Continuing the 1910's, starting with 1914. Interior staffs itself with Park people. NPS Act passed. GCNP taken up in Congress; Hayden/Ashurst central for local interests. A strong plea for the Havasupai at the last moment, gets muted.
Sources: The Hayden files become important, and we should learn a lot about this figure, key for over half a century. Park and Forest Service files.
(Some abbreviations: Months are in three-letter form. FS, Forest Service. NF, National Forest. NPS, National Park Service. NP, National Park, or Park. NM, National Monument, or Monument. Sec, Secretary, e.g. Ag, of Agriculture, and Int, Interior. sec, section of a bill. DC, Washington, or head of an agency. USGS, US Geological Survey. mbf, million board feet--timber. rr, railroad; row, right-of-way.)
1914
Interior Secretary Lane appoints M. Daniels as general superintendent for Parks, and in 1915 brings in Mather as Lane's Special Assistant for Parks; he later becomes head of NPS.
In this year, this new, Democratic administration goes first for the center of the Parks issue -- creating a dedicated agency and providing an organic act for a National Parks System (signed in 1916 and which I will not review here). Meanwhile, the idea of an NP for the Grand Canyon merely simmered.
MAR, Tusayan NF Supervisor provides background on south rim boundary: the sections south of the village are forested and will provide good tourist area. Boundary was drawn after talk with local stockmen so that no ranches or watering places would be taken. Concern was that land taken by GCNP would be good for grazing, but without scenic value. There were several hundred Havasupai animals, but trespass stock keep fire down. The eastern boundary was drawn to save winter range. Tusayan also wished to change southwestern (Cataract) boundary of NM to a line that would follow the road and be closer to the rimMAY, Hayden introduces a bill to lease water power (build dams) in all lands except National Parks.
JUN, Tusayan supervisor wants changes to stabilize administration and provide for development of country; refers to continuing fuss to prevent an NP boundary from blocking Buggeln cattle's access to water.
Daniels speaks of lasting value of scenery, which can be "sold and resold with no diminution in the original bulk of the commodity". Attacks Cameron claims. There are lots of visitors, justifying liberalizing concessions policy. Forest Service position is that while NM blocks mining claims, NP would allow fully adequate improvements and policing.
Also in 1914, Secretary of Agriculture had approved the FS recommendation for eliminating lands from Tusayan NF to be added to the Havasupai Reservation. It was to be discussed in FS-Interior conferences about the Park boundary.
OCT, a new wrinkle: the FS discusses internally whether there can be water power development in the GCNM. Negative, but legislative activity is suspended because of election, so no action on Park until next session.
NOV, after a visit to the Canyon, FS chief Graves prepares a memo on conditions at GC, with suggestions for improvement. Three-fourths of it deals with mining claims, and he makes a great case as to what a curse they are: Only access point is Santa Fe terminus, so visitors need roads and paths from there to enjoy scenic points. But claims block all logical routes, as well as Yavapai Point, along road to Hermit, proposed Hermit trail & pipelines to river, Indian Gardens as a resting place & outhouse location, Grandview Point, and village school site. Claimants (~ fraudulent scumbags) have kept delaying hearings to determine validity. Then in the last page and a half, Graves asserts that handling tourists, providing good service, and preventing abuse of the public are all tasks peculiarly suited to administration of a Park rather than a Forest. Speaks of Parks as places of restrictions and close supervision of individuals, unlike Forests. So there is "urgent need" for Park. Until then, we will work up special regulations, and toward that end we are cooperating with Daniels. Both Secretaries will need to approve, however. We expect large crowds this winter, and we will make specific recommendations to correct conditions which do not now reflect credit upon the government. Oh, and by the way, the Canyon "is one of the great National wonders of the world".
So, three years after the last go-round at which Graves and/or USGS put forward (to whom?) various boundaries ideas, he is back again sounding like a kind-of Park advocate.
DEC, Graves to Daniels, sending above memo, urged working together to run NM as if it were Park. He says they agreed that the two departments would lobby for Park status, following a conference that included Arizona delegation. We will work together to locate road and trails, plan GC Village and new administration building. Permits would be granted after consultation. Joint effort to eliminate adverse claims. Motor vehicle traffic would be limited. (Perhaps their feeling was that legislative action would be long delayed, so they needed to do something administratively. Of course this was before the basic Park System Act was passed.) They did meet. Daniels was agreeable, though he had limited funds.
DEC, Graves talks of difficulty in getting Park bill this winter, and primacy of Interior and Rep. Hayden in legislating.
No bill was pending since HR 6331.
Flagstaff sent view to Hayden that water power & mineral resources must be made available.
Camp-Fire Club of America ("organization of outdoor men and lovers of nature") resolved in favor of Park, and with the advice of Graves, wrote Hayden asking his views and if he would introduce bill, since his position qualifies him preeminently to father the measure for GCNP. Here he is, though in later years:
He just refers request to Ag, which continues its zig and zag, responding NM was wise, but temporary; not enough latitude for administration for protection and development, so either create NP or expand FS authority. We do agree it should be the former.
1915
JAN, Hayden then queried, with Camp-Fire Club, administration about Park bill, and was told that nothing had happened since Flint bill in 1911, but we stand ready.
Daniels tells Graves that a new man, Stephen Mather, is coming who will be involved in Park work.
FEB , state land official urges Hayden to back idea of giving section of the rim to Arizona, "inasmuch as the Canyon was sufficiently considerate to locate itself within our borders, we should be entitled to a small portion of it to do as we wish." But feds too jealous of their authority. Aim would be to create camping ground. [This (strange, silly, stalking horse, smokescreen) idea will keep popping up.]
FEB, FS in DC has a boundary map prepared by the USGS (which seemed to be both cartographic source and policy promoter), following the negotiations with Mark Daniels of Interior's Parks office. Graves circulates the map to the District and local Forests showing changes to help the Park, asking for field comment. The changes would draw straight lines back from the north & south rims to put more of the forested lands on the Kaibab and the South Rim in the Park. There would be straighter boundaries for administration, a road, and some forest cover. South of Grandview, there are 4-1/2 sections of heavy timber, as there is on the west side of the northern addition. Changes were made to accommodate railroad and simplify administration (cites line east of Nankoweap, "of no special value for any purpose"). Boundaries would need to provide unrestricted stock drift because so much water would be inside NP; otherwise "innocent stockmen will be ruined".
Daniels, finally, writes his Secretary about his conferences with Graves, sending the November 1914 report including photos of how the Cameron claims affect all possible improvements. He says he told Graves that Park boundary should include scenic side canyons and trails into Canyon. Also important, he argues, is to put Park on "a self-supporting basis" by having boundaries so that hotel sites in Park are protected from competition. We discussed Havasupai; an increased reservation would not interfere with the scenic features of the Park. We just need enough area to build a road and protect the rim. So I recommend that land for reservation be eliminated (from Monument?, Forest? Park proposal?). Graves has the map with the boundary we tentatively agreed on.
Meanwhile, having been asked by Graves for his opinion, Tusayan supervisor came roaring back, emphasizing lack of scenic value above rim from east boundary all the way over past Cataract; some not even useful for stock. While more generous Park line would help in administration, stockmen will oppose if sheep & cattle cannot drift as they wish. He also worried about line on the north. The local view was that the FS could protect scenic beauty as well as anybody, and the area the DC office is asking about is "valuable" [it always is] range with several waters for 2000+ cattle (an astounding number). USGS boundary would take 20% of the Forest's timber, although it would attract transportation that could be used by loggers. This proposal would put another 10% in Park just to get straight line. District office says the proposal would bring violent opposition from Congressional delegation. So stay with more restrictive boundary. Utah stockman adds that loss of grazing on Kaibab near rim would work great hardship, and not needed for Park. (This would not seem to refer to Tapeats line.) FS wants ground survey with USGS. In reply to Daniels, FS in DC said locals claim there is too much commercial timber on the south (which, just for perspective, was not cut until the Depression).
This leads to request by Graves to Mather, who is now Lane's personal assistant for Parks, with his own private secretary, Horace Albright. FS wanted to delay setting the northern line of the NP. But in March, Graves writes Mather that he is willing to accept line on USGS map.
MAR, Camp-fire boys want to move on GCNP, worried by HR 16673 aimed at getting water power concessions in Canyon. Think they are stock-jobbing schemes, but Park would exclude them. They take stand: we oppose any relaxation in maintaining Park as untouched work of nature. We are against improving such, and against grazing & logging disguised as scientific forestry; balance of nature too delicate. "We owe it to future generations to maintain these few oases in the desert of commercialization in their unmarred primeval beauty & dignity." End with strong attack on logging and grazing, especially sheep. (So the Park advocates ARE heard from.)
[63rd Congress ends in Mar 1915.]
APR, Graves was of the opinion that field objections required an on-the-ground inspection, Mather pushing for northern boundary "well back" from the rim. The question is what changes to make in the 1911 proposal, and whether to personally look over the line. [The 1911 proposal must be that most Restrictive one drawn early in the year and introduced by Sen. Flint as S. 10138. See my 12/2709 entry.]
Daniels reacts with astonishment that so much timber is packed into such a small area, and anyway we should add some trees, just not too many. On grazing, he sees no problem since NP will let it continue, handled by FS. Local FS reply is classic Restrictive: all scenic attractions are down within the Canyon; adding forest would add little of charm or advantage to NP. (That now antique view indicates the huge culture change in the FS over the XXth century.) The locals, adamant that the USGS line of 1911 is enough for the Park, insist on ground survey. But Graves says to Mather that no field investigation necessary; we prefer to go back to the 1911 line. This led to a May 27 conference between Graves & Sherman (FS), Mather & Yard (Int), and Marshall (USGS). Interior argued that line of 1911 did not allow for proper road. Interior agrees FS will handle stock, which go into Park area for water. Graves suggested President be given power to change boundary.
JUN, Mather having visited Canyon, writes the Santa Fe that action must be taken against Cameron claims that block everything. FS furnishes maps of claims.
Phoenix Chamber of Commerce resolves in favor of a Park at the earliest.
OCT, Good Roads Assoc. resolves in favor of NP with NM boundaries.
OCT, right hands and left hands wandering aimlessly, Sec. of Agriculture writes Interior on the merits of a 7000' tramway near Tanner trail to be "built" by still another mining boomer. It would be distant from tourist points (!!) and shielded from view by a basalt ridge. For electricity, "it would indeed be a paradox to develop power by means of fuel within a stone's throw of a great river". Area is flat and could be made into park of mine buildings and garden, along with repair of trail. Mather is "not aware of any good reason why this permit should not be granted". [This would not be the last time M would favor a tram scheme. Of course, the relevant point about all these fantasies is that they were just to mislead possible gulls who would invest; no change in that activity.]
Hayden wrote Bass that he is not in favor of Park unless it furnished ample opportunity to develop power and minerals, and protect grazing.
DEC, the Janus, Graves, promulgates a policy of consistently "opposing creation of Parks except in exceptional cases like the GC, which is of sufficient National importance to justify special protection and development as NP". FS ambivalence on display.
DEC, another conference, between Graves and Mather, to discuss a more generous line drawn by USGS(Marshall).
1916
JAN 3, Graves to Mather summarizing Dec 29 conference on adding lands on both the north and south. We object to new proposal; thousands of stock; there are now 50 permittees who have made large expenditures on water. Also, 250 mbf of timber will be taken. On the north, there are 245 bf, and much valuable grazing. There definitely will be local opposition in Arizona and Utah (with the FS being neutral?). To avoid that, stick with 1911 line and leave these acres in the "department of dominant interest". Graves suggests that bill allow road on NF to be built as if in Park.
Draft bill provisions: 2--Interior shall regulate timber, minerals, etc. to retain in natural condition. 3--May provide for minerals etc. to be worked. Supai may be allowed to move on NP for use, but not inconsistent with Park purposes nor hurt resources, nor prevent others' access. Leases can be granted, but no railroad closer than 1/2 mile to rim "more than once". 4--trespass is misdemeanor.
Northern Arizona business organizations resolve for park, since it would be made accessible.
FEB, Hayden says two departments do not yet agree on boundary.
Mather sent "4th draft" to Hayden, with a boundary on the Kaibab more like the Monument. Disagreement with FS, since "absolute necessity" that springs be in Park for eventual tourist development. FS had provided information on grazing that was way too exaggerated to tell effect. Rocky Mtn. NP act, PL 63-238, has flowage utilization that ends up as GCNP act, sec. 7. Sections 4 & 5 also came from that act into this draft. Cattlemen are protected in sec. 5. Mather says that the differences will not be difficult to iron out, and he will vigorously push it in Senate. Drafts sent at end of month, with Mather against any dual control with FS; water can be used for grazing until needed for tourists. Provisions: sec. 2 covers power; 3 authorizes Interior in freest use of Park recreation and preservation of natural condition and scenery. 4 for cattle. Havasupai left out.
Ripley of Santa Fe and "Chicago Tribune" agree on Park being under a National Park Service. Ripley pooh-poohs idea that there would be ads on the rim.
MAR, Ripley backed Davol's tramway into Canyon, since it would furnish transport to other side, without tampering with beauties along rim. (Mather's support for this tram will be squashed later on by Sec. Lane.) Santa Fe minion at the Canyon meanwhile is objecting to the Kolbs using a megaphone; it is a desecration, the public is disturbed by such excessive noise. Somebody in authority ought to tone down such an unnecessary nuisance.
Hayden to Gov. Hunt, showing Interior's ideas about north rim, and on south, along north line of 24 of 6w31 going over to Hualapai line. He notes that Arizona officials favor a state park. "My own idea" is that nothing should stop water power; it is section 1. No new mining claims allowed, but valid ones respected. These will not "destroy the scenic beauties of the canyon". Doubt that it is good idea to have grazing with Interior. Hunt's reply says it is highly desirable measure, and Arizonans will approve. Thinks water power and mineral development alright if they would not impair canyon. [my emphasis]
APR, previous SecInt Garfield reported to Lane on trip to Canyon. Supai affairs seem to be in good condition. Cameron claims are only to tie up lands for speculation. Did not think power site appeared capable of commercialization. He lamented lack of governmental power to deal with problems. FS reports thousands of wild burros are a nuisance on top. There are, as well, five times as many visitors as two years ago.
APR, after Hayden's inquiry, Coconino Country Supervisors disapprove completely of more Generous boundary, as do all stockmen, since grazing would be prohibited in a short time. Land over to Hualapai is treeless, of no value except winter range, and its loss would materially reduce taxable property.
Marshall of USGS argues for his boundary as needed for road. He doesn't see grazing objection, since with road, rancher would have a big tourist business.
MAY, more Interior ideas to Hayden, who wrote Coconino officials that he wants their opinion of boundaries, since there is move on foot to transfer NM as is to Interior.
GLO provides acreages.
In commenting on a bill to move NMs into Interior, FS region thinks close regulation of business at Parks necessary, and NPS might more easily achieve this; other FS voices less supportive. A pro-Park article appears in the Saturday Evening Post.
Hayden states views in favor of NPS Act, although opposing moving FS-administered NM to Interior. Shows his style of attack and scorn on opposition. To move would be inconvenient and uneconomical, just as Ag Sec says; just a slick way of creating Parks. No GCNP bill has yet found Congressional approval. [There were other NP acts, however.] (There may be sub-text here not reflected in files, that of resistance in Congress to the idea of conservation, much less preservation.) This question of transferring NM's remained an issue, and resulted in a typically dim compromise in the NPS Act, to wit: "In the supervision, management, and control of national monuments contiguous to national forests the Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate with said National Park Service". This is some kind of joke? that the more restrictive Monuments are left with the more exploitative-minded Forest Service? In October, an NPS proponent attacked the Forest Service; it opposed Parks since the FS depended on the patronage derived from timber sales.
NOV, Saturday Evening Post to editorialize for Park bill.
In NPS files, the preamble is rewritten, in pencil, from "that tract of land in Arizona particularly described and included within metes and bounds" to "reserved and dedicated as public park for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, under the name of Grand Canyon National Park, the tract …".
DEC, after 2-hour conference with Graves, Albright telegraphs Mather that all agree prospects were never blacker; there is a convinced local opposition of Santa Fe enemies, stockmen, electric power and mining interests. Need FS and NPS officials on scene.
Also, Albright asks Marshall to double check bill draft of Nov 29, since there are so many old bills and parts of bills that he was worried about discrepancies. The cause is clear from a typed 5-page draft of the boundary, called the 5th draft, re-done from the 4th of February and November, with corrections in red that led to the 6th draft introduced by Hayden after New Year. That is, the 4th draft was as of Nov 29, leading to the 5th typed in blue, then the 5th with pencilled corrections, then the 5th with red ink corrections, leading to the 6th, introduced Jan 22. Just for fun, here is a bit from the five pages:
"…thence east on section lines to section corner common to sections thirteen, fourteen, twenty-three and twenty-four, township thirty-three north, range three east; then north on section lines to section corner common to sections one, two, eleven and twelve, township thirty-three north, range three east; thence east on section lines to the intersection with upper rim of Grand Canyon…" It was a motley of such legal description and natural feature references. The entire year had been framed in these drafts. Other changes included moving the reclamation provision from sec. 1 to 7. Sec 2 refers to NPS Act. Sec 3 still says lease proceeds go to Park. Sec 4, no effect on prior rights. 5 is for rr row's. 6 is new, had been 3, then 5, applying mining laws. Grazing is renumbered, then forgotten; 7 is reclamation, without any restriction proviso.
No comments:
Post a Comment