I am glad to be able to supply at the request of your Secretary four copies of the pamphlet twelve years ago issued by your Commission explanatory of the motives and intentions with which the work of improvement of the South Park was entered upon.

The request for these gives me occasion to recall the concluding passage of that pamphlet (pp 53 & 54) in which as distinct a warning was given as was then proper for the designers of the park to offer, that whatever departures from particular local features of the plan might come to be thought expedient in the future it was of the “utmost consequence” that consistency of purpose in respect to general style quality and character should be steadily insisted on by the Commissioners. The more obvious dangers of mal-administration extravagance and waste were believed by the writers to be much less than that which lay in the liability and temptation to pursue local & special ends in themselves attractive and commendable but antagonistic to others of a more general and comprehensive scope.

When I had the pleasure of driving through the park with some of your body two years ago I could not but point out that this warning had been ineffective and that the work in detail had in fact been directed to results very different in quality style and character from those which had been had in view in determining the outlines and general features of the undertaking so much so that one hand was tearing down what the other was building up.

You have had two styles of park in view either of which would be satisfactory if well carried out. But the result of pursuing either alternative at intervals of some years or of muddling them together though not unpleasing to an observer for the time being must eventually be offensive either because of the incongruities it presents or tame and insipid because of the neutralization of one element of beauty by another.

What is now needed is a studious review of the entire work not with a view to the recovery of what has been lost of the value of the original design but to bring about in connection with the necessary maintenance operations greater consistency between the larger and substantially fixed elements of the [152]undertaking and the smaller and more accommodative elements. Could a revision of the design be now fixed upon and adhered to recovering as far as remains practicable without costly constructive operations to the style and character of work originally designed, the result would be much more valuable and less costly than can otherwise be hoped for.

Very respectfully yours