PEELIMINAEY WORK COMPLETED 



55 



public funds. This large sum was to be expended as a board 

 of five men to be appointed by the court should determine. 

 The conditions for raising the money were arbitrary, indeed 

 peremptory. The disposition of the funds was unrestricted 

 and wholly discretionary with the board when appointed. 

 The matter of appointment, too, was left entirely within 

 the discretion of the Supreme Court official in naming the 

 commission. 



In view of all these conditions, that such a bill should 

 pass without objection or a negative vote, called forth much 

 comment. It has been stated by those conversant with such 

 matters that the passage of that bill in view of the then 

 existing circumstances — the amount of appropriation of 

 public moneys, etc. — was one of the most remarkable and 

 unique pieces of State legislation which up to that time had 

 occurred. 



In Governor Werts's message of January 8, 1895, ap- 

 peared a complimentary reference to the park movement in 

 Essex County, and to the work of the commission thus far. 

 He had also transmitted to the Legislature the commis- 

 sion's report after it had been sent to Judge Depue. It 

 was, therefore, a matter of public record that he was in 

 favor of further legislation toward the objects sought, and 

 on March 5 he approved the second park bill, now Chapter 

 XCL. of the laws of 1895. 



The affairs of the first park commission now worked 

 rapidly to a close. Early in April it was decided by the 

 commission to bring the park subject as far as practicable 

 before the people prior to the election on April 9. At the 

 meeting of April 15 it was shown from the official canvass, 

 as certified by the county clerk, that, in that election, the 

 park law had been approved by a large majority. In 'NeYi- 

 ark the vote was 11,853 for the bill and 9,330 against, or a 

 majority of 2,523 in favor of it. In Orange 1,848 was re- 

 ported for, to 294 against it ; East Orange, 1,474 in favor of,' 

 to 305 against; Montclair, 871 for, 121 against. In other 

 towns and boroughs the vote was equally favorable, making 

 the ma|ority in the county for the law 8,321, 



