Agate Fossil Beds Administrative History

Frustration Over Cook Remaindermen Interests

The National Park Service's San Francisco Planning and Service Center's Office of Land and Water Rights handled the principal mechanics of land acquisition. From San Francisco, Land and Water Rights Chief Thomas Kornelis supervised negotiations with Robert Simmons, the Cook sister's Scottsbluff, Nebraska, attorney. These discussions began in earnest in 1966 and redoubled following Margaret C. Cook's March 1967 relinquishment of quarrying rights (under Harold J. Cook's will) to the government in exchange for informal agreement to retain her life tenancy from the National Park Service. At the onset, Midwest Regional Director Fred Fagergren authorized Kornelis to acquire Tracts 3 and 7 from the Agate Springs Ranch. With Mrs. Cook's life tenancy estimated at fifteen years, Kornelis focused on acquiring the remainderman interests of Harold J. Cook's four daughters. Without title vested clearly in the United States it would be impossible to accomplish any planning for permanent development there. Determined to achieve outright, unencumbered ownership as soon as possible, Kornelis soon discovered the Cook heir's stubborn determination to oppose this goal.

Leaders of the "Cook remaindermen" were Grayson and Dorothy Cook Meade. From their home in Calgary, Alberta, Canada (where they moved from Houston, Texas), the Meades were formidable opponents. Both were geologists by training, and Grayson Meade (Ph.D. University of Chicago), taught at the university level before becoming a geologist for Union Oil in Canada for twenty years. Dorothy and Grayson Meade shared a deep love for the Agate Springs Ranch and the rich family legacy spawned there. In concert with the other three heirs (Margaret Hoffman, Winifred McGrew, and Eleanor Naffziger), the Meades vowed to resist acquisition of any more lands outside the immediate principal quarry areas in an effort to retain the ranch and pass it on to their heirs. Without the ranch headquarters—ranch and foreman's houses, barns and corrals, windmill, irrigation system, bridges, and mature windbreak—they argued that the remainder of Agate Springs Ranch would be economically unviable.

By November 1967, the Cook sisters were willing to negotiate concerning land east of Highway 29 and only devil's corkscrews west of the road. Ranch headquarters was non-negotiable. Late the same month, Fagergren agreed to proceed with condemnation on both tracts. Stating the land was necessary and the Service encouraged negotiation, Kornelis informed Robert Simmons on December 15 that failure of the talks would result in invocation of eminent domain. He offered $36,800 for Tracts 3 and 7; if no response came in forty-five days, condemnation would result. While discussions centered on access rights and fencing, Fagergren recommended a settlement via fee acquisition. In mid-February 1968, Simmons offered a scenic easement on the contested lands. Kornelis rejected this on March 4. [50]

Grayson Meade appealed by letter directly to Thomas Kornelis—and the Nebraska Congressional Delegation.* Citing his family's pleasure at the presence of the monument at the fossil quarries, Meade questioned the need for acquisition of Tracts 3 and 7, particularly ranch headquarters in Tract 3 "as needlessly disruptive to an operating ranch, and a pointless waste of the taxpayers' money." The loss of the 849.22 acres—one-fifth of the ranch—would be devastating. Meade continued:

We have offered to donate to the Park Service those features on tracts 3 and 7 in which your office is interested. We have offered scenic easements and use guarantees, to accommodate your needs. We have asked for a clear statement from you as to the use intended for this land, in order that we may make our offer of donation more precisely tailored to your requirements. In return, we have asked only that the Park Service not attempt to force sale of the bulk of the land in tracts 3 and 7, particularly of the headquarters area.

This offer you have turned down with no explanation other than generalizing about orderly development of the Monument.

As owners, we are acutely interested in specifics. If your plans include valid, concrete use for this land, or any of its features, that would not be covered by our offer of donation, we need to know what it is. We will attempt to adjust our offer and guarantees accordingly.

We asked you to reconsider your decision; to give yourself and us the opportunity to find an agreeable solution that will satisfy the needs of the Park Service, and at the same time leave us a reasonable basis for an operating ranch. [51]

---

*Grayson Meade's letter piqued the interest—and sympathy—of a member of Senator Hruska's staff who decided to involve himself in the controversy. Kirk Coulter wrote: "I don't really like to stir up hornet's nests, but [I] can't help feeling that the Cook children by the first marriage deserve a review of the situation before the die is finally cast. I thought I might at least talk to the Park Service people about the matter before they start condemnation." See Kirk Coulter to Senator Roman Hruska, U.S. Senate memorandum, undated (circa March 1968), Box 196 Departmental Correspondence 90th Congress, 2nd session, folder—Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1968, Hruska papers, Nebraska State Historical Society. See also the results of this compromise initiative in the next section (September 1968 in the chronological narrative).

---

Park Service Deputy Director Harthon L. Bill provided a response to the Meade letter on May 27, 1968. Ranch headquarters was unaffected, but the Service agreed to amend the monument boundary by deleting twenty acres in the northwest section to permit cattle access to other ranch lands. In addition, the entire appraisal would be reviewed. [52]

On May 29, a meeting with Simmons, Margaret Hoffman, Richard Holder, and George Sandberg (field representative of the Office of Land and Water Rights) brought forth a new offer: $40,000 for the two tracts including all ranch improvements and severance damages. Mrs. Hoffman requested a mid-June meeting in Spokane, Washington, the site of a family reunion, where the Cook sisters would be present to discuss the new offer with George Sandberg. Kornelis agreed to the arrangement provided all four sisters attended. He advised Robert Simmons:

In the event your clients do not wish to discuss the acquisition further this offer represents the United States' final offer. As you are aware negotiations for this land were commenced over a year ago and cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely. Therefore, unless we receive a responsive reply to our offer or arrangements are made to meet with the remaindermen we will proceed accordingly. [53]

The proposed Spokane meeting was aborted because the Meades were unable to attend. Nevertheless, Dorothy Meade* put forth a new proposal on June 4: the Service should restore the Bone Cabin and other early ranch structures to reveal the high point of the fossil excavations. She argued this structure was the most significant in telling the story of the area. Parties led by America's noted paleontologists used the Harold Cook's homestead claim cabin as a base of operations throughout the excavations. Many tools and furnishings once associated with the Bone Cabin could be provided by Margaret C. Cook, Mrs. Meade reasoned.

---

*Mrs. Meade also appealed to Senator Hruska explaining that Mrs. Cook had "pushed her views on Congress" while the heirs were "never asked to express an opinion." She decried the Park Service's treatment of Mrs. Cook as the representative of the Cook family stating, "Unfortunately, since Mrs. Cook, by her own choice, has been out of touch with the rest of the family since March 1964, she could not possibly represent us." Finally, she questioned why Service planners were willing to respect Harold J. Cook's wishes that the ranch headquarters not be included (via the 1961 Preliminary Study), but upon his death, it was opposed to respecting his heirs' needs. See Mrs. Grayson Meade to Senator Roman Hruska, letter, 28 May 1968, Box 196 Departmental Correspondence, 90th Congress, 2nd session, folder-Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1968, Hruska papers, Nebraska State Historical Society.

---

Further, Dorothy Meade stated, the north end of the bunk house, which was the original 0 4 Ranch house, could be moved and restored to represent early ranching conditions. Moved outside the grove of trees east of the highway, the contrast of the barren terrain with the comfortable, modern—and privately-owned and operating—ranch across the road would be striking. Mrs. Meade also suggested the addition of the old post office to the group of moved and donated structures. To restore the main ranch house to an earlier period would create havoc for the much-altered interior and pose exhibit problems for many of the furnishings acquired in later years. Finally, Mrs. Meade concluded the Service's decision to display the Cook collections in a visitor center and not on the walls of three rooms where they had been for sixty-four years made the whole concept of restoring the ranch house "absurd." [54]

Almost as if in answer to Mrs. Meade, Assistant Director C. P. Montgomery revealed a policy shift in a June 14, 1968, letter to Senator Roman Hruska. Negating a provision in the Master Plan to interpret the historical theme in the visitor center, Montogermy stated "we now plan to tell the story of the Cook ranch, including early Indian contact with the Cooks, and the archeological story in the Cook ranch headquarters building" [55] [emphasis added]. Further, the Park Service rejected as inadequate Dorothy Meade's offer to donate small portions of land and the relocation of certain buildings for restoration. [56]

None of the Cook heirs appreciated the manner in which the San Francisco Office handled the acquisition process, i.e.. the standard procedure of threatening condemnation proceedings if no settlement could be reached. One particularly abhorrent tactic was "divide and conquer" by choosing the "weakest link." According to Dorothy Cook Meade, Winifred Cook McGrew was the only sister without a husband and because of this perceived "vulnerability," Mrs. McGrew was singled out and received a number of unpleasant telephone calls at her place of employment threatening immediate condemnation unless a favorable settlement was soon reached. Mrs. Meade later commented: "He... was just threatening her in a very unpleasant way with condemnation and deadlines and it was so obvious that he was trying to stampede her into stampeding the rest of us. I just think that's atrocious. You can't treat people that way, but they did." [57]

Holder, determined to press forward, offered one last compromise to settle acquisition of Tract Nos. 3 and 7 (hereafter designated jointly as Tract No. 3). "If it is rejected either by us or by the four daughters of Harold Cook," Holder wrote, "there will be no alternative short of condemnation." One way or the other, the authorized national monument would soon be established:

With an administrable unit in Federal ownership, the time for establishment seems to be near. I have recommended that the area be formally established at an early date. A ceremony to mark the event might be held this fall, if construction progress is such that it could be combined with formal opening of the interim headquarters complex. [58]