Frederick Law Olmsted             
SUBJECT FILE
Parks
New York, N.Y.
(Esp. Central Park) 1887-88
37Jan 1st 87. 
142 East 18th, 

Dear Olmsted 
Yours of yesterday 
just recd. -- The 
"Gallery" and "occasional 
road" possibilities may 
be kept in reserve, as 
they are not elementary 
features in the design 
-- The shaft estimateis encouraging. -- 

We expect now to 
start as you suggest 
on Monday morning -- 
(returning on Thursday) 
-- and shall doubtless 
have a call from John 
in the interim -- 

Yours truly 
Calvert VauxF. J. De Burns - D.P..P. 49 Chambers St.
I have an engagement which 
may detain me but think I
can get off and [come as
requested] call as requested
Monday. Will telegraph
tomorrow. F.L.O.

Vaux, Shall accept if arrangement
satisfactory to you. [Will try to]
Expect to call with you Monday
[morning?] as asked but [shall possible] may
be detained.
142 E.18th
[*[1887?]*]
[*[Apr 25-26]*][C. Varux. 142 & 18th St.]

[*IV N.Y.*]                                        [*Important*]                      [*from Mr Bullard]
                               City of New York
                         Department of Public Parks
                              49 and 51 Chambers St.
Commission Office                                              April 25th 1887
                 
Frederick Law Olmsted Esq
Sir:
 At a meeting of the Board governing
this Department held
on 20 inst., it was 
Resolved That Frederick Law Olmsted
be and he hereby is appointed
Landscape Architect Advocacy to
this Board and that the President
be authorized to confer with Mr.
Olmsted in relation to park
improvements.
Yours respectfully
Charles De F. Burnt
Secretary A. P. P.BURN   APR. 25   1887[*1887(?)*]

6th. May. 

Dear Olmsted -- 
I only write to 
acknowledge your note 
which acquaints me 
with the sequence of 
events.  Having already 
consulted with D P. P. 
individually and been 
paid for it with 
B & C in office -- 
there is no broad 
ground for refusalto do so again.  

-- I stand in the 
same relation technically 

-- It is not necessary 
to debate the practical 
bearing of it, if as 
the Tribune suggested 
editorially it was merely 
a flyer to catch votes 
for an appropriation.  

-- and time will 
soon show how this 
really is

Yrs truly 
Calvert VauxTv-ny.

30th June, 1887.
My Dear Vaux:
      When I reached the Commissioner's office
Tuesday P.M. I found that, owing, probably, to an error
in the transmission of a telegram, I was misinformed as 
to the day of the meeting. I had previously agreed that
if I got away from the office by trick to go out with
Cameron and did so, getting back next day just in time to
keep deferred appointment with the Commissioners, and get-
ting away from them just in time to catch the 4:30 train
to Boston. Therefore, I did not see you as I had intended
to do.
      At the meeting I was asked a number of questions,
the more important relating to Central Park to which, for
some time, I was able to avoid giving definite answers.
When at last it became unquestionable that I was expected
to answer as one in the service of the Department and proffessionally
responsible, I said as much and added that I
did not accept the position and concisely, as if for the
information of Mr. Hutchins, referred to an agreement
of last year. After some further clearing up -- all in 
few words, and imperfect, with bare reference to the last
correspondence with me, I was told that the Commissioners
wished to make their arrangements exclusively with me.
"Do you mean with reference to the Central Park as well
as to Riverside and Morningside?" I asked. "Yes." "As
I have told you before, repeatedly, I do not wish to
make such an arrangement." Some little argument followed
with me, and at this time Meyer (?) who had been absent
came and I was introduced to him. Then it was said: "It
is evident that we can do nothing today.  We had better
adjourn." "When will you be in New York again, Mr. Olmsted?"
"Possibly in three or four weeks." "That won't do."
"I will come whenever you wish.: Then, (at last), I was
asked to come next Thursday. Immediately upon the adjournment
I stepped to Mr. Hutchins and in the hearing
of Mr. Crimmins said, "I can understand why some of the
Commissioners may object to direct dealings with Mr. Vaux
but you are not in their position and I should think that
you would recognize that there can be neither justice,
propriety nor policy in the intention to ignore him.
And so as", I ended by saying, "two heads are better than
one; discussion is always useful provided it does not lead
to divided counsels in practical operations. You have no
reason to suppose in this case that it will." He answered:
"Yes, I believe in discussion", (in an indifferent way)
and I left.
            Yours truly,
               Fredk Law Olmsted.

Office of
Aetna Life Insurance Company,
of Hartford, Conn.

T.J. Mumford, Manager
165 & 167 Broadway
P.O. Box 542

New York, July [4] 2. 1887

Dear Mr Olmsted
Enclosed I find in
"Star" the language [????]
that it was informed if not
written by Mr. Vaux.
I hope sincerely that you
can [get] see your way clear
to accept the [sa permission or]
a work of completing the
Park System.  It makes me
shudder to think what more
people will do if left to their
own devices.
I go out of town Tuesday
but will be back Thursday
afternoon & if possible I want
you to drive with me & have a
long talk. I am not ill - am 
very well - but everything went 
crooked with me for a few 
days.
Yours very truly
W. A Stites.5th July, 1887. 

My Dear Vaux: 

I have yours of 2nd and 3rd.  Both of them 
strike me strangely as did your previous note. 

In regard to the Menagerie I have never been in 
any other position than yours.  The only foundation for 
imagining anything else is an expression of weariness 
and disgust when told that the thing had been fixed.  
But immediately afterwards I set to work and did what I 
could to stimulate opposition.  I offered a subscription 
of $50. to an organizing fund and induced private letters 
to be written to Albany arguing against the bill.  I have 
never at any time said a word to Crimmins that I did not 
think in strict accord with your views, and when I have 
been in doubt in the least I have at once informed you 
of what I have said.  With regard to the Menagerie I 
have spoken to Crimmins only in the strongest condemnation 
of his scheme and in a way intended to assure 
him that if an arrangement was made by which I should be 
brought into cooperation with you in the service of the 
Department, it must not be expected that I should cease 
to resist it, (the Zoo scheme).  

In your letter of the 2nd you say: -- 

"Having written me that you accepted the impossibility 
of taking the technical initiative at the last and 
at the next meeting, you may expect me to inform you on 
these points."  

I pondered over this yesterday a long time but 
without getting the slightest clue to what was in your 
mind.  But whatever it was it was false.  What I wrote to 
you was intended to report that I had refused, and had 
brought the meeting to a close by refusing, to accept the 
responsibility of taking the technical initiative so far 
as these words have any meaning to me.  If I said anything 
else it was false, and as far as possible from my 
intention.  I don't see how you could fail to see that it 
was.  I had previously written you asking you to advise 
me, so that I could speak what you would think best, as 
well as for myself, and you had declined to do so.  My 
letter could as it seems to me be interpreted to mean 
nothing else than a desire to do nothing of which I could 
not be assured of your approval, of your desire that I-2-     Vaux                      5th July, 1887.

should do.  If it is my fault that the matter presents 
itself to you in any other light I am very sorry for it.  
If it is stupidity on my part that I can't understand 
what you think the best course for me to take I am 
equally sorry for it, but I cannot do better.

You can't want the present state of things to be 
continued.  You can't suppose that it will.  You can't 
suppose that with the money at their command and with the 
legislation they have secured they are not going forthwith 
to obtain plans from some party.  You can't suppose that 
failing to make satisfactory arrangements with me they 
will go to you or that you can work satisfactorily with 
them.  But perhaps I ought not to say can't.

All I mean is that trying sincerely to understand 
your position and to shape my course with references to it 
as you would wish me to, and as would best serve ends in 
which we unquestionably have a common interest, and 
rights to expect cooperation, I cannot understand why you 
do not frankly help me as frankly as I, to the best of my 
ability and knowledge of myself, place the case before 
you that you may.  I have not, so far as I am aware yet 
taken a step in the matter without more regard for you 
than for myself.  If you think I have tell me so and tell 
me how.  Convince me and if the step is retractable 
it will be retracted.  If you think I have not but am 
blundering, which is likely enough, show me how and I will 
change my course.  I can't work like a criminal lawyer.  
I can't talk with the Commissioners as if they were knaves 
or fools or as if I was engaged in a game with them and 
they were trying to trick me.  If they are and you know 
it, you have no right to leave me in ignorance of it.

You can be under no obligations that can make it 
right that you should not let me know better than I do 
what your mind is, as the case actually lies at this moment.  
If you suspect me of trying to get an advantage 
for myself or for my views at your expense or the expense 
of your views, tell me so.  Of course you don't.  I am only 
looking at all the possible ways of accounting for the tone of 
your letters -- the tone and the force, as acting on me , in the 
juncture.  I could take care of myself without any difficulty 
or lucidation as to my course, if I considered myself 
alone concerned.  But my interest is yours and yours 
is mine.

I expect to arrive Thursday morning by boat and before -3- Vaux.
5th July, 1887.
fore going to the meeting to call at the office of R.H.
Cameron & Co., 23 William St. 
I have been looking over again that part of your
letter about the Grant monument and which I had not before
given much attention. It may have a significance 
that had not occurred to me -- viz. that all the other
business is at this moment secondary and subordinate in
your mind to that of the monument question, and possibly
that you want me to bear that in mind when I again meet
the Commissioners. 
Looking solely to the interests of the city in
the parks and to the prevalence in the parks of principles
to which in essential respects you and I are
alike attached and with regard to which we stand together
in opposition to others, it can't be considered fortunate
that you have a purpose to carry with regard to the monument 
matter which is liable to excite jealousies, antagonisms 
and carpings, tending to a prejudiced consideration
of what may be hoped to grow out of our independent
joint interests in the purely park works. Nothing 
can benefit those interests which favors an impression 
that your course in dealing with the Park Department 
may be in the least degree shaped by your interests as an
architect -- distinctly as an architect in competition
with other architects, or monument designers, such as
Story, for example, or would-be monument designers who
abound and may be actively pursuing their hobbies, and 
disposed to remove or, directly or indirectly lessen
the prestige, of whatever seems to them to stand in
their way.
But this, which an hour ago I had not thought of, 
as an element in the matter at all, I cannot now think a
controlling element. It calls for caution to keep the
two interests as far as possible apart in our minds and
to leave no shadow of occasion with the Commissioners
to imagine that in any arrangement to be with us
we shall be found looking to something beyond them and to
which questions of park design might be stepping stones. 
You have more than once intimated to me that you
would think it right that I should take duties independent
of you in respect to Morningside, and, (except as to the
monument ground?) Riverside. If that is distinctly your
wish I will do so willingly -- or would but for an unwillingness
that you should stand as you do. I have-4- Vaux.                                                      5th July, 1887.

been in hopes that in some way I could use the occasion 
to bring about an arrangement with reference to Central 
Park that would be more suitable and satisfactory to you.  
I have all the time refused to consider any proposal 
that did not practically put you at the head of the Central 
Park.

I have to be in Boston again Friday morning.

Yours truly, 
Fredk Law Olmsted.[*IV N.Y.]
9th July, 1887.

My Dear Vaux:

I had hoped to find a note at Cameron's
giving  me some understanding to work upon of what you
would like me to aim at and was disappointed.  I had
been asked to come to the park office at 11 A.M.; had at
the moment made a memorandum of it and verified it.  Nevertheless,
I was told when I arrived there that the Commission 
had met at ten and adjourned.  It was said, however,
that if I would wait Commissioners would be sent
for and a special meeting held.  They were supposed to be
about the City Hall.   I waited and they came and went
and came for some hours but no formal meeting was held.

I had before written Crimmins that to avoid further
waste of time in discussion of impracticable propositions,
such as presented to me the week before, he
and they would do well to consider that no arrangement
could be made with me which did not recognize you --
essentially as in my discussion with them of last year.
Verbally with the Commissioners I held the same ground.
But at last, when it was nearly time for me to go to
catch a train for Boston, seeing no prospect of a move
on their line, as they were plying me with questions
about Riverside plan, having it in mind that the arrangement
of last year was no longer satisfactory to you and
that I had been unable to draw from you any indications
of what you would like me to aim for, except that you had
two or three times recalled to me that Riverside and 
Morningside plans were not the same to you that they were
to me, I admitted that an arrangement might be practicable
for revising the Riverside and Morningside plans
which did not involve a partnership contract.  Crimmins
asked me to repeat this, and began taking a memorandum
of it.  I asked him not to as it had been said carelessly
but then said, "If you want a memorandum suggesting
such an arrangement I will write one", and thereupon I
did so.  The President took the note and having read it
said something to the effect that something like that
might be feasible and he would like to talk it over with
the then absent Commissioners and if I wished to get the
next train to Boston he would not detain me longer.  We
were not likely to come nearer to a point this time.

Since I began writing I have received your note of
yesterday.  I must say that I do not see how you can put-2- Vaux.    9th July, 1887.

the construction you seem to put upon my course or why it
should please you to wish to.  You write as you might if
I had been coming to New York of my own motive with the
purpose to obtain some employment of the Park Commissioners
and had moved for this purpose in such a manner as to
avoid you -- at least to take the "lead" out of your
hands.  You say that I have undertaken to lead by finding
that I could not have been trying to ease myself of
responsibility of leadership by teazing you for advice,
or for information of your plans.  I think that this is
what anyone else reading your letter would suppose.  I
cannot suppose it because I know that you know that there
is not the slightest word of truth in it.  Yet even I
cannot make anything else out of your letter and am
obliged to think that you do not fully realize how far
any such notion would be from the facts.  If you don't,
you ought.
For ten years past I have been sick of New York.
Its infernal politics had wrought the most intense and
ruinous disappointment with me, and occurrences made this,
day after day, more and more mortifying and aggravating.
After a time it did not appear that I had any duty to
myself, my profession or to the public that should anchor
me there.  I came here for no business purpose.  I had
not a particle of business or prospect of business here
when I came and I was further from such business as I
had elsewhere when in Boston that when in New York and
I left New York only because I was sick of it -- its
Park Commission and its infernal underground politics
and after coming here I diligently cut myself away from
New York and its associations.  You must know that I
have done so.  I have not been to New York since except
for a business purpose.   I have stayed no longer than
was necessary and have rarely seen a New York friend in
New York.  I have done nothing that would help me to hold
or extend influence there.  I have meddled not at all with
park affairs except in such organic public matters as the
Menagerie and Parade and when writing on those or other
matters at special request have done so in a way to avoid
connecting my name with the agitation.  When Mr. Crimmins
wrote inviting me to come to him with a view to an arrangement
for my employment, I had not seen him.  I
 knew none of the Commissioners and wanted nothing to
do with them; I declined the invitation.  When it came
again in an official form and as a business proceeding,
I concluded after advising with several of our friends that
-3- Vaux.           9th July, 1887.

it would not be right to refuse to give the Commissioners
this counsel asked in their behalf by their President.
The first word I said to them was that you were the proper
man for them to consult and that I wished to make no engagements
with them.  Since then in all that has passed
nine parts out of ten of all that I have said to them
has been with a plain purpose to strengthen you and Parsons
and to further your views as far as I could understand
them.  The first word I had with them and the last -- addressed
to the President as I was taking leave of him
Thursday last was an earnest appeal to him to first of
all put you on a proper professional footing.  My last
letter to Mr. Crimmins was an effort to convince and persuade
him that it was bad policy to keep you at arms'
length and that it would be better to deal directly with
you.  I probably have never placed myself under bonds to
have nothing to do with them until they had given you a
proper position because I have never fully intended, if
the obstacles to your appointment as resident landscape
architect could not at last be overcome, to given them
no alternative but to employ some one, as the Commissioners
more than once had done before, not at all in sympathy
with is, (as Mould or Jones or Johnson who was with
them last year with letters from Ruskin) but I have come
as near to it as I could with truth and have gone far to
create that impression.

Further, I have taken no step; have presented no
suggestion to them which I did not believe to be in accordance
with your wishes, or the least disaccordant with
them that the circumstances allowed.  It has never occurred
to me that I was leading -- much less that I was
leading against your lead and I have no idea what you
mean when you imply that.  Certainly I have never desired
to lead or to move in the matter at all except side by
side with you.  I have not though of leading the Commissioners
except in the view that I wanted nothing that,
rightfully informed, they will not want.  I have had no
cconcealed thoughts from them, have been plain and blunt.
And so with you.  If I have ever concealed anything from 
you that you ought to know, I am not aware of it.  If I
have in the least taken a lead that you did not wish me
it has been your fault not mine.  It has been in some
technical sense, not in spirit, purpose or principle.  I
am not playing a game and am not governed by technical
rules.

Here as I write comes in your second letter of yesterday.
Again, I have to say that I do not feel that I
-4-Vaux.  9th July, 1887.

am on the ground of it.  It would seem to bear the implication
that I have been willing that, through the Tribune
or otherwise, a wrongful impression, harmful, as it
chances, to your interests and to Radford's, should be
spread, such an impression as you say Mr. Duncan had received.
I think that you would hardly be willing that I
should understand just that from your letter.  But what
else can I understand?  I see nothing else but an argument
to that effect in all of these two pages.  But I
know that you have not the slightest ground for a suspicion
that I have been willing that such a report should
be propagated.  But considering it a wrong report and one
injurious to you, what could have been your reason for
telling him that "the Tribune was, of course right".
It was, of course wrong.  (according to your statement.  I 
have never seen the report).  And you knew it to be wrong.
I have not the remotest idea for what purpose you went
out of your way to propagate the wrong.

I am apt to talk loosely when led on to do so in
apparently friendly conversation and to overcome feebleness
of expression by exaggerated rattle and I might
easily have given somebody with access to newspapers some
wrong notion when asked what had occurred between me and
the Commissioners. But in this I am sure that I have not.
I have been twice interviewed with a view to a newspaper
report but have at once said that nothing had occurred
worth mentioning.  I have referred to you as better able
to talk about coming improvements, these in New York
being matters of your business rather than mine, and have
pleaded haste to get away.  My aim has been to prevent
newspaper reporting not lead it, and I suppose that I
have succeeded.

My names has not been mentioned at any time since I
left New York in connection with New York parks with my 
knowledge and consent.  I have several times prevented it
from being mentioned when it otherwise might have been.

I suppose that there is something lying back of
what you say which you expect me to see and I cannot,
something"technical".  If I were a prisoner before a 
criminal court and you were the prosecuting attorney I
should expect to be hanged by a technical rope.  All the
same I should know that I really was not guilty.  I have
been assuming that you little meant what I say and have
been contradicting it; but I don't quite think so -- only if
not that it is incomprehensible to me.  That after all
these years we should be no better able to understand



-5- Vaux.         9th July, 1887.

one another is one of the strangest of life's experiences.
I seem as near to you sometimes as to any old friend --
I have not many left. Yet sometimes we have as little insight
of each other's meaning and motives as if we were
beings of two different planets.

      I still hope that what is best on the cards for you
and Parsons will come out of all this otherwise wasted
time. Not that your interests are my primary object, of
course. But I suppose that they lie right along with my 
primary object. I don't want to have to come back to New
York but I am not sure that I should not even do that
rather than lose all chance of bringing the parks back
to original principles so far as that is now possible.
To that end, with you or without you, I shall always do
what seems to me best. There is nothing else I care so
much for.

                     Affectionately yours,
                                             F. L. O.New York 12th July           1887
Dear Mr Olmsted
                      You see how gently Mr Hutchings
puts [they] the statement that the Board
concludes to "go it alone."  It looks now
as if it would have been well for me to have
assumed that they would accept yr proposal
& thank them for it: But perhaps not.
I don't propose to keep still very long.
Please drop me a line to [give] say what
those old plans amount to. [Why there was
need of] I dont want to talk without
knowledge. Why all this previous conferring
if no plan were needed?  They can get along
with Parsons & an Engineer! wh seems they
will do as they will.  Parsons has never
given any [prof] proof of constructive ability
Kellogg [k] has given proof of brutal disregard
for every principle of  genuine Park work
& total lack of feeling for Landscape &
If Vaux should prompt Parsons to any
good suggestion Board would not payNEW YORK PRESS CLUB, 
120 NASSAU STREET,                13-July                       [*1887*]
NEW YORK.
Dear Mr Olmsted
               Since I wrote you
this a.m.  Ive seen Tribune
Reporter who looks after Park
matters.  He says the old '73
plan was [refer] adopted & referred
to Parsons & Kellogg "to report
as soon as possible whether or
no they needed modification".
Mr Borden & all but Cummins
[vote] voted that way. Borden
says that the $5,000 plan you
propose was only preliminary
& working plans would need to
be bought afterwards. They
saw they were afraid of expenses
Also the '73 plan was accompanied
by estimate


slightest heed to it.  I [want] wish you would
write me what I ought to know -- & let me
say what seems best. If there is any conspiracy
of V. & P. to stop negotiations I can
find it out & I feel like thumping
any guilty fellow whoever he may be.
Dont know whether I'm mad, or indignant
only.  Am afraid my temper is lost.
Please write me as to those "plans". I presume
they are totally inadequate to the situation
                              Yr
                               W. A. Stiles.-of $810,000 -- it looked too
expensive.
1 Have the Commissioners
written you officially?
2 is possible that Mr. V
was contemplating this?
[have]
Hardly  -- for he certainly
has no influence.  Did
any Commissioners except
Crimmins say that P. wanted
to do it?
Yr
W. A. Stiles.

13th July 1887,
My Dear Vaux .
  I believe you are ahead of me
now by six notes but then you dont
write as long ones as I do. The fact is,
John being away, and Codman, I can't
keep up with the calls on me and am so
frustrated by the moist heat that I cant
sit up more than half the day.  The N.Yk
crisis being past I find it easier to put you
off than anything else.
I return the Riverside study, which is all
right, I think, thank you.
I don't think any such understanding
between us, as you propose, seems necessary.
I would not have you bound.  I have
told the Commissioners right along any time that
I would make no arrangements as Central
Park that did not comprehend you, and have
suggested and entertained nothing with 
reference to any business in New York which didnot include you.  But I see nothing to be
gained by pledging myself never to.  But
I am glad to know that you are not
indisposed to cooperation.  

The majority of the Commissioners
did not behave honorably, to my
notion, in their dealings with me.  I believe
that each man intended that I should
be deceived.  I cannot imagine for what
reason.  If there was an intention to
draw me into some position or statement
that could be quoted against 
me it signally failed.  I did not 
shift my ground or at any time say
anything that now I should be unwilling
that any man should know.  On the face
of the entire record it would 
appear that they were willing to engage
me without you, but I don't in the
least believe that that was what they
were after.  I have no idea what it
was.  It is a great relief to get free 
from them.
Yours,
F.L.O.Aug. 14
Letter from 
C. Vaux, & reply 
by F.L.O.[*IV  N. Y.                  Dupl. A.*]

13th July, 1887.

My Dear Vaux:  

I believe you are ahead of me now by six 
notes but then you don't write as long ones as I do.  
the fact is, John being away, and Codman, I can't keep up 
with the calls on me and am so prostrated by the moist 
heat that I can't sit up more than half the day.  The 
New York crisis being past I find it easier to put you 
off than anything else. 

I return the Riverside study, which is all right, 
I think, thank you. 

I don't think any such understanding between us, 
as you propose, seems necessary.  I would not have you 
bound.  I have told the Commissioners right along every 
time that I would make no arrangements as to Central Park 
that didn't comprehend you, and have suggested and entertained 
nothing with reference to any business in New 
York which did not include you.  But I see nothing to be 
gained by pledging myself never to.  But I am glad to 
know that you are not indisposed to cooperation. 

The majority of the Commissioners did not behave 
honorably, to my notion, in their dealings with me.  I 
believe that each man intended that I should be deceived.  
I cannot imagine for what reason.  If there was an intention 
to draw me into position or statement that could 
be quoted against me it signally failed.  I did not shift 
my ground or at any time say anything that now I should 
be unwilling that any man should know.  On the face of 
the entire record it would appear that they were willing 
to engage me without you, but I don't in the least believe 
that that was what they were after.  I have no idea 
what it was.  It is a great relief to get free from them.

Yours, 
F.L.O.NEW YORK PRESS CLUB,         15 July    [*1887*]
 120 Nassau Street,
   New York.
Dear Mr Olmsted
                        I'm very glad you
wrote that letter. It is the clear
& definite statement - of the situation
that was needed as a basis for
intelligent comment. [It] I [te] think
best to make no comment  in Tribune
at once- beyond calling attention
to it- & after it gets thro' peoples'
hair [th] to begin a little campaign.
Yesterday morning I broke out
a little prematurely- but the letter
& your notes will give text for all
the talk needed hereafter.
 Parsons I saw yesterday & he
is pretty well scared after the lecture
I gave him. Mr V. I saw today &
told him of yr letter- read it
to him in fact & he was delighted
He did not seem to know that he
was included in the last provisional
memorandum & was greatly
pleased. He told me that the Boardwas trying to use. P. against him 
but [said that] hinted that when 
P. came to look over the Plans
the only report he could make
would be that they were inadequate
& that new ones were
needed. He thinks evidently that
the reference is a mere delay.
He did not know - or at least
seemed surprised - that Riverside
was included with Morningside
in the last memorandum & that
too [pa] pleased him.
To corroborate what you say
of the intention of the Board to
go on piece meal. Parsons tells
me that Kellogg has made plans
for the Plaza already.
Parsons said that the original
motion passed was to refer the
Morningside Plans to Kellogg for
Report. He heard of it thro' the
Secretery & asked to be included
as a right of his office.

New York Press Club,
120 Nassau Street,
New York.

I dont know but this would be
the proper order - i.e. reference to
the Supt., unless they had [alre]
already determined to adopt new
ones. This point I tried to insist
on in the [fil] original filling up
of N.W. corner. That no work
of this kind should be undertaken
without reference to Supt. [He
then] If he reports that new design
is needed, he may add that designing
is not his province. This is
guess work however. Yr statement
is the one thing needed
for the present. I didn't dare
to put head lines on the letter for
the various papers, as city editors
have their own views of such
matters.
I will write again in a
[f] day or two.
Yr W.A. StilesThe Indotype Co.
115 Broadway
New York, July 16th 1887
Indotype,
Photogravure,
Photolithograph printing.

My dear Mr. Olmsted
I am going to give you
a little bit of gossip I heard yesterday
in connection with your recent visit to town.
My informant I understand was present
at the meeting, an interested party.
The intention it seems, as agreed upon
[?ing] the majority of the commissionsers, was
to make you the Director and Consulting
Architect of the projected work at what
I understand to be your own terms,
but they did not want Mr. Vaux. People
here speak of him [h] as incapacitated
for business, say his mind is not clear.
However, that may be you would have
had your way nevertheless had it not
been for a disagreement at the last moment
between Messrs Borden & Cummins
the latter I understand breaking
forth. Mr Borden it seems has a strong wish
to prevent any possibility of the placing ofanimals now or future in the upper
western parks. Cummins is either
indifferent or in favor of it and perhaps
therein lies the gist of the matter.
Now what has actually happened is
that "Parsons & Kellogg (?) have been appointed
Supervising gruu" to have charge of the
improvements there and directed to
bring in plans at once so that gangs
of men can be started to work in a
couple of weeks. Now then (the Commisioners) quandary is
how to explain their actions to you.
As I understand it these men (P & K)
are believed competent to construct a great
amount of "wall" which it is expected will
absorb a large part of the appropriation.
Another remark I overheard was that
you would not promise to undertake
this work at once nor before the Fall&
that the residents wanted no delay.
I give you this gossip for what
you can glean from it, as I am in
the dark about much of its meaning not
knowing what went on between you all. If
it can serve you I am pleased. while writing
I read your letter in the Times. With sincere
regard believe me      
Yours faithfully
Walter G. Eliot       New York Press Club,
120 Nassau Street,
New York
16 July [*[1887?]*]

Dear Mr. Olmsted
I send you the brief comment
on yr letter in Tribune this
A.M.  [I saw] It is in Tribune --
Times & Sun -- other papers I 
haven't seen but am told it is
not in Star.  This I can't
understand because I delivered it
there in person.  The Editors were
not there at the moment but
the young man in charge said
Oh Yes! Mr. Olmsted is a personal
friend of Mr. Dorsheimer & I'll see
that the City Editor attends to it.
I had it set up in Tribune Office
& it was distributed to papers by
Associated Press.  But to guard
against miscarriage I tookcame to deliver copy myself to
every officer. None of them could
have been slighted.
The weather here is simply
deadly, everybody is gasping
for breath.
Yr
W.A. Stiles


OFFICE OF
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
OF HARTFORD, CONN.

T. J. MUMFORD, Manager, New York, 19 July 1887
165 & 167 Broadway,
P.O. Box 542

Dear Mr, Olmsted
Enclosed is from to
days Times. Mr Green is
said to be able to have his say
in their columns. Parsons
knows the editors & "works"
there sometimes.
Strange The World has not
spoken yet. It did not publish
the letter, altho it had copies.
I think that the responsible
persons would not have been
in charge that day.
I'll have a little something
in Tribune tomorrow. This
[rattling?] fire all along the
line I like. It is a sort ofnagging - who initiates & some
times provokes to good works.

W H Stiles

Office of Aetna Life Insurance Company 
of Hartford, Conn.
T. J. Mumford, Manager,
165 & 167 Broadway, P.O. Box 542

New York, 26 July 1887

Dear Mr. Olmsted
After you have
digested the enclosed, please return 
them.  I have been reading
the newspapers until I found
them this A.M.

Chap 577 -- as it seems
to me gives Park Dep (Hutchings)
power to alter as [he] may
suit them any or allof
the work.  The entire street system
of the Annexed District.

Chap 580 makes a circle
which is not a circle 
outside of the park.  The Devil only knows
who drew the Bill -- oror made the [auth] boundearies --
or for what or in whose 
interest.  Some designing Designer [with
an unknown design] it seems has
already made the outline of
the work -- at this key point --
of connection with Upper
Parks.  I think this gang
as dangerous as the Sweeney
Crowd.  Crimmins is still
in -- with Mayor's Endorsement.
He is better than H. Because
we could scare him.  Think
H. less amenable to public
censure.  The Commissioner
to be named in Crimmins place
(his resignation is accepted -- altho
he holds on) will be a politician
pure & simple.

W. H. Stiles[*TV N.Y.*]
[*dupl A*]
Dwight H. Olmsted, Esq.
Dear Sir: 
I have received your letter of 29th inst.
You tell me that the Park Commissioners are of the opinion that they can for a while longer put off taking competent landscape architects into counsel as to the requirements of their Central and Riverside works by directing all their expenditures to certain points at which, so far as they are able to see, they can get along safely without such advice. The calamity may thus be averted no doubt. But whenever for thirty years past their predecessors have undertaken to judge for themselves when and where and to what extent professional counsel should be taken in the management of any of their works, the results have not been gratifying, I think. Are they more likely to be in the present case?
I will consider this question with reference to the first of the pieces of work that you mention. I conceived the design of this seventeen years ago and then as no description of it was necessary, called it by the name you use. But the term describes what I had in mind about as well as the term quadruped describes an alligator. It was an original device to meet a formidable difficulty upon a point of taste. I happen to have since had an opportunity of planning and carrying out essentially the same device elsewhere. Mr. Vaux also has done something like it successfully. But there is no reason for supposing that Mr. Kellogg knows what it is and none for supposing that if he does he can successfully carry it out. It is no more within his professional field than a case in court or a case of malignant fever. If a stone desert, set on edge, were wanted, Mr. Kellogg would be the man for it.
But suppose it had been my business at the time to draw out plans of this piece of work and frame specifications for it, so far as these were possible, (as it would have been as [?] as specifications could be framed for painting the eyes of a Madonna). Suppose this had been my duty and I had performed it and Mr. Kellogg could be supposed competent to direct the work without advice from time to time as it advanced -- there would remain a more important objection to what you think the Commissioners propose. In the course of seventeen years
-2- Dwight H. Olmsted. 31st July, 1887.
the conditions to which I was required to accommodate what I designed, calling it, for want of a readier and more suitable name, a retaining wall, have been wholly changed. Suppose I had made plans, not one measurement of those plans would now be applicable. Nothing, of all that the plans had been shaped with relation to, remains as it was. To proceed this year with any construction in the locality without a deliberate, thorough and complete restudy of the problem would appear to me such an insensate proceeding that I cannot believe that it is intended. I suspect that it has been your turn to be bamboozled. 
I must be excused from saying anything which going as it properly might from you to the Commissioners might yet go from them to the public in such a form as to convey the impression that I have been seeking business from them. There is no employment that they could offer me that I should not accept at a sacrifice of my personal interest. I would never have listened to their overtures for a moment but for the hope that my reemployment by them would signify a disposition on their part of sincere respect for the designs, in the responsibility for which I share, that for years past have been so barbarously misused. 
Yours respectfully,
Fredk Law Olmsted. [*W.A. Stiles*]
New York Press Club
120 Nassau Street,
New York.
Wednesday Eve
[* mid Jly 1887? *]

Personal
Dear Mr Olmsted.
I think from
what I can learn
that Mr Crimmins
failed to present that
letter to the Board
at its meeting yesterday.
You may know why.
If it had been presented
there is little doubt that
the proposal would have
been adopted.
I wish I [k] had
known as much as I
[do] do now, beforeI saw you Friday evening. 
Altho what you did in the 
End seems the proper thing 
to have done.
Crimmins is not stable.
The last man who talks to
him has the greatest influence

Yr  W.A.S.

[*IV N.Y. Parks
Match up
to copy letter
mentioning
Crimmins*]

[*Perhaps July 1887*]

[*from 
Miss
Bullard*]Aetna Life Insurance Company
of Hartford, Conn.
T. J. Mumford, Manager
165 & 167 Broadway
P.O. Box 542

New York, Aug 1 1887

Dear Mr. Olmsted
Enclosed slips need this
comment.  I found the article in News columns
among galley proofs in Tribune Office.  It was
longer -- stating that the work had been
referred to Messrs K. & P. for any needed changes -
that Mr. P. [was] had been long associated with
Mr. V. as a landscape Architect.  But Mr. P. would
make few alterations -- Except [that] needed ones
as for eample the water supply was now
inadequate to carry out purpose of O and V & etc
I asked reporter how he found out what
Mr. P was going to do & he replied that
Mr. P. had told him.  I therefore cutting
P out of the article and let it stand (forgot
to alter headlines) & wrote the Ede to
accompany it.  Borden told Tribune
reporter who had asked about the Plaza
plans (I sent you cutting I think) --that [Les] "L'espinalle & Friedman"
Hebrew real estate brokers & agents
for West Side Annexation, drew up
plaza bill & outlined the boundaries !!!
Board [cenged plans] changed plans as
stated in edl.
I saw Mr V., showed him proof
of Morningside article (original) told him
what Reporter had said. Told him I
should extirpate P. from article. He said
I cant talk to P. nor advise him in
this matter. Things are not "coordinated"
If he lays himself open to criticism he
must take it. I give him up as
a puzzle. [He tells me] He gives me points
when I ask, but is evidently not going
in to help in any visible way. Says
that you & He together might pull stronger
but you haven't "coordinated". I said

Office of
Aetna Life Insurance Company,
of Hartford, Conn.
New York,            188
T.J. Mumford, Manager
166 & 167 Broadway,
P.O. Box 542

have said that he expressed surprise that
P. should have talked (if he did) as reported.
He added that O. & V. had older & more 
intimate association than V. & P. & he
didnt think it necessary to state to P. what
his purposes were.
Tribune Reporter says (But he gets things
mixed) that the resolution passed was
not to refer matter to K. & P. to see [wher]
whether plans could be modified, but
to instruct P & K to make all needed
alterations.
The only complaint I can frame [ac]
against yr action from Mr V's talk is
that he dont want to take the job for
a lump sum, as it may necessitate much
costly drawing & not [be] pay expenses.
Yr
W.A.S.

Office of
Aetna Life Insurance Company,
of Hartford, Conn.
New York,     Aug 3       1887
T.J. Mumford, Manager
166 & 167 Broadway,
P.O. Box 542

Dear Mr Olmsted
I've been out of town for a
couple of days. Sent enclosed report of what
was done at board on Tuesday. Havent seen
Mr Vaux since to get his opinion of Parsons position.
Parsons I saw a moment, had not time to discuss,
but told him that as I understood the situation he
gave the case away & cast his [lot] influence with
the [?] despisers of professional skill. He didn't see it.
Said he was all right, reported on point the Board
requested & saw nothing beyond.
I am getting some help from papers.
But [they h] so much talk is needed that
I'm getting tired especially after some one, with
perfectly good intention says just the wrong thing.
Three weeks remain. The Plaza business, i.e.
plans by Real Estate agents, will help us.
Thanks for your suggestion about specimensof trees & vines & c. Strangely [s?] about
the same notion had been in my head all
day. Trouble is to get good, speaking pictures.
While Mr Codiman is at work &
some [pe] group worth depicting is in yr
mind cant you get him to make
a negative?
Yr W.A. Stiles

Is this part of yr ["argument] "proposition",
(in extract enclosed) made a year 
ago? I wrote for Post, a few days ago
a "letter from people" asking why this
document, alluded to in your published
letter could not be published.
You spoke of sending me a letter from
Mr D. Olmsted, but it was not in the envelope &
nor has it come since. I write this not because I
have any special need to see the letter, but to
advise you that it is somewhere among your
papers.1)
[*New York Parks*]
Law Office
of
Dwight H. Olmstead
Lawrence D. Olmstead
No. 50 Wall Street
New York, August 4  1887

Mr Frdk Law Olmsted
Brookline, Mass.
Dear Sir
I have your letter of the 31st
ult. My only object in interfering
in the matter referred to, has been to
secure your services, & procure the
prompt completion of Morningside
Park in which alone I am personally
interested.
All persons owning near this park,
as well as the Park Commissioners,
are desirous that work should be
commenced on it at once, and they
do not see why the improvement
of Morningside Park should await
the completion of plans for the improvement
of the other parks. The 
property owners are also satisfied with
the plans which you & Mr Vaux
previously prepared which were adopted2)
Law Office
of
Dwight H. Olmstead.
Lawrence D. Olmstead.
No. 50 Wall Street.
New York,          188

by the Park Department, with such
modifications as you may hereafter
deem it advisable to adopt.
I believe the property holders will
insist upon this work being placed
under your supervision; but for the
preliminary purpose of obtaining the
money from the Board of Estimate &
Apportionment, which will consume
some little time, they think that the
adoption of your original plans by
the Park Department will answer.
[for the] It is made by the if it
necessary that the plans should be
approved also by the Board of Estimate
& Apportionment before they shall
vote the money. Even your compensation
must be taken from this money.
We believe that the approval of you
general plan by the Park Department
will be sufficient to enable the Board3)
Law Office
of
Dwight H. Olmstead.
Lawrence D. Olmstead.
No. 50 Wall Street.
New York,          188

of Estimate & Apportionment to act
in the matter, without waiting for the
detailed plans of the work, which can
be made while the money is being
procured. If you will inform me
how quickly the necessary plans can
be prepared for Morningside Park
for the purpose of securing this money,
it will expedite matters materially.
Although the Park Board has 
adjourned for three weeks, we can
probably secure a[s] meeting of the
Board immediately after hearing
from you.
Your letter to Mr. Crimmins, which
was read in the Board, has created an
apprehension that the making of
new plans would cause a long delay,
& has the  means of preventing any work
being begun this year.4)
Law Office
of
Dwight H. Olmstead.
Lawrence D. Olmstead.
No. 50 Wall Street.
New York,          188

A certain amount of coarse and
heavy work will be required in 
Morningside Park, made as drainage,
filling in, foundations, walls &c,
which require only general plans
and are unimportant to the artistic
work to be done; and it would seem
as if this kind of work could be
proceeded with at once; and if that
were possible, it would serve to
satisfy the property owners, as well
as the Park Commissioners who also
desire the work to be hastened.
If you are willing to communicate
with me upon the subject, I should
be pleased to hear from you as
early as convenient.
Yours truly
Dwight H. OlmsteadOffice of
Aetna Life Insurance Company,
of Hartford, Conn.
New York,     Aug 5       1887
T.J. Mumford, Manager
166 & 167 Broadway,
P.O. Box 542

Dear Mr Olmsted
I have just come from
a long talk with Mr V. He inspired that
Report of Parsons's. he says he could'nt give P.
any advice but he has stuck the points into
Parsons sidewise. For he thinks the report just
right & on the whole he has convinced me that
P. could have said nothing else to the questions
asked him i.e. whether the plans could be
used, or were available. What he said
was yes, they can be used just as they stand
for expenditure of 250,000. That is, the
[elementary] plan was so good originally in its
elementary lines, adapted to the surface &c
that this [fame] frame can be used safely
without alteration & be the basis of a good
park. What should a Supt say. No? The
plan can't be used? [or can be used with
certain alteration &c] [No] This is a Superintendent's
reply to his superior. He can [sp] he says spend250,000 & He goes no further. Now says Mr
V. you can [add to this] deny this in the
paper, or say that P should have made some
suggestion about complete system &c
if you like. But really answer is correct
as far as it goes & then stops.
The argument that should follow in Mr
V's mind is - But suppose you can
use the old plan, more designing will be
needed to fill in the frame work. & how
do you know that if O & V. were called
for a restudy of the entire system that
the frame work could not be altered.
At all events if O & V's old plan is so good
that it can be picked up & followed
after lying 13 years, why not ask their
opinion now, especially since [there]
this is but part of a system &c
&c. I found out a little more
of Mr Vs position to-day, but INo Trifling with the Parks.
From the Evening Sun.
There are indications that the Park Board
has not hitherto appreciated the responsibility of the
trust imposed upon them in the disposition of a very
large amount of money for completing Riverside, Morningside,
and Central parks. Their first duty was to secure
the best professional advice and a consistent plan
to complete the entire system.
[There have been rumors that the plans considered
were the inspiration of certain real estate agents, instead
of such practised artists as Messrs. Olmstead & Vaux.
However, the real estate agents have gone and the appearances
are that the above named gentlemen have
taken their places.
There seems to be still some doubt about that, though,
and the sooner it is removed the better.]
Our parks are objects of proper civic pride, and the
people are in no humor to permit an undertaking of [that] [* this - i.e. the completion of the Parks.*]
magnitude and importance to be let out as piece work
or on disconnected and unrelated designs.

Office of
Aetna Life               Company,

                                   188
T.J. Mumford, Manager
165 & 167 Broadway,
P.O. Box 542

can't explain.
Meanwhile -Star. Post - Sun -
Times & Tribune have all had careful
articles & all are sound. It seems
as if we could swing the entire press.
They have been a little off the scent
sometimes, but [now] all straight
on the main question.
I sent a note to Paul Derner containing
first & last ¶s of enclosed. He sent reporter
out who [wrot] wrote long article
[pretty] good & strong but "mixed" a little
& hence the ¶s after the first were
interjected in edtl, Tribune quoted this today
Yr
W.A. Stiles[*IV. N.Y. dupl A*]
6th Aug. 1887.

Dear Mr. Parsons:
I get letters from New York which indicate an impression that you and I are somewhat at odds. I want you to be assured that I do not take such a view. I try not to let my mind be occupied or my time wasted with attention to the New York Park Commissioners, and I did not read your report quite fully or thoughtfully but my impression was that you took the right position and quite likely if I was to study the question I should come to about the same general conclusions. 

In all the conferences that the Commissioners have sought with me I have aimed to give more importance to the office you hold and increase their trust in you -- their dependence on you.

I think it right and best that Mr. Vaux and I should be in a consultory position with reference to the works we have designed together. I think it wrong and inexpedient that we should be allowed to offer advice only when it may occur to the Commissioners that they stand in need of it. I prefer that under any arrangement that may be possibly made for suitably employing us that Mr. Vaux, as resident in New York and constantly on hand should be expected to give more than it would be convenient for me to do and should be compensated accordingly.

I have held always steadily to this view, since the Commissioners began to seek an arrangement with and have prepared nothing otherwise except in answer to requests and inquiries, a civil answer to which compelled me to do so. 

I suppose that you have presumed this but think it better that you should be left in no doubt about it.

Yours Truly,
Fredk Law OlmstedOffice of
Aetna Life Insurance Company,
of Hartford, Conn.
New York,    8 Aug       1887
T.J. Mumford, Manager
166 & 167 Broadway,
P.O. Box 542

Dear Mr Olmsted.
I have recd yr letter & send
you what I wrote yesterday & appeared in this
morning's Tribune. [It] This article was the best
I could say for Parsons Report: I couldn't help hinting
at the limitations of his official duty. P. owes so much
to the papers, owes so much to me, no, I dont mean
he is in my debt, but he has been helped so much that he
should have tried to keep in line with the column.
He could have helped us some & his influence, whatever it
may be, was cast [I think] in favor of piece work &
against the demand for complete plan. I dont
like yr suggestion that he receive any additional authority
or appointment: He has had as much as he deserves.
He has stood for expert ability, so far as he could.
He has been useful in that way. His advice has been
good too because V. told him what to say. He will
continue to help where he is, but I think any  promotion
or increased authority [wo] would be bad,
give him a name & place he doesnt deserve.He is so much better than what we have had. Amenable
to reason, appreciative of Landscape & its value
that he was a godsend. But he never had an original 
idea.
I dont know that you will agree with the line
of argument in this edl. But I have said so much
that I get mixed sometimes. [If] I havent sent
you all I have written, but if at any time you
see anything that [cant] is unsound please
correct me.
I have been trying to get that letter (Report)
for a few days. You saw my demand for it
in Post. I got V's copy yesterday. He would
have agreed to let me use it but I think it shld
come from Commissioners by all means.
My eyes suddenly & apparently without cause
"quit" a week ago. Can use them but a
little each day, & less it appears every day.
Since I was practically blind for a dozen [of]
years the possibilities of the situation are
disquieting. Mr O's letter did not reach
me. Im sure that it [co] did not get away from me.
Yrs W.A.S.

Office of
Aetna Life Insurance Company,
of Hartford, Conn.
New York,     10 Aug        1887
T.J. Mumford, Manager
166 & 167 Broadway,
P.O. Box 542

Dear Mr Olmsted
That Lenox-Niagara
tour is alluring. But I have an
arrangement to meet all my sisters
with their children at the old homestead
& my absence would be inexcusable.
Since you told me you had [to]
written to Parsons I've been troubled.
He will take yr endorsement to Commissioners
& use it against our
position. I cant think with complacency
of any issue but one from
this situation. I dont believe
in having any second choice. If
we have a second choice we [unarguably?]
accept it. "The next-best-thing" I dont
like to think of. There is one good
thing & all the rest are bad
essentially. If anything happens
but the one thing, I shall be free
to denounce it. [Pet] Perhaps I'm
wrong, but I dont think we (you)
ought to think of any possibility
but one as at all endurable.
I'm trying to get that letter
from Crimmins. My eyes are
no worse & I use them
more. A.A.A.S. is meeting
here & I can spend much
time in visiting the gentlemen
who have interests & tastes in
common.
Yr W A Stiles

New York Press Club,
120 Nassau Street,
New York.
Wednesday Eve
24 Aug [*1887*]
Dear Mr Olmsted
I've just
torn up a long letter written
to you, but in reading it
over I found it contained many
guesses. I've been pretty mad
for a few days & cant write
as I should. When I can see
you I'll explain. Suffice it
to say that you & V. are to be invited
to to revise Morningside plans
for immediate filing in Board of
apportionment. Before you refuse,
think. The Board have taken
V. with you. [They have not]
This is concession. They have
not asked you to [a] counsel
them for whole [in] Park circuit.
But I think that if you
start in we can drive themas they have been driven to this.
Now may be danger of Bowdwitch
this influence of Tuxedo crowd.
I have personal reasons for wanting
you to take this now, & hope you
can see your way to do it.
Mr Crimmins told the board that
you had written him that you 
would undertake Morning side [at]
by itself provided Mr V was with 
you.
If you come to N.Y.
let me see you by all means.
Yr W.A. Stiles[*IV NY - CP. Vaux*]
[1]4th Augt [*1887*] Sunday  [*From M drawer*]

Dear Olmsted, To relieve the embarrassment of
unsettled relations between us, after your letter
was published, I proposed a quotable understanding
that neither would accept DPP engagement that
did not include the other; to this you replied
that you did not want to bind me,
or yourself. This one letter I kept
for personal guidance as I must be ready
to define my position at any time, but
I now return it to you as you do not
attach the weight to it that I did,
and the simplicity of our friendly relations
requires that misconstructions must not exist
Perhaps a conference may enable us to arrive
at a better understanding if so I am readyto meet you. Our position before the public
though an honorable one seems destined to
be wholly unfruitful. Under these circumstances
the first thing to secure on
my part is a continuance of the friendly
relations I have with you and yours.
Mrs. Vaux is here for a day or 
two helping Marion to pack for her
canoe meet trip. Both send love
Yours truly
C. VauxOct " 14th [*1887*]
Dear John,
While the
data for M P. were 
being furnished from 
D P. P office I instructed
Mr. Kellogg to forward
to your father a 
copy of official
map of 110th Stand 8th Av. plaza
as defined by law.
I have since 
asked for a copy
for my own use
but do not receive
it. As the time
has now passed for
official intercourse
with K, I shall
be glad to receive

a full copy from you, as
I can get it in this way probably
sooner than through K whose
draughtsmen are fully occupied
perhaps. I hear nothing
of Mr Olmsted's calculations
in regard to return fromCalifornia - probably you expect 
him back shortly.

You will see by the papers 
what has been done and 
said 

Yours very truly
Calvert Vaux[*CP-                                                                    [*dupl A*]
VIII*]

Brookline, 3rd. Dec. 1887.

The Hon. Robert Treat Paine.

My Dear Sir:

Your note of the 21st. ulto. 
asking in behalf of Miss Octavia Hill, "how much 
money is voted in New York yearly for parks and 
open spaces", was referred to me by the Park 
Commissioners of Boston, to whom it was addressed.

In the accounts of New York a few other matters 
are mixed with those of recreation grounds; 
items of construction and maintenance are not 
perfectly divided and the appropriations vary 
from year to year.  For these reasons I have 
thought it best to compile the following statement:  

New York has but one considerable public 
ground in use; the Central Park.  Including space 
occupied within it for public water reservoirs and 
a few buildings (say 140 acres) it is 880 acres 
in extent.  New York has also forty (40 smaller 
public grounds with an aggregate area of three 
hundred and seventy (370) acres  laws have been 
created and proceedings are in progress for the acquisition 
of lands for suburban parks and grounds 
to the extent of thirty nine hundred (3900) acres 
and also for the removal of buildings and the forming 
of small recreation grounds in the most densely 
built parts of the city, the space to be treated 
not being yet determined, 

The cost of the land of the Central Park has 
been five million dollars ($5,028,  14.).  There has 
been paid out for the improvement and maintenance 
(1857 to 1887) ten million, five hundred dollars 
($10,547,451.), or, an average yearly for thirty 
years, (including the period of the war), three 
hundred and fifty one thousand, five hundred and 
eighty one dollars ($351,581.).

The Annual Appropriation for the maintenance 
of the various city properties in charge of the Commissioners 
of Parks was 
for 1888     $713,150.00
  "   1887       693,150.00
but in these sums were included items for public 
museums ($40,000.), for a zoological show ($30,000.) 
and for music on the public grounds ($13,000.), altogether 


-2-  Hon.R.T.P.                                 3rd. Dec. 1837.

amounting, in 1887, to $83,000.  Something 
also for meteorological observations.

Provision has likewise been made for additional 
works of construction, chiefly on the minor 
grounds, to the amount of $700,000. probably equivalent 
to the annual expenditure of three hundred thousand 
dollars ($300,000.).

It may be roughly computed that New York is now 
expending fully a million dollars a year for increasing, 
improving and maintaining her places of public 
open air recreation.

What I have said applies exclusively to the 
political division, New York.  Brooklyn, which is 
another division of the same town, ha a public 
park of five hundred and fifty (550) acres, with 
other provisions for public recreation.  I have not 
the data for computing the annual outlay upon them 
but can probably procure it if desired.  It is comparatively 
stinted.

I send herewith a printed report with regard 
to the public grounds of Boston which may be of interest 
to Miss Hill.  If you wish I will send an account 
of the public grounds of some of our other 
large towns and shall be glad t any time to be 
given an opportunity of serving Miss Hill's purpose 
in any way.

Respectfully yours, 
(Signed) Fredk Law Olmsted.

Office of 
Leopold Eidlitz,
Architect,
128 Broadway.
New York, Decem 8th 1887

Dear Olmsted,
Had a talk with Mr Robb
(who is to be Park president)
about Park affairs. Of course
I wanted you back in the old
place. Robb agreed and would
be willing (personally) to pay largely
if you devoted yourself to the
park work entirely and gave
up all other work. He thinks
however you will not consent
to do that, nor to come to N York
to live. He expects to make
an arrangement whereby you
and Vaux are to act conjointly, Vaux
to be the Landscape Architect
attached her and you to be
Consulting Architect. I told
Mr Robb that such a scheme willOffice of 
Leopold Eidlitz,
Architect,
128 Broadway.
New York,     18

not work unless it be understood that
you are to come here at least
every three month examine the state
of the park and report upon them
recommending the work to be done,
and that you prepared the drawings
for such work.
He accepted the idea very favorably
and promised to act upon it.
On leaving I asked him whether
I might communicate to you the
results of our conversation.
He assented promptly and said
that he desires to consult you in
whatever he intends to do.
If you happen to be in NY
this side of New Year's I think
it would be well to see him.
Yours as ever
L Eidlitz
[*From Mrs 
Bullard*]

City of New York, 
Department of Public Parks, 
[36 Union Square] 
49 and 51 Chambers Street. 

December 23rd, 1887.  

Walter G. Eliot, Esq., 
115 Broadway, 

Dear Sir: 
In reply to the inquiry contained in your letter of 
the 21st inst., as to the rescinding of the resolution appointing 
Mr. Fred. Law Olmsted, Landscape Architect Advisory 
to the Board of Parks, I beg to state that at a recent meeting 
such action was taken. 

Respectfully, 
Charles De F. Burns 
Secretary, Department Public Parks.Chas. C. F. Burns
Dec. 23/87
Relating to appointing 
Mr. F.L. O.Consult minutes of the Board of Commissioners 
New York Department of Public Parks, 1888-1890 
(possibly also 1887 and 1891) to find the dates 
of appointment of Calvert Vaux as landscape architect 
and Frederick Law Olmsted as consulting 
landscape architect to the Department.  Also 
dates when they were relieved from their engagements.  
Mr. Olmsted's appointment must have 
been after [on] June 22nd 1889 when a resolution of thanks [this] 
was passed by the West End Association of New 
York[.  F], for Mr. Olmsted's work on the "Public 
Plantations" report regarding Central Park (when 
Mr. Olmsted was obviously and outside expert).


Minutes and Documents 1887 p 412
Thursday December 22, 1887
Commissioner Robb offered the following:
   Resolved, that Calvert Vaux be and he hereby is 
   appointed Landscape Architect, at a salary of $3,000 
   per annum, from January 1, 1888.
Which was adopted by the following vote:  
   Ayes - Commissioners Borden, Myers, Robb - 3.
- --- -
Unable to trace date of release - looked these Minutes 
to 1894.  Park Dept said "no use to hunt further" and 
produced no means for further hunt!Minutes and Documents 1887 p 515.

April 20, 1887. Wednesday

"Commissioner Crimmins offered the following:
Resolved, that Fred. Law Olmstead [*sic*] be and he hereby is appointed Landscape Architect Advisory to this Board, and that the President be authorized to confer with Mr. Olmstead in relation to Park improvements. 
Which was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes - Commissioners Borden, Crimmins - 2
No - Commissioner Powers - 1

Release - same luck as with Vaux[*502*]

City of New York,
Department of Public Parks,
49 and 51 Chambers St.

Commissioner's Office, 
February 11th, 1888.

Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted, 
Brookline, Mass.

Dear Sir:-
You have no doubt noticed in recent papers, that 
there is a movement on foot to have a road for driving and 
speeding purposes located on the west side of Central Park, 
and that meetings have been held advocating such a measure. 
Mr. Borden will be greatly obliged if you will favor him 
with your professional opinion as to the propriety of any 
such use of the Park, and trust it will be convenient for 
you to furnish such report so that he can present it at a 
meeting of the Board to be held on Wednesday next. 
Very Respectfully,
Charles De F. Burns
Secretary, D.P.P.Chas. De. F. Burns
Febr. 11 88
-
Relating to a road in Park
-(copy)
Department of Public Parks, N.Y.
Office of Superintendent of Parks,
Museum Building, 64th St. and 5th Ave.
February 20th 1888

Honble M.C.D. Borden,
President, D.P.P.
Sir, 
The arrangement of a portion of 72nd Street,
being under the control of your Department, I
am requested to report on the matter at the
next meeting of the Board.
In reply to a letter to the Secretary, asking for
the controlling facts, Mr. Burns furnished me with
Drawing No. 1, and I also received from the
Engineer of Construction, an answer to further
enquiries in the form of tracing No. 2.
The relation of this portion of 72nd Street to the
general plan of the City is a peculiar one.
It was originally laid out one hundred feet
wide, as a part of the regular system adopted in the
City of New York, which requires the ordinary width
of Streets to be sixty feet, with streets one hundred
feet wide at more less regular intervals.
Its introduction, was therefore justified, when
originally planned....before Central Park was
conceived or Riverside Park thought of....It is now,
on the west side of the City, the first outlet fromCentral Park above 59th Street, and is the inevitable
line of connection between that pleasure ground and
Riverside Drive, which every year grows more attractive,
as the trees planted on it develope and give the shade
necessary to make it an agreeable resort for those on
foot or in carriages.
Under these circumstances a crowding of this
thoroughfare in every part is to be anticipated in
the near future and the adjustment of its details
at this time must be made with that expectation.
If the street were now to be laid out by the
City under your direction, the Park Department would
probably conclude that a liberal Parkway treatment
would be entirely appropriate, and would perhaps take
one hundred and fifty feet instead of one hundred feet.
The area line being settled at five feet, and the
stoop line at about seven feet, it does not seem prudent
to allow less than thirteen feet beyond the stoop line
for the sidewalk....thus leaving sixty feet available
for carriage drive and planting space.
In the design herewith recommended for your
consideration and shown on Drawing, No. 3, a
width of forty eight feet is allowed for carriage way
and a width (including curb stone) of six feet on each
side for planting space. An additional width of
one foot six inches, making seven feet six inches in all......(including curb stone) is provided for each tree
in the manner shown on the section, it being assumed
that the action of the City in regard to paving permits,
can in future be so regulated as to secure for this
part of the sidewalk the use of paving stones of
such size that there will be at least four feet of
solidly bedded stone to each eighteen inches of overhang.
The planting spaces are proposed to be twenty
feet in length for each tree and to be filled with
mould to a depth varying from four feet in the
centre to two feet at each end as shown on the
drawing. This will give twenty one cubic yards of
mould for each tree.
It is intended on this design that the trees
shall be planted fifty feet apart.
Respectfully
Calvert Vaux.
Landscape Architect.
Saml. Parsons Jr.
Supt. of Parks.Copy of Report on
arrangement of
West 72nd Street, N.Y.
by Calvert Vaux.
20th. Feby. 1888. Department of Public Parks,
Office of Design,
[*(Copy)*] 64th Street and Fifth Avenue
New York, April 4th 1888
Hon'ble M. C. D. Borden.
President D. P. P.
Sir, 
As requested by you in January last
we present some suggestions to the Board in
regard to the permanent landscape improvement
of the section of the Central Park lying between
102nd and 110th Streets, West of Fifth Avenue.
The existing state of things as furnished to
us by your Superintending Engineer is shown on
Plan No 1, and the improvements we recommend
for your consideration at this time are shown
on Plan No 2. 
The dotted lines A, B, C, and D, show the
general plan of propagating houses as approved
by the Board in (November) 1886 and
partially executed at that time in regard to
foundation work, and the construction of sashes
&c, in the carpenter's shop.
This block of propagating houses was
designed to be executed (under the instructions
of the Department) with a view to its removal
at small cost from the position on which it was
then ordered to be temporarily located.
If the improvements recommended for your 
consideration . . . . (Plan No 2,) . . . . are carried 
into effect the time will come when such a blockof buildings will be out of place in this part of
the Park....as, however, for a number of years
this territory must be comparatively
uninteresting, on account of the slow growth of
trees and shrubs....we advise an adherence to
the existing plan of operations which will
undoubtedly have its own features of interest
for the general visitor during the transitional
period above referred to.
The plan contemplates the removal of the
buildings marked E,F,G.H,I,K, and L. -
E and I are conservatories for growing large
and small greenhouse plants....their
removal is expedient because they are so
decayed as to be unsafe and the original plan
of each is defective either for the purposes of
exhibition or propagation.
F,G, and H, are small separate houses
open to the same objections in regard to
propagating that have been made above with
reference to buildings marked, E and I.
K, is a tool house, originally made out of
an old building and so much decayed now,
that it requires to be pulled down. A new
tool house and ladies Cottage at point K, on
Plan No. 2, is proposed to take its place.
L is a rude building put up originally asa temporary stable which is no longer needed;
as all the horses employed on maintenance are
now satisfactorily accommodated at the
Department Stables on 85th Street Transverse
Road.
The territory marked, M,M, originally
planted as a Park Nursery is partially
occupied at present by old and young trees
and shrubs.
Some of the old stock is unsuitable
for removal but the greater portion of the new
stock is in a thrifty condition and will be
transplanted.
At the commencement of the Central
Park improvement the permanent design of
this territory was left undeveloped because
it was a part of the Mount St. Vincent
Convent Grounds which the City did not get
possession of immediately and because the
whole district was selected for office and
nursery purposes till the convent buildings
burned down,....the conservatory attached
to the Convent building was thus allowed to
stand and was used for a greenhouse in
connection with the nurseries.
For twenty years, therefore, this ground
has been devoted to the experimental growthof plants under the direction of the Department
of Parks, and as the result of all this today
we have a number of curious and well
developed specimens of trees and shrubs
thriving year after year because they have
been growing in a sheltered position. Fine
specimens may be seen here of the Deodar
Cedar, Limonia trifoliata, the Cedar of
Lebanon and certain more or less tender
varieties of Japanese Maples, Rhododendrons,
Azaleas and Yews.
We propose therefore not only to extend
the plantation of trees and shrubs that have
already succeeded in this protected amphitheatre 
but to collect here as large a variety
as possible of choice and somewhat tender plants.
There is some unfinished ground close
to the boundary wall on the inside of the
Park, between 106th Street, and 110th Street,
near Fifth Avenue,....and on the line of
110th Street, between Fifth and Sixth Avenues.
The completion of this unfinished work
should we think be undertaken at this time
to the extent colored green on plan No. 2,
one hundred feet in each direction being
left unchanged at the North East angle....
(as show)....with reference to future adjustmentin connection with contemplated Plaza.
The grade of Fifth Avenue at 102nd
Street, having been changed since a Park
entrance was made at that point, a
re-adjustment has become necessary and
should now be made .... the work of
reconstruction thus involved is estimated by
the Superintending Engineer at $ 4,800.00
The general lines remain unaltered on the 
plan.

Respectfully
Calvert Vaux
Landscape Architect D.P.P.
Sam. l. Parsons Jr.
Supt of Parks.502

Central Park between
102nd & 110th Streets

Vaux &
ParsonsCalvert Vaux to 
M. C. D. Borden
Apr. 4, 1888

(Copy)C. Vaux L. Ar. D.P.P.
Sl. Parsons Supt of Parks
Apr 4/88

CP VIII[*IV N. Y.                                            dupl. A*]

9th June, 1888.

My Dear Sir:

I am much obliged to you and I should 
be glad if I could think it possible to take up 
the enterprise again with any reasonable prospect 
of affecting it favorably in a substantial 
way.

I do not think there is or ever can be such 
a prospect, and I do not want to waste an additional 
hour of my time, further than courtesy imperatively 
requires, in discussion of how, were 
New York not what it is and governed as it is, 
it could be made possible.

Such discussion has been going on with park 
commissioners themselves, as well as with many 
others, supposed to be interested with them and 
for them, and for the city in their affairs, at 
intervals for two years past, never at my invitation 
and never with anything but the reverse 
of satisfaction, self-respect or pecuniary profit 
to me.

Yours truly,
Fredk Law Olmsted.

The Hon. Wm. R. Martin.(copy)
Department of Public Parks, Office of Design
64th St. and 5th Av. New York Augt 6th, 1888

Honble. J. Hampden Robb
President D.P.P.
Dear Sir,
The accompanying plan shows the present
intentions of the City in regard to Morningside
Avenue West, a carriage way 35 feet in width being
provided with a sidewalk 30 feet wide on the park
side, and a sidewalk 15 feet wide on the house side,
....8o feet in all.
From Monrningside Park to Riverside Park
this thoroughfare is called 122nd Street, the carriage
way being then made 42 feet wide, with sidewalks
on each side 19 feet in width....(80 feet in all).
Under these circumstances it has become
evident to me and to the Superintendent....(who
is familiar with Park Department experience in
regard to crowding)....that the expediency of
recommending a widening of Morningside Avenue
West, should now be considered by the Park Department.
A careful study of the circumstances illustrated
by the accompanying pencil plan seems to show
that the best results would be secured by giving
to Morningside Avenue West a carriage road
44 feet in width, - with a sidewalk 30 feet in
width on the park side, - and a sidewalk 26 feet
in width on the house side, . . . making 100 feet in all.
For the most part the 20 feet will require to 
be taken from the adjoining property, but at the
point of junction with 122nd Street, 15 feet is
proposed to be taken from the park territory and
only 5 feet from the adjoining property. 
Yours faithfully
Calvert Vaux
Landscape Architect D.P.P.

City of New York. Department of Public Parks.
19 and 51 Chambers St. Novr. 15th 1888.
Commissioners Office.
Mr. Calvert Vaux
Landscape Architect
Sir, 
At a meeting of the Board held on 14th inst
you were directed to prepare a plan showing the
proposed improvement of Morningside Avenue West,
based on a widening of 5 feet to be taken from the
Easterly sidewalk together with an estimate of the
cost, and submit the same to the Board.
The matter of dumping large stone at the Southerly end
of the filling between 86th and 87th Streets on Riverside Drive
was referred to you for report at the next meeting.
Respectfully 
Charles D. F. Burns
Secretary D.P.P.Department of Public Parks, Office of Design
64th St. and 5th Ave.  New York, Decr. 24th 1888.
Honble. J.Hampden Robb
President D.P.P.
Sir,
As directed, I have prepared a design for the
improvement of Morningside Avenue West,....the
width of the carriage way being increased from the
35 feet to 40 feet, and the width of the Easterly
sidewalk being reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet.
Under these circumstances it seems desirable...
(as shown on Plan, No. 1,)...to arrange for a planting
space 8 feet wide, exclusive of curb, and 4 feet deep,
to be constructed between the carriage way and the
paved portion of the Easterly sidewalk,...the
usual preparation for crossing by a paved walk being
made opposite the end of each street end as intervals
opposite the Cathedral property.
American elms are proposed to be planted in
this grass border a little over 50 feet apart, as shown
on the plan.
The space between this planting border and the
parapet is proposed to be occupied as shown, by a
walk to be covered with asphalte. For many years a
width of 15 feet will furnish sufficient accomodation
for pedestrians, and, whenever expedient, the grassborder may be replaced by a complete system of iron
gratings so arranged as to form a part of the walking
space to be used by the public, while securing to every
tree an uninterupted opportunity for root growth in
the long and narrow strip of soil to be set apart for its
special use at this time.
The precise character of the design to be followed in
the completion of the parapet, is not under consideration
at this moment, but I assume that it is the intention of
the Board to make it correspond generally with the
existing work, and I have therefore appended a
preliminary study showing a possible treatment of the
bays and parapet where the sidewalk will have to be
made sloping to correspond with a sloping grade in
the carriage way.
The carriage way is proposed to be constructed
of Telford pavement and broken stone with a surface
of gravel.
An estimate of the proposed work prepared by
the Engineer of Construction is attached to this report
Respectfully
Calvert Vaux
Landscape Architect D.P.P.City of New York
                                                         Department of Public Parks
                                                              49 and 51 Chambers St
Commissioners office                                              July 11th, 1889

Mr. Calvert Vaux,
                              Landscape Architect
Sir,
       At a meeting of the Board held on 10th inst
the width of the Easterly sidewalk of Morningside
Avenue was established at twenty five (25) feet,
and the roadway of forty (40) feet.

        The plan submitted by you for completion 
of the approaches to the building of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art was approved and referred to the
Engineer of Construction for report of estimated cost.
                                            Yours respectfully
                                            Charles De J. Burns
                                                            Secretary.I expect that this 
will be read at
Board meeting
on Wednesday
July 22

Honble. Waldo Hutchins
President D.P.P.
Dear Sir,
On August 6th of last year in a letter
to the President I made a suggestion, which
was approved by the Board, in regard to the
expediency of recommending a widening of
Morningside Avenue West from 80 feet to
100 feet, and an opportunity was given to the
property owners interested, to express their views
in regard to the proposed modification.
The widening was objected to by a
deputation fairly representative of the
adjoining owners, mainly on the ground
that the Avenue and street grades as now
established had been determined by the Park
Department some years before with the assent of
these property owners, and that there would be
special hardship in any revision now that
would nullify existing legislation and make
the steep grades of the intersect streets still
steeper.
On November 15th I was directed to
prepare a design for an improvement of
Morningside Avenue West in which the2
width of the carriage way should be
increased from thirty five to forty feet
and the width of the Easterly sidewalk
should be reduced from thirty to twenty
five feet.
On December 24th I submitted a
report with a design (Plan No. 1) which
showed the best adjustment that I found
to be practicable with these limitations.
On this plan the asphalte walk is shown
15 feet in width with grass borders 8 feet
in width, in which American elms are
to be planted 50 feet apart, the grass,
whenever expedient in the future, to be
re-placed with iron gratings so arranged
as to form a part of the walking space
to be used by the public, while securing
to every tree an uninterrupted opportunity
for root growth in the long and narrow
strip of soil to be set apart for its
special use at the outset.
This plan has not yet been acted on
by the Board, but at the meeting held
July 10th a resolution was passed establishing
the width of the Easterly sidewalk3
at 25 feet.
I desire therefore at this time to
point out to your Board that the 
conspicuous defect in the general design
for Morningside Avenue West as now
laid out by the City is the absence of any
space for the planting of shade trees on
the west side of the Avenue.
It would certainly be to the interest
of the Park Department to secure an
additional reservation 10 feet in width
for tree planting between the Avenue and
the houses to be built facing the Park, and
if the special grievance of an alteration of
legalized grades can be avoided, there seems to
be no good reason why the City should not
exercise its right of eminent domain and
take what it wants.
Under these circumstances I have
prepared a design, tracing No. [110] 112, showing
a widening of 10 feet without any alteration
of grades, the planting spaces being of the
full width of the reservation and sloped
to correspond with the intersecting street
grades as they can be without disadvantage.
The design is further illustrated by
drawings Nos 113,114 and 115.4
The Easterly sidewalk, as originally
planned was 30 feet in width which is
certainly better than 25 feet for purposes of
Promenade, but in an Avenue ninety feet
wide the carriage way should not be less
than forty feet wide, and consequently if the
sidewalk should be left at 30 and the carriage
way [made no] altered from 35 yo 40 the present arrangement of
street grades on the west side of the [walk] work could
not be preserved.
As the City is manifestly committed beyond
recall to the existing system of street grades [on]
in connection with this Avenue, it seems better for me at this
time, to recommend a widening that will
secure to the public, the vital point of shade
to the Avenue and the promenade from the
afternoon sun, although the Easterly sidewalk
has to be reduced from 30 feet to twenty five
feet to accomplish this desirable end without
grievance to the adjoining property owners, in
the matter of re-adjustment of [grades] street
grades.
C.V. LA DPP
I send you this that you
may know the general
course of things at presentCopy of Report on 
Morningside Avenue.

by Calvert Vaux.
6th Aug. 1888.