260 FIRST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 
able action by the authorities. The ordinance, which was 
a copy of the “Cuddy ordinance,” passed November 10, 
1902, and previously approved by the Park Commission, 
was, without opposition, passed on first reading at the coun- 
cil meeting October 5, and finally passed by a vote of 9 to 
4 on November 9, 1903. 
About this time a sufficient number of votes in the City 
Council were unequivocally pledged to pass the ordinance 
over the Mayor’s veto, should the usual tactics of the execu- 
tive be adopted in his agtion on this measure. The Mayor, 
presumably having a knowledge of what was going on, had 
previously begun to hedge and fence for position, so to 
speak. On May 15, 1903, he had written the Park Com- 
mission again, asking, in the event of the transfer ordi- 
nance becoming effective, did the board “intend to improve 
Central avenue west from Centre street.” 
The commission’s reply of May 20, 1903, was as follows: 
“Dear Sir—Your letter with regard to Park and Central 
avenues was laid before the commission at its meeting yes- 
terday, and I was directed to say that the questions con- 
cerning Central avenue were thoroughly discussed in the 
last annual report of the commission, a copy of which I 
transmit under separate cover. Since that time questions 
relating to Central avenue have been and are now before 
the courts awaiting adjudication. The commission, there- 
fore, has given no further consideration to that subject.” 
On November 10, the Mayor again wrote that he had 
before him “for approval or disapproval an ordinance pro- 
viding for the transfer of Park and Central avenues” ; that 
he enclosed a copy of the document, adding: 
“Before acting upon the ordinance I desire to obtain 
the views of the Park Commission upon it, as to its ac- 
ceptability in its present form, ete. I am also desirous of 
learning whether, in the event of the ordinances going into 
effect, the commission would improve Central avenue in 
this city west of Centre street.” 
The letter also asked for an early reply. 
The Park Board’s reply of November 12, after referring 
