printable version
CHAPTER V
JANUARY 1877–OCTOBER 1877
This was a time of intensifying political pressures in New York, both at the state and local levels. In early 1877 came a second round of opposition in the state legislature to the plans for the New Capitol of Olmsted, Eidlitz and Richardson, leading to investigations by legislative committees. Olmsted’s address to one of these on March 6, 1877, was his most extensive review of the ongoing controversy and defense of himself and his colleague architects. "To the Public” is a draft for a counterappeal to the architectural profession that apparently was not carried out. The issue became a moot point when the state legislature in May 1877 directed that the New Capitol be completed "in the Italian renaissance style of architecture, adopted in the original design,” and not in the Romanesque style proposed by the advisory board.
Olmsted continued to be involved in the management of Central Park, as indicated by his letter to William Martin on the adverse effects of crowds attending the dedication of the statue of the writer Fitz-Greene Halleck. At the same time, Olmsted and J. J. R. Croes continued their planning for the Bronx: the report to Martin of March 20, 1877, spells out their innovative proposal for a rapid transit system for the area that would secure both speed and safety by complete grade separation of the system’s tracks from city streets. Letters to H. A. Nelson deal primarily with proposals to place inappropriate structures on Mount Royal, while the letter to John C. Olmsted describes Olmsted’s poorly attended speech in Montreal in October. To his wife, Mary Perkins Olmsted, he reports on events in New York during the railroad strikes of 1877 during a summer whose intense heat brought on a crisis in his own health.
[283]
Memorandum on New York Capitol Patronage
| 1877 |
Early this year an elaborately organized attack on the administration of the State Capitol & expressly upon the revised plan & the architects or Advisory Board suddenly appeared in the legislature and public prints. I was called to Albany & attended several sessions of the Joint Committees of Finance & Ways & Means at which the matter was discussed very violently, with great exaggeration & misstatement. While there I was told by half a dozen men of high & low standing and of both parties that the sole object of the attack was to get patronage. The Chairman of the Capitol Commission said, "There is not a single member of the legislature who is not dissatisfied with us, not even one of our own party — not because of our plans, that is only a pretext; not because of our administration, for that has been unprecedentedly economical and efficient & everybody knows it, but simply because not one thinks we have given him as much patronage as he ought to have had.” Again he said, "I could settle all this opposition in a moment, if I would simply consent to give up the patronage.”
We (E. R. & Co) were asked at the outset to see two members whose favorable influence it was thought desirable to gain. We were, if good opportunity offered, to remove any false impressions they might have adopted. I called on one, a man of wealth and good education who went to the legislature purely from patriotism, a man of the highest character. Within two minutes after I entered his room he introduced the subject of the Capitol by remarking that he had been to the Capitol to see if he could not get a few men put on the work. (The work was wholly stopped by order of the legislature; nevertheless applications were incessant from members who had voted for the stoppage). Eidlitz went to see the other, a young man of good and rapidly rising reputation.
"Well,” said I, "how have you succeeded with him?”
"Oh, he has a man who must be taken care of before he can take any favorable interest in the matter and I had to promise he should be.” Next day he said "Well I have taken care of—’s man and now I find him quite open to argument.”
"How did you take care of him?”
"I told him to go to a stonecutter in New York and gave him $5 to pay his passage & then I wrote to the stone cutter that he must try him and if he could not earn his wages for a week I would pay them. If he is a good man he’ll keep him. If he is not he’s had his chance & can’t complain.”
Of another member of the legislature of uncommonly good standing I asked the President of the D.P.P. "Is he a friend of yours?”
"That depends on how much patronage I have.”
]