288 riEST COUNTY PARK SYSTEM 



mally before them. The question at that time was whether 

 they should ask for one, one and a half, or two millions 

 of dollars. On March 18, 1902, Senator J. H. Bacheller 

 introduced in the Senate a bill of similar text to the pre- 

 vious appropriation act, but fixing the amount of bonds to 

 be issued at $1,000,000. The bill was rushed through two 

 readings in the Senate the same day. The Park Commis- 

 sion, the New England Society, and, I believe, one or two 

 other civic organizations, favored the bill. The general 

 public sentiment, as it appeared reflected in the press, was 

 mainly unfavorable. 



The objections to an appointive commission were again 

 forcibly brought out. There were few, if any, arguments 

 put forward in the bill's favor. It contained, as had the 

 previous bills, a referendum clause. Before the November 

 election there was much outspoken comment and severe 

 criticism. The Newark News of October 16, 1902, said, 

 editorially : "As to increasing the bonded debt of the county 

 another million of dollars for the improvement of the 

 parks, the News believes the decision of the voters will be, 

 and should be, in the negative." The Call said : "Give the 

 people a rest." The Daily Advertiser, while the bill was 

 before the Legislature, March 21, paid its respects to the 

 proposed law in these words: "The most audacious de- 

 mand made recently upon the people of this community 

 is that of the Park Commission for $1,000,000, with which 

 to complete its park system.^' Reference is then made in 

 the article to the first commission's "promise to complete 

 for $2,500,000, when the commission was instituted sev- 

 eral years ago." Later the commission came before the 

 people and said, in effect: "We have spent all of 3^our 

 money in such a manner that it will be necessary to spend 

 $1,500,000 more for you to get any good out of a large 

 part of the park system." 



The bill passed the Legislature, and was also approved 

 March 28, 1902. The comparatively small majority and 

 the large adverse vote on November 2 reflected the lack of 

 sympathy and support of the people of the county^ in the 



