472 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
visers.’ ” These authorities were : Olmsted, Olmsted 
and Eliot, Nathan F. Barrett, Ehrenberg & Webster, 
John Bogart and Gray and Blaisdell. They were in- 
structed to act entirely independent of each other, and 
being provided with a county map and available infor- 
mation, each was to lay out a system of parks and park- 
ways as best met the county conditions as to popula- 
tion, etc. The necessary expenses in making the in- 
vestigations were met by the board, but the compensa- 
tion was a fixed fee, which, as the arrangement was 
in a measure competitive and might possibly lead to 
a future engagement, was in each case very reason- 
able. The five plans and full reports by this method 
cost the commission $2,372.13, an exceedingly small 
outlay. 
By December 6, 1894, the plans of the commission 
had so far matured that a committee was appointed to 
consult with counsel for the purpose of preparing a 
charter for a succeeding commission. 
In the preparation for this charter for a permanent 
commission two questions had arisen and had been con- 
sidered seriously; one as to whether said commission 
“for establishing and maintaining the park svstem 
should be elective or appointive, and if appointive, in 
what official or court or courts the appointing power 
should be vested.” The second question was ; “Should 
provision be made for directly assessing the cost of the 
lands for the parks and the improvements, or both ; or, 
should a portion of the cost be provided for by a gen- 
eral tax, according to the ratables upon the county as 
a whole.” 
After careful discussion of the first problem, and 
mainly under the before-expressed suggestion that “fit- 
ness” should be the pertinent qualification, it was de- 
cided in favor of the appointive system, and after 
further considering the matter of appointing power it 
was settled that the single court appointment was 
preferable. These decisions were reached after due 
deliberation on the conditions facing the investigators 
and might not be expedient for other localities. 
The financial proposition was an interesting and 
yet troublesome one, due also in large measure to local 
circumstances. As the writer says ; “Almost every 
scheme of providing for the cost of park lands and the 
improvements was considered,” including “direct as- 
sessments on contiguous property in full or in part; 
partial assessment on adjacent lands; and for the entire 
cost being provided in the general tax levy upon the 
whole district or municipality.” Objections to all 
propositions were strongly in evidence, and the park 
charter was finally drawn under the reluctant conclu- 
sion, “that the expense of acquiring, developing and 
maintaining the parks of the system should be borne by 
the whole county by issuing county bonds, and through 
the tax levy.” 
The parkways were provided for under the assess- 
nient-for-benefits plan, and in the proposed new charter 
the commission was given the right to appropriate for a 
parkway any existing highway, after securing the con- 
currence of the common council or other body having 
authority over highways'. 
The question of the amount of funds to be provided 
under the new law was finally decided at $2,500,000. 
On February 26, 1895, the act was passed by the 
senate by a vote of 14 to o, and on the following day 
by the House on a vote of 50 to o, and the bill carried 
with it an appropriation of $2,500,000, “to be approved 
by the people, and to be expended by a board of five 
men appointed by the Supreme Court judge. It is 
well said that this “was one of the most remarkable 
and unique pieces of State legislation which up to that 
time had occurred.” When the question was submit- 
ted to the people of the county the law was approved 
by a majority of 8,321. 
On April 19, 1895, the first commission met for the 
last time and audited the financial statement which 
showed total expenditures of $4,474.25 ; this had been 
received from the free-holders, and the account was 
dosed. 
It is doubtful if any body of men organized for a 
public undertaking has ever left a better record of 
devotion to duty or of work accomplished. We shall 
see next how the new board managed the people’s 
commission. 
(To be cpiitiiiiicd.) 
HOW TO BUILD A STONE WALL. 
A correspondent of the American Architect sends tp 
that paper the accompanying picture to show the right 
and the wrong way to build a rough stone wall. He 
writes : “The section of wall to the right of the cross 
was built by an Italian workman. The stones are beau- 
tifully fitted together — an example of true Cyclopean 
1 
THE RIGHT AND THE WRONG WAY TO BUILD A WALL. 
masonry. The wall to the left of the cross was built 
by workmen of another nationality and is a good exam- 
ple of how not to build a wall.” 
