92 FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 
I again wrote Mr. Shepard on November 22, 1895: 
“Our park enterprise was laid out and the preliminary 
work carried out on broad lines; successful because sec- 
tionalism was avoided and the pledge made that the money 
was to be expended for the benefit of all the county, rather 
than with special reference to particular localities. 
“The majority sentiment at the meeting yesterday focal- 
ized directly on the negative side of those principles. No 
matter what arguments or facts favor the successfuloriginal 
scheme, it must now be superseded by a local policy plan, 
as distinct in its aims and objects and as much at variance 
with its former methods and policy as can possibly be. 
“Whether the cable tract is or is not taken is not more 
vital, it seems to me, than this breach of faith with the 
public—the change of policy with its natural sequence, and 
the question of one’s duty and obligation under such cir- 
cumstances. 
“Tf the change be made, it will be extremely expensive. 
It will tend soon or later to disintegrate any com- 
mission or public body entrusted to carry out a great public 
improvement, as surely as local and personal jealousies sep- 
arate individuals and communities. If our enterprise can 
be anything of a success under such a load it will be a mere 
matter of good fortune. 
“Should not this matter of policy be outlined and agreed 
upon before we go any further?” 
Again, December 1, I wrote: “If the majority plan is 
adopted, the trust obligation we are under to the public is 
ignored and: the experience of other local commissioners 
unheeded. Feeling as I do that nothing that you or I or 
any individual can do will prevent the final outcome and 
result of these two fundamental policies, the thought still 
uppermost in my mind is as to our duty, and the best. course 
under the circumstances.” 
But further argument was useless. The work of the 
commission in establishing the lines and acquiring the land 
