I have your letter of 9th inst. enclosing a copy of Mr Galvin’s proposal for stocking the park-waters with water fowl.

This proposal can be entertained only with a view to making the parks instruments of greater efficiency for their special primary public purpose. Mr Galvin’s object must be assumed to be that of commercial profit to himself. Thus the question to be considered is: are the means and methods which a man would adopt having in view his own commercial profit the same with those which regard for the public interest would require the Commission to adopt?

With a view to a satisfactory park refectory service, a satisfactory park boating service and to a satisfactory park carriage service, arrangements have been made in several cities which may have been thought not to differ in principle from that proposed by Mr Galvin. Yet in none of these cities has such an arrangement been made with reference to water-fowl, and in every such case the licensee or contractor has been made dependent for his profits on the satisfaction which citizens visiting the parks, would obtain in making direct and specific personal use, while on the parks, of the services so arranged to be offered them. Whether the park refectories or the park boats or the park carriages are to be profitable to the persons in the direct management of them, depends, in every case on whether the people, when visiting the parks, are, then and there, disposed to make immediate and direct use of what these persons offer them and to make immediate and direct payment for it. Whether they are to be so disposed depends on the attractiveness of what is offered them and the price they are to be asked to pay for it. This is not at all the character of what Mr Galvin proposes. If his offer is accepted there would be no motive acting commercially on him by which satisfactory service would be assured, such as is acting to secure satisfactory service in the several departments of park supply to which reference has been made.

In a hundred parks that we have examined, water fowl, if provided at all, are provided as incidents affecting their scenery favorably to the public enjoyment of it as a means of recreation with reference to health. But in none of these parks are water fowl so provided by any form of license or contract. Possibly those in St. James’ Park of London may be thought to be exceptional {but} if so the exception is of the class that proves the rule, the water-fowl in St James’ Park being placed there and taken care of by the Ornithological Society with no view to pecuniary profit. So also, the swans on the Thames are the property of Societies and are maintained with no regard to pecuniary profit, but solely for the gratification of the public.

We see no reason for supposing that the management of water fowls in the public parks as a commercial speculation would have better results than [913]have been had by the public from the direct management by the Commission of the sheep on Franklin Park. It would, in our opinion inevitably lead to conflicts between agents of the Commission, zealous to guard visitors from annoyance, and the contractor, zealous to secure his private profits. Judging, also, from our experience, any considerable loss of birds would be likely to be attributed by the contractor to ill-usage by visitors or to marauding by thievish persons against which he should have been secured by the agents of the Commission, and for which he would have a claim against the Commission. In the Central Park of New York the loss of water fowl at one period of a single month was estimated to be several thousand dollars in value. It was generally believed to have been caused by poison given to them by mischievous persons and the park keepers were blamed in the public press for not having prevented this. A large loss of water-fowl, also, once occurred in the Buffalo Parks. In this case the Superintendent fully established the fact that the fowls had been stolen. Our experience in these and other cases would lead us to be distrustful of the results of such an arrangement as Mr Galvin has in view. As to the probabilities of good management if the business is left to the Commissions’ regular staff something may perhaps be presumed from the results obtained by such management of the flock of sheep on Franklin Park. These we believe have been satisfactory.

We advise the Commission to keep the management of its water fowl in its own hands, as it does the management of its sheep, believing that the interest of the public in this management differs essentially from that which would be the interest of a contractor looking to a profit to be obtained only when the birds had been killed and brought to market.

I am very much puzzled as to when I should go north. There is yet a great deal to be studied here & work in progress which would be better for my superintendence. Mr Vanderbilt is due here in a week and there are matters to be settled which I do not like to have presented to him by any one whom I should leave here. Of these the most important grows out of a misunderstanding with Mr Hunt, whose plan for buildings in Biltmore village is not consistent with ours. Neither consistent nor reconciliable. We now have the street trees planted correspondingly with our plan, and this plan I consider to have been implicitly approved by Mr Vanderbilt. All the same, it is the New England ideal rather than the French and Mr V. did once intimate that he preferred the French. I think Mr Hunt should have designd his buildings conformably to our street plan, and now that our trees are planted I think that he shd be required to redesign them. The fact is he is not, and I am afraid that Mr V. is not, able to adopt our view—our ideal. Probably Mr Hunt will come with Mr V. and it will be much to our advantage to have the question determined before building begins as it may, otherwise, within a month. As far as I can see we are right “on the record” but what has passed verbally between Mr V. and Hunt, of course, I am ignorant. I don’t at all like Hunt’s view. I don’t like French villages. I do not think that they are suitable to American habits but I am afraid that Mr V. takes Mr Hunt’s view and I do not think it prudent to go away just before they are arriving. If I can do nothing more, I think that I can satisfy Mr V. that, pro forma, we are right. My opinion is that Hunt should be required to revise his plans which are quite elaborate. He will so much dislike to do this that I fear some compromise will have to be come to.

You will see that if there were no other reason for leaving just before Mr. V. comes here, this is a very strong one. Hunt is accustomed to have his own way and is more than earnest—is tempestuous—in debate. There are several other matters, not in dispute, but, debateable, so that with a very strong [915]disposition to have part in what is to be going on with reference to Boston and the Greater Boston affairs, more especially, it seems to me that it would be unsafe and inexpedient to leave this post till I shall have made sure that Mr Vanderbilt is better able to look at matters here from our point of view than he is likely to be if left to the guidance of those who would otherwise lead him. Among them men with a strong disposition to magnify their own importance and critical ability. Of course, there are several other matters to which this consideration applies besides those in which we must stand in conflict with Hunt. All the same I shall try to so order affairs that if you telegraph that you think it best, I can break away at a day’s notice. I fully realize that you must be having your hands more than full, and I try to realize that Biltmore is much more in my foreground than in yours, and that I cannot help being influenced by the great numbers of rich and commanding men that crowd our roads on their way to all parts of the North, and whose impressions are to affect our future business. All the same, I shall try to so order affairs that if you telegraph urgency, I can break camp at a day’s notice. Mr. McNamee says that we can calculate that Mr Vanderbilt will be here a week from today. If you think it more important that I should be in Boston than here within the period, knowing the conditions of the season and the demands of our various works, you will let me know. If practicable, I want very much that John should arrange to return by Washington and meet me there, but you can judge best what is feasible & expedient and I shall try to be governed by any advice that you telegraph on receipt of this.

Faithfully