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 20
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
TRANSFER OF HIGHWAYS.
I was advised on December 24 that the communications "had been received and placed on file." And the plans of the traction company for appropriating the parkway con- tinued to move directly forward, as before.
It may here be of interest to note, with what facility and readiness existing public highways, avenues, or streets may be transferred, and have been transferred under the Essex County Park Commission's charter, when such contem- plated action on the part of the interested governing bodies is not subject to the demoralizing influences, which delayed for years and finally prevented the transfer of one of the two vitally important parkway avenues. Within ten days after the passage of the parkways resolution by the Park Board in November, 1896, H. H. Hart, then president of the South Orange Village Board of Trustees, called a spe- cial meeting of that board to act upon the question, and at
254
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
the meeting of November 25, by unanimous vote, South Orange avenue, "from the westerly line of Ridgewood road, westerly to the western boundary of South Orange," was transferred to the commission "for the purpose of the park act." Owing to a modification of the Park Board plans, the avenue was never accepted, but the transfer on the part of the authorities was thus promptly effected.
The ordinance transferring the short end of Park and Central avenues in West Orange, was introduced at the Township Committee's November meeting, finally passed at the next meeting, and officially reported to the Park Board on November 20, 1897.
The application for Brookside avenue was not made until May, 1897, but the transfer was promptly made and ac- cepted by the Park Commission September 11, 1897. In the board's official report for 1897 this reference (page 14) occurs : "The Brookside road, which has been transferred to the commission by the Millburn authorities, has been im- proved and is an excellent example of the way a neglected road can at slight expense be converted into a delightful pleasure drive. The entire drive of two miles has been drained, widened, graded and stoned at a cost of $3,000." Thus, from the Park Board's own standpoint this improve- ment was used as an illustration, and as an example of how existing avenues could be at comparatively slight expense converted into parkways. This, if important for a moun- tain roadway, how vastly more important was the practical application of the same principle to the two great connect- ing parkways so vital to the whole park system.
The transfer of Mt. Prospect avenue, West Orange, was not requested by the Park Board until March, 1898, but was made without delay or objection, the local authorities being anxious to co-operate with the Park Commission in securing parkway benefits for their localities, rather than opposing such improvements for years, under the blighting influence of the corporations, as in the case of Park and Central avenues.
On January 16, 1903, the Supreme Court rendered a de-
255
TOY OFFICIALS
cision sustaining the validity of the railroad ordinance for Central avenue as passed in East Orange, April 28, 1902. The opinion was rendered by Justice Collins, who, prior to his appointment on the bench, was a member of the law firm of Collins & Corbin, and whose partner was a stockholder of record of the North Jersey Street Railway Company. Chandler W. Riker, and P. Woodruff, as also the counsel for East Orange, appeared for the traction company, and R. V. Lindabury made the argument for the property owner plaintiffs. Although it was shown by the testimony that Bishop J. J. O'Connor was not the owner of the cemetery property on the avenue at the time he gave a written con- sent, and that that consent was necessary in order to con- stitute a majority of the frontage owner's' consents, as clearly provided by law, the court decided that, in this case, "ecclesiastical polity" of the Catholic Church might be sub- stituted for legally recorded ownership, and held that the ordinance, based upon such consent, was accordingly valid.
APPEAL TO HIGHER COURT.
The case was at once appealed. The appeal acted in the meantime as a stay or injunction against the traction com- pany. Mr. Lindabury advised that, in his opinion, the Supreme Court decision referred to could not be sustained by the higher court. Efforts were then made to obtain from the Park Commission some action or earnest of its repeated assurances regarding the main parkways.
On April 9, 1903, the Joint Committee on Parkways had adopted a resolution requesting "the Park Commission to officially express to the East Orange City Council that board's repeatedly expressed desire to secure the care, cus- tody, and control of Central avenue,' and appointing a sub- committee of three to present the resolution to the com- mission. This committee, consisting of H. G. Atwater, J. F. Freeman and myself, made the presentment on April 12. At that conference, the Park Board gave no suggestion or intimation whatever that there had been any change in the attitude of the commission respecting the avenue parkways.
256
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
It appears from the records, however, that at that same meeting, after the committee had left the board rooms, a resolution was, in executive session, offered by Commis- sioner John R. Hardin, and, at the next secret meeting of the Park Board adopted, that "the landscape architects be instructed to prepare, as soon as possible, a scheme of im- provement for parkway purposes, of Central avenue from the East Orange parkway to the Orange line, assuming the avenue will not be widened, and that a double-track rail- way, with overhead wires, will be placed on the center line thereof; roadway twenty feet wide on each side of the tracks ; lawn treatment, etc., shrubs and trees, and treated as a street for both business and pleasure; the landscape architects also to furnish estimates of cost."
NOT WORTH THE COST.
The report of Olmsted Brothers, of May 7 and May 16, following that resolution, advised that "the improve- ment in the manner indicated will not be worth the cost"; that it involved "a purely engineering affair without the slightest element of beauty or art;" if it should be adopted, the avenue should be widened from "the East Or- ange Parkway to the Orange line to at least 110 feet, and new building lines established." The estimated cost was then given at $119,384, with an annual maintenance ac- count of $4,389.
Why this action of the Park Commission, in "assuming" as it did in the resolution quoted, that the question of a railroad on the avenue was then settled, and calling for a report combining a trolley and parkway project-which was at direct variance with the board's announced policy for years theretofore, in contending that a parkway and trolley way could not be properly made on a 100 feet wide highway -was kept secret and from the joint committee and the public, is to me now, as I make this record, in view of all the circumstances, unaccountable ; and I pass from the sub- ject without comment.
The request of the joint committee referred to, as to send-
1
257
TOY OFFICIALS
ing a communication to the East Orange authorities, was not complied with.
On June 15, 1903, committees of the Road Horse Asso- ciation, the New England Society, and the Joint Commit- tee, presented petitions and resolutions of these organiza- tions urging that similar action be taken with Central ave- nue as had been recently taken with Park avenue. These resolutions referred to "the five hundred tax-paying citizens of the Road Horse Association" as recognizing "in Central avenue the natural parkway by reason of its width, level grade, and accessible location," and petitioned the commis- sion "to immediately assume control of Central avenue, agreeable to the original plan of said commission." It was also set forth that this was "in no sense a local question," and that "neither are the local officials nor the public in- formed as to the need of convenient connecting parkways, as are you gentlemen, who have studied this question as affecting the whole county." J. B. Dusenberry stated that "the population of Newark south of Central avenue and east of Fourteenth street comprised seven-eighths of the total inhabitants, and there was no avenue directly connect- ing the mountain reservation and Orange parks possible for a parkway excepting that avenue."
Rev. Henry Rose, C. F. Lawrence, Alden Freeman, C. A. Dickson, W. J. Baer, and others were present and spoke. The commission was non-committal as to any future action. The reception of the delegates was not, however, enthusias- tically cordial. The Newark News, in commenting upon the conference, said, on June 21, 1903: "Four influential organizations appeared, by their representatives, before the Park Commission last week and presented reasons why Cen- tral avenue should be made a parkway. The arguments they urged are incontrovertible."
The Daily Advertiser editorial of June 16 said :
"The Board of Freeholders cannot disregard this power- ful sentiment at the behest of private corporate interests that have already been granted nearly all of the public highways; especially in view of the fact that the trolley ex-
258
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
tension can be built over another route which will just as well serve the public convenience. By utilizing existing avenues as parkways the cost of improvement is moderate."
The Orange Chronicle asked: "Why, then, should the Park Commissioners now remain silent in the matter of carrying out their own plans? Why should they not now, by their action, show a creditable desire to have the park system carried forward to a creditable completion ?"
THE PUBLIC'S POSITION.
Another press comment was : "The absolute inertia of this 'better class' board has resulted in taxpayers going to great expense to contest the trolley grab ; and, still worse, the very people who have been the stanchest supporters of the Park Commission find themselves obliged to organize in commit- tees, and to almost demand of the Park Commission that its latest pre-election pledges be carried out."
Appeals were also made direct to the new management of the traction company. The Public Service Corporation had been organized, and had absorbed, by exchange of its stock and otherwise, all the leading traction, electric light, and gas companies of Northern New Jersey. Although the cor- poration was purely a "business" company, it consolidated and combined into one ownership the direct control of all the various financial pyramids that had been created with fictitiously watered capital, for the purpose of absorbing and retaining in the hands of the stockholders the millions of clear profits made out of the free franchises that had been mulcted from the county and local governing bodies. This scheme enabled a few men to thus concentrate vast financial and political power, to perpetuate, and, as far as might be possible, in the future, to control and hold the vast public privileges obtained, and to become an important, if not a controlling factor in shaping State and local legislation accordingly.
But the new ownership control was, under the new man- agement, largely in the hands of Essex County institutions, and of men who, it was thought, could not be entirely
259
TOY OFFICIALS
blinded to a situation so vitally affecting the Park Board plans and so directly affecting, for all the future, the people of the county.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION.
With this view the joint committee on parkways on June 17, 1903, wrote President T. N. McCarter, referring to the "drastic measures taken by the former management of the traction interests to avoid insolvency," made necessary by the unrestricted over-capitalization, get-rich-quick policy of the various companies, and to the disposition theretofore "to destroy the parkways"-a policy, the committee believed "the continuation of which would not appear favorable," or appeal "to yourself and associates in the new manage- ment, either in the interest of your corporation or in the public interest you now have the opportunity to serve ac- ceptably."
The reply, as editorially interpreted by the News, was : "Very beautiful and touching is the solicitude of the Public Service Corporation for the good of the dear public. Mr. McCarter is a firm believer in parkways so long as they do not interfere with the plans 'of that corporation,' "-which quotation gives, in a few words, the gist of the whole letter. The attitude of the company was indicated in the conclud- ing paragraph of this letter, as follows: "If the right of the railway to extend its tracks on Central avenue be sus- tained, the question will then have to be determined by the real needs of the people, to whom the duty of Public Ser- vice is paramount."
The East Orange railway ordinance case was yet before the higher court, and the next move on the chessboard of parkway affairs was the reintroduction, on October 5, 1903, of the transfer ordinance in the Orange Common Council. Since the action of the Republican City Committee the year previous, and the continued public agitation in favor of the parkways, the sentiment, outside of the limited circle of the opposing Mayor and those especially friendly to the traction company, appeared to consist of a general demand for favor-
260
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
able action by the authorities. The ordinance, which was a copy of the "Cuddy ordinance," passed November 10, 1902, and previously approved by the Park Commission, was, without opposition, passed on first reading at the coun- cil meeting October 5, and finally passed by a vote of 9 to 4 on November 9, 1903.
About this time a sufficient number of votes in the City Council were unequivocally pledged to pass the ordinance over the Mayor's veto, should the usual tactics of the execu- tive be adopted in his action on this measure. The Mayor, presumably having a knowledge of what was going on, had previously begun to hedge and fence for position, so to speak. On May 15, 1903, he had written the Park Com- mission again, asking, in the event of the transfer ordi- nance becoming effective, did the board "intend to improve Central avenue west from Centre street."
The commission's reply of May 20, 1903, was as follows : "Dear Sir-Your letter with regard to Park and Central avenues was laid before the commission at its meeting yes- terday, and I was directed to say that the questions con- cerning Central avenue were thoroughly discussed in the last annual report of the commission, a copy of which I transmit under separate cover. Since that time questions relating to Central avenue have been and are now before the courts awaiting adjudication. The commission, there- fore, has given no further consideration to that subject."
On November 10, the Mayor again wrote that he had before him "for approval or disapproval an ordinance pro- viding for the transfer of Park and Central avenues"; that he enclosed a copy of the document, adding :
"Before acting upon the ordinance I desire to obtain the views of the Park Commission upon it, as to its ac- ceptability in its present form, etc. I am also desirous of learning whether, in the event of the ordinances going into effect, the commission would improve Central avenue in this city west of Centre street."
The letter also asked for an early reply.
The Park Board's reply of November 12, after referring
261
TOY OFFICIALS
to the enclosure of copies of the commission's letters of June 18 and June 20, 1903, stated :
"The freeholders, acting under Chapter 234 of the laws of 1903, have transferred to this commission the care, cus- tody and control of Park avenue throughout its entire length. Our views concerning Park avenue are fully ex- pressed in our letter of June 18, 1903, and concerning Central avenue in our letter of May 20, 1903."
To this communication the Mayor on November 14 made answer :
"Gentlemen-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the twelfth instant. Your letter does not give me all that I requested. I would like to know whether the ordi- nance in relation to Park and Central avenues, of which you have a copy, is acceptable to you in its present shape."
On November 24, 1903, the commission replied that "the meeting that day was the first held since the receipt" of his letter, and then this followed :
"The attitude of the Park Commission in regard to Park and Central avenues is fully stated in the report of the commission for 1901 on pages 15 et seq., as we have here- tofore stated to your honor.
"It is unnecessary to discuss the form of the ordinance transmitted to us by your honor, as we observe by the public prints that your honor has vetoed it."
Mayor Stetson's veto was announced November 23, the day previous. The alleged reasons, as stated in the message, were, as before, that the Common Council had "no author- ity" to make the transfer ; that the replies of the Park Com- mission to his inquiries had been "evasive and unsatisfac- tory"; that "it seems to me, so far as Central avenue is concerned, the Park Commission does not particularly de- sire the care, custody, and control of the thoroughfore; and that, in any event, it is not advisable to make a parkway of Central avenue" on account of the heavy traffic there, etc.
It required two-thirds, or eleven of the sixteen votes, of the City Council members to override the veto. The veto message came before the council for action December ?,
262
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
1903. The eleven necessary votes were pledged. On roll call Councilman F. C. Read, who had each time voted for the ordinance on its passage, and had agreed to again vote for it, voted no. Two of his colleagues, Councilmen Frank Coughtry and E. S. Perry. stated that he had repledged each of them again after the council meeting was in session that same evening, to vote aye. Alderman Ira Williams, who had also previously voted for the ordinance, and had promised to vote for it on final passage, as suddenly "flopped," and voted with the minority of six to support the Mayor. No public reasons were ever given why those two votes were so suddenly changed. This action broke the requisite two-thirds line by one vote, and killed the parkway ordinance.
UNFAVORABLE TO THE PARK COMMISSION.
Thus, for the fourth time, the evil influences of cor- porate aggrandizement, following the courses and methods that morally irresponsible corporations know so well how, in legislative bodies, to use to best accomplish their pur- poses had prevailed, and again was the revolving wheel of parkway progress elogged. Both the Park Commission and the corporation representatives were publicly and privately severely criticized. The former was openly charged with "half-hearted" action, "and the impression has gained ground that the commission repents of its early stand and wishes to get rid of the problem lately grown out of the parkway business. Can the commission tell why it is that it does not want Central avenue now?" On every side were heard adverse comments over the traction company's proceedings. There were the usual castigations, where, as in many an American city, good citizenship finds, that, for the time being, it is bound hand and foot by an insidious lurking power, which robs the community of its birthright and good name at the same time that it sequestrates and appropriates to itself, as with perpetual utility franchises, the property of the citizens unto the farthest generations of those who shall come after.
263
TOY OFFICIALS
But the agitation had been productive of good. It had stripped off the mask of more of those who had officially or personally masqueraded as standing for what they al- leged was for the public good. It had aroused the public conscience. It formed the incubator, and later became the mainspring of the movement for limited franchises-which issue, each of the leading political parties have since ar- dently and assiduously claimed as their own. The irresist- ible power of public opinion, growing out of the parkways' discussion, had forced the corporations to abandon the scheme for appropriating also Park avenue. And while the Park Commission remained in silent inactivity, as though stricken with official paralysis, or put to sleep by corporate hypnotism, or led by the pernicious imp of pro- crastination, the causes that were to create an awakening of the people were, by the parkways' contest, well grounded, and have since been rapidly extending. And if the apathy of the good citizens of Essex County, and of the State- the great lodestone of the present political and legislative situation-can, through this or other agitations, be changed to an active participation in public affairs, a repe- tition of the perpetual franchise-acquiring evils and the corrupting, boss-ridden, and demoralizing conditions wit- nessed in the eight years' contest over the parkways, will be impossible, and ample reward will have been made for all the time, money, and effort thus expended.
PARK AVENUE SURRENDERED.
The surrender of Park avenue by the trolley interests was decided upon early in June, 1903. No sooner had the decision to allow the county and local governing boards to transfer that avenue for a parkway been made, than those in authority, apparently most anxious to do the corporation's bidding, with alacrity responded. Although, as before stated, the special request of the Park Commission for Park avenue alone, when that board "recognized the need of at least one parkway," after contending for nearly seven years that two were necessary, was made June 19, 1902, that re-
264
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
quest had been allowed to rest in the pigeon-hole archives of both the Board of Freeholders and of the Orange City Council, without either report or favorable action all that time.
When, however, the Public Service Corporation managers recognized that, with the rising tide of public sentiment, should they continue to contend for both avenues, they "might fall backward and lose both," the yielding of one- the least valuable for either parkway or trolley way-was reluctantly agreed upon. Presto! The precedent of the freeholders, which, since 1896, had been promulgated as a principle, almost too sacred or too important to be waved or broken, viz., that the board should not, and could not, act on the avenue transfer question until after the local governing boards directly interested had taken action, was at once cast to the winds. The Orange authorities had not only failed to act favorably on Park avenue, but had then, three times, expressly declined to make the transfer of both avenues. Notwithstanding this action and the "precedent" mentioned, the Board of Freeholders promptly and form- ally transferred Park avenue June 11, 1903, and the formal acceptance "with thanks of the Park Commission" soon followed.
These acts and facts proved more clearly than words, that really nothing had stood in the way of the prompt transfer and parkway use of both avenues for years, excepting the baneful, hidden hand of the corporate giant, which was continuously pulling the strings behind the scenes, and ma- nipulating the toy officials to do its bidding in thus thwart- ing the will of the people, and depriving them of both their parkways and franchise possessions.
A WILLOW BY THE LAKE.
CHAPTER XVI.
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY.
THE parkways movement culminated in 1904, as did likewise the plans for completing the remnants of the Essex County park system. On February 29 the Court of Errors and Appeals handed down a decision in the East Orange Central avenue trolley ordinance case. The de- cisions reversed the findings of the Supreme Court and de- clared the ordinance invalid. The case for the property owners and the Avenue Association was argued with great ability by their counsel, R. V. Lindabury.
The decision was reported as unanimous. It turned mainly on the point as to the validity of Bishop J. J. O'Connor's consent. The court was evidently convinced that ecclesiastical orders, or the internal regulations of a religious organization, could not be substituted for the well- established laws and precedents for determining realty own- ership-the principle involved in the Supreme Court's de- cision of the same question. The action of the higher court cleared the parkways atmosphere.
Appeals were at once made to the Park Commission and to the Public Service Corporation. The former was re- minded that "non-action by the Park Board is literally faith without works ;" that "earnest, vigorous action would at once enlist the active support of press and public all over the county," and it was asked : "Will the Park Commission, with its great power, opportunities, and present privileges, lead or follow the movement ?" It was also pointed out that "should one of your number appear before the free- holders, to state and explain to them your position and wishes, all doubts and misgivings on this question would
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.