While I was talking with you, the dam burst here and out leapt the muddy torrent of the Institute of Architects’ remonstrance against our proposition to modify the design of the State Capitol. You will I think regard the matter as one of considerable importance, knowing how generally this cant about style is made to apologize for and sustain lazy and contemptible architecture. It was at once made the occasion and ground for a proposition presented by the Finance Committee of the State Senate (the Chairman of which was chairman of the Commission which ordered the building on Fuller’s design) to make further appropriations for the building only on the condition that the attempt to modify that design should be abandoned. Fuller’s design is expected to be published in this week’s American Architect, and the editor, Longfellow, will probably take sides.

You will observe that the remonstrance of the Chapter has been hastily prepared. I am told that but few members were consulted and that it is by no means true that it expresses their unanimous opinions. I think that we shall try in some form to get up a counter professional demonstration. I know of no architect of any standing who does not condemn Fuller’s design.

You will observe that the chapter itself indicates that it might do so, but it is to be considered that it has allowed it to stand nearly nine years without a word of remonstrance and first speaks when an attempt to improve is made.

I send you copies of our drawings. The Capitol is built to the top of the third story — the last but one below the roof.

Now I should be very glad to be advised whether the lower stories are, in your judgment, so far modified from the Roman, and so distinctly Renaissance, that the change of an abrupt transition from Renaissance to Romanesque is well grounded; whether the suggestion for surface decoration of the granite is properly described as an “introduction of brilliant color” and which would be “destructive of dignity and repose,” and, generally, how far I can feel confidence that thorough study of the matter will satisfy competent men that the Chapter has seriously blundered?

I ask this for my private advice, but if you will allow me, I may be glad to show it also to Dorsheimer and his Commission, who, I believe, will resign rather than carry out Fuller’s design if this should be required by the legislature.