CONTEST FOE PAEKWAYS CO^TTINUED 211 



electorate of the county at the spring election, April 21 

 following. 



The same report, of 1897, in referring to the parkways 

 (page 15), also contained a clause which was at once con- 

 strued by many as a sop to the traction interests. It was 

 thus treated by the opposition as another evidence that the 

 Park Commission was not, after all, averse to a "trolley on 

 the avenue," when it officially there stated : "The location 

 of the county parks will induce, no doubt, the rapid transit 

 company to seek ways of approach thereto, and the commis- 

 sion will aid this endeavor so far as, in its judgment, is con- 

 sistent with park treatment and use. Parks must be Inade 

 accessible to the people, and any reasonable plan for rapid 

 transit will be favored by the commission. In fact, almost 

 all the parks are now accessible and by different routes." 



This feature of the commission's report in inserting a 

 "but,'^ an "and" or an "if," became a marked characteristic 

 of its later utterances on the parkway question; and, in- 

 deed, to an extent that was as bewildering to its most loyal 

 friends and supporters as it was encouraging to the opposi- 

 tion, which was steadily and unceasingly making the most 

 of every opportunity to take advantage, either of dissension 

 or uncertainty, to advance the scheme of appropriation of 

 the avenues for railroad uses. This was distinctly the effect 

 in Orange. Councilman Stetson had, at the spring election 

 in 1898, been chosen Mayor. It was currently reported, and 

 not to my knowledge ever denied, that the traction company 

 made an exceedingly liberal contribution then, as afterward, 

 to his "campaign expenses." His prestige as Mayor in op- 

 posing the avenues' transfer was proportionately increased, 

 for now he had the veto power, which, under the system of 

 government in this country, whether with the President, 

 the Governor of a State, or the Mayor of a city, is a 

 powerful leverage. 



The transfer ordinance continued to slumber in posses- 

 sion of the Street Committee. The pleadings by press and 

 -public urging further action by the Park Commission con- 

 toue^. On July 27, 1898, 2>Iayor Stetson sent a special 



