CONDITION OF THE WORK.

1. _Preparation of foundation._--This consisted in placing a ma.s.s of Portland cement concrete beneath the existing foundation, extending downwards 13 feet; underneath and within the outer edge of the old foundation 18 feet; and without this edge 23 feet; then, of taking out the old foundation from beneath the shaft, for a sufficient distance back to obtain a good bearing upon the new masonry which is built out upon the slab first mentioned.

This work is so far advanced that it will be entirely completed by the 15th of June.

2. _Preparation for the shaft._--The other operations have consisted in the erection of the interior frame-work for the staircases and elevator within the shaft, which frame-work will be used in the construction of the masonry; the collection of granite and marble for continuing the shaft; and the preparation of the machinery for raising the stones to the top of the shaft, and setting them in place on the walls.

APPROPRIATIONS.

The only appropriation for this work as yet made by Congress is two hundred thousand dollars, contained in the act of August 2, 1876, which sum will be exhausted by the end of August, 1880.

The estimate for completing this work is $667,000, and the time required will be four working seasons.

Very respectfully, your ob't servant, THOS. LINCOLN CASEY, _Lieutenant-Colonel Engineers, U.S.A., Engineer in Charge._

UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, D. C., _March 31, 1879_.

DEAR SIR: I inclose, as possibly of interest, extracts from a letter I have just received from Hon. George P. Marsh, our Minister at Rome.

These extracts refer to the Washington Monument question. Mr. Marsh is among the most learned and accomplished of those in any country who have given the subject of architecture and monumental art attention.

Very truly yours, GEO. F. EDMUNDS.

Gen. T. L. CASEY, _Corps of Engineers_.

[Extracts.]

ROME, _February 9, 1879_.

DEAR MR. EDMUNDS: By a letter from the sculptor Mead to Mrs. Marsh, I understand that the main feature of the Washington Monument is to be an obelisk of great height, surmounted by a colossal statue, and with _bas-reliefs_ at a suitable height from the base. I believe I have not only seen but sketched every existing genuine--that is, Egyptian--obelisk, for no other can fairly said to be genuine. The obelisk is not an arbitrary structure which every one is free to erect with such form and proportions as suit his taste and convenience, but its objects, form, and proportions were fixed by the usage of thousands of years; they satisfy every cultivated eye, and I hold it an esthetical crime to depart from them.

In its objects the obelisk is monumental, its inscriptions having reference to and indicating what or whom it commemorates. I do of think _bas-reliefs_ too great a departure from the primitive character the inscriptions, because we can come no nearer an alphabet answering the purpose.

The most important point is the form and proportions of the structure, as to which the modern builder of obelisks transgresses greatly. The Egyptian obelisks do not, indeed, all conform with mathematical exactness to their own normal proportions, but (probably from defects in the stone) frequently vary somewhat from them. When truly fashioned, however, they are more pleasing to the eye than when deviating from the regular shape.

The obelisk consists: First, of a naked shaft, with or without inscription, the height of which is ten times the width of its base, so that if the base of the shaft is fifty feet square, then the height of the shaft must be five hundred feet. For optical reasons (which cannot be considered in the Washington Monument, it being too late) the faces of the shaft are slightly convex.

The dimensions of the shaft are reduced as it rises, and in this point the ancient obelisks vary more than any other, the top of the shaft varying from two-thirds to three-quarters of the linear measurement of the base. Hence, if the base of the shaft (I do mot mean of the pedestal or plinth, if there is one) is fifty feet square, its summit may be anywhere between thirty-three and one-third and thirty-seven and one-half feet square. The obelisks much reduced are the most graceful, but in this case the great height will of itself reduce the apparent measurement, so that perhaps thirty-five would not be too much. But the shaft has already gone up so far as to have settled those questions of form irrevocably. Second, of a pyramidion or apex, the form and proportions of which are constant. The base of the pyramidion is of exactly the same dimensions as the summit of the shaft, and unites with it directly without any break (except, of course, one angle), and with no ledge, molding, or other disfigurement. The height of the pyramidion is equal to the length of a side of the base of the shaft, and therefore greater than the side of its own base.

There are cases where the hyeroglyphics run up one or more faces of the pyramidion, but in general these faces are perfectly plain.

The Egyptians often covered the whole pyramidion with a closely fitted gilt bronze cap, the effect of which most have been magnificent.

It has been said that it was sometimes surmounted by a gilt star, but I doubt this, for the casing of the pyramidion would of itself have much the same effect.

The notion of spitting an the sharp point of the pyramidion is supremely absurd. Not less so is the subst.i.tution of a low hipped roof for am acute pyramidion, or the making of a window in the face of the pyramidion or of the shaft, both which atrocities were committed in the Bunker Hill Monument. There will no doubt be people who will be foolish enough to insist on a peep-hole somewhere; and if they must be gratified the window should be of the exact form and size of one of the stones,and provided with a close-fitting shutter colored exactly like the stone, so that when shut it would be nearly or quite imperceptible from below.

Yours truly, GEO. P. MARSH.

Hon. GEO. F. EDMUNDS.

WASHINGTON, D. C., _May 12, 1879_.

MY DEAR GENERAL: I have received from Mr. Marsh a letter on the subject of the Monument, a copy of which I herewith forward to you, thinking it may interest you.

Yours truly, GEORGE F. EDMUNDS.

General T. L. CASEY, _Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C._

ROME, _April 25, 1879_.

DEAR MR. EDMUNDS: I am much obliged to you for yours of April 8, with General Casey's letter and the two Congressional doc.u.ments. I am agreeably surprised to learn from General Casey's interesting letter that the normal proportions have been so early observed hitherto in the construction of the obelisk. In fact, it being difficult to obtain such vast ma.s.ses of granite rock, even in the quarries of Syene, entirely free from flaws, the Egyptians were very often obliged to depart more or less from the proportions most satisfactory to the eye, and the Washington obelisk conforms so nearly to those proportions, except in two points, that it is hardly subject to criticism. These points are, the batter, which is more rapid than in any obelisk known to me, and the pyramidion. Perhaps the designer adopted the proportions from considerations of stability, as a summit considerably less than the base would give greater security, and when the dimensions are all so great, differences of proportion are less appreciable.

As to the form and proportion of the pyramidion, the existing obelisks are more uniform than in the measurements of the shaft, and I think that, not merely on the ground of precedent but on that of taste, it would be by all means advisable to give to the pyramidion of the Washington obelisk a height of not less than fifty feet. In any case, if the height of the pyramidion is not greater than the side of its base, the summit will have a truncated shape quite out of harmony with the _soaring_ character of the structure.

I infer from General Casey's drawings, accompanying Mr. Corcoran's letter, that the plan of a sort of temple-like excrescence from the base--a highly objectionable feature--is abandoned. It is curious that we do not know precisely what the Egyptian form of the base was. Some authorities state it was a die of larger dimensions than the shaft, and with sides battering at the same rate as the shaft, but I do not find satisfactory evidence that this was by any means universal, though it would certainly be an appropriate and harmonious form. Of course any desirable base can be constructed around the shaft. There are obelisks the surface of which indicates that they were stuccoed, and this suggests that if the shaft of the Washington obelisk shall from time or difference of material be found parti-colored, surface uniformity of tone may be obtained by the same process.

We have no knowledge of any Egyptian obelisk much exceeding one hundred feet in height, though some writers speak of such monuments of considerably greater dimensions. The extreme difficulty of obtaining monoliths exceeding one hundred feet renders it probable that the measurements of the authorities referred to were mere vague estimates rather than ascertained dimensions.

Yours truly, GEO. P. MARSH.

BROOKLINE, Ma.s.s., _August 1, 1878_.

MY DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 20th ultimo reached me yesterday. I thank you for sending me the copy of Mr. Story's letter, which I have read with great interest. I am only a second vice-president of the Monument a.s.sociation, and am not included in the commission for completing the work. I had no part or lot in the original design of the Monument. * * *

As an original question, I might have desired a different design; and I had no small part in inducing the building committee, many years ago, to omit the pantheon at the base, and to confine the design to a simple obelisk. After that was arranged, and when the Monument had reached so considerable a height, I was very averse to changing the plan. A whole generation of men, women, and children had contributed, in larger or smaller sums, to this particular Monument; and States, cities, and foreign nations had sent stones for its completion.

To tear it all down, with a view to improve the design, was abhorrent to me. Story called to see me when he was in Boston, and I told him that, so far as I was concerned, my first wish was to finish the Monument as a simple obelisk; but that, if a change was unavoidable, owing to any insecurity of the foundations, his idea of turning it into an ornamental Lombard Tower was the best plan I had seen suggested. * * *

I am aware that what is called "advanced art" looks with scorn on anything so simple and bald as an obelisk, more especially when it is made up of a thousand pieces, instead of being a monolith shaft. Yet the Bunker Hill Monument, of which the design was furnished by one of our earliest and best artists, Horatio Greenough, is one of these complete obelisks, and Webster was proud to apostrophize it as "the true orator of the day," when he was p.r.o.nouncing his own incomparable oration.

I recall other obelisks, at home and abroad, which tell their story most impressively; and when I look around to see what "advanced art" has done for us and done for itself to the myriad soldiers' monuments which have been recently erected, I fall back on the simple shaft as at least not inferior to any one of them in effect and as free from anything tinsel or tawdry.

A grand arch, which I believe you once proposed, would be a n.o.ble monument of our Union, and might well be the subject of independent consideration in season for the centennial of the organization of the Government in 1889. I have repeatedly urged such an arch as commemorative of our Const.i.tutional Union, in Boston. But it would have still greater propriety in Washington. I cannot help hoping, however, that it will be erected with new stones, and without any disturbance of the Washington obelisk.

Pardon me for so long a letter and for so frank an expression of my views.

I have heard nothing on the subject of late from any of the Commissioners or of the a.s.sociation, but have taken it for granted that the whole matter was decided.

If, however, it is to be reopened, I shall be very glad to see Mr.