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 4
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
AGAINST DIRECT ASSESSMENT.
An attempted partial direct assessment for park lands on the lines as above indicated, tends to make confusion worse confounded. If the plan involves providing a portion of the cost by tax on the available ratables, on the principle that in a large park or system of parks the benefits inure to the whole community, why should not all the cost be thus pro- vided? That is the almost invariable contention of objec- tors to a direct tax for special benefits.
As a matter of fact, these phases of objection to any plan of assessing benefits for the Essex County parks became so serious to the first commission that the conclusion was finally and reluctantly reached that the expense of acquir- ing, developing, and maintaining the parks of the system should be borne by the whole county by issuing county bonds, and through the tax levy. It was also decided that it was injudicious to attempt to provide any of the requisite
47
PRELIMINARY WORK COMPLETED
funds for the parks by direct assessment on adjoining prop- erty. The park charter was accordingly drawn on these lines, as is these respects it at present remains.
AS TO PARKWAYS.
The precedents and conditions for providing for the cost of the parkways were entirely different. For this purpose existing boulevards, avenues, streets, or other public places where rights of way had already been secured, might be desirable in connecting the various parks into a system or chain of parks ; or new rights of way might be indispensable for the same object. A parkway being of a definable width similar in many respects to any other avenue or street ac- quirement, the application of the principle of assessing benefits becomes a comparatively simple matter. This pro- vision was, therefore, included in the second and sixth sections of the park law (of 1895), and the East Orange parkway has been laid out under the assessment-for-benefits plan therein provided. In the method prescribed for mak- ing parkways of existing avenues or streets, there were ap- parently no very intricate questions to be solved.
It was deemed advisable that the future commission should have the right, and it was provided, as it now has the right, to appropriate for a parkway any existing highway ; but as the local municipal or county authorities already held possession under the right of eminent domain, the proviso (section 2 of the charter) makes it necessary to first have "the concurrence of the Common Council or other body hav- ing authority over highways" in all cases where a larger width of area for a parkway than the existing highway is re-
quired. The "care, custody and control" clause (the eighteenth section), which was for so many years the bone of contention over the efforts to make parkways of Park and Central avenues, was intended to simplify, not to com- plicate, the transfer and utilization of those avenues as fun- damental parts of the park system.
The scramble to obtain possession of one or both of those great county thoroughfares by the corporations for traction
48
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
uses, while not lost sight of, was not fully anticipated, as it did not seem probable that the insatiable desire for the spoils of public franchise exploitation had yet reached the point of utter disregard of public rights and a determina- tion to push through the public property appropriation scheme at all hazards that afterward followed.
Another question which the first commission found diffi- cult to determine was as to the amount of the appropriation that should go into the report and be provided for in the new law. Next to the matter of method in providing for the selection of the next commission, and of determining how the necessary funds for the undertaking should be ob- tained, this was considered of paramount importance. At first the amount suggested in our deliberations was $1,000,- 000. This was soon increased by half a million. Later $2,000,000 it was deemed should be the limit.
Finally, when the different factors in the situation had been carefully gone over-the needs for a comprehensive park and parkway system adapted to, and creditable to, the whole county; the probable increased cost of future land acquirement after the parks were once established ; the large expense involved in the reclamation and parklike embellish- ment of the "swamp" lands, such as the lower portions of the Branch Brook tract and the triangle tract in Orange; the demands that would naturally follow for enlarged parks and the inevitably unforeseen contingencies-it was finally determined that the amount should be $2,500,000.
This was with the distinct understanding, as stated in the report soon afterward issued in February, 1895, that "the amount of money which the commission feels is needed for this undertaking, $2,500,000, may seem large for practi- cally a single investment in that direction, but it must be appreciated that it is for a system of parks in its entirety."
This was an equivocal, definite statement, and all of the members of the commission thus considered it. I believed then, as I have believed since, that it was in the nature of a trust obligation between the commission, the people, and the Legislature, and that this clearly defined obligation
49
PRELIMINARY WORK COMPLETED
rested upon the succeeding commission to carry out: Or, failing in that, to have laid out a park "system" complete, at least in outline, within that amount, before asking for additional appropriation.
That the reserve policy was adopted after the organiza- tion of the permanent commission in 1895 is now well known, and some of the reasons why the original plan, policy, and promise were not carried out will be considered in succeeding chapters.
It may be a matter of interest for the reader to know that, so far as could be learned from the investigations made in 1894-5, the Essex County Park enterprise was, and, so far as I have since been able to learn, still is, the initial county public park undertaking of this country. In the legal preparation of the charter there were, for this reason, so many novel and intricate questions involved that on January 28, on request of the counsel, John R. Emery, it was decided to employ Joseph Coult as associate counsel "in the construction and provision of the bill to be pre- sented to the Legislature."
On February 1, 1895, the draft of the bill was gone over by the commissioners with the counsel. The recommenda- tions that the entire financing of the undertaking be left with the Board of Freeholders, the funds to be paid over on requisition of the park commissioners, rather than that an attempt should be made to create an entirely separate system of tax levies for the parks, were agreed to, and the finishing touches of the bill were passed upon. At the same meeting the report to accompany the bill was considered, corrected, and made ready for publication.
PROPOSED LAW INTRODUCED.
A few days afterward the commission received word from Judge Depue suggesting that the report be sent to him, as was done. A copy was also sent, with a draft of the bill, to Senator Ketcham, who promptly introduced the measure
50
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
in the Senate. It became "Senate No. 114." The report was ordered printed at the meeting of February 4, and sev- eral thousand copies were distributed throughout the county.
About this time an effort was made to change the bill then before the Legislature so as to provide for at least six commissioners. Judge Depue favored the change. He was advised by letter as to the reasons that led to the naming of five commissioners in the bill, as "we were unanimous in the conclusion, not only upon our own judgment in view of all the circumstances, but also for the reason that experi- ence in other places seemed to indicate that a board of five commissioners generally gives the best public service and results." The following, under date of February 13, 1895, was the reply :
"My Dear Sir-I received yours of yesterday. I have not read the proposed bill. It provides a commission, as I understand, the members of which get no compensation. I thought the number should be six for these reasons:
"First, although I hope and expect the commissioners will act in unanimity, yet if there is to be a division I thought affirmative action by a vote of 4 to 2 preferable to that of 3 to 2, a bare majority.
"Second, I thought the northwestern section of the county should be represented, say Montclair and that sec- tion, when I appointed the original commissioners, and I incline to that view with respect to the new commission.
"I have now written tersely my views. They are mere suggestions. I am not tenacious on the subject. I will be content to abide by the judgment of the commissioners. "Very truly yours,
"DAVID A. DEPUE.
"To F. W. Kelsey, Esq."
REPLY TO JUDGE DEPUE.
My reply was as follows :
51
PRELIMINARY WORK COMPLETED
"Orange, February 26, 1895.
"Hon. David A. Depue :
"My Dear Sir-Your favor of the thirteenth instant was duly received. The suggestions therein mentioned have had thoughtful consideration.
"As to the matter of compensation to the members of the commission, there appeared but one satisfactory way of dis- posing of it, viz., to make the position honorary, and then rely upon the appointment of men of sufficient probity, honor and civic pride to appreciate the honor, and, in the great and lasting good and worthy repute growing out of the improvement, thereby have sufficient inducement to de- vote their best thought and purpose to the carrying out of the whole enterprise.
"It was felt that a small salary would sooner or later attract petty politicians incompetent to execute such a trust, and make the pressure for their appointment a burden on . the appointing power, while a large salary would be open to other serious objections and tend to make the compensation the object sought, rather than the matter of pride in suc- cessful results.
"I believe that all of the commission fully concurred in this view.
"In like manner an even number has not seemed favor- able for a practical working board to any of us. Four to two, as you suggest, is certainly a stronger majority than three to two ; but how would it be should an even vote occur with a possible 'deadlock' lasting, as it has with some even- headed commissions, a length of time ?
"Similar commissions elsewhere for similar undertakings generally recognize a number above five as unwieldy, and the efficiency of a board reduced by a divided responsibility.
"If the right men fill such positions-those competent, faithful and loyal to the trust-there should be no division, but every vote of record undivided, and this is frequently the case with some of the higher-class commissions.
"In our board thus far, although questions have arisen upon which we have had different convictions, yet, after
52
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
full consideration, all things have been harmonized so that when the ballot was taken every vote of record has stood 5 to 0.
"I do not recollect a single instance since the organiza- tion of the board in June where there has been an exception.
"A permanent commission, it would seem, should have a like result, as the ground work is now laid and some of the intricate questions already passed upon.
"The cordial public support given the commission, and its report and proposed bill (conferring, as the latter does, ample powers and a large appropriation) is, I think, owing to the fact that we have avoided local and sectional ques- tions throughout, and have treated the county as an entirety on the lines substantially as outlined at the inception of the enterprise. It has not been the question of section, faction, or particular locality, but what was the best system which could be devised for the whole, considering topography, ac- cessibility, convenience to population, ratables and other resources.
"In this way every section has been represented. No locality in the county, available and desirable, has been over- looked. Each section has received as careful consideration as though a member of the board were a resident of that locality.
"While Mr. Bramhall and myself were supposed to rep- resent the Oranges, generally speaking, we have both given really more study and thought to the other portions of the county where we were less familiar and saw greater oppor- tunities for effective parking for the county as a whole; also the entertainment given at the Country Club by myself in November was not to advance the interests of the Oranges at the expense of any other section, but solely to enlarge the acquaintance and interest and cultivate the sen- timent for the enterprise in its broader sense.
"The representative element of Montclair is, I think, in accord with the work of the commission, and some of the members of the Township Committee, and others there, will co-operate with the work of the new commission as con-
53
PRELIMINARY WORK COMPLETED
scientiously, if not as earnestly, as though they were mem- bers of it.
"Personally, I should have been glad to have concurred in your views as to the number of commissioners, save for the reasons stated. The board, in again considering the sub- ject since the receipt of your letter, were all of the opinion it would be better not to recommend that change in the bill.
"Senator Ketcham conferred with other of the members, and, I think, also concurred in this view. We are indebted to him for his good counsel and active interest, and he will no doubt talk with you freely about the matter.
"His approval of the suggestion of the original plan, briefly stated in the enclosed letter of April 16th last, had much to do with bringing about the present law, which was drawn in accordance with that plan by Mr. A. Q. Keasbey and myself.
"As the points mentioned in your letter of the 13th inst. have an important bearing on the new bill, I have written more at length than I otherwise should.
"Respectfully and truly yours,
"FRED. W. KELSEY."
There was apparently official anxiety in certain quarters, at least in Newark, on this question. The evening of March 4, 1895, a well-attended delegation of Newark officials met at Trenton, and agreed upon the form of a bill to amend the park bill, so as to provide for eight commissioners. The Mayors of Newark and of Orange and a representative of East Orange-all Republicans-were to be included. The other five members, according to the proposed amendment, were to be selected from Newark. Alderman William Stainsby, Chandler W. Riker, who was then city counsel of Newark, and others present at the conference favored the change. On March 7, Mr. Riker appeared officially before the commission and pleaded with much earnestness that the board should consent to the change. That view did not pre- vail. The scheme, which at the outset would give the park board a political complexion, was not generally approved,
-
54
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
and, outside of a comparatively small official and political contingent, evidently received but little support. No further active effort in that direction, to my knowledge, was made.
While the bill was pending in the Senate, two of the com- missioners incidentally, and almost accidentally, ascer- tained about the same time that the legislation providing for an appointive park commission for Hudson County a few years previous had been declared unconstitutional by the courts. The question at once arose as to how the act, then before the Legislature, could be amended so as to avoid a similar experience in Essex County. The problem was, at a special meeting of the board, immediately given to counsel to work out, and on February 18 Messrs. Emery and Coult gave three optional remedies for the apparent defect in the bill. They were:
(a) An amendment providing for the appointment of the new commission by the Governor-an elective official.
(b) To have the commission selected by or from the board of freeholders-an elective body.
(c) Apply the referendum principle and submit the measure and the question whether it should or should not become operative to the electorate of the county to determine.
LEFT TO THE PEOPLE. 1
The commissioners promptly decided that they would "trust the people on the issue." An amendment was at once prepared providing for a vote throughout the county at the next election, which was to occur April 9, (1895), with the ballots "For the park act" and "Against the park act." This draft of the amendment was immediately sent to Senator Ketcham, at Trenton. It was, without objec- tion, added to the bill, and on February 26 the measure was passed in the Senate by a vote of 14 to 0. On the following day it was passed in the Assembly by a vote of 50 to 0-not a single vote having been recorded in either house against it.
The hill carried with it a direct appropriation, should it be approved by the people of the county, of $2,500,000 of
55
PRELIMINARY WORK COMPLETED
public funds. This large sum was to be expended as a board of five men to be appointed by the court should determine. The conditions for raising the money were arbitrary, indeed peremptory. The disposition of the funds was unrestricted and wholly discretionary with the board when appointed. The matter of appointment, too, was left entirely within the discretion of the Supreme Court official in naming the commission.
In view of all these conditions, that such a bill should pass without objection or a negative vote, called forth much comment. It has been stated by those conversant with such matters that the passage of that bill in view of the then existing circumstances-the amount of appropriation of public moneys, etc .- was one of the most remarkable and unique pieces of State legislation which up to that time had occurred.
In Governor Werts's message of January 8, 1895, ap- peared a complimentary reference to the park movement in Essex County, and to the work of the commission thus far. He had also transmitted to the Legislature the commis- sion's report after it had been sent to Judge Depue. It was, therefore, a matter of public record that he was in favor of further legislation toward the objects sought, and on March 5 he approved the second park bill, now Chapter XCL. of the laws of 1835.
The affairs of the first park commission now worked rapidly to a close. Early in April it was decided by the commission to bring the park subject as far as practicable before the people prior to the election on April 9. At the meeting of April 15 it was shown from the official canvass, as certified by the county clerk, that, in that election, the park law had been approved by a large majority. In New- ark the vote was 11,853 for the bill and 9,330 against, or a majority of 2,523 in favor of it. In Orange 1,848 was re- ported for, to 294 against it ; East Orange, 1,474 in favor of, to 305 against ; Montclair, 871 for, 121 against. In other towns and boroughs the vote was equally favorable, making the majority in the county for the law 8,321.
56
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
On April 18 the appointment of the new commission was announced. Of this and of some of the conditions incident therewith, I shall treat in the next chapter.
The following day-the afternoon of April 19, 1895-the first commission met for the last time. The financial state- ment was then submitted and approved. The total expendi- tures, including architects' fees (as before stated), $2,372.13 ; counsel fees, $450; printing and stationery, $172.55 ; rent, secretary's salary, telephone, etc., and all in- cidentals, were $4,474.25, which amount had been received from the freeholders and the account closed. The board, by resolution, then authorized "all maps, plans, reports and other property turned over to the commissioners appointed April 18," and then adjourned sine die.
The record was made. The die was cast. The book was closed. Yet, as the people had voted for the parks and the way was at last open to secure them, the scene had shifted, and a larger book, with vastly greater possibilities, was opened.
-
-
-
-
,
1
CHAPTER IV.
A CHANGE IN THE CURRENT.
As the rivulet becomes a stream, and the stream broadens into the river, the current moves on until the course is changed, or completely reversed. So the movement for the Essex County parks, from a small beginning, rapidly widened and deepened on its course, and although not di- rectly obstructed, the current became entirely changed by the appointment of the second commission on April 18, 1895.
This commission then had everything a public board could possibly have in its favor : An extremely liberal char- ter, conferring ample authority, approved by almost unani- mous action of the Legislature and by a large majority vote of the people of the county as well ; a generous appropria- tion; and more, the good will and confidence of its constit- uency and the cordial support of public opinion throughout the State.
While the plans of the first commission were, during the early part of the year, maturing, the favorable comments and commendatory articles in the local papers were reflected in the press of other cities. The New York Tribune, Times, World, and Evening Post all had a good word for the Essex parks, during the month of January of that year, and be- fore the new commission was appointed, had given a resume of the movement and of the friendly support extended it.
The Tribune of April 8, 1895, under the caption "A Fine Park System," dilated at length on the subject, favorable alike to the report and the bill to be voted on the following day. An editorial in the same paper gave an interesting ac- count of "A Great Park Project in New Jersey ;" described
57
58
FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM
the bill; declared that "the child is born who will see this entire 150,000 square miles of Essex County a continuous city ;" gave a glowing account of what "nature has done for this region" of "mountain ridges, fertile valleys and wooded slopes ;" and added that "it is to be a county park system" and, "so far as we know, little opposition to the project has been developed."
PRESS LAUDS ENTERPRISE.
The attitude of the New Jersey press had continued in laudation of the enterprise, and there appeared also a gen- eral sentiment in favor of the reappointment of the same commission that had had charge of the preliminary work in the undertaking. The Newark News of February 6, 1895, editorially referring to the report of the first commission, stated that "a good system of parks would supplement the natural attractiveness of the city and county."
And, on February 28, the same paper said: "This is a rich and populous county, and one that has a future. Be- fore many years it will be the theatre of a greater city. Its situation destines it to a rapid and steady growth. What- ever adds to its attractiveness as a place of residence means advantage to every one of its industries, to every business enterprise carried on within its boundaries."
On February 6, The Daily Advertiser, in a lengthy edi- torial on "The Proposed Park System," had this to say :
"No one, of course, questions the need of a park or a sys- tem of parks in Essex County. Out of 92,000 acres in Essex County, only twenty-five acres are devoted to park purposes and uses ; and as for Newark, with its population of 200,000, it is a fact that it has a smaller park acreage than any city in the United States or Europe of over 100,000 population ! This in itself is a rebuke and a humil- iation. * * There is scarcely any question that the bill presented by the commission which has completed its task in one-fourth the time allotted to it, and with an ex- penditure of less than half the money at its disposal, will become a law. In that case, we sincerely hope that the pres-
59
A CHANGE IN THE CURRENT
ent commission will be reappointed to prosecute the work so well begun."
The Newark Call of March 24, said editorially: "The plan proposed is the best that can be devised under the cir- cumstances. It is a novelty in some respects, as park re- serves, under county control, have not been attempted. The necessities of the popular conditions which prevail in Essex, however, make the plan most desirable. The sites for the parks will, in some cases at least, be in townships which would not dream of such a reservation at their own expense, and the county plan, in any case, will prevent conflict of interest and secure systematic arrangement for care and maintenance as well as location. The scheme is, in short, not only feasible and practical, but is probably the only one that could be carried through."
PARK BOARD'S COURSE COMMENDED.
The Orange Chronicle, one of the most earnest exponents ยท of the park system cause, in an editorial February 16, stated that "A number of improvement societies and public boards throughout the county have passed highly compli- mentary resolutions relative to the work of the Board of Park Commissioners, as shown by the report recently published."
Even the Essex papers printed in foreign languages did not neglect the subject. In La Montagna of March 31, 1895, appeared a plea "For Public Parks," in which, after refer- ring to "the very important question the voters of Essex County will be called upon to decide April 9," and saying "No Italian need be told of the advan- tages and pleasure derived from public gardens," and "that the park scheme is always the poor man's benefactor," it adds: "America is far behind the Old World in the matter of park development, and this county has only twenty-five acres devoted to such uses-a less number than any other community of like population in the world." An interesting and evidently well-meant statement, but quite too flattering as to the European parks
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.