EXPERIENCES—RECOMMENDATIONS) 291 
absolute power of appointment is conferred upon one court 
official, and an appointive official at that, has been to create 
conditions akin to those of a close corporation. This result 
was never intended nor contemplated by those who origi- 
nally suggested this plan. Under the usages of this 
system a park commissioner may be repeatedly chosen from 
reasons of personal or political favoritism, or by the desire 
of corporate or special interests to perpetuate appointments 
and conditions inimical to the public interests, and thus 
tend to continue in authority those neither competent nor 
well qualified to fill the position, and to nullify the original 
intent, and to undermine the fundamental structure upon 
which this plan of creating and continuing county park 
boards was based. 
The plan was cordially approved by the people and by 
the Legislature in 1894-5, because the objects sought 
strongly appealed to the press, the electorate and the public 
generally. Were the questions involved, in the light of 
experience, again submitted to the Legislature and to the 
people of Essex County, there can be little doubt that the 
verdict would be emphatically against the continuation of 
the present system. 
Experience in all such matters is an excellent teacher, 
and it may be of interest to note here the methods of 
selecting park commissioners and the result in other places 
where large public park undertakings are well established. 
OTHER LARGE PARK SYSTEMS. 
In most instances the control of the parks is treated as 
a municipal function, similar to other city departments, 
with commissioners either appointed by the Mayor or the 
City Council, or elected the same as other officials at the 
regular elections. Some of the States, like Massachusetts, 
have a general park act, providing for the selection and 
‘appointment of park commissioners by the mayors in cities, 
and for their election in the usual manner in the towns. 
