TOY OFFICIALS 245 
The demon of corporate greed was in the saddle, and the 
mandate had gone forth that the franchise should be 
granted. And so it was; and the case in the courts went on. 
UNFAVORABLE PRESS COMMENTS. 
In the meanwhile the drift of public opinion was re- 
flected in the press. On June 14, 1902, the Newark News, 
editorially, said: “Certainly it was not in response to any 
public sentiment that both the East Orange Council and the 
Board of Freeholders granted a franchise in perpetuity and 
upon the trolley company’s own terms;” also, “It is now 
pretty well assured, however, that the park commissioners 
have practically abandoned the idea of embracing Central 
avenue in the park system.” 
The Orange Chronicle said: “Had the Essex County 
Board of Freeholders come out flatfooted before its meet- 
ing, last Thursday afternoon, and told the members of the 
Joint Committee on Parkways that it was not going to pay 
the slightest attention, any way, to whatever arguments 
might be brought against its concurrence in the action of 
the East Orange City Council, it would have won at least a 
reputation for honesty, if for nothing else. Happily the 
municipal and county authorities are not the court of last 
resort in this appeal.” Individual criticism was even more 
caustic, both in the public prints and in private conversa- 
tion. 
The Park Board meeting of June 17 was devoted to 
parkways. The “counsel was requested to prepare a proper 
petition to the municipalities requesting the care, custody, 
and control of Park avenue, together with a statement of 
our position.” The following day this communication was 
sent to the Board of Freeholders and the authorities of 
Orange: 
“Newark, N. J., June 18, 1902. 
“Gentlemen—The Essex County Park Commission, rec- 
ognizing the need of at least one parkway located in a cen- 
tral part of the county, and running westerly from the city 
of Newark, renews its application to be permitted to make 
