Chapter 8:
The Extension of the System: Yosemite,
Sequoia and General Grant National Parks
THE EXPERIMENT INITIATED IN 1865 when Congress
granted to the State of California the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa
Big Tree Grove, while noble in purpose, soon proved to be ignoble in
practice. The experiences of the early Superintendents in the
Yellowstone were duplicated in the Yosemite Valley, where the attempts
of the first administrators to preserve and protect were frustrated by
apathy, lack of appropriations, and public hostility bolstered by
personal greed. Realizing that state control and management had
degenerated into lack of control and mismanagement, a few interested and
dedicated men took up their pens, appeared before Congress, filled
newspaper and magazine columns with impassioned pleas, and finally
convinced Congress that some action must be taken to prevent complete
destruction of the lands it had attempted to preserve. Congress replied
in 1890 by establishing a forest reservation surrounding the Yosemite
Valley. Portions of the public domain containing the giant trees of
California were set aside as public parks, and the responsibility for
the preservation and protection of these areas was placed in the hands
of the Secretary of the Interior. State control and administration of
the Yosemite Valley itself continued until 1906, when the Valley was
re-ceded to the United States Government by the State of California and
made a part of the Yosemite National Park. Using the Yellowstone
experience as precedent, the Secretary of the Interior turned, in 1890,
to the United States Army, and the Army responded, as it had in the
Yellowstone, by providing efficient management and protection for these
areas.
The Congressional Act of June 30, 1864, granting the
Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to the State of
California, clearly outlined the conditions upon which the grants were
made. It provided that they should "be held for public use, resort and
recreation" for all time; that leases not exceeding ten years might be
granted by the State for portions of the areas, providing that the
revenue from such leases would be expended "in the preservation and
improvement of the property, or the roads leading thereto"; and that the
areas would be managed by nine commissioners, one of whom was to be the
governor of the state, all of whom were to serve without compensation
and to be appointed by the governor. [1]
Governor Frederick F. Low acknowledged the
Congressional grant in 1865 and appointed the first board of
commissioners to manage the two areas. [2]
When the State legislature met the following spring it passed a law
formally accepting the grant and sanctioning the board of commissioners.
The act provided that the commissioners were to have full power to
manage and administer the grants, including the authority to "make and
adopt all rules, regulations, and by-laws for . . . the government,
improvement, and preservation" of the land. A "Guardian" was to perform
such duties as might be prescribed by the commissioners, and to receive
compensation not exceeding $500 per year. The act further provided what
the Yellowstone lacked for so many years, a definition of prohibitions
and penalties:
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to
commit any trespass whatever upon said premises, cut down or carry off
any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdle or otherwise injure any
tree or timber, or deface or injure any natural object, or set fire to
any wood or grass upon said premises, or destroy or injure any bridge or
structure of any kind, or other improvement that is or may be placed
thereon. Any person committing either or any of said acts, without the
express permission of said Commissioners through said Guardian, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by
fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. [3]
The first board of commissioners included Professor
J. D. Whitney, William Ashburner, I. W. Raymond, E. S. Holden, Alexander
Deering, George W. Coulter, Galen Clark, Governor Frederick F. Low, and
Frederick Law Olmsted, who was made chairman. By-laws were immediately
drawn up stipulating that the board was to meet twice each year, once in
the Yosemite Valley and once in San Francisco. In 1866 Galen Clark, one
of the original commissioners, was named as Guardian. No definite code
of rules governing the activities of visitors was adopted. Writing some
years later, Frederick Law Olmsted stated that he visited the Valley
frequently, "established a permanent camp in it and virtually acted as
its superintendent." [4]
Had Olmsted remained in California and devoted his
energies to the preservation of the Yosemite Valley, it is likely that
the history of its care under state supervision would have been far
different. Olmsted was one of the few nineteenth-century persons whose
foresight and dedication to conservation helped to preserve some
elements of nature for later generations. In a report to the California
Legislature n 1865, Olmsted pointed out that it had been only sixteen
years since the Yosemite Valley was first discovered by white man, yet
already hundreds of people were overcoming the difficulties of
transportation in order to visit the area, and that "before many years .
. . these hundreds will become thousands and in a century the whole
number of visitors will be counted by the millions." He warned that an
injury to the natural features of the Valley, however slight, would be
an injury of "deplorable magnitude." Olmsted then stated what has become
the fundamental precept of the National Park Service:
The first point to be kept in mind . . . is the
preservation and maintenance as exactly as is possible of the natural
scenery; the restriction, that is to say, within the narrowest limits
consistent with the necessary accommodation of visitors, of all
artificial constructions and the prevention of all constructions
markedly inharmonious with the scenery or which would unnecessarily
obscure, distort or detract from the dignity of the scenery. Second: it
is important that it should be remembered that in permitting the
sacrifice of anything that would be of the slightest value to future
visitors to the convenience, bad taste, playfulness, carelessness, or
wanton destructiveness of present visitors, we probably yield in each
case the interest of un counted millions to the selfishness of a few
individuals. [5]
Unfortunately, Olmsted did not remain in California
to superintend the development of the Valley according to his precepts.
In November, 1865, he returned to New York City and again undertook the
duties of landscape architect for Central Park. [6] Faced with a variety of obstacles and
deprived of Olmsted's leadership, the Board of Commissioners soon found
that the activity required of them was exceedingly difficult.
One of the first obstacles to be overcome was the
removal of individual settlers who had located within the boundaries of
the two grants. Two such settlers proved to be exceedingly reluctant to
relinquish their holdings after being invited to do so by the
Commissioners, and it was only after a bitter legal battle, culminating
with a United States Supreme Court decision, that the claimants
reluctantly agreed to accept a monetary compensation for their property
and turn it over to the Commissioners. [7]
In their attempts to improve the Yosemite Valley and
to make it more easily accessible and comfortable for visitors, the
Commissioners were faced with another obstaclelack of funds. They
realized that accommodations, roads, and trails within the Valley should
be constructed, but, as in the later case of Yellowstone Park, the
moneys were not forthcoming. An initial appropriation of $2,000 for the
development of the area was made by the State Act of 1866, but this was
soon expended. Succeeding legislatures had somewhat grudgingly
appropriated funds for improvement of the grants, but these barely
covered the salary of the Guardian. The Commissioners finally had to
appeal to private individuals for the capital necessary to construct
roads and to erect buildings suitable for public accommodation in the
Valley. Ten-year leases were awarded to those who constructed buildings;
road and trail contractors were given the exclusive right to collect
tolls for a similar period of rime. [8]
|
Theodore Roosevelt and Colonel Pitcher,
Park Superintendent, Yellowstone, 1903. National Park
Service.
|
The letting of leases to private individuals solved
the problem of improvement, but it also opened the way for charges of
graft, favoritism, the development of virtual monopolies, and
eventually, complete estrangement between concessioners, Commissioners,
and state legislators. Between 1874 and 1878 some concessioners appealed
directly to the state legislature to intervene in disputes between them
and the Commissioners, and it was not uncommon for the legislature to
completely overrule the Commissioners decisions. The situation rapidly
deteriorated as public and private opinion of the Board of Commissioners
became more acute and vocal. By 1880 communication between the various
interested groups reached an impasse, and the state legislature
attempted to dissolve the original board and appoint an entirely new
one. [9] There followed a bitter dispute when
the members of the executive committee of the first Board of
Commissioners stated that they could not legally be dismissed, and
refused to vacate office or to surrender any of the property belonging
to the Yosemite management. Suit was filed by the state, and the old
board finally surrendered when a decision favorable to the state was
rendered by the State Supreme Court. [10]
The new Board of Commissioners approached their
assigned task with admirable zeal. A full report of existing conditions
in the Yosemite Valley was drawn up and presented to the state
legislature; the previous Commissioners were charged with gross neglect.
The report stated that "most of the available land" in the Yosemite
grant had been leased to private individuals for gardens and pastures,
that the entire Valley was choked with underbrush, and that the lack of
"good carriage roads or trails" was most noticeable. In an appended
report the newly appointed Guardian James Hutchings maintained that much
of the good timber on the Valley floor had been cut and that the Merced
River was choked with driftwood. [11] Later,
in an effort to order the chaos, the Commissioners appealed to the State
Engineer to formulate a plan for administration of the grant. Drawing on
ideas originally promulgated by Frederick Law Olmsted, State Engineer
William H. Hall, in 1882, recommended that a definite road system be
developed on the Valley floor, that all forms of transportation be
confined to these roads so as to prevent the tramping out of small plant
life, that the accumulated debris be cleared from the streams, and that
"as few of the necessary evils of civilization as possible" be
introduced into the Yosemite Valley. Realizing that much of the beauty
of the Valley depended on its water supply, Hall recommended that steps
be immediately taken to protect and preserve the watershed, which was
even then being threatened by the activities of sheepmen, miners, and
lumbermen operating to the east and southeast of the Valley. [12]
The Commissioners chose to ignore that part of Hall's
report that called for the preservation of the Valley in its natural
state. Instead they called attention to a part of the report that seemed
to recommend enlargement of the grant to include the mountain divide
surrounding the Valley. Opposition to any extension of the boundaries of
the original grant, and consequent expansion of the Commissioners'
authority, was immediately raised by a variety of groups and
individuals. Cattlemen and sheepmen wanted continued use of the Valley's
watershed for summer grazing purposes. Others claimed that both the old
and the new Board of Commissioners had been so inept in protecting the
Valley from destruction and disfigurement that no extension of the grant
should be made, however desirable it might be in other respects.
Criticism of mismanagement by the Commissioners soon caught the
attention of the public press, and conditions then existing in the
Yosemite Valley became a matter of concern to residents throughout the
state. [13]
Criticism of the Commissioners became so intense and
bitter by 1888 that it brought on an official investigation. A
legislative committee was directed to examine the situation in the
Yosemite Valley and to report on the advisability of abolishing the
entire commission system. While charging the Commissioners with
misconduct and negligence, the members of the committee stated that they
were not prepared to recommend abolishment of the commission system
because the Act of Congress granting the area to California had
definitely prescribed that form of government, and to abolish it would
only leave the Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove without any ruling
authority whatever. [14] The Board of
Commissioners feebly maintained that it proposed "no defense, for none
is necessary. The State's defense is in the bad character or despicable
motive or rank antecedents of her accusers." [15]
Both the investigative report and the defense by the
Commissioners were so complicated by personal, political, and commercial
considerations that they obscured the facts of the situation. The entire
process was summed up by George Davidson, of the United States Coast and
Geodetic Survey, who stated, "I found great discordance of views in the
valley, and it was evident that strong personal feelings clouded
unprofessional opinions." [16] When Governor
A. W. Waterman refused to censure the Commissioners, both he and they
were charged with conspiring to support the interests of transportation
companies doing business in the Valley. [17]
Charges and countercharges were made and refuted; editors of California
newspapers chose sides, some opposing the Board of Commissioners, some
supporting them. The dispute rose to such a pitch that it soon became a
national concern, extending far beyond the boundaries of California.
In the midst of this public outcry there came
together two men, one from the East, one from the West, both of whom
were to have great impact upon the future of the Valley. John Muir was
born April 21, 1838, in Dunbar, Scotland, and arrived in Yosemite for
the first time in 1868. From that time until his death in 1914 he was
the foremost nature explorer, writer, researcher, interpreter, and
advocate of conservation in the United States. Muir, more than any other
one person, was responsible for the establishment and preservation of
the Yosemite National Park. Aided by other naturalists and
conservationists, Muir organized the Sierra Club and was president of
that organization from its inception in 1892 until his death on December
24, 1914.
During the early summer of 1889 Muir, accompanied by
Robert Underwood Johnson, associate editor of The Century
magazine, took a camping trip in the Sierras surrounding the Yosemite
Valley. Here, amid the mountains he knew and loved, Muir pointed out to
his companion "the barren soil fairly stippled by the feet of the
countless herds of sheep" and "hoofed locusts" which had denuded the
mountain meadows and destroyed all signs of grass and flowers. When the
two men descended into the Yosemite Valley they found "portions of the
beautiful wild undergrowth of the Valley . . . turned into hayfields . .
. large piles of tin cans and other refuse in full view," a ramshackle
hotel, saloon and pig-sty, and acres of tree stumps, where, but a few
years before had grown a luxuriant forest. Much to their dismay, Muir
and Johnson learned of plans then under way to throw colored lights upon
the falls, and to "cut out the whole of the underbrush of the valley so
that one could see . . . the approach of the stage." [18]
After viewing the devastation in and around the
Valley, Johnson and Muir started a two-man campaign to work for a
Yosemite National Park. Muir agreed to write articles for The
Century and fired the first salvos in an article for the San
Francisco Bulletin, where he "exposed the abuses and havoc wrought
under state control" in the Valley. [19]
Johnson contributed editorials and solicited letters from interested
persons which were published in The Century. One observer offered
the thinly veiled threat that if the present system of management were
continued, "the complaints which are now whispered will be spoken with
such force and volume as to ring in the ears of the public and literally
compel the National Government to retake what it has placed as trust in
the hand of the State of California." [20]
Another suggested the employment of a "man eminent in the profession of
landscape gardening and artistic forestry," and the payment of
commission members. These reforms would at least bring forth remedies
"where the evil is not past remedy." [21]
The Guardian of the Valley was reported to have said:
There is no plan for the improvement or care of the
valley; each guardian has his own idea, each board of commission has
some idea, ill defined, that something ought to be done, and often
individual members of the commission have their own ideas in regard . .
. to trimming, cutting, etc. New Commissioners appoint new guardians,
and each guardian follows in the footsteps of his predecessor by doing
as his own judgment dictates. [22]
Johnson maintained in an editorial of January, 1890,
that what was needed, after the development of a definite plan for
preservation of the Valley and its environs, was a "fitness of
qualification and permanence of tenure in its administrators." He
asserted that "a large sentiment in California would support a bill for
the recession to the United States with an assurance of as capable
administration in government as now characterizes the Yellowstone Park."
[23] Muir admit ted that he would "rather
see the Valley in the hands of the Federal Government, but thought that
the State of California might be reluctant to allow the transfer,
adding, "A man may not appreciate his wife, but let her daddie try to
take her back." [24]
The proposed extension of the Yosemite grant was
supported by the editors of The Nation, who suggested that the
entire grant be taken over by the Interior Department, since, in their
opinion, California had "forfeited its title" by regarding the
preservation as an "endowment, not a trust." [25]
The complaints aired during the winter and spring of
1890 were only a prelude to the denunciation launched by John Muir the
following summer. In an article published by The Century in
August, Muir described the natural wonders of the Valley and surrounding
areas, and then with infinite detail described the destruction then
being wrought by lumbermen who cut, blasted, and sawed the giant
sequoias, and then set fire to the woods to clear the ground of limbs
and refuse, thus destroying seedlings, saplings, and many "unmanageable
giants." Left in the wake of these rapacious men were "black, charred
monuments"mute testimony to man's greed and folly. The ravages of
lumbermen, however, were small when compared with the comprehensive
destruction caused by sheepmen and their all-devouring "hoofed locusts,"
according to Muir. He charged that the beauties of the Valley were
rapidly being destroyed under state administration, and he backed up his
charges by photographs. Pictures of stumps standing two to four feet
high, all that remained of once luxurious groves of young pine trees,
and pictures of wildflower fields plowed up to plant hay, accompanied
the article. [26]
The difficulties of re-ceding the Yosemite grant from
the State of California to the Federal Government decided the proponents
of preservation to turn their energies toward forming a National Park to
surround the Yosemite Valley. In his second article for The
Century in September, 1890, Muir warned that the formation of such a
park could not come too quickly since the entire region was even then
being "gnawed and trampled into a desert condition." When the area had
been stripped of its forests, he said, "the ruin will be complete." In a
spirit of urgency, the naturalist maintained that "ax and plow, hogs and
horses, have long been and are still busy in Yosemite's gardens and
groves. All that is accessible and destructible is being rapidly
destroyed." There was no defense for such destruction, since most of it
was of a kind that can claim no right relationship with that which
necessarily follows use."[27]
The activities and statements of the members of the
Board of Commissioners furnished additional ammunition for the park
advocates. Since 1885, in their biennial reports, the Commissioners had
recommended that all the available land on the floor of the Yosemite
Valley be seeded in grass and cultivated for hay for the "augmentation
of the revenues of the State." [28] In June,
1889, they announced a plan to uproot and destroy all undergrowth,
brush, and trees that had grown "in the last forty years" in an attempt
to reduce the chances of conflagration. Century editor Robert
Underwood Johnson blasted the Commissioners for not heeding the advice
given by Frederick Law Olmsted some years before and charged that the
"natural pleasure grounds" had been "ignorantly hewed and hacked,
sordidly plowed and fenced, and otherwise treated on principles of
forestry which would disgrace a picnic ground." In reply to this, a
member of the commission was quoted as having said that he "would rather
have the advice of a Yosemite road-maker in the improvement of the
valley than that of Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted." [29] Professor J. D. Whitney, formerly a
chairman of the executive committee of the Yosemite commission, opposed
any extension of the grant under California authority and stated, "If
the Yosemite could be taken from the State and made a national
reservation I should have some hope that some good might be
accomplished."[30]
The controversy over the alleged mismanagement of the
California grant reached such proportions that Congress adopted a
resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to inquire and report
to the Senate, "whether the lands granted to the State of California . .
. have been spoliated or otherwise diverted . . . from public use
contemplated by the grant ..." [31] Although
Congress acted to prevent destruction of that area surrounding the
Yosemite Valley before receiving the requested report, the Secretary did
gather information that substantiated the charges previously made.
Aided by correspondence, photographs, and the report
of a special agent who made an investigation, the Secretary of the
Interior reported to Congress on January 30, 1891 that:
(1) There has been a very general and indiscriminate
destruction of timber . . . from mere wantonness. A former guardian of
the park (Mr. Hutchings), writing in 1888, states that "within three
years not less than 5,000 trees have been cut down."
(2) A large portion of the valley . . . has been
fenced in and put to grass or grain. The fencing is largely done with
barbed wire . . . and the inclosures . . . confine travel to narrow
limits. . . . There seems to be very little room left for paths for
pedestrians in the Valley.
(3) The valley has been pastured to such an extent as
to destroy a great many rare plants which formerly grew there
luxuriantly. Formerly there were over 400 species of plants . . . nearly
all of these have been destroyed if not exterminated by herding and the
plow. . . .
(4) The management seems to have fallen into the
hands of a monopoly. . . .
Referring to that portion of the Yosemite grant lying
outside of the Valley, the Secretary reported:
This seems to have been abandoned to sheep-herders
and their flocks. The rare grasses and herbage have been eaten to the
bare dirt. The magnificent flora . . . has been destroyed . . . These
acts of spoliation and trespass have been permitted for a number of
years and seem to have become a part of the settled policy of the
management. . . . For the purpose of realizing the largest possible
revenue obtainable from the valley there has, it is claimed, been
permitted a largely indiscriminate devastation of the magnificent forest
growth and luxuriant grasses that many years alone can repair. [32]
Certain residents of California had long been
interested in the preservation of those groves of giant trees that had
escaped destruction at the hand of the lumberman. As early as 1879 the
editor of the Visalia, California, Weekly Delta had recommended
that a particularly fine stand of trees, known as the Fresno-Tulare
Grove, be made a national park. Though unsuccessful in this attempt, the
editor and his friends did succeed in having the area containing the big
trees suspended from entry. In 1881 the residents of Visalia convinced
John F. Miller, candidate for the United States Senate, that some action
should be taken to provide permanent protection for the trees, and in
December, 1881, Miller, having been elected, introduced into the Senate
a bill providing for the establishment of a national park encompassing
the "whole west flank of the Sierra Nevada." The tremendous size of the
proposed park called forth great opposition and the bill was not
reported from committee. [33] The undaunted
supporters of such a plan continued to fill the Weekly Delta with
editorials and articles concerning forest fires, timber trespasses, the
need for preserving the big trees and for conservation procedures, and
mailed copies of these issues to the Secretary of the Interior. Amid
rumors that the entry suspension was to be lifted, the local
conservationists "thought of the Yellowstone National Park and read the
act creating it and decided that only a national park would insure
permanent preservation" of the big tree groves. [34] The matter was taken up with the
Congressional Representative from their district, William Vandever, and
on July 28, 1890, he introduced a bill into Congress providing for the
dedication and setting apart "as a public park, or pleasure ground, for
the benefit and enjoyment of the people," a tract of land containing the
Fresno-Tulare Grove in California. The bill was favorably reported by
the House Committee on Public Lands, amended to enlarge the area so set
aside, and passed the House without debate on August 23. [35] Similar action on the bill was taken by the
Senate, which passed the Vandever bill by unanimous consent, again
without debate, on September 8, 1890. The Sequoia National Park became a
fact when the Act of Congress was signed by President Benjamin Harrison,
September 25, 1890. [36]
Earlier, on March 18, 1890, Congressman Vandever had
introduced another bill designed to establish a forest reservation in
the area surrounding the Yosemite grant to California. It was hoped that
this might stem the destruction in the Valley. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds as H. R. 8350 and not
reported out of that committee. On September 30, 1890, five days after
the Sequoia bill had been signed into law, Congressman Lewis E. Payson
of Illinois, the same "Judge Payson" who, in 1885, had run afoul of the
"kangaroo courts" established in the Yellowstone National Park,
introduced a substitute bill for H. R. 8350, designed to "establish the
Yosemite National Park." Payson's bill, besides incorporating everything
in the original Vandever bill, provided for the setting aside of that
area soon to be known as the General Grant National Park, though this
name was not stipulated in the bill. [37]
Congressman Charles E. Hooker of Mississippi stated that the bill "is
going to excite controversy, debate, and discussion that can not fail to
take time." The bill did create controversy, debate, and discussion, but
not in either house of Congress. The bill passed the House without
debate. [38]
Payson's substitute House bill (H. R. 12187) was
introduced into the Senate by Senator Preston B. Plumb of Kansas, on the
same day it passed the House. The bill passed the Senate without debate
or discussion. The bill establishing Yosemite and General Grant National
Parks was signed by the President on October 1, 1890. [39]
The ease and facility with which the Yosemite bill
was rushed through Congress attests to the fine groundwork established
by its advocates. Realizing that considerable opposition would be raised
by some Californians if the bill proposed to take back the Yosemite
Valley, which Congress had granted to the State in 1864, they inserted
the clause that nothing in the proposed act "shall be construed as in
anywise affecting the grant of lands made to the State of California."
Settlers on the land set aside by the Act were disarmed by the addition
of the statement that nothing in the act "shall be construed as in
anywise . . . affecting any bona fide entry." John Muir had advised the
proponent of the bill, Robert Underwood Johnson, that "taking back the
Valley on the part of the Government would probably be a troublesome
job," since California was at that time "about evenly divided between
Republicans and Democrats," and "both parties in Congress would be
afraid to defend her." Muir also advised his friend to "stand up for the
Vandever Bill and on no account let the extension be under state control
if it can possibly be avoided." [40]
In establishing these three national parks in
California, Congress had again failed to provide any laws or legal
machinery for enforcement of rules and regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of the Interior, just as it had done some eighteen years
before in establishing the Yellowstone Park. All three national park
acts (the original Yellowstone Act, the Sequoia Act, and the Yosemite
and General Grant Act) provided that the Parks should be under the
exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior, who was directed to
make rules and regulations for their care and management. Such
regulations were to "provide for the preservation from injury of all
timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders, . . . and
their retention in their natural condition." The Secretary was
authorized to grant leases within the parks and was to "provide against
the wanton destruction of the fish and game" found therein. In all three
Acts, the only penalty for trespassing or otherwise violating the rules
established by the Secretary was removal of the trespasser or violator
from the Parks. [41] This omission by
Congress was to frustrate the administrators of the California parks
just as it had the administrators of the Yellowstone.
In neither of the Acts establishing the California
parks is the term "national park" used. Sequoia was called "a public
park, or pleasure ground," and both Yosemite and General Grant were set
apart as "reserved forest lands." That they were considered by Congress
to be national parks is evident by the language of the two bills,
identical to that of the Yellowstone Act of 1872. [42] The Sequoia National Park was so named by
Secretary of the Interior Noble immediately after its creation. The
reason for choosing the name was "more weighty than that it is the name
of the trees," he reported, for the trees themselves had been "called
Sequoia by Endlicher in honor of a most distinguished Indian of the half
breed, the inventor of the Cherokee alphabet"; thus "appropriate honor"
was bestowed upon the "Cadmus of America," Sequoyah. Yosemite National
Park was so named, according to the Secretary, because "this reservation
surrounds the Yosemite Valley." The name "General Grant National Park"
was chosen because "this name had become, by common consent, that of the
largest tree there . . . and the park could not consistently be called
aught else, unless it were 'The Union'." [43]
By following too closely the wording of the
Yellowstone enabling Act, Congress failed also to provide any
appropriation for upkeep and management of the Parks. A month later the
Secretary of the Interior noted this omission and remarked that "whether
the parks shall be put under charge of civil custodians or a military
cavalry guard shall be sent to each is a subject now being considered
and investigated." [44] The Act of March 3,
1883, authorizing the Secretary of War to make troops available for the
protection of the Yellowstone National Park was not applicable to the
parks later established by Congress, and hence there existed no legal
basis for the use of troops in the Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant
National Parks.
Nevertheless, aware that the new Parks demanded
protection, the Secretary of the Interior also looked to the Yellowstone
for precedent and, on October 21, 1890, requested that the Secretary of
War detail two troops of cavalry for use in the California Parks, adding
that possibly the labor requested would "not prove onerous to some of
the very intelligent gentlemen who are in that section of the country.
Finding some resistance from the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the
Interior then appealed directly to the President, recommending that a
troop of cavalry, with a commanding officer of the rank of Captain, be
stationed in the Yosemite Park with instructions "not only to look after
the treatment that the State of California may give to the park still
within its control," but to also send our scouting parties throughout
the park "to prevent timber cutting, sheep herding, trespassing, or
spoliation in particular." A second request was approved by the
Secretary of War on January 13, 1891, and on April 6, 1891, Troops "I"
and "K," 4th Cavalry, stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco and
commanded by Captains A. E. Wood and John Dorst, were selected for duty
in the Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant National Parks. [45]
From 1891 to 1912 it was customary to detail troops
only during the summer months, relying on the heavy winter snows to
protect the Parks during the winter. Two troops of cavalry were usually
dispatched for duty in the three Parks, departing from the Presidio of
San Francisco in early May and arriving in the Parks some two weeks
later after an overland march of 250 miles. One troop remained in the
Yosemite, and one was sent southward to patrol the Sequoia and General
Grant Parks. The officer in charge of the southern detachment was named
Acting Superintendent of the Sequoia National Park and administered the
General Grant Park also; his brother officer to the north operated under
the title Acting Superintendent of the Yosemite National Park. Each
officer submitted to the Secretary of the Interior an annual report, and
with the exception of the annual movement to and from the Parks, each
operated as a separate detachment. No permanent military post was
established in any of the California Parks; the Yosemite troops
established a temporary summer headquarters on the extreme southern
boundary of the Park near the town of Wawona, and from this point sent
mounted patrols throughout the Park. The logical place for the
establishment of a headquarters was in the Yosemite Valley, situated in
the center of the National Park. It was not available for military use,
however, since it remained outside the Park and under state
jurisdiction. When the Valley was re-ceded to the Government in 1906,
military headquarters were moved to this central position. The troops
dispatched to Sequoia and General Grant Parks utilized a variety of
points for a headquarters camp, often outside the boundaries of either
Park and usually on private land, since "there was no place in the park,
where so many men and horses could camp." [46]
The very nature of the area they were detailed to
guard determined from the outset that the duties and problems of the
cavalry in the California Parks would be somewhat different from those
in the Yellowstone. Here there were no large number of big game animals
to tempt poachers; there were no geysers or fragile geyser formations to
be destroyed by the curious tourist. There were forests, however, and
there could be game if only it were protected. The boundaries of the
Parks were not marked; roads and trails into and through the Parks were
practically nonexistent; cattlemen and sheep-herders grazed their stock
on Park lands in violation of the Acts establishing the Parks, and,
unlike the Yellowstone, there were countless acres of patented lands
lying within the areas set aside by Congress. Eventually the boundaries
were marked, trails blazed, and roads constructed, but the evils of
stock grazing and the existence of privately owned lands within the
Parks proved to be a continual obstacle to efficient administration.
In an attempt to begin what he termed a "square deal"
with the cattle and sheep owners who utilized the Park lands for grazing
purposes, Captain A. E. Wood, the first Acting Superintendent of
Yosemite, sent letters to every stockholder "in middle and southern
California" advising them to keep their stock away from the Park
boundaries. He firmly declared:
This Yosemite Park is to be a Park throughout all
timeit is not a temporary arrangement. The time will be when the
United States will be possessed of the title to all the lands within its
boundaries and in the meantime it would be better if the citizens living
near the Park would make arrangements to conform to the new conditions
of things, thus avoiding the consequence of a violation of the law. [47]
Wood found that most of the cattle owners "generally
tried to observe the law" and thereby presented only minor difficulties.
The sheepherders, however, most of whom were "foreignersPortuguese
. . . Chilians, French, and Mexicans," ignored his warnings and
proceeded to push their destructive flocks over the ill-defined
boundaries. Of course, there was no legal penalty beyond ejection from
the Park, but realizing that the sheepmen were not aware of this, the
enterprising Captain attempted a bluff that would make him "master of
the situation." Trespassing herders were arrested, escorted to the
military camp near Wawona, and informed that they would have to stand
trial in San Francisco. Unfortunately, the United States District
Attorney for the northern district of California had published in the
San Francisco newspapers "a long opinion on the subject of trespass, in
which . . . he declared that no criminal action could lie under the
law," and the Captain's bluff failed. [48]
The following year Captain Wood approached the
problem of sheep trespass from a more effective direction. Following the
Yellowstone precedent, he inaugurated the practice of arresting
sheepherders, marching them to the boundary of the Park furthest from
their herds, "a march consuming four or five days," ejecting them, and
scattering their herds outside the opposite boundary. By the time that
the herders and herds were reunited, the herds had usually been
decreased considerably through the activities of forest predators. This
was perhaps an extralegal process, but it was effectively used by
subsequent military commanders; it proved to be a more severe punishment
than could have been expected from a court of law. [49]
Such punitive expulsions made the sheepmen and
herders aware that the Parks were being patrolled and that the
regulations were more than mere words issued from far-off Washington.
Although they were described as men of "the lowest order of
intelligence," the herders soon devised methods to frustrate the
cavalrymen. In the Sequoia Park, herders would drive their sheep into
the Park with one or two men to watch them, while they left their riding
and pack animals with all of their supplies just outside the Park
boundary. To drive the sheep to the other side of the Park for expulsion
would be "playing into the herders' hands, for the sheep would eat
everything on the way" and the direction of travel would be the one
desired by the herders, who would have stationed other men on the
opposite side of the Park to gather the sheep as they were expelled.
Also the herders soon combined forces and hired scouts who were
stationed on commanding points to watch the movements of the military
patrols. When the troops approached the area where the sheep were
grazing, a warning was given and the herds immediately moved just
outside the Park boundaries. [50] Faced with
such frustrating maneuvers, the military guardians at times resorted to
arbitrary force. In 1905 the French Charge d'Affaires forwarded to the
Secretary of State a complaint lodged at the French Consulate at San
Francisco by a Mr. F. Nicolas, "a French national citizen, engaged in
the sheep trade, against Second Lt. W. S. Martin, 4th Cavalry." Nicolas
claimed that he had entered the Yosemite Park, with no sheep, was met by
2nd Lt. Martin, "who . . . ordered him with his revolver pointed at him,
to lead the way to the place where his flock was grazing . . . The
officer struck him on the head with the butt of his revolver, kicked him
in the abdomen and driving him before him compelled him to walk a
distance of about four miles to the place where his horse was. . . .
Thence . . . to Camp Wood some 50 miles distant . . . My fellow
countryman was held two days by the Lieutenant." [51] Unfortunately, Lieutenant Martin suffered
no reprimand for his capricious action.
The seasonal nature of the military occupation
allowed the sheepmen to await the departure of the troops in the autumn
and then move their flocks into the unprotected Park areas, taking
advantage of the grasses that had been protected during the summer. When
they returned in the spring, the military commanders could do nothing
but survey the damage and send forth repeated pleas for legal machinery
that would allow "just one trial and conviction," believing that such a
process "would have more effect on these law breakers than all the
proclamations which could be issued in a lifetime." [52] Also the practice of rotating the
detachments assigned to the Parks made for fluctuating and inconsistent
policies toward trespassers; some commanders were strict, others merely
attempted to expel trespassers with the least inconvenience to both the
troopers and the herders. The newly assigned officers, unfamiliar with
the habits of the sheepmen and knowing little of the Park terrain, were
often outwitted; the underpaid troopers were sometimes bribed to close
their eyes to the obvious trespassing of sheep and herders. [53]
The imperfect protection afforded by the military was
far better than none, however, and the naturalist John Muir, returning
from a trip through the Yosemite Park, happily reported: "For three
years the soldiers have kept the sheep-men and sheep out of the park,
and the grasses and blue gentians . . . are again blooming in all their
wild glory." Several years later he maintained that "The best service in
forest protectionalmost the only efficient serviceis that
rendered by the military." Referring to the military guardians of both
the Yellowstone and Yosemite, he wrote, "They found it a desert as far
as underbrush, grass and flowers were concerned," but with effective
policing, "the skin of the mountains is healthy again." [54] Robert Underwood Johnson thought that the
"increased and steady flow of the waterfalls in the Valley" was due to
the military protection of the watershed, and quoted a Forestry Bureau
ranger who told him that "one could follow the boundary of the park by
the line to which the sheep had nibbled." Another observer of the
transformation in Yosemite Park thought that the very process of passing
from the trampled meadows outside the Park into the "protected meadows
of the National Park was a lesson in patriotism," and strongly advocated
the extension of military administration over "all the national domain."
[55]
In an attempt to achieve some consistency as regards
the trespassing herders, a standing order was issued by the Acting
Superintendent of Yosemite in 1904, and, while never incorporated into
the rules and regulations of the three Parks, it was faithfully followed
by his successors:
When sheep are caught trespassing on the reservation,
and are accompanied by herders, the sheep will be expelled in one
direction, the herders in another, and their outfits in another. . . .
Ordinarily the sheep will be driven out of the park on its east side,
the herders and outfits if practicable, on the northern and southern
side. [56]
By closely adhering to this practice, the threat of
spoliation by herds of sheep was lessened, and, while subsequent Acting
Superintendents still requested the passage of laws providing punishment
for trespassers, they also reported that sheep trespass had practically
ended.
Attempts of cattlemen to use the protected park areas
for grazing produced the same problems, but the cattlemen, treated with
expulsion like the sheepmen, soon learned to respect the boundaries of
the parks. No real problem arose from the prospector and miner simply
because no large deposits of minerals were discovered. Two men were
ejected from the Yosemite Park after they were discovered placer-mining,
but, according to the Acting Superintendent, "they seemed glad of a good
excuse to quit" since their average findings were but "40 cents per day
each." [57]
While the military superintendents gradually overcame
the nuisance and evil of stock trespass, a greater hindrance to
efficient administration and protection of the California Parks
persistedthat of patented lands existing within the Park
boundaries. The privately owned lands scattered throughout the
government Parks in small, detached holdings formed a variety of
independent units in what should have been a homogeneous whole, and
frustrated the efforts of the military units to preserve and conserve
the Parks. Each successive military commander noted the existence of
these lands, and each in turn requested that these private holdings be
eliminated. Some suggested outright purchase by the government of
private lands, others that the boundaries of the Parks be realigned so
as to exclude those portions most heavily claimed by individuals. The
first military superintendent of the Yosemite Park recommended that the
Park be reduced to its "natural boundaries," stating that such a
reduction would exclude most of the agricultural and assumed mining land
from the Park, while still including "the only portion of the country
that furnishes a reason for a national park." [58] Subsequent commanders opposed the reduction
of the Park area by any method and advocated the purchase of private
lands, maintaining that it was but "good policy to preserve the timber
in those forests and keep the forests themselves in a state as near that
of nature as possible, for the benefit of those who come after us." One
Acting Superintendent, urging the Government to acquire all private
lands within the Parks, cited a statement of John Muir's, made in
relation to settlers:
The smallest reserve, and the first ever heard of,
was in the Garden of Eden, and though its boundaries were drawn by the
Lord, and embraced only one tree, yet the rules were violated by the
only two settlers that were permitted on suffrage to live in it. [59]
A 1903 survey of patented lands within the Park
resulted in a list of over 370 separate entries, the majority having
been patented in 1889 and 1890, and most of them comprising tracts of
160 acres each. Private landholdings existed within the boundaries of
the Sequoia National Park also. A bitter battle between a "Bellamy type
communal cooperative," the Kaweah Cooperative Commonwealth Colony,
organized in 1886, and the Secretary of the Interior occurred in 1890
when the Sequoia Park was established. The Kaweah colonists had filed
upon government land, constructed homes, a sawmill, and a road into
their settlement, all within that area dedicated as a public park. It
was finally determined that the land entries were fraudulent and the
Kaweah Cooperative was dissolved, but not until after the fight had been
carried to the floor of Congress and an exhaustive study of the land
laws, filing procedures, and legal processes had been made. [60]
While these conflicting suggestions were annually
being forwarded to Washington, stock and timber owners, military
administrative officials, mountaineering clubs, and local newspapers
drifted into two opposing camps, and once again a struggle developed
between those who wished to preserve the mountain fastness for the
public and posterity and those who wished to use the land for personally
remunerative purposes. The question of boundary realignment or purchase
of patented lands might have continued indefinitely had not the actions
of the Yosemite Lumber Company emphasized the necessity of taking some
action. This company had, through purchase from private individuals,
acquired extensive holdings in the southern and western parts of
Yosemite Park and in 1903 it began logging operations. The resulting
barren strips cut through the forested land prompted the Secretary of
the Interior to take action. A commission was appointed to examine the
condition of the Park and to ascertain whether portions of it could be
eliminated. Meeting in June, 1904, this commission recommended that in
view of the many scattered patented lands and the resultant obstacles to
effective administration, it would be best to eliminate those areas with
the greatest density of private landholdings. These included timberlands
in the southwest and the west, and the mineral lands of the Chowchilla
range. The crest of the Sierras was recommended as the natural boundary
to the eastthis eliminated a vast area on that side of the park.
The committee further recommended that the area remaining after the
boundary changes had been accomplished be officially known as the
Yosemite National Park. All of these recommendations were incorporated
in the Congressional Act of February 7, 1905. [61] This Act reduced, but did not eliminate,
one of the major problems facing the military administrators.
As in the Yellowstone, the lack of laws complicated
administration in the California Parks. The first Acting Superintendent
requested that Congress pass a law "making it a misdemeanor for the
violation of Rules . . . with the maximum fine fixed at $1,000, and the
maximum imprisonment fixed at 6 months, or both, at the will of the
court of competent jurisdiction." [62]
Referring to similar requests by the Acting Superintendents of both the
Yosemite and the Yellowstone Park, the first military commander in
charge of Sequoia, after recommending the passage of laws providing
penalties for all infractions of the regulations, hinted that if such
laws were not forthcoming the military would be forced to resort to
illegal methods. He maintained that if an Acting Superintendent
"commences to quibble about the propriety of every action that seems
necessary," and to debate with himself whether such action "is
technically legal or illegal, he will accomplish nothing." [63]
After Congress provided a legal structure for the
Yellowstone Park in 1894, pleas for similar legislation for the new
Parks became more incessant. The military superintendents, finding that
without penalties the rules were "virtually a dead letter," asked that
their Parks be placed on the same footing as Yellowstone. [64] Some of the Acting Superintendents
suggested that they be given the powers of United States Commissioners,
others recommended that the Parks be made a separate United States Court
District with a resident commissioner; all requested the passage of
legislation defining what was prohibited and fixing a penalty for the
violation of the same. The Secretary of the Interior included these
requests in his annual reports to Congress, but Congress remained
apathetic and there was no Howell case to attract publicity. Finally,
after fifteen years, Congress made a feeble move in the direction
desired by the military commanders. In 1905 an act was passed
authorizing "all persons employed in the forest reserve and national
park service of the United States" to make arrests for violation of the
rules and regulations pertaining to the forest reserves and parks, and
provided that persons so arrested be taken before the "nearest United
States Commissioner . . . for trial." This was of no effect in practice,
as the only penalty for violation of the rules was expulsion; the
nearest United States Commissioner was some 100 miles distant from the
Parks, and the very process of taking a violator before a Commissioner
would have achieved the expulsion prescribed by law; the Commissioner
would be unable to levy further penalty or punishment. Legal machinery
and laws fixing penalties for violation of the park regulations were
still needed in the California Parks. [65]
Out of sheer desperation the Acting Superintendents
snatched at anything that might provide them with legal sanction and
legal penalties. Beginning in 1910 they appended to the published rules
and regulations of the three Parks an excerpt from an act entitled "An
Act to Provide for Determining the Heirs of Deceased Indians . . ." This
Act provided a fine and imprisonment for any person cutting trees or
leaving a fire burning upon land that had "been reserved . . . by the
United States for any public use." The act had been designed to protect
Indian reservations and allotments, but it provided threat of punishment
in the Parks, and was the only piece of punitive legislation available
during the entire military administration of the California Parks. [66]
The absence of legal penalties in the California
Parks would have presented an even greater administrative problem had
there existed the all-pervading evil of poaching that encumbered the
Yellowstone administration. Poaching was not a major problem in the
Yosemite and Sequoia Parks, because of the absence of any large number
of game animals. Acting Superintendent A. E. Wood reported in 1891 that
the principal game to be found in the Yosemite consisted of bear, deer,
grouse, and quail, but added that "neither [sic] variety is very
plentiful." He thought that the prevention of sheep grazing would enable
the game to increase, and the Acting Superintendent of Sequoia
recommended the extension of that Park's boundaries to achieve the same
purpose, adding, however, that the paucity of game was due to its being
frightened by "the proximity of sheep herders and having had its feed
destroyed by bands of domestic sheep." [67]
The expulsion of the herds of sheep did not immediately bring an
increase in the number of game animals, however. The Acting
Superintendent in Sequoia reported in 1894 that "the game, particularly
the deer, are decreasing in numbers," blaming this upon the still
present "all-devouring and all-destroying sheep" which were "making the
country unin habitable for man or beast." [68]
After the sheep problem was abated, the military
commanders faced the problem of the all-devouring and all-destroying
human being. The few game animals in the Parks were somewhat protected
during the summer months when the military patrols were present, but
after their departure in the fall, market hunters and trappers entered
the park areas and plied their destructive trade with impunity. Unable
to prevent the killing of game in the winter, the military commanders
devised methods to better protect that game during the summer. In 1895
they began to confiscate all firearms of persons entering the parks and
return them when they left. The salutary effect was soon noted and
subsequent administrators reported that game was increasing in number
and that the animals exhibited less fear of humans than in previous
years. When charges were made that the soldiers assigned to protect the
Parks were actually killing game themselves, the troops were stripped of
their carbines and henceforth armed with revolvers only. [69] Many tourists going through the Parks
requested permission to carry rifles and shotguns for "protection," but
such requests were usually denied by the military commanders. It was
customary, however, to allow men to carry revolvers "when they were
accompanied by women, but in no other cases. . . ." [70]
Finding the streams and lakes of the Parks as lacking
in fish as the forests had been of game, the military superintendents
immediately took steps to rectify the situation. Receiving no reply from
the United States Fish Commission to a request for young trout to stock
the barren park waters, the Acting Superintendents turned to sportsmen's
clubs and the State of California for assistance. During the second year
of military administration some 55,000 trout were planted in the streams
of the Yosemite and Sequoia Parks, and with yearly additions, the
streams were soon "teeming with fish." One military commander was able
to state that "the parks are becoming probably the finest fishing
grounds in the world." [71]
Separated into detachments in the manner originally
adopted in the Yellowstone Park, the troops in the California parks
expelled trespassers, extinguished fires, constructed trails, and, to
the extent that their seasonal patrolling allowed, protected the game.
While no permanent military posts were constructed, this idea was
suggested several times, as was the stationing of troops in the Parks
for the entire year rather than just the summer months. The activities
of the military guardians were lauded by conservation-minded
Californians and it was assumed that the annual dispatching of troops to
the Parks was to be a permanent process.
The illegal aspects of the use of the United States
Army in the Parks were not considered until 1896. In that year the
Secretary of the Interior's now routine request for the military detail
was questioned by the Secretary of War, who doubted his authority,
"without some sanction of law such as exists in the case of the
Yellowstone National Park," to assign military officers and men to what
was actually "civil duty." He requested that the Secretary of the
Interior furnish him with information which would afford him the
authority for which he had not at that time "been able to find
satisfactory warrant." In reply, the Secretary of the Interior stated
that while there existed "no law specifically authorizing" the Secretary
of War to assign Army units to the Parks, they had to be protected and
his Department was without the means to provide that protection. He
thought, moreover, that the precedent of five years was sufficient
"authority" for such procedure. The Secretary of War evidently accepted
this reasoning and troops were accordingly assigned to all three of the
California Parks in the spring of 1896 and again in 1897. [72]
During the United States "splendid little war" with
Spain in 1898, the annual assignment of troops to the California Parks
was suspended for the duration, leaving the Parks unprotected, save for
the nominal supervision and protection offered by a civilian, J. W.
Zevely, a special inspector for the Department of the Interior who was
named Acting Superintendent in the absence of the military. Zevely was
relieved of his duties in September by a detachment of the First Utah
Volunteer Cavalry under the command of Captain Joseph E. Caine, and the
Volunteers remained in the Parks until October. Upon his arrival in the
Yosemite Park, Captain Caine found numerous forests fires raging, an
estimated 200,000 sheep roaming "at will over the national reserve," and
hunters frequenting the parks "with impunity." [73] Local residents of California were aware of
the depredations being committed in the Parks, and the Deputy Sheriff of
Merced County suggested that he be authorized to station his company of
volunteers (which had been raised for "home defense") in the Parks to
provide protection against spoliation. The Secretary of War respectfully
declined this proffered assistance. [74]
This brief experience reinforced the idea that the Parks could best be
protected by the military, and in 1899 troops were once more dispatched
from Presidio of San Francisco for guard duty in the Parks. Opposition,
however, to this now customary but extralegal process of using military
units for civil duty was beginning to develop.
One of the main arguments for military guardianship
of the nation's parks was that the use of the military required little
or no additional appropriation of money over what was normally required
to sustain the troops. In an attempt to disprove this allegation,
Congressman J. C. Needham of California requested from the Secretary of
War figures showing the exact cost to the Government of sending troops
to the California Parks in excess of the cost of maintaining the troops
in garrison. A reply from the Adjutant General's Office estimated the
average additional cost per year at $7,557.22, a figure much less than
that required to substitute an equal civilian protection force.
Representative Needham was silenced, but the propriety of continued
military management had been questioned. [75] A complete review of the situation was
requested by the Secretary of War, and the resulting memorandum included
the statement:
The law does not provide in any way for the
employment or use of troops in the Sequoia, Yosemite and General Grant
parks or reservations, but these parks are placed by law under the
exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior. The officers in
command of the troops report to and receive their instructions from the
Secretary of the Interior. [76]
Because the use of troops in the Parks seemed
illegal, the Secretary of War in 1900 showed some reluctance to comply
with the annual request to send troops to the Parks. There was, he said
a "constant demand for troops for purposes of a military character," and
the employment of troops to guard the Parks could scarcely be regarded
as military. He suggested that it might be practicable for the
Department of the Interior to furnish its own force. Ignoring this
suggestion, the Secretary of the Interior again requested the troops "as
a matter of favor" and said he would recommend to Congress legislative
sanction for this practice, as in Yellowstone. Congress accordingly
included in the sundry civil act approved June 6, 1900, the clause:
The Secretary of War, upon request of the Secretary
of the Interior, is hereafter authorized and directed to make the
necessary detail of troops to prevent trespassers or intruders from
entering the Sequoia National Park, the Yosemite National Park and the
General Grant National Park, respectively, in California, for the
purpose of destroying the game or objects of curiosity therein, or for
any other purpose prohibited by law or regulation for the government of
said reservations, and to remove such persons from said parks if found
therein. [77]
Thus the presence of troops in the California Parks
was, after a delay of nine years, finally legalized. In 1906, after a
long and bitter struggle between the California Board of Commissioners
for the Yosemite Valley and the conservation interests, California
re-ceded to the United States the two grants made in 1864, and the
Yosemite National Park was made an integral whole. [78] Military headquarters were moved to a
central position in the Yosemite Valley, and the military protection
previously confined to the area surrounding the Valley was extended to
the Valley itself.
The United States Army continued to detail troops to
the Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks until 1914, when they were
withdrawn and replaced by a force of civilian rangers. The withdrawal of
the troops was finally accomplished at the insistence of the military
commanders assigned to the Park duty, who maintained that conditions in
and around the Parks had been materially altered since the troops were
first called upon for protection. [79] In
the earlier days the Parks had been surrounded by a hostile population,
accustomed to free use of the land for grazing, hunting, and
woodcutting, which resented the curtailment of these privileges and
tried in every way to circumvent the authorities. With no war
threatening, the Army was regarded more as a public utility than as a
combatant force; this had made it seem reasonable to use troops to
prevent depredations on the public domain. Toward the end of the
military administration of the three Parks in California, the Acting
Superintendents found that there were few attempts to graze sheep or
cattle in the Parks, and even though the game had increased, there was
comparatively little poaching. Instead of arduous patrolling over rough
and broken country, the soldiers' duties consisted of supervising
construction of roads and trails, gate-keeping, and advising visitors.
Outposts were still maintained throughout the Parks, but their only
purpose was to report the varieties of game seen, look for fires, seal
firearms, and register tourists. The surrounding population had
gradually changed its attitude from antagonism to friendly helpfulness,
and those who had previously attempted to destroy the Parks had become
actively interested in their preservation. The presence of cavalry in
the Parks was a survival of earlier days and different conditions.
The major activities of the troops assigned to the
Parks were, strictly speaking, without legal sanction. The law providing
for the assignment of troops prescribed their duties as preventing
"trespassers or intruders from entering" the Parks and the removal of
such trespassers. All other duties performed by the troops were
technically illegal. Also illegal were orders from the Secretary of the
Interior to the Acting Superintendents directing them to utilize their
troops in checking automobiles, collecting tolls, guiding tourists,
patrolling for and fighting forest fires, registering tourists,
searching for lost parties, driving sheep and cattle across the park as
a punitive measure, reading stream gauges for the Department of
Agriculture, providing pack trains for transporting Interior Department
supplies, and planting fish. These duties were illegal, but they were
not necessarily onerous. Writing in 1913, the last military commander
assigned to the Sequoia National Park, 1st Lieutenant Hugh S. Johnson
(later head of the New Deal N.R.A.) noted that the annual detail of
troops to the Parks "furnishes a very pleasant and desirable detail to
any troop of cavalry and one upon which all its members are eager to
enter. For the officers it provides an independent command, a change
from the routine army duties, a pleasant summer's outing with fishing
and the coolness and enjoyment of a mountain summer. For the men, there
is, in addition to most of these things, a surcease from army
discipline, drill, and restraint." [80]
Nevertheless, the military, acting without benefit of well-defined legal
stipulations, and hampered by the absence of punitive legislation, did
save the Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant National Parks in the same
manner that they had saved the Yellowstone National Park. Without the
protective presence of the United States Cavalry, much of what exists
today as a part of the National Park system could well have become, like
other nonprotected areas, scarred, disfigured, and destroyed. Park
visitors, who today view the glaciated splendor of Yosemite, or find a
bit of solitude among the giant trees of Sequoia, owe these forgotten
men a debt of gratitude.
|