[ 148 ] IAN R. STEWART the power of eminent domain, indicating, it must be admitted, very peculiar if not very hasty legislation. The corporation accordingly have employed other counsel to resist the action "of the corporation counsel"; and the court is placed in the not very comfortable attitude of recognizing both and of being compelled, should it decide in the favor of the "corporation counsel" to decide against the corporation itself.41 Roosevelt failed to resolve the complicated question at hand, noting rather that a new state legislature and common council were about to be in session, and it was his hope that the obvious ambiguities and unconstitutional features within the law would then be taken care of by the action of one of these bodies. On January 2,1854, the new common council met for the first time, and as was traditional, the new mayor, Jacob A. Westervelt, delivered the annual message. Much to everyone's surprise, the cause of a park in New York received another minor setback rather than a resolution of its problems. Westervelt came out firmly against any park in the city by detailing the drawbacks in his mind which both sites evidenced.42 In spite of his fears and lack of interest, however, the whole question had moved too far along to be sidetracked at this point. A request to repeal the Jones's Wood bill was now pending in Albany, and the assembly committee reported on it first. Its opinion was split. The first group, which decided the city probably did not need both parks, that the site was remote, and that the city certainly could not afford both parks, recommended that the bill be repealed. The other half of the committee disagreed, saying that in its estimation, especially when the public site and reservoirs were subtracted, the central park was not sufficient, and for the good of the city, Jones's Wood ought also to be acquired. Therefore, with no clear consensus from the assembly, the bill to repeal went before the appropriate senate committee, which favored its repeal.43 There was one other factor, not mentioned by either committee, which had a negative effect on the question of maintaining the law intact. Unlike the bill authorizing the 41 New York State Senate, Document No. 47, February 7,1854. 42New York City Board of Aldermen, Document No. 1, January 2,1854. 48 New York State Assembly, Document No. 21, January 18,1854; Document No. 18, January 25,1854; New York State Senate, Document No. 47, February 7, 1854.