House and Garden 
sign could be so perfectly served—for they were 
considered as primary—and so much attractive 
lawn he retained, as the illustrations herewith given 
show. (2) 1 he use of trees in ample and yet in 
restrained variety. A selected representative list of 
species follows: maples, horse-chestnuts, birches, 
chestnuts, catalpas, redbud, yellowwood, flower¬ 
ing dogwood, crataegus, persimmon, beech, ash, 
both sweet- and sour-gum, tulip, magnolia (in great 
variety), mulberry, hop-hornbeam, plane, poplar, 
oaks, lindens, elms. (3) The selection of shrubbery 
for foliage, form and size, rather than for bloom, 
such shrubs for example as aralia, azaleas, bar¬ 
berries, cornels, hazel, euonymus, forsythia, althea, 
ilex, privets, buckthorn, sumachs, elders, spireas, 
lilacs and viburnums. (4) The final feature of the 
planting was the large use as a ground cover, in 
many places instead of turf, of creepers and low per¬ 
ennials. These plants stand the summer heat and 
drought of Washington better than grass and also 
serve to connect and merge higher foliage with the 
verdure of the lawns. 
There would have been something peculiarly fit¬ 
ting in using only native American plants in the 
Capitol grounds, although such a policy would, of 
course, have lessened decidedly their ornamental 
character. Therefore, it may he reasonably ques¬ 
tioned whether the interest and instructiveness of 
such a policy would have been sufficient to justify 
it. A good compromise might have been had in 
the use of native plants predominatingly, adding 
only comparatively few foreign plants for the sake 
of variety. As it is, of the 225 species listed in the 
report for 1882, a majority are of foreign origin. 
It is probable, however, that the American plants 
were used in larger quantities. 
The only special features incident to the park 
character of the grounds that Mr. Olmsted added 
were the Grotto and the Summer-house. The 
grotto was an odd conception. Mr. Olmsted plan- 
STEPS IN THE LOWER WALK 
FOUNTAIN AT EAST END OF GROUNDS, TYPICAL OF 
AMERICAN DECORATIVE DESIGN IN THE EARLY ’yo’s 
ned it as a convenient place of relief for Congress¬ 
men from the stress, turmoil and excitement of leg¬ 
islative life. In support of this view it must be 
remembered that it was constructed prior to the 
days of rapid transit, before it was possible to trav¬ 
el quickly and easily to really peaceful rural sur¬ 
roundings. The grotto appears never to have been 
a success, nor to have accomplished even in a 
measure what its designer hoped for. Its appro¬ 
priateness also may he reasonably questioned. 1 he 
summer-house meets more successfully a normal 
human need. It provides a place where people 
can rest in passing up Capitol Hdl from Pennsyl¬ 
vania Avenue, and it answers as a shelter from 
storm. Altogether it may he said that without 
sacrificing the essential features of the design, the 
grounds have been made genuinely serviceable for 
use as a city park of a very attractive and conven¬ 
ient type. 
In conclusion there are three general considera¬ 
tions that appear worthy of mention. (1) 1 he ar¬ 
chitectural features of the grounds—the walls, bal¬ 
ustrades, lanterns, lamp-posts, etc.—are not in 
harmony with the Capitol nor are they of good de¬ 
sign in themselves. They were designed in an un¬ 
fortunate period in architectural history in this 
country, when classic motives were disregarded 
and unity and harmony ignored. The fountain 
126 
