"February 4. Mr. Eastman introduced a bill (Senate bill 520) for the location, improvement, and regulation of a park for the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake. Read a first time and ordered to a third reading. On motion of Mr. Eastman the rule was dispensed with, the bill read a second time and ordered laid on the table and printed."'

A few days subsequently this bill was taken from the table and referred to a select committee.

"February 18. Mr. Eastman, from the select committee to which was referred Senate bill No. 520, for an act to provide for the location, improvement, and regulation of a park for the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake, reported the same back with a substitute, entitled, A bill for an Act for the Location, Improvement, and Regulation of a Park for South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake. Read a first time and ordered to a second and third reading.'' On the same day the Committee on Enrolled Bills reported that a number of bills had been correctly engrossed and among them was the substitute park bill, which at once was given its final reading and placed on its passage. It was defeated, yeas, 5; nayes, 17. Mr. McConnell entered a motion for a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was lost, and on the following day this motion was carried, yeas, 21; nays, 2.

The two votes in the negative were those respectively of Mr. Ward of the West Division of Chicago and Mr. Addams of Jo Daveiss County, the father of Miss Jane Addams.

When this bill had passed the Senate it went to the House, where an amendment was attached, and at the last stage of it, says the House Journal, the speaker left the chair for the purpose of speaking on the merits of the bill. The bill passed and was returned to the Senate. The question being on concurring with the House amendment, it was concurred in and the bill passed, 17 to 4. It may be doubted if steps in any legislation ever more accurately represented the different mental attitudes of men and groups, interested for or against a particular bill, than did those taken in the instance of the South Park bill of 1867. The actuating motives of such as openly advocated and secretly opposed the measure, as many did, if they were not perfectly discerned then, are now seen by the light of subsequent events. Each group had a playing hand concealed and only waited a time when it could be played. The troublesome questions all related to park boundaries, location of boulevards, and extent of frontages. The bill became law and at once went into effect, or as soon as the park board had been appointed and organized.

There were jealousies and disagreements on the part of men and interests that were deemed in co-operation to be necssary to the speedy success of this park enterprise, and these were not easily reconciled. The next two years were occupied with efforts to bring them together. At the end of that time, again application was made to the Legislature this time for an amendatory act that should promise to reconcile strenuous objectors to certain features of the first act. The Legislature agreed; the amendatory act was passed and signed by the Governor, and now all that the pharsology of a law could accomplish was accomplished. But, however, not careful enough note was taken of the effect of possible resistance, here and there, among the common people to the imposing of park assessments and taxation.

The act as passed provided for five commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor, who should constitute a Board of Park Commissioners for the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake; in case of the failure of any person named as commissioner to accept of the appointment within a brief time specified, his place was to be declared vacant and the majority of commissioners accepting were to appoint his successor; and so on until five commissioners were appointed and qualified. Each commissioner was required to take a prescribed oath and to give a bond in the sum of $50,000. Tenure of the commission five years, their individual places on the board to be determined by lot; one commissioner was to retire in each year. All future vacancies in the board to be filled by appointment of the judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. The commission was empowered to elect a president and secretary and to fix the amount of compensation. The board was declared to be a body politic and corporate and clothed with all powers necessary to the purposes of the act. The act described the lands to be taken by the commission for the park "within ninety days after their organization, or so soon thereafter as practicable." They were authorized to proceed by purchase or otherwise. Section 7 was in terms following: "So soon as

the amount required for the condemnation of the grounds selected for said park shall have been ascertained by the commissioners, with reasonable certainty, they shall apply to the judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for the appointment of three freeholders of the County of Cook as park assessors. The commissioners shall give notice in one or more of the daily newspapers printed in Chicago of the time when such application shall be made, and all parties interested may appear and be heard by said judge touching such appointment. At the time fixed for such application, the court, after hearing such persons as shall desire to be heard touching such appointment, shall nominate and appoint three assessors for the purpose provided in this act. The said assessors shall proceed to assess the amount so ascertained upon property in the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake, in Cook County, deemed benefited by reason of the improvement occasioned by the location of said park, as near as may be in proportion to the benefits resulting thereto. Then it was for the assessors to make the assessments at meetings to be adjourned from time to time, until the assessment roll was completed. The Circuit Court was to confirm the assessment, or to revise, correct, and amend in whole or in part, or make or order a new assessment. After the confirmation of the assessment the clerk of the Circuit Court was to file a copy of it with the clerk of the County Court of Cook County, "and said assessment shall be a lien upon the several lots, blocks, or parcels of land assessed for the benefits as aforesaid. Ten per cent of the amount so ascertained shall be due and payable annually, and the clerk of said Cook County Court shall include in the general warrants for each year, until the sum shall be paid, for the collection of state and county taxes in the said towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake, 10 per cent of the said assessments in an appropriate column, to be termed 'South Park Assessment,' with the amount to be collected opposite the several lots, blocks, or parcels of land assessed as aforesaid; and like proceedings in all respects shall be had for enforceing the collection of same as is now provided by law for the collection of state and county taxes. For any deficiency arising through acquiring a title to the park and for the payment of expenses of enclosing, maintaining, and improving the park, and the disbursements and charges in the premises, the said commissioners shall have power to loan or borrow from time to time, for such time as they shall deem expedient, a sum of money not exceeding two millions of dollars, and shall have authority to issue bonds, secured upon said park and improvements, which shall be issued under the seal of said commissioners and shall be signed by said commissioners, and countersigned by the secretary of the board and bear interest not exceeding 7 per cent per annum; and for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds the towns of South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake shall be irrevocably bound."

The Board of Park Commissioners were empowered annually to make estimates of the amount of money that would be required for all purposes in each year and transmit the same to the Clerk of the County Court, when the clerk should proceed to determine what per cent said sum was on the taxable property of said towns, according to the several assessors' returns for the respective year. In the next general tax warrants for the collection of state and county taxes in the several towns he was to set down the amounts chargeable to the several persons, corporations, lots, or parcels of ground and proceed to collect the same in the manner provided by law.

An important power conferred upon the Judge of the Circuit Court was the removal of commissioners for cause, the sufficiency of which he alone was to determine, and to appoint others in their stead. The Governor had no say in the matter.

There was to be an election held in the towns concerned, at which the legal voters should vote for or against the act. The election was held and those who voted to sustain the act were the majority. Such, then, with some minor changes and numerous ordinances passed by the Board, is today the law under which the South Parks are managed.

The probable cost at the outset was estimated by the board at $1,865,750, and they, in accordance with law, made application to the Judge of the Circuit Court for the appointment of assessors to impose that amount upon property benefited and gave the required public notice. Then there went up a great cry in opposition to the entire park scheme. The judge took heed and refused to appoint the assessors. Nothing daunted, the commissioners carried the case up to the Supreme Court, where it rested for several months. In the meantime many

persons in the park district and over all Chicago took notice and got busy on their own account. They found the newspapers closed to them; but there were job presses at their service. The city was placarded with appeals and challenges. But all to no avail in the event. The voting went against the objectors, and without loss of time the first South Park Commission was appointed. It consisted of John M. Wilson, George W. Gage, Chauncey T. Bowen, and L. B. Sidway. They organized and proceeded to select the land designated by the act and to survey it. Then they estimated the probable cost, which mounted to $1,865,750, and made application to the Circuit Court for the appointment of assessors to impose the amount upon the property benefited. The court was friendly to the park promoters, but at the same time it had an ear to the ground to learn what was public sentiment regarding the questions involved. Already they knew that the opinion of the best lawyers in the city, or those of them who had not been retained by the Park Commission, was that some of the provisions of the act were in contravention of both the old and the new constitution. For prudence sake, therefore, the court denied the application, and the case went to the state Supreme Court, which awarded a mandamus directing the performance, by the lower tribunal, of the work the commissioners had petitioned to have done. But, truth to say, the hearing before the Supreme Court brought out in strong light facts, and deductions of law, that affected deeply the public mind.

In a pamphlet written and put out by Elliott Anthony, a learned lawyer and future Judge of the Superior Court of Cook County, he mustered the legal points and arguments against the measure and resulting proceedings. These were the same that had been presented to the Circuit Court. He commenced by reminding his readers that the park boards of this city and county all were organized under the constitution of 1848, but that the laws regulating their management and control were passed since 1870; that they have a separate chapter set apart for them in the revised statutes; that they are an anomaly in the body politic and had thus far been upheld by the Supreme Court in direct contravention of both the letter and. spirit of that of 1848 and that of 1870; that the constitution never contemplated the organization of any such body as that of park boards to become imperium in imperio. He quoted the fifth section of the seventh article of the constitution of 1848, which provided that "the corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns, and villages, may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, such taxes to be uniform with respect to persons and property within the jurisdiction of the body imposing the same,'' and added, "that a duplex authority of the same municipality is certainly an anomaly and as difficult to understand as how two bodies can occupy one and the same space at one and the same time.” And he asked, "Do the park boards exist outside or inside the constitution?'' Next he cited a decision of the Supreme Court, case of Howard vs. St. Clair Drainage Company, in which the court held that the "constitution confers no power upon anybody to levy and collect taxes except the municipal corporations mentioned in the constitution, that all persons who undertook to exercise municipal powers, who were outside of those enumerated in the constitution, were usurpers of power, whether authorized by the General Assembly or not.

With respect to the parks hereabout, north, west, and south, the General Assembly had authorized by anticipation all their proceedings-that Judge Anthony admitted, provided the park bills were sustained by the Supreme Court -but that fact did not shield the park commissioners from the pamphleteers' attacks. "It was an outrage," he exclaimed, "when the South Park Commissioners were permitted to resort to the Mexican forced loan system and levy $1,800,000 upon the property in Hyde Park and nearly as much upon the property in the town of Lake, in order to purchase lands for a park. He went on: "By the law of 1867, under which these park assessors acted, it is required that they, the park assessors, in making their assessment, shall estimate the value of the several lots, blocks, or parcels of land deemed benefited by the parks, and shall include the same, together with the amounts assessed as benefits, in the assessment roll. Under this provision they piled over $1,800,000 on to the real estate of Hyde Park and nearly as much upon the real estate of the town of Lake. Some of it is situated miles from the park and valued, the real estate, on the average, ten times what the assessors put on it for state and county taxes. The assessment for the South Park levied a special tax for seven years in advance upon all the property in that park district, at the valuation that the park commissioners placed upon it, "when every other tax in the State of Illinois

is levied upon the value of the property as it changes from year to year. Real estate in the towns of Hyde Park and Lake is not worth half what it was in 1873.''

This he declared was a gigantic outrage.

"But there is another thing," he continued, "and that is that the Legislature, when they passed the South Park bills, conferred upon the commissioners greater powers than were ever possessed by the state. The constitution of the state which was in force at the time of the adoption of the park bills, contains an express limitation and prohibition upon the state in creating a debt. But no such prohibition and limitation is imposed upon the park commissioners. They have power to assess a sufficient amount to carry on the enterprise, and that amount can be annually assessed. No provision of the constitution, and no statute, stands in the way of compelling taxpayers to raise just such sums of money, as they, the park commissioners, in their discretion, may see fit to call for. They practically are unlimited in their power to issue bonds, and when issued, the park, boulevard, driveway, highway, or other public work or improvement, on account of which bonds may be issued, are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal and interest thereon, and the towns in which the park, boulevard, driveway, highway, or other work of improvement are in whole or in part situated, are and shall be also irrevocably bound for the payment of the same." He glanced at Lincoln Park. "Lincoln Park lies within the corporate limits of two towns-North Chicago and Lake View-and the supervisors and assessors of those towns under the manipulation of the Lincoln Park Commissioners, in fact assess the property, and the County Clerk extends the tax, and the money is taken and used indiscriminately in improving the park in Chicago and Lake View." He found the case to be the same as to the West Park. He recurred to what he had termed the gigantic outrage of assessing taxes seven years in advance, and described the distressed condition of the people so soon after the great fire and the money panic.

This part of the Judge's pamphlet seems to have had influence with the newspapers, and just then a bill was before the Legislature for deferring the installments of the tax.

A search of the files in the Historical Society of the Daily Tribune revealed this editorial: "It seems strange to people uniniated in the mysteries of legislation that the park tax installment bill, introduced into the Senate in the second week of the session, has not, after so many weeks, become a law. It passed the Senate without opposition and was sent to the House in the first week in February. Thus it was pending in the Senate from the forepart of January to the 8th of February, a time sufficient for the president or any other officer of the park board to have made any objection or given any reason, if any existed, why the bill should not pass. It is understood that the attorney of the park board was sent to Springfield, at the expense of the people, to sit down on the bill and strangle it quietly in the Judiciary Committee of the House, under the pretense that the president of the board desired to make an explanation before the committee. Although nearly ten weeks have elapsed, the president has not put in an appearance. The people of South Chicago, Hyde Park, and Lake are now groaning under the burden of overtaxation. Many of them are actually borrowing money to pay these park assessments, while the president, although not overworked in the discharge of his duties, draws a salary of $3,000 per annum and the auditor likewise pockets $250 per month for services performed by a large retinue of clerks. The park commissioners do not need these installments at the present time. With their facilities for swapping bonds, it cannot be claimed that money is required to take care of bonds maturing. And the tax-ridden public will not grieve very much if no more lands are purchased at present." This particular relief bill, however, did not pass the Legislature.

Finally, and to finish with the powerful pamphlet, its author professed not to be hostile to parks, but he thought "that all parks which are situated within the city should be under the control of the city. The moneys that are raised by taxation for the purchase of lands to establish parks and to keep and maintain them, are for public purposes; and I know of no reason why the money should not be expended by public officers directly responsible to the people, the same as other public moneys. If they are public works, why not have them controlled by the Department of Public Works, or some other department, the same as all other public improvements."

At about the same time of Mr. Anthony's emphatic utterances the then just elected chief executive of Chicago, Mayor Colvin, in his first message, December

1, 1873, to the City Council, said: "It will be for you to consider whether the boards of commissioners of parks should not be abolished. The control of these grounds might be transferred either to the Board of Public Works, or concentrated in one Board of Park Commissioners. A change of this character would save a large amount of expenditure and not interfere with the judicious management of this branch of our city government."

Thus Judge Anthony and Mayor Colvin both anticipated, in part, Mayor Harrison in his many expressions of opinion and purpose respecting the parks, their management and control. Also they anticipated the City Charter Convention of 1906-7, which inserted in the charter it proposed to the citizens a parks consolidation provision; and the Mayor and City Council, together with the Law Department under Corporation Counsel Sexton, in the framing of a park consolidation bill in 1913, which bill was sent down to the Legislature and passed by that body. That it failed to receive the signature of Governor Dunne was not for the reason that he did not see the justice of it, but that it met with technical objections by the attorney general. Respecting this bill, when it was before the General Assembly, Mayor Harrison, in his annual message, said:

"Under the amendment to the constitution, adopted some years ago, municipalities may consolidate with themselves the various taxing bodies lying wholly within their limits. While a consolidation of the city with that part of the Sanitary District lying within the territorial limits of Chicago would undoubtedly be desirable, it may not be had until the constitution shall again have been amended.

"Pending such complete consolidation, as all good citizens are united in considering desirable, an important step in eliminating unnecessary taxing bodies may be secured by the passage of the Park Consolidation bill now before the Legislature. If it be passed, the various park activities of the city will be brought under one responsible head; a considerable number of employes will be dispensed with who are on the rolls today because of the present duplication of employes engaged in identical duties; moreover, the control of the parks will be brought under the jurisdiction of Chicago, whose citizens foot the bills."

Well, the Supreme Court rendered its decision, and it sustained the validity of the park act. But Elliot Anthony did not cease his contending. He quoted from a decision of the same court, in the case involving the city of Belleville, to the effect that "to declare park boards and park commissioners corporate authorities of towns, cities, and villages is an utter perversion of our government and has no warrant either in the constitution or history of this country. As well have two mayors of a city, two sets of aldermen, and two sets of officers of all kinds, as to have two corporate authorities exercising jurisdiction over the same people at one and the same time.''

But the Supreme Court, in deciding that the South Park law was valid, laid great stress upon the fact that the law was submitted to the people, that the Feople voted for it, and that therefore they must not be permitted to complain. There was no going behind that act. To which Mr. Anthony humorously replied, "This is the first judicial decision ever given which declares that the doctrine of estopple applies to original sin. It may be orthodox, but it is the recognition of the every devil in politics."

There was more of judicial contention yet to come. Many persons were compelled by financial necessity to contest the assessments on their property. In the acquiring of land, so great was the difference of views between owners and the commissioners, that condemnation proceedings were vexatious. Others resisted the tax because of their general hostility to the enterprise. Judgment was recovered in the County Court on the delinquent list, for the first and second installments, but refused on the third, the court being of opinion that, owing to a change in the revenue law, no judgment could be rendered. From the decision in reference to the first and second installments the property owners appealed; while the commission took an appeal from that relative to the third. But the Supreme Court remained with the park commissioners-in a decision rendered in September, 1875, the validity of the assessment and the tax was upheld. Then there arose a question on the manner of appointment of the South Park commissioners. It sprang out of the courts in Cook County. On March 20, 1875, all the judges of this county sent a communication to the General Assembly of the state, asking that body to submit an amendment of the constitution to the people of the State of Illinois, providing for the repeal of the provision which imposed upon them the duty of appointing justices of the peace and assigned reasons for