238 FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 
the meeting. In view of the circumstances outlined in the 
joint committee’s letter, above quoted, and the courteous 
suggestion there made as to clearing up the parkway situa- 
tion before the East Orange authorities, the non-appearance 
of the commission, or of any one representing it, occasioned 
unfavorable comment. As the reply of April 3 had not then 
been received, no reference to the attitude of the Park 
Board at that time could be officially made. After a long 
and heated discussion the railroad ordinance was finally 
passed on first reading. 
The public had not, however, long to wait before hearing 
further from at least one of the Park Commission’s officials. 
On April 11, 1902, Counsel J. L. Munn’s formal consent 
for a railroad on Central avenue was filed with the city 
clerk. It was for 337 28-100 feet frontage on the avenue in 
East Orange. At last the mask was thrown off. The trac- 
tion company’s representatives and lobbyists significantly 
referred to the “new consent” as unmistable evidence as to: 
where the Park Board in reality stood on the parkway- 
railroad question. 
“Actions speak plainer than words,” they said, and “if 
that act doesn’t represent what a majority of that board 
really want, why has Munn been retained all this time, when 
everybody knew, who knew anything, the interests he really 
represented in this matter?” And surely enough, why? 
~The publication almost concurrently, in April, 1902, of 
the “new statement” and of the “new consent” produced 
still further confusion and uncertainty. 
The joint committee decided to go right forward, taking 
the commission at its word, and leaving the opposition and 
the coming events to demonstrate whether that confidence 
was justified by the facts. The avenue association com- 
mittee acted as an executive body. On the passage of the 
railroad ordinance in East Orange, R. V. Lindabury was 
retained to test the case in the courts. The previous De- 
cember (1901), the Court of Errors and Appeals had ren- 
dered a decision in the “Currie vs. Atlantic City” case, 
which, in effect, invalidated property owners’ consents when 
