A study of L’Enfant’s plan, as well as a careful reading of his descriptions, shows the effort made to model his design to the existing topography. No mention can be found of Versailles or London as an inspiration. He reiterates again and again in his letters that this plan of his was “original” and “unique.” In a letter to Jefferson requesting some Old World city maps he deprecates any copying and asks for this information only as a means for comparison or to aid in refining and strengthening his judgment. In order to investigate how far the existing conditions of the site for the Federal City dictated the plan of present Washington, a topographical map of the terrain, as existing at that period, has been carefully prepared from old maps and descriptions and an attempt made with an open mind to follow L’Enfant’s procedure. Much was assumed, only to be corroborated by later study of the original manuscripts and reports. All printed transcriptions of L’Enfant’s reports have been altered by their editors in the effort to interpret L’Enfant’s strange English, a fact leading to misinterpretation on the part of trained architectural commentators dependent solely on these printed transcriptions. [Illustration: THE L’ENFANT PLAN] [Illustration: TRANSCRIPTION OF NOTES INSCRIBED ON L’ENFANT PLAN] At the convention of the American Institute of Architects held in Washington in 1929, the history and development of the National Capital was the principal topic of discussion. The merits of the plan of L’Enfant were duly acknowledged by all, though emphasis was laid upon the progress of those modern projects sponsored and carried through largely by the efforts of the institute or its individual members. The work of the McMillan Commission and the admirable recommendations of that trained and experienced body, that the “central area” be restored with some resemblance to L’Enfant’s original plan were generally acknowledged. There was no comparison, however, attempted between the proposed plan of L’Enfant and the much-altered modern plan, nor was there discussion in detail of the “public walk” of the original design. The real merit of the original L’Enfant plan was sensed only by one speaker at the convention mentioned, Mr. Medary, when he spoke of the early structures maintaining their places as dominating elements in the original design and confirmed the judgment of L’Enfant “in fitting the plan of the proposed city to the topography of the site.”