A LEGISLATIVE TRAVESTY av1 
mouths of both the commissioners and members of the com- 
mittee that had never been uttered, and placing the whole 
subject in such a false light—that the committee at once 
wrote the president of the commission referring to the facts, 
and adding: “Whatever views yourself and your associates 
may entertain on those matters, the giving out for publica- 
tion of such a misleading statement as the one in question 
would seem to call for prompt action and correction, due 
alike to the public, to you, to the conferees, the joint com- 
mittee and the organizations they represent. Both the 
tone and erroneous statements of the article make mani- 
fest a purpose for giving out such a statement, the tone 
and meaning of which should be gratifying to those oppos- 
ing Central avenue for a parkway and making special ef- 
forts to obtain the use of the avenue for commercial 
purposes.” 
COMMITTEE’S LETTER IGNORED. 
No acknowledgment or reply to that communication was 
received by the committee, although the commission’s at- 
tention was again called to the matter April 25, in which 
letter of inquiry was added: “You no doubt noticed the 
response of those interests to whom the boquet referred 
to was thrown, viz.: in the billingsgate of abuse of the 
commission from the Public Service attorney, at the meet- 
ing in East Orange last Monday evening.” 
The correction of the false report referred to was never 
made. No representative of the commission appeared be- 
fore the East Orange City Council.. No communica- 
tion from the Park Board was received when, at the meet- 
ing April 18, 1904, the new trolley ordinance came up for 
action there. That meeting was a lively one. For nearly 
four hours the contest over the avenue was waged. Matters 
were at high tension. Preparations for the struggle had 
been going on for weeks. The meeting was in. Common- 
wealth Hall. Lawyers A. J. Baldwin, F. W. Fort and L. 
D, H. Gilmour represented the traction company. G. 8. 
