House and Garden 
the most part, were not fa¬ 
vorable. Mayor Seymour made 
a severe arraignment of the 
commission, and of the 
appointive system of legisla¬ 
tion under which it was crea¬ 
ted. This law, providing for 
an appointive board, he de¬ 
clared, in a written statement 
a few days prior to the 
announcement of the Park 
Commission shortage, “should 
he amended.” This method 
of appointment, he said, “is 
wrong and opposed to the 
popular notions of self-govern¬ 
ment. ” 
“Under certain contingen¬ 
cies,” he wrote, “it might re¬ 
move the power of selection 
entirely from an officer of 
Essex County and place it 
with an official residing in 
some distant part of the State. 
This might occur in the event 
of the selection of a Park Com¬ 
mission being made during a vacancy in the 
Supreme Court in this county. Officers of such 
importance should be chosen by the people. A 
public board making such large demands upon 
the taxable property of the community should be 
in closer touch with the people of the community. 
According to the highest conceptions of popular 
government, that closer touch is to be had only 
through the medium of the ballot-box. The law 
should be changed and the Park Commissioners be 
compelled to take chances before the community. ” 
These forcibly expressed sentiments, published 
both in the leading New jersey and New York 
papers almost concurrently with the park deficiency 
statements, apparently touched a responsive chord 
with many people throughout Essex County. 
While the Mayor’s presentment was merely an 
elaboration of the antiappointive commission 
plank of the Democratic city platform, as before 
mentioned, its reception by the public was no 
doubt accentuated by the disappointment which 
the call for more funds to complete the parks oc¬ 
casioned. The claim was at once made by the par¬ 
tisan advocates of the appointive plan, that the 
attack of the Mayor and those favoring his side 
of the question was in reality naught but an in¬ 
cident in the play of politics, and an attempted 
flank movement by which the Democratic minority 
hoped to secure a “vantage” point with the people 
over their Republican opponents, who counted 
upon them having a safe working majority locally 
as well as in the Legislature. 
Others joined in the effort to repel the attack, 
and the conflict of words soon had the appearance 
of a drawn battle, yet actually leaving the appoin¬ 
tive commission in possession and victor of the 
field. The discussion, however, bore fruit in 
largely extending in the public mind the objection 
to an appointive commission. This was manifestly 
the result, as shown by the resolutions of disap¬ 
proval of that system in the different political con¬ 
ventions since. Published individual opinions then 
and since have reflected a similar sentiment as 
existing in the minds of officials and publicists, 
both in Essex and in Hudson counties and else¬ 
where, in conformity with the generally accepted 
objection to specially appointed public boards. 
In the meantime methods had been devised 
for turning over to the Park Commission the pre¬ 
mium realized on all bonds, instead of retain¬ 
ing it in the sinking fund as theretofore. On 
August 3, 1900, the last $500,000 of this appropria¬ 
tion, together with $80,000 premium on the bonds, 
was turned over to the commission. 
Thus, within five years, the people of Essex 
County had raised and contributed in cash for the 
park system promised them for $2,500,000, more 
than $4,000,000. 
Underlying Conditions. My two years’ term as 
park commissioner expired April 20, 1897. Eor some 
months, even prior to the Munn dismissal incident, 
there were powerf ul corporate and political interests, 
which for reasons that may be readily inferred 
from the reading of the facts contained in this 
152 
