PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

Reasons for the Establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument

The historical significance of the Pipe Spring cattle ranch, particularly as it relates to Church history, was certainly a consideration when Mather proposed its inclusion within the national park system. Yet the language of the proclamation and, even more so, the language of related internal correspondence justifying its establishment, seem noticeably more emphatic about its strategic importance as a rest stop for tourists.

When Secretary Franklin K. Lane proscribed National Park Service policy for adding new sites to the system (quoted earlier in Part I), he wrote to Mather that the standards of the national park system should not be compromised "by the inclusion of areas which express less than the highest terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they represent." [414] Mather reiterated this caveat in his annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1923:

National parks... must continue to constitute areas containing scenery of supreme and distinctive quality or some natural feature so extraordinary or unique as to be of national interest and importance as distinguished from merely local interest. The national park system as now constituted must not be lowered in standard, dignity, and prestige by the inclusion of areas which express in less than the highest terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they represent... [415]

In the same report he announced the establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument, quoted in full:

The newest national monument is the Pipe Spring in Arizona, established by proclamation of May 31, 1923. This not only serves as a memorial to western pioneer life, but is of service to motorists, containing, as it does, the only pure water to be found along the road between Hurricane, Utah and Fredonia, Arizona. This area is famous in Utah and Arizona history, having been first settled in 1863. In 1870 it was purchased by President Brigham Young of the Mormon Church, and during that year, a stone building with portholes, known as 'Windsor Castle,' was erected to serve as a refuge against the Indians. This building still stands. The relinquishment of certain adverse claims to the lands contained in the monument was secured by the donation of $5,000 for this purpose by a few public-spirited people. [416]

What seems to be rather unusual for the Pipe Spring situation is that neither Mather nor his associates made a case for national importance of the site during the process of its establishment. The importance of its history to the states of Utah and Arizona was acknowledged, but real emphasis was given to the fact that Pipe Spring was "an oasis in the desert," providing a convenience to the traveling public. Ironically, the same natural resource that was responsible for Brigham Young establishing a cattle ranch at Pipe Spring in 1870 - water - was Mather's primary argument for setting it aside as a national monument 53 years later. Only this time, Pipe Spring would be a welcome watering hole for far-ranging tourists rather than for free-ranging cattle.

Another consideration in the era of the automobile was the necessity of a place motorists could refuel on the long distances between the region's scenic wonders. By 1926 the Pipe Spring caretaker would be running a lunch stand and gas station, with Director Mather's blessing. A review of files from the early 1920s led the Park Service's Branch of History in 1943 to make the following conclusion about why the monument was created:

In 1921, Director Stephen T. Mather visited Pipe Spring and expressed interest in its historical associations and its important location between Zion National Park and the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Aside from its historical interest, Director Mather believed the area might be developed as an important stopping place for the sale of gasoline on the proposed highway between Zion National Park and the north rim of the Grand Canyon. [417]

While Mather sought to realize a number of objectives, certainly none was in conflict with any of the motives of other interested parties, save perhaps the Office of Indian Affairs. His desire to work with Union Pacific as a partner has been well documented. His appreciation for Mormon history and culture has been alluded to, and certainly his agency benefited from good relations with the Church and its leadership. President Heber J. Grant had expressed and demonstrated a strong commitment to the development of southern Utah's scenic resources, a cooperative spirit to which Mather may have felt indebted. The establishment of a memorial to Mormon settlers made a fitting "thank you" to the Church and its leadership, while providing a long-overdue acknowledgment of the important role of the Latter-day Saints in colonizing the West (a sentiment that President Harding seemed to share). It is noteworthy, however, that the proclamation never once referred to the role of the Church or its followers at Pipe Spring, stating only that the monument was a memorial to "western pioneer life." One can ponder whether the outcome of Mather's efforts would have been successful had the uniquely "Mormon" aspects of Pipe Spring been emphasized in the proclamation or in official internal correspondence.

By the same token, the National Park Service was indebted to Union Pacific for all its financial investments in southern Utah. (Its development activities at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon were already planned, but took place a little later.) Even if Union Pacific needed Pipe Spring only as a tour stop for as long as it took to build the Zion-Mt. Carmel road, its availability for that time period was important in terms of enhancing the tourists' experience as they visited the region's national parks, forests, and monuments. Finally, Mather's actions to establish the monument certainly rescued the Heatons from a very difficult legal situation and ended the family's controversy of property ownership with the Office of Indian Affairs (although no documentation considered in this study suggests that this was one of Mather's objectives). As a result, Mather's success in having the monument established made quite a number of people happy: the Heatons and local cattlemen, Union Pacific, the Church, the states of Utah and Arizona, local tourism boosters, and last but not least, the National Park Service. Even the Office of Indian Affairs, while it would have preferred to have had all of Pipe Spring for the Kaibab Indian Reservation, won a small victory through its insertion of the water use clause into the proclamation. From the Park Service perspective, the establishment of Pipe Spring was what would be called today the perfect "win-win" situation.

Still, a valid question has sometimes been raised: why a national monument? Why not a state park? It is telling to contrast Mather's push for the establishment of Pipe Spring as a national monument with his initial reticence in the early 1920s to push for the same status for Bryce Canyon. Mather had urged Utah officials to create a state park at Bryce Canyon. (Recall that Mather at this time favored the idea of a state park system that would supplement the national system.) Why was his approach with Pipe Spring so markedly different? The site's significance arguably could have been considered to be of local or regional, rather than national, significance. Its history was related to the expansion of Latter-day Saint colonies from Utah into a neighboring state. It is highly unlikely that many people outside of the two-state area, particularly non-Mormons, had ever heard of Pipe Spring or of the events related to its history. Moreover, the primary resource at the time the monument was established (the fort) was in extremely poor condition, with its two associated buildings (the east and west cabins) in complete ruin.

Yet, as far as we know, Mather never contacted state officials in Arizona to propose such a solution. [418] A state park at Pipe Spring, had it been created, would have accomplished some of Mather's objectives, but certainly not others. It would not have been as attractive an offer to the Heatons, nor would it have solved the legal challenge to their ownership claim within the Department of the Interior. It would not have given the site the level of status afforded it by the federal government, possibly making it far more difficult for Church President Grant to raise the funds (particularly within the state of Utah) that would have allowed its "donation" to the State of Arizona. Creating a state park within the Kaibab Indian Reservation would most likely have been far more problematic than establishing a park unit administered by another federal agency within the reservation. In any event, if Mather ever explored this alternative, no record of it has surfaced. On the other hand, national status for Pipe Spring accomplished all the objectives mentioned earlier, and was a goal completely within Mather's realm of influence to achieve. The addition of Pipe Spring to the national park system makes complete sense within the framework of 1920's regional planning and politics. This historic site was simply one small piece of a very complex puzzle being assembled by many hands. All were seeking to develop the scenic resources and transportation network of southern Utah and northern Arizona for a variety of purposes.

The monument's validity would remain an issue. In fact, in 1932 Park Service officials called into question the status of Pipe Spring as a national monument. A letter of November 8, 1932, from Superintendent Roger W. Toll, Yosemite National Park, to Director Arno B. Cammerer suggested that a "trade" might be made in order to establish Capitol Reef National Monument. During the late 1920s and 1930s, Utah officials lobbied to have what was then called "Wayne Wonderland" made into a national park unit. Roger W. Toll was sent on a reconnaissance mission to determine if the area was worthy of such status. Included in his report to Cammerer, was the following suggestion:

Possible substitution for Pipe Spring
If it is felt that the number of national monuments should not be increased at present, it may be that the people of Utah and northern Arizona would prefer to have Pipe Springs National Monument discontinued and the Wayne Wonderland established in its place. Such a substitution would strengthen the value of the national monuments. Pipe Springs, while valuable as a state historical landmark, seems lacking in national interest, and has but few visitors since it is no longer on a main tourist route. No important event seems to have occurred in Pipe Springs, and there are many more important historical places in Utah and Arizona. The Wayne Wonderland, however, is an important scenic area and seems to have much more national value. Pipe Springs is located in Arizona, a few miles from the Utah line, and is probably of more interest to the residents of Utah and the 'Arizona Strip,' north of the Colorado River, than it is to residents of Arizona in general. [419]

Cammerer's response to Toll's idea of substituting Wayne Wonderland for Pipe Springs is undocumented, so it is unknown if it was given serious consideration. President Franklin D. Roosevelt eventually proclaimed Capitol Reef National Park on August 2, 1937.

What was Union Pacific's interest in Pipe Spring? Its officials and advisers, as demonstrated earlier, never cared for the Hurricane-Fredonia route that passed Pipe Spring and had planned since at least 1921 to eliminate it entirely from its circle tour of southern Utah and northern Arizona parks. [420] Not only were roads poor, but the desert scenery was, by most people's standards, downright boring (or, to put it more in the more subtle terms of UP's advertising, the views were "uninspiring"). Until the Zion-Mt. Carmel road became a reality, however, UP was dependent on the road that went by Pipe pring. No one in May 1923 knew for certain how, when, or if the Zion-Mt. Carmel road would be built, nor where the funds would come from to finance the costly project. As long as Union Pacific was not required to invest anything in the development of Pipe Spring (and they were not), the monument's establishment benefited their travel operations, at least for the short term. The company knew a stop was needed on the long, tedious haul from Zion to the Kaibab National Forest, then to the North Rim. Pipe Spring provided an opportunity for UP motor coach passengers and individual motorists to stretch their legs, have lunch in the shade of towering cottonwoods and elms, dangle their feet in the fort's ponds, all the while enjoying a romantic slice of local history. For a few years, UP buses could even refuel at Pipe Spring at a store and gas station operated by Leonard and Edna Heaton.

Others stood to benefit from the monument's establishment as well. The Heaton family and local ranchers had a great deal to gain by working a deal with the federal government. While Charles C. Heaton had vowed to take his Valentine scrip case to the Supreme Court if necessary, it would have been a costly fight with absolutely no guarantee of success. As mentioned above, the fort was in an advanced state of deterioration (its lower building was completely uninhabitable); the other two small buildings had only remnants of their walls remaining. The Heaton family lacked either the means or the interest in personally keeping up the buildings, yet they expressed to Mather a genuine desire to see the site preserved as a memorial to the early Mormon settlers. Their own family, staunchly faithful to the Church, played an important role in the area's history and still made up the sum total of the population of the nearby village of Moccasin.

While the historic value of Pipe Spring was appreciated, the Heaton family appeared to have attached equal, if not greater, value to the water rights that came with the property. The vast majority of cattle ranches on the Arizona Strip were struggling for their very survival during this period, and the loss of an area's principal water source might have guaranteed their complete ruin. While a 10-year drought beginning in 1922 proved disastrous to the local private cattle industry, the decline actually began just after the end of World War I when beef prices fell. [421] The Kaibab Indian Reservation herd, on the other hand, was doing comparatively well in the 1920s. As the size of the Indian cattle herd on the reservation increased during the 1910s and early 1920s, permits to white stockmen on the fenced sections of the reservation were retired. Increasing numbers of the white cattlemen's stock were grazed off-reservation. Access to Pipe Spring water was economically critical to a number of non-Indian ranchers who grazed their cattle in the area.

Water was still surfacing as a critical issue in 1933 when Director Albright instructed Assistant Superintendent Thomas C. Parker of Zion National Park to go to Pipe Spring and report on the water situation there. Parker's report includes a reference to the reason Charles C. Heaton had in selling Pipe Spring to the federal government, which is cited below. On June 1, 1923, Parker had met with Agency Superintendent Farrow, then had a meeting at Zion on June 2, 1933, with C. Leonard Heaton, Charles C. Heaton's eldest son. Parker wrote that during this latter meeting, "Heaton told me that the only reason his father had for selling Pipe Springs to the Government was to keep the water for the cattlemen as he was afraid that the Indian Service would get Pipe Springs. This thought appears to have been in the elder Mr. Heaton's mind when Mr. Demaray talked to him on July 1, 1923." [422]

While the "elder Heaton" Parker refers to in his letter is Charles C. Heaton, other sources document that Charles' father, Jonathan Heaton, as well as some of the Heaton brothers, were also involved in the decision to sell the Pipe Spring property. The "silent" players also represented by the Heatons were area cattlemen, based primarily in the Washington and Kane counties of southern Utah. It was their interests that were jeopardized by any potential loss of access to Pipe Spring water. Not surprisingly, Charles C. Heaton later specified that the cattlemen of these two counties were to contribute to the fund to purchase the property so that it could be made into a national monument. The citizens of Arizona's Mohave and Coconino counties apparently were not asked to make such a sacrifice.

And what of the Office of Indian Affairs? The Kaibab Paiute had been virtually cut off from the Pipe Spring water sources since at least the beginning of the fort's construction in 1870, becoming dependent entirely on their one-third share from Moccasin Spring. While Dr. Farrow and the Office of Indian Affairs began vociferously objecting to Charles C. Heaton's claim to Pipe Spring after he filed application on the Valentine scrip in 1920, their primary focus in years prior had been squarely on protecting Indian water rights at Moccasin. Field inspectors repeatedly urged officials in Washington to buy out the Heatons' Moccasin claims in order to end the continual conflict over water there. All during the early years of the reservation's establishment, no direct claim to Pipe Spring land or water had been made by the Office of Indian Affairs or by its earliest reservation official, Superintendent Ward. As discussed in Part I, it was only after Farrow took charge that the Agency's eyes ever cast a sideways glance at Pipe Spring. That was when the "compromise" involving Pipe Springs was suggested by Farrow in an attempt to solve the Moccasin Spring dilemma. But no action to acquire additional rights at Moccasin or any rights at Pipe Spring was made until the monument was created in 1923. The Indian Office feared pressing the legal issues of land and water ownership prior to the settlements of Heaton claims by the General Land Office. Particularly since the latter had a record of deferring to the opinions of the Indian Office, the Indian Office's interests appear to have been sufficiently protected by other high officials in federal government. Heaton's homestead filing on Pipe Spring had been twice denied by Assistant Secretary Finney, suggesting that Commissioner Burke also had the Department of the Interior's ear.

In Heaton's original filing, in his appeal, and finally in his motion for a rehearing, the burden of proof lay primarily on Charles C. Heaton and his lawyers. The Indian Office had so far maintained the upper hand, without ever directly taking Heaton head-on in court. It could well have been to the Agency's advantage to avoid a court case where they would have had to disprove the ownership rights of the Heatons, although some of their agents, particularly Dr. Farrow, sincerely questioned those rights. It was to the Indian Service's advantage to let the Department of the Interior and General Land Office settle the larger legal question, while reaping what they could from the seeds of doubt they had sown in the minds of those departments' officials. The fact that the Indian Office was successful in challenging Charles C. Heaton's ownership claims gave them considerable bargaining leverage within the Department of the Interior. Commissioner Burke cleverly used this political power to have Director Mather insert an important clause into the Presidential proclamation, a clause Commissioner Burke's office would use to full advantage during later water rights negotiations at Pipe Spring.

The final player in the scenario leading to Pipe Spring's establishment as a national monument was President Heber J. Grant, representing the interests of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Undoubtedly, the preservation of the site was important to the Church because of its association with the history of Latter-day Saint efforts to perform missionary work and to permanently settle in the Arizona Territory. Director Mather fully recognized the importance of working cooperatively with Utah's dominant religion as much as with its state government. Wherever he went in southern Utah and northern Arizona, he established personal contact with Church leaders. Mather was well aware that in many cases Church leaders carried considerable political power in their respective towns and districts. By establishing relationships with Church officials, he learned their views, but also shared his own vision of how the region's scenic resources could attract much-needed revenue. In doing so, Mather appears to have garnered their hearty support for National Park Service plans. Mather's first face-to-face contact with President Grant may have taken place at the Zion National Park dedication in September 1920, and a number of other meetings Mather was involved in included President Grant. Their contacts and relationship continued to develop throughout the early 1920s as the Park Service sought to build its wide network of park-promoting partners in the state. We know, however, that President Grant made no secret of his enthusiastic support for development of tourism in southern Utah as evidenced by the statement he made at the December 1921 Governor's Committee on National Park Development, referenced earlier. His role in raising funds to purchase the Pipe Spring property from Charles C. Heaton has also been mentioned. Beyond these contacts, little correspondence between National Park Service and Church officials has been found to chronicle the extent of the Church's role in Pipe Spring's establishment as a national monument.

One other personal factor - difficult to measure and to document - seems to have influenced Director Mather. Mather not only appreciated Utah's spectacular scenic resources, he had sincere admiration for its people and their history. During the important meetings and conferences in Salt Lake City, the personal visits with local bishops in their small rural towns, and the overnight visits and home-cooked meals with the Heaton family, Stephen T. Mather came to know and appreciate the Latter-day Saints as a people. There seemed to have developed a connection of the heart between the descendants of Utah's early settlers and the National Park Service's first director. Historian and preservationist Charles Hosmer, Jr., reveals this link in a 1969 interview with Mather's close friend and associate, Horace Albright. A portion of the interview is quoted below. Hosmer asked Albright how Pipe Spring came into the park system:

Hosmer: There's one historical area in the far West that struck me as kind of out of the ordinary for those days. And that was Pipe Spring, I think it was called, that little Mormon...

Albright: Oh, the Mormon fort, Pipe Springs.

Hosmer: Yes, how in the world did that get into the Park System? It's not an Indian ruin; it's...

Albright: No, it's a Mormon fort built against the Indians.

Hosmer: Yes, but I mean they weren't accepting forts in those days into the Park System.

Albright: It was bought and given to the Park Service.

Hosmer: It was given to the Parks?

Albright: Director Mather, the president of the Mormon church, Mr. Heber Grant, and Mr. Carl Gray, president of the Union Pacific Railroad and there's one other man, I think, bought the fort and gave it to the Park Service under the Lacey Act... [the 1906 Act for Preservation of Antiquities].

Hosmer: They all bought it?

Albright: Bought it.

Hosmer: Why did Mather want that?

Albright: It was historic and also, of course, it was part of his program of cooperating with the Mormons. They didn't want it destroyed; they wanted it kept. Mather was very strong with the Mormons. He used to go down and sing with them; he had a beautiful baritone voice. He and I for several years there were all but Mormons, we spent so much time down there with them in southern Utah. [423]

One cannot sing among a people and not feel a special bond with them. Thus it was that Pipe Spring acquired recognition as a historic site and became a national monument. Its new status was quickly overshadowed by events taking place a short distance to the north.