Politics and the Park [ 147 ] half square miles of this small island might better come from the bitterest enemies of our city than from its friends.40 The issue was now out of the hands of the state, and for a brief period during the summer of 1853, the political pressure subsided. The city was no closer to having the issue resolved. Very few believed that the city needed both parks, and certainly the common council's only firm position had been to favor the central site. Thus, not really interested in pursuing the acquisition of two parks as the state had authorized, it still remained for the council to make the difficult choice between them. Realizing this, the various advocates of the two positions simply shifted the direction of their pressure from Albany back to the council. In spite of the pressure, the council remained resolute in its support of the central site. Accordingly, in the fall of 1853, ^ made application to the Supreme Court of the First Judicial District for the appointment of commissioners of estimate and assessment, as authorized by the state act, so that it could get on with the acquisition of property. On November 17 the court appointed five men recommended by the city. For the next two and a half years they went about the difficult task of assigning a fair appraised value to the more than 7,500 building lots in question. With all barriers now cleared for the acquisition of the central site, the common council still had to settle the pending question of what to do with Jones's Wood. This was not an easy matter since a lawsuit was pending. Shortly after passage of the state act permitting the acquisition of the east side site and seeing that the council did not wish to move ahead with it, a group of interested taxpayers initiated a suit to compel the corporation counsel to apply to the court for the appointment of commissioners of estimate. The original enabling law had stated, "it shall be the duty of the corporation counsel of the city of New York to cause application to be made . .!' The point at law was hardly a usual one, as Judge James Roosevelt immediately took note: Such an application, on its face, is novel and extraordinary, and until now, I believe unprecedented. It proceeds upon the assumption not only of compelling one party to sell but the other to buy against his will—an exercise of 40 In Nevins, The Evening Post, 199.