DEPARTMENT OF PARKS. 59 



A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 



This was not altogether satisfactory to Mr. Flynn. Through 

 his business associate, Frederick C. Cocheu, on October 9th he 

 obtained a temporary injunction from Justice William J. Gaynor 

 of the Supreme Court, restraining a further purchase of lands, 

 alleging as a reason the unconstitutionality of the act authorizing 

 the purchase. The trial of the issue occurred before the Hon. 

 Willard Bartlett, and again the course pursued was vindicated. 

 The learned judge in his decision says : 



" This is a taxpayer's suit to enjoin Frank Squier, as Com- 

 missioner of Parks, from taking any further proceedings to pur- 

 chase for park purposes the tract of land in the adjoining County 

 of Queens, known as the Richmond Hill property. The only 

 ground upon which the plaintiff proceeds is the allegation that 

 the statute under which the Commissioner asserts the right to 

 acquire this property is unconstitutional. There is no charge or 

 suggestion of fraud, corruption, or wasteful expenditure. The 

 statute in question is Chapter 461 of the Laws of 1892, which is 

 entitled ' An Act for the establishment and government of a 

 public park or parks in the County of Kings, or adjacent thereto, 

 and providing that the same shall be a public work of the 

 County of Kings, and to authorize said county to provide the 

 means therefor by the issue of bonds.' The first objection made 

 to the validity of this act is that the Legislature cannot compel a 

 county to incur an indebtedness for a park without its consent. 



" The answer to this point is that the county appears to 

 acquiesce in the command of the Legislature, instead of objecting 

 to it or restraining it. 



" The Board of Supervisors by a local enactment, set out at 

 length in the defendant's papers, has recognized the Commis- 

 sioner as an officer properly charged by law with the duty of 

 establishing parks for the benefit of the county, and at its 

 expense. This is pretty clear evidence that the burden is not 

 being imposed upon the county against its will. Furthermore, 

 no one in its behalf, either here or anywhere else, seems ever to 

 have opposed the project. 



" Under these circumstances the case cannot be regarded as 

 one of compulsion, and the Michigan authorities, cited by the 

 learned counsel for the plaintiff, are not applicable (Board of Park 

 Com. vs. Common Council of Detroit, 28th Michigan, 228 ; Park 

 Com. vs. Mayor, 29th Michigan, 343). 



"The second objection is that the act of 1892 is unconstitu- 

 tional because it attempts to create an indebtedness which is not 

 incurred for county purposes. 



