250 FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 
was, however, very chary as to making any specific commit- 
ments. On November 11, 1902, he wrote the Park Com- 
mission to know if, “in the event of the ordinance’s becom- 
ing effective, you intend to improve Central avenue west 
from Centre street, it having been rumored that, should the 
avenue be turned over to you, you would not improve it be- 
yond the point mentioned; also is it your intention to open 
up the avenue, in a line from its present terminus at Valley 
road to the top of the mountain?” 
The reply was equally elusive, although the commission 
had, in March, 1901, already formally approved a similar 
ordinance containing the same conditions. The substance 
of the response was that “the commission has not seen the 
proposed ordinance, and before making any statements con- 
cerning it would like to have a copy.” 
PEARLS, MINUS A STRING. 
The sources of public opinion continued to reflect the 
general desire for favorable action on the parkway ordi- 
nance. This sentiment was well expressed in a published. 
letter, written on November 2, 1902, by Monsignor G. H. 
Doane, in which, in referring to the Essex County parks, 
he said: “Little has been done as yet in the direction of 
parkways. We have the parks, but we want to connect 
them ; we have the pearls, but we want to string them, and 
that is what the parkways would do.’ 
Mayor Stetson vetoed the ordinance. The message was 
received by the City Council December 1, 1902, This third 
“hold-up” of the action favored by the public, and as passed 
by the City Council, was, according to the veto, based on 
“two facts which became apparent; one, that your body has 
no power to make the proposed transfer, and, two, that the 
Park Board cannot consent to it. Ideally I think your pro- 
posed action would be very praiseworthy, were it practica- 
ble, but my opinion, as well as that of many other judicious 
people, is, that it is now impossible, for the reasons stated, 
