Many thanks for your note of 12th inst. I had seen a reference to the fall of rock and am glad to get particulars. I do not know the new Commissioner.

I suppose that you invite my comments upon the memorandum enclosed in your note with regard more particularly to the statement that the gentlemen conferring at the Cataract House in 1869—

“Looked over the ground in accordance with an idea that had been suggested by Mr F. E. Church xxxx who had intimated the preservation of the scenery to a friend xxxx who had intimated to Lord Dufferin its importance.”

I suppose that it has struck you that this is a somewhat overguarded and painstaking statement and that if you are to be responsible for the publication you would prefer to have it more circumstantial and precise.

In a notice by the New York World of the Report of the Survey Commission of 1880 it was observed that no credit had been given in it to Mr Church except in an obscure note by Mr Olmsted. What I had said in this note was that [613]my attention had been called by my friend Mr Church some ten years before to the deterioration of the scenery of the Falls. This was not an accurately true statement. Mr Vaux had said that before the meeting at the Cataract House in 1869, he had heard Mr Church talk at the Century Club of the injury which was occurring to the scenery. I do not think that I had ever heard a word from Mr Church, or from any other source of what he had said on the subject. But as I was a member of the Century, (though not a frequenter of the Club House), and might have done so, I thought it right to assume that I had. Mr Dorsheimer told me afterwards that it had not been very uncommon for gentlemen visiting the Falls to bewail the condition of things there and to say that it was disgraceful and that something ought to be done about it. Mr Dorsheimer was also a member of the Century and though then residing in Buffalo was probably more at the Club House than I was. But he had not been aware of any talk on the subject there or anywhere by Mr Church. {I do} not in the least doubt that Mr Church had talked on the subject; I think it likely that he had before 1869 suggested that the state and transition Government should take action in the premises but if he had it was wholly unknown to me, to Mr Dorsheimer or, as I believe, to any of the gentlemen meeting at Cataract House in 1869.

When I read the observation in the World it appeared to me that either the writer of it had a mistaken impression in some way of the facts or that I had, and, that I might know how it was, I wrote at once to the office and asked an explanation of Mr Hurlbert. I then learned that the observation had not been written with any reference to Mr Church’s interest in the subject before 1869, but solely to the fact that Lord Dufferin’s note to Governor Robinson in 1878 had been written in consequence of a call upon him by Mr Hurlbert and Mr Church. This circumstance was wholly unknown to me before; it had been unknown to Mr Dorsheimer and to Mr Gardiner, (who edited the Report) and probably to Governor Robinson {and all others of the commission.} If it had not been {well-known}, and I have no reason to suppose that it had, Mr Hurlbert was wrong in suggesting that there had been a disposition to withhold due credit to Mr Church or himself. But such an idea had been stated and Governor Dorsheimer afterwards had an impression that some pains had been taken to propagate it. {He once} said something publically in {consideration} of it and he told me not long before he died {that} he had partly written a statement of the facts which would in time be published.

The implication of the memorandum above quoted that the conference of 1869 grew out of Mr Hurlbert’s intimation to Lord Dufferin of Mr Church’s intimation to him is entirely groundless. I think that you will find that Lord Dufferin did not come to Canada till long after the Cataract House conference.

I should be glad and should {always} have been glad to sustain and {verify} any claim of Mr Church’s service in the matter. There is not the slightest ground for any supposition to the contrary. If there is any question about it, it is simply as to what proposition he advocated and when, where and how he advocated it, before September 1869? It seems to me a matter of trivial consequence [614]but if you think it desirable to have it established why should you not ask Mr Church himself? You could do so simply in the interests of the truth of history. I think that it would be a desirable thing to put on record that Mr Church is a distinguished landscape painter—had not only been the main spring of the action of Lord Dufferin but that he had been among the earliest and most influential agents in propagating the public opinion that made possible the rescue of the scenery after Lord Dufferin acted. Whatever Mr Church could be got to say on the point would be conclusive.

Some time ago but within three years, I think, a gentleman whose name I do not now recall wrote to me from Niagara Falls, or possibly Buffalo, asking particulars of any meeting that had been held and in which I had part at the Cataract House in 1869. He said that he was looking into the matter with a view to some publication or report to an Association. I replied as I conveniently could at the time and indicated in what way he could, if disposed, secure a more accurate account and correct or verify my statements. You are likely to know if there has been any publication on the subject and by calling on the author may learn something from my reply to his inquiries or something that he has ascertained by acting on my suggestions.

Governor Robinson’s recommendation to the Legislature of 1878 fell dead. Not the first move was made in the matter till the last day of the session. If you do not know and wish to how it was then brought to life and the course of action initiated that finally led to success, I could tell you.

Yours faithfully.