Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-05-23
HUDSON BRIDGE FAILS TO
z AROUSE ESSEX ENTHUSIASM
Freehoders Shy on Proposition That VIII Cost se,oooooo
With Little Return

, interstate bridge for which IL Will
have paid one-half of the cost and
from which 1t will reap -fifths
and probably more of the benefits.
Some snap for New York State. No
wonder it's representatives are heart
lily in favor of the plan.
1t was noticeable at the conference
in New York on Thursday between
the members of the New York and
New Jersey commissions and repre-
sentatiyes of the Board of Freehold
ers of the five counties interested that
the tunnel proposition was rather
showed aside. This was probably due
to the fact that the tunnel scheme is
regarded by all parties concerned,
with the possible exception of Bergen
county, which can see bridge and
nothing else, as almost certain of
contamination. Therefore, the tunnel
project was sidetracked, and prac-
IDEALLY all the time devoted to mis-
slonary work on the tunnel by MEM
bers of the New York and New Jersey
commissions, their counsel. and the
freeholders from Bergen County.
And 1t is safe to say that without
the decisive and able manner with
r.fifh Walter A. Evans, director of
the Essex board, handled the propo-
s4t.on TINS missionary work might
have had its effect. Mr.. Evans, out
side of stating Essex County's atti-
tude when called on to do so by W.
H. Noyes. who presided over the
meeting. had little to say up to the
time a resolution was introduced by
A. B. Morrison, a member OF the
Bergen Board of Freeholders.
,Ioin cd m
ference that Essex County was in the
position of seeking information as to
the plan and scope of the proposition,
and was not in a position to say
whether the bridge and tunnel or
either or both was favored or not.
When Mr.. Morrison made his resolu-
ton, which. In effect. was that the
members of the different boards of
freeholders present report favorably
to their boards on the bridge propo-
sition, Mr. Evans got busy,
In clear, concise statements which
demonstrated at once that he knew
what he was talking about, Mr.
Evans tore to pieces any plan to
take Immediate action. In the mind
of the writer, and of others with
whom he talked, had not Mr., Evans
made his straightforward talk the
resolution Of approval offered by the
Bergen member and eagerly well
coined by the commissioners and
their counsel would have been adopt
ed as none of the representatives
present except Mr.. Evans and Rich
ard F. Malta, of this county, seemed
to see any harm in 1t.
II looked like a harmless little resell
ution. simply saying in effect that 1t
was the sense of the members of the
different boards present that the
bridge and tunnel project should be
favored by their different boards.
Just the same it would have been an
approval of the work of the commits
sion and while not binding in legal
sense certainly would have been in a
moral sense.
1t was this angle that Mr.. Evans
saw at once and Immediately pro-
ceeded to quash. Without giving any
idea that Essex was unalterably OPP
posed to the expensive bridge plan,
Mr. Evans pointed out that under the
law as passed by the Legislature it
would be impossible for any action to
be taken for or against the PROPOSE
ton unless such steps were taken in
a regular meeting of a board of free
holders.
This promptly killed the commits
sion and COUNSEL liked approval reso-
luton and paved the way for one al
lowing the freeholders present to re-
port to their respective boards the re-
suit of the conference and allow them
to take whatever acton they desired.
While the Essex Board has not as yet
taken any action, 1t is the surest and