200 



FIEST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 



question.'' Events^ as tliey afterward transpired, duly em- 

 phasized this statement. 



In December, 1897, through the active interest of lead- 

 ing citizens of Orange, in co-operation with some of the 

 members of the Common Council who had become earn- 

 estly favorable to the passage of the transfer ordinance, the 

 matter was again taken up. An effort was made to fore- 

 stall and answer the objections that had been raised against 

 the previous transfer ordinance. The opposition had be- 

 come extremely solicitous (?) for fear the property owners 

 in and adjacent to the avenues might be assessed for spe- 

 cial benefits, although none of the property owners resid- 

 ing on or owning property there had made that objection. 

 A clause was, therefore, inserted in the new ordinance, 

 "that the Park Commission shall not institute proceedings 

 that will result in the condemnation of rights of property 

 owners in their land, or levy any assessment for any im- 

 provements made to the avenues." Thomas A. Davis was 

 then the city counsel. He advised that the proviso was 

 sufhciently clear and explicit. Thus it seemed to the aver- 

 age reader and those favorable to the parkways; and, at 

 the Orange council meeting January 3, 1898, the new 

 ordinance was passed by a unanimous vote of 16 to 0. But 

 the anxiety of the opposition for the safety of the property 

 owners from assessments was not appeased. A new flank 

 movement was conceived. This is the way it was executed. 



AN INTERESTING CONFERENCE. 



At the Park Board meeting January 11, a communica- 

 tion was received from the Street Committee of the 

 City Council advising that there was to be a meeting of 

 the committee that same evening to consider the avenue 

 transfer question. It was decided that Counsel Munn 

 should attend. He was present. He was accompanied by 

 Engineer Cole to meet the city conferees of the Street Com- 

 mittee, President Snyder of the council and Counsel Davis. 

 The reader must draw his own inferences as to what oc- 

 curred in that meeting, for the reports were then, as since, 



