CONTEST FOR PARKWAYS CONTINUED 213 
ard and Peck, and Counsel Munn of the park department. 
George Lethbridge, president of the council, presided. 
The statement was conciliatory and explanatory, and be- 
gan: “If there are any differences between the boards in 
conference here to-night, I am sure they are due to a mis- 
understanding and not to cross purposes. Both are public 
bodies seeking public good, and the action we desire the 
council to take is, we think, decidedly for the welfare of 
the city, as much as for the welfare of the county. Indeed, 
our request seems so little for you to grant that we are sur- 
prised that the necessity for it should arise.’ 
Assurances were then given that the commission “does 
not desire you to lessen one particle the municipal control 
you now exercise” or “to abridge in the slightest the rights 
of the property holders. We merely wish to be substituted 
for the Board of Chosen Freeholders, because the Park 
Commission is the only county board that has authority to 
beautify these thoroughfares and raise them above the level 
of ordinary streets. We ask you simply the privilege of 
adorning the streets of your city at county expense, and 
therefore I say it is surprising that any reluctance on your 
part should exist.” 
Then the commission’s previous official statement, as to 
the non-intention to widen the avenues or attempt to assess 
benefits, was reiterated. Answer was also made to the claims 
of the traction company’s representatives that the transfer 
would give the commission the right to at once permit trol- 
leys on the avenues, in these words: “It has been asserted 
that we could turn over the parkways to the trolley. On 
the contrary, the consent of the council and of the property 
owners would be necessary as now, and our action is 
final only in matters relating entirely to decorative 
development.” 
An informal exchange of views followed. Commissioner 
Shepard said that “small parks were more in the nature of 
play-grounds than they were of parks, and that, as such, 
they came under the control of the municipalities and could 
not be ineluded in a general scheme of the entire couuty.” 
