Dear Mr. Crouse (Charlie),

This is the letter which I promised at the recent meeting I would write to you concerning my desire to have the diocesan office combined with the building plans of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

I write this because I do not believe that I have ever shared with you systematically the case for such a move. I have thought about it, as you know, a great deal. I see many many things in favor of such a joint venture, and, after listening carefully to many arguments, have not heard an argument which really impresses me in the negative. I regret, and you can explain in confidence to the Committee, the position in which they were placed by the untimely publicity material issued by the Cathedral. That is water over the dam, but it will perhaps, if it is explained in confidence to your Committee, do something to give them some knowledge of why here and there opposition may have arisen to the venture.

First of all I want it clearly understood that this thought of a joint building arose in my mind, that I was not in any manner sold anything by the Cathedral, and that I sincerely believe it is the best and wisest thing for the Diocese to do.

Let me relate the story.

 1. We all know that this area in which we are now located is a most strategic one, and will develop as one of the great cultural centers of this great City. I therefore feel that the diocesan office should remain in this area, and not be moved in any way away from this area. As you know, there is scarcely a month which passes which does not see the beginning of some fine and new building in this locality. So well located is the Cathedral that a recent conversation with a friend revealed that one of the Fishers, Roman Catholics, had stated that the Roman Catholic Church would gladly pay five million dollars in cash for what we have here now.

 2. It has so happened that both the Cathedral and the diocesan office need to build at the same time. We are impossibly crowded, and the Cathedral parish house is close to being condemned as a fire hazard. You can fill in some of the information on this to the Committee. I merely want to point out the way in which my mind began to work some years ago when both Dean Weaver and I saw that the buildings were necessary and began to discuss the possibility of a joint venture.

 3. Land in this area is precious, and it would seem to be wise and reasonable that instead of a parish house and a diocesan office the two should be combined, thus preserving present parking facilities. If we did not move in with the Cathedral, it would necessitate the buying of another piece of property from the Cathedral, or some piece nearby.

 4. The beauty, and even splendor, of some of the buildings in this area make it almost a civic responsibility for us to do something which is beautiful and in keeping with the Cathedral. It will be much easier for us to do this, of course, if we combine our resources than if we build separately.

 5. It is the Bishop’s Church. I am the Rector of the Cathedral, and it therefore seems a most natural thing for the Bishop to have his office in connection with the Cathedral. This has a distinct precedent in other places, --Pittsburgh, Western Michigan, and other places of which you will know. I have, in fact, felt that there would be something quite wrong with the polity of our Church if for some reason the Bishop were prevented from having his office in connection with his Cathedral.

 6. I have heard it stated, as have you, that the future of the Cathedral is unpredictable, that it might conceivably result that the Diocese would be called upon to swing the Cathedral. This objection, I think, has little or no value. The Cathedral now has an income from endowments of $30,000 annually, and I know of one individual who has $150,000 in his will for the Cathedra endowment. It is now stronger numerically and financially than it has been. Its site in the midst of this cultural center, the new highways, and the radio tradition, make it as stable as any of our downtown Churches.

 7. I have heard the objection made that there are problems connected with the two offices existing under one roof. There is some point in this, I guess, but since we would occupy different floors I am sure that this is a detail, and that a businesslike arrangement of this could be worked out by the Chancellor.

Finally, let me say that I do not see an alternative. We are here in this building by the grace of the Cathedral. We cannot stay in this building, because it is too small. We sometimes know what is right by seeing the weakness of any other course of action. Believe me that as I write this I am not thinking of myself, but only of the good of the Diocese over the decades to come. None of us will be here very long, and we should think in terms of the decades ahead.

With gratitude for all that you have done as a Committee, and with appreciation of the tough spot in which you have been placed by circumstances, I am