THE PARKWAYS 191 
reach their business or employment in Newark day by day 
in the same short time and at the same low cost.” 
As these were almost the identical “arguments” that 
were then being used to secure a franchise by the traction 
company’s representatives in East Orange, and as used 
before the freeholders, two years before, for the same pur- 
pose, and as it seemed as though any person in reading 
such a statement might have—as of some of the utterances 
on the same subject by the commission later—some doubt 
as to whether the commission really wanted the parkways, 
in preference to having the trolley on the avenues, there 
was immediate objection. Even Commissioner Murphy 
thought the statement needed modification. As I was de- 
cided that such a reply would increase the feeling of in- 
definite uncertainty as to the attitude of the commission, 
tather than alleviate it, I there wrote out and presented 
the following : 
“Resolved, That a full and explanatory statement of 
the position of this board relative to the care, custody, and 
control of Central and Park avenues be transmitted to 
the governing bodies directly interested.” 
Commissioners Murphy and Shepard at once objected 
to the resolution. Finally, after a lengthy informal dis- 
cussion, the following reply, as a compromise answer to 
the Stanley committee’s inquiries, was agreed upon, and 
it was promptly sent to Chairman Stanley. 
REPLY TO STANLEY COMMITTEE. 
“The object of the Park Commission in asking for the 
care, custody, and control of Central and Park avenues 
was to incorporate them in a system of public parks, and 
avoid the necessity of creating new and costly parkways 
to reach the mountain parks. They recognize the fact 
that these avenues are already great public thoroughfares, 
and they do not propose to interfere with the existing 
rights of property owners and municipal governments, but 
to put the avenues on a more decided parkway footing 
than can be done as long as they may be outside of the 
