House and Garden 
express purpose of minimizing the chances of 
failure in the execution of the plan—completely 
reversed. And, in that enterprise, a new principle 
and prerogative was then and there established, 
with two-hfths of the board of new material, one 
new member an active and ambitious politician, 
both representing large corporation interests—men 
who had had nothing whatever to do with the 
formulative plans or the work of the first commis¬ 
sion, and who were not conversant with the causes 
that had led to the popular success of the under¬ 
taking up to that time. 
Former Policy Reversed. Whatever may have been 
the intentions of the court, this reversal of policy 
was the practical effect, as was conclusively shown 
at almost the first meeting of the new commis¬ 
sion and has been more fully demonstrated since. 
Two of these three commissioners, now placed 
in control of the board, who had lust received 
their appointment and who then, for the first time, 
came into the park enterprise, all made and created, 
with the ^2,500,000 to expend, were lifelong “ always 
to be depended upon” Republicans, and were 
directly installed as officers at the request of the 
court. 
In this record of the park undertaking—the 
truth of which will stand long after all of us engaged 
in its work and development thus far shall have 
passed to the beyond—not wishing to do the memory 
of judge Depue or any living person any injustice, 
I will here state, that, while the judge might not 
have intended by this action to usurp powers that 
did not rightfully or legally belong to him, or to 
the office he was then administering, I am just 
as firmly convinced that such was the fact. 
The very first section of the law under which 
he was acting, “Chapter XCI., Laws of 1895,’' 
distinctly provides that “every such board shall 
annually choose from among its members a presi¬ 
dent, vice-president and treasurer, and appoint a 
clerk or secretary, and such other officers and em¬ 
ployes as it may deem necessary to carryout the 
purposes of this act.” 
If that clause does not clearly enough leave the 
selection of officers solely as a prerogative of the 
board to determine, and with equal clearness leave 
only the selection of the commissioners with the 
court, what language could be employed to express 
such meaning ? If the judge, under this law, could 
assume to determine and direct by an expressed 
“wish” or otherwise, who the officers should be, 
why could he not with equal right or authority 
decide who the secretary, counsel, or any other 
officer or employe should be 
I do not think that at the moment when the 
expression as to the judge’s wishes was made, or 
during the brief discussion that followed, any of 
the commissioners thought of the clause in the 
charter above quoted. And I have also the gen¬ 
erous disposition toward Judge Depue’s memory 
to believe that, in the extraordinary pressure brought 
to bear upon him regarding the appointments he 
had overlooked it or possibly may have never read 
it. There was, however, at least one of the com¬ 
missioners present at that meeting who knew, with¬ 
out a shadow of doubt, that it certainly never had 
been the intention in framing that law or the pre¬ 
ceding park act, to lodge with the presiding justice 
of the Essex Circuit of the Supreme Court any 
power whatever beyond naming the commissioners 
who were to be entrusted with the park under¬ 
taking. With that appointive power securely 
placed in the court by legislative edict, an officially 
expressed “wish” in such a matter as the selection 
also of officers, may, in the absence of counter¬ 
acting influences or advices, be construed, as it 
was intended to be and was in this instance con¬ 
strued, to have almost the force of a mandate. The 
effect of that action has had a great influence in 
shaping the affairs of the Park Commission down 
to the present time, and was one of the causes that 
a little later brought a sharp turn in the rapid¬ 
flowing current of Essex County park affairs. 
The question as to who should be secretary of 
the new board was soon determined by the appoint¬ 
ment of the former secretary, Alonzo Church. 
Then came the settlement of two questions, the 
solution of which practically constructed a dam 
across the heretofore straight and smooth course 
of the park movement, and effectually turned to 
one side, and almost back upon itself, the current, 
in an entirely reverse direction from that taken 
all through the work and life of the first commission. 
Policy in Selecting Parks. In public matters, 
as in other affairs of life, there are certain general 
principles which with reasonable certainty fore¬ 
shadow ultimate results, much as, under the appli¬ 
cation of the axiomatic rules of science, like causes 
produce like results. Anticipating that park mak¬ 
ing on a large scale might involve these principles, 
the first Park Commission had, as indicated in 
the preceding chapters, continuously dealt with 
the park system as an entity, hoping thereby to avoid 
the pitfalls of sectional differences, and by treating 
the proposition as a whole, thus to be in a position 
to better determine the probable limits of cost for 
“ a system of parks in its entirety. ” 
Question of Policy. After the second commis¬ 
sion had completed its organization, the question 
then before the board, briefly stated, was whether 
the pledge made by the first park commission in re¬ 
spect to the policy of establishing the park system 
should be carried out, or a new policy on other 
lines be inaugurated. The consideration and dis¬ 
cussion of the subject went on for months. At 
almost every meeting it received attention. 
94 
