238 FIEST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 



the meeting. In view of the circumstances outlined in the 

 joint committee's letter, above quoted, and the courteous 

 suggestion there made as to clearing up the parkway situa- 

 tion before the East Orange authorities, the non-appearance 

 of the commission, or of any one representing it, occasioned 

 unfavorable comment. As the reply of April 3 had not then 

 been received, no reference to the attitude of the Park 

 Board at that time could be officially made. After a long 

 and heated discussion the railroad ordinance was finally 

 passed on first reading. 



The public had not, however, long to wait before hearing 

 further from at least one of the Park Commission's officials. 

 On April 11, 1902, Counsel J. L. Munn's formal consent 

 for a railroad on Central avenue was filed with the city 

 clerk. It was for 337 28-100 feet frontage on the avenue in 

 East Orange. At last the mask was thrown off. The trac- 

 tion company's representatives and lobbyists significantly 

 referred to the "new consent" as unmistable evidence as to 

 where the Park Board in reality stood on the parkway- 

 railroad question. 



"Actions speak plainer than words," they said, and "if 

 that act doesn't represent what a majority of that board 

 really want, why has Munn been retained all this time, when 

 everybody knew, who knew anything, the interests he really 

 represented in this matter ?" And surely enough, why ? 



The publication almost concurrently, in April, 1902, of 

 the "new statement" and of the "new consent" produced 

 still further confusion and uncertainty. 



The joint committee decided to go right forward, taking 

 the commission at its word, and leaving the opposition and 

 the coming events to demonstrate whether that confidence 

 was justified by the facts. The avenue association com- 

 mittee acted as an executive body. On the passage of the 

 railroad ordinance in East Orange, R. V. Lindabury was 

 retained to test the case in the courts. The previous De- 

 cember (1901), the Court of Errors and Appeals had ren- 

 dered a decision in the "Currie vs. Atlantic City" case, 

 which, in effect, invalidated property owners' consents when 



