We followed our plan, reaching here last night. The drive from Ash-field was delightful, not the less so for the veil occasionally thrown over the woods and the mists gathered on the hill-tops. And all the way we have been fortunate.

Bowles seemed to be taking hold of your suggestion about Washburn’s successor quite earnestly and will do his part, I think. It falls-in with a hobby of his, that Massachusetts should be represented by men of strong individual energy, even if unity, propriety & orthodoxy are lost. We saw Washburn at Greenfield. He had just resigned his position on the Building Committee of the Agricultural College, thinking that the action of the Board (adversly to my advice) had been influenced by motives not consistent with a strictly honorable administration of their trust and he talked to me at great length about it. I liked his sentiment, but he did not talk well & is certainly a very weak man to represent Massachusetts at the present time.

If you write to Greely, I wish that you would let me know the indication of his reply. I may possibly have a chance to do something. It would be a grand thing indeed for New York to have such a head. But would not the nomination and a failure to elect be very bad? I find no one else anything like as confident of success this year as you are. I had a few words with Dr Bellows at Walpole on public affairs. He disagreed with me very squarely in regard to Johnson’s character, & thought him at least a man of good intentions, conscientious & warmly, hotly, patriotic, however, wanting in taste, discretion & discipline. He had lately been in Boston where he was astonished & shocked by the feeling expressed. He thought it was a crazy feeling—entirely unreasonable. He did not know what to make of it—could see no reason in it, & had evidently been forced to ask himself: Is it I who am crazy? He admitted that Johnson’s last speech looked badly, but was inclined to think it was because of Johnson’s habitual haste & heat of expression than of any deliberate purpose to disregard the rights of Congress.

I want to say that I can’t bring myself to agree with you about the adviseability of publishing anything in the Nation, at this time at least, about the Landscape Architecture pamphlets. It is hard for me to hold a view against yourself & Godkin on such a question, but decidedly I do and I think I ought to tell you so. If these publications had already engaged public attention & interest, there would be no excuse for the Nation’s neglecting them any more than anything else of public interest so nearly related to Art & Social Science. But as it is, it would seem to me to be inconsistent with the rule of safety to call attention to them. I cannot quite draw the true line [112] between use and abuse in such matters to my satisfaction, but even if you do not understand my reasons you will agree with me that it would not be right to approach the questionable without a strong conviction of a public advantage and that I have a responsibility in this case, however indirect, which should be cared for.

I am surprised at the throng of visitors here. The roads are like suburbs of New York. It is cold & somewhat gloomy today with occasional outbursts of sunshine.

Bowles understands that Ashfield is not to be advertized.

Please remember Mrs Olmsted & myself kindly to Mrs Norton & the ladies. Mrs Olmsted says that if I had any respectable paper, she would herself write to Mrs Norton. I was careful to put every discouragment to writing into my valise and she trusted me.

Bowles undertook to “settle” for our lodging at Ashfield but the amount was so absurdly small according to his account that I fear there was a mistake & we were omitted. Will you be good enough to enquire & make right? I enclose $10— as my contribution to the Loyal publication fund, subject to a deduction for the inn-keeper’s requirement, if you will oblige me by taking charge of it. I don’t know the Treasurer. I am very glad it is going on.