On leaving town last week you handed me a copy of a draught of proposed Byelaws for the Department of Parks, lately adopted in Committee of the Whole, under which the Office of Design and Superintendance, of which I have been the head, is done away with and independent offices constituted respectively of Landscape Architecture, Landscape gardening and Police. You called my attention to these provisions and stated that it was the intention that I should be retained with the title of Landscape Architect in a position of General Superintendance of the works of the Department. You observed also that Commissioners were disposed to respect my judgement and wishes and that a principal advantage of the proposed changes was supposed to be that, under them, I should be relieved from onerous non-professional cares and allowed to give my attention more completely and effectively to higher and more congenial duties. You thought that if the changes proposed would be unwelcome to me, a full statement of my views would undoubtedly induce some modifications of them.

Knowing my views as well as they do, that the Commissioners should, with their friendly feelings toward me, have thought such changes desirable in the Byelaws of the Department leads me unavoidably to the conclusion that their mature judgement will not accept the conditions on which alone I am willing to hold any such general responsibility under them as is proposed.

[634]

In complying with your request, therefore, I shall do so not with the motive which you suggest but rather that I may make this fact as evident to them as it is to me and that further waste of time in the consideration of impracticable measures may be avoided.

In my recent engagement with the Department I had, as you know, one purpose constantly before me, in view of which alone, I had been induced to give up my private business. I had reason to suppose that this purpose was to be adopted by the Commissioners, but for various reasons, never wholly satisfactory to me, I have from time to time been asked to forego its pursuit. I have never for a moment entertained the idea of doing so after the permanent reorganization of the Department had been accomplished.

The purpose to which I refer grows out of the fact that in my judgement the Central Park fails to give the public anything like the value which should be realized from the work done upon it, and equally fails to justly represent the design for the merits and the faults of which Mr Vaux and I are held accountable.

To understand why it thus fails, the manner in which the design has been developed from the first pen and ink study adopted by the Park Commission in 1858 and the manner in which the designers have superintended its execution must be considered.

Immediately after the adoption of the study “as a basis of a plan”, an office was constituted which I was invited to accept, as representative of the designers, and which was defined by a unanimous vote of the Board, as follows: “He shall be the Chief Executive officer by or through whom all work on the Park shall be executed and shall have the government and supervision of all employees at the Park.” I was then authorized to call on my partner Mr Vaux for assistance; to employ a staff of engineers and architects of my own selection and such force of artisans and laborers as could be engaged advantageously. It was also made my duty to enlist, instruct and superintend such force of Keepers as I thought necessary to the requirements of the enterprise. I was then directed to proceed with the construction of the Park “on the basis of the adopted plan, subject to such modifications as might be suggested from time to time by the Board” (Vide Minutes, 1858–9, page 37).

I objected to the title given my office which was that of “Architect in Chief of the Central Park” because I was not an architect: I was answered that the term implied better than any other the kind of responsibility which the Board meant to put upon me, namely a professional responsibility for the result that would be realized from the work which I was to organize and superintend.

That analogy of my duties with those of an architect of any great undertaking, such as a public building of cost corresponding to that of the Park, was very incomplete, chiefly for this reason: there are great numbers of men specially educated as architects, and an architect about to undertake the detailed planning and Superintendance of a building, no matter how extensive, [635] can almost instantly organize a staff of experienced men who with very little instruction from him shall be fully prepared to give him effective assistance both in preparing working plans and in inspecting and directing the work of carrying them out.

Then, in the actual operations, he has also no difficulty in finding men who are not only fitted by much experience to understand his plans and specifications but who are all ready with suitable classified bodies of workmen to carry them out, each taking a different part; such for example are master stone-cutters, masons, bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers, and painters. It is rare that there is anything in the design that cannot be clearly put into the minds of this class of assistants, though in the finishing details, in delicate sculptured decoration of an original and novel motive for instance, there may be some difficulty and the Architect may need to look beyond the common organizations of contractors to be satisfactorily served, and then in a measure to educate the workmen in his own feeling.

Now, there were really no men in New York who had had experience in the preparation of detailed plans of such a work as the Central Park was designed to be, and there were no suitable trade arrangements for it. It must be considered also that an artist dealing with trees and plants has to adapt his work to the viscissitudes of seasons and other transient conditions of growth and that his processes are necessarily longer processes than those of an architect, dealing in such materials as brick and stone. For all these reasons the necessary personal labor of the head of such a work as the transformation of the site of the Central Park into such a pleasure ground (perhaps the most elaborately studied public ground in the world), was of a much more varied and burdensome character than that of the Architect of any building, no matter how large and complex its design. It was thought necessary also for political reasons that the work should for some time be driven as hard as possible, until at least the main features of the plan should be finally stamped on the ground. During the first three years working-plans and instructions were provided and a sufficient supervisory force trained, for the employment, during most of the time, of from two to nearly four thousand workmen. Under this pressure, of course, nothing was done that could be postponed without hazard of immediate unpopularity, which would be hazard of failure and of transfer to unfriendly and destructive hands, such as finally took possession of the work in 1871.

With these conditions by the spring of 1861 the work had, in nearly all parts of the ground, been brought to a certain stage of progress. The ruder and solider constructions were mostly completed, the trees designed to form the principal masses of foliage had been set out; the first planted trees and shrubs were beginning, through their rapid growth, to take character in masses. Visitors on foot began to find shade and seclusions and to foretaste the recreation which the place was designed to provide; the number of visitors was becoming rapidly larger and the difficulties of keeping were increasing. It [636] was time to make general advance to a second stage; to bring up lagging elements of a character not to be presented in a black and white plan but on which the merit of the design and the value of much of the heavier work was even more dependant than on those elements which had already gained a settled popular favor for the enterprise. To proceed with these the designers’ instructions to the overseers and workmen needed to be more elaborate and direct—a process of education rather than of instruction was in fact required. This made modifications of the original organization desirable and made it necessary that the general superintendent should disengage himself from certain affairs in order to give more personal attention to and exercise more efficient control of others.

But just here so many difficulties occurred; difficulties represented to be largely political, that the designers found themselves no longer allowed the means for meeting what they deemed to be their professional responsibilities and, the war coming on, I withdrew from the Park to other duties [more imperative] and Mr Vaux soon followed me.

On the breakdown of what is known as the “Ring” government in 1872 we were invited to resume the position of Landscape Architects to the Department having in charge the Central Park pending the reorganization of the city government under a new charter from the legislature. The expectations that this would be soon accomplished failed. On the adjournment of the legislature a change in the administration of the Department became necessary; it was thought desirable that I should temporarily assume the duties of President and Treasurer as well as of General Superintendent. I did so reluctantly and held them until the autumn when the organization was again changed and I took the office which I have held since but, all the time, as I have before said, under conditions baffling to my purpose.

Since a comparatively early stage in the formation of the Park, therefore, it has had no efficient professional superintendance, and for want of it has been growing up in many respects unfortunately. For this reason and because of the peculiar character of its design, the kind of superintendance which it now requires is not professional superintendance at arm’s length merely, or by means of drawings and specifications but a direct, controlling, educational superintendance, similar to, though on a much smaller scale, than that which I originally exercised.

Such, at least, is my sincere conviction and I will stand in no position before the public, in which I may seem to acquiesce in an arrangement which directly overrules my conviction and squarely sets aside my most earnest professional advice in this respect.

The effect of the proposed byelaws will be to “relieve” me by the abolition of my present office from the imperfect control I have hitherto had over the work upon the plantations of the Central Park, and to form an office of landscape gardening under which a force of gardeners is to be organized by another man, not to be of my selection and not to be responsible to me but to [637] be selected by my non-professional superiors; to receive his instructions directly from them and report directly to them. Why it is preferred that orders and reports should pass over my head in respect to this division of the Department’s business and that they should not do so in respect to such matters as the setting of foundations on quicksands, the choice of tiles for a house flooring or the management of bears and wolves, I do not know. While, therefore, I should not have been wholly taken aback by a proposal for an office, independant of my superintendance, of engineering or of architecture or of zoology, and while I should not have objected to an independant office of nursery and exotic gardening, which would establish a desirable special responsibility and facilitate accuracy in accounts, I can find in this proposition of an independant organization of landscape gardening only a very striking evidence of a radical difference of judgement between myself and the Commissioners in respect to the present requirements of the Park. There could have been but one proposition in the present state of affairs which would have made this more evident and that would be a proposition for such changes as are intended to be made in respect to the service of attendance on visitors in the Park.

I say “in the present situation of affairs”, and I must show what this is. After the gardeners, of all the divisions of your service the only one which, nominally under my instructions, I have reported to be utterly inadequate for the duties which, in the design of the Park, were assigned to it, has been that of the Keeper’s force. Among its defects the following were notable. 1st a want of comprehension on the part of the officers of what it should accomplish and their consequent inability as well as indisposition to rightly instruct the men; 2nd their want of confidence and skill in discipline; 3rd the insufficiency in numbers of the force; 4th a habit throughout the force of looking to the influence of irresponsible persons, and to furtive and surreptitious means for maintaining or bettering their position . It became my duty under orders of the Board to undertake a reform of this force, one month before the new charter went into effect, and under what otherwise would have been a hopeless load of difficulties. I was completely dependant on the Captain, and the Captain had reason to believe that if he continued to hold his place it would be for other reasons than my opinion of his fitness and efficiency in it. I had been required to select and take the responsibility of the discharge of a large number of men, nearly all of whom pressed applications on the Department for a restoration backed by influential politicians, newspaper men and other friends, and all of whom were answered that the matter was in my hands. The means taken for reforming some of the bad habits of the force required increased exertions of all the men and officers. Their selfishness was accordingly enlisted against them and a class of means was at once employed to prevent their success such as is commonly used to accomplish personal purposes with political bodies in this city. False reports were propagated by anonymous letters and otherwise and an impression was industriously sought [638] to be established that in consequence of the new arrangements the Park had become a wholly unsafe and improper place of resort for decent people. At length a collection of such reports studiously and shrewdly prepared and likely if at all credited, to do much harm in various ways, was given to the public in an influential journal. This was done at a moment when the Board which had ordered the changes was broken up and another about to be formed with a majority of new Commissioners. On the strength of the statements made, public indignation was attempted to be excited by an inflammatory harangue against the old Board and certain advice proferred to the new Board.

At the suggestion of the two Commissioners who were at the moment my only official superiors in the Department I then for the first time came directly before the public as the responsible supervisor of the business in question and pledged my personal character that the statements made were false and the expressions of opinion unworthy of respect.

The advice given was more especially this: that a Committee of the Board should consult the Superintendant of Labor on the Park (Mr Ryan) that it should consult the Captain of the force; that it should consult the men, that it should not consult the lieutenant for the reason that he did not make common cause with the men; that the Captain should receive his orders only from the Board; that the men should constantly carry clubs, that the round system should be abolished and the theorist who led to its adoption be made to attend to his proper business.

Since then a Committee of the Board has consulted the Superintendant of labor, has consulted the Captain of the force, has not consulted the lieutenant, has received communications directly from the men, of the contents of which I have not been informed; has recommended that the office of lieutenant be done away with, that the Captain receive his orders only from the Board, that the men constantly carry clubs, that the round system be abolished and that I be given more leisure for what are deemed my strictly professional duties.

I of course adopt your view of the motive of these propositions but the motive makes little difference as to the significance which under the circumstances they must have. I do not mean their significance with the public, for this I conceive concerns the honor of the Commissioners more than mine, but their practical significance with reference to the business of the Department.

As a responsible executive officer with large experience, in divers undertakings, of the difficulties of carrying out important general orders through influence on the wills of thousands of subordinate agents of every degree of intelligence and moral strength, I naturally estimate the importance of their significance at a somewhat higher rate than the Commissioners may have done. And yet, I think the Commissioners could hardly have been unconscious that no officer whom they might hereafter employ would ever [639] again as willingly as before, undertake duties that would necessarily be disagreeable to and unpopular with his subordinates, or that there would be no corrupt or weak man in their employment in whom they would not seem to strengthen a too prevalent impression that eye-service, chicanery and the cultivation of influence with politicians and the press will pay much better than strict attention to and faithful and intelligent performance of the duties assigned to him by any agent standing between him and the Board. I believe that considerations of this class are of much consequence in the management of public business, that economy is more dependant on them than on many others that get more public attention.

But these observations apply chiefly to the question of the timeliness of the action of the Committee, beyond which lies one perhaps of greater importance.

Under the Ring government, what I had with the approval of the Park Commissioners originally organized and trained as a body of “park keepers”, with great care to establish the understanding that their principal duty was to aid, instruct and restrain honest but often inconsiderate visitors in their use of the Park—that of arresting criminals being incidental to this—was definitely transformed into a “Police” and assimilated as closely as possible in all respects to the ordinary street police of the city. The effect in my judgement was extremely bad on the men and far from conducive in any way to the public interests. Criminals were no better guarded against than before while honest people fared worse. With the approval of the last Board I have accordingly made some efforts to bring the force back to its original idea. The action of the Committee in restoring the title of police to it and at the same time withdrawing it from my influence looks I presume to an abandonment of this purpose, probably on the ground which has lately been publicly urged that it is an impracticable theory. I will only remark that if it is so, I can see no justification for the present imperium in imperio which exists on the park in respect to the matter of police. There would be obvious advantages in the Department’s abandoning the maintainance of any distinctive force and allowing the Police Commission to take its appropriate responsibility in this respect in regard to the parks as well as other portions of the city. The convenience of rapidly enlarging the number of policemen on the park upon occasions when it is much thronged, by details from adjoining precincts would be one of no little value, and a continuous service through the park of the horse patrol, now separated by it into two divisions, would also have clear advantages.

But from the first, the design of the Park has assumed a very different class of attendance on visitors from that of ordinary policemen and my professional judgement has been often expressed to the Board that there is nothing so important for the justification of the design as a Keeper’s force under such management as was originally intended. The Committee has probably considered that a superintendence of the police arrangements of the Park was no [640] part of my professional superintendance. I have not found that absolute independance can well be established between professional and unprofessional superintendance in any incomplete work of the peculiar character of the Central Park. One must be subordinate to the other, else conflicts of authority will occur and neither can then be efficient [except with injustice to the other]. A general oversight of the public use of the Park is certainly no more unprofessional to me than half the business which I have been asked to do by the present Board and the Keepers are so many aids of this duty.

It is to be considered also that the business of organizing and training park Keepers was mine before the plan of the Park was adopted and before I became its architect; such efficiency for its distinctive duties as the force has ever had has been due to the training which I secured to it. I have never heretofore been asked to assume any responsibilities of Superintendence that the Keepers were not placed under my orders. You say, and I have been assured by the other Commissioners, that the principal object of the proposed changes is to relieve me from unprofessional cares; a significance seems however to be attached to this word more narrow than I am willing to accept. A profession according to the dictionary is the business a man professes to understand. The business which I profess to understand and for which I have offered the city of New York my services is that of providing means for safe and convenient recreation with a view to a gain in health of great numbers of people on grounds called Parks. It is not a business the science of which many men have comprehensively studied. There are hundreds at your service who have studied practical engineering and architecture and gardening as seperate businesses and with reference to other objects, much more than I but I know of no man living who has given more study to this business of forming public parks or who has had a longer and more varied experience in the practice of it than I.

Let it not be said that on this ground I seek to usurp the functions of the Commissioners themselves. The question is not what they shall trust, but whom; not, on what points shall they be advised by a subordinate but by what class of subordinates shall they be advised; not, shall a division be made of the responsibilities formerly laid on their Landscape Architect, or of the much smaller responsibilities recently laid on him, but, if any, what shall be set off?

On this, I have simply said that there are no points on which the Central Park comes so far short of what was originally intended as in these two, of the superintendence of the plantations and the superintendence of its public use; there are none, therefore, which I have so much felt the need of personally superintending. I have always testified to the satisfactory superintendence of the roads and of all the ordinary work of the mechanics and laborers. I have never sought to resume my former direct superintendence of these parts of your business. I have been glad to be relieved of them; there are other parts of your business of which I should be willing to be relieved. But in respect to the Superintendence of the plantations and the Keeping of the [641] park, in the sixteen years since I was first made its superintendent I have never asked relief.

Shall I add that in that time, I have never asked for any other office than that of Superintendent of the Central Park; never have asked for promotion, for an increase of salary, [for the appointment to any position of a relative or friend;] that I have asked for no patronage, contracts or perquisites? I have asked personal advancement or personal favor never in any way except as it was to be found in an improved management of the Park in these two particulars. I have offered within two years to take an office in which I should be allowed proper advantages for this purpose at less than half the rate of pay which has since been given me without my solicitation, for undertaking duties in which it was necessary I should forego this purpose. I have been willing, as your Committee on Bye Laws was informed before its action, to lay aside all other duties and take these alone. I have been willing [and desirous], as they also were informed, to assume the responsibility for all other duties of design and superintendence in addition to these that might be desired, provided only I should not be made dependant on men as my immediate assistants in whose competency and good will to second me I could have no sufficient confidence.

That the Commissioners should then, so quickly and confidently, as the first step in the organization of the Department make up their minds to withdraw just these two elements of their business and no other from my superintendence makes it plain that they must have different aims in the general management of the Park from those which I recognize to be desirable.

Under these circumstances I cannot believe that they would be long satisfied to retain me in the position of general professional responsibility with respect to the Park which they at present have in view and I think that upon reflection this will even now be as evident to the Board as it is to me.