The notion of spitting an the sharp point of the pyramidion is supremely absurd. Not less so is the substitution 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 documents. 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 masses 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.