PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

Pipe Spring's Purchase and Belated Transfer to the Federal Government

Thanks to Frank Pinkley's adroit handling of the concerns of area cattlemen and of the Office of Indian Affairs in their meeting of June 9, 1924, the process of sale and transfer of the Pipe Spring property to the federal government proceeded during the summer of 1924. In early July Director Mather sent Charles C. Heaton a copy of the June 9 memorandum, which had been approved by Mather and by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He again reassured Heaton with regard to the cattlemen's access to water and also instructed him to forward the legal paperwork to President Grant:

When the time comes, should it be necessary to run the water off the Indian Reservation, sufficient of the public land can be set aside as a public water reserve. The Commissioner of the General Land Office has this in mind and there should be no reason to worry about this as at the proper time it will be taken care of if the present permit is not renewed.

If you have not forwarded the signed quitclaim deed and other papers to President Grant, Salt Lake City, I trust you will now do so in order that the money in payment for your rights can be turned over to you. This will clear up the final steps so as to enable the Government to take over the control of the monument. I am sending a copy of this letter to President Grant, together with a copy of this agreement so he will understand the situation. [481]

President Grant took the step of having the withdrawal of pending application to locate the Valentine scrip recorded by the Mohave county recorder on September 29. Heaton either received payment, or the Church's promise of payment, by mid-October 1924. By October 15, Mather had received the quitclaim deed for Pipe Spring. On that date, he transmitted the quitclaim deed and an abstract of title to Secretary Work. In his cover letter to the secretary, Mather mentioned,

...Although the title to this land was never passed on by the Solicitor, the records of the Service show that Attorney John P. McDowell of your office has examined the abstracts and prepared the form of quitclaim, which was executed by Mr. Heaton.

138.There is also attached, duly executed by Mr. Heaton, form of withdrawal of pending application to locate the Valentine scrip certificate No.E-013 (Prescott No. 3), which was also prepared by Attorney McDowell. It is understood that a refund, in the form of the return of the original Valentine scrip, will be made to Mr. Heaton and interested parties upon completion of the withdrawal of the pending application to locate.

It is respectfully recommended that the quitclaim deed herewith be accepted and that the original Valentine scrip be transmitted to this office for return to the interested parties. [482]

One week later, Secretary Work acknowledged and accepted the deed, returned the paperwork to Mather, and informed him that he had directed the Commissioner of the General Land Office to return the Valentine scrip certificate to Charles C. Heaton. [483]

Once again, the infamous Valentine scrip of Daniel Seegmiller resurfaced to take on a new role in the Pipe Spring story. Apparently, when the Pipe Spring deal was underway with the Park Service, no one knew exactly who in the Heaton family had the Valentine scrip. While relating the story of his grandfather Jonathan Heaton and the Valentine scrip to historian Robert H. Keller in 1991, Leonard Heaton recalled, "And when that scrip was finally located... they had to hunt all over the country.... Finally one of my father's aunts found the scrip in her papers and Mather had it turned over to the Federal Government..." [484]

As mentioned earlier, Charles C. Heaton executed a quitclaim deed to the United States of America on April 28, 1924, "for and in consideration of the sum of four thousand dollars." No money changed hands between the federal government and the Heatons as part of the deed transfer. In fact, later documentation suggests that not even the Church had paid the Heatons by the time the family turned over the quitclaim deed to the National Park Service.

At some point either prior to or during the sale and transfer of Pipe Spring to the federal government, President Grant was made aware that the Valentine scrip in the Heaton family's possession had cash value and that it could be sold once Charles C. Heaton dropped his application with the General Land Office. [485] Once the federal government owned the land and the Valentine scrip was returned to the Heatons, the scrip could be sold and profits distributed to reimburse the purchasers of the Pipe Spring property. What is unknown is whether this plan was hatched before individuals had made their contributions to the Pipe Spring land purchase, or if the idea occurred to President Grant or others afterward. Evidence of this plan is contained in a letter written 10 years after the monument's establishment by President Grant to Leonard Heaton. In October 1933 Leonard Heaton wrote Grant requesting a list of contributors and the amounts they had given toward Pipe Spring's purchase. He wished to honor them by creating a photo display at the fort, said Heaton. Grant responded to Heaton's request, sent the list of donors to him, and also made the following reference: "By the way, we have secured a return from what is known as the Valentine scrip that could be planted on ranches. We originally paid for this ranch and the scrip was in the hands of Lafayette Hanchett and we had hoped to sell it and return some of the contributions made by the different people." [486]

In addition to showing the $1,000 each donations by the Union Pacific System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the list sent by President Grant to Heaton showed the following individual donations were made: Stephen T. Mather, $500; Heber J. Grant, $250; J. M. and M. S. Browning, $200; and G. M. Whitmore, $150. In addition, ten men contributed $100 each (S. R. Inch, J. William Knight, William R. Wallace, Thomas Kearns, Herbert S. Auerbach, E. O. Howard, Lafayette Hanchett, L. S. Cates, William W. Armstrong, John C. Howard, and William H. McIntyre) and one man contributed $50 (Russel L. Tracy). [487] None of these small donors was among the cattlemen's association whose stock watered at Pipe Spring. The total figure of contributions, not including that portion donated by the Heatons, was $4,250. This means that the Heatons contribution toward the asking price of $5,000 was $750. President Grant's list indicates that interest amounting to $293.11 accrued between the time of collection of these funds and March 10, 1925. While it is not certain, this suggests that March 10, 1925, was the date the Church sent payment to Charles C. Heaton, with accrued interest. If so, they were paid about six months after Heaton forwarded the legal paperwork to Mather in Washington, D.C.

As late as 1926, the Church was endeavoring to straighten out matters pertaining to the Valentine scrip so that it might reimburse contributors to the Pipe Spring purchase fund. That year attorney Robert A. Burns of Salt Lake City wrote Jonathan Heaton the following letter:

In behalf of Mr. Lafayette Hanchett and Heber J. Grant and others, I am endeavoring to straighten out the title to the Valentine scrip which is to be placed in the name of Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee, for the purpose of selling the same and distributing the proceeds of such sale to the original subscribers to the fund which was raised for the purpose of purchasing Pipe Springs from you, and transferring it to the United States Government. As you are aware, the abstract of title of this scrip does not show a satisfactory conveyance from Daniel Seegmiller to yourself and we are now preparing to have an administrator re-appointed of Daniel Seegmiller's estate for the purpose of having such a conveyance executed. We are endeavoring to have Mr. William W. Seegmiller consent to act as such administrator. However, before he will consent he wants to be assured that the course we are taking is being taken with your consent and for this reason I ask you to write me stating that it is satisfactory to you that such administrator be appointed for Daniel Seegmiller's estate for the purpose of having a conveyance executed conveying the Valentine scrip from Daniel Seegmiller's estate to Bankers Trust Company, as Trustees. [488]

Here the trail of information regarding the Valentine scrip ends. Additional research might establish if and when the funds from the sale of the Valentine scrip were distributed to the "subscribers" of the Pipe Spring property sale as well as the exact date the Heatons received payment. It is enough to know that the troublesome scrip may have hastened President Grant's ability to find contributors toward the campaign to establish a memorial monument at Pipe Spring, or to have at least provided a belated reward to those who responded to the Church's proverbial "call."

As for the day-to-day caretaking of the new monument, as mentioned earlier, John White was temporarily retained after its establishment. In November 1923 White wrote to Mather and asked if the Park Service wanted him to stay at Pipe Spring beyond the end of the year. Mather communicated his reply through a letter to Charles C. Heaton that he wanted White to stay at least until the summer of 1924 although the Park Service could not pay his salary. In mid-March 1924, on learning that White was receiving only $25 a month pay from the Heatons, Mather offered to personally supplement White's pay, writing Heaton, "With regard to Mr. White, I note that you are paying him $25 per month and, as I wrote you before, I will be glad to add to this $25 a month for March, April, and May. I will send him a check at the end of each month and would like you to send me his initials so that I can make the check out properly." [489] White or Heaton must have also asked Mather if White could continue to plant a garden, for the director also informed Heaton, "I have no objection to him putting in a garden again down below the road where he had it last year, but will expect him to keep the grounds around the house [fort] in a clean and presentable condition." [490] In June 1924 Superintendent Pinkley (who did not think White was an appropriate choice as permanent custodian) proposed that Charles C. Heaton be made custodian with White retained as a laborer. Assistant Director A. E. Demaray opposed the idea, knowing that Heaton represented the cattlemen's water rights interests and fearing he might provoke Dr. Farrow into taking a more extreme position on the Indians' behalf. Yet he could propose no alternative. So White remained and, with a meager appropriation for the 1924-1925 fiscal year, began initial restoration work under the supervision of Charles C. Heaton. [491]