THE PARKWAYS is’ 
county would be prohibitory, even were our appropriation 
double what it is,” I added: 
“The situation in the Newark Board of Works brings 
this question to the fore, whether we will or no. We have 
either to meet it, or evade it. A hesitating policy will, I 
believe, place our board in a secondary position, alike ob- 
jectionable and disadvantageous. An uncertain position 
before the Newark local board, or elsewhere, will neither 
command respect for our opinions nor help public confi- 
dence in our official action. 
“For these reasons J am in favor of prompt and de- 
cisive action on this question. I would make such action 
broad, comprehensive, yet definite and concise. 
“Such a resolution as the form enclosed, will settle the 
question as to the attitude of our board on a very impor- 
tant matter, in which the people of the whole county are 
interested. The people have confidence in the commission ; 
they are anticipating a creditable system of parks and 
parkways, and will stand by the commission if we show 
by our acts that we are competent to execute the trust in 
laying out the park system.” 
A PUBLIC DEMAND FOR INFORMATION. 
When I ascertained the actual situation in East Orange, 
in December, 1896, I took up the matter again, both at 
the Park Board meetings and personally with my col- 
leagues. January 2, 1897, I wrote each of the members 
as follows: “The matters referred to in the Stanley letter 
are so direct and important that our reply, it seems to 
me, should be equally explicit, if we are to retain the con- 
fidence of our friends and the public generally in dealing 
with the questions under consideration. The form of let- 
ter suggested by Mr. Munn will not, in my judgment, an- 
swer the inquiries or allay the agitation in the public mind 
on the matters referred to.” 
On January 16, 1897, I again wrote Mr. Murphy: “The 
governing bodies, press and public throughout the Oranges 
all appear to demand a clearer statement as to the atti- 
