The First County Park System in America—V 
literally “in” such franchises, there was at once 
a response and popular uprising that has already 
found expression in the platforms of both the 
leading political parties—an uprising followed, as 
since, by the widespread popular demand for 
improved utility franchise conditions by the people: 
And how the majority of the Legislature of 1905, 
under the direction of the “corporation leader” 
of the House, juggled with this franchise legislation. 
These might all be topics worthy of full descrip¬ 
tion, and perhaps of interest, to the readers of this 
history of the parks. Space, however, does not 
permit. Nor is it intended that this history of the 
Essex County parks will do more than give a con¬ 
sistent, continuous, and truthful account of the 
more important facts, which record shall mirror 
the events of the past as they have occurred, and 
east and the mountain parkway and parks on the 
crest of the first mountain, constitute a compact, 
and, to that extent, complete “park system” in 
the heart of the county, readily and directly reached 
from any of the four sides of the elongated square 
of parks and parkways that would be thus formed. 
For a Park and Parkway System. What the 
commission of 1894 did, however, intend should 
materialize, and be put into practical form at the 
earliest possible date, was the plan for the parks 
and the parkways, as outlined—“ a system of parks 
in its entirety,” as promised in the commission’s 
formal report in 1895, already referred to. It 
was for this purpose that the liberal charter for 
the second commission was prepared; and had 
all the members of the first commission in 1895 
been reappointed on that board, and tbe personnel 
CRYSTAL LAKE - EAGLE ROCK PARK 
possibly throw some light on the situation of park 
affairs that may be helpful in the solution of this 
great problem for the present or for the future. 
The general plan for the parkways, as agreed upon 
by the first Park Commission in 1894-5, was outlined 
with three distinct and objective points in view: 
First—Convenience and accessibility to the great 
majority of the people of the county. 
Second—Economy in the use of Park and Central 
Avenues, inasmuch as these were the two parallel 
and broad avenues, between the proposed larger 
parks, well adapted for parkway purposes, and 
already laid out and constructed at county ex¬ 
pense; and 
Third—Availability. As these parkways, with 
Park Avenue on the north and Central Avenue on 
the south of the populous portions of the county 
between the Passaic River and the Orange Moun¬ 
tain would, with the Branch Brook Park on the 
and policy of the commission remained unchanged, 
I have now no more doubt that these plans would 
have been carried out and promises fulfilled, than 
I have of any future event which is considered 
a certainty, yet not having transpired. 
On October 19 Commissioner Aleeker introduced 
the resolution which the parkway-avenue con¬ 
troversy has since made historic. All the com¬ 
missioners not being present, the resolution was 
entered upon the minutes for future action. On 
November 12 following, at a meeting held at Com¬ 
missioner Murphy’s residence, the resolution was 
seconded by Mr. Shepard, and was then, by unani¬ 
mous vote, passed. It was as follows: 
“Whereas, It appears to the Park Commission 
to be desirable that the avenues hereinafter named 
should be under the control of the commission as 
part of the system of parks and parkways. 
“ Resolved, That the counsel be directed to 
241 
