I ought perhaps to have mentioned to you, when you were kind enough to express a wish to have an article on the park for the Atlantic, that Dr. Bellows, who is “one of yours”, has been watching our work, apparently with much interest, from its commencement. Though I have seldom met him, I believe he rides here daily.

Frank Goodrich (“Dick Tinto”) who has a trick of writing lively letters at least (if his comedies are slow) has made a more systematic study of the park than anyone else not engaged upon it. I presume it has been with an intention of writing about it. He often comes to the office to see the plans and obtain technical information of the work in progress. He is familiar with European parks.

George Curtis knows the park and all about it better than any other notable writer. Rossiter better than any other of our painters. Van Brunt, Richard Hunt and Eidlitz better than any other of our architects. They have each had a residence in Paris, I believe, and each writes well on professional subjects. I know of no other experts, and of no one capable of criticizing the park horticulturally and artistically, and of writing for the Atlantic. This was rather what I had in view in our conversation. The limitations of horticulture and the fair presumptions in horticulture must be known and felt before the park can be adequately criticised as a work of art. For in the next century it must be held a work of Art, or a failure. Now [that] the plan is all blocked out upon the ground, it is that I care most for.

Curtis was a friend of Downing’s and, as you will remember, edited his essays. He would perhaps have too much bias of personal friendship. The doctor would not, but as he has preached about it (so I am told) would, no doubt, write con amore, if he wrote. Curtis could not write before election, nor perhaps afterwards, on account of his lecture engagements. Goodrich would have the most detailed knowledge. The architects would each write critically & conscientiously. Van Brunt religiously, Eidlitz spicily. Now I think of it, Col. Stebbins[270] as Chairman of the Committee on Architectural Structures of our Board has given Hunt some employment in connection with the park, on which account I would not recommend him.

There has been so much careless puffing of the park and so much ignorant and mistaken fault-finding, that I am sure you will excuse the interest I have that a really considerate review of it should appear. If you determine upon it, I shall of course be glad to furnish the fullest information, if any should be wanted, both with regard to the design, & the work, as well as the working of the park with the people—the phenomena of which already should explode much, somewhat popular, fallacy of cowardly conservatism.