FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED SUBJECT FILE Parks New York, N.Y. (Esp. Central Park) 1890-94 39[*502*] [*HSC and FLO J.W. Answd 16th*] KILIAEN VAN RENSSELAER, Custom House Broker, AND FORWARDING AGENT, No. 56 Wall Street. New York, Oct 9th 1890 Prof Frederick Law Olmsted My dear Sir: Yours of June 15th 1889 acknowledging receipt of check for $75 I refer to. This check has never been returned to my bank. It was a small contribution towards the expenses of yourself and Prof Harrison towards expenses when you made investigation in reference to what we feared was excessive tree cutting in our Central Park. This contribution was made by the West End Association. I imagine you are busy & thus have forgotten that the $75 is to your credit and if the check is lost I will replace it. Yours very truly Kiliaen Van RensselaerK. Van Rensselaer 9th Oct. 1890 about check for $75.00 [*502*] [*16th ans'd J.C.O. FLO*] New Hampshire Forestry Commission. Joseph B. Walker, President. G. Byron Chandler, Treasurer. J.B. Harrison, Secretary. Office of the Secretary. Franklin Falls, N.H., Oct. 14. 1890. Dear Mr. Olmsted, In reply to your kind letter of the 10th inst. enclosing Mr. Kiliaen Van Rensselaers, -- I do not like to say absolutely that I did not have the check, but I have not remembrance of it, and I think I should remember it if I had had it. I always use a check -- from whatever source -- very soon, not only because I need the money, but because I regard the retention of a check as a -- not the best way of keeping money. I should have cashed the check and it would have been returned. Perhaps your son will remember, or have some record of the matter. I shall, of course, be glad to account for it if I had it. When any business is finished I let it go out of my mind, being occupied with current affairs, and it is possible that I have forgotten about this. I am Very Truly Yours, J.B. Harrison. I enclose Mr. Van R's letter to you. Mr. Fredk. Law Olmsted Brookline, Mass.[*502*] [*J.C.O.*] [? *WSC*] [*HO*] New Hampshire Forestry Commission. Joseph B. Walker, President. G. Byron Chandler, Treasurer. J.B. Harrison, Secretary. Office of the Secretary. Franklin Falls, N.H., Oct. 20. 1890. Dear Mr. Olmsted: I thank you for your letter of the 16th inst. I recall the $50 check, but can find nothing to indicate what became of the one for $75. It seems to me now that, writing of it as I did, I should have enclosed and returned it, if I had it, -- and I cannot now recall or understand why it should have been sent to me. It was an honor to me to be associated with your father in the work at Central Park, and he was extremely kind in the matter of payment for so slight a performance. But my arithmetic seems to have been wrong in the letter which you quote. I have in a few instances know that letters to me were lost in the mails. But if Mrs. Harrison forwarded the check to me while I was away it would reach me somewhere, or be returned to her. I am very sorry for whatever negligence of mine -- or omission -- was the cause of your having to spend time with the matter now. At any rate I wasmore than fully paid by the $50 check, and I will return $12 50/100, so as to divide the $75 equally, -- or a larger amont if you say so. What chiefly puzzles me is the question why I did not return the $75 check, if I had it -- and why it was sent to me. I am Very Truly Yours J.B. Harrison Mr. J.C. Olmsted. Brookline, Mass.[*502*] [*File*] [*JCO* [*F.L.O.*] [?*USL*] The Sun New York: Dec 15, 1890 Dear Mr. Olmsted: Have you ever formed any idea of where it would be best to put a road in which there could be fast driving for New Yorkers? So far no idea has materialized except putting it in Central Park but to that we have always been opposed. I am now a member ofof the Park Commission, and should like to give some attention to the subject, with the hope of finding some suitable place. If you have any suggestion that you could make, I should be greatly obliged for it. Yours very truly, Paul Dana.Paul Dana 15th Dec. 1890 Proposition to put a speeding track on Central Park[*502*] [*New York Pks.*] Form No. 44. NIGHT MESSAGE. THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY. This company TRANSMITS and DELIVERS messages only on conditions limiting its liability, which have been assented to by the sender of the following message. Errors can be guarded against only by repeating a message back to the sending station for comparison, and the Company will not hold itself liable for errors or delays in transmission or delivery of Unrepeated Night Messages, sent at reduced rates, beyond a sum equal to ten times the amount paid for transmission; nor in any case when the claim is not presented in writing within thirty days after sending the message. This is an UNREPEATED NIGHT MESSAGE, and is delivered by request of the sender, under the conditions named above. THOS. T. ECKERT, General Manager. NORVIN GREEN, President. NUMBER SENT BY REC'D BY CHECK 3 Ly C 45 Paid Ref Nite Received at Brookline 8.10 A.M. Mch 23, 18[8]92. [*1892*] Dated New York 22 To Frederick Law Olmsted The Committee on Mass meeting against Central Park Race Track desires full expression of your opinion to be used Friday evening at Cooper Institute write answer to John Jay Chapman Sixty Seven Wall Street Glad if you or Mr. Codman could address meeting Chas. Wheeler Barnes For Committee Tel. 826[*502*] [*ans'd 11/Apr 92*] [*Central Park.*] [*WSC*] The Sun New York: April 1st 1892 Dear Mr. Olmsted: I don't want you to be left with any erroneous impression in regard to the way in which the speedway project was handled in the Park Commission. It first appeared there as a law complete. Immediately I took the map and showed its utter impossibility within reason, and declared then and there that the bill would have to be repealed. I was told that the law was mandatory. Inasmuch as the vote that was asked only intended a preliminary examination, and, as I did not regard it as of vital importance, I told them that they might have my votevote, if they wanted it, but I was against the bill, and, as soon as I could find out my ground, I should oppose it directly. That was on Friday. I found that the organization here had become committed to it thoughtlessly, under the leadership of the Mayor's enthusiasm. So it required a little careful treatment. But although the vote was taken on Friday, I had it beaten conclusively by Sunday afternoon, after that what followed was in fact perfunctory. So far as I myself am concerned it would have been better, no doubt if I had defied the law which without question[ing] in my judgment, was intended to be mandatory, and had voted against it in the first place; but the result we now have could not have been attained better in any other way. The remains of the movement fought hard for a third road of some sort, and I confess it took my most urgent labor to prevent the Board from becoming involved in that project. The arguments which they adduced from the list of accidents in the two sides of the Park were discussed in last Sunday's Sun but, for all that, I am not familiar as as I ought to be with the considerations which have been given to the question of widening the drives. Have you any records which I cannot get from Mr. Vaux? Very truly yours, Paul Dana.[*IV - N. Y. B suggests a relation with N. Y. Parks as late as '92*] Chislehurst, July 26, 1892. F. L. Olmsted, Sr., to J. C. Olmsted. Dear John: You know we had authority to deal with Conklin for supply of water fowl. I never concluded the arrangement with him. We have his offer and can accept now, I suppose. Radford, who is not apt to take a lenient view, and who had no liking for Conklin, said that he was really not at all blameable. It was a purely technical irregularity, perfectly well-known to the Commissioners and not heretofore objected to. He was made a criminal because he was not a Tammany man. You and Harry will consider this and determine what we shall do. I suppose Conklin could be communicated with through Parsons. I enclose a memo about plants for Manning's department. [*IV - N. Y. FLO to Partners (from England) July 1892 (B*] The last setback I had was because of a call from Radford. It was at night, and I was very near sending him word that I could not see him, and repented deeply that I had not. But, of course, I could not guess that he had anything unpleasant or rasping to tell me. It was his account of Vaux's exhibition and humiliation and breakdown told in a very bad way, without apparent sympathy and I am sure upon after reflection with a much darker coloring than the facts required, i. e. just the bad contentious, English shop-keeping way. He said plainly that Vaux had been good for nothing, even architecturally, for a long time past; that he, Radford, had been the architect. (Vaux had only been in the way and a marplot) that in the final flurry with the Park Department, Vaux had acted against the advice of all his friends, etc. I fell in with his view of Vaux's character and failings at the time, but afterwards felt indignant with myself that I had done so and exceedingly sorry for Vaux and that I could have done and could do nothing for him and his. Radford said, by the way, that Downing was good for nothing; made so many blunders and did all business so weakly that he had given Radford more trouble than his services in any way compensated. I believe Radford is here with a purpose of making arrangements for taking up on a larger scale and in a better way the business which he considers that Vaux is now disabled from attempting to follow. He thinks that Vaux has retired to Rondant, very poor. This was the impression he gave and I think intended to give me. As I said, it distressed me greatly and I had no sleep of value for the next two nights and days. He stayed two hours and I almost had to ask him to go. He meant no harm. It was only his unfortunate way. If Vaux is definitely retired, ought we not at once to think of enlarging our organization and having a strong branch office in New York. Of course one of us would have to live there and to New Yorkers it would need to appear not a branch but a coequal principal. There are more than 3000 acres of new parks to be laid out, and as to our getting the work it is a question of Tammary, vs. our reputation. I can't say that I have any appetite for the fight that would be inevitable.[*IV - N. Y. B*] Chislehurst, August 6, 1892. F. L. Olmsted, Sr., to John C. Olmsted. Dear John: Among others whom I succeeded in seeing yesterday was Paul Dana, at his hotel. He gave me an entirely different impression of the Vaux matter from that received from Radford, and said that he had not been dismissed and was not going to be, he thought. My judgment is that Radford was moved by Vaux's personal condition to take an unnecessarily gloomy view of his situation. Vaux was sick and angry and mortified and when he went to Rondout for a vacation, Radford considered that he would never be able to come back. Thereupon he devised a scheme for becoming his successor. He proposed to have his son and possibly his brother, who I believe is an architect, join him. But Henry Perkins has seen his son and says that he has no disposition to go with his father, except he fails entirely to find employment as a mining engineer . Dana intimated that we might be invited to plan one of the new parks. [*502*] [*1893.*] The Sun New York: Dec 15, 1890 Dear Mr. Olmsted: I ask the great favor of you of an opinion upon the plans for adding to the Natural History Museum which I forward to you. The death of Mr. Gallup, a thoroughly sober and judicious man, has added an element of reckless ignorance that has released a previously existing spirit of the same sort, which Gallup and I had always able to control. I send the statement of mine published in the Tribune in Mr. Vaux's reportreport. You want [an order?] at the Park Commissioners doing anything when you know the reasons they gave for approving the plans. Tappen voted for it because the law empowered the trustees "to appoint an architect"; Grey because the the trustees "wanted it", and Straus because there was "no deal in it". All were affected by the idea that the trustees would resign if talked in carrying out a scheme to gratify their own vanity. If you can see your way clear to say a word about this, it may be stopped yet. I hope you can, and, if so, will you address it to Mr. Dana, who authorizes me to send this request in his name. Very truly yours Paul Dana Brookline Jan 21 [*(1894?)*] [*Speedway*] Dear Mr. Dana: I have watched in amazement the attempt to prevent a foot way from being placed by the water side along the Harlem River Driveway. Such a feature would have of course a great and distinct value to pedestriansand the idea of preventing them from enjoying it, is indeed extraordinary. It seems still [most?] surprising perhaps to think of constructung the driveway, however simple and severe it may be in design, without the supervision of the Landscape Architect. All things considered this radical departure from sound principles must be regarded as even more objectionable than the wilful waste of the water trout. As one possessed of man than the ordinary interest in the parks of your city I hope with you that such a result may be avoided. Very truly [?][Sun?] Office Jan 29 [*Speedway*] Dear Mr. Olmsted I am about to ask you if you can send me a word on the speedway. You can see how the trouble arose when upon the unusual motion in the Board to refer the surveys to the landscapeArchitect for report of a plan, specifying the desired width of roadway, I was not with the question,"What's he got to do with it. This is a driveway." The law of course is in the usual [form?], specifying a parkway for the use of drivers and pedestrians. At the hearing given to the public my colleagues apologised for the protests against a design by the Engineer only, with the assurance that "after the driveway (walks and roadway) was finished, they would employ the best talent to ornament it." It became a matter of severe personal obstinancy, unrelieved by any spark of understanding, to forcetheir plan through, and they are just as determined now not to permit the Landscape Architect to touch it. It is simply a case of obstinate ignorance in the grossest and most offensive form. They may make a vengeful drive at Mr Vaux also. I have to leave for Europe on Thursday but some such word as I suggest will be useful and used. The fight will go on in my absence. My best regards, Paul Dana