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 21
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
265
266
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
speedily disappear." One of the leading papers, on March 5, 1904, editorially reminded the commissioners that "the time for standing upon their dignity and maintaining an exasperating silence has, for the members of that body, gone by." The New England Society, on the same date, adopted by unanimous vote a resolution "unequivocally re- affirming its indorsement of the report of the special com- mittee on parkways reported and unanimously approved April, 1902," and authorizing "the appointment of five additional members to act with the Joint Committee on Parkways toward completing the transfer and improvement of Central and Park avenues into parkways."
The commission announced on March 9, 1904, that it was considering the parkway problem "very carefully, and when they came to a conclusion on the matter" it would be com- municated, and "they would use every effort to come to a conclusion satisfactory to the citizens of the Oranges." A legislative bill, prepared under the direction of the com- mission, was introduced at Trenton about this time by As- semblyman E. D. Duffield (Assembly 317), authorizing county boards to transfer streets or avenues, in whole or in part. The announcement was soon made that this bill "would go through." A hearing was given upon it by the Municipal Corporations Committee March 17. Notice of the hearing was given in the Newark papers on March 16, and the Joint Committee on Parkways received a special notification. A number of citizens from Essex County were in attendance and spoke for the bill. J. L. Munn and others opposing the measure for the traction company were present, but (publicly) said nothing. The Park Commis- sion was in no way represented there. This caused much unfavorable comment, and it was at once reported about the State House that that board was indifferent as to the fate of the bill. The lobby prevailed.
BILL IN THE LEGISLATURE.
One of the Assembly committeeman said he would do nothing that would prevent the traction company from
267
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY
extending its lines on Central avenue. The bill was pigeon- holed. It was never heard of again. The Park Board's secretary, Alonzo Church, afterward stated that he did not know of the hearing on the bill. His partner, J. L. Munn, was, however, present when the matter came up before the committee.
The question as to whether the trolley extension should be on Central avenue or by another route, and thus save the parkway, was fully covered in the conferences and corre- spondence between the Public Service Corporation presi- dent and the joint committee, and extended over some months. The situation was also quite fully presented to Senator John F. Dryden in April, 1904. As one largely interested in the Public Service and allied corporations, and having advanced more than $300,000 for the organiza- tion and early financing of the North Jersey Street Rail- way Company, which company had at that time become, by exchange of its securities, one of the important con- stituent parts of the Public Service Corporation, and hav- ing become active also in political and public affairs, it was thought that Mr. Dryden's counsel and advice might tend to prevent "the irreparable injury to this great county improvement which means so much in cost and future wel- fare to all the people of the county, should the past policy of the traction company be insisted upon by the present management." The "responsibility and solution are alike simplified from the fact that your company can select an- other route that will conserve all public requirements and thus preserve the integrity of the park system, and thereby end this controversy and the consequent antagonisms that must continue to grow to larger proportions, now that the underlying conditions are becoming better understood."
Mr. Dryden declined to exercise his good offices in the direction indicated, advising that his "participation in the management of the company does not extend to matters of that kind." The practical response, or the result of the correspondence with the Public Service Corporation, was, on March 14, 1904, a new application from the Consolidated
268
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
Traction Company to the East Orange City Council for another Central avenue franchise.
ANOTHER CORPORATION MOVE.
The former defect in the "consents" had been made good by Bishop O'Connor's having signed a new consent for more than 900 feet of cemetery property fronting on the avenue, the deed of the property having in the meantime been transferred to him. This new railroad application brought the question squarely to an issue. It was generally believed, as indicated by public utterances and by the press, that much depended upon the attitude of the Park Com- mission, and that, if that board should enter an emphatic protest, the East Orange authorities would not again re- spond to the behest of the traction company, even under a repetition of the former methods of exercising its persuasion through the party "organization."
The pressure upon the Park Board to do something was continually being strengthened. On March 22 the commis- sion issued a lengthy statement to the public, and a copy was sent to the freeholders. It was also published in full- pages 23 to 27 of the eighth annual report of the depart- ment, issued in August, 1904. The statement recited the "constant effort" that had been made "to obtain the ave- nue for a parkway"; that "whatever the commission could do in a proper and dignified manner" to that end "has been done"; that the action of the courts in setting aside the trolley grant in East Orange "does not alter the attitude of this board"; that it "was bound to respect the action of the Common Council and the Board of Chosen Freeholders" as "the direct representatives of the people"; and that "the Park Commission must decline to take a partisan stand" on the trolley question, although "it desires to obtain the avenue as a parkway, and has repeatedly said so, and its requests for the transfer are now on file with the East Or- ange Common Council."
The statement then refers to the Duffield bill, above men- tioned, "introduced into the present Legislature to cure the
269
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY
new trouble," that "the board has been informed that it can- not pass," and again "positively declines, as it has repeat- edly done before, to be drawn into a partisan quarrel be- tween two factions of citizens, each of whom it represents, and for the interests of all of whom it is earnestly working."
As the two factions of citizens at "issue" on this par- ticular question were, in reality, the general public, and supposedly the Park Commission on the one side, and the avaricious corporation octopus, with its widely extended tentacles on the other; and as the two interests were in this instance in direct and unavoidable opposition to each other, this statement tended to make the matter of the Park Board's previous uncertain attitude still more uncertain ; and to enlarge, rather than curtail, the confusion that this "new straddle" occasioned.
The effect of the statement upon the Board of Freehold- ers was also, to all appearances, unfavorable. When the communication was read at the meeting of that board on April 14, 1904, Freeholder W. Ougheltree, referring to the condition of Park avenue, since its transfer, expressed his "surprise at the 'cheek' of the Park Commission in suggest- ing such a thing" as the transfer of another avenue. The Park Board's communication was then "placed on file."
The situation was also made interesting about this time by an informal conference between one of the former Park Commissioners and the Park Board over the avenue ques- tion. Four of the commissioners were present. They were appealed to to state definitely and conclusively: First, if , they still believed that Central avenue should be secured as a parkway ; and, second, did they "consider it a necessity" in properly carrying out their plans? Each of the four commissioners gave an affirmative response to each of these questions. On March 22 this ex-commissioner wrote the commission at length on the subject, concluding the letter as follows :
PLAIN STATEMENT WANTED.
"To offset the adverse influence now applied at Trenton, in the councils of Orange and East Orange, and in the
270
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
Board of Freeholders, a plain, unmistakable public expres- sion of their desires by the Park Commissioners will be effective, and will certainly bring good cheer to those public- minded citizens who have been, and are, contributing their efforts, as they believe, in furthering the purposes of the Park Commission."
In furtherance of this conference and correspondence, the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Parkways at- tended the Park Board meeting of April 13, 1904. This committee consisted, as at the previous conference meeting with the board, of H. G. Atwater, J. F. Freeman, and my- self, as chairman of the committee. As the commission had informally given the assurances as above quoted pri- vately, the committee went to this meeting to petition and request that a representative of the commission should go before the City Council of East Orange, or in such other manner as the board might deem best, by or before the following Monday night, when the new franchise applica- tion was to be considered, and make a similar, unqualified statement as to the position of the commission regarding the Central avenue parkway. The committee urged that the commission could, in its opinion, "as trustees of the people of the county, consistently, and very properly, de- fend both the parks and the parkways"; that "many be- lieved this to be an obligation under the trust imposed and accepted by the commission under the law for establish- ing the park system," and under their oath of office, which prescribed that they were to "preserve and care for, lay out and improve, any such parks and places," as provided in their charter; "and that the appropriations voted by the people had been made with the expectation that the com- mission would preserve as well as create the desired parks and designated parkways."
The commission was, as it had been theretofore, wholly non-committal. No assurance was given the committee, other than that the request would have "due consideration."
The following day the published reports of the confer- ence were so entirely misleading-putting words in the
271
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY
mouths of both the commissioners and members of the com- mittee that had never been uttered, and placing the whole subject in such a false light-that the committee at once wrote the president of the commission referring to the facts, and adding : "Whatever views yourself and your associates may entertain on those matters, the giving out for publica- tion of such a misleading statement as the one in question would seem to call for prompt action and correction, due alike to the public, to you, to the conferees, the joint com- mittee and the organizations they represent. Both the tone and erroneous statements of the article make mani- fest a purpose for giving out such a statement, the tone and meaning of which should be gratifying to those oppos- ing Central avenue for a parkway and making special ef- forts to obtain the use of the avenue for commercial purposes."
COMMITTEE'S LETTER IGNORED.
No acknowledgment or reply to that communication was received by the committee, although the commission's at- tention was again called to the matter April 25, in which letter of inquiry was added: "You no doubt noticed the response of those interests to whom the boquet referred to was thrown, viz .: in the billingsgate of abuse of the commission from the Public Service attorney, at the meet- ing in East Orange last Monday evening."
The correction of the false report referred to was never made. No representative of the commission appeared be- fore the East Orange City Council. No communica- tion from the Park Board was received when. at the meet- ing April 18, 1904, the new trolley ordinance came up for action there. That meeting was a lively one. For nearly four hours the contest over the avenue was waged. Matters were at high tension. Preparations for the struggle had been going on for weeks. The meeting was in Common- wealth Hall. Lawyers A. J. Baldwin, F. W. Fort and L. D. H. Gilmour represented the traction company. G. S.
272
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
Hulbert, Gardiner Colby and other representative citizens, with Attorney F. H. Sommer, spoke for the parkways. These arguments covered the usual wide range, including a suggestion by Mr. Hulbert for the appointment of a "com- mission to investigate the whole subject and report." The corporation attorneys made the usual meaningless promises and defined "curbing the gutters, laying brick pavements, paving the roadway as desired, planting grass between the rails, keeping it watered and cut," as "parkway treatment."
The usual tactics of the traction company's representa- tives were followed, when Lawyer A. J. Baldwin exclaimed : "The Essex County Park Commission never kept a promise made to East Orange, and never made a promise !"
The final struggle over the franchise was postponed. On May 16 the limited franchise question was officially injected into the situation on Councilman Farnham Yardley's mo- tion to limit the terms of that ordinance to twenty years. This was unanimously agreed to. The public was excluded. The executive sessions doors of the Council Chamber were opened just wide enough to admit E. W. Hine and Attorney Baldwin, of the traction company. This gave the interested corporation the "secret session" secrets and the opportunity of watching and "checking up" their own representatives at that important juncture of their franchise affairs.
The trolley agents said the company would not accept a limited franchise; would not allow the city more than $1,000 a year compensation ; or make any more favorable terms than the perpetual franchise adjustable at the end of fifty years, the same as the franchise of two years be- fore. That settled the question, apparently to the satis- faction of six of the councilmen, who continued to espouse the trolley company's cause to the last.
The test came at the council meeting May 23. The ordi- nance was then passed on first reading. Every amendment offered by Councilmen Lloyd, Brownell and Yardley for the protection of the city, was, by "the six," voted down. The matter of transfers, limit of franchise, even of decent com- pensation and other important restrictions, all went by the
273
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY
board as fast as the votes could be taken, and against the earnest protests of the minority members. They openly charged that the ordinance had been drawn by, and for, and in the interests of the traction company. The charge was not denied. It also transpired that the Railroad Com- mittee, Councilman T. W. Jackson chairman, had, "with- out any right or authority" from the council, eliminated the twenty-year term limit to the franchise previously agreed upon.
On June 13, 1904, the ordinance was before the East Orange City Council for final action. The council room was packed to suffocation. The exciting scenes of the pre- vious meeting were repeated. It was a repetition of the old, old story of the conflict between popular rights and the exercise of mercenary corporate power wielded by the few. For six hours, until nearly two o'clock in the morn- ing, the struggle went on. Neither the logic of facts, en- treaty nor appeal to protect the city availed. When the committee of 100 found it useless to consider the parkways matter, and that every indication pointed to an agreement having been made before the meeting to pass the ordinance on the corporation's own terms, G. S. Hulbert, in speaking for the committee, after reminding the council that not a single organization representing public opinion had fa- vored the railroad, while the reverse was true as to the parkway, urged that the experience of other cities, in lim- iting franchises and securing fair compensation,, be con- sidered before action be taken. The official records, showing the suicidal policy of giving away a perpetual franchise, such as the one under consideration, were quoted from at length. Expert estimates were also given as to the present cash value of the Central avenue franchise, which a ma- jority of the city representatives (?) then evidently pro- posed to grant for the insignificant (compared with its value) sum of $1,000 per year. "Solemn protests" were en- tered by a number of citizens. About midnight a motion to postpone consideration of the subject until June 27 was defeated. The majority were manifestly determined to
214
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
deliver the franchise that night-or, rather, before daylight the next morning.
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY.
The "six" had evidently come to the meeting invisibly tagged, and mentally labeled, by the same power and in- fluences that had insidiously and surreptitiously "held up" the parkways and advanced the railroad interest in de- fiance of public opinion for the preceding eight years. The "deal" was to be put through then. As a legislative pro- ceeding the whole meeting was therefore a travesty, both upon parliamentary rules and deliberate assembly pro- cedure. The rules were, under the ruling of Chairman William Cardwell, finally suspended, and against the pro- test of the minority, the ordinance, long after mid- night, was passed. The excitement was intense: And out of this meeting, and the franchise agitation that had grown out of this struggle over the Cen- tral avenue parkway, rapidly grew the agitation for limiting utility franchises. This movement, locally, had its culmination in Orange a few months later, when the traction company, under the usual methods, made another attempt to secure a perpetual franchise there. The public conscience was by this time thoroughly aroused, and, as expressed in a massmeeting of citizens of all shades of opinion (December, 1904), swept everything before it.
Two days after the passage of the railroad ordinance in East Orange, June 16, 1904, G. S. Hulbert, H. G. Atwater, A. P. Boller and J. Colter, as a sub-committee on behalf of the committee of 100, had a conference with Mayor E. E. Bruen. The committee submitted in writing the con- cessions it was deemed imperative that the city should se- cure before any such valuable franchise could be properly granted. Mr. Boller said that, should the Mayor sign the ordinance, "he would betray a public trust."
"This is not a defensible franchise, either before the pub- lic, on the platform, or before the people at the polls," declared Mr. Atwater. The Mayor argued at length for the
275
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY
traction company. It was expected that he would sign the ordinance. It was currently reported that he had agreed to do so weeks before its passage. His signature was soon attached to that document.
The goal of the traction company for Central avenue in East Orange was now reached, save for the approval of the franchise grant from the freeholders. The pro-corpora- tion proclivities of a majority of that board were well known. So well, indeed, was this condition understood, that none of the civic organizations which had been deeply interested in the parkway-trolley question deemed it worth while to attend the August meeting, when the matter was to come up before the freeholders for action. This under- standing of the board's position grew out of its previous adverse action at various meetings, as already described, in acting on the parkways in the interest of the traction com- pany ; and the indifference or contempt with which Director Thomas McGowan and a majority of the board had treated the citizens at the previous "hearing," as though present- ments favoring the parkways and protesting against the en- croachment of the corporations on the parkway reservations were not worthy of the slightest consideration.
TRACTION MEN'S BOAST.
The traction company's officials had also boasted of their power over the county and local governing boards. When the attention of one of the head officials of the Public Ser- vice Corporation was called to the possibility of trouble growing out of the agitation over the parkway-trolley con- test in the Oranges, his reply, in referring to the franchise, in language more forcible than polite, was: "We've already got it; it's all set to music to go through." This view was evidently shared by the corporation managers generally, for early in August, 1904, before the application for Cen- tral avenue in Orange had even been considered by the City Council, and before any action had been taken by the free- holders on the East Orange ordinance, the company dis-
276
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
tributed rails for quite a distance on both sides of the ave- nue in Orange.
These events cast their shadows before, and no surprise was therefore occasioned when, on August 11, 1904, the Board of Freeholders danced to the "organization" music and put through, without a hitch, the Central avenue fran- chise just as had been done in East Orange-on the cor- poration's own terms.
Before the passage of the ordinance a communication, which, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Parkways, I had prepared, was read. This letter called attention to the inconsistent position of the board in now doing for the trolley company-in ignoring the non-action of the Orange authorities-just what for years they had declined to do for the Park Commission and the public; referred to the vast sums being expended in other growing urban communi- ties for parkways to unify their park systems, instead of destroying the available parkways, as would result in grant- ing the avenue franchise; and cited numerous instances showing these conditions; also the favorable results of re- strictive franchises, and the inimical effects to the public of such a franchise as that formerly granted for South Orange avenue. In the letter it was also pointed out that the passage of the Central avenue franchise "under its pres- ent terms, will, if not otherwise prevented, destroy the parkway and hand over to the traction company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars-the property of the people of the county, as much as the courthouse, the hos- pitals, asylums, or any other county property."
Soon after the freeholders had passed the franchise the case was again taken into court. The property-owning plaintiffs were handicapped from the outset by the care exercised by the corporation attorneys in avoiding legal defects, as a result of the failure of the previous ordinance ; but more from the fact that they found nearly every con- spicuous lawyer in the State retained, or in some other way under the direction of, or indirect obligation to, the Public Service, or its allied corporations. R. V. Lindabury, hav-
277
A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY
ing been retained by the Public Service Corporation on the announcement of the Court of Errors and Appeals' de- cision in the East Orange case the year before, was unable to continue as counsel.
Alan Strong and F. H. Sommer made the argument be- fore Judge W. S. Gummere on the application for a suit for certiorari to review the proceedings. Frank Bergen and R. H. McCarter represented the company. Judge Gummere, on apparently the merest technicalities, denied the appli- cation. The case was ended. The final scene of the last act in the "Public Service" ( ?) parkways drama was over. The corporation had won ;- though a very costly victory it has been. The power conferred by the people, to be used for their benefit and to protect and preserve their interests, had been, by their own representatives and through the manipu- lation of special interests and the party "machine," turned against them. The experience, as it has been in Philadel- phia and other cities, was costly-the object lesson most valuable. And out of the loss of that parkway there may continue to grow a spirit of civic pride, of interest and de- votion to local, State, and public affairs, that will make a repetition of such an experience in the future impossible, and the lesson in civic and political affairs well worth all it has cost.
EAST ORANGE PARKWAY.
The improvement of the East Orange parkway, extending only from Park avenue to Central avenue, has dragged along for years. Even now (December, 1905) it is in a chaotic and unfinished condition for about half the dis- tance-the portion south of Main street. Although a "cross- town boulevard or speedway" in East Orange was one of the first matters brought to the attention of the Park Board in 1895-6, and from the first persistently advocated by Com- missioner F. M. Shepard, it was not until April 13, 1897, that tentative plans and estimates of cost between Bloom- field avenue and Central avenue were from the landscape architects and engineers authorized. This report, covering
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.