ANOTHER APPROPRIATION 289 
undertaking. There were only 15,888 votes cast for the 
bill, and 12,248 against it, or a total majority of only 3,640. 
The question as to the constitutionality of the law as 
related to the appointive commission feature was brought 
forward by the refusal of Judge John A. Blair, of Hudson 
County, to appoint a park commission for that county 
under a law similar to the Essex County park act, and 
applicable to Hudson County, having been passed by the 
Legislature about this time. The Hudson County act, how- 
ever, provided for the appointment of the commissioners by 
the presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and 
divided the party participation in the management, 
by making the number of commissioners four—two to be 
chosen from each of the leading political parties. 
Both the Supreme Court, and later, the Court of Errors 
and Appeals, June 15, 1903, upheld the appointive feature 
of the park charters as being constitutional. 
On October 1, 1903, $500,000 of the four per cent gold 
bonds, authorized by the last appropriation law, were sold 
by the freeholders to the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance 
Company at the (to the company) favorable price of a 103 
per cent basis. On October 12 the proceeds and the small 
premium received for the bonds were paid over to the Park 
Commission. On January 31, 1905, a requisition was made 
for the balance of the $1,000,000 appropriated, and, on 
February 3, the remaining $500,000 of bonds were sold to 
J. D. Everett & Co. and Farson, Leach & Co. on their joint 
bid of $107,273. The $536,375 proceeds were soon after- 
ward received by the commission. 
On March 28 the commission took up the consideration 
of estimates and data, as previously prepared, for the ex- 
penditure of this last $500,000. ‘The matter is still under 
consideration. On July 1, 1905, there was in round num- 
bers about $700,000 on hand, but against this amount 
there were liabilities and commitments to quite an amount, 
and more being from time to time determined. 
