48 



MRST COUFTY PARK SYSTEM 



uses, while not lost sight of, was not fully anticipated, as 

 it did not seem probable that the insatiable desire for the 

 spoils of public franchise exploitation had yet reached the 

 point of utter disregard of public rights and a determinar 

 tion to push through the public property appropriation 

 scheme at all hazards that afterward followed. 



Another question which the first commission found diffi- 

 cult to determine w^as as to the amount of the appropriation 

 that should go into the report and be provided for in the 

 new law. Next to the matter of method in providing for 

 the selection of the next commission, and of determining 

 how the necessary funds for the undertaking should be ob- 

 tained, this was considered of paramount importance. At 

 first the amount suggested in our deliberations was $1,000,- 

 000. This was soon increased by half a million. Later 

 $2,000,000 it was deemed should be the limit. 



Finally, when the different factors in the situation had 

 been carefully gone over — ^the needs for a comprehensive 

 park and parkway system adapted to, and creditable to, the 

 w^hole county; the probable increased cost of future land 

 acquirement after the parks were once established ; the large 

 expense involved in the reclamation and parklike embellish- 

 ment of the ^^swamp^' lands, such as the lower portions of 

 the Branch Brook tract and the triangle tract in Orange; 

 the demands that would naturally follow for enlarged parks 

 and the inevitably unforeseen contingencies — it was finally 

 determined that the amount should be $2,500,000. 



This was with the distinct understanding, as stated in the 

 report soon afterward issued in February, 1895, that "the 

 amount of money which the commission feels is needed for 

 this undertaking, $2,500,000, may seem large for practi- 

 cally a single investment in that direction, but it must be 

 appreciated that it is for a system of parks in its entirety." 



This was an equivocal, definite statement, and all of the 

 members of the commission thus considered it. I believed 

 then, as I have believed since, that it was in the nature of 

 a trust obligation between the commission, the people, and 

 the Legislature, and that this clearly defined obligation 



