I wrote you that I feared that you were spending a great deal for results that would not prove satisfactory. You answer that you have the same fear. But it appears that your fear is that the work is not well directed to its ends; mine, that the ends will not be satisfactory, whatever the economy with which they are obtained. Of this, to which it was the main purpose of my letter to gain your consideration, your reply says nothing.

The indispensable condition of economical work is that it shall be prosecuted steadily towards clearly defined results. Fluctuation of purpose, fluctuating principles of design; a plan unfixed in its main elementary features, these are the trunks and branches of all manner of wasteful work.

But, looking from your point of view, I cannot see how, after our conversation of last Fall; after reading our letters to you of 22nd and 29th January last, and after scrutinizing the accounts made up by Captain Cotton, you can still be of your original mind as to the supposed waste of labor that occurred last year. There was some waste, no doubt. I have never seen a large work in which there was none; but I think that it has been demonstrated that there was but a very small percentage of what you have imagined. If you have not realized it to be so, the few occurrences from observation from which your impressions came, are now so remote that I mistrust my ability to get the better of them by argument.

There is, however, another question:- Assuming that you are right in supposing that the management last year was extremely bad, in what degree is this because of neglect of professional duty on our part?

It was reasonable to assume that when you sought our services, it was primarily because of a supposed capacity, due to long and arduous special study, training and experience, as designers, rather than as executives. Starting with this assumption, it was our business first, to study the situation, deliberate upon what we found, and mature conclusions upon cardinal principles of [337]design, by adherence to which its best landscape capabilities might be economically realized in association with convenient domestic arrangements. It was our business to inform you as to our conclusions in this respect and then, if you accepted them, to go on to the elaboration of plans consistently with them. It was likewise our business, if you wished, to give you our best advice and assistance as to means, methods and organization to be employed in working out a realization of the adopted plans, and, lastly, to superintend, not as overseers or head foremen, but on the usual principles of architectural superintendence, the operation of the arrangements made for this purpose.

It is my opinion that, with proper sifting of evidence and impartiality of judgment, such as you would secure if you were President of a Court of Inquiry, you would soon conclude that our duty in all these respects had been promptly and fully done.

In Captain Cotton you had a man of unquestioned ability to direct the work economically, and of unquestioned integrity of purpose. Mr. Buffum, also, was, without doubt, an honest man and disposed to serve you zealously. If, as you think, Captain Cotton was egregiously mistaken as to his capability, it is not to our discredit that, being almost a stranger to us, we had no better understanding of his alleged incapacity than had been obtained by Captain Cotton, whose right-hand man and deputy he had been for several years.

Regarding the few specifications of delinquencies on our part, given in your letter, explanations have been before made to you that to my mind are fully satisfactory. I see nothing in them that reflects upon us in the slightest.

There remains to be considered your impression that I have lost interest in your work because of my disappointment in your determination to throw away what I regard as the chief element of value in the property. Here the question is one of business organization. For many years I declined commissions for private works. In a few exceptional cases I served only in a consulting capacity; another landscape architect being employed, by whom the plans were designed and the work directly superintended. When at length I engaged in private practice, I did so with an organization adapted to the meeting of such responsibilities as I intended to assume. Two years ago I sent you a statement showing on what grounds (proper to be communicated by a private circular) needed confidence could be given to my partners. (Another copy is enclosed) My partners were the best men for the purpose that I could find; they had been trained under my supervision and were perfectly familiar with my theories and practice. They were more familiar with recent European work than I am.

It often occurs in professional partnerships that business coming in is divided among the partners and that one partner helps but little the work of another. Our partnership is organized on a different principle. Men differ in their talents. There are parts of our professional field in which each of my partners is abler than I have ever been. It is my intention that any work in which we engage shall, as far as practicable, represent our combined ability. Little is done in which we do not all take a hand. There is constant conference [338]and discussion. I preside. Nothing is done, as a rule, without my knowledge, consideration and approval. No letter is filed until I have read it; as far as practicable, outgoing letters, plans and instructions pass under my personal review. At the initiation of nearly every work, and of all works of importance, I personally study the main landscape problem, lead in the solution of it and in framing the needed design. This is the most important work of our profession. Here, if anywhere, master work is called for. Every step to follow should be an organic outgrowth from it, and in most steps to follow my partners are better qualified than I am to take active responsibility. So surely is this the case that it would be unjust to our clients, unjust to you, if I did not expect and require them to do so. I am in my seventieth year and in a degree disabled for active field duties. I have several times been confined for weeks by my lameness aggravated by slight accidents. I am liable at any time to be incapacitated. Our business should be organized with due regard to such personal conditions. It is so—and this is what you think wrong—this, that I put so much of working detail upon my partners. My partners have done nothing in your affair except under my lead and in intimate consultation with me. I have repeatedly visited your place in person and have often conferred personally with you, and with your architects and engineer.

Further, I can only give you this assurance:

For distinct reasons, unnecessary to be particularly stated, I was, from the first, unusually and exceptionally anxious, not only that an undoubtedly creditable result should be obtained in your undertaking, but a result with which you and Mrs. Twombly should be fully and cordially pleased. Since I began to see that such a result was impracticable, because of your disposition to divide your domestic establishment between the old place and the “park,” the same reasons have made me only the more anxious that the results of this requirement should be made as little unfortunate as possible. There is not the slightest ground for the contrary impression you express; not the slightest. I can but think that if you reflect, you will recognize that I have abstained scrupulously from pressing my convictions when it appeared that you were bent on going counter to them, and that I have every time taken up your successive schemes for adapting the old place to your purposes and tried to help you make the best of them, as earnestly and cordially as if I were not convinced that, at the best, the result would be disappointing to you. My last letter to you was written because of fear that I had never made you fully understand how strong a conviction I had on the point, and that if I failed to do so before you entered upon this year’s operations, you would have just cause for reproaching me.

Yours Truly,