I enclose copy of a letter which I send in reply to one from Mr Davis. I want you to have it in mind that the points he questions me upon are critical. Davis looking from the Engineer’s point of view don’t realize that they are so and if you don’t guard them well his influence will all be against you, not intentionally or consciously but from the habitual drift of the Engineering mind. I don’t suppose that it is necessary at this moment to take a new step but with the professional itching for the tried, prudent and common-place he will be constantly inclined to find opportunities for backing away from the more refined purposes of your undertaking. The time may not have come for employing an architect — I should think, that is to say, that it was unnecessary for the purpose of a preliminary estimate to do so, but I judge he does not contemplate having any upon the bridges in the future. To an Engineer bridges are engineering works. It would be better therefore that you let him see on proper occasion that you expect the City Architect to finally make the plans for iron bridges in consultation with him (Davis) & with me.

But as to the Boylston Street bridge, when you have read the enclosed, I wish that you would consider whether you could not let me have Richardson’s assistance? Either with stone, or brick or timber, this bridge can be made very effective, and it is the first thing you have to do as a Commission in which a striking success, giving artistic people confidence in your ability to lead the city, is practicable.

I hope the Arboretum map answers your purpose & the scheme is growing in favor.