[ 146 ] IAN R. STEWART marked, "The friends of each are implacable with anything less than the instant adoption of their favorite competitor. But are not the two perfectly reconcilable? May not both be bought, and the Central Park made to include not only the major part of that embraced within the draft of the Committee, but the whole of Jones's Wood, down to the water's edge?" Why not squeeze the northern and southern boundaries of the central park down to Ninety-sixth and Sixty-sixth streets and extend the western boundary to Ninth Avenue, thus embracing Manhattan Square? The eastern shall traverse Fourth Avenue from Ninety-Fourth to Seventy-Fifth Street, where, turning towards the River, it shall follow the lines of Jones's Wood. Here all interests are reconciled. No objection is left. Proportion is recovered. Manhattan, Observatory, and Hamilton Squares are brought within the limits of the park. . . . All the recommendations of the Central Park are united with those of Jones's Wood, and nothing omitted but the disadvantages of both.38 Two days later, the Times offered a further explanation of its proposal, saying that it was only prudent to buy as much land for the park as possible in advance of its need while it was cheap, and, after all, if it were in excess of what was needed, it could always be sold off, probably at treble the price. Bryant and the Evening Post thought that taking both sites was a capital idea. "There is now ample room and need enough upon the island for two parks, whereas, if the matter is delayed for a few years, there will hardly be a space left for one!'39 Those opposed to any park at all were filled with rage by this proposal. The prospect of having two parks or one aggregating nearly one thousand acres was now upon the city. For the Journal of Commerce this was the last straw: What is it, in effect, but a law or laws to drive our population more and more over to Brooklyn, Williamsburgh, Staten Island, Jersey City, etc., by creating a barrier half a mile to two miles wide, north and south, and occupying half the island east and west, over which population cannot conveniently pass? If ever these projects should be carried into effect, they will cost our citizens millions of dollars.... Small parks would be a public blessing; and might be as numerous as the health and comfort of our citizens would require, but a perpetual edict of desolation against two and one S8New York Daily Times, June 21,1853. 39ft>id., June 23,1853, p. 4; quoted in Nevins, The Evening Post, 198.