I received yours of 18th tonight, on my return from Washington and Eidlitz & Richardson being here was glad to read it to them as it is persuasive toward my policy. But I am sorry to say that I cannot hope the measure you urge can be adopted. Perhaps I can’t explain just why not. I think, however, it is because of the strong bent of mind which in their long consideration of the subject the architects have acquired. I judge by a sort of echo of their sentiments in my own mind. It is more than that with Eidlitz who says simply “I cannot” — (work in Renaissance). Richardson, on the other hand, would, had he taken up the problem alone at the outset, almost certainly have kept to Renaissance, yet he equally seems unable to return to it now.

I think we agree in the mind that we should not (& will not) allow these attacks, which are coming with increased rapidity and force, to deter us from doing precisely that which we best can to bring about the most satisfactory result to the public and for this purpose we agree that less difference of style in the two parts of the building is very desirable. The tendency is to reach the result, however, not so much by abandoning what we will call Romanesque in the upper part as, if possible, by some slight changes in the lower part, making its Renaissance character less pronounced. I confess to a little doubt whether the two styles do not spring from such different roots that the sap of one cannot flow into the other — whether in the Romanesque part we must not see the skin of what is beneath and in Renaissance a raiment worn over the real creature, so much that the amalgamation will be monstrous, but this [200] doubt goes for little in my faith in Richardson’s instinct & Eidlitz clear head. Judging by his works, Eidlitz is safer to come out right than any other architect we have.

Eidlitz admits that there is a jar between the lower & the upper parts of the design and that there probably will be when we have done all we can to sooth it, but, he says, if a good Renaissance architect had undertaken to complete the building from the same point and to do so in Renaissance and as smoothly as he could, a great difference between the character of his part and of Fuller’s would have been inevitable. There will be a jar between good architecture and bad even if they are in the same style.

Do you feel quite sure yourself, that in such a case, the more audacious way is not the safer way?

I have no doubt that the enmity toward us will increase as you suggest and I would do anything in reason to conciliate our enemies but I am afraid that nothing we can do now will have any effect. The prejudice against us is likely to be stimulated by the removal of Fuller, which if he should fail to resign I do not think that we now can prevent. His course has been insubordinate and almost insulting to the Commission & it is plain that he is not a fit person to superintend the execution of plans which he regards as outrageously bad. Nothing has of late been said to us on the subject and all that we have so far said has been with the hope that he might be retained.

You will not suppose that I write with the expectation of being answered but I would like to keep you informed in the matter and I am very much obliged to you for taking the trouble to write as you have.

You will be pleased to know that La Farge is quite as strongly on our side as you are.