When I reached the Commissioner’s office Tuesday P.M. I found that, owing, probably, to an error in the transmission of a telegram, I was misinformed as to the day of the meeting. I had previously agreed that if I got away from the office by 4’ck to go out with Cameron on his yacht and did so, getting back next day just in time to keep deferred appointment with the Commissioners, and getting away from them just in time to catch the 4.30 train to Boston. Wherefore, I did not see you as I had intended to do.

At the meeting I was asked a number of questions, the more important relating to Central Park, to which, for some time, I was able to avoid giving definite answers. When at last it became unquestionable that I was expected to answer as one in the service of the Department and professionally responsible, I said as much and added that I did not accept the position and concisely, as if for the information of Mr Hutchins, referred to an agreement of last year. After some further cleaning up—all in few words,—and imperfect, with bare reference to the last correspondence with me, I was told that the Commissioners wished [405]to make their arrangements exclusively with me. “Do you mean with reference to the Central Park as well as to Riverside & Morningside?” I asked. “Yes”. “As I have told you before, repeatedly, I do not wish to make such an arrangement”. Some little argument followed with me, and at this time Myer (?) who had been absent came & I was introduced to him. Then it was said:— “It is evident that we can do nothing today. We had better adjourn”. “When will you be in New York again, Mr Olmsted?” “Possibly in three or four weeks”. “That won’t do”. “I will come whenever you wish”. Then, (at last), I was asked to come next Thursday. Immediately upon the adjournment I stept to Mr Hutchins and in the hearing of Mr Crimmins said, “I can understand why some of the Commissioners may object to direct dealings with Mr Vaux but you are not in their position and I should think that you would recognize that there can be neither justice, propriety nor policy in the intention to ignore him”, & so on. I ended by saying, “two heads are better than one; discussion is always useful provided it does not lead to divided counsels in practical operations. You have no reason to suppose in this case that it will.” “He answered:—“Yes I believe in discussion”, (in an indifferent way) and I left.

Yours Truly