236 FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 
great central parkway of the county accessible to the mass 
of people; indeed, it has been freely claimed by some that 
you are ready to abandon that feature of the parkway plans, 
and that the avenue should be given over to commercial 
traffic—in other words, to the trolley.” 
The letter then refers to the frequency and persistency 
of these reports; of the embarrassment of “the friends of the 
parks ;” to how “the public at large, and, indeed, every one 
(excepting possibly the trolley managers),” had long before 
considered the parkway question “definitely settled;” and 
adding that as “representing a large constituency” the com- 
mittee wished “to know at the earliest possible moment, 
whether there has been any change in your board on this 
question, and what position in the future interest of the 
parks and parkways should, under the circumstances, be 
taken ;” also adding: 
“We are quite aware that the board has now no money 
to use on the parkways. We equally appreciate the proposi- 
tion that the park and parkway developments are of concern 
now, and will be in all the future. We are content with ten- 
tative steps. You will get further appropriations, and the 
plans already desired may be carried later. The avenues 
can be held indefinitely if your position remains firm in 
your adhesion to your own plans. 
“We have stated to you briefly the conditions, and write 
thus frankly as we consider that you should know the facts, 
and have confidence that you will meet the situation in a 
way to warrant the continued support of all, who, like the 
undersigned and the organizations we represent, have been 
loyal to the county park and parkway project from its 
inception. 
“Should one of your board, especially Mr. Shepard, ap- 
pear before the East Orange City Council, reaffirming the 
position of the commission as to parkways, and thus set at. 
rest the rumors and reports that are sapping public confi- 
dence in the movement, it would have a most excellent 
effect.” 
The following, under date of April 3, 1902, was the reply: 
