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 19
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
POINTS IN THE LETTER.
The communication cited the various official statements of the Park Board regarding the parkways; referred to the fact that a railroad on either of the avenues "would at once and permanently prevent the eighteen acres of parkway im- provements on that side of the city ; would effectually de- stroy the continuous features of the crosstown parkway, thereby preventing nearly one-half of all the park and park- way improvements possible in East Orange; and would dis- integrate the park system past recovery. Whereas a trolley road farther south would be a desirable improvement and furnish convenient communication between that section and Newark, and give us direct access to the parks."
Attention was also called to the ordinance before the council as being "surprisingly defective in not properly safe- guarding the interests of the city." It was also pointed out that neither public opinion, nor the test of the future, nor your unbiased judgment upon a fuller understanding of the facts, can approve of the terms as now proposed in the fran- chise grant of any important street."
The facts as to the fabulous profits made out of the South Orange avenue line (a parallel avenue) were then stated. It was also shown how, on that perpetual franchise, and for less than five miles of double track, $21,000,000 of securities of the North Jersey Street Railway Company had been
241
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
issued, of a then selling or market value of $9,000,000 ; how this vast sum represented to the railway promoters and owners a clear profit of nearly $8,000,000, or an amount equal to about one-half of the entire real and personal rata- bles of East Orange.
The accuracy of these facts was not questioned or the correctness of the figures denied. They were elaborated upon by Milo R. Maltbie, the street railway expert, who of- fered indisputable evidence in support of the value of such franchises.
But the die was cast. It was evident that it had been cast for passing the ordinance before the meeting had con- vened. Facts and arguments were alike unavailing. The whip of the corporation, through the party machine, had been snapped. All the combined elements of good citizen- ship were there helpless. The roll was called. Down went the gavel. Again the curtain, with the lobbyists jubilant, the Park Commission unseen in the dim distance, and the forces that make for destruction in the cities of this coun- try, for the third time, in the ascendency.
CHAPTER XV.
TOY OFFICIALS.
WITH the influences for the traction company in control of the freeholders and of the East Orange and Orange gov- erning bodies, and the Park Commission as to the parkways nowhere in live evidence, those who had believed in and worked for practical parkway results, found themselves be- tween the Scylla of doubt and the Charybdis of adverse con- dition. The decision, not to turn back, was soon rendered. On the morning of May 3, 1902, directly after the passage of the railroad ordinance in East Orange, William J. Baer, as secretary of the Joint Committee on Parkways, sent a written request to Mayor E. E. Bruen asking if he would "kindly indicate the time and place" for the conference, "agreeable to your conversation with Mr. D. S. Walton."
The Mayor had stated that he should take the full time allowed by law in acting on the measure. No reply was re- ceived. On May 6 the committee learned that the Mayor had gone to Boston the day, or day but one, following the passage of the ordinance, and that he had signed it before leaving East Orange.
There was public indignation. Charges of improper in- fluences in the City Council were openly made in the local papers. The proceedings were referred to as "the gift of the Central avenue franchise," and much more vigorous lan- guage was freely used. A well known citizen who was pres- ent when the ordinance was "jammed through" declared : "It was the most disgraceful proceeding I ever witnessed, and worse than Tammany Hall."
The Park Commission was also severely criticised. "We should simply say, we don't propose to trust you any
242
243
GOOD CITIZENSHIP HELPLESS
farther. We have had your promises and they don't pan out,"-was the way one East Orange resident paid his compliments to that board.
Other criticisms were aimed at the appointive commis- sion, one that is "responsible to nobody and can do as it pleases." The East Orange parkway was referred as as a way "which begins nowhere and ends nowhere, and, for this, $175,000 has been expended."
The East Orange railroad ordinance for Central avenue came before the Board of Freeholders for action June 12, 1902. The announcement had been made that there would be a hearing by the board on the question. A large delega- tion of citizens and representatives of various organizations were present. Director Thomas McGowan said the meet- ing would be open only "for brief remarks." There was evi- dently no desire that any one should be heard. W. Oughel- tree, chairman of the Road Committee, gave the cue to the proceedings by reporting the railroad franchise resolution favorably, with the statement that "it had always been the custom to concur in matters of this kind in the action of any municipality in the county, and the resolution for that reason should pass." This was stated with a sober counte- nance, notwithstanding the fact that precisely the reverse policy had been adopted, and for more than five years per- sistently followed by his own committee, and by that same board in refusing to concur in the action March 15, 1897, of East Orange, in the passage of the ordinance by unani- mous vote of the representatives of that municipality trans- ferring both of the avenues to the Park Commission.
COMMISSIONER SHEPARD'S LETTER.
H. M. Barrett, a lawyer, then announced that the trolley ordinance as passed in East Orange, relative to "the terms and conditions, was satisfactory to both sides." William J. Baer made an earnest plea for the parkways, and then read a letter from Commissioner Frederick M. Shepard con- taining some general expressions, and adding : "I am con- fident the Park Commission would be glad to carry out the
244
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
original plan if the avenues and the money were put in their hands to do it. * I think that I have already done all that I can do to urge this result." A. P. Boller said that "future generations will call us blessed if we do our duty" in respect to the parkways. Archer Brown, Hugh Lamb, W. H. Baker and W. E. Kastendike all spoke in a similar vein. David Young, of the traction company, was present, but said little. It was perfectly evident that there was no need for him to urge favorable action for the company.
I had been requested as chairman of the Joint Committee to speak for that organization. There was immediate ob- jection by Freeholder Wallace Ougheltree-"because he lives in Orange." Just why a resident of the second city of the county should be debarred from the "hearing" did not appear. The real reason soon became manifest. Reference was then made in my remarks to the fact that "the original request of the Park Commission, of November, 1896, for the avenues was still before the board unacted upon ;" to the fact that "the parallelogram of the park system with the two avenues for the sides, and Branch Brook Park as the Newark terminus, and the mountain parks the other, with a railroad on Central avenue, would be forever destroyed ;" and to the financial reasons, the munificent prospective pro- fits, that impelled the corporations to insist on the franchise at the expense of the parkways. The favorable results of the development of park systems in other urban communi- ties were also explained.
It was a receptive board on that 12th of June, 1902. All the members apparently listened to what was said. And then they did just what it was apparently understood they would do before they came there-passed the railroad fran- chise precisely as it was wanted by the traction company.
Before the vote was taken, a letter was read from the law firm of Lindabury, Depue & Faulks, stating that "two writs of certiorari had been taken out in the Supreme Court, one of them acting as a stay to prevent the carrying on of the work until the action of the East Orange Council had been reviewed." But what were court proceedings or court stays ?
245
TOY OFFICIALS
The demon of corporate greed was in the saddle, and the mandate had gone forth that the franchise should be granted. And so it was; and the case in the courts went on.
UNFAVORABLE PRESS COMMENTS.
In the meanwhile the drift of public opinion was re- flected in the press. On June 14, 1902, the Newark News, editorially, said : "Certainly it was not in response to any public sentiment that both the East Orange Council and the Board of Freeholders granted a franchise in perpetuity and upon the trolley company's own terms;" also, "It is now pretty well assured, however, that the park commissioners have practically abandoned the idea of embracing Central avenue in the park system."
The Orange Chronicle said: "Had the Essex County Board of Freeholders come out flatfooted before its meet- ing, last Thursday afternoon, and told the members of the Joint Committee on Parkways that it was not going to pay the slightest attention, any way, to whatever arguments might be brought against its concurrence in the action of the East Orange City Council, it would have won at least a reputation for honesty, if for nothing else. Happily the municipal and county authorities are not the court of last resort in this appeal." Individual criticism was even more caustic, both in the public prints and in private conversa- tion.
The Park Board meeting of June 17 was devoted to parkways. The "counsel was requested to prepare a proper petition to the municipalities requesting the care, custody, and control of Park avenue, together with a statement of our position." The following day this communication was sent to the Board of Freeholders and the authorities of Orange :
"Newark, N. J., June 18, 1902.
"Gentlemen-The Essex County Park Commission, rec- ognizing the need of at least one parkway located in a cen- tral part of the county, and running westerly from the city of Newark, renews its application to be permitted to make
246
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
the avenue known as Park avenue into a parkway.
"This commission can, with the funds likely to be at its disposal for maintenance purposes, undertake the care of Park avenue, at least to the extent that it is cared for by the Board of Freeholders, and if the Park Commission shall, in the future, be provided with further funds, it will undertake to develop Park avenue for parkway purposes in a manner more commensurate with such purposes.
"Very respectfully,
"THE ESSEX COUNTY PARK COMMISSION."
As now read between the lines and measured at this dis- tance of time, this communication seems to indicate clearly enough that the commission had quietly succumbed to the persuasive wiles of the traction syndicate and had, as pre- dicted, "practically abandoned" Central avenue. Such re- ports were given wide publicity and were greatly acceler- ated by the statements of the trolley agents and attorneys. These reports were still more prejudicial to the commission. This latter request, for Park avenue only, contrasted with the board's prior statement of April 3, as quoted in the preceding chapter, was one of the alleged reasons.
The Chronicle of June 23, 1902, referred to the Park avenue request as "a surprising letter," and asked the Park Board for an explanation, adding : "Why has it been left to citizens to contend for the parkways ? has been a question heard on every side with no satisfactory answer. The people gave their confidence, their support and vast appropriations of money, expecting the commission to be faithful to the trust reposed in it and carry out its own plans for the two connecting parkways free from political manipulation. While their words have been smooth, the best friends of the parks and of the commissioners have found it difficult to explain their action."
The Journal concluded that "the application of the Park Commission for permission to improve Park avenue as a parkway, is a pretty thorough justification of the position taken by The Journal that the Essex County Park Commis-
-
247
TOY OFFICIALS
sion could not, and would not, develop Central avenue as a parkway."
PARK COMMISSION'S REITERATED STATEMENTS.
About this time the false rumors, put in circulation, as to the attitude of the public and the current unfavorable re- ports as to the Park Commission became so frequent that, on June 28, members of the joint committee wrote the com- mission as follows :
"The purpose and intent of those trying to make it ap- pear that the people are behind a scheme to appropriate for private gain another enormously valuable county road fran- chise at the expense of one of the great connective features of the park system is becoming well understood, and both the conditions and the facts are so clear in this instance they cannot long be misconstrued.
"We have acted in confidence on your reiterated state- ments that you have not changed your position in desiring both avenues for parkways, and we will be glad either to confer with you, or submit further data regarding the subject."
On July 1, 1902, there was a conference between the New- ark Board of Works and the Park Commission at the latter's office regarding the Park avenue transfer by the city of Newark. Commissioners Eugene Vanderpoel, Robert F. Ballantine, and William A. Brewer were appointed a com- mittee on parkways. Commissioner Garrison, of the New- ark board, favored the transfer.
On July 4, I went over the parkway situation quite fully with Commissioner F. M. Shepard. He assured me that "the commission had not changed its position as to the avenues" and suggested that I should "see Mr. Brewer." The day following I wrote Cyrus Peck as president :
"The proceedings in the East Orange City Council and the freeholders, and the way the deal to confiscate the ave- nue was carried through, have accentuated and materially
248
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
enlarged the whole question to a point where it would seem that something must be done by the commission to clear up its past record and present attitude as to Central avenue.
"The counsel not only gives his own consent for a rail- road, but both in word and action gives an entirely different view and statement from what Mr. Shepard informs me is still the attitude of the commission, and some of the county papers-clippings enclosed-accept editorially the counsel's view as representing the position of the commission."
A FREEHOLDER'S STATEMENT.
No reply to this letter was received. On July 15, 1902, by request of Commissioner Brewer, I wrote him officially ; and as a member of the Joint Committee on Parkways, giv- ing the statement of one of the freeholders, made to me in the presence of a witness in Branch Brook Park the day previous. This freeholder, as quoted in that letter, among other things, said, he "was favorably impressed by what was said in favor of keeping Central avenue for a parkway (the afternoon the trolley resolution was passed), and, wishing to know the present attitude of the commission before vot- ing, went to Counsel Munn and asked him direct, 'Does the Park Commission want the avenue for a parkway?' Mr. Munn replied, 'No, not that I know of.' A similar inquiry was then made of 'Wally' Ougheltree, of East Orange, the chairman of the Road Committee, who replied: 'No. the railroad ordinance was before the East Orange City Council a long time, and no word of objection was ever received from the Park Commission, nor did any one appear there from the commission opposing its passage. Had they wanted the avenue they would have so stated to the East Orange authorities. The commission had made an indefi- nite statement some time ago, but their actions had not corroborated it.' "
"The statements quoted from Munn," I added, "are, as you will recollect, in entire accord with what members of the East Orange City Council positively stated and restated
-
249
TOY OFFICIALS
Munn had said to them while the trolley ordinance was before that body."
This letter was received by Commissioner William Brewer, and a day or two later by the commission; but I was never asked for further particulars. Counsel J. L. Munn remained ; and matters favorable to the traction com- pany's obtaining Central avenue, went on as before.
FOR THE PARKWAYS AGAIN.
The Orange Republican City Convention of October 1, 1902, adopted in its platform a clean-cut and definitely ex- pressed clause, declaring for Park and Central avenues for parkways. The trend of public opinion was toward demand- ing that the City Council should take favorable action on the Cuddy transfer ordinance as approved by the Park Com- mission months before, and which had been resting with the Street Committee since its introduction on December 3, 1900. At the council meeting of October 13, 1902, the or- dinance, then again offered as a new ordinance and approved by the Street Committee, was passed on first reading by a unanimous vote. The little discussion which followed was all in favor of that action.
The ordinance (after the customary advertisement) was, at the meeting November 10, again, under suspension of the rules, in like manner, finally passed. It then went to Mayor Henry Stetson for his action. In an interview in the Newark papers just prior to this-and a few days before the fall election-the Mayor had declared that he had "been ready at all times to favor any action by the city authorities which would further the parks and parkways," and "that, whenever a proper ordinance shall be laid before me, I will have no hesitation in approving it."
As the ordinance, as passed ten days after this statement was made public, was drawn expressly to meet all the objections the Mayor had made to the two previous transfer ordinances, the statement was construed by the uninitiated as a favorable omen, and tantamount to a promise of his in- tended action on the ordinance then before the council. He
250
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
was, however, very chary as to making any specific commit- ments. On November 11, 1902, he wrote the Park Com- mission to know if, "in the event of the ordinance's becom- ing effective, you intend to improve Central avenue west from Centre street, it having been rumored that, should the avenue be turned over to you, you would not improve it be- yond the point mentioned ; also is it your intention to open up the avenue, in a line from its present terminus at Valley road to the top of the mountain ?"
The reply was equally elusive, although the commission had, in March, 1901, already formally approved a similar ordinance containing the same conditions. The substance of the response was that "the commission has not seen the proposed ordinance, and before making any statements con- cerning it would like to have a copy."
PEARLS, MINUS A STRING.
The sources of public opinion continued to reflect the general desire for favorable action on the parkway ordi- nance. This sentiment was well expressed in a published letter, written on November 2, 1902, by Monsignor G. H. Doane, in which, in referring to the Essex County parks, he said: "Little has been done as yet in the direction of parkways. We have the parks, but we want to connect them ; we have the pearls, but we want to string them, and that is what the parkways would do.'
Mayor Stetson vetoed the ordinance. The message was received by the City Council December 1, 1902, This third "hold-up" of the action favored by the public, and as passed by the City Council, was, according to the veto, based on "two facts which became apparent ; one, that your body has no power to make the proposed transfer, and, two, that the Park Board cannot consent to it. Ideally I think your pro- posed action would be very praiseworthy, were it practica- ble, but my opinion, as well as that of many other judicious people, is, that it is now impossible, for the reasons stated.
251
TOY OFFICIALS
The residents of these broad public avenues are entitled to have the most convenient means of access to business and church centres."
Who the "judicious people" were, who concurred in the Mayor's pseudo-legal decision, excepting the Park Board's counsel, J. L. Munn-who at once came to the rescue in a published interview December 4, expressing his "profound respect and consideration" for the Mayor's opinion-was never, to my knowledge, made public. City Counsel T. A. Davis, of Orange, in a written opinion to the Common Council of that place, on December 8, 1902, riddled the Mayor's legal contentions, and in an exhaustive statement cited ample authorities to show that the Mayor's position had no foundation in fact. Rev. H. P. Fleming, in a pub- lished letter of December 13, treated the veto message even more severely.
"I say that the Mayor is a traitor to the public welfare of this whole community, proven to be such by his pharisaical utterances," was the forceful way he expressed that view. This he did after ridiculing the points in the veto, and then appealed to the members of the City Council to override the veto.
Other criticisms were unsparing, alike of the Mayor's feelings and of the shallow pretense of his legal excuse. As in the case of the much "counseled counsel," the mask had at last been cast aside, and it was soon generally known, as some had known before, that the Mayor was for the railroad and against the parkway first, last, and all the time; and that, if one excuse should not avail, another would be readily found. Counsel Munn, in the interview referred to, endeavored to stem the adverse tide of public comment by declaring that "the Executive's view of the matter was radi- cally strong, and that it should command the utmost atten- tion." "There seems to be no question," said Munn, "that the legislation in regard to the avenues has put the scheme of transfer in a very perplexing position, for the present at least." And this public statement was made after he had for years officially, as the Park Board's counsel, advised that
252
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
there was no legal obstacle in the way of the avenues' transfer.
NEW CONVERTS.
Six members of the Orange City Council were evidently converted to the Stetson-Munn railroad side of the ques- tion. When the Mayor's veto came up for action before the council on December 15, 1902, five weeks after its unani- mous passage there, these six new converts (?) voted the other way, and in support of the veto. And thus, for the third time, the parkway ordinance was killed in the house of its supposed friends. At once there were the usual charges and recriminations. "Under the eye of public scorn" was the caption of a drastic editorial in one of the leading papers in referring to the action of these six councilmen, who had shifted their votes; and "not a single soul of the group could or would explain his astounding action," was the way the article went on. And "the insidious influence of the trolley interests may, for a time, prevail, but we do not be- lieve that those who have lent themselves to this scheme of interference, will, in the end, have to give away to a mercen- ary corporation a franchise for that which is the people's right," was the conclusion.
The News of December 17, said, editorially : "It is won- derful the number of obstacles that have been found to de- lay the transfer of these avenues to the Park Board. In this respect it almost equals the service of the local traction company."
December 9, 1902, I wrote the Park Commission as follows :
"The time has come for plain speaking and prompt ac- tion unless the commission wish to assume the task of car- rying a load which will now rapidly become a staggering burden, I think, in the minds of all fair-minded men, cer- tainly of the men well-informed on park matters throughout the Oranges.
"I want to say to you, in all kindness and with all ear- nestness, that the lines are now drawn, and the Park Com-
253
TOY OFFICIALS
mission, for its own credit and honor, must accept or repu- diate the responsibility of an employe now so discredited in his own community as to make his retention in the Park Board a serious and growing menace."
And, on December 16, I wrote: "As the action of the Orange Council last evening will tend to accelerate rather than modify the situation you are placed in by the action of your counsel, I deem it just to you and to myself to state some of the causes leading up to the situation briefly indi- cated in my letter to you of the ninth instant." I then re- ferred to the statements made by Counsel Munn to some of the members of the East Orange City Council while the rail- road ordinance for Central avenue was there pending; quoted the statements of the freeholder in Branch Brook Park, as above mentioned; referred to the commission's "emphatic declarations" regarding the avenues for park- ways, and to "their own counsel, whose statements and acts" had for months contradicted those declarations; and en- closed a copy of the statement of E. H. Snyder, of January 15, 1897, as quoted from at length in Chapter XII.
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.