202 



FIEST COUXTY PARK SYSTEM 



"not to institute proceedings at any time for the purpose of 

 widening such, avenues'' or for "making any assessments/' 

 etc. This clause, the counsel reported he said to the com- 

 mittee, "was probably against public policy and void, and 

 the Park Commission might decide not to accept the care, 

 custody, and control of the avenues with such a provision 

 inserted"; and further stated that he had advised that 

 "there was no such reason for hasty action as to require a 

 decision upon the question by the Orange Common Council 

 at its next meeting." 



The publication of this so-called report brought out a 

 vigorous rejoinder of even greater length from Council- 

 man Stetson, as published in the Call of January 30, 1898. 

 In this reply, after reference to the erroneous "inference 

 that the letter of ^Ir. Munn was perfectly lucid and clear 

 in its replies to City Counsel Davis' letter of inquiries," 

 Mr. Stetson contended that it "was not deemed so by a 

 majority of the members of the Orange council" ; that "it 

 was not until the conference held on the eleventh instant 

 that Mr. Munn gave information which might be deemed 

 adequate"; that "Mr. Munn stated over and over again 

 to the committee that the Park Commission had not tlie 

 power to levy an assessment; but it did not follow from 

 that that no assessment would be levied. The Park Com- 

 mission can go to the courts and ask for the appointment 

 of a commission to lexj assessments. So you see the Park 

 Commission really wouldn't leyj assessments, but there is 

 a wa}^ all right, by which the assessments can, and doubt- 

 less would, be collected. Mr. Munn admitted this frankly, 

 and he did not say that the Park Commission would not 

 take that course." 



The letter then reiterates the position of objection as 

 from one "who voted to refuse the request" of the com- 

 mission for the transfer of the avenue; adding, "I have 

 not as yet seen any good reason for changing the opinion 

 then held," and proceeds to again score a point unfavor- 

 able to an appointive commission. 



Among the City Council members who at that time were 



