216 FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 
Counsel Munn came to the rescue by increasing the pending 
uncertainty in the accredited statement: “The question 
whether these avenues will ever become parkways is still 
open. No action has ever been taken by the Board of Free- 
holders, whose consent is necessary to establish the control 
of the Park Commission.” He was then, as since, the coun- 
sel of that board. 
MORE OBJECTIONS. 
The activities of the corporation agents and attorneys 
continued. They were not in the least abashed or their 
efforts abated, and at the November meeting of the Orange 
Council, Mayor Stetson’s veto of the transfer ordinance was 
presented. It was a remarkable document. He thought 
“it unwise for the city to part with its contro] of the ave- 
nues until it is definitely settled in what manner they are 
to be treated,” and “unwise to strike out of the ordinance 
the words now or at any time thereafter,” also “unwise to 
approve the ordinance until the regulations are agreed upon 
between the Common Council and the Park Commission, 
and until action on the proposed transfer is taken by the 
Board of Chosen Freeholders.” 
A long and rambling statement then followed, but the 
gist of the alleged reasons for the veto is given in the quo- 
tations just noted. These “reasons” were promptly analyzed 
and their speciousness shown in both the editorial and news 
columns of the daily papers. Commissioner Bramhall had 
clearly defined to the councilmen themselves what the use of 
the avenues as parkways would be. It was “a waste of 
words,” as The Chronicle expressed it, “to dwell upon the 
now or hereafter” clause objection. The very point the 
freeholders had ostensibly, all along contended for was that 
the municipalities directly affected should first express their 
preference in the matter of transfer. 
The Journal contended “that the Park Commission on 
one side and the Mayor and Common Council on the other” 
were both “to blame for the result,” 
