From George Washington to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 20 February 1797
To the Commissioners for the District of Columbia
Philadelphia 20th Feby 1797.
Gentlemen,
Reasons which I have frequently assigned, have prevented me from acknowledging sooner, the receipt of your letter of the 3d instant; relatively to the memorial of Mr Davidson.1 Indeed I have so often expressed my unwillingness to depart from the engraved plan in every instance where it could be avoided, that I had hoped no repetition of this sort would have been made to you, by any of the Proprietors.2
Whether the area in front of the building intended for the President of the United States be circular, according to Majr L’Enfants plan, or square as the engraved one represents,3 is immaterial in the abstract, or as it concerns the Public and Mr Davidson only; but if the gratification of that gentleman sets a principle afloat, and thereby opens a door to similar applications, it attaches an importance which may involve inextricable difficulties.
To what Mr Davidson alludes in the scored part of the following sentence, “I can venture to assert that numberless deviations were made by Majr Ellicott from the original plan, and I have reason to believe that many have been made since” you, much better than I, can explain4—That many alterations have been made from Majr L’Enfants plan by Majr Ellicott, (with the approbation of the Executive) is not denied;5 that some were deemed essential is avowed; and had it not been for the materials which he happened to possess, ’tis probable no engraving from Majr L’Enfants draught would ever have been exhibited to the public; for after the disagreement which took place between him and the late Commissioners, his obstinacy threw every difficulty it could, in the way of its accomplishment.6
To this summary may be added, that Mr Davidson is mistaken if he supposes, that the transmission of Majr L’Enfants Plan of the City to Congress, was the completion thereof. So far from it, it will appear by the message which accompanied the same that it was given as matter of information, to shew in what state the business was in, & the return of it requested. That neither house of Congress passed any act consequent thereupon. That it remained as before, under the controul of the Executive.7 That afterwards, several errors were discovered & corrected, many alterations made, and the appropriations (except as to the Capital & Presidents house) struck out under that authority, before it was sent to the Engraver; intending that his work, & the promulgation thereof, were to give it the final, & regulating stamp.8
I have been thus particular to show that Mr Davidson is not treading on solid ground, or in other words, that he is claiming as a matter of right what can only be yielded on the principle of harmony, or for mutual benefit; and therefore, it only remains to be repeated, that if the proposed alteration would have a tendency towards inviting applications of a similar nature I shall be decidedly against the measure. If on the other hand, the case is singular, & no consequences would be involved in the acquiescence; as it is immaterial whether the area is semicircular or square; as contention may be avoided—and both parties, in a pecuniary point of view benefited, I leave the question, under the provisos before mentioned, to your own decision; as you must have a more comprehensive view of circumstances than I can acquire.
The other part of Mr Davidson’s memorial is yet more extraordinary; for if the Proprietors—in consideration of having the permanent Seat of the Government established among them, yielded a portion of their property for public uses—shall, afterwards, take upon themselves to decide what shall not be done with it, they may, by the same parity of reason, direct the uses to which the squares shall be applied. This is too absurd. With esteem & regard—I am Gentlemen Yr Obedient Servt
Go: Washington
P.S. I am informed that Mr Hadfield is enquiring, in this City, for Carvers. I earnestly recommend, that all carving not absolutely necessary to preserve consistency, may be avoided; as well to save time and expence, as because I believe it is not so much the taste now as formerly.9
ALS, DLC: U.S. Commissioners of the City of Washington records; ALS (letterpress copy), DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW; copy, DLC. The commissioners received this letter on 25 Feb. (see the entry for 25 Feb. in the commissioners’ book of proceedings, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802).
1. For merchant and proprietor Samuel Davidson’s memorial to the commissioners, which pertained to modifications to President’s Square (now Lafayette Square), see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 3 Feb., and n.1.
2. For the 1792 plan of the Federal City, drawn by Andrew Ellicott and engraved by James Thackara and John Vallance, see the commissioners to GW, 1 Oct. 1796 (first letter), n.5. For an example of GW’s expressed unwillingness to deviate from that plan, see his letter to the commissioners of 26 Dec. 1796. GW later reiterated a similar directive when he wrote D.C. commissioner William Thornton on 1 June 1799: “… no departure from the Engraved plan of the City ought to be allowed, unless imperious necessity should require it, or some great public good is to be promoted thereby” ( 4:94–95).
3. Pierre Charles L’Enfant had designed the north front of President’s Square as a semicircle, but the 1792 engraved plan represented that space as a square (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 3 Feb., and n.1 to that document). For more on the location of President’s Square, see the commissioners, 1 Oct. 1796 (first letter), and n.17.
4. The quoted phrase is taken from Davidson’s letter to the commissioners of 31 Jan. (see the commissioners to GW, 3 Feb., n.1).
5. For Ellicott’s and Thomas Jefferson’s revisions to L’Enfant’s 1791 plan of the Federal City, and for GW’s authorization for alterations to that plan, see the commissioners to GW, 1 Oct. 1796 (first letter), n.5; see also , 20:56–69.
6. For early disputes between L’Enfant and the D.C. commissioners over the former’s demolition of a house, and for L’Enfant’s failure to present a map for engraving, see L’Enfant to GW, 21 Nov. 1791, editorial note; see also , 20:70–72.
7. On 13 Dec. 1791, GW presented Congress with an unofficial draft of L’Enfant’s 1791 plan. In his letter to Congress of that date, GW did not label the plan as a draft and did not request its return (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that date, and the source note to that document). GW sent Congress Ellicott’s engraved plat of the Federal City on 18 Feb. 1793, and asked that it be returned to the State Department (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that date; see also Charles Lee to GW, 14 Feb. 1797).
8. In Ellicott’s view, L’Enfant’s plan was riddled with many errors and depicted unnecessary streets and public squares.
The various revisions that Jefferson and Ellicott made to L’Enfant’s plan, with GW’s approval, included modifications of squares, circles, and diagonal streets, and the extension of an avenue. Furthermore, most of the large rectangular areas or squares on L’Enfant’s map, which he had designated for specific public buildings or fortifications, were mostly left blank in the Ellicott plan (see 245).
9. GW’s recommendation on the subject of carvings undoubtedly was influenced by advice he received from Thomas Law to avoid excessive and unnecessary ornamentation on the U.S. Capitol (see Law to GW, c.10 Feb., and n.2 to that document).