner.
At the meeting of the East Orange City Council, October 30, 1901, held in Commonwealth Hall, the new trolley franchise application was the special order of business. The hall was filled. Excitement at times ran high. J. B. Dill, with David Young, were the principal speakers for the street railway corporation. Henry G. Atwater, and other representative citizens, contended for the parkways.
The Park Commission was conspicuous by its absence. The chairman, Councilman William Cardwell, in opening the meeting, said : "At the request of the counsel the speeches will be limited to five minutes." Mr. Atwater said that he had made no
232
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
such request. The rule was not enforced. All the old points in the controversy were gone over; a few new new ones were brought out. Mr. Atwater protested against the consideration of the ordinance on the ground "that the statutory number of consents of property owners fronting on the avenue had not been filed." H. H. Hall, in address- ing the City Council with much earnestness, said that it made his "blood boil, as a citizen of this town, to see the representatives of that corporation stand up here and snap the whip over you." The proceedings of the traction com- pany are "a disgrace to the Christian State of New Jersey," he declared, and he said that he would "rather continue to walk twelve minutes to Main street, than to barter away the sacred rights of this city, and give away a perpetual fran- chise which, when your children read of your action, will make them hide their faces in shame." G. R. Howe said : "There is no possibility of parkways if we surrender the only two avenues left."
AS TO THE FRANCHISE.
Counsel James B. Dill held that "the gentlemen inter- ested have had five years to build a parkway, but up to the present time we have only a verbal parkway." He denied that the perpetual franchise applied for was perpetual, or that there was anything properly in the way of using the old "consents." Arthur Baldwin, a lawyer, joined in this demagogic argument for class distinction, and, with much vehemence, asked: "Who is going to use these parkways ? Will those who are away three months in the summer ? How is the man who is compelled to stay at home to get the benefit of the parks? He must walk,"-thus perverting the fact that parkways, like the parks, are for all the people, the great majority of whom, remaining at home, all the more require such places for recreation.
No action was taken by the City Council that evening, but it was freely predicted that the members had, before the hearing, become fully converted to the interested corpora-
ARBOR WALK, BRANCH BROOK PARK.
233
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
tion's way of thinking, both as to the "verbal parkway" and as to the early needs of a railroad on the avenue instead.
The following letter is self-explanatory :
"East Orange, Nov. 18, 1901.
"Essex County Park Commission, Newark, N. J. :
"Gentlemen-We are advised that some members of the East Orange City Council understand that your counsel, Mr. Munn, has stated that the Park Board is really indif- ferent to the proposed use of Central avenue as a parkway. This belief on their part is doing much harm.
"We do not pretend to say what you may be disposed to do under these circumstances, but, if it is possible, we think it would be useful for you to give to us, or to the City Coun- cil, soon, a statement from Mr. Munn which would set at rest the report in question.
"Mr. Munn must feel precluded by his duty as your counsel from saying anything which tends to discredit the good faith of your honorable body, and we cannot think that he will in any way object to making it clear that he has not intentionally said anything which, if properly under- stood, could mean what has been asserted.
"Respectfully and truly yours,
"George F. Seward, Frank H. Scott, Frederick W. Kelsey, Henry W. Bulkley, Joel F. Freeman, William H. Baker, Henry M. Ward, Executive Committee of the Avenue Association."
PARK BOARD'S REPLY.
At the Park Board meeting the day following, November 19, on motion of Commissioner F. M. Shepard, the follow- ing reply was authorized transmitted by the secretary :
"The Park Commission holds that its attitude should be judged by its official acts, and not by the expression of indi- vidual opinions of its individual members, or its officers. The commission thinks it has, from the beginning, made its attitude clear, and that it should not be asked to respond to every suggestion or rumor or understanding that may be
234
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
found in circulation. The commission farther holds that the question now agitating the public in East Orange, should be decided by those immediately interested and re- siding in the locality affected. The counsel of the commis- sion asserts that he has not undertaken to represent the views of the Park Commission or to speak for it, excepting when directed to appear in its behalf, and has at no time undertaken to express on behalf of the Park Commission any views differing from those set forth in its official acts."
The effect of this communication, even on the minds of the most loyal friends of the commission, was confusing. According to the board's own statement, its conception of the trust reposed in it by the Legislature, and by the peo- ple of the whole county, to make and execute its park and parkway plans, and create a great park system, was lowered behind the screen of the acts of another, and local board, which, at best, represented but a very limited part of the larger constituency, and which board, from the very circum- stances of the case, was known to be especially susceptible to the enticing wiles of the corporate and combined political influences, which were being continuously exerted, through every possible channel and effort, to defeat the commis- sion's own plans for the parkways. The difficulty in the practicable application of the commission's statement to the then existing conditions in the East Orange City Council was, that its own counsel, J. L. Munn, had preceded the let- ter, and the council members were so well satisfied to accept his interpretation of the commission's attitude, as to make, at the outset, any efforts for the parkways in that direction, hopelessly fruitless.
A PARKWAYS COMMITTEE.
The whole parkway subject was then taken up by the Joint Committee on Parkways. This committee was or- ganized from three committees, one from the New England Society, one from the Avenue Association of the Oranges, and one from the East Orange Improvement Society. Each
235
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
of these organizations had, in November or December, 1901, adopted resolutions favoring the parkways, and authorizing the appointment of special committees to co-operate with other organizations having a similar object in view. The following were the committees: From the New England Society, E. O. Stanley, Archer Brown, G. H. Austen, Will- iam J. Baer, H. G. Atwater, F. W. Baldwin, J. D. Everett, C. W. Baldwin, Ira A. Kip, Jr .; from the Avenue Associa- tion, F. W. Kelsey, D. S. Walton, F. H. Scott, J. F. Free- man, H. T. Ambrose, G. F. Seward, W. H. Baker, H. H. Ward; from the Town Improvement Society, H. H. Hall, G. R. Howe, Hugh Lamb, Alden Freeman, J. S. Richards. There were but few changes made in the committee other than the loss by death two or three years later of Archer Brown, Henry G. Atwater, John S. Richards, and Hugh Lamb. In March, 1904, W. H. Burges, G. W. Fortmeyer, B. F. Jones, A. C. Smith and T. A. Davis were added to the New England Society's committee.
From the time of its organization in 1901, the joint com- mittee took an active and earnest interest in parkway af- fairs. Its direct purposes were to secure, if possible, the preservation of the parkways. It favored the lines of trolley extension west to the Orange Mountain, but contended that the routes should be located on parallel streets or through private property, if need be, outside the parkways. The committee was optimistic. It held, not only that a commis- sion created by law with unusual powers and then solely entrusted with the expenditure of $4,000,000 of public funds, should have the ability for leadership and decisive action requisite with the great resource at its command ; but also that such a board would or should respond to any co- operative effort toward completing the park system from an organization of the probity and standing of the commit- tee. In conformity with this view the committee, early in March, 1902, wrote the commission :
"For some time past reports have been current through the Oranges that your board was indifferent to the present parkway situation and to the use of Central avenue as the
236
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
great central parkway of the county accessible to the mass of people; indeed, it has been freely claimed by some that you are ready to abandon that feature of the parkway plans, and that the avenue should be given over to commercial traffic-in other words, to the trolley."
The letter then refers to the frequency and persistency of these reports ; of the embarrassment of "the friends of the parks ;" to how "the public at large, and, indeed, every one (excepting possibly the trolley managers)," had long before considered the parkway question "definitely settled ;" and adding that as "representing a large constituency" the com- mittee wished "to know at the earliest possible moment, whether there has been any change in your board on this question, and what position in the future interest of the parks and parkways should, under the circumstances, be taken ;" also adding :
"We are quite aware that the board has now no money to use on the parkways. We equally appreciate the proposi- tion that the park and parkway developments are of concern now, and will be in all the future. We are content with ten- tative steps. You will get further appropriations, and the plans already desired may be carried later. The avenues can be held indefinitely if your position remains firm in your adhesion to your own plans.
"We have stated to you briefly the conditions, and write thus frankly as we consider that you should know the facts, and have confidence that you will meet the situation in a way to warrant the continued support of all, who, like the undersigned and the organizations we represent, have been loyal to the county park and parkway project from its inception.
"Should one of your board, especially Mr. Shepard, ap- pear before the East Orange City Council, reaffirming the position of the commission as to parkways, and thus set at rest the rumors and reports that are sapping public confi- dence in the movement, it would have a most excellent effect."
The following, under date of April 3, 1902, was the reply :
237
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
"At the meeting of the Park Commission held to-day the following resolution was passed :
'Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to inform the East Orange committee that the Park Commission has never taken any action looking to a withdrawal from its original position of desiring Park and Central avenues as parkways.'"
In commenting upon this statement, The Chronicle of April 12, 1902, said: "If the Park Commission, after all these official utterances, does not mean what it says, it can- not expect to retain either public confidence or support."
AN ACCOMMODATING COUNCIL.
Notwithstanding these assurances, progress with the rail- road ordinance for Central avenue in East Orange was be- ing constantly made. The City Council had, very accommo- datingly to the traction company, held the application over for weeks in order to enable the company to obtain, if possi- ble, the requisite property owners' consents. At the meet- ing of February 24, 1902, Councilman Thomas W. Jackson announced that "the trolley company had been too busy" to procure these consents. And that "Mr. Young had prom- ised him that they would either file the additional consents at the next meeting, or withdraw the application."
The matter came up for action at the meeting of March 29. The council chamber was crowded. The atmosphere was surcharged with corporation influence. It was manifest that any discussion on the merits of the parkway or trolley prop- ยท osition would be a waste of time. H. G. Atwater, who then appeared as counsel for some of the interested property own- ers, brought out the fact that the company did not have the necessary consents, hence, he said, the council was powerless to act. Councilman Jackson expressed his thanks "for the advice," and said that he was "tired of the business ;" that it was not the duty of the council to act as a court ; and sug- gested that "those opposed to the franchise should take the matter into the courts."
The Park Commission was not represented in any way at
238
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
the meeting. In view of the circumstances outlined in the joint committee's letter, above quoted, and the courteous suggestion there made as to clearing up the parkway situa- tion before the East Orange authorities, the non-appearance of the commission, or of any one representing it, occasioned unfavorable comment. As the reply of April 3 had not then been received, no reference to the attitude of the Park Board at that time could be officially made. After a long and heated discussion the railroad ordinance was finally passed on first reading.
The public had not, however, long to wait before hearing further from at least one of the Park Commission's officials. On April 11, 1902, Counsel J. L. Munn's formal consent for a railroad on Central avenue was filed with the city clerk. It was for 337 28-100 feet frontage on the avenue in East Orange. At last the mask was thrown off. The trac- tion company's representatives and lobbyists significantly referred to the "new consent" as unmistable evidence as to where the Park Board in reality stood on the parkway- railroad question.
"Actions speak plainer than words," they said, and "if that act doesn't represent what a majority of that board really want, why has Munn been retained all this time, when everybody knew, who knew anything, the interests he really represented in this matter ?" And surely enough, why ?
The publication almost concurrently, in April, 1902, of the "new statement" and of the "new consent" produced still further confusion and uncertainty.
The joint committee decided to go right forward, taking the commission at its word, and leaving the opposition and the coming events to demonstrate whether that confidence was justified by the facts. The avenue association com- mittee acted as an executive body. On the passage of the railroad ordinance in East Orange, R. V. Lindabury was retained to test the case in the courts. The previous De- cember (1901), the Court of Errors and Appeals had ren- dered a decision in the "Currie vs. Atlantic City" case, which, in effect, invalidated property owners' consents when
239
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
once used by a governing body in considering a street rail- road application, and determined that such "consents can- not be the basis of further municipal action upon a second application."
AMENDMENTS AGREED UPON.
These conditions were directly applicable to the East Orange franchise. The traction company decided that it would take its chances and have its completed ordinance in East Orange "delivered." It was accordingly gone over and some amendments were agreed upon at the council meeting April 14, 1902. On March 24 a committee, consisting of D. S. Walton, H. W. Bulkley, J. F. Freeman, H. H. Ward, G. F. Seward and W. H. Baker, had made a written request of the Mayor and Common Council "for a hearing, before any ordinance be introduced for locating a railroad on Cen- tral avenue to the permanent prevention of parkway im- provement there." This request was denied. A similar re- quest from the joint committee, April 14, fared the same fate. When these and many other well known citizens de- sired to speak at the meeting referred to, Councilman Jerome D. Gedney exclaimed: "If these gentlemen come here to oppose the trolley, I, for one, will listen to them with deaf ears." It was then announced that any "proposition or suggestions should be submitted in writing."
The council meeting for completing the franchise deliv- ery to the traction company was held April 28, 1902. A great crowd, much excitement, and, at times, worse confu- sion were the features. Requests for a hearing by those favoring the parkways were again refused. "I think it only fair to all that the council hear nothing further," was the way Thomas W. Jackson, chairman of the Railroad Commit- tee, put that decision before the meeting. Protests were drowned in the general hubbub that followed.
"I ask if the taxpayers have no rights here !" W. E. Scar- rett in a loud voice demanded.
"The majority of the council object to hearing further a
240
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
discussion of the subject," replied Chairman William Cardwell.
"The members of this City Council are our servants," was Mr. Scarrett's answer.
"Yes, you have rights," said Mr. Cardwell.
"Then you decline to receive our protests. Are we not permitted to speak ?" again inquired Mr. Scarrett.
"It has been decided by a majority of the council that you cannot," was the chairman's response. The city clerk, in an almost inaudible, monotonous voice, then read the written "suggestions" formulated by the full joint commit- tee on parkways.
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.