CELEBRATING THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CENTENNIAL • 1916-2016
Mabry Mill along Blue Ridge Parkway
To celebrate the centennial of the National Park Service, each month we will reflect back on various aspects of the development of the National Park Service and the National Park System. Last month we took a brief look at NPS history; the next few months we will explore in more depth key periods of National Park Service history: the expansion of the National Park Service and System in the 1930s, the key role in the development of visitor facilities by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of 1933-1942, the ten-year effort known as Mission 66 to expand/upgrade visitor facilities to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Park Service in 1966, and finally the largest single expansion of the National Park System in 1980 due to the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Written by NPS historians Harlan D. Unrau and G. Frank Williss in 1983, the Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s chronicles the transfer of U.S. Forest Service-managed national monuments, as well as military parks/battlefields from the Secretary of War to the National Park Service, along with the subsequent reorganization of the National Park Service in 1933. What began as a National Park System in 1916 comprising 37 units (all but one west of the Mississippi River) evolved to 137 units by 1933. New Deal emergency work relief programs also commenced in 1933, which will be examined in closer detail next month. To learn more details about expansion of the National Park System, you are invited to read these additional books. Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s Foreword This scholarly study by historians Unrau and Williss deals with a bewildering but exciting time approximately a half century ago when an extraordinary combination of circumstances occurred, having profound and lasting effect upon the National Park Service and leading, moreover, to sweeping changes in the Nation's ways of conserving and using its important historic places. Horace Albright became the second director of the Service in the same year (1929) in which Herbert Hoover was inaugurated President of the United States. Also it happened in that year that the stock market collapsed and the Great Depression descended upon the country, forcing public attention to shift abruptly from international matters where it so long had been centered to urgent new economic and social issues. The new public mood, demanding positive governmental action in dealing with the many problems now arising, fitted nicely the natural inclinations of the incoming director, who! skillful administrator in the Service as he had already demonstrated, was nevertheless a man of unusual imagination and daring, quick to seize upon innovative solutions to unusually complicated problems. Intuitively, too, Mr. Albright sensed the fact that the President, despite a certain cautious nature, greatly desired to do whatever he could to alleviate the harsh realities of the Depression- -even to the extent of putting into operation his own special kind of "New Deal." So the director had scarcely taken up his new duties in the Service before he was involved in the construction of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, extending from above Georgetown all the way to Mount Vernon; also in the development with congressional approval of two new major parks, Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains, with connecting links, the Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway; and, as if all this were not enough, Mr. Albright had persuaded those just then engaged in the program for George Washington's birthplace to turn over the site to the Service along with sufficient funds to complete the "restoration" and to ensure its temporary custody and maintenance. Last but certainly not least among the interests demanding the director's attention was the tremendous plan for a new "monument'' to be called Colonial, including Jamestown, Yorktown, and Williamsburg in Virginia. All three historic sites were to be connected by a parkway, and in this connection was the astonishing proposal of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to "restore" in its entirety colonial Williamsburg. Mr. Rockefeller, already a warm friend of the Service and of Mr. Albright himself, was ready to help acquire the lands necessary for the Service's construction of the proposed parkway, just as he had recently helped in the Grand Teton-Jackson Hole park project in Wyoming and earlier at Acadia National Park in Maine. A busy Albright could still find time to plan in 1931 the giant celebration and pageant at Yorktown, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the surrender there of Lord Cornwallis to General Washington. Among the thousands in attendance that bright October day were President Herbert Hoover himself and his cabinet as well as the thirteen governors of states representing the original colonies. One of these was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and another distinguished guest was the grand old warrior of World War One fame, General John J. Pershing. The Yorktown affair proved to be an unqualified success, let it be noted, and it had the effect of putting the Service very high in the public mind as an agency concerned with the protection and skillful use of a major historic site. With the momentum thus engendered, it was perhaps less difficult in 1932-33 to persuade Congress to set aside under Service jurisdiction another great historic shrine, to be known henceforth as the Morristown (New Jersey) National Historical Park. The emergence in 1933 of a full scale Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, the product of a series of "New Deal" measures and therefore at first temporary in nature, followed logically certain earlier steps taken by the National Park Service in the field of historical preservation and use. In this connection, the creation in 1930 of Colonial and George Washington's birthplace "monument" in Virginia as well as the passage by Congress of the Morristown National Historical Park bill in 1933 naturally deserve attention. Then, too, in 1931, linked with plans for the never-to-be-forgotten Yorktown pageant and celebration, there had been organized within the Branch of Education and Interpretation a so-called "Division of History," and that in turn had given rise to the appointment of a chief historian and two field park historians. Plans for the new historical branch were underway almost as soon as the chief historian entered upon his duties! but, lacking at that juncture the necessary funds for the project, it remained for developments transpiring in the first year of the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt to make possible the decision to proceed. First, with the far-reaching reorganization of government, there were transferred that year to the Service from several other departments and agencies a great galaxy of historic places including the national military parks and monuments, the Statue of Liberty, the Spanish forts of St. Augustine, Florida, and Fort McHenry at Baltimore, the scene of the writing of the National Anthem. The second major development at that time was the launching of numerous "New Deal" programs (like the "alphabet series," beginning with the CCC and followed by projects such as the PWA, the FERA, and WPA), designed in each case to give government employment to people out of work. It may require a bit of imagination out of the ordinary to find a logical connection between a CCC operation in a newly acquired military park, placed there to develop trails and markers or for maintenance purposes, and the realization of a new Branch of History and the appointment of large numbers of individuals designated as "historical technicians'' to perform a variety of duties within the Service. Nevertheless, the connecting link, however tenuous and difficult to see, was established. As a result, the chief historian, now placed in administrative charge of the new branch, sought to fill a myriad of new positions; and in the weeks and months that followed, hectic in the extreme though they were, this task was fulfilled, as well as the responsibility for training scores of new recruits ("academic greenhorns" they sometimes were called), so that eventually they might look forward to becoming bona fide Park Service professionals.
Then, of course, there were many other demands upon the acting chief of the new branch. He was expected to visit each of the newly acquired historical areas and overlook the work of the personnel there; he was also expected to visit and investigate many places being suggested by members of Congress and their clients for possible inclusion in the Service; and then there were numerous calls for special appearances at meetings on the "Hill" and before congressional committees, as well as requests to speak upon the theme of history within the Service; and in certain instances, too, the chief historian might be expected merely to act as an official representative of his organization at whatever occasion there might be. On a certain Fourth of July, for example, the "chief" traveled to Antietam and delivered the principal address of the day, after which with a police escort leading the way he was taken all the way to Gettysburg, where, being the official representative of the Department of the Interior, he sat directly behind the President (Mr. Roosevelt) while listening to the speech there being delivered. Each "chore," while certainly interesting and challenging, could be time consuming, too, so that on many occasions there just did not seem to be enough hours and days in which to get the work done. Nevertheless, the time came in 1935 to design and write, and then to persuade Congress to enact, a Historic Sites Act, providing a formal and legal basis for the branch within the Service and laying the foundation for a national program of permanent nature in the field of historic site preservation, all of course under National Park Service leadership. With this task accomplished, the moment had come for the realization finally of the grand design envisioned by Horace Albright and shared by him with this writer in their first legendary encounter so long ago in a railroad station in Omaha, Nebraska. By Dr. Verne E. Chatelain, Preface The following study, which examines one of the most significant decades in the development of the National Park Service, is one of the first in what will be a series of administrative histories of the National Park Service. Initiated by NPS Chief Historian Edwin C. Bearss, the administrative history program will result in studies that will not only be of importance to managers in the Service, but will be of interest to the general student as well. Any study is the result of the combined efforts of a number of people, and this one is no exception. Edwin C. Bearss initiated the program, gave us the project, and was a source of encouragement throughout preparation of the project. Barry Mackintosh, NPS Bureau Historian, provided general administrative oversight of the project. Harry Butowsky, Historian, WASO, supplied us with his study on nomenclature and the supporting documentation for it. Ben Levy, senior historian in the Washington office, helped us to find material on the NPS Advisory Board and shared his insights into the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Gerald Patten, Assistant Manager, and Nan V. Rickey, Chief, Branch of Cultural Resources, Mid-Atlantic/North Atlantic Team, Denver Service Center, provided encouragement for the project and released us from team-related work so that we could work on it. John Luzader took time from his own work to read drafts and offer valuable advice. Mr. Luzader also supplied us with information that he had uncovered in his own research. David Nathanson, Chief, Branch of Library and Archival Services, Harpers Ferry Center, and members of his staff, Richard Russell and Ruth Ann Herriot, provided us with useful suggestions relative to the availability of manuscript and printed materials for the study. Tom Lucke, Environmental Coordinator, Southwest Regional Office, sent us material on Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument. Ruth Larison, Rocky Mountain Regional Office Library was helpful in obtaining material. Shirley Luikens, Advisory Boards and Commissions, Washington office, assisted us in locating relevant material in her office. Douglas Caldwell, Anthropology Division, Washington office, provided us with a draft of William C. Tweed's "Parkitecture: Rustic Architecture In the National Parks." One of the unexpected benefits of undertaking this study has been the opportunity to contact a number of former Park Service people who were active in the 1930s. We are indebted to all those who took the time to set down their reactions to the events. Particular thanks goes to George A. Palmer, who sent us additional information and made helpful suggestions. Additionally, thanks go to the staffs of the various libraries we visited: Library of Congress; National Archives; Bancroft Library, Manuscripts Division, University of California, Berkeley; University Research Library, Division of Special Collections, UCLA; Department Library and Law Library, Department of Interior; and University of Colorado, Government Publications Division, Boulder, Colorado. Finally, Helen Athearn of the Mid-Atlantic/North Atlantic Team, Denver Service Center, did the paper work associated with the project, and Evelyn Steinman typed the manuscript. Harlan D. Unrau Chapter One: "They have grown up like Topsy"1 Today, the 14,627 people of the National Park Service are responsible for the administration of 334 units that comprise the National Park System.2 This is a far cry from the day some fifty-five years ago,when eleven people manned the central office in Washington D.C., and the National Park System consisted of fifteen national parks and twenty national monuments.3 The development of the National Park Service and the system it administers was evolutionary. This study examines one phase in this process—the 1930s. In that decade—surely one of the most significant and creative in the service's history—both the organization and the system it administers were transformed. A. National Parks and Monuments Under the Department of the Interior, 1872-1916 Any history of the National Park Service does not begin with the establishment of the bureau. Rather, it must begin some forty-five years earlier, on March 1, 1872. On that day, President Ulysses S. Grant signed an act that set aside a "tract of land . . . near the head-waters of the Yellowstone River . . . as a public park or pleasuring-Ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people."4 The creation of Yellowstone National Park was the world's first attempt to preserve a large wilderness area as a national park. The national park idea, as expressed first there, quite rightly may be considered to be one of America's unique contributions to world civilization.5 Neither the president nor Congress realized what they had done, however, would be emulated all over the world. Nor did the Yellowstone National Park enabling act nor the separate acts that established additional national parks that followed represent a conscious effort to create a national park system.6 Between 1872 and August 16, 1916, when a bureau to administer them was finally established, Congress set aside fourteen additional national parks: Mackinac Island (March 3, 1875), Sequoia (September 25, 1890), Yosemite (October 1, 1890), General Grant (October 1, 1890), Mount Rainier (March 22, 1899), Crater Lake (May 22, 1902), Wind Cave (January 9, 1903), Sullys Hill (April 27, 1904), Platt (June 29, 1906), Mesa Verde (June 29, 1905), Glacier (May 11, 1910), Rocky Mountain (January 26, 1913), Hawaii (August 1, 1916), and Lassen Volcanic (August 9, 1916).7 In the meantime, a growing number of people, scholars and non-scholars alike, were becoming increasingly concerned over the destruction of the nation's antiquities, and loss, therefore, of a considerable body of knowledge about its past. Of particular concern was the damage inflicted by the "pothunters" on the prehistoric cliff-dwellings, pueblos, and Spanish missions in the Southwest, although sites elsewhere were certainly not immune.8 In 1906, following a lengthy, if uncoordinated campaign, Representative John F. Lacey of Iowa secured passage of his "Act For the Preservation of American Antiquities."9 The Antiquities Act provided for the creation of a new kind of reservation. Thereafter certain objects of historic, prehistoric, or scientific interest could be declared "national monuments." Avoiding the cumbersome legislative process required for the establishment of national parks, the act authorized the president to set aside such sites on the public lands by proclamation.10 Of particular importance to this study, the Antiquities Act did not place administrative responsibility of all national monuments in one agency. Rather, jurisdiction over a particular monument would remain with "the Secretary of the department having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are located."11 As a result, both the Agriculture and War departments as well as Interior would administer monuments until 1933, when Executive Order 6166 transferred all to the Department of the Interior.12 In 1911 Frank Bond, chief clerk of the General Land Office, ventured that, differences in process of establishment aside, national parks and monuments were as alike as "two peas in a pod."13 In practice his observation had a certain validity. Three of the monuments administered by the Interior Department later formed nuclei of national parks.14 Additionally, several national monuments administered by the Department of Agriculture--Lassen Peak and Cinder Cone, Grand Canyon, and Mount Olympus--became national parks.15 Yet, as difficult as it was sometimes to perceive, there was a difference between national parks and national monuments. Through the period under discussion, at least, the difference would be reflected in the administration of the two areas. Generally, the monuments were smaller, although this distinction disappeared when one considered Katmai and Glacier Bay national monuments, which were 2,792,137 and 2,803,137 acres respectively.16 Although obviously a most subjective thing, the national parks were generally thought to have met some higher standards than did the national monuments--were areas of outstanding scenic grandeur.17 Administratively, national monuments were areas deemed to be worthy of preservation, and were set aside as a means of protection from encroachment. A national park, on the other hand, was an area that would be developed to become a "convenient resort for people to enjoy."18 On September 24, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a proclamation setting aside Devils Tower, a 650-foot-high volcanic shaft on the Wyoming plains, as the first national monument.19 Between that date and August 25, 1916, Presidents Roosevelt, William H. Taft, and Woodrow Wilson set aside nineteen more sites to be administered by the Department of the Interior. Seven of those sites were of historical or prehistorical significance: El Morro (December 8, 1906), Montezuma Castle (December 8, 1906), Chaco Canyon (March 11, 1907), Tumacacori (September 15, 1908), Navajo (March 20, 1909), Gran Quivera (November 1, 1909), and Sitka (March 23, 1910).20 Twelve others, like Devils Tower, were of scientific significance. With the exception of Sieur de Monts (July 8, 1916) in Maine, they were in the West: Petrified Forest (December 18, 1906), Muir Woods (January 9, 1908), Natural Bridges (April 16, 1908), Lewis and Clark Cavern (May 11, 1908), Mukuntuweap (July 31, 1909), Shoshone Cavern (September 21, 1909), Rainbow Bridge (May 30, 1910), Colorado (May 24, 1911), Papago Saguaro (January 31, 1914), Dinosaur (October 4, 1915), and Capulin Mountain (August 9, 1916).21 The twelve national parks and thirteen national monuments that existed before 1910 had, in the words of Secretary of the Interior Walter L. Fisher, "grown up like topsy."22 Congress had set aside certain areas, and had provided meager funds for their administration. It had not, however, provided for any central administrative machinery, other than assigning that function to the Secretary of the Interior. The Department of the Interior displayed little more interest in the parks than did Congress. Before 1910, no official or division in Interior was anything more than nominally responsible for the national parks. What little attention was given then came from whomever had extra time, or the inclination to do so.23 This meant that there existed, into the second decade of the century, essentially no central administration for the national parks. Nor had there been any effort to spell out a general national administrative policy for the parks before 1915, when Mark Daniels so attempted.24 Although the Secretary of the Interior was responsible for the administration of the parks, any actual control existed on paper only. Each of the twelve national parks was a separate administrative unit, run as well, or as poorly, as the politically-appointed superintendent did so.25 Congress made no general appropriation for the national parks; money was made available to each separate park. The amount received varied, generally, in a direct ratio to the superintendent's political influence.26 As late as 1916, rangers were appointed by the individual parks, not the department, and could not be transferred from park to park.27 It was no easier to transfer equipment between parks, nor were approaches to common problems often shared.28 In his 1914 testimony on a bill to create a National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior Adolph C. Miller stated that the situation "is not so serious, but it is very bad."29 Miller was an optimist. Physical developments in the national parks, particularly with respect to sanitation facilities, were hopelessly inadequate for the growing number of park visitors.30 Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, Mesa Verde, and Glacier national parks received little more than custodial care.31 The civilian administrators had early proven themselves incapable in Yellowstone, Sequoia, General Grant, and Yosemite, and had been replaced by the Army.32 Although the army officers performed a creditable job, the arrangement in Yellowstone, at least, resulted in a most confusing administration at the park level:
Administratively, the national monuments under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior were separate from the national parks. From the passage of the Antiquities Act until the creation of the National Park Service, the General Land Office was responsible for the administration of the national monuments.34 Having a clearly defined responsibility in this case did not mean, however, more efficient administration. Congress steadfastly refused to appropriate even the modest sum of $5,000 requested for preservation, administration, and protection of all units.35 When an appropriation was finally made in 1916, it was only $3,500.36 Because no appropriation was forthcoming it was not possible to provide on-site custodial care. The person charged with immediate supervision of Montezuma Castle, Petrified Forest, Tumacacori, and Navajo national monuments, for example, was Grutz W. Helm, whose office was in Los Angeles.37 The story that emerges from the records is one of decay, spoliation, and vandalism of the national monuments. It is little wonder that the commissioner requested in 1913 that responsibility for the national monuments be transferred from his bureau back to the department.38 In many respects, Tumacacori National Monument was a special case, because the Forest Service actually administered the site at the local level, while ultimate jurisdiction remained in the Department of the Interior. This somewhat complicated matters. The problems of protection there, however, were illustrative of those that existed elsewhere. While responsible for the area, the Forest Service made no improvements, and the only direct supervision came when forest rangers happened to visit the site in the course of other duties, something that did not happen often. By August 1913, Forest Service personnel indicated that "Tumacacori Mission . . . is suffering misuse and is in a very dilapidated condition."39 Recognizing that the estimated $5,000 needed to prevent further deterioration would not be available, R.T. Galloway, acting Secretary of Agriculture, requested that the Interior Department provide $100 to enclose a stock-proof fence.40 The fence was constructed, but only after the money was transferred from the department to the bureau, then to the Chief of the Los Angeles Land Office Field Division, who, in turn authorized Robert Selkiak, forest supervisor in Tucson, to construct the fence.41 Selkiak then arranged for construction. The problems arising from the lack of a central administrative organization did not go unnoticed by the friends of the national parks. As early as 1908, a small group of enthusiasts, led by Horace J. McFarland, president of the American Civic Association, began to lobby for the creation of a separate bureau to administer the parks.42 Between that date and 1916, some sixteen bills that proposed a new bureau to administer the parks were introduced in Congress.43 Within the Interior Department, too, the first steps were taken to centralize administration of the national parks. In 1910 the Secretary of the Interior came forward with a proposal for a park bureau and in 1911, a conference at Yellowstone Park represented the first formal effort at cooperation at the park level.44 In the absence of legislation establishing a park bureau, successive Secretaries of the Interior--Walter L. Fisher and Franklin K. Lane--tried to place park administration on a more coherent basis. By the end of 1910, general responsibility over the parks had been assigned to W. B. Acker, an assistant attorney in the secretary's office.45 Acker was also responsible for the Bureau of Education, eleemosynary (charitable) institutions in the District of Columbia, territories of Hawaii and Alaska, and the department's investigative staff.46 Moreover, he had little money to expend, and a small staff at his disposal. He was, however, devoted to the national parks, and his efforts on their behalf represented the first, halting steps toward a centralized administration. In 1913 Secretary Lane upgraded park supervision and coordination to the assistant secretarial level and appointed Adolph C. Miller, chairman of the Department of Economics at Berkeley, to fill the position.47 Miller received instructions to solve the problem of park administration. The next year, he assigned direct administrative responsibility to a General Superintendent and Landscape Engineer of the National Parks, with offices in San Francisco.48 Mark Daniels, a landscape engineer, filled the position on a part-time basis while continuing in his private practice. When Daniels resigned before the end of the year, Robert C. Marshall of the U.S. Geological Survey became the first full-time administrator of the national parks. Not only was Marshall's position a full-time one, but he also had his office in Washington, D.C.49 The appointment of a full-time general superintendent of the national parks with at least a small staff to assist him would prove to be a significant step toward establishing a unitary and coherent administration of the national parks.50 The most important step taken by the Interior Department in that regard, however, was the hiring of Stephen T. Mather and Horace M. Albright. Albright arrived first--as a clerk in the office of Assistant Secretary Miller on May 31, 1913.51 The twenty-five-year-old Albright had already proven himself an able administrator when he was directed to keep Mather, who replaced Miller as assistant secretary in January 1915, "out of trouble."52 The quietly efficient and tough-minded Albright perfectly complemented the energetic, extroverted, if sometimes erratic, Stephen Mather.53 They quickly established a working relationship based on mutual trust and respect that is rare in any organization. Neither expected to remain in government service for more than a year.54 Fortunately they did not leave as they had anticipated. The subsequent history of the national parks and the National Park Service is inextricably bound up with the careers of these two remarkable men. Stephen Mather was a self-made millionaire, whose success in the private sector rested as much on his publicity skills as it did on organization ability. It is small wonder, then, that his first inclination as Assistant Secretary of the Interior was to launch a drive to give the national parks greater visibility. Directed by a former journalist, Robert Sterling Yard, the "educational campaign was a smashing success."55 Not only did park visitation increase dramatically that first year, but the resulting publicity played no little role in the successful effort to create a separate national park bureau.56 B. National Park Service Administration, 1916-1933 The decade-long effort to secure passage of a bill creating a parks bureau in the Department of the Interior had become bogged down by congressional indifference and a bitter conflict within the ranks of the conservationists. By the summer of 1916, however, those who championed the creation of a park bureau emerged victorious, and on August 25, President Woodrow Wilson signed "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes."57 The act provided for the creation of a National Park Service that would
As is so often the case, however, the act did not address a number of questions raised in the debates over it. Of particular importance here, it did not, as many of its supporters hoped it would, bring administration of all federal parks and monuments together in a single agency. That step would not be taken for nearly seventeen years. The act provided for appointment of a director, whose annual salary would be $4,500, an assistant director, chief clerk, draftsman, messenger, and "such other employees as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem necessary . . . ." Because no money for the new bureau was provided until April 17, 1917, the new organization could not be formed until that time, and the interim organization under Robert Marshall continued to function.58 Mather had originally intended that Marshall would be the first director of the new service. He had begun to lose confidence in Marshall's administrative ability, however, and at the end of the year, Marshall returned to his old position at Geologic Survey.59 Instead, Secretary Lane appointed Mather as first director and Albright as assistant director. Frank W. Griffith became chief clerk. Others in the office included Arthur E. Demaray and Isabelle Story from Marshall's staff, Nobel J. Wilt, a messenger, and five clerks.60 The year 1917 was not the most propitious time for launching a new federal bureau. On April 6 of that year the nation entered World War I, and money and attention were naturally diverted to the war effort. To make matters worse, Stephen Mather suffered a nervous collapse in January, and was hospitalized. It would be more than a year before he could return to work.61 That the agency took form, and was able to function as well as it did was a tribute to the ability of the twenty-seven-year-old acting director--Horace M. Albright.62 A wide range of policy and administrative issues, beyond the immediate organizational and funding questions, faced Albright and Mather when the latter returned to Washington. Relationships between the new central office and parks that traditionally had been independent had to be established. Both men wanted to put park administration on a "business-like" basis, using the expertise found in other governmental agencies to avoid unnecessary growth.63 Relationships with these organizations had to be worked out. The military still occupied Yellowstone National Park; as long as they were there, the National Park Service would not have full responsibility for the areas in its charge. In a wartime atmosphere, the very existence of parks was threatened. A clear policy regarding development had to be formulated. The national monuments suffered from years of neglect. These units had to be incorporated fully into the park system, and an effective method of administering them was necessary. Finally, it was clear that some additional parks to round out the system were needed. Yet no clear standards for national parks had heretofore been enunciated. These issues could not be dealt with in a vacuum. What was needed, despite Mark Daniels' efforts to do so in 1915,64 was the articulation of a general policy that would provide a sound basis for administration of the National Park System. On May 13, 1918, a letter from Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane to Mather did just that:
The principles enunciated were substantially reaffirmed by Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work seven years later,66 and again in 1932.67 They remain the foundation of National Park Service administration today. Stephen Mather served as director of the National Park Service for twelve years, retiring January 12, 1929.68 His replacement as director was Horace Albright, who for the previous ten years, had served as both superintendent of Yellowstone National Park and Assistant Director of the National Park Service (field).69 Few people have left a greater imprint on any organization than Stephen Mather left on the National Park Service. The record of his administration was remarkable. When he became director, the system consisted of fourteen national parks and twenty national monuments, with a total of 10,850 square miles.70 When he resigned, the system encompassed twenty national parks and thirty-two national monuments with a total area of 15,696 square miles.71 Just as important, Mather had managed to stave off a series of efforts to establish national parks that he believed to be inferior, and he defeated repeated efforts to exploit those that existed.72 He carried on the publicity campaign he had begun as Assistant Secretary of Interior, and in the process stamped the national parks indelibly into the American consciousness. Recognizing that "scenery is a hollow enjoyment to a tourist who sets out in the morning after an indigestible breakfast and fitful sleep on an impossible bed," Mather had made development of park facilities a high priority, and had developed a coherent concessions policy to insure visitor comfort.73 In 1918, after no little difficulty, Mather managed to secure removal of the troops from Yellowstone. After that date, the National Park Service was solely responsible for the areas under its charge.74 The impact of Mather's administration of the National Park Service is greater than the sum total of these accomplishments. With the help of Horace Albright, he built a small, overworked organization into one that came to enjoy a reputation for efficiency, responsiveness, and devotion to its charge unparalleled in the federal government. The men who guided the service until the end of the 1930s, moreover, had served under Stephen Mather. They did not deviate far from the course he had set. Even today, some fifty-three years after he left the service, the ideals and policies enunciated by Stephen Mather serve as a guide for the National Park Service. No person was better qualified to succeed Mather as director than Horace Albright. He had been deeply involved in the administration of the park system at all levels since 1913, and had, it will be recalled, served as acting director of the service in the first, difficult months after passage of the NPS enabling act. His four years as director during the early days of the Great Depression would confirm his stature as a skillful and far-seeing administrator. In December 1928, after it had become clear that he would be the new director, Albright wrote to Robert Sterling Yard, stating his conception of his role as director:
Albright's administration did not, as he indicated, represent a break with Mather's but was, rather, an extension of it. He fought to maintain the high standards for parks established by Mather, managing to bring in Carlsbad Caverns (May 14, 1930), Isle Royale (March 31, 1931), and Morristown (March 1, 1933), as well as eleven national monuments. 76 As had Mather, Albright successfully opposed inclusion of substandard areas and went a step further when he secured elimination of Sullys Hill, a clearly inferior park.77 Mather previously had obtained civil service coverage for park rangers; Albright continued the drive for professionalization of the Service by securing the same for superintendents and national monument custodians in 1931.78 In the early 1920s, Mather had instituted an education (interpretation) program with offices in Berkeley, California.79 Albright reorganized and coordinated the work by creating a Branch of Education in the Washington office, headed by Dr. Harold C. Bryant, whose title was Assistant Director in charge of Branch of Education.80 Mather was a brilliant, but sometimes erratic administrator, whose administrative style was a highly personal one. Albright took steps, as he said he would, to create a more orderly administration that depended less on personal relationships. Of particular importance in the 1930 reorganization of the service was the delegation of authority among staff officers, something Mather had been unable, or unwilling to do.81 None of this is to say that Albright was a mere shadow of his former boss. He was too forceful a man for that. Moreover, if anything, his view of the mission of the National Park Service was broader than Mather's. This was most vividly expressed in Albright's approach to historical areas. Mather increased appropriations for the national monuments while he was director.82 In 1923, moreover, he attempted to create a more effective administration of the national monuments in the Southwest by appointing Frank "Boss" Pinkley as Superintendent of the Southwest Monuments.83 Yet, his overriding concern was with the scenic areas of the system--he paid scant attention to the historical and prehistorical areas. Albright was a long-time history buff who believed that the National Park Service had a responsibility to preserve significant aspects of the nation s past along with the great scenic areas.84 With the able help of U.S. Representative Louis Cramton of Michigan, Albright brought the National Park Service much more deeply into the field of historic preservation.85 In 1930 Albright proudly reported that the establishment of George Washington Birthplace National Monument marked "the entrance of this service into the field of preservation on a more comprehensive scale."86 Establishment of George Washington Birthplace National Monument was followed closely by Colonial National Monument on July 3, 1930, and passage of a bill on March 2, 1933, establishing the first national historical park--Morristown.87 In 1931 Albright gave institutional status to a history program in the Park Service when he hired Dr. Verne E. Chatelain as chief of the division of history in Dr. Harold Bryant's branch of research and education.188">88 Perhaps Albright's greatest contribution to historic preservation in the National Park Service was in his efforts to secure administrative responsibility of the battlefields and other historical areas administered until 1933 by the War Department. Even before the Park Service existed, Albright believed they should be administered as part of the national park system.89 Beginning in 1917 he attempted to secure passage of a bill that would transfer administration of the areas to the Park Service.90 Effective August 10, 1933, just one day after Albright retired, Executive Order 6166 transferred all the historical battlefields and monuments administered by the War Department, sixteen national monuments under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Department, and the parks of the national capital to the Department of the Interior. C. Department of Agriculture Monuments, 1906-1933 As indicated previously, the Antiquities Act of 1906 left administration of federal parks and monuments fragmented between the departments. Between 1906 and 1933, six presidents set aside twenty-one national monuments on land administered by the Agriculture Department. All twenty-one, which were the responsibility of the Forest Service, were in the western states. Sixteen were judged significant because of their scientific value: Lassen Peak and Cinder Cone (May 16, 1908); Grand Canyon (January 11, 1908); Pinnacles (January 16, 1908); Jewel Cave (February 7, 1908); Wheeler (December 7, 1908); Mount Olympus (March 2, 1909); Oregon Caves (July 12, 1909); Devil's Postpile (July 6, 1911); Lehman Caves (January 24, 1922); Timpanogos Cave (October 14, 1922); Bryce Canyon (June 8, 1923); Chiricahua (April 18, 1924); Lava Beds (November 21, 1925); Holy Cross (May 11, 1929); Sunset Crater (May 26, 1930); and Saguaro (March 1, 1933).91 Five more were of historical importance: four of these--Gila Cliff Dwellings (November 16, 1907), Tonto (December 19, 1907), Walnut Canyon (November 30, 1915), and Bandelier (February 11, 1916)--were significant archeological remains in the Southwest. The fifth, Old Kasaan (October 15, 1910), was the ruins of a former Haida Indian village in Alaska.92 Five of the areas were transferred to the National Park Service before 1933. Grand Canyon, Lassen Peak and Cinder Cone, and Bryce formed the nuclei of national parks. Pinnacles and Bandelier were transferred for administrative purposes in 1910 and 1932, respectively.93 Before 1933 the Forest Service was able to turn aside all efforts to transfer administrative responsibility of the national monuments under its jurisdiction to the National Park Service, and they were a continuing irritant in relations between the two agencies throughout the period.94 Yet a review of the records indicate that Forest Service officials paid scant attention to the national monuments they administered. In 1916 the minutes of the Service Committee (Washington office staff) included this reference to a report compiled by a Forest Service employee:
The Service did not take the advice, however, and did not, apparently develop any standards or regulations governing the monuments beyond those developed jointly by the Secretaries of Agriculture, War, and Interior in 1906.96 Other than a simple listing, neither the annual reports of the Secretary of Agriculture nor the Forester during the period contain any references to the monuments. No single office in Washington, D.C., was charged with the responsibility of administering the national monuments. Rather, each monument was administered separately on the local level as part of the larger forest unit in which it was located.97 No separate appropriations were made for the monuments, and they received only minor part-time supervision.98 That supervision of the national monuments was not more than a minor undertaking by the Forest Service was indicated in statements regarding Executive Order 6166 in 1933. Transfer of the monuments would not be economical, said R.Y. Stuart, because
D. Military Park System to 1933 The Secretary of War, in addition, had jurisdiction over ten national monuments that had been set aside on military reservations. Five of these were military sites--Big Hole Battlefield, Montana (June 23, 1910); Fort Marion, Florida (October 15, 1924); Fort Matanzas, Florida (October 15, 1924); Fort Pulaski, Georgia (October 15, 1924); and Castle Pinckney, South Carolina (October 15, 1924). The rest were of a non-military nature: Cabrillo, California (October 14, 1913); Mound City, Ohio (March 2, 1923); Statue of Liberty, New York (October 15, 1924); Meriwether Lewis, Tennessee (February 6, 1925); and Father Millet Cross, New York (September 5, 1925). It is interesting to note that, of the ten monuments, only two were in the West, one was in the mid-West, and seven were in the East.100 Beginning on August 19, 1890, moreover, with the establishment of Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park, the secretary's jurisdiction was extended over what came to be, in effect, a national military park system.101 By 1933 this system, which was primarily in the East, consisted of four different types of units--eleven national military parks, twelve national battlefield sites, two national parks, and three miscellaneous monuments:102
According to the 1931 revised regulations for all sites under the jurisdiction of the War Department, the Office of the Quartermaster General in Washington had "charge of national military parks and national monuments and records pertaining thereto."107 Since the previous year, general administrative responsibility for a particular site belonged to the corps commander of the area in which it was located.108 On the site level, supervision was in the hands of a superintendent who, in the case of military sites, at least, had a military background and was able to demonstrate a passing knowledge of military history.109 In practice, however, administration of parks and monuments was much less orderly than it appeared to be on paper. At the Washington level, apparently, one or two part-time clerks in the Quartermaster General's office were assigned to oversee the "non-military function" (parks and monuments) along with their other duties.110 Actual administrative responsibility was divided between several offices. For a period, the district engineers were assigned responsibility for recommending establishment of national monuments.111 After 1926 the Adjutant General's office, through the Army War College, recommended the level of memorialization at the various areas.112 In the case of Chickamauga-Chattanooga, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Vicksburg, separate commissions, responsible to the Secretary of War, were effective administrators into the 1920s.113 From the perspective of the National Park Service, the War Department's administration of its parks and monuments was inadequate. It had not resulted in proper protection of the areas, nor had the War Department made an effort to develop an adequate program for the visiting public. The department had produced no literature to help visitors, and the paid guides that were available generally had little expertise.114 The 1931 War Department Regulations for military parks and monuments indicated that the areas were set aside to provide "inspirational value to future generations," and to provide visitors with the opportunity to study the actions that had taken place there.115 The latter was not interpreted to mean the casual visitor, however. The primary purpose behind establishment of military parks--and this was indicated in legislation, and repeated over and over again by professionals in the department and by Congressional supporters--was to set aside those areas that would serve as outdoor textbooks in strategy and battle tactics for serious students of military science.116 As such, the battlefields were to be maintained as nearly as possible as they were when the battles were fought. An examination of the available records indicates that while under the jurisdiction of the War Department, the battlefields fulfilled this function. E. National Capital Parks One final group of parks, memorials, and monuments that would come into the National Park System under Executive Order 6166 was the National Capital Parks system in Washington, D.C.117 With its origin in the 1790 act establishing the City of Washington, the National Capital Parks would become the oldest part of the system.118 The National Capital Parks included such sites as Washington Monument; Lincoln Memorial; Rock Creek Park; George Washington Memorial Parkway; sixty miscellaneous structures, memorials, and monuments scattered around the capital; Curtis-Lee Mansion in Virginia; and Fort Washington in Maryland.119 Beginning in 1925, administrative responsibility for the National Capital Parks was lodged in the Office of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, whose director was responsible to the president.120 The director had other duties. He was responsible for maintaining and caring for all public buildings in the city, including the White House.121 With the growth of the city, moreover, he had become a member and disbursing officer for a number of commissions established to facilitate completion of projects: Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission, Rock Creek and Potomac Park Commission, National Park and Planning Commission, Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia, National Memorial Commission, Lincoln Memorial Commission, Ericsson Memorial Commission, and Public Buildings Commission.122 From the first decade of the twentieth century, a growing number of the nation's preservationists/conservationists believed that the fragmentation of administration authority over the federal government's parks and monuments was neither economical nor effective in providing the proper protection for the areas set aside. After 1916 many of those individuals, although certainly not all, concluded that administration of the parks and monuments should be unified in the new park bureau. What followed was a seventeen-year-long campaign to unify administration of federal parks and monuments, that when successful in the reorganization of 1933, would transform the National Park Service. Chapter Two: Reorganization of Park Administration Introduction On June 10, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6166 which, among other things, combined "all functions of public buildings, national monuments, and national cemeteries" in an Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations--the renamed National Park Service. Far-reaching as this action proved to be for the National Park Service, it was not a radical innovation on Roosevelt's part. Rather, it was the culmination of a campaign to consolidate administration of all federal parks and monuments that began in the first decades of the 20th century. The Antiquities Act of 1906 left administration of the national monuments divided among the Departments of Interior, War, and Agriculture. Almost from the passage of the act, the nation's preservationists/conservationists recognized that such a fragmentation of authority was both uneconomical and inefficient. One of the first to address the problem within the government was Frank Bond, chief clerk of the General Land office. Speaking at the National Park Conference in 1911, Bond detailed the failures of the system as it existed, and concluded that
Almost five years later, H.R. 15522, introduced by Congressman William Kent of California, addressed the problem outlined by Frank Bond in 1911. Section 2 of his bill to create a National Park Service provided
A. The National Park Service and Forest Service The Forest Service opposed any attempt to transfer the national monuments under its jurisdiction, however. It marshaled its powerful lobby in opposition to Section 2, and managed to defeat it.3 The act that established the National Park Service did not include provisions transferring the national monuments from the War and Agriculture departments to the new bureau. The conflict over passage of the enabling act, and the effort to secure transfer of the monuments administered by the Agriculture Department, however, left a residue of bitterness that contributed to the continued friction that characterized relations between the Forest Service and National Park Service in the 1920s and 1930s. This friction was not merely bureaucratic wrangling between two highly aggressive bureaus, but was often, as described by the Forest Service's chief forester in 1921, "continued warfare."4 In public, at least, officials from both bureaus dismissed the notion of a conflict, insisting that the work of the two was complementary and their relationship harmonious. It is true that examples of cooperation between the two bureaus through the years are plentiful. Yet, each viewed the other warily, convinced that the other was working to absorb it. These concerns were, in fact, not unjustified. As early as 1906 and 1907, for example, Gifford Pinchot, then Chief Forester, had actively worked to transfer the national parks from Interior to the Forest Service.5 After the creation of the National Park Service, through the 1920s and into the 1930s, Forest Service and Department of Agriculture officials consistently argued that the National Park Service should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture.6 A clear assumption in this argument was that once transferred, the Park Service would be merged into the Forest Service. In 1923-24, 1928-29, and 1932-33, efforts to effect such a transfer would be made.7 Just as National Park Service officials worried that their agency would be absorbed by the Forest Service, officials in that agency were convinced that Park Service people were working behind the scene to transfer the Forest Service to the Interior Department. Efforts to consolidate administration over parks and monuments in the 1920s specifically referred only to transfer of sites administered by the War Department areas to the National Park Service. Forest Service officials clearly believed, however, that such a transfer would be merely a first step that would ultimately lead to transfer of all national monuments to the Park Service. Particularly after 1922, when Interior Secretary Albert Fall proposed transferring the national forests to the Interior Department, Forest Service officials viewed almost all National Park Service actions, and that included boundary adjustments, with considerable suspicion, if not hostility.8 B. Early Efforts to Transfer War Department Parks With passage of the National Park Service enabling act in 1916, a new personality emerged as a leader in the campaign to consolidate administration of the parks and monuments. More than anyone else, it was Horace Albright who kept the movement alive for seventeen years, and it was his political acumen that was largely responsible for the final success in 1933. Under Albright's leadership, the focus of the campaign shifted. As indicated, before 1916 efforts had been directed largely toward consolidating administration of the national monuments under one agency. Albright, on the other hand, would be concerned primarily with transferring the national military parks and battlefields under the jurisdiction of the War Department to the National Park Service. The new emphasis reflected Albright's long-standing interest in history. He argued, too, that coordination of the administration of those areas would assist in capturing American tourists who would spend their money at home, rather than in Europe, now that the great war was over.9 More important than either of these, however, was Albright's belief that such a transfer was necessary to insure the continued independence of the National Park Service. Almost all the War Department's areas were east of the Mississippi River, while Park Service areas were confined without exception to the western states Absorption of the military parks would allow the Service to extend its influence nationwide, and to build a national, not regional constituency. Such a national constituency would effectively guarantee that the National Park Service would not be absorbed by another federal agency.10 Albright lost no time, once passage of the National Park Service enabling act was assured and the organization was in place, in undertaking a publicity campaign aimed at securing transfer of the military parks. In the first annual report of the director of the National Park Service, Albright outlined his views in a section entitled, "National Parks in the War Department, Too:"
Each succeeding annual report included some similar statement.12 At the same time, Mather and Albright began to lobby with their counterparts in the War Department as well as with influential members of Congress. In August 1919, for example, Albright reported to Mather that he had been able to convince Senator Kenneth D. McKeller of Tennessee to support the principle of transfer of the military parks.13 The campaign carried on by Park Service officials was paralleled outside the government. As had been the case in the campaign to secure passage of the National Park Service enabling act, leadership here was provided by Horace J. McFarland, president of the American Civic Association. Never one to mince words, McFarland declared:
The first viable opportunity to effect a transfer of the War Department parks and monuments came on December 17, 1920, when the two houses of Congress established a joint committee to study a general reorganization of the executive departments.15 Nearly three years later, on February 13, 1923, President Warren G. Harding outlined the major reorganization proposals recommended by his cabinet. Along with such recommendations as the coordination of military and naval establishments under a Department of National Defense and a new Department of Education and Welfare was the transfer of nine national military parks to the Department of the Interior.16 The last recommendation had been prepared by Park Service officials and transmitted by Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall.17 Officials in the War Department generally supported the Park Service's efforts to effect the transfer of areas under their jurisdiction, largely because they were concerned over the expense generated in their administration. Secretary of War John W. Weeks testified in favor of the proposed transfer before the Joint Committee on Reorganization. While admitting under sharp questioning by the committee that there may have been cases where a battlefield should remain under the jurisdiction of the War Department, Weeks nevertheless was firm in his opinion that "the entire park system should be under one control."18 Members of the committee expressed skepticism at Weeks' assertion, however. Of particular concern, as evidenced by the questions they asked, was the apparent difficulty in clearly separating the military parks from military cemeteries. Transfer of the military parks to the Department of the Interior, they quite clearly believed, would inevitably lead to civilian control over military cemeteries.19 Whether as a result of this concern, or whether as Horace Albright later wrote, the proposal "got lost in the shuffle," transfer of the national military parks to the Department of the Interior was not included in the report issued by the Joint Committee on Reorganization.20 While the National Park Service hoped to use the general reorganization of the executive departments as a means of acquiring the national military parks, Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. Wallace advanced another proposal. In testimony before the joint committee, Wallace asserted that administration of the public domain, and that included the national parks and all national monuments, should be solely the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture.21 Wallace admitted that he was not prepared to say whether any economy would result from his proposal. Nevertheless, he argued that many of the problems facing the parks and forests were similar, and "as far as the parks are concerned, it would be practicable."22 Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, a long-time friend of the National Park Service, observed that any reorganization plan that proposed transfer of the national parks to the Department of Agriculture would not pass. With that observation, Secretary Wallace's suggestion died.23 Failure to secure transfer of the national military parks as part of a general reorganization of executive departments did not long deter Park Service officials. After 1924, according to Horace Albright, he and Mather worked hard to insure that a proposal calling for transfer of the national military parks would be a part of the program developed by President Calvin Coolidge's National Conference on Outdoor Recreation.24 Secretary of War Weeks resigned on October 12, 1925. Albright, Mather, and the new Secretary of the Interior, Hubert Work, immediately contacted his successor, Dwight F. Davis, to resume inter-departmental talks regarding transfer of the military parks.25 Despite some growing opposition at the lower echelons of his department, Davis was swayed by their arguments, and indicated that he would support another attempt to transfer the military parks. On April 20, 1928, a bill that had been drafted jointly by Interior and War Department staffs was sent to Congress, along with a letter signed by the two secretaries.26 Introduced by Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, Chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, S. 4173 went further than previous efforts, proposing to transfer all military parks, national parks, and national monuments from the War Department to the Department of the Interior.27 In addition, the bill provided for the transfer, as well, of all civilian employees and unexpended appropriations.28 Of particular interest, because it was apparently the first time the term was used, the bill provided for a new unit in the Park System--the National Historical Park.29 It is quite probable that this term reflected the direction of Horace Albright's thinking. Senator Nye's committee supported the proposal and reported it to the full Senate within two weeks, on May 3, 1928.30 In the House, however, the reception was quite different. Hearings were not held until the following winter.31 Although the bill was originally sent to the Committee on Public Lands where it would have been received more favorably, hearings were held before John M. Morin's Committee on Military Affairs. Horace Albright later wrote that the committee "was mildly hostile . . ., or at least the members present were not favorably disposed."32 Had the secretaries of War and Interior appeared before the committee in person, he continued, the result might have been different.33 An examination of the record of the hearings, however, suggests that in this case, the normally realistic Albright cast events in a too-favorable light. Congressmen Otis Bland, E.L. Davis, and S.D. McReynolds all either wrote letters or testified against the bill. Congressman Bland said that transfer of the military parks made "as much sense . . . as putting military instruction in a medical school," and Congressman McReynolds speculated that the National Park Service would "put yellow buses and [hot-dog] stands throughout . . . ."34 Clearly these congressmen and those on the committee believed that the purpose of areas administered by the two agencies was so different--the War Department areas for military instruction and memorialization while the National Park Service's areas were "pleasuring grounds"--that one agency could not possibly be equipped to deal with both.35 As had been the case in 1924, both the congressmen who testified against the bill and committee members were particularly concerned that the transfer would lead to civilian control of military cemeteries.36 Horace Albright, who was by now the Director of the National Park Service, and Charles B. Robbins, Assistant Secretary of War, testified as best they could under sometimes almost sarcastic questioning. They could not, however, overcome the opposition of the committee. The tone of the hearings was a clear signal of the outcome, and, as expected, the committee took no action. Albright did attempt to secure another hearing, but when that failed the bill died in committee.37 Disappointed as he must have been over the failure of the House committee to act on S. 4173, Horace Albright was not one to long nurse his bruises. In March 1929, a new president, Herbert C. Hoover, was inaugurated. Within weeks Albright initiated discussions regarding transfer of War Department areas with the new secretaries of War and Interior, John W. Good and Ray L. Wilbur.38 Both men, who were old acquaintances of Albright's, proved receptive to the idea. Wilbur further indicated that President Hoover intended to seek authority from Congress for a general reorganization of the executive departments. He assured Albright that any reorganization would include transferring "historic sites from other agencies" to the National Park Service.39 President Hoover, himself, obviously intended to transfer the national monuments from the War and Agriculture Departments to the National Park Service. On May 15, 1929, he wrote his Attorney General William D. Mitchell, requesting his opinion as to whether such an action could be taken without specific legislative authority.40 On July 8, 1929, Mitchell replied that in his opinion, such an action would infringe on the constitutional prerogatives of Congress, and would be illegal in the absence of legislation to that effect.41 Meanwhile, work on a general reorganization of the executive continued. In October 1929 Secretary Wilbur sent an Interior Department plan to an interdepartmental coordinating committee created to evaluate such proposals. Included in Wilbur's reorganization plan was a request to transfer "historic sites and structures in other departments, especially the War Department" to the National Park Service.42 A new element was added to the proposed transfer when Wilbur requested that the parks and buildings in Washington, D.C., also be transferred to the National Park Service.43 From time to time, over the next several years, President Hoover sent messages to Congress regarding reorganization of the executive branch. It was not until June 1932, however, that Congress finally provided him with the specific authority he needed to proceed.44 On December 9, 1932, one month after he had been defeated at the polls, President Hoover submitted a general reorganization proposal to Congress, as required. Included were some, but not all, elements of the Interior Department's reorganization plan submitted three years earlier. The proposal would have created a number of divisions within Interior. Among those agencies grouped under a Division of Education, Health and Recreation, were the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Public Health Service, Division of Vital Statistics, and National Park Service.45 As Park Service officials hoped it would, the plan would have transferred the national parks, monuments, and certain national cemeteries in the War Department to the National Park Service.46 Although Secretary Wilbur had proposed transferring the National Capital Parks, the Office of Public Buildings and Parks, which administered those parks, would have been transferred from its position as an independent agency to the proposed Division of Public Works in the Interior Department.47 From the first days of the Hoover administration it had been anticipated, apparently, that President Hoover's proposed reorganization proposal would provide for the transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, or possibly for the establishment of a Conservation Department which would combine all federal land-use agencies.48 Former Representative Louis Cramton, who now served as a special attorney on the staff of Secretary Wilbur, proposed the former, while President Hoover had noted the wisdom of the latter in a December 3, 1929, message to Congress.49 Both proposals were highly controversial, and either would have raised considerable opposition both in Congress and outside the government. The decision not to include either in a general reorganization proposal was certainly a wise one. The legislation that provided President Hoover with the authority to reorganize the executive branch included a provision requiring that the proposals be forwarded to Congress for sixty days before becoming effective.50 Congress rarely has been willing to give much cooperation to a lame-duck president, particularly when one was as thoroughly repudiated by the voters as Herbert Hoover was in 1932. It should not have been surprising to anyone that a broad-ranging reorganization such as the one he proposed would not be approved. Earlier in the year, another bill, H. R. 8502, introduced by Representative Ross A. Collins of Mississippi, provided for transfer of the War Department parks and monuments to the Department of the Interior.51 The bill, which was nearly identical to S. 4173, introduced by Senator Nye in 1927, was drafted by the Interior Department staff at Congressman Collins' request.52 The National Park Service prepared a favorable report on the bill, and in a January 28, 1932, letter to the Secretary of War, Interior Secretary Wilbur reaffirmed his support of the proposal.53 Hearings were never held on the bill, however, quite possibly because of the anticipated reorganization of the executive branch.54 While President Hoover's reorganization proposal was before Congress, another bill, this one proposing transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior was before the House Agricultural Committee.55 H.R. 13857, introduced by Representative Eaton, was apparently never given serious consideration. C. Reorganization of 1933 The change in administrations in March 1933 posed potentially serious problems for the National Park Service's campaign to unify administration of all national parks and monuments. From the beginning the Service had stood above partisan politics. Despite the fact that he diligently sought to preserve that tradition, Horace Albright had become identified closely enough with the Hoover administration that he harbored some concern that he would be replaced by the incoming administration.56 Harold L. Ickes, President Roosevelt's choice as Secretary of the Interior, asked Albright to stay on, however. Within a short time, Albright would emerge as a close and influential advisor to the irascible Secretary of the Interior.57 Albright lost no time, once it was clear his job was secure, in approaching Ickes regarding transfer of the military parks. Within days after Ickes had taken office and begun to settle in his new job, Albright had won his approval of the proposal.58 In the first hectic week of the New Deal, moreover, Albright had met with and secured the approbation of George Dern, the new Secretary of War.59 More importantly, because of the close relationship developed with Ickes, Albright soon found himself in a position to present his case at length with the one man who could guarantee its success--Franklin D. Roosevelt. On April 9, 1933, Albright was among the invited guests on an excursion to former President Hoover s camp on the Rapidan River in nearby Virginia.260">60 As they prepared to return to Washington, Roosevelt asked Albright to ride along in his touring car. Never one to be reticent, or to miss an opportunity, Albright used a discussion of Civil War battles to press his case for transfer of the War Department parks. Roosevelt had decided to reorganize the executive branch within weeks of his inauguration.61 In what must have almost been an anticlimax to some sixteen years of effort, Roosevelt asked no questions, but merely agreed that it should be done, and told Albright to present the proper material to Lewis Douglas, chief of staff for reorganization activities.62 Some anxious moments followed. In early 1933 Gifford Pinchot, who was a long-time acquaintance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and others had revived efforts to transfer the National Park Service to the Department of Agriculture, where it would be merged with the Forest Service. 63 In mid-April, both Albright and Ickes heard rumors that suggested Albright had seriously misinterpreted the president in their April 9 discussion regarding reorganization--that reorganization in the Roosevelt administration would result in transfer of the National Park Service to the Department of Agriculture.64 An early May meeting with Lewis Douglas reassured Albright, however, and the NPS director promptly submitted his proposals for transfer of the War Department parks and monuments.65 The proposals Albright submitted to the reorganization committee were modest--the same, essentially, that the National Park Service had been supporting since 1916.66 He certainly was not prepared for the scope of the proclamation that emerged. Executive Order 6166, issued on June 10, 1933, and effective sixty days later, dealt with a wide range of agencies and functions--procurement investigations, statistics of cities, insular counts, and Internal Revenue were only a few of the subjects addressed. Section 2 spoke directly to the National Park Service:
Not only would the Park Service inherit the War Department parks and monuments as Albright had proposed, but also all national monuments within the continental United States, the national monuments administered by the Forest Service, the parks, monuments, and public buildings in the District of Columbia, and some elsewhere in the country,68 the Fine Arts Commission, and the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Especially galling to Park Service employees, was the provision in Executive Order 6166 that changed the name of the National Park Service to the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations.69 Albright had seen a draft of the proposed executive order at a second meeting with Lewis Douglas in May.70 In the face of Douglas's growing impatience, he argued that Arlington and other national cemeteries still open for burial should remain under the jurisdiction of the War Department, that only those buildings that were clearly monumental in character--the White House, Washington Monument, and Lincoln Memorial, for example--should be transferred, that the Fine Arts Commission and National Capital Park and Planning Commission should remain independent, and that the name, "National Park Service," should be retained.71 After consulting with Ickes and Frederic A. Delano, however, Albright decided further opposition to the proposal would jeopardize all that he had worked for.72 The wisest course of action would be to accept the proposal as drafted, and work to reverse these elements that he considered objectionable after the president issued the order. For the next month, Albright did just that. On July 28, largely as a result of his well-orchestrated campaign, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6228, an order that clarified Section 2 of Executive Order 6166, "postponing until further order," transfer of Arlington and other cemeteries still open for burial, while leaving the cemeteries associated with historical areas in the soon-to-be Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations.73 In addition, Albright was able to secure separation of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and Fine Arts Commission, save for some administrative functions.74 He saw no immediate chance of restoring the name, however, and decided to postpone that battle to a later date. It was not until March 10, 1934, that his successor, Arno B. Cammerer, was able to announce that the old name had been restored.75 Writing about the events leading up to the reorganization of 1933 some years later, Horace Albright said that when he first saw a draft of Executive Order 6166, he "was stunned by its scope."76 He was most certainly not the only person in Washington that reacted that way. Particularly surprising to Park Service officials must have been the reaction of the War Department. Since the early 1920s, successive Secretaries of War had registered support for transfer of War Department parks and monuments to Interior, and had testified so before Congressional committees. In February 1932 Patrick Hurley had reaffirmed that position, and Albright had secured George Dern's approval in March 1933.77 After June 10, 1933, however, it became evident that sentiment for transferring the parks and monuments came more from political appointees who headed the War Department than from professional officers there. Perhaps the most vocal opponent of transferring the War Department areas was Colonel Howard E. Landers, who, according to Verne Chatelain, fought it "tooth and nail."78 Since the 1920s, Colonel Landers had been responsible for investigating battlefields for commemorative purposes, and as such was more knowledgeable than anyone else with the War Department's administration of military parks and battlefields. He was a frequent critic of the War Department's administration, particularly in what be believed to have been the failure to properly use the data he collected.79 His criticism may have been misinterpreted by Park Service officials, for whatever feelings Colonel Landers had regarding use of his material, he had never favored transfer of military parks to the Interior Department.80 According to Dr. Chatelain, Colonel Landers felt strongly enough to send a memorandum to President Roosevelt in an effort to prevent transfer after June 10, 1933.81 Colonel Landers was the most vocal opponent, but he was not the only person in the War Department who expressed misgivings once transfer became fact. There is no question that these misgivings were raised to a large extent because of the inclusion of the national cemeteries in the transfer order. In general, though, the impression that emerges from Park Service records is that despite years of official approbation of the principle of transfer, the War Department's attitude was one of reluctance that sometimes bordered on resistance or non-cooperation, once that transfer was ordered. This attitude was not confined to the military professionals in the department. On June 21, 1933, Harry Woodring, Acting Secretary of War, wrote to President Roosevelt to request that all military cemeteries, including those on or adjacent to the military parks and battlefields, be excluded in the executive order. They were all, he wrote, military in nature, and the Department of the Interior could not possibly "be as interested in the proper maintenance of these cemeteries as the War Department."82 The next day Woodring sent another letter to the president, this time to request postponement of the effective date of Executive Order 6166 until all plans for improvements at the various areas--and he indicated these were extensive--were accomplished, and work on the establishment of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Petersburg, and King's Mountain was completed.83 In closing Woodring seemingly took a position that would have pleased even the most vociferous opponent of transfer:
As Park Service staff took the first steps to effect transfer, they reported back a general lack of full cooperation on the part of their counterparts in the War Department. On July 7, for example, Chief Clerk R. M. Holes reported that Lieutenant Colonel J. H. Laubach, Chief, Memorial Section, Quartermaster's Office, would not provide him with any definitive information regarding the number of field employees at the various military parks.85 On the same day, E. E. Tillet reported to Arthur Demaray that he had been able to obtain very little information from an interview with the same office.86 Park Service officials were no more interested in obtaining the cemeteries open for burial than War Department personnel were in giving them up. In fact it was Horace Albright who took the lead in reversing that portion of Executive Order 6166.87 Officials in the Interior Department made considerable effort to reassure War Department staff that the military flavor of the areas would not be altered, that the agency was well equipped to administer the areas effectively, and that the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations would consult with the War Department on matters involving the military parks, battlefields, and historic cemeteries.88 Few in the War Department seem to have been implacable in their opposition to transfer. With the assurances made by Ickes to George Dern and after postponement of the transfer of Arlington and other cemeteries open for burial, resistance in the War Department, save for some occasional instances of footdragging at the local level, disappeared.89 On August 10, 1933, eleven national military parks, two national parks, ten battlefield sites, ten national monuments, three miscellaneous memorials, and eleven national cemeteries that had been administered by the War Department were formally transferred to the Department of the Interior.90 After that date, there is no evidence of any significant friction between the departments resulting from transfer. Nor did the War Department make any effort to regain control of the areas transferred. Perhaps even more surprising than the misgivings first expressed by War Department officials to Executive Order 6166 was the initial response of the Forest Service. Given the history of relations between the two agencies, Horace Albright had every right to expect that Forest Service officials would immediately fight any effort to transfer the national monuments as they had on previous occasions. Yet, the initial response to the order by the bureau's Washington office was no response at all. It was not until July 24, 1933, less than three weeks before the end of the sixty-day contesting period, that the Washington office appears to have justify">become aware of Executive Order 6166.91 When he contacted the Budget Office the next day, Chief Forester L.F. Kneipp's response was surprisingly mild:
He continued that because national forest status for the areas was not revoked, the order had the effect of transferring administration of the national forests as well.293">93 Ben W. Twight speculated that the delay in reaction suggests that Forest Service officials were simply not consulted prior to the date the order was issued.94 Yet, it was no secret that President Roosevelt had secured authority to reorganize the executive branch and had established an inter-departmental committee to coordinate reorganization efforts within a month of his inauguration. Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace was aware, surely, of reorganization, and knew that it would somehow involve his department. On April 18 he discussed the possibility of combining the Forest Service and Park Service in a department with Ickes.95 On April 20 Ickes wrote in his diary that he had received a copy of a letter that Gifford Pinchot had written President Roosevelt protesting transfer of the Forest Service to Interior.96 Even had Forest Service officials been unaware of all that was happening before June 10, 1933, Executive Order 6166 was made public as a congressional document on that date. Given their past responses to similar suggestions, the failure of Forest Service officials to react to the loss of the national monuments under their jurisdiction for six weeks is something that defies explanation. Whatever the reason, by the time Forest Service officials finally reacted to the order, there was little they could do to reverse it. For a short time, apparently some in the Washington office considered appealing to Congress to block the order, but quickly rejected that avenue as impolitic.97 The only realistic possibility they had of reversing the order was in convincing the Secretary of the Interior that:
August 10, 1933, the day that Executive Order 6166 became effective, came and went without any official request from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior to exclude the national monuments from provisions of the order. On August 26, Assistant Chief Forester Kneipp indicated that the monuments were still being administered by the Forest Service:
By late September, however, the decision to bring all the monuments, not just eight, into the Interior Department had been made. On September 29 Ickes notified the Agriculture Department that Interior was prepared to assume jurisdiction of all national monuments administered by Agriculture, unless he received some official request for their retention as a facility to the work of the Forest Service.100 On the same day, Secretary of Agriculture Wallace wrote Ickes requesting just that. Basing his arguments on the department's solicitors opinion, and echoing the arguments advanced by L.F. Kneipp on July 25, 1933, Wallace recommended that the fifteen monuments be excluded as "facilities essential to the work of this Department, or to the redemption of the responsibilities imposed upon it by law."101 Acting on the advice of Departmental Solicitor Nathan Margold, Ickes rejected Wallace's recommendation, and on November 11, indicated that Interior was prepared to assume jurisdiction over the fifteen national monuments "at once."102 It was not until January 28, 1934, however, that Ickes was finally able to inform Lewis Douglas that the Forest Service was in full compliance with Executive Order 6166, and that the administration of the fifteen national monuments had been transferred to the Department of the Interior.103 Transfer of jurisdiction over the national monuments from the Forest Service on January 18, 1934, did not mean, however, that the issue was laid to rest. Nor did it significantly reduce the rivalry that had existed between the Forest Service and National Park Service. In February 1934, for example, Secretary Ickes rejected a new Forest Service appeal that the Department of the Interior recognize the jurisdiction of the Forest Service over the national monuments transferred by Executive Order 6166.104 On March 12, 1934, Arno Cammerer complained that "subtle opposition" that came largely from field men in the Forest Service had been ever-present since June 10, 1933, and Forest Service opposition would play a major role in delaying enactment of the Park, Parkway, and Recreation-Area Act.105 The differences continued through much of the decade, becoming particularly heated as a result of Harold Ickes efforts to remodel the Interior Department into a Department of Conservation which would have incorporated the Forest Service.106 In 1936, the park lobbyist Rosalee Edge commented on the relations between the agencies in a way that must have echoed National Park Service officials:
In 1939, leaders of both agencies, finally wearied of long years of controversy, set out to find a way to settle their differences. In that year they set up a joint committee to find compromise solutions to the thorny problems of park extensions. The move would prove to be the first step in a major rapprochement. While the two bureaus would still clash occasionally, much of the bitterness that characterized their relations gradually disappeared. Following World War II, a willingness to cooperate with each other became predominant.108 Reaction of National Park Service employees to Executive Order 6166, beyond a universal condemnation of the name change, was mixed. Even before June 10, 1933, there were those who believed that the bureau and system were growing too fast. Conrad L. Wirth, Assistant Director, Branch of Planning, spoke for many when he observed on February 24, 1933, that the service might be wise to retrench for a period.109 Such a policy, he said, would assist the Service in dealing with budget cutbacks, allow it to develop and maintain the system, and to blunt growing criticism that the National Park Service was an expansionist bureau.110 While there were many in the Service who agreed with Horace Albright that expansion of the system into the east was a necessary and commendable step, others, and this was particularly true of "old-line" NPS people, believed that incorporation of non-scenic, eastern areas weakened the standards established by Stephen Mather and Horace Albright.111 Whatever the feelings of NPS employees, it is clear that no event in NPS history, save passage of the enabling act itself, had a more profound impact on the National Park System and the bureau that administers it. In terms of size alone, the number of units more than doubled--sixty-seven to 137.112 The number of natural areas increased from forty-seven to fifty-eight while the number of historical areas nearly quadrupled, increasing from twenty to seventy-seven.113 Important as it was in terms of numbers, the impact of Executive Order 6166 cannot be discussed in terms of size alone, for the location and diversity of the areas was just as important. Inclusion of the National Capital Parks brought the National Park Service into metropolitan urban parks. George Washington Memorial Parkway represented a new type of unit in the National Park System, one which was predominantly neither historical nor natural, but recreational. Horace Albright has over the years considered the impact of Executive Order 6166. He did feel, upon reflection, that in the haste to send information forward, the Service failed to include some sites it should have had--the Andersonville Prison site and cemetery in Georgia, for example.114 But, he wrote in 1971, the order made the National Park Service a truly national bureau, with a national constituency. The Service became the primary federal entity responsible for the administration of historical and archeological sites and structures, and he might have added, the leader in the field of historic preservation. Finally, Executive Order 6166 was almost a declaration of independence for the National Park Service. The Service became a strong bureau that would never again be threatened with consolidation with another.115 With the success of his efforts to consolidate administrative control of the national military parks and battlefields and national monuments, Horace Albright decided it was time to step aside as Director of the National Park Service and accept one of the several offers he had received from the private sector. On July 5, 1933, he tendered his resignation to Secretary Ickes. He left the Park Service after having served as Director some four years on August 9, the day before Executive Order 6166 went into effect.116 Albright was replaced as director by Arno B. Cammerer, who had served as assistant director, then associate director since 1919.117 It would be up to the quiet, hardworking Cammerer to deal with the far-ranging impact of Executive Order 6166. D. Additional Areas, 1934-1939 If the huge increase in number of areas and personnel that were a result of reorganization in 1933 were not enough to tax any man and organization, Cammerer and the Park Service would have to grapple with the addition of seven natural areas, seventeen historical areas, and six recreational areas in the next six years.118 Moreover, the National Park Service would be a key agency in President Roosevelt's efforts to solve the nation's economic ills--and the impact of those programs would be staggering. Chapter Three: Impact of the New Deal on the National Park Service Introduction The year 1933 served as a watershed in the development of the National Park Service. Not only did the reorganization in that year substantially increase and diversify the areas administered by the bureau, but the variety of New Deal emergency work relief programs that were passed provided the Service with a massive infusion of personnel and funds to accomplish long-term development projects in the parks that had been contemplated for more than a decade but that had been postponed because regular appropriations and manpower had only been sufficient to meet immediate requirements. Throughout the 1930s various New Deal programs and agencies continued to provide funding and personnel to the National Park Service for a wide variety of park-related development projects with the result that developments in the national, state, county, and municipal parks were carried forward fifteen to twenty years ahead of schedule had regular manpower and appropriations been relied upon. Regular appropriations for the administration, protection, and maintenance of the national parks and monuments increased from $10,820,620 in fiscal year 1933 to $26,959,977.29 in 1939 before being drastically reduced to $13,557,815 with the onset of war in Europe in fiscal year 1940.1 Skyrocketing emergency relief and public works appropriations during that time underwrote much of the Park Service's expansion and park-development projects. From 1933 to 1937, for example, the Park Service received emergency appropriations amounting to $40,242,691.97 from the Public Works Administration (PWA), $24,274,090.89 from the Works Progress Administration (WPA), $82,250,467.66 from the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and $2,490,678 from the Civil Works Administration (CWA). By 1940 the bureau had received some $218,000,000 for emergency conservation projects compared to some $132,000,000 in regular appropriations during the same period.2 In its response to the urgencies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's domestic program, exemplified by its active participation in the CCC program and collaboration with New Deal agencies that funded public works construction, the bureau's programs became an integral part of the New Deal's fight against the depression. Almost all federal conservation activities after 1933, including those in the national parks and monuments, were designed in part as pump-priming operations that would not only protect our national resources but also indirectly stimulate the economy.3 This chapter will summarize the accomplishments and impact on the National Park Service of the five principal New Deal emergency relief and public works agencies during the 1930s--Emergency Conservation Work Organization (ECW) that directed the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Civil Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration. A. Emergency Conservation Work--Civilian Conservation Corps Probably the most popular emergency relief work program in the 1930s was the CCC,4 one of President Roosevelt's pet projects that received top priority in the early New Deal period. The leaders of the National Park Service recognized that the CCC was a potential bonanza for the national parks Horace Albright, who represented the Department of the Interior on the CCC advisory council, put considerable effort into getting the program started in the spring and summer of 1933. From the beginning, the CCC was able to accomplish useful work in the parks because each unit in the park system had prepared a master plan for developmental and protective work that was generally kept six years ahead of date in order to provide a full program of long-term development in the event that appropriations were enlarged in any year. These plans were quickly refurbished in early 1933 because Albright and his associates in the Washington office had anticipated that the national parks might be used for economic "pump-priming" public works projects.5 The Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, selected all CCC camp locations and work in the National Park System, furnished equipment and transportation for such projects, and provided for the technical planning, supervision, and execution of the work in the parks and monuments. fn addition, it made recommendations on all projects in state parks and cooperated with state authorities in supervising, assisting, and advising in the conduct of work on such projects. The department, which directed CCC operations in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands, was also responsible for the entire CCC program within Indian reservations, through its Office of Indian Affairs.6 During the spring of 1933 the National Park Service began to develop an organization to direct the activities of the CCC under its charge. Horace Albright was replaced by Director Cammerer as the Interior Department representative on the advisory council in August 1933 upon his resignation. Associate Director Arthur E. Demaray served as the alternate on the advisory council. Chief Forester John D. Coffman became the liaison officer for the various bureaus of the Department of the Interior and supervised the program for the national parks and monuments. Other Park Service personnel were also assigned to various supervisory roles in the CCC work in the National Park System:
Assistant Director Conrad L. Wirth, Chief of the Branch of Planning, directed the State Park ECW with the assistance of Herbert Evison, who also served as executive secretary of the National Conference on State Parks. The field organization of the State Park ECW was decentralized by dividing the United States into four districts each with a district office (Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis, Indiana; Denver, Colorado; and San Francisco, California) headed by a district officer--a development that foreshadowed the regionalization of the Park Service some three years later. Attached to the district offices were staffs of inspectors who were in continuous contact with the project work as well as the supervisory personnel on the work site.7 The field organization of the National Park Service consisted of a project supervisor in each camp under whom was an engineer, technical forester, landscape architect, and various historical and wildlife technicians. The company of enrollees was divided into sections and subsections, each led by one of these men and performing its own particular function.8 On April 29, 1933, Director Robert Fechner of the CCC approved recommendations for various types of work in the state parks that had been drawn up by Park Service officials and submitted by Secretary Ickes. It was noted that:
The following types of work were approved:
In his annual report in June 1933 Director Albright commented on the objectives of the CCC and the work already underway through its auspices:
Concerning the initial implementation of the CCC activities under the bureau's supervision, he noted:
In his report Albright described the efforts of a CCC camp performing highway beautification work along the approach highway to Acadia National Park between Ellsworth and Bar Harbor, Maine. This project was undertaken at the
In June 1934 Director Cammerer noted that some 100,000 young men had been engaged in CCC work under the direction of some 4,000 professionally and technically trained Park Service personnel since the inception of the program:
Cammerer also summarized the advantages of increasing cooperation with state, and, to a lesser extent, county and municipal agencies through the CCC program: There can be no doubt that the Emergency Conservation Work program has been to a very large degree responsible both for increased interest in all types of parks in which it is being carried on and for the tremendous increase in State park acreage. Much of this increase in State park lands has come through donations by private individuals or corporations, although a number of States have continued or resumed park-land purchases. In some instances county or city funds have been expended in the purchase of desirable park lands. In many cases, the comprehensive planning required by the Park Service as a basis for Emergency Conservation Work, has indicated serious deficiencies in a number of parks which have been remedied in one way or another. In June 1935 it was reported that 150,000 young men had been engaged in CCC work to date under the direction of some 6,000 Park Service supervisory personnel. During the enrollment period from October 1, 1934, to March 31, 1935, there were 79 camps operating in the National Park System and 293 in the state and related areas. Total expenditures for the Park Service phase of the ECW program to date amounted to $44,710,730. Effective March 1, 1935, the alignment of the four district CCC offices had been expanded to include eight regions with regional offices in Springfield, Massachusetts; Bronxville, New York; Richmond, Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; Indianapolis, Indiana; Omaha, Nebraska; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and San Francisco, California.12 In June 1935, after the CCC program had been in operation for two years, Director Fechner issued a summary report on the accomplishments of ECW. He observed that through "Emergency Conservation Work the development of the Nation's recreational areas has been advanced further than would have been possible in 10 or 20 years under the old order that prevailed prior to initiation of the C.C.C." The specific work projects which had been completed would aid "field officers of the National Park Service in an effective manner to conserve and preserve natural features. Protection against fire, insect infestation, blister rust, and tree disease; roadside fixation; and erosion control have been major phases of the activity." Furthermore, CCC activities had aided "in developing, protecting, and perpetuating natural areas, in protecting and preserving wildlife, in restoring battlefield sites, in providing guide service, and in developing various facilities which will provide the means for our citizens to reach and utilize the scenic and primitive areas without despoiling them." Among the most notable projects Fechner described were the clearing and cleanup of some 3,199 acres of piled-up and fallen timber on the shores of Jackson Lake in Wyoming and soil erosion work on 442 acres and seeding and sodding of 117 acres at Vicksburg National Military Park. Control of forest fires within the areas supervised by the National Park Service was a valuable contribution of the CCC--69,984 man-days used in fighting fires; 43,885 man-days devoted to fire presuppression and prevention; 1,000 miles of protection trails built; and construction of numerous lookout houses, fire-tool caches, boat docks, and telephone and radio installations. Forest insect infestation control had been carried out over an area of 272,080 acres in the National Park System, the major portion of this work being directed against the bark beetle in the western coniferous forests. The relief model, diorama, and museum exhibit laboratories at Fort Hunt, Virginia, and Berkeley, California, had prepared numerous materials to enhance the interpretive programs of the areas in the National Park System. Some twenty-three CCC camps were assigned to development and restoration work in historical areas, including Jamestown, Morristown, and the Civil War battlefields near Richmond Virginia--work that "was founded on intensive and careful historical and archeological research." Following these steps conservation work was undertaken in the historical areas--erosion control, fertilization, planting, fire-prevention measures to protect historic buildings and invaluable records, and construction of safe roads to make historical points of interest accessible to the public. Land acquisition programs were also underway in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Mammoth Cave National Park, Shenandoah National Park, and Colonial National Monument. Fechner observed that interest "among the States in the State park phase of Emergency Conservation Work has been intense." A few states with established park programs, such as New York, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, California, and Michigan, "eagerly grasped the opportunity it presented." Five states which possessed no parks when the CCC was established had acquired properties for integration into comprehensive park systems. Up to April 1, 1935, approximately 457,000 acres were added to the state park systems, bringing the total to 3,650,000 acres. The state park program combined conservation, recreation, restoration, rehabilitation, and the protection of wildlife with the basic purpose of the program being the "conservation of the valuable natural resources that properly selected State parks contain." This underlying purpose was supplemented by "provision of camp grounds, picnic grounds, shelters, and bathing, boating, and fishing facilities, with pure and adequate water supply and necessary sanitary installations for the safety and comfort of the public." The accomplishments of the state park division up to June 30, 1935, were:
On January 15, 1936, the administration of ECW activities in the National Park System which had been handled by Chief Forester John D. Coffman since inception of CCC work, was consolidated with the administration of the larger State Park ECW program in a newly-created Branch of Recreation, Land Planning, and State Cooperation. As the head of this new branch, Conrad Wirth was named to replace Director Cammerer as the representative of the Department of the Interior on the ECW advisory council.14 During fiscal year 1936 the number of CCC camps operating in the national parks and monuments varied from a high of 117 in November 1935 to a low of 80 in February and March 1936. The number of camps in state parks declined from a high of 457 in October 1935 to a low of 345 in June 1936. Ten camps with 1,200 enrollees were in Hawaii, one of which was in Hawaii National Park, and two 100-man camps were operating in the Virgin Islands. Land acquisition programs using ECW funds were underway in Big Bend, Isle Royale, and Mammoth Cave national parks during the year. Historic interpretation and restoration in the National Park System were augmented by the restoration efforts at Fort Necessity National Battlefield and the acquisition of the Crater property for inclusion in Petersburg National Military Park.15 During fiscal year 1938 the Park Service had technical supervision over 52,600 CCC enrollees in 324 camps, down from 444 camps in operation during the preceding year. The year closed with 294 camps assigned to the bureau, compared with 418 on July 1, 1937.16 These included 78 in the continental national parks and monuments and 216 in state, county, and metropolitan parks and recreation areas and recreational demonstration areas. In addition ten camps with 800 enrollees were engaged in Hawaii, reducing the wild boar, sheep, and goats that were destroying vegetation and preventing natural regeneration. By the end of the year, 10,725,000 trees had been planted on 21,450 acres in Hawaii since the program had commenced. Some 400 enrollees were engaged in widening, realigning, and rehabilitating old roads on St. Thomas and St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. The CCC workers were engaged in a variety of projects under the direction of the National Park Service during fiscal year 1938. Some 2,300 enrollees continued projects in recreational demonstration areas and other assisted with the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study, both of which subjects will be treated more fully in chapter four of this study. Of special note among CCC achievements that were initiated or completed during the year were: dams at Swift Creek and Montgomery Bell recreational demonstration areas in Virginia and Tennessee, respectively; mountain drives at Darling, Ascutney, and Okemo state forest parks in Vermont; protective sea groins at Fort Clinch State Park, Florida; horse, foot, and truck trail systems in Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah national parks and Colonial National Monument; lodges at Tishomingo State Park, Mississippi, and Margaret Lewis Norrie State Park, New York; an archeological museum at Mound Park, Alabama; historical restoration work at Fort Frederick, Maryland, Fort Clinch, Florida, Fort Morgan, Alabama, Hopewell Village in French Creek Recreational Demonstration Area, Pennsylvania, and La Purisima Mission near Lompoc, California; initial construction of a major campground at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park; landscaping roadsides of the Falls River Pass road and development of Falls River Pass and Timber Creek campgrounds, complete with water and sanitary facilities, in Rocky Mountain National Park; development of boat dock, warehouse, office, residence, and sewer and water facilities for the headquarters area on Mott Island in the authorized Isle Royale National Park; flood control, drainage work, and recreational development in the Skokie Valley outside Chicago, Illinois, and the Milwaukee River and other streams leading to Milwaukee, Wisconsin; commencement of construction of Red Rocks Amphitheatre near Denver, Colorado, and the Mountain Theatre in Mount Tamalpais State Park in Marin County, California; development of winter sports facilities at Grayling Winter Sports Area in Michigan, Rib Mountain State Park, Wisconsin, and Hyde State Park, near Santa Fe, New Mexico; restoration of Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon National Monument using the services of a mobile unit of Navajo Indians; development of Farmington Bay Waterfowl Refuge on the shores of Great Salt Lake, Utah; and construction of the Boulder City airport and archeological excavations in Boulder Dam National Recreation Area.17 The 1939 fiscal year witnessed continued advancement of federal, state, and local park programs under the National Park Service with the aid of CCC manpower and funds. Operations were carried on by an average of 54,410 enrollees in 312 camps. In the National Park System and recreational demonstration areas "more was accomplished than in any other year, due partly to allotments of funds which enabled certain highly suitable jobs to be undertaken." Of importance to the State Park ECW was the direct appeal to the state governors for full compliance with the law requiring adequate maintenance, operation, and utilization of the areas developed by the CCC in view of the probable future limitations on the federal government's ECW assistance to the states. National Park Service officials were also warned that CCC personnel should not be used for maintenance operations in the national parks and monuments so that their services in providing for long-term development projects could be maximized.18 During the year the CCC accomplished a number of conservation and recreation work programs in the national parks and monuments and the state parks. Major projects that were completed or carried to an advanced stage included:
During fiscal year 1940, which saw some reductions in the CCC program as a result of the onset of World War II in Europe, the National Park Service had technical supervision over 313 CCC camps--109 in the National Park System; 179 in state, county, and metropolitan parks; 22 in recreational demonstration areas; and 3 on Tennessee Valley Authority projects--and 1,175 enrollees in Hawaii and the Virgin Islands. Thirty miles of telephone line, representing a complete automatic system, was installed at Mammoth Cave National Park. Fire lookout towers were completed in Shenandoah, Great Smoky Mountains, and Mesa Verde national parks. Archeological reconnaissance and preservation work were carried out at Ocmulgee National Monument, restoration work began at Saratoga National Historical Park, and restoration of the 22-mile section of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal between Washington, D.C., and Seneca, Maryland, was largely completed. Public campgrounds and related facilities were completed in the Great Smokies and at Jenny Lake in Grand Teton National Park. Service area landscaping and construction of water and telephone systems were carried out at Mount McKinley National Park. In addition to tree and plant disease control operations in the Great Smoky Mountains, Sequoia, and Yosemite national parks, recreation facilities, road and bridge construction, and beach improvements were performed in Riverside State Park, Washington, Provo River Metropolitan Park, Utah, Brown County State Park, Indiana, Westmoreland State Park, Virginia, and Florida Caverns State Park, Florida.20 During fiscal year 1941 the National Park Service operated in the continental United States an average of 304 CCC camps, comprising some 50,000 enrollees. The Service's quota of 310 camps at the beginning of the year was reduced to 293 in the fourth quarter to make companies available for duty on military areas, to develop thirteen Army recreation centers or rest camps near metropolitan areas, and to construct five airports as part of the national defense effort. Nevertheless, a number of projects were carried out in the National Park System and state and local parks. Among the most significant of these projects were: winter sports facilities at Mount Rainier and Yosemite national parks; construction of shelters along the Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains national parks; recreational facilities along the Blue Ridge Parkway and in Boulder Dam National Recreation Area; commencement of preservation/restoration work at Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument and Kolomoki Mounds State Park, Georgia; preliminary work for a proposed scenic highway along the palisades of the Hudson River in the New Jersey section of Palisades Interstate Park; and recreational developments along the highway from the Florida mainland to Key West.21 Liquidation of the Civilian Conservation Corps was ordered by Congress on July 2, 1942, and was virtually completed by the end of that fiscal year. During the period of the program, the National Park Service administered CCC work in 655 parks and related areas: National Park System areas, 71; recreational demonstration areas, 23; Tennessee Valley Authority areas, 8; federal defense areas, 29; state parks, 405; county parks, 42; metropolitan parks, 75; and West Point Military Academy, New York, and Battery Cove Federal Reservation, Virginia. The Service supervised a total of approximately 3,114-camp years, or some 580,000-man years (including camp foremen) of work. Of this work about 28 percent was on National Park Service areas and 72 percent on other park and recreation areas. The amount of money expended by the Service totaled $130,119,019; however, it must be kept in mind that the overhead expenditures reflected only some 25 percent of the total, because housing, feeding, medical care, clothing, and education of the enrollees were expenditures paid from CCC funds allotted to the War Department. In his final annual report to Secretary Ickes in January 1944, Conrad Wirth summarized the accomplishments and significance of the CCC to the National Park Service:
B. Federal Emergency Relief Administration In 1933 Director Horace M. Albright noted that FERA23 had approved construction of public works projects amounting to $1,222,573 for "those agencies which were transferred to, and combined with, the former National Park Service under the Executive orders of June 10 and July 28, 1933." Of this amount, $25,000 was for improvement of the Statue of Liberty and $1,197,573 was for projects in the District of Columbia.24 During fiscal year 1934 FERA supplied an allotment of $25,000,000 for the submarginal land acquisition program. Of this sum, $5,000,000 was to be used for the acquisition of land to be developed for recreational uses under the direction of the National Park Service. Hence this funding was the genesis of the recreational demonstration area program that will be considered more fully in chapter four of this study.25 After Civil Works Administration funding of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) was terminated in April 1934, the architectural program was continued with FERA funds until December 1935. The HABS program will be discussed in greater detail in chapter five of this study.26 C. Civil Works Administration An examination of the activities of the CWA under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, which were carried out between November 28, 1933, and April 28, 1934, serves as a good example of how a New Deal emergency public works program supplemented the ongoing implementation of the National Park Service program.27 To assist in the administration of this program the Park Service director was requested to organize and supervise the work of as many workers as could be used profitably in connection with work in the national parks and monuments. John D. Coffman, Chief Forester of the National Park Service, was assigned the responsibility of organizing and supervising the bureau s program which was divided into three main projects: National Capital Projects, under the supervision of C. Marshall Finnan, superintendent; Historic American Buildings Survey under the supervision of Thomas C. Vint, chief architect; and National Parks and Monuments under the supervision of John C. Preston, assistant superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park, with assistance from Fred T. Johnston. On November 28 the Park Service civil works program was approved, and a total of 14,031 workers was authorized. The CWA program under the jurisdiction of the Park Service employed a total of 12,942 men and 192 women prior to its abolition and performed a number of park development projects.28 Under the National Capital Parks project 1,429 workers were employed in building swimming pools, landscaping park areas, improving roads and paths, and planting shrubs and trees. More than 750 architects were employed to collect data and make architectural drawings of some 860 historic buildings for the Historic American Buildings Survey. Nearly 11,000 workers were employed making physical improvements to seventy-two national parks and monuments in twenty-seven states. Fifty artists and skilled workers, including painters, sculptors, draftsmen, and engineers, prepared numerous museum displays for various parks in the museum laboratory at the Western Field Headquarters. Some 600 workers, including Indians, homesteaders, and archeologists, built roads and other badly-needed improvements, and conducted archeological studies in fifteen national monuments in Arizona and New Mexico. Other types of work in the parks included: fire hazard reduction; preparation of fire-destroyed timber into fuel wood; erosion control, including check dams; reforestation and sodding; roadside beautification; foot and motor vehicle bridges; bookkeeping and clerical work; remodeling old buildings; preservation of historic and prehistoric areas and structures; zoological research; and construction of roads, trails, telephone lines, buildings, water and sewer systems, lighting facilities, campground facilities, and parking areas.29 D. Public Works Administration In his 1933 annual report Director Albright observed that the allocation of funds under Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which provided for the establishment of the Public Works Administration,30 would assure "continuation of greatly needed road and trail construction and the various types of other physical improvements which are required in the administration, protection, and maintenance of the national parks and national monuments." Public Works Administration approval of public works projects, drawn up by Park Service Chief Engineer Frank A. Kittredge, amounting to $17,059,450 for road and trail work and $2,145,000 for other physical improvements (i.e., buildings, sewer and water systems, telephone lines, fences, cabins, etc.) would "result in construction of an orderly program based upon advance planning" and would "afford maximum relief to the unemployed." The selection of projects would "also provide the greatest possible spread among the far-flung parks and monuments under the jurisdiction of this Service."31 In June 1935 a "Statement Regarding PWA Activities in the National Park and Monument System" was prepared. The statement summarized the impact of Public Works Administration projects on the Park Service:
The statement went on to list the types of projects that had been carried out with PWA funds. These included: roads,32 trails, and bridle paths; campground development; museum construction; and studies,restoration/stabilization of historic structures and ruins such as the Lee Mansion in Arlington National Cemetery and the prehistoric ruins at Mesa Verde. Such efforts were carried out with "scrupulous care not to mar the effect of peace, space, and scenic loveliness" of the parks, thus necessitating "surveys, topographical and landscape studies, type-mapping and policies of wildlife protection." Hence the PWA projects brought "to thousands of engineers, landscape architects, artists, scientists, and students their first employment since the beginning of the depression." The PWA allotments and labor "made possible work long desired and outlined" which would have had to await realization for many years to come had they not been incorporated in the national economic recovery program.33 In 1936 the PWA allotments for public works projects in the national parks increased by more than $2,000,000 over that for the previous year. The increase resulted from larger allocations for the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Painted Desert Inn in Petrified Forest National Monument, purchase and installation of museum equipment under the direction of Carl P. Russell throughout the park system, and the Union Square and Mall developments in Washington, D.C.34 The following year the PWA allotment was increased another $1,500,000, primarily for use in land acquisition for recreational demonstration projects.35 In fiscal year 1939 PWA funds made possible the construction of a number of long-needed building projects including administration buildings at Shenandoah, Great Smoky Mountains, and Olympic national parks and Muir Woods National Monument. Acquisition and development of large tracts of additional land adjacent to established national parks with PWA funds necessitated general development studies covering the Redwood Mountain area near General Grant National Park and the pending seacoast addition to Olympic National Park. Work on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, which was acquired with PWA funds, became a major project as extensive property, topographic, and hydrologic surveys were made in connection with its acquisition and planned restoration and development as an historical and recreation area.36 E. Works Progress Administration Beginning on December 1, 1935, the National Park Service cooperated with the WPA, the major agency established by the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of April 8, 1935, by assuming the responsibility for the technical supervision of the programs of forty-one WPA camps.37 The program was undertaken at the request of the state, county, and municipal agencies sponsoring the camps and with the concurrence of the WPA. The work camp program provided an extension of the services rendered to state, county, and municipal governments by the National Park Service in the conservation of natural resources and the coordinated and planned development of recreational areas for public use. Projects were undertaken in three federal, twenty-two state, three county, and thirteen municipal park areas. In addition, the WPA requested that the Park Service assume responsibility for a beach-erosion project along the Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, coast, constructing sand fences and planting on the resulting dunes. Of the nearly $9,000,000 WPA allotment to the Park Service in 1936, $1,425,185 was expended on a preliminary survey of 150 miles of the Natchez Trace Parkway and on grading and drainage structures along a 40-mile section of the parkway. The sum of $6,750,000 was allocated for the acquisition and development of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial National Historic Site. In addition, $693,951 was expended on administrative expenses of the camps and $77,240 for repairs and replacement of federal property damaged or destroyed by the 1936 floods.38 Additional Works Progress Administration allotments for projects in the national parks amounted to more than $15,000,000 in fiscal year 1937. Among the major projects undertaken with these funds were: acquisition of land for recreational demonstration purposes--$1,562,481.61; beach erosion control project, North Carolina (federal)--$679,925; development of non-federal recreational park projects--$4,144,327; and development of federal recreational park projects--$7,418,515.39 F. Emergency Relief Act Projects: 1937-1941 Up to and including fiscal year 1937 the annual reports of the director of the National Park Service contained separate accounts relative to the allotments and activities of each of the New Deal agencies that were supplementing the regular appropriations of the National Park Service. Beginning in 1937 the various public works programs underway in the National Park System were consolidated under one topic--Emergency Relief Act Projects. The following will describe the various "emergency relief act projects" undertaken in the system from 1937 to 1941 when wartime priorities began to take their toll on both regular and depression-era public works appropriations. In 1938 the Park Service director reported that "E.R.A. Federal and non-Federal projects in operation by the Service totaled 65 at the close of the fiscal year, compared with 84 at the end of the 1937 fiscal year." Curtailment of funds during the period July 1 to December 31, 1937, had necessitated termination of operations on thirty-four non-Federal projects, and on June 30, 1938, only four non-Federal Emergency Relief Act projects remained under Park Service supervision. During the fiscal year the bureau had received funds from the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937 and the Emergency Relief Supplementary Appropriation Act, approved March 2, 1938. The emergency funding was expended "for land acquisition and development and research projects in 9 national parks, 4 national military parks, 9 national monuments, 1 national historical park, 44 recreational demonstration areas, 2 parkways, 1 beach erosion control project, 20 State, 3 county, and 12 municipal park areas." In addition, there were seven nonconstruction projects in three states and the District of Columbia employing white-collar research workers. These projects gave employment to an average of 10,500 relief workers, of which 7,500 were local workers and 3,000 were quartered in subsistence camps operated by the Service. These statistics were considerably below those of the previous year when the Emergency Relief Appropriation acts of 1936 and 1937 had provided employment for some 19,000 relief workers, of which 12,000 were local laborers and 7,000 were quartered in subsistence camps.40 During fiscal year 1939 the emergency relief projects operated under the supervision of the National Park Service increased to ninety-four (seventy-five development and nineteen "white-collar"). The development projects, operated on federally-owned lands in thirty-five states, were carried on in twenty-eight areas of the National Park System, forty-three recreational demonstration areas, one beach erosion control project, and one national cemetery. One of the most prominent projects was the construction of 104 miles of brush fencing and the planting of 980 acres of grass to arrest and prevent sand erosion by wind and wave action along more than 100 miles of beach in the proposed Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina. All told, the National Park Service received $9,268,308 from emergency relief appropriations in 1939 for the operation of projects under its provisions. These funds provided employment for some 13,751 emergency workers as of June 1939. The monthly average of relief workers for the year was 11,500, of which 9,200 were employed locally and 2,300 were quartered in subsistence camps.41 In June 1940 Director Cammerer observed in his annual report that the Park Service had received $5,467,839, plus administrative funds from the WPA, for the operation of eighty-three development and seventeen white collar relief projects in thirty-seven recreational demonstration areas, seventeen areas in the National Park System, and the proposed Cape Hatteras National Seashore, employing a monthly average of 6,614 workers during the year. The seventeen white-collar projects involved statistical analyses, guide and station contact work, research, and travel bureau work. The efforts in the National Park System consisted of "restoration and preservation of features of natural and historical importance, scientific research connected with naturalist, archeological and geological programs, guide service, construction of simple park facilities, and conservation of soil, forests, and water." Historical areas in the system that were beneficiaries of restoration and preservation work by relief forces were Fort Marion (park name changed to Castillo de San Marcos on June 5, 1942) National Monument, Florida; Fort Jefferson National Monument, Florida; Fort Laramie National Monument, Wyoming; Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Massachusetts; and Homestead National Monument of America, Nebraska. Work in the recreational demonstration areas slowed in 1940 but additional facilities were built to meet the demonstrated needs of the operating units. Through cooperation with the city of Memphis, Tennessee, which furnished salvaged materials, a custodian's residence, dam, lodge, and additional recreational facilities were built in the Shelby Forest Recreational Demonstration Area. Moreover, Cammerer stressed the need for permanent Civil Service personnel to carry on the growing National Park Service activities under appropriations made directly to the bureau in view of the reductions in emergency relief funding and personnel. He observed:
With the threat of war looming on the horizon the funding and personnel for emergency relief projects was further reduced in 1941 . The Service received $4,119,950 in emergency relief appropriations for operation of fifty-four projects, including forty-seven development projects in Park Service areas and recreational demonstration areas, on which were employed an average of 4,700 relief workers. This amounted to a decrease of approximately 30 percent in funds and workers and 43 percent in operating projects from the previous year Seven white-collar projects were engaged in assembling, preparing, and disseminating information on travel and recreation facilities; mapping forestry data; performing research; preparing museum displays; providing guide service; and gathering material on the National Park System for publication.43 With this brief overview of the impact of the New Deal on the National Park Service in mind, it is appropriate that consideration be given to the new initiatives in recreational development and historic preservation undertaken by the bureau in the 1930s. These initiatives could not have been undertaken on the scale that they were without the infusion of funds and manpower of the New Deal relief programs. Chapter Four: New Initiatives in the Field of Recreation and Recreational Area Development A. Background to National Park Service Involvement in Recreational Policy Issues Social conditions underwent marked changes in America during the 1920s and early 1930s. Such factors as mass production of automobiles, development, and expansion of the national highway system, shortened hours in the work week, and more days of leisure for the working man, together with a considerable rise in unemployment, greatly increased the demand for multiple-use recreational areas throughout the nation.1 As early as 1920 Henry S. Graves, Chief Forester of the U.S. Forest Service, described the growing demand for outdoor recreational space by the American people:
Accordingly, Graves argued that the formulation of a national recreation policy was necessary. Such a policy was needed to set forth the principal objectives of national recreation, identify the opportunities and needs of recreational development, establish the basic principles underlying the purposes of the various federal reservations, and delineate the functions of each in the implementation of a national recreational program. As part of this policy he urged that the federal government cooperate jointly with the states, counties, municipalities and local quasi-public organizations to establish recreational areas. Included in his recommendations were programs to preserve scenic values along highways and to promote wildlife conservation.3 Responding to the increasing demand for recreational development, the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation was organized in 1924 at the request of President Calvin Coolidge. The conference, which met in Washington, D.C., on May 22-24, 1924, drew some 309 delegates from 128 national organizations that were "interested in the promotion and development of one or more kinds of recreation, in the use of which the land, water, forest, plant, scenic or wild life resources of the United States are essential." The primary function of the conference was to assist in the formulation of a national policy which could "coordinate the activities of federal, state, county, municipal, and unofficial agencies in the field of outdoor recreation and to promote the development of the recreational resources of the country and stimulate their use." A secondary function of the conference was the promotion of the conservation and wise administration of the nation's natural resources.4 Two years after the conference Congress responded to the growing pressure for more recreational areas by passing the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. This law authorized the Secretary of the Interior to exchange, sell, or lease unreserved non-mineral public lands to the states and their political subdivisions for recreational development. The act permitted states, counties, and municipalities to acquire land for recreational purposes at low cost.5 In 1928 the Joint Committee on Recreational Survey of Federal Lands of the American Forestry Association and the National Parks Association published a report entitled Recreation Resources of Federal Lands. The report included a section on the necessity for a national recreation policy and the various land planning elements that were required in the formulation of such a policy:
B. The National Park Service Enters Recreational Planning and Development Field During the 1930s the National Park Service responded to the growing demands for recreational opportunities by taking the lead in the specialized fields of national recreational planning and recreational area development. Because of its expertise and experience in park planning, the agency greatly expanded its consultant services and cooperative relationships with the states in recreational land-use planning and development, thereby playing a significant role in the growth of the emerging state park and recreation systems.7 Furthermore the National Park Service secured enactment of the comprehensive Park, Parkway and Recreation-Area Act of 1936 and initiated four new types of federal parks areas--recreation demonstration areas, national parkways, national seashores, and national recreation areas.8 The participation of the National Park Service in the fields of recreational planning and development stemmed in large part from the widened responsibilities assigned to the bureau under the Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) program and other relief programs beginning in 1933. Federal cooperation was extended to the state, county, and metropolitan governments for the development of park and recreation area facilities through the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and relief funding in April 1933. In that month various bureaus of the Department of the Interior, including the National Park Service, were assigned the responsibility of providing technical, professional design, and planning supervision to work projects of the CCC. The National Park Service was designated to supervise the work of the Corps not only in areas of the National Park System but also in state, county, and municipal park and recreation areas in cooperation with the governing bodies having jurisdiction over those areas.9 When the CCC program was commenced in April 1933, the Park Service's Chief Forester, John D. Coffman, was called to Washington from Berkeley to take charge of the program in the National Park System and act as the liaison officer for the various bureaus of the Department of the Interior. Later that year, when it became apparent that the state and local park CCC work supervised by the Park Service would develop into a large program, a separate organization was established with Assistant Director Conrad L. Wirth, Chief of the Branch of Planning, in charge of the State Park ECW program. The new organization was similar to that for the National Park System under Coffman, complete with professional capabilities for the planning and supervision of all phases of work operations. At its peak the State Park ECW organization had administrative oversight of 483 CCC camps employing nearly 100,000 enrollees and consisted of a technical and professional staff numbering several thousand. In January 1936 the general administration of ECW activities in the National Park System was consolidated with the administration of the larger State Park ECW program under the newly-created Branch of Planning and State Cooporation headed by Wirth.10 The responsibilities of the branch were as follows:
C. National Park Service Participation on the National Resources Board The National Park Service became more deeply involved in the field of national recreational planning and development through its participation on the National Resources Board, created by executive order on June 30, 1934.The board was established "to prepare . . . a program and plan of procedure dealing with the physical, social, governmental, and economic aspects of public policy for the development and use of land, water, and other national resources."12 The Service was assigned the responsibility of preparing the portion of the report dealing with "National and State Parks and Related Recreational Activities." The objective of the report was to study the recreation facilities and needs of the national, state, and local park systems and to develop a framework for a broad national recreation program To prepare this section of the National Resources Board report, the Recreation Division of the board was established in the National Park Service with George M. Wright, Chief of the Wildlife Division, as its director and Herbert Evison, Supervisor of State Park Emergency Conservation Work, as assistant director. The substance of the Park Service's portion of the report was prepared by a committee consisting of Wright, Evison, Chief Forester Coffman, and Assistant Director Wirth with the aid of L.H. Weir, a recreation specialist associated with the National Recreation Association.13 The Recreation Division of the National Resources Board submitted its final report, entitled "Recreational Use of Land in the United States," on November 1, 1934. The limited time allotted for the preparation of the report did not allow for a detailed study of the underlying facts regarding recreation needs and existing facilities throughout the nation. It did document, however, the fact that the total area of all national, state, and local parks, bird and game refuges, and privately-owned recreation areas amounted to some 21,000,000 acres, a total that the Recreation Division suggested should be multiplied four-fold to meet existing demands. The report also showed that most states and their political subdivisions lacked comprehensive plans for park systems and that the interrelationship of parks, parkways, and recreation areas was even less understood. The report documented the need for a broad and exhaustive nationwide survey of park and recreation needs and facilities and one of its primary recommendations was that such a study be undertaken.14 D. The Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Act of 1936 Meanwhile, the National Park Service was proceeding with its efforts to obtain new comprehensive land planning legislation from Congress to continue on a permanent basis the cooperation with the states that it had established through the ECW program. The need for such legislation stemmed from the fact that planning information for selecting and developing additional park and recreation areas to round out park systems was meager on the state and local levels. Few states had formulated long-range plans on the basis of indepth studies of land utilization and recreation needs. An inventory and analysis of existing park, parkways, and recreation facilities at the federal, state, county, municipal, and private levels was necessary to establish and maintain standards that were both adequate and feasible in terms of available resources for the increasing demand of leisure-time needs of the nation. There was a need to bring together the plans or proposals for future development that had been drawn up at those various levels, to analyze and appraise the findings, and to make recommendations. The probability that the submarginal lands being retired for recreational purposes would eventually come under the jurisdiction of the states also served as a strong motivation for drafting new land planning legislation.15 On May 28, 1934, Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes submitted the draft of "A bill to aid in providing the people of the United States with adequate facilities for park, parkway, and recreational-area purposes, and to provide for the transfer of certain lands chiefly valuable for such purposes to States and political divisions thereof," to both Rene L. DeRouen, chairman of the House Public Lands Committee, and Robert F. Wagner, chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys. Along with the drafts, Ickes provided the objectives and rationale behind the proposed legislation:
The bills (H.R. 9788 and S. 3724) were acted upon favorably subject to several amendments by both the House Committee on Public Lands and the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys. They were introduced late during the second session of the 73d Congress, however, and failed to pass the House.17 Similar bills (H.R. 6594 and S. 738) were introduced during the first session of the 74th Congress and again both committees acted favorably subject to a few amendments. 18 The National Conference on State Parks, American Planning and Civic Association, Association of State Foresters, and other conservation and land-use planning organizations endorsed the legislation, but it was not brought to a vote in Congress.19 The bill was reintroduced during the second session of the 74th Congress, and the House bill (H.R. 10104) was taken up in place of the Senate version. As summarized in Senate Report 1694, H.R. 10104 provided
As noted above H.R. 10104 contained a provision excluding from the purview of the bill all lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. According to Secretary Ickes this provision had been added "because of the determined, and what I believe to have been the unreasoned opposition of the Forest Service." The enactment of the bill, however, could not be secured until such a provision was made. Later Ickes would remark in a letter to President Roosevelt:
The bill was reported favorably by the House Committee on Public Lands, and it passed the House with little opposition.22 More opposition was voiced in the Senate, however, indicating a measure of hostility to the National Park Service and to the further expansion of the park system. Some western Senators expressed a concern that the establishment of more parks would reduce the availability of grazing lands and that Congress could not often act in time to prevent transfers, however unwise they might be.23 On February 11, 1936, however, the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys reported favorably on H.R. 10104 as passed by the House subject to a number of amendments.24 The amended bill recommended by the committee contained these provisions:
Finally on June 23, 1936, both houses of Congress agreed to the Senate version of the bill. As passed, the act (Public Law No. 770-1/2) read:
Reaction to the passage of the act was mixed. Director Cammerer noted in his 1936 annual report that the act "will, it is hoped, be a vital factor in making possible the continuation of the close relationship between the States and the National Park Service already established, regardless of the extent to which the emergency work may be continued."27 On the other hand, President Roosevelt informed Secretary Ickes on June 25 that, while he had approved H.R. 10104, the bill was "too narrow." He suggested that "the preliminary work be done by the National Park Service but that when this is done, the National Resources Committee receive the preliminary report of the National Park Service and invite the comment and suggestions of the Department of Agriculture and its several agencies." What he wanted was "a completely comprehensive report substantially approved by all Federal agencies having anything to do with recreation."28 E. Implementation of Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study An outline of the procedure to be followed in conducting the recreational study was published in January 1937. According to the document, the scope of the study was defined as follows:
In terms of organization the National Park Service, through its Branch of Recreational Planning and State Cooperation under Conrad L. Wirth, would administer and coordinate the study on a nationwide basis with the cooperation of park, conservation, and planning agencies of the states, their political subdivisions, civic groups, and local organizations. The staff in the Washington office would work through the regional office staffs whose field supervisors and representatives would coordinate the study with the various state and local agencies. The study had three major objectives:
By June 15, 1937, the National Park Service had developed a policy outlining its relationship with the agencies of the various states and their political subdivisions in carrying out the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study. A method for creating a study organization in each state was developed, and the scope of the federal government's authority to assist the states in forming interstate compacts was defined.31 In his annual report in 1937, Director Cammerer listed the expectations that the agency had for the study. The study was expected to result, he said,
In February 1938 Director Cammerer was more explicit in defining his expectations of the study. Commenting on the urgent need for a coordinated study and integrated approach to the country's fast-growing recreational needs, he observed:
During fiscal year 1938 arrangements were completed in forty-three states for the conduct of the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study and tentative final reports were completed for Illinois, Mississippi, Virginia, Nevada, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. These reports contained preliminary plans and recommendations for meeting the recreational needs of each state. Districts of heavy population had been scrutinized, and their recreational needs analyzed along with sociological profiles and economic studies and such related analyses as transportation facilities. Existing parks and potential areas had been studied as well as the physiography, archeology, climate, history, and social composition of the states. The preliminary studies were reviewed and approved by the National Park Service as the basis for further study and returned to the states with detailed suggestions for their completion.34 By June 1939 a total of twenty-three state reports had been completed, and fourteen had been published by the states. Work was being continued toward the preparation of more complete and comprehensive plans for integrated systems of recreational areas and facilities based upon suggestions by the Park Service and state agencies. To correlate the plans of the states and provide the framework for a national recreation plan, the Park Service had commenced the preparation of the first edition of the nationwide report.35 Seven state reports were completed during fiscal year 1940 and four more in fiscal year 1941, making a total of thirty-four completed.36 In 1941 the Park Service published its comprehensive report, entitled A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem in the United States. The report contained a review of the entire problem of recreation and of the status and needs of the national, state, county, and municipal park systems in the United States. The topics covered in the report were: recreation habits and needs of the people; aspects of recreation planning; existing public outdoor recreation facilities on city, county, state, and federal lands; park and recreation area administration, including organization, operations, personnel, budget, and public relations; finance; and legislation at all levels of government. The report included a brief description and a map of each state, giving physical characteristics, indicating the existing conditions of the state and local parks, and recommending additions and development proposals for the systems.37 F. National Park Service Activities Relating to Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study, 1936-1941 Shortly after the passage of the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Act in June 1936, the National Park Service commenced a number of special studies and activities that would serve as adjuncts to the recreational survey. The studies included an examination of the progress of the municipal and county park movement in the United States between 1930 and 1935, research in aviation and other modes of travel in relation to recreational planning, and preliminary work for an extensive survey of world parks.38 The "Municipal and County Parks in the United States 1935" was completed by October 1937 and published the following year. The study was conducted in cooperation with the National Recreation Association and consisted of data collected from 1,216 cities and 77 counties in every state. The data was compared with material gathered in the same field in two previous studies made by the National Recreation Association in 1925-26 and 1930 to ascertain the extent to which the state and local park system had expanded during the preceding decade.39 By June 1937 a three-volume digest of laws relating to state parks was compiled and made available to park and conservation authorities. As a result of this study, a set of principles was developed for incorporation into new state legislation relating to parks and recreation. Concurrently, a compilation of state laws relating to archeological issues was also prepared.40 Over the next three years, a CCC staff lawyer, Roy A. Vetter, expanded the digest to include all laws relating to local parks and recreation activities in every state and the territories of Hawaii and Alaska. The Digest of Laws was published in 1940 to fill the need for a reference source to the state and local laws and ordinances relating to park and recreational development.41 As part of the recreational study, the National Park Service began publication of a volume, entitled Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress, in 1937. The Yearbook was designed to disseminate progressive thought on park and recreation conservation policies and activities and to serve as a clearinghouse of information and discussion on the nationwide park and recreation movement. After its enthusiastic reception by federal, state, local, and civic leaders in the park and recreation movement in 1937, the National Park Service determined to make it a regular annual publication. Following an editorial policy established after publication of the 1937 edition, the annual volumes, which were published through 1941, contained numerous articles by leaders in the park and recreation field outside the federal government on such subjects as legislation, administrative organization, planning, and facility development. The volumes also contained articles and discussions on current thought and trends in park and recreational planning and development by Park Service personnel.42 Another significant Park Service publication that served as an adjunct to the recreation study was the three-volume work issued under the principal title Park and Recreation Structures in 1938. Prepared by Albert H. Good, a landscape architect in the Washington office, the publication was printed in three parts: "Administration and Basic Service Facilities," "Recreational and Cultural Facilities," and "Overnight and Organized Camping Facilities." Each volume discussed structural undertakings appropriate to natural park and recreational area environments both in the national and state park systems complete with drawings, plans, and photographs. The volumes were designed to provide data to the many persons involved in ECW and public works projects who had little expertise in constructing park facilities.43 One of the outgrowths of the recreational study was the increasing involvement of the Park Service in providing consultation to states interested in establishing interstate compacts to administer recreational areas. Beginning in 1936 some states, in consultation with the National Park Service, undertook consideration of facilitating joint regional action in administering and developing park and parkway areas where mutual interests and benefits were involved. New York and New Jersey had jointly created the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. At the request of Missouri and Illinois, the Park Service began providing professional and technical assistance in the formulation of plans for establishment of an interstate compact to administer and develop Alton Lake and adjacent lands and a proposed interstate parkway leading to the lake. During the same period the Appalachian Trail Conference had referred to the Park Service its proposal for an interstate compact to protect and develop the Appalachian Trail from Maine to Georgia.44 Later in 1938 the proposal for a national Mississippi River Parkway from the headwaters of the Mississippi in Itasca State Park, Minnesota, to the Gulf of Mexico was a direct outgrowth of the recreational study. Nine of the ten states bordering the Mississippi River sponsored the proposal and each appointed a parkway planning commission. By 1940 six states had enacted legislation enabling them to cooperate with the federal government in the planning and development of the parkway, and bills authorizing a survey to determine a suitable route for the parkway were pending in both houses of Congress. The Park Service favored the bills in principle, but took the position that definite action should await the formulation of a national plan for parkways.45 During fiscal year 1941 the National Park Service initiated recreation studies in New England as well as in the central-southeastern region of the United States which comprised the Tennessee and Cumberland river watersheds. Concerning the growth of regional studies, the Park Service annual report noted:
The Park Service also extended its cooperation with the states to include new services in the late 1930s. Together with the Corps of Engineers, state planning commissions, and conservation districts, it aided in planning "proper recreational use of lakes and pools created by flood-control projects." The Park Service provided consultation services, research, demonstrations, and information exchanges with state and local park systems relative to legislation, finance, personnel, administration, maintenance, area protection, and program organization policy formulation. One of its primary contributions was the promotion of sound, periodically revised master plans for the development and management of state and local park systems.47 G. Postscript to the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Interrupted by World War II, the recreation study and related activities were resumed by the National Park Service with the inception in 1956 of the Mission 66 program under the direction of Conrad L. Wirth who had assumed the bureau directorship on December 9, 1951 . The pressures for open spaces, parks, and recreation areas, as well as for the preservation of wilderness areas, became so great that the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Act was passed in 1958, establishing the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. The concept and purpose of this commission was similar to that of the Park, Parkway and Recreational-Area Study, and it published a comprehensive report in 1964, entitled Parks for America: A Survey of Park and Related Resources in the Fifty States and a Preliminary Plan. Two of its principal recommendations were the establishment of a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation as a separate bureau in the Department of the Interior to allot funding for planning, land purchase, and development of state and local park systems and passage of a Land and Water Act, to provide funding for land acquisition and park development at the federal, state, and local park system levels.48 H. Initiation of Four New Types of Recreation Areas in National Park System Broadening of the National Park System concept to include recreational areas with the addition of the George Washington Memorial Parkway was one of the elements of the reorganization of 1933. During the remainder of the decade the Park Service initiated four new types of Federal park areas as a result of its growing involvement in the field of recreational planning and development. These types included recreational demonstration areas, national parkways, national recreation areas, and national seashores. The planning and development of these new park classifications marked the emergence of the National Park Service as the leading federal agency in the field of recreation. I. Recreational Demonstration Areas Among many other features, Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of June 16, 1933, authorized the creation of the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works to administer a program of public works "to conserve the interests of the general public." The projects were to include "conservation and development of natural resources, including control, utilization, and purification of water, prevention of soil or coastal erosion." This established the legislative basis for a program authorizing federal purchases of land considered to be submarginal for agricultural purposes but valuable for recreational utilization. As the recreational demonstration area program would unfold, such lands were to be purchased and developed as parks and later turned over to the states and municipalities for permanent administration. On July 18, 1934, the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works allotted and transferred $25,000,000 from the $3,300,000,000 appropriation in the .4th Deficiency Act (Fiscal Year 1933 for NIRA) to the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation to construct a program of public works projects. These projects had been determined by the Land Program Committee of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA)--a committee established in January 1934 to coordinate a program for the reutilization of submarginal lands. Consisting of John S. Lansill, director, Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, Harry L. Hopkins, FERA administrator, and W. I. Myers, governor of the Farm Credit Administration, this committee worked through coordinators appointed by the cooperating departments and agencies.Conrad L. Wirth was designated the coordinator for the Department of the Interior, and Matt Huppuch of the National Park Service served as his alternate.49 As described in a memorandum of July 16, 1934, the Land Program of FERA was to have six objectives. These were:
The Land Program would have three phases:
Four major types of projects would be carried out under the Land Program including demonstration agricultural, recreational, wildlife, and Indian lands projects.50 Of the $25,000,000 allotment made to the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, $5,000,000 was to be used for the acquisition of certain lands for recreational demonstration use, and the National Park Service was designated to develop this phase of the program. The bureau had played an active role in the formulation of the FERA Land Program, and earlier in June 1934 Director Cammerer had indicated that the Park Service was already involved in drawing up guidelines for such areas:
The direct responsibilities of the Park Service in the demonstration recreational areas program included: (a) selection of areas; (b) acquisition of options and other pertinent data; (c) development of plans; (d) execution of such work as could be done by the CCC and FERA; and (e) preparation of agreements with the states and their political subdivisions regarding development, management, and maintenance of the areas.52 The recreational demonstration areas program became a major thrust of the National Park Service efforts in recreational planning and development in fiscal year 1935. A number of these projects were initiated under the authority of Executive Order 6983, dated March 6, 1935, to carry out the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act.53 In his annual report for fiscal year 1935, Director Cammerer observed that the agency had undertaken
During the year thirteen CCC camps had been established to develop these demonstration projects, and plans called for the use in part of thirty-one camps for that purpose in fiscal year 1936.54 By Executive Order 7028, dated April 30, 1935, the entire Land Program was transferred from FERA to the Resettlement Administration of the Department of Agriculture. Under this new arrangement land for recreational demonstration areas was to be acquired by the Resettlement Administration and developed under plans formulated by the National Park Service.55 By June 1936 there were under development forty-six recreational demonstration projects in twenty-four states. Nearly 500,000 acres were in process of acquisition with Resettlement Administration funds at a cost of approximately $5,000,000 to date. The areas were readily accessible to some 30,000,000 people, and the majority of the areas were being planned for the organized camping facility needs of the major metropolitan areas. It was anticipated that at least ten organized camps, each with a capacity of from 100 to 125 campers, would soon be in operation. In addition, other recreational facilities, including picnic areas, trails, and artificial lakes, had been developed. Wildlife, fire protection, and general development programs had also been initiated in many of the areas, using the technical assistance of Park Service personnel.56 On November 14, 1936, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7496, transferring the forty-six recreational projects, together with real and personal property, contracts, options, and personnel from the Resettlement Administration to the National Park Service. The order also transferred the balances of the development allotments outstanding for the projects as well as the necessary authority to complete and to administer the projects.57 After the transfer to the Park Service all land acquisition and related legal activities for the recreational demonstration areas were placed under the Recreational Demonstration Project Land Acquisition Section of the Branch of Recreational Planning and State Cooperation with Tilford E. Dudley as chief. Planning for acquisition was centralized in this section with area attorneys assigned to project, district, and regional offices as necessary and answering directly to Dudley. Regional officers were given the responsibility for accepting land options and providing general administrative oversight of the projects.58 The National Park Service implemented the recreational demonstration area program with enthusiasm. In June 1937 Director Cammerer described these areas as constituting "a unique form of land use increasingly valuable to the American people, affording outlets for out-of-door recreation accessible to congested populations, and retiring from agricultural use unarable lands of no economic worth." At the time forty-seven organized campgrounds were under construction in twenty-four recreational demonstration areas, and fifteen campgrounds had just been completed for use that summer. Waysides were being developed along main highways in Virginia and South Carolina for the accommodation of those seeking one-day outings. Some 12,000 relief workers and 4,500 CCC enrollees were assigned to the Park Service projects. Thus far, a total of 99,513 acres had been acquired for the program, and of this total 3,607 had been acquired during fiscal year 1937. While the Park Service still intended to turn the majority of the areas over to the states after development, it had determined to retain several under its jurisdiction for incorporation into the National Park System.59 Considerable progress was made in the planning, layout, and development of camping facilities in the recreational demonstration areas during fiscal year 1938. According to the annual report of Director Cammerer for that year:
Thirteen wayside parks contiguous to principal highways in Virginia and South Carolina were also under development with each area being equipped with picnic facilities and water and sanitary facilities. Altogether, the recreational demonstration area development had been carried out by some 8,000 relief workers and 2,300 CCC enrollees in fiscal year 1938. A total of 352,874 acres had been acquired for the areas, title to 253,361 acres of which was cleared that year.60 The Park Service published a brochure, entitled "An Invitation to New Play Areas," during the spring of 1938 that described the objectives and facilities of the recreational demonstration areas:
By June 1939 the National Park Service had acquired 374,537 acres for the recreational demonstration area program. Declarations of taking had been filed to acquire all remaining tracts for which funds were available. Sixty organized camps and numerous picnic areas and public bathing facilities had been or were nearing completion. There had been a 400 percent increase in the number of camper-days during the past year as well as a similar increase in day-use patronage. One area, Swift Creek Recreational Demonstration Area in Virginia, alone had more than 100,000 visitors. In addition to the summer use of organized camps, there was a great increase in short-term camping throughout the year. The summer camping programs were operated by county governments, community chest agencies, city boards of education, YMCA and YWCA organizations, youth committees, and in South Carolina directly by the Division of State Parks. An even greater variety of agencies used the camps on weekends and holidays.62 As further development of recreational demonstration areas began to slow in fiscal year 1940, the National Park Service issued a general statement of policy regarding the objectives, successes, and values of such areas. According to a memorandum issued by Director Cammerer on September 18, 1939,
Although funding and development programs for the recreational demonstration areas began to decline in fiscal year 1940, some improvements necessary to complete partially-finished projects continued to be made, and visitation and public use of the areas' facilities continued to increase In 1940 visitation to the areas doubled for the third consecutive year. Approximately 600 rural and urban organizations from 200 different communities used the group camping facilities which could accommodate some 7,500 persons at a time.64 By 1941 it became increasingly clear the recreational demonstration areas were becoming a financial drain on the bureau. No regular appropriation for the administration and operation of the areas had been passed by Congress, and efforts to transfer them to the states had been rebuffed. Inadequate funding "made it inadvisable to attract public attention to the recreational opportunities available." Nevertheless, the 100 organized campgrounds had been in continuous use throughout the summer of 1940, and approximately 1,000 organizations made use of the facilities for weekend and holiday camping throughout the year. The picnic areas, group tent camping sites, public campgrounds, and bathing facilities were used to capacity. The Kings Mountain and Cheraw recreational demonstration areas and four waysides in South Carolina were leased to the Division of State Parks of the South Carolina Forestry Commission for administration and operation of the organized campgrounds, refectories, and public bathhouses. Arrangements were made for the state recreation directors to supervise the activity programs in many of the other states. Because many of the areas were near military and industrial defense installations, the recreational demonstration areas were being used increasingly by personnel in the armed forces and war-related industries.65 ln October 1941 the Park Service published An Administrative Manual for Recreational Administrative Areas. The purpose of the manual was to provide for the uniform proper use, management, protection, and maintenance of the areas and to reiterate the agency objectives for their establishment. According to the manual the objectives and types of areas established by the Park Service were:
The types of areas, that comprised approximately 400,000 acres, were:
The manual also included a list of the recreational demonstration areas. It should be noted that the sixty-two separate areas listed below is not identical with the list of legally designated forty-six recreational demonstration projects, some of which consisted of two or more areas:
With several exceptions it was not the intention of the National Park Service to administer the recreational demonstration areas indefinitely. Once planned and developed they were to be turned over to the states or municipalities. In 1939 an act (H.R. 3959) passed Congress authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to convey or lease them to the states or local government units when they were prepared adequately to administer them. President Roosevelt, however, vetoed the bill on August 11, 1939. He believed that some of the projects might be of use to other federal agencies, that the legislation should be amended so that the transfers not involve the federal government in legal or moral commitments, and that the transfer should require presidential approval.67 A bill incorporating the changes recommended by President Roosevelt passed Congress on June 6, 1942. The act contained an additional provision that the grantees must use the recreational demonstration areas exclusively for public parks and recreational and conservation purposes. If they failed to do so the lands would revert to the federal government.68 By 1946 virtually all recreational demonstration areas had been conveyed to the states, the last such transfer taking place in 1956.69 J. National Parkways The modern parkway idea, as it is understood in the United States today, had it origins in county and municipal undertakings such as Westchester County Parkway in New York built between 1913 and 1930. Parkways, like highways, may serve either a commercial or a recreational function. According to a report issued by the Natural Resources Board in 1934, more than half of the traffic over the highway system in the United States during the preceding year had been recreational traffic. The report estimated that 60 percent of the total use of the American automobile was for recreational purposes. The increasing population of the country and its needs for outdoor travel made construction of scenic highways or parkways highly desirable.70 While the Westchester County parkways were being constructed, Congress began to apply the "parkway" idea locally in the District of Columbia. Congress authorized its first parkway project in 1913--the four-mile Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway that connected Potomac Park with Rock Creek Park and the Zoological Park. Some fifteen years later on May 23, 1928, Congress authorized construction of the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway that would link the District of Columbia with Mount Vernon in commemoration of the bicentennial of Washington's birth. The act specifically called for the "planting of shade trees and shrubbery and for other landscape treatment, parking, and ornamental structures" as well as right-of-way provisions to protect adequately the beauty of the highway. On May 29, 1930, this highway was renamed the George Washington Memorial Parkway and enlarged to extend from Mount Vernon to Great Falls, Virginia, and from Fort Washington to Great Falls, Maryland (Alexandria and the District of Columbia excepted). The George Washington Memorial Parkway was added to the National Park System as part of the reorganization of 1933, becoming the first recreational area to be incorporated into the system. 71The Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway was also transferred with the other National Capital Parks, although it was not classed as a separate unit of the National Park System. In actuality the first parkway to be built and administered by the Park Service and the first parkway to be authorized by Congress beyond the District of Columbia vicinity was the Colonial Parkway in Colonial National Monument. This parkway, however, was always considered as an integral part of the monument rather than a separate administrative unit. When the monument was authorized on July 3, 1930, the legislation providing for its establishment directed the Secretary of the Interior
In 1931 the Park Service let contracts for grading the first nine miles of what would ultimately become a twenty-three mile parkway between Yorktown and Jamestown.72 A new era for national parkways began with Congressional authorization of the Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace parkways in the 1930s. Both parkways began as public works projects during the New Deal and were later transformed into units of the National Park System. The National Park Service considered these two parkways as "pioneers in their respective fields of national recreational and historical motor travel."73 These parkways were not short county or metropolitan roadways serving local travel needs but rather protected interstate roadways traversing hundreds of miles of scenic and historical rural landscape. According to a Park Service pamphlet printed in January 1938 the national parkways were a new type of development in the park system consisting of
The parkway was a road constructed in a manner that would protect, yet make available for public enjoyment the outstanding scenic and historic points of interest along the route. A particular aim of the parkways was to prevent the erection of billboards, signs, and other works that might mar or detract from the natural beauty along the roadway.75 In answer to the question of "what is a parkway, and what is the difference between it and an ordinary expressway or highway," the National Park Service formulated a definition of this type of road in 1938. A parkway was defined as a development of the highway that differed from the usual highway in at least eight respects. According to this definition that was articulated to Congress by Assistant Director Arthur E. Demaray in 1938, the parkway (1) was designated for noncommercial, recreational use; (2) sought to avoid unsightly buildings and other roadside developments that mar the ordinary highway; (3) was built within a much wider right-of-way to provide an insulating strip of park land between the roadway and the abutting private property; (4) eliminated frontage and access rights and preserved the natural scenic values; (5) preferably took a new location, bypassing built-up communities and avoiding congestion; (6) aimed to make accessible the best scenery in the country it traversed, hence the shortest or most direct route was not necessarily a primary consideration; (7) eliminated major grade crossings; and (8) had entrance and exit points space at distant intervals to reduce interrruptions to the main traffic stream.76 The Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park served as a prototype for the Blue Ridge Parkway. President Herbert Hoover, who vacationed at his camp on the Rapidan River in the area being acquired for Shenandoah, promoted the idea of the Skyline Drive along the crest of the Blue Ridge. Initial planning for the parkway began by the National Park Service at Hoover's behest in 1931 and four work camps were established in 1932 to begin work using relief funds.77 Among other provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works was authorized to prepare a comprehensive program of public works, including the construction, repair, and improvement of public highways and parkways. Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, along with others, seized the opportunity to propose the construction of a scenic roadway linking Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains national parks as a public works project. In November 1933 President Roosevelt and Secretary Ickes embraced the proposal provided that the states of Virginia and North Carolina donated the necessary rights-of-way. The states agreed to do so and on December 19, 1933, the National Park Service received an initial allotment of $4,000,000 to start the project. Planning for the Blue Ridge Parkway was to be carried out by the Park Service while actual construction was to be the responsibility of the Bureau of Public Roads.78 Extensive field reconnaissances were made of the nearly 500-mile distance between the two parks in 1933-34, and during fiscal year 1935 some 90 percent of the parkway route was located. In the latter year bids were received for the construction of the first section of 12.5 miles south from the Virginia-North Carolina state line to Roaring Gap. Plans were initiated for the development of a group of areas along the parkway route for "scenic preservation and recreational use." As construction proceeded on 120 miles of the parkway in fiscal year 1936 two recreational demonstration areas were commenced along the parkway with Works Project Administration funding.79 On June 30, 1936, President Roosevelt signed into law an act establishing the Blue Ridge Parkway as a unit of the National Park System. The law provided that
The law authorized the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service to correlate and coordinate recreational development on lands within their respective jurisdictions that were in close proximity. The Bureau of Public Roads would build and maintain the parkway and authorization was granted for the connection of the parkway with local forest roads.80 By June 1939 Director Cammerer was able to report that 113 miles of the parkway were graded and surfaced, an additional 20 miles graded, and 90 miles under grading contracts. The Roanoke-Asheville unit was the first section of the parkway to be opened for travel. During the following year a continuous paved unit between Adney Gap, Virginia, and Deep Gap, North Carolina, was opened to travel, and bids for concessions to operate motor services and eating facilities were solicited.81 The Blue Ridge Parkway was well on its way to completion by June 1941. In addition to the 140-mile paved unit, 150 miles were graded and hard surfaced, and another 170 miles were graded or under grading contracts. Some 750,000 visitors had used the parkway and its facilities during the preceding year.82 The 469-mile parkway was largely completed by the early 1970s. Today the scenic parkway, averaging 3,000 feet above sea level, embraces several large recreational areas, interprets mountain folk culture, and preserves scenic resources. Over the years the Park Service has developed a five-fold mission for the parkway which has become one of the best known and most heavily used recreational areas established by the bureau in the 1930s:
The Natchez Trace Parkway was the second major national parkway to be authorized during the 1930s. It was a projected 500-mile roadway through a protected zone of forest, meadows, and fields which generally followed the historic route of the Natchez Trace from Nashville, Tennessee, to Natchez, Mississippi. The Old Natchez Trace was once an Indian path, then a wilderness road, and finally from 1800 to 1830 a highway binding the old Southwest to the Union made famous by Andrew Jackson's use both before and after the Battle of Chalmette.84 While construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway was getting underway in fiscal year 1934, preliminary studies were made of the proposed Natchez Trace Parkway. On May 21, 1934, Congress authorized an appropriation of $50,000 for a survey to determine the feasibility of building such a parkway, and survey and location work were carried out in collaboration with the Bureau of Public Roads. Following the completion of the survey in late 1935, the project was allotted $1,286,686 in Works Project Administration funds and plans were prepared and submitted to the State of Mississippi for more than twenty-five miles of right-of-way acquisition.85 Contracts for the construction of thirty-four miles on three Mississippi sections of the Natchez Trace Parkway between Jackson and Tupelo were awarded on June 30, 1937. The contracting process followed acceptance of title to the rights-of-way for the three sections by the federal government. The rights-of-way were acquired on the basis of 100 acres to the mile in fee simple, plus an additional 50 acres per mile of scenic easement control.86 On May 18, 1938, Congress passed legislation adding the Natchez Trace Parkway as a unit of the National Park System. The language and provisions of the act were almost identical to that in the act for the establishment of the Blue Ridge Parkway.87 By June 1940 grading and bituminous surfacing were completed in a thirty-four mile section of the parkway between Jackson and Tupelo, Mississippi The following year it was reported that an additional sixty miles were either graded or under construction in Mississippi, and a nine-mile stretch of parkway north of the Tennessee-Alabama border was also under construction. The first contract for the construction of a five-mile section between the Tennessee-Alabama border and Florence, Alabama, was advertised for bids to be opened early in July 1941.88 Construction of the Natchez Trace Parkway proceeded slowly over the years. By 1979 some 333 miles of the projected 4.48-mile parkway were completed. The finished portion linked many historic and natural features including Mount Locust, the earliest inn on the Trace, Emerald Mound, one of the largest Indian ceremonial structures in the United States, Chickasaw Village and Bynum Mounds in Mississippi, and Colbert's Ferry and Metal Ford in Tennessee.89 While the Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace parkways were placed under construction, a number of other national parkway proposals were surveyed and studied by the Park Service. The list of parkway proposals investigated by the agency during the 1930s included:
A number of other parkway proposals were recommended to the Park Service for consideration:
The growing popularity and use of both national and state parkways already developed and the numerous surveys and proposals for additional parkways prompted many to call for the formulation of a national parkway system plan by 1939. The problem of judging the merits of each new parkway proposal from a national perspective was becoming more complicated as the number of proposals increased. A national system plan would effect a coordinated and integrated system of national parkways and would serve as a basis for the consideration of individual proposals for national parkways and the coordination of the various state parkway programs.91 K. National Recreation Areas (Reservoir-Related Areas) Another new type of federal recreation area in the National Park System grew out of large-scale, multipurpose power development and reclamation projects such as the Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam) project. The Boulder Canyon Project Act, passed in 1928, authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to construct Boulder Dam on the Colorado River, thereby creating Lake Mead above the dam. As the largest artificial lake in the world at that time, Lake Mead would ultimately extend some 115 miles above the dam and have 550 miles of shoreline. The lake, together with adjacent areas, was reserved with the idea of making it a future national monument. Boulder Dam was constructed during the years 1931-35. On June 22, 1936, Congress appropriated $10,000 for a study to determine the recreational possibilities at Boulder Dam and Lake Mead. The study was to be conducted by the National Park Service in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. While the study was being conducted the Park Service commenced supervision of recreational development at Lake Mead with CCC enrollees.92 The study concluded that recreational possibilities were good, and a cooperative agreement was drawn up between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service on October 13, 1936, providing that the Park Service would assume responsibility for all recreational activities at Lake Mead. Legal authority for such an agreement was contained in the act of June 30, 1932 (later amended on July 20, 1942), entitled "an act to authorize interdepartmental procurement by contract." The agreement was significant in that it established a new policy under which the National Park Service cooperated with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps Engineers in the administration of recreational areas of national importance resulting from the impoundment of waters by large dams.93 Under the provisions of the cooperative agreement, the Bureau of Reclamation retained jurisdiction and authority over Boulder Dam, all engineering works associated with it, the land adjacent to the dam, and the administration of Boulder City and all activities located within its boundaries. The National Park Service had jurisdiction over the remainder of the Boulder Canyon Project Area, including the airport on the outskirts of Boulder City and authority and responsibility for all activities conducted thereon. These activities included the administration, protection, and maintenance of recreational activities and facilities, construction and improvement of roads and trails, and preservation and interpretation of several Indian sites and a variety of natural history points of interest Among the recreational facilities that the Park Service would administer and further develop were campgrounds, picnic areas, boating docks and ramps, horse trails, and bathing beaches.94 In June 1937 Director Cammerer observed that the "value and national importance of the Boulder Dam recreational area was proved by the public use of the area during the past year and by the vast scientific interest in it displayed by specialists in many fields."95 On August 11, 1947, the name was changed from Boulder Dam National Recreation Area to Lake Mead National Recreation Area.96 By 1952 Davis Dam had been completed downstream, impounding 67-mile-long Lake Mohave whose upper waters lapped the foot of the dam. The Park Service accepted responsibility for recreational activities around Lake Mohave as part of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and on October 8, 1964, this area, consisting of nearly 1,500,000 acres, was formally established as a unit of the National Park System.97 The Boulder Dam National Recreation Area set a precedent for the Park Service. In 1946 Coulee Dam National Recreation Area was established under an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation that was patterned after the Boulder Dam cooperative agreement. Between 1952 and 1962 three more such areas were established--Shadow Mountain in Colorado; Glen Canyon in Arizona-Utah; and Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity in California. By 196.4 application of the national recreation area concept to major impoundments behind federal dams, whether constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers, appeared to be well-accepted by Congress. Eight more reservations of this type were authorized as additions to the National Park System between 1964 and 1972.98 L. National Seashores The last of the new types of recreational areas added to the National Park System in the 1930s was the national seashore. The concept combined the preservation of unspoiled natural and historical areas with provision, at suitable locations, for beachcombing, surf bathing, swimming at protected beaches, surf and sport fishing, bird-watching, nature study, and visits to historic structures. The seashore concept also sought to protect the way of life to which the people of a given shore area had been accustomed for generations.99 In 1934 the National Park Service launched a preliminary survey study of some twenty areas along the Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, and Great Lakes shores in an effort to preserve the remaining unspoiled coastlines for public recreation areas. Although extensive attention was not given to shoreline preservation until the 1950s, the fact that private development was consuming the remaining unspoiled seashore and lakeshore areas at an alarming rate and leaving less of it available for public use was increasingly recognized in the early 1930s. Little had been done to reserve shore areas for public use, and the rush for seashore summer homesites and the land and real estate booms of the prosperous 1920s had taken its toll. The Park Service thus felt that it was appropriate to include seashores and lakeshores in the overall land-use conservation and recreational planning programs made possible through New Deal relief efforts.100 Employing the technical expertise of the Coast Guard and other government agencies, the National Park Service continued its seashore and lakeshore studies in 1936 and 1937. The studies had two principal objectives: first, identification of those areas of outstanding importance from the national standpoint that might be considered as additions to the National Park System; and second, those that were outstanding from the state standpoint and that were needed primarily for recreational purposes. The study resulted in the recommendation that twelve major stretches of unspoiled Atlantic and Gulf Coast shoreline, comprising some 437 miles of beach, be preserved as national seashores in the National Park System and thirty areas be preserved as part of state park systems.101 One of the shorelines, Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, attracted considerable attention, and local Representative Lindsay Warren succeeded in getting legislation through Congress on August 17, 1937, authorizing the establishment of the cape as the first national seashore in the National Park System. The bill stipulated that the area should cover approximately 100 square miles of barrier islands and beach and that the cape would not be formally established until the state had acquired the lands, except within village boundaries, and turned them over cost-free to the federal government. Residents of the area might make a living fishing under rules to be established by the Secretary of the Interior. Except for certain portions of the area deemed especially adapted for swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational facilities, the seashore was to remain a primitive wilderness area to preserve its unique flora and fauna. The act also provided for the retention of the 5,915-acre Pea Island migratory bird refuge under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture.102 In March 1938 a National Park Service planning team prepared a "Prospectus of Cape Hatteras National Seashore." The prospectus included the presentation of basic information relative to the area and the formulation of policies for its development. Since the cape was the first area of its kind to be authorized by Congress the Park Service adopted a policy to be used in the selection, development, and operation of this and other similar areas that might be acquired in the future. The policy statement read:
The years 1939-41 witnessed the initial efforts taken toward the goal of establishing Cape Hatteras as a unit of the National Park System. On March 30, 1939, the State of North Carolina created the State Cape Hatteras National Seashore Commission to direct the acquisition of state and private lands for the national seashore with an appropriation of $20,000. While the state was beginning its land acquisition program Congress passed a bill redesignating the area as a "national seashore recreational area" and permitted limited hunting under carefully prescribed limits. By June 1941 the approved boundaries of the seashore included an aggregate of some 62,500 acres within which were three existing federal areas comprising 405 acres: Kill Devil Hill National Memorial, Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, and Fort Raleigh National Historic Site.104 The Cape Hatteras land acquisition program lagged until after World War II . By then private development had made the projected northern boundaries unfeasible, and the revised boundaries were reduced to some 30,000 acres. With the generous aid of the Old Dominion Foundation, established by Paul Mellon, and the Avalon Foundation, created by Ailsa Mellon Bruce, substantial and equal grants were made to the Park Service, which matched by the State of North Carolina, made the establishment of Cape Hatteras possible in 1953.105 The seashore and lakeshore studies of the 1930s were not resumed until the Mission 66 program of the mid-1950s. With the support of the Old Dominion and Avalon foundations, the new shoreline surveys resulted in several major reports including Our Vanishing Shoreline (1955), A Report on the Seashore Recreation Survey of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (1955), Our Fourth Shore, Great Lakes Shoreline Recreation Survey (1959), and Pacific Coast Recreation Area Survey (1959). Despite the fact that the second national seashore--Cape Cod--was not authorized by Congress until August 7, 1961, some twenty-four years after the initial authorization for Cape Hatteras, the National Park System had fifteen seashores or lakeshores by 1972 encompassing some 718 miles of beach and 711,075 acres.106 Chapter Five: New Initiatives in the Fields of History, Historic Preservation and Historical Park Development and Interpretation A. Background to Involvement of National Park Service in New Initiatives in Historical Field The preservation of historical and archeological sites became a responsibility of the Department of the Interior with passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906 and of the National Park Service at its establishment in 1916. The legislation establishing the Park Service named "historic conservation" as an important responsibility of the new bureau. Pursuant to the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Department of the Interior, as early as 1916, had under its jurisdiction seven national monuments of historical and archeological interest, as well as Mesa Verde National Park. These areas were placed under the National Park Service upon its establishment and formed the initial nucleus of its system of "historic sites."1 From 1916-28 the number of historical and archeological areas administered by the National Park Service increased to sixteen. The forward thrust of the agency into the acquisition, preservation, and development of historical and archeological parks received tremendous impetus when Horace M. Albright became the new director of the Park Service on January 12, 1929. As director of the National Park Service from 1929 to 1933 Albright launched the agency on a new course in historic preservation destined to influence greatly the future growth and direction of the National Park System. The first opportunities to put the agency squarely into the field of historic preservation and development came with the establishment of George Washington Birthplace National Monument on January 23, 1930, and of Colonial National Monument on December 30, 1930, in accordance with legislative authority granted on July 3. Thus, the foundations of a program in historical park development were laid and the initial steps taken that would eventually place the Park Service in a leadership role in the emerging historic preservation movement in the United States. 2 B. Creation and Activities of History Division The growing importance of historical areas in the National Park System and the wide variety of new questions, issues, and problems that these areas presented led to the creation of a historical division in the Branch of Research and Education, headed by Harold C. Bryant, in 1931. On September 10 of that year, Verne E. Chatelain, chairman of the history and social sciences department at Nebraska State Teachers College in Peru, was appointed to head this division with the title of park historian. Chatelain's responsibilities belied the title he was given. He was assigned responsibility for extending and coordinating the historical and archeological research program of the Park Service, supervising the Service's activities in the fields of history and archeology, assisting in the formulation and implementation of policies and methods of procedure for preservation, interpretation, and development in the parks, initiating studies of policies relative to new area acquisition and techniques of restoration and reconstruction, and providing professional judgment on a wide range of new historical area proposals emanating from Congress. 3 In his role as the first historian employed in the Washington office, Chatelain had the task of attempting to reorient the organization from its longstanding concern with western natural areas to a new awareness of its responsibilities for eastern historical parks and preservation issues. As part of his effort to educate the Park Service to historical values, he called a history conference in Washington in November 1931. Among the recommendations that Chatelain supported for inclusion in the overall philosophy of the agency's programs and policies were:
During the next eighteen months Chatelain refined his thinking further regarding the function of a historical program in the National Park Service and the formulation of a policy for the development of a system of national historic sites. On November 19, 1932, a committee consisting of Chatelain and Roger W. Toll, superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, was appointed by Director Albright to address these topics. On December 12 they submitted a report to the director which included the following excerpts:
Later on April 21, 1933, Chatelain submitted another lengthy memorandum to Assistant Director Arthur E. Demaray that detailed his conception of a historical program for the agency. The memorandum read:
In June 1935 Chatelain wrote on the role and interpretive objectives of the historical and archeological areas in the National Park System:
C. Historical Program at Colonial National Monument One of the first historical programs to be established in the parks was at Colonial National Monument. The impetus for such a program was the sesquicentennial observance of Lord Charles Cornwallis' surrender to the Americans at Yorktown in October 1781 . Although the historical program was well underway before Chatelain assumed his office, he nevertheless would play a significant role in its future development along with the local park historians. By June 1931 William M. Robinson, Jr., an engineer from Georgia who had written several historical works on the Confederate navy, had been hired as superintendent. Two professionally-trained "ranger historians," characterized as a new breed of Park Service employee, had been employed to commence a program of documentary research and planning that was a necessary prerequisite for the preservation, restoration, and interpretation of the earthworks and historic structures at Yorktown and solving the restoration problems at Jamestown. The two historians, B. Floyd Flickinger, a teacher at William and Mary, and Elbert Cox, a graduate student at the University of Virginia, found themselves almost completely without guidance at first because they represented a new discipline.8 During the next five years the historical program at Colonial was developed under the general guidance of Chatelain. The major objective of the historical program became the hope that Colonial would "serve as a link to bind the past to the present and be a guide and an inspiration for the future." This was to be accomplished
Summing up a presentation on the historical methods that had been used in the Colonial historical program, B. Floyd Flickinger observed in January 1936:
D. Morristown National Historical Park Verne Chatelain also became actively involved in the National Park Service effort to acquire land for a new historical area in Morristown, New Jersey, the site of the Continental Army's winter encampments in 1776-77 and 1779-80. After investigating the site at the request of Horace Albright, he wrote a report in April 1932, recommending the site as a "Federal Historical Reserve" as it possessed every possible qualification for a first-class historical park. The proposed park would include not only the Jockey Hollow encampment site, but also the Ford Mansion, a significant Georgian house that had served as Washington's headquarters and in which was presently located a major collection of Washington manuscripts and books exhibited by the Washington Association of New Jersey. 10 Albright and Chatelain visited Morristown in November 1932 and a conference was arranged in January 1933 with Washington Association officials, local civic and business leaders, Louis C. Cramton, special assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, and Chatelain, representing Director Albright, in attendance. The draft of a park bill adopted by the conferees included provisions relative to the probable value and educational importance of the Washington Association collections, the eventual construction of a fireproof museum and library to house and display these materials, and new legal status for the concept of a national historical park. Such a park would not come into being by means of a presidential proclamation as did national monuments. Congress itself would set up the terms under which the park would become operative. In so doing, the draft bill gave the proposed park "the rank and dignity equal to the scenic program in the West." 11 The bill for establishment of Morristown National Historical Park was submitted to both houses of Congress (H.R. 14302; S. 5469) in mid-January 1933. Secretary of the Interior Lyman Wilbur supported the bill as "the most important park project before this department at the present time." 12 Hearings were held by the House Committee on Public Lands on January 24 and 27 with Director Albright providing the principal testimony. On February 3 the committee reported favorably on the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds did likewise on February 8.13 The House committee observed in its report that the bill proposed "to set aside as a national historical park certain areas at and in the vicinity of Morristown, New Jersey, which have outstanding historic importance because of their association with Gen. George Washington and his campaigns in the Revolutionary War." The report continued:
The act (Public Law 409), providing for the establishment of Morristown National Historical Park, was signed by President Hoover on March 2, 1933.15 After the deeds to the lands were accepted by the U.S. Government, the park was formally dedicated on July 4, 1933, with Secretary Ickes giving the principal speech.16 In his annual report for 1933 Director Cammerer observed:
In later years Chatelain observed that the addition of Morristown had a significant impact on the development of the historical program in the National Park Service. According to him the Morristown historical program
E. Impact of New Deal Programs and Reorganization of 1933 on National Park Service Historical Program Development By the time of the reorganization in 1933 the historical program of the National Park Service had been underway for less than two years. Nevertheless, the foundations for a fully-developed historical program had been laid through the pioneering efforts in research, preservation, and interpretation at George Washington Birthplace and Colonial national monuments and Morristown National Historical Park. The reorganization, which quadrupled the number of historical areas in the National Park Service by adding some 57 such units, made the Park Service the leading historical park management agency in the United States virtually overnight. In 1934 Director Cammerer acknowledged the tremendous growth of the Park Service historical program as well as its goals, objectives, and inherent problems:
The "inestimable value" of the various New Deal emergency relief and funding programs was crucial to the implementation and extension of the embryonic Park Service historical program. The influx of money and personnel that became available to the agency as a result of its involvement in the New Deal public works programs presented great opportunities to the Service in carrying out a program of preservation, restoration, planning, and interpretation of historical areas.20 Under the ECW program that was organized during the spring of 1933 the National Park Service was assigned the responsibility of directing the vast program of the CCC in the preservation, development, and interpretation of both National Park System units and state parks having historical and archeological values. Archeological projects undertaken through federal emergency funds were jointly supervised by the Park Service and the Smithsonian Institution. Park Service historical and archeological personnel guided the technical phases of the historical and archeological activities of the CCC and provided state authorities with assistance in developing preservation policies while they further refined the historical policies governing historical areas in the National Park System. Through these efforts, the Service began to play a direct role in historic preservation at both the federal and state levels. 21 The ECW field organization in the historical parks provided for the position of historical technician in order "that the general viewpoint of the N.P.S. toward the development of historical sites could be represented." The historical technician was the field representative of the Park Service who was "above all familiar with the aims and objectives of the historical program." The ECW handbook noted that such persons were
In summary, the functions and duties of the historical technician included responsibility for: (1) interpreting the aims and objectives of the Park Service historical program as applied to the work projects: (2) furnishing historical advice on the relative importance of the historical remains on proposed work; (3) furnishing historical information necessary for work projects decided upon; (4) custodianship of historical and archeological artifacts found during the course of emergency conservation work; (5) providing technical expertise on the use of the park by the public; and (6) directing the park educational program.22 At the beginning of the ECW program the historical technicians had no other assistance than that rendered by "so-called miscellaneous or cultural foremen." Appointed under the CCC field organization, these foremen, later classified as historical assistants, were primarily young men with training in history or the related social sciences. Of the thirty-five assistants that had been hired by 1934, nearly half had masters' degrees or doctorates in these fields. They were responsible not to the technicians, however, but to the work superintendents. The task of recruiting, training, and educating qualified historical technicians for the ECW program fell to Chatelain. In later years he observed:
The problems of recruiting and training historians, coordinating the historical program in the National Park System as well as the ECW State Park program, and establishing uniform historical research and preservation policies fell to Chatelain as a result of the reorganization in 1933. In effect, a branch of historic sites was established with Chatelain as acting assistant director and a small staff paid with emergency funds to oversee the increased historical activities of the National Park Service--a step that would later pave the way for passage of the Historic Sites Act in 1935. Accordingly, he had Elbert Cox assigned to his office in fall 1933 to provide assistance in hiring historians, establishing a centralized research staff at the Library of Congress, and reviewing reports coming in from the field. 24 Conferences were also organized to aid in the formulation and articulation of a National Park Service philosophy of historic preservation and a policy of administering historical areas. For example, B. Floyd Flickinger chaired a Conference of Historical and Archeological Superintendents in Washington on November 23, 1934. Chatelain, architect Charles E. Peterson, Assistant Director Demaray, and Director Cammerer were on the program to represent the administrative functions that related to the historical areas. At the conference Chatelain pleaded for better-quality restoration work based on thorough research and supervised by trained personnel, urged development of a more thorough historical interpretation program, and defended the idea of historic sites as educational tools, citing the nearness of the new park areas to the metropolitan areas of the East.25 Thus by late 1934 many of the barriers that made the movement toward a national policy of historic preservation more difficult had been removed. The reorganization of 1933 had concentrated administration of all federally-owned historical and archeological areas in one agency. The National Park Service employed a staff of professional historians capable of providing the technical knowledge and skill that it needed to carry out its programs. Through the many relief programs large sums and personnel were available to carry out a comprehensive historical program. Through the many assistance programs federal officials had the opportunity to become acquainted with the major problems of the states and localities in the field of historic preservation.26 F. Historic American Buildings Survey One of the first steps in the direction of the formulation of a national policy for the preservation of historic structures was the creation of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) by the National Park Service in 1933. Charles E. Peterson, chief of the Eastern Division of the Branch of Plans and Design of the Park Service, originated the idea of a nationwide plan using 1,000 unemployed architects, draftsmen, and photographers during a six-month period to secure, by measured drawings and photographs, as complete a graphic record as possible of the rapidly disappearing examples of early architecture and historic structures throughout the United States. The memorandum proposing the program was submitted to Associate Director Demaray in November and included both a justification and a suggested range of subjects for the project:
The proposal received swift approval from Demaray and Cammerer who then submitted it to Secretary Ickes on November 15, 1933. It was approved by the Secretary and the Federal Relief Administration by December 1.28 The opportunity for cooperation in this venture was offered to and accepted by Edward C. Kemper, executive secretary of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and Dr. Leicester B. Holland, FAIA, who served both as chairman of the Institute's Committee on the Preservation of Historic Buildings and as head of the Department of Fine Arts in the Library of Congress. The Park Service placed Thomas C. Vint, chief of plans and design in the Washington office, in charge of administering HABS. He was assisted by Thomas T. Waterman, John P. O'Neill, and Frederick D. Nichols. By late 1933 the United States had been divided into thirty-nine districts (six states in the northwest were left out because of winter weather conditions and the relatively low number of architects there who were unemployed), each with a district officer nominated by the AIA and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Upon appointment these officers contacted the local Civil Works Administration (CWA) officers to secure architects and draftsmen for the field parties. An advisory board was named by the Secretary of the Interior consisting of Holland, chairman; Dr. Herbert E. Bolton, professor of history University of California, Berkeley; Dr. I. T. Frary, Cleveland Museum of Arts, Ohio; Miss Harlean James, executive secretary, American Civic Association, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Waldo G. Leland, executive secretary, American Council of Learned Societies, Washington, D.C.; John Gaw Meem, architect, Santa Fe, New Mexico; William G. Perry, architect, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Simons, architect, Charleston, South Carolina; and Thomas E. Talmadge, architect, Chicago, Illinois.29 By early January 1934 most field parties were in operation. On February 15, however, the CWA began a gradual phasing out of its programs and officially ended its funding on May 1 . At the height of this first phase of its activity, HABS employed 772 persons in preparing measured drawings and pictorial histories of some 860 buildings. 30 The success of the program was acknowledged generally, and steps were taken to endow the program with a formal charter. On July 23, 1934, a memorandum of agreement was signed by the National Park Service, the American Institute of Architects, and the Library of Congress to insure a permanent organization for the coordination and continuity of HABS. Under the memorandum the American Institute of Architects, through each of its sixty-seven chapters, had the responsibility of identifying and cataloging structures (built before 1875) whose architectural merit or historical association made them a significant part of the cultural heritage of the United States. The Park Service would carry out the actual work of preparing measured drawings and taking photographs. The Fine Arts Division of the Library of Congress agreed to serve as the repository for the HABS inventory forms, drawings, and photographs. The advisory board continued in its same capacity with the aforementioned personnel. 31 Emergency relief appropriations obtained from various New Deal agencies, as well as collaborative student thesis work arranged in cooperation with universities and colleges, allowed HABS to continue during the depression years. In the early period HABS programs were operated by local field teams in the vicinity of the architects' homes. In fiscal year 1940, however, an effort was made to distribute the coverage of HABS programs on a wider basis. A unit was established in Washington to coordinate the program of four special field groups that would work out of Boston, Richmond, St. Louis, and San Francisco. Each of the four special units was given a station wagon and a travel allotment to enable it to operate over a wider area.32 By the end of 1940 funding and manpower had been reduced for HABS because of the hostilities in Europe. The survey virtually ceased during the American involvement in World War II, but early in 1941, some eight years after its commencement, a HABS catalogue was published containing entries for 6,389 structures recorded with 23,765 sheets of drawings and 25,357 photographs. 33 G. Movement Toward Passage of Legislation for National Program of Historic Preservation The reorganization of 1933 revealed the lack of a comprehensive nationwide program for the selection, acquisition, and preservation of historical and archeological sites. The federal government had been unable to plan, promote, and develop a well-rounded national program for the preservation of American historical and archeological sites under existing legislation. Certain periods of American history were well represented in terms of historical areas, while others equally important in the growth and development of the nation were ignored. A well-rounded pageant of America in terms of historic sites had never been projected, and no systematic evaluation of the historical resources of the nation had ever been undertaken. Before 1933 leadership in the preservation of historic properties came primarily from historically-minded individuals, patriotic societies, and private groups. Several factors helped to focus attention on the need for new legislation in the field of historic preservation in the early 1930s. Civic and private groups, motivated by community pride and anticipated commercial benefits, sponsored a large number of bills for the establishment of additional historical areas in the National Park System, pointing out the need for a systematic investigation of sites to insure wise selections. HABS directed attention to the vast number of important historical structures that were rapidly disappearing and the need for a comprehensive policy of wise selection based on high preservation standards. Leaders in the preservation movement who were familiar with historical activities in other countries called attention to the fact that while the United States had been the leader in the effort to preserve its outstanding scenic areas, it had only initiated haphazard efforts in the preservation of historical areas compared with the massive preservation efforts in most European countries. 34 Early in November 1933 Major Gist Blair, son of Montgomery Blair, Postmaster General under President Abraham Lincoln and owner of the Blair House that would one day become the nation's guest house, visited President Roosevelt. Blair felt the need for a general plan that would coordinate the activities of the federal government in the field of historic preservation with those of the states and municipalities. On November 10 Roosevelt sent a note to Blair, inviting him to give
Roosevelt asked Blair to talk the matter over with Secretary Ickes and observed that legislation might be necessary.35 Blair conferred with Interior officials and at his request Director Cammerer provided him with a "Statement of Principles and Standards" that delineated the Interior Department's conception of the role that the federal government should play in historic preservation. The first section stated the principles and standards governing the selection of historical areas for inclusion in the National Park System. The criteria were the first such standards drafted by the Division of History and had not yet appeared in print as an official policy statement. According to the document the determining factor in the preservation of a historic site by the federal government was whether the site possessed "certain matchless or unique qualities which entitle it to a position of first rank among historic sites." That quality existed:
The remainder of the sites should be preserved by state or local governments or by private or semi-public organizations. To determine which sites possessed the quality of uniqueness, Cammerer suggested that the National Park Service should conduct a national survey every ten years beginning in 1935 and classify sites by listing them as "Potential National" or "Non-Potential National." He also recommended that a five-member national board on historic sites, composed of noted historians, architects, and archeologists, be appointed to assist in the "Decennial Survey" activities and aid in the classification and preservation of historic sites by making appropriate recommendations. 36 Blair also gathered information and documentation from R.C. Lindsay, the British Ambassador, concerning British legislation and historic preservation practices. He forwarded these materials to President Roosevelt on March 7, 1934, who in turn sent them to Secretary Ickes three days later. 37 Soon thereafter Blair submitted his own proposal calling for the formation of a national preservation commission that would administer and coordinate a wide variety of historical activities. On May 23 Ickes responded to the proposal in a letter to Roosevelt, which had been drafted by Chatelain, echoing the Park Service interest in developing a broad preservation policy but opposing the creation of a new federal agency when the Service had just consolidated its administration over all federal historical areas. The letter attempted to show that the commission would be a needless duplication of Park Service prerogatives in leading the development of a national preservation policy and would put the historical program back into the hands of amateurs at a time when professional historians had been brought in to bring order to the federal system of historic sites. Ickes felt the Department of the Interior had the capability necessary for the coordination and administration of historical resources and urged setting aside of Blair's plan in favor of a broad new survey under the National Park Service. 38 During this time various preservation groups became actively interested in the promotion of a comprehensive national program of historic preservation. The General Society of Colonial Wars, of which Blair was a member, established a Committee on the Preservation of Historic Monuments and the Marking of Historic Sites. The committee held meetings in May and June 1934 in Washington and Williamsburg and conferred with Interior officials and various Congressmen. The Williamsburg board of directors, which had been watching the Park Service historical program with interest, also became interested in the movement for a national policy of historic preservation and gave tentative consideration to the idea of turning over Colonial Williamsburg to the Park Service.39 During the summer of 1934 the National Park Service was influenced by these historical groups as well as by Chatelain's continual prodding for an expansion of the existing historical program. As a result the bureau began to press more earnestly for the necessary legislation to implement a national program of historic preservation. The growing sentiment of the bureau for national legislation was evident in a report on recreational land use in the United States that the National Park Service prepared for the Land Planning Committee of the Natural Resources Board:
As early as the summer of 1934 Director Cammerer and Secretary Ickes were discussing the need for a historic sites and buildings branch within the National Park Service for the purpose of developing a federal historical restoration and preservation program. 41 On September 28 Ickes ordered Solicitor Nathan Margold to prepare a draft bill creating within the National Park Service a Division on Historic American Buildings and Antiquities to be headed by an assistant director. The new division, Ickes indicated,
As future events would bear out, this request and recommendation by Ickes would lead to three important events in the implementation of a national program of historic preservation with the National Park Service as the leading agency in the process: establishment of a Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, passage of the Historic Sites Act, and establishment of a National Park Trust Fund Board. 42 After looking into the matter Margold came to the conclusion that further information was needed to draft the proposed bill. Because of his long-held interest in historic preservation under the aegis of the National Park Service Horace M. Albright, by now a successful businessman, persuaded his friend John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to back a detailed comprehensive study of preservation work and legislation both in the United States and Europe including an analytic study of the administrative structure of the Park Service's historical program. The study would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the necessary background information to enable his office to draft a comprehensive historic preservation bill. Shortly thereafter, Ickes appointed J. Thomas Schneider, a graduate of Harvard Law School who was working in Newark, New Jersey, as his special assistant to undertake the study, and Schneider commenced his work on November 15.43 Schneider toured a number of historical areas in the eastern United States, discussed the proposed historic preservation legislation with Park Service historians, preservation authorities representing various public and private organizations, and the staff at Colonial Williamsburg, and gathered data on European legislation and practice. In early January 1935 he drafted a bill with the help of Assistant Solicitor Rufus G. Poole, incorporating the overall plan for a national program of historic preservation as well as the administrative machinery for a national park trust fund board. On January 25 he officially turned over the draft bill to Ickes, noting that the bill was general in tone because he hoped to gather more specifics during his upcoming journey to Europe for incorporation in the bill at a later date. While in Europe he hoped to study European preservation policy and practice first hand and gather data for a report that he was preparing for Ickes. 44 H. Legislative History of Historic Sites Act and National Park Trust Fund Board Act The Historic Sites Act represented a popular idea at a time of economic crisis when the nation needed a sense of its heritage. The proposed bill, drafted by Poole and Schneider, and its companion bill to create a national park trust fund board, quickly found influential Congressional sponsors. After the bills received a favorable report from the Bureau of the Budget, Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia introduced them in the Senate on February 28, 1935.45 The bills, which were first referred to the Committee on the Library but later transferred to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, were entitled (S. 2073) "An Act to provide for the preservation of historical American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance" and (S. 2074) "An Act to create a National Park Trust Fund Board." On March 13 Representative Maury Maverick of Texas introduced the bills (H.R. 6670--Historic Sites Act; H.R. 6734--National Park Trust Fund Board Act) in the House where they were referred to the Committee on Public Lands. While neither legislator had taken part in drafting the bills, they were both interested in historic preservation. Byrd, as a former governor of Virginia, could not ignore the importance of Colonial Williamsburg and the George Washington Birthplace and Colonial national monuments. Maverick, a first-term Congressman, had been a long-time supporter of the San Antonio Conservation Society and more recently had turned his attention to an effort to have the San Jose Mission made a unit of the National Park System. 46 When the bills were taken up for consideration by the two Congressional committees, the committee chairmen requested further information and clarification from Secretary Ickes. In response to these requests Ickes submitted identical letters to Rene L. DeRouen of Louisiana, chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands, and Robert F. Wagner of New York, chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, on March 26 and 30 respectively. The legislation, wrote Ickes,
The House Committee on Public Lands held hearings on H.R. 6670 and H.R. 6734 on April 1, 2, and 5. The first person to speak was Secretary Ickes, who explained that the House committee was about to consider two bills, one to create a National Park Service Trust Fund Board that could expend private donations given to the Park Service, and the other the Historic Sites Act itself. Ickes stated that the essential purpose of the bill was
Moreover, he needed the act to provide him with proper professional historical advice and services since Congress had responded so enthusiastically to the cause of history:
Chatelain also had the opportunity to testify at the hearings. After describing the degree to which the nation had no coordinated plan for protecting its historic sites, he noted that local agencies had been unable to handle the job. Hence he strongly supported the idea of cooperation in saving the nation's historical heritage:
Less than one week after the hearings were completed, President Roosevelt indicated his wholehearted support for the Historic Sites Act in letters sent to Chairmen DeRouen and Wagner on April 10, 1935. The president noted:
The House committee reported both bills on May 9, recommending passage subject to several amendments.51 On June 7 the Senate considered both bills in executive session and reported favorably on both with amendments.52 Three days later S. 2073 and S. 2074 passed the Senate in amended form, and on June 14 both bills were referred to the House Committee on Public Lands.53 On June 18 the House committee reported favorably on the amended Senate versions subject to further revision and recommended their passage in lieu of H.R. 6670 and H.R. 6734.54 The National Park Trust Fund bill (S. 2074) became law on July 10, but passage of the Historic Sites bill (S. 2073) was held up because of the opposition of Representative Bertrand Snell of New York.55 Angered because Secretary Ickes had earlier rescinded an allocation for a bridge in Ogdensburg, New York, Snell continued his tactics until President Roosevelt personally intervened to restore the bridge appropriation.56 On August 5 the House amended and passed S. 2073 in lieu of H.R. 6670.57 At this point Senator Byrd requested Secretary Ickes opinion as to whether he wished the Senate to agree to the House version of the bill or whether a conference should be called. Ickes replied on August 12:
Ickes recommended that the Senate concur in the House amendments.58 On August 14 the Senate complied with the Secretary's wishes, and on August 21 Roosevelt signed the bill into law as Public Law 292 (49 Stat.666 ).59 I. Significance of the Historic Sites Act and the National Park Trust Fund Board Act The Historic Sites Act was viewed by many in the historic preservation movement in the United States as "the Magna Charta in the program for the preservation of historic sites" and provided evidence to them that "a new cultural nationalism" had arrived. 60 By committing the federal government to a continuing effort in the preservation of the places important in American history the act profoundly influenced the course of the historic preservation movement in the United States and placed the National Park Service at the forefront of that movement.61 The act declared "that it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States." To execute this policy, Congress conferred a broad range of powers upon the Secretary of the Interior to be exercised through the National Park Service. These powers included the responsibility to:
The act also established the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments to supercede the National Park Service Educational Advisory Board. The new advisory board was to advise the Secretary of the Interior on matters of national significance, additions to the National Park System, and administrative policy. For the first time the federal government had developed a general policy broad enough to deal with the problem of the preservation of nationally significant historic sites, buildings, and objects. Armed with this sweeping legislation the National Park Service was in a position to exert a major influence on historic preservation, interpretation, and development on a nationwide basis. Broad and flexible, the new law promised much for the future of the preservation movement in the United States.62 The National Park Trust Fund Board legislation, which was largely modeled on the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board created on March 3, 1925, made provision for administering gifts on bequests of personal property by state and local governments, private organizations, and individuals. These bequests were to be held in a trust fund for use by the Service in the acquisition, preservation, and restoration of historic sites and other areas of scientific and geological interest. Money or securities in the fund were to be invested or reinvested from time to time by the Secretary of the Interior in a manner to be determined by the board, consisting of the secretaries of the Treasury and Interior, the Director of the National Park Service, and two individuals to be appointed by the president for five-year terms.63 J. Establishment of Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings Using some preliminary data that Schneider gathered before his European trip, Interior and Park Service officials began discussions leading toward the organization of a separate branch of historic sites and buildings as early as the summer of 1934. The purpose of the branch was to direct the comprehensive planning and development needs posed by the expanding Service historical program as a result of the reorganization of 1933. Accordingly, the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings of the Washington office was authorized by the Department of the Interior appropriation act for fiscal year 1936. The memorandum announcing the formation of the new branch, which began functioning nearly two months before passage of the Historic Sites Act on July 1, 1935, described the responsibilities of the organization
Dr. Chatelain was designated as acting assistant director of the branch.64 Because the Civil Service provisions for personnel in the new branch included only three additional employees, it was necessary to supplement the staff with ECW personnel. At the same time steps were taken to initiate civil service examinations for historian and archeology positions for the purpose of establishing a more permanent staff.65 After the regionalization plan for the National Park Service was adopted in 1936, changes were made in the duties and responsibilities of the branch vis-a-vis those of the historians in the regional offices and at the park level. On July 30 Chatelain issued a memorandum outlining the functions of the Washington office of the branch:
After some five years as head of the historical program of the National Park Service, Chatelain resigned from his position as acting assistant director of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings effective September 15, 1936, to take employment with the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Branch Spalding, superintendent of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park, was designated to serve as the acting assistant director on that date until further notice.67 A complete statement on the organization and functions of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was prepared on August 27, 1937. The statement noted:
As the coordinator of all the branches in the general administration of historical areas, it was the duty of the assistant director "to advise with the Branch of Land Acquisition and Regulation in approving historic lands for acquisition, determining methods of regulation, drafting legislation for establishment and protection of historical areas." He was to consult "with the Branches of Engineering and Plans and Design on problems of location and type of roads and trails, buildings, public use areas, and other physical developments in historical areas" and to confer "with the Branch of Operations regarding budget and personnel matters affecting historical areas." Master plans and individual project plans were subject to his review and approval. The assistant director was directly responsible to the director for the administration and implementation of an interpretive and museum program in the historical areas. He was responsible for the relationship of the National Park Service to learned societies, educational institutions, and civic and other organizations devoted to history and archeology. It was his duty to see that the Park Service initiated and put into effect a national policy of historic preservation, including the Historic Sites Survey, under the guidelines set forth in the Historic Sites Act. The Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings consisted of two divisions--the Research and Survey and the Coordinating divisions. The Deputy Assistant Director in charge of the Research and Survey Division had direct responsibility for conducting the Historic Sites Survey and the research program connected with the survey as well as that required to administer the historical and archeological areas in the National Park System. It was his duty to provide for the coordinated historical and archeological research program of the Park Service, both in Washington and the field, to supervise the formulation of basic historical plans for each area in the National Park System, and to produce research products geared toward the Servicewide interpretive and educational programs. The Research and Survey Division collected and analyzed data and acted as a clearing house of information in the specialized spheres of historical and archeological activity, thus providing aid in the solution of administrative and technical problems in the field. The division was composed of three sections, each supervised by a section chief: historical research, archeological research, and Historic Sites Survey. The Historical Research Section organized the Park Service research program as a whole, interpreted its objectives and methods to the field, and followed the execution of the planned program for each area to insure its sound and adequate basis. The chief of this section was responsible for the development and execution of three principal research activities in Washington and at each historic site in the National Park System: (1) the systematic accumulation of basic historical source material of all types applicable to each area; (2) the preparation and maintenance of proper bibliographies, catalogues, indexes, lists, and guides to these materials; and (3) the interpretation of these materials so as to insure an historically-sound physical development for each park and to obtain an historically accurate interpretation of the area for educational uses. The program of this section was carried forward through historians attached to the individual parks with the aid of a small research staff in Washington. The chief of the Archeological Section planned and directed, through the field technicians, all archeological study and investigation necessary to the preservation and development for public use of archeological areas in the National Park System. The chief planned and supervised archeological surveys of all national areas containing prehistoric remains to identify and evaluate for preservation all important prehistoric sites and objects within the boundaries of each park. His duties included planning and direction for the systematic accumulation of all archeological reports and other data pertinent to an area and responsibility for the introduction and maintenance of appropriate scientific archeological records. A major task of the field personnel of this section was to translate the scientific conclusions of their studies and that of other archeologists who had worked in an area into sound park development. Among his other responsibilities the chief of this section assembled data on techniques of preservation and the latest scientific methods for transmittal to the field, contributed to the interpretive program for archeological areas, directed the archeological side of the Historic Sites Survey, and coordinated the archeological activities of the Park Service with those of the Smithsonian Institution and other scientific organizations. The chief of the Historic Sites Survey Section was charged with general responsibility for the conduct of the survey authorized by the Historic Sites Act. He planned and supervised through the survey historians in the regional offices the study and investigation on a nationwide basis of historic sites and structures and organized the material from such studies for the purpose of developing long-term plans for their acquisition, preservation, interpretation, and utilization. The deputy assistant director in charge of the Coordinating Division was responsible for the educational and general administrative functioning of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings. He formulated and directed the interpretive program for historical and archeological areas in the National Park System and aided the assistant director in the handling of administrative routine such as personnel, fiscal affairs, and correspondence pertaining to interpretation and miscellaneous matters. The deputy assistant director in charge of the Coordinating Division was assisted by two field coordinators--the chiefs of the General Historical and Civil War sections. As specialists in educational methodology, public relations, and the history embodied in their respective groups of areas, the field coordinators visited each area frequently, advised park superintendents and historians relative to the program of historical interpretation and research, and provided the liaison between the field and the Washington office regarding such matters. The deputy assistant director in charge of the Coordinating Division was also aided by the ECW coordinator who maintained close touch with all ECW activity in historical areas and represented the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings in its dealings with the Branch of Recreational Planning and State Cooperation. He reviewed all ECW and other emergency projects proposed for historical and archeological areas and attended to their proper clearance within the branch. The ultimate expression of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was expressed through the field historical staff. The personnel of that staff performed directly the historical interpretive function and carried out a large portion of the research program. Representing the branch in the office of the park superintendent or the regional office, they advised their supervisors in all matters pertaining to history and archeology, including interpretation and physical planning and development.68 Several months later Director Cammerer issued a memorandum clarifying the attitude of the National Park Service as to the functions of the members of the field historical staff. The memorandum read:
Branch Spalding continued to serve as the acting assistant director of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings until May 16, 1938. On that date Ronald F. Lee entered on duty as the assistant director in charge of the branch (a title that would soon be formally changed to chief, Branch of Historic Sites).70 An administrative reorganization of the Washington office (effective August 1, 1938) provided for certain changes in the organization of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings. The name of the branch was shortened to the Branch of Historic Sites and Lee's title as head of the branch was changed to that of Supervisor of Historic Sites. The branch had two divisions: Historic Sites Division, under Francis S. Ronalds, assistant chief; and Archeologic Sites Division, under Dr. Arthur R. Kelly, acting assistant chief (permanent appointment received on October 3, 1938). The Historic Sites Division had two sections under the new office realignment: Research and Survey Section under Alvin P. Stauffer, supervisor; and Planning and Interpretative Section, under Charles W. Porter, supervisor. The functions' statement of the branch as outlined on an organizational chart of the "Branch of Historic Sites," approved on August 1, 1938, was:
In 1939 Herbert E. Kahler, who had been superintendent at Morristown for about a year, traded jobs with Francis Ronalds and became in effect Lee's assistant. Thus, in the final productive years before the outbreak of World War II, Lee became in effect chief historian and Kahler assistant chief historian in the operation of the organization.72 K. Adoption of Code of Procedure for Implementation of Historic Sites Act By September 1935 the National Park Service was actively engaged in framing a code of procedure to serve as a guide in directing the varied activities under the Historic Sites Act. The code was designed to include basic regulations and policies that were to be followed in carrying out the provisions of the act and governing its enforcement.73 By this time Schneider had submitted his study entitled "Report to the Secretary of the Interior on the Preservation of Historic Sites and Buildings," and his research was used in formulating the directives to put the Historic Sites Act into operation. The report consisted of three parts:
It was this latter section that was used to draft the code of procedure.74 In February 1936 the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, in cooperation with the legal staff of the Department of the Interior, finalized and issued the code of procedure. The three individuals who were most responsible for the code's contents were Chatelain, Merritt Barton of the department's legal staff, and Lee. The regulations in the code included an account of each step to be taken before bringing an area into the National Park System as a National Historic Site, which was an entirely new type of area designation. The procedure for designating such a site included six steps:
L. Appointment and Early Activities of the Advisory Board In early February 1936 Secretary Ickes announced the appointment of eleven members to the Advisory Board as provided for in the Historic Sites Act. The eleven members were noted historians, archeologists, and preservationists representing all geographical areas of the nation. The list of members included: Edmund H. Abrahams, Savannah, Georgia (head of Joint Committee of Memorials of the City of Savannah, Secretary of the Sons of the Revolution, and head of the Savannah Commission for the Preservation of Landmarks). Dr. Herbert E. Bolton, Berkeley, California (chairman of the Department of History and Director of Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley). Dr. Hermon C. Bumpus, Duxbury, Massachusetts (chairman of the Committee on Museums in the National Park Service and a member of the American Association of Museums). Mrs. Reau Folk, Nashville, Tennessee (Regent of the Ladies Hermitage Association). George DeBenneville Keim, Edgewater Park, New Jersey (Governor-General of the Society of Colonial Wars, and chairman of the State Commission on Historical Sites in New Jersey). Dr. Alfred V. Kidder, Andover, Massachusetts (chairman of Division on Historical Research of the Carnegie Institution of Washington). Dr. Fiske Kimball, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Director of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art). Dr. Waldo G. Leland, Washington, D.C. (General Secretary of the American Council of Learned Societies). Archibald M. McCrea, Williamsburg, Virginia (Restorator of Carter's Grove). Dr. Frank R. Oastler, New York City (member of former Educational Advisory Board). Dr. Clark Wissler, New York City (Curator of Ethnology at the American Museum of National History and Professor of Anthropology in the Institute of Human Relations at Yale University).76 The Advisory Board held its first annual meeting in Washington, D.C. , on February 13-14, 1936. On the agenda were topics ranging from the ways and means of procuring funds for the preservation of historic sites to the drafting of a model law suited to the needs of state legislatures in recommending the preservation of local shrines and landmarks.77 The meeting was addressed by Ickes, Cammerer, and Chatelain, who outlined to the newly-appointed board important phases of the historical work of the Park Service and suggested plans for comprehensive action under the scope of the new legislation.78 At its second meeting on May 7-9, 1936, the Advisory Board adopted a number of resolutions concerning historic preservation. The principal one to be approved concerned a general statement of principles relating to the selection of historical and archeological sites that Chatelain had submitted to them. The approved statement read:
M. Historic Sites Survey: 1935-1941 One of the most significant programs to be organized by the National Park Service as a result of the Historic Sites Act was the Historic Sites Survey. The vast number of requests for federal assistance, which numbered more than 500 by early 1937, combined with the provisions of the act itself, made a comprehensive national survey of historic sites an essential first step toward the achievement of a national program of historic preservation. On December 8, 1936, the National Park Service issued "A Statement of Policy" that would serve as a guide in organizing and implementing the survey. According to the statement, the purpose of the survey was "to acquire an adequate system of sites, without encumbering the system with sites of insufficient importance, and without assuming more maintenance responsibility than can be met." In this matter the Service would adhere "to the principle whereby the criterion for determining the acquisition of a site is the unquestionable major significance of the site in national history."80 That same day Director Cammerer approved a memorandum setting forth the initial policies and procedures to be followed in conducting the survey. According to the memorandum, the Historic Sites Survey was "probably the most important single project now before the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, and in its ultimate effects one of the most significant projects of the National Park Service." The reasons for such an assertion were:
The memorandum also outlined the scope and methodology to be used in carrying out the survey. It was to represent a nationwide geographic distribution, include a well-rounded variety of historic sites, and cover each of the principal periods in the course of American history. Four steps were to be followed in implementing the survey: (1) an inventory or index catalogue of the important historical and archeological sites was to be prepared; (2) field investigations and research studies for the more promising areas were to be conducted; (3) areas were to be classified according to their national or non-national significance; and (4) development of a national plan for the preservation of important historical and archeological sites was to be carried out in cooperation with various national agencies and state planning boards.81 At its fourth annual meeting on March 25-26, 1937, the Advisory Board approved the general policies and procedures for the Historic Sites Survey as adopted by the National Park Service. To facilitate the classification process the board recommended that the historical and archeological sites be classified with reference to special themes covering the chief periods of American prehistory and history. Through this method, which was adopted by the Park Service, historical or archeological sites would be placed under one of these themes for comparison with other sites illustrating the same subject. The best example or examples would then be chosen for protection and inclusion, where otherwise not well maintained or preserved, within the National Park System. Sites of lesser importance would be recommended for state or local protection and development. Where possible these would be handled through the ECW state park program of the National Park Service in order that their development through state means might fit in with the system of national areas belonging to the same theme. Accordingly, there were twenty-three historical themes under which historic sites were to be classified and twelve cultural groupings under which archeological sites were to be classified. The historical themes were:
The archeological cultural groupings were:
As preparation for the Historic Sites Survey began the list of twenty-three historical themes was reduced to fifteen, and the archeological cultural groupings were similarly reorganized and reduced in number.83 By 1941, when wartime budget restrictions began to curtail the survey, reports or preliminary studies had been prepared on the following historical themes: 17th and 18th century French and Spanish sites; colonial Dutch and Swedish sites; 17th century English sites; western expansion of the frontier to 1830; and western expansion of the frontier, 1830-1900. Work also had begun on two thematic studies: 18th century English sites and American Revolutionary War sites. Some 564 historical sites and 334 archeological sites had been inventoried and 16 sites had been recommended by the Advisory Board and approved by the Secretary of the Interior as units of the National Park System. Reports on archeological sites had been prepared on the following themes: Early Man in North America; Prehistoric Sedentary Agriculture Groups; and Historic Sedentary Agricultural Groups. The survey of archeological sites had been carried out in cooperation with Harvard, Columbia, Michigan, Louisiana State, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia universities--one of the leading projects being the Middle Mississippi Valley Archeological Survey comprising sections of eastern Arkansas and western Mississippi.84 After the survey was halted by the war, it remained moribund until late 1957 when it was resumed by the National Park Service. By 1965 approximately 3,500 sites and buildings had been studied and evaluated by the survey.85 N. New Historical and Archeological Areas Added to National Park System: 1933-1941 Between the reorganization of 1933 and passage of the Historic Sites Act in 1935, four areas having historical or archeological interest became units of the National Park System. These areas were: Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia, June 14, 1934; Thomas Jefferson Memorial, District of Columbia, June 26, 1934; Fort Jefferson National Monument, Florida, January 4, 1935; and Fort Stanwix National Monument, New York, August 21, 1935.86 The first historical area to come under federal administration through the provisions of the Historic Sites Act was the setting for one of the most problematical projects in historic preservation--the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri--inasmuch as unemployment relief and urban renewal were probably more significant facets of the project than were historical questions. In 1933 public officials and business and civic groups formed a Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association to support a project to renovate the waterfront area in the city by turning it into a park and establishing a national expansion memorial . The federal government became interested in the park proposal, and on June 15, 1934, President Roosevelt signed into law an act establishing the United States Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission to develop plans for a national memorial commemorating Thomas Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase, and westward national expansion. On April 10, 1935, the governor of Missouri signed an enabling act authorizing cities of 400,000 or more inhabitants to issue bonds in aid of federal historic projects, and on September 10 St. Louis voted a bond issue of $7,500,000 of which $2,250,000 was made available soon thereafter. By executive order on December 21, 1935, President Roosevelt designated that "certain lands situate on the west bank of the Mississippi River at or near the site of Old St. Louis, Missouri, possess value as commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States and are a historic site within the meaning of the said [Historic Sites] act." The Park Service was designated as the bureau to develop the memorial and $6,750,000 in Federal funds were allocated to the project to be used with the $2,250,000 from St. Louis for the acquisition, preservation, and development of the area. Work on clearing the area began on October 10, 1939, but the preservation and development work as well as the construction of the memorial itself was not completed until the 1960s. Despite the designation by President Roosevelt in 1935 the national historic site was not officially authorized until May 17, 1954.87 Salem Maritime National Historic Site, the second such area (established March 18, 1938) to come into the National Park System under the provisions of the Historic Sites Act was easier for the professional staff of the Park Service to deal with since it involved the acquisition, preservation, and interpretation of a major early American port that had gained significance during the colonial, revolutionary, and federal periods of American history. Other areas that entered the National Park System as national historic sites during the period 1935-41 were:
Besides the aforementioned national historic sites a number of other areas having historical or archeological interest were added to the National Park System during the six-year period after passage of the Historic Sites Act. These included seven national monuments, two national battlefield parks, two national historical parks, and one national memorial.88 In addition the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal was placed under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service on September 23, 1938, as a result of the bankruptcy of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, but it was not officially declared a national monument and hence a unit of the system until January 18, 1961.89 O. Historical and Archeological Research: 1935-1941 The Historic Sites Act provided for a comprehensive research program "to obtain true and accurate historical and archaeological facts and information" relative to the nation's historical and archeological sites. Under Dr. Chatelain's tutelage the Park Service developed an energetic and far-reaching research program, so energetic Harold Ickes informed Director Cammerer on June 11, 1936, that the Park Service was going too far afield in the matter of research. Accordingly, the director had Chatelain draw up a document describing the overall purview of the Park Service research program. On July 7 the document entitled "Statement Regarding the Activities in Historical Research of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings" was submitted to the secretary.90 Asserting that the research activities of the branch were "an extremely important part of the work of the National Park Service," the statement noted that between January 1, 1935, and June 1, 1936, the research staff working with materials in the Library of Congress and in other federal departments had prepared more than 300 reports. Of these 57 percent were prepared at the request of Congressional committees or individual Congressmen or because of the need to obtain data to render judgments upon bills pending before Congress which would affect the National Park Service. Some 38 percent of the reports were made in response to inquiries from field personnel or from other Park Service branches in Washington, while some 5 percent were prepared to answer requests from state agencies or historical and patriotic agencies. Chatelain went on to note that the research program was based "on a true conception of the needs of the Park Service and a carefully planned program of meeting the day by day problems that come into the Service." The studies were necessary "if the high professional standards" of the Service were to be followed in the historical areas. The historical problems of these areas were "necessary problems" which must be met if the National Park Service were to meet the obligation placed upon it by law "to recommend action on sites proposed for national administration, and to develop those which are required." In handling these problems, Chatelain contended, historical research in Washington saved both time and money because of the research resources at the Library of Congress and the archives of the various federal departments. With such material at hand, a "small efficient research staff in Washington" could provide the essential historical information necessary to the handling of a large percentage of historical problems presented to the National Park Service" without expensive travel to the field, and without using the time consumed in field investigations." Moreover, the "true justification" for a
Chatelain argued that the National Park Service could not safely rely upon the accuracy of information provided by state and local agency historians. To meet the obligation placed upon the Park Service by the Historic Sites Act, the Park Service historians must "verify the historical truth" for themselves and "secure the information which meets our own particular problems." In conclusion he noted:
As the National Park Service became increasingly involved in the development of historical areas, there was a corresponding need to define the relationship between research and development. The Regional Historians' Conference held on June 6-10, 1938, recommended that the National Park Service adopt a draft research and development policy for historic sites that it drew up. Accordingly, Director Cammerer approved such a policy statement on June 20, 1938. The document stated that a "basic function of the National Park Service is the preservation and interpretation of historic sites." To perform that function effectively, it was ''necessary that the relationship of historical and archeological research to development programs of such areas be clearly understood." Such a research and development policy was needed to provide a framework within which the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings "could provide technical research assistance to the administrative officers in charge of historic sites and to the branches directly concerned with planning and development." The essential points of the policy read:
An example of an historical park program where research was tied closely to development was the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. On July 21, 1938, Ronald F. Lee, Chief, Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, drew up the outline of a historical research program that would meet the needs of preservation, restoration, interpretation, planning, and development for the canal. The work program, which would require the services of two historians, included:
P. Development of Restoration and Preservation Policies: 1935-1941 From 1935 to 1937 the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, in consultation with technicians from other Park Service branches and the Advisory Board, held a series of discussions regarding the establishment of a "proper restoration policy" for historical areas new to the system. The result of these discussions, as approved by the Advisory Board at its March 1937 meeting, was incorporated in a memorandum signed by Arno Cammerer on May 19, 1937. The policies, one for general restoration, another for battlefield area restoration, and a third covering sample restoration, represented the first codification of a national historic preservation policy.94 Examples of restoration work done by the National Park Service in the 1930s under the May 19, 1937, restoration policies included the Wick and Guerin houses and Ford Mansion at Morristown; the Lightfoot House at Colonial; Fort Pulaski; the Customs House, and Derby and Central wharves at Salem Maritime National Historic Site; Fort McHenry; Hopewell Village; Officers' Quarters at Fort Laramie; and Peach Orchard at Shiloh.95 The National Park Service also formulated several other policy statements relative to the preservation of historical and archeological sites. In 1937 steps were taken to upgrade the preservation and recording of archeological sites and specimens and to provide general principles for the maintenance and preservation of prehistoric features and ruins. A memorandum was issued on March 31, 1937, establishing a set of guidelines for the presentation of archeological sites and initiating a new system of recording archeological specimens which included field accession cards, archeological survey cards, and maps.96 Q. Classification and Objectives of Historical and Archeological Areas in National Park System: 1935-1941 During the same years, the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, in consultation with the Advisory Board, developed tentative definitions and objectives for various types of historical and archeological areas in the National Park System.97 This was done to simplify the administration and provide for uniform standards of development and operation of the numerous historical and archeological areas that were transferred to the Park Service as a result of the reorganization of 1933 as well as the many new areas which were proposed as units of the National Park System after passage of the Historic Sites Act. The following definitions and objectives were discussed and adopted as preliminary guidelines for the nomenclature designations of historical and archeological areas by the Advisory Board in March 1937:
Thereafter, there were various efforts to redesignate the historical areas of the National Park System to coordinate and simplify the nomenclature of these areas according to National Park Service standards. One of the chief attempts to accomplish this goal was the proposal in the legislative program submitted to the Interior Department Solicitor on August 31, 1938, to combine all national military parks with the national cemeteries and designate them as national historical parks. Three national battlefield sites were to be transferred to the national historical park designation while the remaining national battlefield sites were recommended for the memorial category. While this reclassification was designed to streamline the administration of areas in the National Park System, it was also proposed in part to "eliminate much of the public criticism of the National Park System as presenting numerous inconsistencies and illogicalities in the similar designation of areas that are not, in fact, comparable in character." The proposal was defeated, but the issue of reclassification has continued to be discussed periodically to the present day.99 R. Impact of History on Master Plans: 1935-1941 As early as 1936 the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was preparing plans to incorporate historical site sheets in the master plans for historical and battlefield areas in the National Park System. This was designed to bring about a closer coordination of the research work at the parks and monuments with the park development programs as outlined in the master plans. Early examples included historical tour sheets, "culture" sheets, and educational sheets showing historical points of interest along with the roads and trails system.100 By October 1937 it had been determined to use a separate historical sheet in the master plans for historical areas. This sheet would show the "historic" ground cover, buildings, fences, bridges, and roads. The master plans of the battlefield areas would have an additional sheet(s) showing battle line positions, troop movements, batteries, fortifications, ground cover, extant remains, and actual extent of the battlefield area.101 As a result of numerous conferences between the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, the Branch of Plans and Design, and various regional representatives, a set of guidelines was established in May 1938 for the preparation of historical sheets in master plans for historical and archeological areas.102 The guidelines, which were sent to all field historians, were designed to assist them in preparing data for incorporation by the field representatives of the Branch of Plans and Design in the master plans. The data was viewed as important both for its "scientific" value and usefulness for park planning purposes. The guidelines read in part:
These guidelines were later incorporated into the manual of standard practice for master plan preparation in 1941 . According to the manual, a variety of historical and archeological base maps were to be included in the master plans for areas designated as being of special historical or archeological significance. The maps were to include such sheets as historical base, troop position, archeological base, and historical or archeological tour. In addition the maps would be accompanied by a general statement describing the site, assessing its significance, defining its period of maximum historical importance, evaluating its scientific, educational, and commemorative value, and containing a list of bibliographical references. An interpretive statement and historical or archeological narrative would also be prepared.104 S. Interpretation: 1935-1941 During the late 1930s efforts were made to upgrade the interpretive activities in the historical areas of the National Park System. Improvements were made in various types of field exhibits, including sample "restorations," outdoor relief maps, orientation maps, trailside museums, and markers An example of such sample restoration projects was the reconstruction of the Continental Army hospital, together with reproductions of a soldier's hut and officer's hut, at Morristown National Historical Park in 1936-37. As part of the interpretive program field historians began to give public lectures sponsored by outside groups and to participate in numerous radio broadcasts in the vicinity of their parks.105 In April 1940 a historical technicians conference was held at Richmond, Virginia, with Ronald F. Lee as chairman and Roy E. Appleman, Regional Supervisor of Historic Sites, Region I, as vice chairman. The purpose of the conference was to consider interpretive problems relating to the development and presentation of historical and archeological areas. The subjects discussed included the objectives and standards of interpretive policy and park literature and the use of markers and material objects in museums and trailside exhibits. The objectives and standards of interpretive policy were:
The principal objective of park literature
Relative to the use of markers it was determined
Concerning the use of material objects in museums and trailside exhibits, the conferees agreed
T. Publications: 1935-1941 As early as 1936 National Park Service historians were involved in the publications efforts of the bureau. In that year they began preparing material for a new publication entitled of the Eastern Historical Areas. They also prepared copy for seven informal leaflets on the historical areas in the National Park System that were designed to be given to visitors.107 In 1939 a new series of informative bulletins on historical areas was planned, and the first booklet in the series, Manassas to Appomattox, was issued. Copy for seven other booklets in the series was transmitted to the Government Printing Office by June.108 During the late 1930s the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings and the Office of Information developed a publications program for historical and archeological areas. In July 1940 a new publications program was announced that had the approval of the Committee on Publications and Director Cammerer. The principal types of publications of the new program included:
In addition there were plans for a history and archeology series to parallel the flora and fauna series that had been in existence for several years. Also under consideration was a research series that would publish original contributions by Park Service professional personnel in the fields of history and archeology and a source material series designed for the printing of excerpts "from interesting and human original historical source material, or particularly good interpretive statements from great writers or speakers, applicable to areas under our jurisdiction."109 U. Historic Preservation in the National Park Service During the 1930s The decade of the 1930s was a significant period for the growth and development of the historic preservation movement in the United States. The quadrupling of historical areas in the National Park System as a result of the reorganization of 1933 placed the Service at the forefront of the movement. Public consciousness of the need to preserve our historical and archeological sites resulted in larger appropriations, the acquisition of new areas, and the establishment within the agency of a Branch of Historic Sites charged with responsibility for the preservation, development, and interpretation of the significant cultural resources of the country. Emergency relief programs designed to help the nation work its way out of economic depression provided the labor, funds, and materials to complete many park projects. The New Deal programs were invaluable in their role in training National Park Service personnel in historic preservation techniques and policies. Historians and architects, for example, learned about restoration and reconstruction by experimentation in state as well as national park areas around the country. This type of "hands-on" training would not have been possible without the influx of money and personnel during the 1930s. At the same time, study and comparison of European historic preservation policies with those of the United States led to passage of the Historic Sites Act that granted to the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service authority to establish and implement a comprehensive national program of historic preservation By the outbreak of World War II the basic foundations of such a policy had been formulated and implemented, and the stage was set for the full flowering of the historic preservation movement in the postwar decades.110 Chapter Six: The National Park Service, 1933-1939 Introduction For Arno Cammerer, something of the scope of the increased responsibilities that had devolved upon his agency on August 10, 1933, became clear in a letter of Frank T. Gartside, acting superintendent of the National Capital Parks. Responding to a verbal request, Gartside listed the duties which had formerly belonged to the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital that were transferred to Cammerer's new office:
The increased responsibilities that accrued to his office as a result of reorganization, involvement in emergency programs, and new initiatives in history and recreation exacted a heavy price from Arno Cammerer. As early as 1935 his friends were beginning to worry about him. "You must conserve yourself Cam," Horace Albright wrote on July 14, "Should you lose your health, they will take your job and that will be the end of the Mather group in National Park Service activity."2 When he resigned in 1940, Cammerer wrote that while he had made an excellent recovery from a "complete [physical] collapse!" he had suffered the previous year, he was not able to withstand the continued strain of his office.3 Within a year, Cammerer, who accepted the position of Regional Director, Region I, following his resignation as director, was dead, the victim of a second coronary. The new responsibilities that devolved on the director's office with the transfer of the office of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital were a reflection of the new responsibilities that came to his agency in the reorganization of 1933. These new responsibilities, moreover, multiplied with the growing involvement in New Deal recovery efforts and the new initiatives in history and recreation. Park Service administrators faced a dual problem after 1933. They had to cope with new, and often unfamiliar, issues raised by the new programs. At the same time, they had to find a way to reconcile traditional values and principles with an agency that was suddenly much larger and complex. The way in which they approached both brought about significant changes in the organizational framework of their agency. It provides a case study of the federal bureaucracy during the New Deal. A. Growth of the National Park Service The Roosevelt administration quite obviously hoped that reorganization of the executive branch would result in a savings to the government through a reduction of personnel. By early October 1933, however, it was becoming evident that as far as administration of the parks was concerned, that goal would not be easily reached. On October 3, Arno Cammerer wrote that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget had expressed "extreme disappointment" that consolidation and reorganization of the various parks and monuments had resulted in the elimination of only 97 of 4,055 positions.4 Cammerer, whose title was now Director of the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations, continued that the "old National Park Service" had been able to make a further reduction by eliminating all positions that were unfilled because of a reduction in appropriations, and called upon the heads of other offices in his agency to make similar efforts.5 Any reduction in the agency's personnel would soon prove transitory, however. Just two years later, Cammerer reported that "supervision of work under the emergency programs resulted in a heavy strain on all park supervisory personnel, both in the Washington office and the field."6 The growth of the Service that resulted from the reorganization of 1933, participation in New Deal emergency programs, and new initiatives in history and recreation was so great that many Park Service employees feared that the character of the Service itself would be irretrievably lost.7 Before the reorganization of 1933, the National Park Service was a small, tightly-knit organization whose members often referred to themselves as the "Mather Family." Although there is considerable discrepancy in the sources regarding the exact number of personnel, the most complete records available indicate that some 700 permanent and 373 temporary employees were on the rolls on October 1933, the date Executive Order 6166 became effective.8 The Washington office and various field offices of that office employed 147 people (142 and 5 temporary). Four hundred and seventy-six permanent and 331 temporary employees were located in the National Parks and 51 more were assigned to the national monuments (thirty-seven permanent and ten temporary).9 The immediate impact of Executive Order 6166, in terms of size, was the increase of 4,209 employees into what was to become known as the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations.10 The largest number of new employees was the 3,047 permanent and 304 temporary appointees of the Buildings Branch. A total of 629 people were employed in the National Capital Parks and 139 more were assigned to the various sites transferred from the War and Agriculture departments:
Two years later, on November 30, 1935, the number of employees had more than doubled to 13,361. Of those categories listed on the August 10, 1933, report, the Branch of Buildings showed the largest increase--from 3,441 to 4,220.12 The number of people engaged in what would be considered to be more traditional Park Service activities than building maintenance--and that is taken to include employees at areas formerly administered by the War and Agriculture departments--actually declined from 1,840 to 1,625. The latter figure, which includes both permanent and temporary employees, most probably reflects the normal reduction in temporary personnel in the national parks following the end of the travel season. The large increase in personnel in the agency between 1933 and 1935 was a reflection, actually, of the Service's growing importance in the New Deal recovery programs. More than half of the employees on the roles on November 1935--7,480--were engaged directly in recovery programs. They were paid, moreover, out of emergency, not regular appropriations.13 According to Director Cammerer, the number of employees reached a peak of 13,900 in 1937.14 By 1939, however, reflecting both the transfer of responsibility for maintenance of public buildings and winding down of emergency programs, the number of employees dropped to 6,612. Some 2,976 employees were still involved in administrative and supervisory capacities in the CCC. The number of people assigned to all National Park Service offices was 3,636. This represented a three-fold increase in 15 six years.15 Not only did the number of employees of the National Park Service increase dramatically after 1933, but it is also possible to discern more clearly the increasing specialization, or professionalization of the Service during that time. Clearly, professionalization of the National Park Service cannot be traced solely to the 1930s, as both Mather and Albright had strived to that end. But while professionals of one kind or another may have always been a part of the make-up of the Service, the movement toward professionalization certainly gained a new impetus during that decade.16 The growth of professions that came after 1933 was, in large part, the product of a combination of New Deal recovery efforts and the entry of the National Park Service into the field of historic preservation. The depression created a large pool of unemployed historians, archeologists, architects, and museum curators. The new National Park Service initiatives in history, along with what seemed like unlimited funds, allowed people like Verne Chatelain and Charles Peterson to create programs that provided such jobs. "From 1933 onward," observes Charles B. Hosmer, "the National Park Service was the principal employer of the professionals who dedicated their careers to historic preservation."17 Most of these professionals began their work as temporary historical foremen or historical technicians in the CCC. Later they found permanent Civil Service jobs with the National Park Service. Some of them would, in time, come to occupy positions of authority in the Service.18 In 1931, for example, there were only two historians, as such, in the National Park Service.19 In June 1933, Dr. Chatelain hired graduate students from the University of Minnesota to be historical foremen in the CCC camps.20 Just two years later, one of these young historians,Ronald F. Lee, was Historian for the State Park Division of the National Park Service. Lee's description of his job indicates something of the growth of the Service's history program and impact on the history profession:
The growth of the historical profession in the Service is only an example of the growth of specialization after 1933. With the development of the Historic American Buildings Survey and the dramatic increase in museums in the system, other examples would be as dramatic. B. Reorganization--The Washington Office In 1930, after he became director, Horace Albright instituted the first major reorganization of the National Park Service.22 The new organizational structure reflected Albright's stated intention to depersonalize decision making at the director's level, and to provide for the delegation of authority in a way that Stephen Mather had never been able to do.23 In 1931 the new organization, which is shown below, consisted of the director's office and four major branches at the Washington level. Each branch was headed by an assistant director. Arthur E. Demaray's Branch of Operations was responsible for all fiscal and personnel functions. Demaray exercised supervision over the Chief Clerks Division and Auditors of Park Operator's Accounts Division.24 Assistant Director George A. Moskey's Branch of Use, Law, and Regulation oversaw all matters relating to legislation, contracts, permits, development of the system, etc.25 Conrad L. Wirth's Branch of Lands was charged with responsibility over all land matters, except those relating to the law.26 Dr. Harold Bryant, as head of Research and Education, supervised and coordinated all educational (interpretation) and research matters in the Service. Isabelle F. Story, as chief of the Division of Public Relations and Ansel Hall, Chief of the Field Division of Education and Forestry, reported directly to Dr. Bryant.27 Rounding out the organization were the field offices, all of which reported to the director: superintendents of the national parks, superintendents of national monuments, custodians of national monuments, Engineering Division, and Landscape Architectural Division.28
The additional responsibilities that came to the Service through the reorganization of 1933, involvement in recovery programs, new initiatives in history and recreation all resulted in changes in the structure of the organization. By 1939 the organization was considerably more complex, little resembling the one described above. Transfer of the Office of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the nation's capital under Executive Order 6166, for example, necessitated the creation of a Branch of Public Buildings, with a Division of Space Control.29 By December 1934, additionally, a new Branch of Forestry, which was actually pulled out of Ansel Hall's old field division of Education and Forestry, supervised emergency activities.30 Conrad Wirth's Branch of Planning had been expanded to include a Division of Investigation of Proposed Parks and Monuments; Maps, Plans and Drafting Division; The State Park Division (ECW program); Submarginal Land Division; and The National Recreation Survey Division.31 Other indications of the expanded program of the Service were a Parkway Right-of-Way Division in Moskey's Branch of Lands and Use and Historical Naturalist and Wildlife Division in Dr. Bryant's Branch of Research and Education.32 Finally, Branches of Engineering and Plans and Design each had an Eastern Division and Plans and Design had a Western Division as well.33 Passage of the Historic Sites Act in August 1935 led to the creation of a new Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings under the supervision of Acting Assistant Director Verne E. Chatelain.34 The functions of the new branch, which had Eastern and Western divisions as well as a research division were
At the same time, the Branch of Planning became the Branch of Planning and State Cooperation. The functions of this expanded branch were the supervision over the compilation of data covering advance planning for the National Park System, "coordination with the State Park and Recreational Authorities and State Planning Commissions and other agencies; supervision over Federal participation in State park and recreational activities; and the conducting of a continuing recreational survey in cooperation with the National Resources Committee."36
By the end of the decade, as reflected in the organization charts of the Washington office, the National Park Service was a much larger and a considerably more complex organization than it had been in 1933.37 There were now ten branches instead of four: Operations (J. R. White, Acting); Recreation and Land Planning (Conrad L. Wirth); Office of Chief Counsel (G. A. Moskey); Historic Sites (Ronald F. Lee); Buildings Management (Charles A. Peters); Research and Information (Carl F. Russell); Plans and Design (Thomas C. Vint); Branch of Engineering (Oliver G. Taylor); Forestry (John D. Coffman); and Memorials (John L. Nagle).38 Not only were there more branches, but the functions had increased in scope and complexity. In 1933, for example, the function of the Branch of Operations was
In 1939, the board included five divisions--Budget and Accounts, Personnel and Records, Safety, Public Utility Division, and Park Operations.40 The functions of the enlarged branch were:
C. Regionalization None of the organizational changes made in response to the expansion of the park system in the 1930s would have greater long-term ramifications for administration of the Park Service than the establishment of regional offices in 1937. The creation of a new level of administration between the Washington office and the field was not, it must be made clear, a new idea. Park Service officials long had been concerned over the difficulty of effectively supervising and coordinating a widely-scattered system of parks and monuments from Washington, D.C.41 During the 1920s the Service had established field offices in Yellowstone National Park, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Portland, and Berkeley.42 These offices performed specific functions--landscape architecture, sanitation, engineering, and education (interpretation) for example--and did not exercise any general administrative or supervisory control over parks and monuments. A more immediate example of regionalization was the system developed to administer the Civilian Conservation Corps described on pages 77-96. In fact, because such a large number of NPS employees were involved directly in ECW, Director Cammerer stated in 1936 that the Service was already 70 percent regionalized.43 At a 1934 park superintendent's conference, held while preliminary discussions regarding regionalization were underway in the Washington office, it became clear that many people in the field as well as in the Washington office believed that the problem of communication was becoming critical as the Park System expanded. Reacting to a suggestion that the Park Service adopt a regional system roughly similar to that already employed by the Forest Service, Frank Pinkley, Superintendent of the Southwest Monuments, indicated that he had become increasingly concerned with the separation between the Washington office and the field, and that of "at least twenty different superintendents" with whom he had discussed the matter, all were of the same opinion.44 Speaking for superintendents of the new historical areas, B. Floyd Flickinger of Colonial seconded Pinkley's observations, and indicated that he believed that the greater coordination that would come from regionalization was especially critical for the historical areas.45 None of the superintendents spoke out against regionalization at the conference Yet, while those superintendents from cultural areas were enthusiastic over the possibility of regionalization of the Service, many of the superintendents from the natural areas were less so. While agreeing that "anyone in the field for years past must have realized we would have to come to some form of regionalization," John R. White of Sequoia National Park cautioned:
Actually, White continued, a more economical solution to the problem of communication than regionalization might be simply to have the superintendents travel to Washington more often.47 The plan advanced before the superintendents in 1934 would have established as many as five regions determined by classification of areas. Two regions would have incorporated cultural areas--one the Southwestern monuments, the other the military parks and monuments.48 The scenic parks and monuments would have been divided among as many as three regions.49 The chief executive for each region would be responsible for overseeing that the policies and principles enunciated by the Washington office were implemented by field personnel. To facilitate communication between the Washington office and regions, one of the regional directors would be required to be in Washington at all times.50 Because of funding problems, it was believed that at least for the short run, the regional director would be a "qualified superintendent." Seemingly, the superintendent who served as regional director would not be relieved of his duties in the park. Little was done, apparently, to follow up the discussions held in 1934. It was not until January 26, 1936, that Director Cammerer appointed a committee headed by Assistant Director Hillory A. Tolson to study the question of regionalization and submit a plan.51 In mid-February, the committee forwarded to Cammerer a plan of "a simple organization that can be manned and administered from trained personnel and money now available."52 The regional system proposed would, the committee said, bring the director and his assistants back into a more intimate touch with the field. It would allow greater supervision of the field, while preserving the autonomy and individuality of the parks. Administrative decisions could be made in the field rather than in Washington, and because the proposal would strengthen the influence of professional branches, those decisions would be based on the best technical advice. The system would, finally, provide greater channels of promotion from park to park, parks to region, and regions to Washington. Because promotion opportunities would occur in the various branches, an individual could advance within his profession, and not be necessarily diverted into administration53. The memorandum discussed above did not spell out the make-up of regions. That came several days later. The proposed system was based on a combination of unit classification and geography similar to that suggested to the superintendents in 1934.54 Region 1, with Chief Historian Verne E. Chatelain as the recommended regional director, would include all historical and military parks, monuments, battlefield sites, and miscellaneous memorials east of the Mississippi River.55 Region 2, the second region established primarily on a classification of areas would have been headed by Frank Pinkley, Superintendent of the Southwestern monuments. Pinkley's region would have included the southwestern monuments as well as Mesa Verde and Carlsbad Cavern national parks, and Petrified Forest, Wheeler, and Great Sand Dunes national monuments. The remaining three regions would have been headed by superintendents of large natural parks--C.G. Thompson of Yosemite (No. 3), Superintendent O.A. Tomlinson of Mount Rainier (No. 4), and Roger Toll of Yellowstone (No. 5).56 The primary division was geographical and the regions would have included both natural and cultural areas:
It was believed that eight existing and projected parks--Acadia, Great Smoky Mountains, Platt, Hot Springs, Isle Royale (projected), Mammoth Cave (projected), and Everglades (projected) could function as they did for the present, although it was recommended that when Mammoth Cave and Everglades were established they would be coupled with Great Smoky Mountains, Platt, and Hot Springs into Region 6. On March 14, Acting Director Arthur Demaray, forwarded a memorandum that described in detail the responsibilities of the proposed regional offices. Duties and responsibilities would certainly change over time, he said, but the following were representative of the work that it was proposed to transfer:
The Service would go slowly with regionalization, Demaray concluded, and would enlarge the authority of the regional directors only when such action was justified by experience.59 Secretary Ickes answered Cammerer's request on March 25. Reflecting his well-known antipathy for bureaucracies, Ickes wrote that he was reluctant to agree to the creation of offices outside Washington "because it would be only a question of time until a bureaucratic field force would become established to the detriment of the Washington office." While he recognized that Washington officials had to be "fully informed of administrative problems and actions," he did not believe that creation of regional offices would contribute to that end. 60 Rather, he believed that the appointment of district supervisors in the Washington office would be more effective, and instructed Cammerer to revise the proposal accordingly. Ickes was not the only one to express reservations regarding regionalization. A flurry of letters to the secretary, which Cammerer believed was inspired by the National Parks Association, all indicated a concern that the grouping of historical and natural areas would be to the detriment of the latter.61 Within the Service many "old-line superintendents object to the concept as an unwarranted intrusion on their ability to communicate directly with the Washington Office, and many rank and file personnel saw it as a barrier to career advancement."62 Director Cammerer believed that much of the opposition to regionalization from both groups would be dissipated by appointing "old-time" Park Service men to head the various regions.63 While opposition to regionalization did not immediately disappear, Cammerer and his deputies were able to blunt the efforts of it, and convince Secretary Ickes. On January 21, 1937, more than two years since regionalization was first discussed at the Annual Superintendent's Conference, Secretary Ickes initialed his approval of a regional system that would be implemented after the end of the fiscal year.64 Accordingly, on August 7, 1937, Director Cammerer issued a memorandum that implemented regionalization of the National Park Service. The plan approved by Secretary Ickes established four geographic regions:
Interestingly, of the first four regional directors only one, Thomas Allen, Jr. (Region II), had been a superintendent of a natural park, although Carl P. Russell (Region I) and Frank Kitteridge (Region IV) had considerable National Park Service experience.66 Herbert Maier, who was named acting director of Region III, had been in charge of the Service's CCC and emergency activities of Region III (CCC). In addition, the associate regional director would be the current CCC regional officer.67 The implementing memorandum made it clear that the Washington office intended to proceed cautiously with regionalization, and subsequent memorandums issued throughout the rest of the decade amplified, refined, or in some cases altered functions of the regional offices.68 Nevertheless, the outlines of the organization that would administer the National Park Service in the future were drawn, and it reflected Secretary Ickes concern that the field offices not rival the Washington office:
Establishment of regional administrative units was an experiment. Within a short time it proved its effectiveness to both Washington officials and field personnel. In his annual report of 1938, Director Cammerer wrote:
The following year, while calling for establishment of one additional region, the park superintendents resolved:
D. Retrospect Park Service officials grappled in the 1930s with a whole range of issues that rose from a great expansion of the park system, new and unfamiliar programs, and a massive infusion of emergency funds. Coincidentally, they faced the problem of maintaining traditional values and principles in an organization that was suddenly both larger and more complex. As they did so, they found themselves subject to considerable criticism, some of it from unaccustomed sources. On one hand, Park Service administrators were criticized for the perceived failure to properly integrate the new historical areas into the Park System. Many of the strongest critics were those within the Service who were involved in the new areas. Edward A. Hummel, who came into the Service as an assistant historian doing ECW work in the Omaha office, remembered that the historical areas remained the "step-children" of the Service throughout the decade. The reason for this, he said, was that administrators simply had no interest in those areas. Indeed, he concluded, the National Park Service was two separate organizations in the 1930s.72 Roy E. Appleman, another historian who came into the Service under the ECW program in the 1930s, wrote that while the system generally worked well during that decade, the background of NPS administrators (forestry, "ranger-type," etc.) prevented them from recognizing that new and different policies and procedures were needed for the historical areas.73 Historians were not the only ones concerned. In 1940 Regional Director (Region I) Minor R. Tillotson, a man whose Park Service background was in the natural parks in the West, agreed. Speaking before the Historical Technicians Conference in 1940, Tillotson stated his opinion that "the National Park Service has thus far, to a great degree, failed in its task relating to the historic areas under its administration, not so much in their selection and development as in the interpretation of them to the public."74 While historians and others argued that the Service did not adequately integrate the new areas into the system, others, and many old friends of the Park Service were among them, charged that the Service had strayed too far from its traditional course. Even in the days of Stephen Mather the Park Service had suffered criticism from those who believed that the National Parks should consist of great unspoiled temples of beauty. By the mid-1930s these "purists," as Donald Swain calls them, were in full cry against what they considered to be excessive construction and development in the parks, an over-zealous concern for tourism and the increases that it brought, and the heightened concern for recreation.75 Most important, however, was what these critics considered to be a shift of interest from protecting the great scenic areas in the West. In February 1936, for example, Robert Sterling Yard, editor of The National Parks Bulletin, published an article entitled "Losing Our Primeval System in Vast Expansion."76 While the general tone of Yard's article was less strident than was the title, he nevertheless wrote that the expansion of the system and new directions taken by the National Park Service had ended the long intimate relationship between the National Park Service that existed in "upbuilding of the primitive system and defense of standards." The next year, James A. Foote, representing the National Audubon Society, published an open letter to Secretary Ickes in which he charged that:
In 1936, four staunch friends of the National Park Service--the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, National Parks Association, and Audubon Society--united in calling for a reorganization that would create a "National Primeval Park System":
Park Service officials were sensitive to these criticisms, particularly to those of their erstwhile friends. Again and again, from the mid-thirties onward, they stepped forward to defend themselves. George Wright, NPS Chief of Planning, for example, denied in a speech before the Council Meeting of the American Planning and Civic Association that the expansion of the system had resulted in lowered standards:
"Let the friends of our national parks leave it to the National Park Service to safeguard itself against intrusion of trash areas," he concluded, and "devote their energies instead to completing the park system while there is still time to do it." Speaking before the same group at a later date, Associate Director Arthur E. Demaray addressed the issue of overdevelopment in the parks. Demaray admitted that the park administrators faced "tough problems" as they made the parks available for the use of the people while at the same time carrying out Congress' mandate "that they leave the parks 'unimpaired for the benefit of future generations."' An examination of the record, he argued, would show that the Service had succeeded, and that through "greater efficiency in planning, construction, and administration, the facilities and accommodations provided have been implements of conservation, and that nature is actually less disturbed in the parks today than it was in 1917." "In the face of widespread misunderstanding and criticism," he concluded, the National Park Service remained "one of the most forceful and honest agencies of conservation in the Federal Government."80 Actually, however, Park Service officials need not have been so defensive about their actions in the 1930s. For, despite surface appearances, the inclusion of War and Agriculture department areas in 1933, development and construction in the parks under the emergency programs, the publicity campaigns and increased tourism that it brought, and growth of historic preservation programs did not represent a break with past traditions as many thought. Rather, save for the duties involved in building maintenance, what happened to the National Park Service in the 1930s was a logical extension of the traditions established by Stephen Mather and Horace Albright. In fact the directorship of Arno Cammerer, who was replaced by the first man who did not serve under Stephen Mather, was a culmination of that earlier tradition.81 The 1930s, then, witnessed the full bloom of policies established earlier. As such it had been the most exciting and creative in the Service's history. By the end of the decade Service officials were ready to retrench. Part of this had to do with outside events--the winding down of emergency programs and steadily declining funds and outbreak of war in Europe which drew attention elsewhere. Beyond events, however, was a general feeling among Park Service officials that it was time to pull back, to consolidate gains and to become, as former director Albright indicated, a land administration bureau, whose focus was on the national parks.82 The declaration of war in December 1941 certainly brought the period to an end. The effort to deal with issues raised in the 1930s would have to wait. Recommendations The authors of this study make the following recommendations for further related studies: 1. During the course of our work George A. Palmer recommended that we include a section in the report providing short vignettes of biographical information on key NPS personalities of the 1930s. Time and budget constraints proved to be an obstacle in obtaining and providing this data as part of this study. Thus, we recommend that a major study on early NPS personalities from 1917 to 1941 be programmed and carried out to accomplish the objective as put forth by Palmer. The study would necessarily include oral interviewing and correspondence with a large number of former NPS personnel and should be conducted with the aid of several former NPS personnel such as Mr. Palmer. This study could be published for general sale to the public. 2. A closely-related recommendation is that the NPS oral history program centered at Harpers Ferry be reactivated. There has been no active, large-scale NPS oral history program since S. Herbert Evison conducted numerous interviews with former NPS employees in the late 1960s and early 1970s. An active oral history program would be an important adjunct to the current NPS administrative history program. 3. An in-depth study of the Civilian Conservation Corps program in the National Parks should be undertaken. The study should include several case studies such as the CCC program in a western natural area, an eastern historical area, and a recreational area. 4. Since many of the issues, problems, and questions raised during the expansion decade of the 1930s were not dealt with until the Mission 66 program a study of that 10-year program would be a logical follow-up study to the one we are submitting. Bibliography MANUSCRIPT SOURCES Berkeley, California. University of California at Berkeley. The Bancroft Library, Manuscripts Division.
Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Harpers Ferry Center, Division of Reference Services, Library and Archives. National Park Service.
Los Angeles, California. University of California at Los Angeles. University Research Library, Department of Special Collections.
Washington, D.C. National Archives. Record Group 95. Records of the Forest Service. Washington, D.C. Library of Congress. Gifford Pinchot Papers Washington, D.C. National Park Service, Washington Office. Advisory Boards and Commissions. Minutes and Records of the Advisory Board, 1929-40. PUBLISHED WORKS Books Albright, Horace M. Origins of National Park Service Administration of Historic Sites. Philadelphia: Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1971. Cameron, Jenks. The National Park Service: Its History, Activities and Organization. Washington, 1922. Conover, Milton. The General Land Office: Its History, Activities and Organization (Institute for Government Research, Service Monographs of the United States Government, No. 13). Baltimore, 1923. Everhart, William C. The National Park Service. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. Presence of the Past: A History of the Preservation Movement in the United States Before Williamsburg. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1965. ________. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949. 2 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1981. Ickes, Harold C. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The First Thousand Days, 1933-1936. 4 vols. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953. Ise, John. Our National Park Policy:A Critical History. Johns Baltimore: Hopkins Press, 1961. Jolley, Harley E. The Blue Ridge Parkway. Knoxville, 1969. Lee, Ronald F. Family Tree of the National Park System. Philadelphia: Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1972. _______. United States: Historical and Architectural Monuments Mexico, D.F.: Institute Panamericans de Georgrafia e Historia, 1951. McGeary, M. Nelson. Gifford Pinchot Forester - Politician. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. Newton, Norman T. Design on the Land: The Development of Landscape Architecture. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. Salmond, John A. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study. Durham: Duke University Press, 1967. Shankland, Robert. Steve Mather of the National Parks. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. Swain, Donald C. Federal Conservation Policy: 1921-1933. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963. _______. Wilderness Defender: Horace M. Albright and Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Tilden, Freeman. The National Parks. Rev. ed., New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968. Wilbur, Ray Lyman, and Dupuy, William Atherton. Conservation in the Department of the Interior. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931. Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.
Albright, Horace M. "The National Park Service, 1917-1937." Reprint from American Planning and Civic Annual, 1937. ________. "Research in the National Parks." The Scientific Monthly (June 1933), 483-501. Appleman, Roy E. "Timber Empire From the Public Domain." Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXVI (September 1939), 193-208. Brockman, C. Frank. "Park Naturalists and the Evolution of National Park Service Interpretation Through World War II." Journal of Forest History, XXII (January 1978), 24-43. Burns, Ned. "Museums, Where-When-Why." The Regional Review, VI (May-June 1941), 26-30. C. van R. "The Jefferson National Expansion Memorial: A Brief History of an Important Project." Missouri Historical Society - The Bulletin, IV (April 1948), 177-79. Chapman, H.H. "Conservation or Departmental Jealousy - Which?" American Forests and Forest Life, XXXVI (April 1930), 211-12, 230. Coffman, John D. "How Much and What Kind of Forest Land Should be Devoted Exclusively to Recreation and Aesthetics." Journal of Forestry, XXXV (February 1937), 210-14. "A Department of Conservation." American Forests and Forest Life, XXXII (April 1927), 227. "The Forestry Budget." American Forests and Forest Life, XXXVI (January 1930), 34. Graves, Henry S. "A Crisis in National Recreation." American Forestry, XXVI (July 1920), 391-400. Kahler, Herbert E. "Ten Years of Historical Conservation under the Historic Sites Act." Planning and Civic Comment, XII (January 1946), 20-24. Kahn, Herman. "The National Archives: Storehouse of National Park History." The Regional Review, IV (February 1940), 13-17. Lee, Ronald F. "Objectives and Policies of Historical Conservation." The Regional Review, II (March 1939), 3-8. "Losing our Primeval System in Vast Expansion." National Parks Bulletin, XIII (February 1936), 1-2, 4. McDermott, John D. "The History Program of the National Park Service." Park Maintenance. August 1966. "Mr. Ickes Replies." National Parks Bulletin, XIV (June 1938), 7. "Mr. Ickes - Your National Parks." National Parks Bulletin, XIII (December 1937), 3-5. "National Monument and National Seashore." The Regional Review, III (July 1939), 14. "National Park Standards: A Declaration of Policy." National Parks Bulletin, XIV (December 1938), 5-7. Peterson, Charles E. "Thirty Years of HABS." Journal of the American Institute of Architects, XL (November 1963), 83-84. "President Hoover on Conservation." American Forests and Forest Life, XXXVI (January 1930), 11. "Report of the Committee on Study of Educational Problems in National Parks." National Parks Bulletin, IX (April 1929), 2-3. "Reorganizing Conservation." American Forests and Forest Life, XXXV (June 1929), 357-58. Russell, Carl P. "Coordination of Conservation Programs." The Regional Review, VI (January-February 1941), 13-19. ________. "The History and Status of Interpretive Work in National Parks." The Regional Review, III (July 1939), 7-14. "Scientists Defend National Park Standards." National Parks Bulletin, XIII (February 1936), 4. Stauffer, Alvin P., and Porter, Charles W. "The National Park Service Program of Conservation for Areas and Structures of National Historical Significance." Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXX (June 1943), 25-48. "Suggests Transfer of Parks." American Forests and Forest Life, XXXIV (January 1928), 62. "State and Federal Agencies Join Forces in Park Programs." State Government, XII (September 1939), 171, 174 Swain, Donald C. "Harold Ickes, Horace Albright, and the Hundred Days: A Study in Conservation Administration." Pacific Historical Review, XXXIV (November 1965), 455-65. _______. "The National Park Service and the New Deal, 1933-1940." Pacific Historical Review, XLI (August 1972), 312-32. _______. "The Passage of the National Park Service Act of 1916." Wisconsin Magazine of History, L (Autumn 1966), 4-17. Wharton, William P. "Park Service Leader Abandons National Park Standards." National Parks Bulletin, XIV (June 1938), 4-6. ________. "Preservation Requires Classification, Editorial." National Parks Bulletin, XV (July 1940), 3-4.
Civilian Conservation Corps. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, . . . 1938-40. _______. Emergency Conservation Work Organization. Annual Report of the Director of Emergency Conservation Work, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1936. Federal Security Agency. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps . . . 1941-42. Index, National Park System and Related Areas as of June 30, 1979. National Conference on Outdoor Recreation. Recreation Resources of Federal Lands: Report of the Joint Committee on Recreational Survey of Federal Lands of the American Forestry Association and the National Parks Association to the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, Washington, D.C.: 1928. The Statutes at Large of the United States of America from January 1935 to June 1936. Vol. XLIX, Part 1. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Military Affairs. Commemoration of Certain Military Historic Events, and for Other Purposes. 71st Cong., 2d sess., 1930. H. Rept. 1525. ________. ________. ________. Establishment of National Military Parks - Battle Fields: Hearings Before the Committee and Subcommittee No. 8 of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives. 71st Cong., 2d sess., 1930. ________. ________. ________. National Military Park Commission. 58th Cong., 2d sess., 1904. H. Rept. 2325. ________. ________. ________. National Military Parks. 54th Cong., 1st sess., 1896. H. Rept. 374. ________. ________. ________. Qualifications for Superintendents of National Cemeteries and Parks. 70th Cong., 1st sess., 1928. H. Rept. 1234. ________. ________. ________. Study and Investigation of Battle Fields in the United States for Commemorative Purposes. 69th Cong., 1st sess., 1926. H. Rept. 1071. ________. ________. ________. Survey of American Battle Fields for Commemorative Purposes: Message from the President of the United States. . . . 69th Congr., 2d sess., 1926. H. Doc. 574. ________. ________. Committee on the Public Lands. Aid in Providing the People of the United States With Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational - Area Purposes, Etc. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. H. Rept. 586. ________. ________. ________. Public Lands. Providing for the Acquisition of Additional Lands for National Military Parks, National Historical Parks, National Battlefield Parks, and Battlefield Sites. 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939. H. Rept. 951. ________. ________. ________. Aid in Providing the People of the United States With Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational - Area Purposes, Etc. 73d Cong., 2d sess., 1934. H. Rept. 1895. ________. ________. ________. To Aid in Providing the People of the United States With Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational - Area Purposes, and to Provide for the Transfer of Certain Lands Chiefly Valuable for Such Purposes to States and Political Subdivisions Thereof. 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936. H. Rept. 1914. ________. ________. ________. Authorizing the Disposition of Recreational Demonstration Projects. 77th Cong., 1st sess., 1941. H. Rept. 248. ________. ________. ________. Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to Dispose of Recreational Demonstration Projects. 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939. H. Rept. 501. ________. ________. ________. Construction of Roads in National Parks. 72d Cong., 1st sess., 1932. H. Rept. 641. ________. ________. ________. Creation of a National Park Trust Fund Board. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. H. Rept. 849. ________. ________. ________. Creation of a National Park Trust Fund Board. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. H. Rept. 1254. ________. ________. ________. To Extend the Road Systems in National Parks. 71st Cong., 2d sess., 1930. H. Rept. 1999. ________. ________. ________. Morristown National Historical Park, N. J. 72d Cong., 2d sess., 1933. H. Rept. 1962. _______. ________. ________. National Park Service. 64th Cong., 1st sess., 1916. H. Rept. 700. ________. ________. ________. Preservation of Historic American Sites, Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities of National Significance, and for Other Purposes. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. H. Rept. 848. ________. ________. ________. Preservation of Historic American Sites, Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities of National Significance, and for Other Purposes. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. H. Rept. 1255. ________. ________. House. Consolidation, Transfers, and Abolition of Executive Agencies: Message from the President of the United States Transmitting An Executive Order for Certain Regroupings, Consolidations, Transfers, and Abolitions of Executive Agencies and Functions Thereof. 78th Cong., 1st sess., 1933, . H. Doc. 69. ________. ________. ________. Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the Government. Reorganization of the Executive Departments, 68th Cong., 1st sess., 1924. H. Doc. 356. ________. ________. ________. Message from the President of the United States Transmitting A Message to Group, Coordinate, and Consolidate Executive and Administrative Agencies of the Government, As Nearly As Maybe, According to Major Purpose. 72d Cong., 2d sess., 1932. H. Doc. 493. ________. ________. Joint Committee on Reorganization. Hearings Report, Reorganization of the Executive Departments. 68th Cong., 1st sess., 1924. _______. ________. Senate. Committee on Military Affairs. Report to Accompany H. R. 175. 54th Cong., 1st sess., 1896. S. Rept. 526. ________. ________. ________. Study and Investigation of Battle Fields in the United States for Commemorative Purposes. 69th Cong., 1st sess., 1926. S. Rept. 917. _______. ________. ________. Study and Investigation of Battle Fields in the United States: Message from the President of the United States. . . . 70th Cong., 1st sess., 1927. S. Doc. 14. ________. ________. ________. Study of Battle Fields in the United States for Commemorative Purposes. 70th Cong., 2d sess., 1928. S. Doc. 187. ________. ________. ________. Study of Battle Fields in the United States for Commemorative Purposes: Message from the President of the United States. . . . 71st Cong., 2d sess., 1929. S. Doc. 46. ________. ________. ________. Study of Battlefields in the United States for Commemorative Purposes: Message from the President of the United States. . . 71st Cong., 3d sess., 1930. S. Doc. 229. ________. ________. ________. Study of Battlefields in the United States for Commemorative Purposes: Message from the President of the United States. . . . 72d Cong., 1st sess., 1931. S. Doc. 27. ________. ________. ________. Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. Provide for the Creation of the Morristown National Historical Park in the State of New Jersey, and for Other Purposes. 72d Cong., 2d sess., 1933. S. Rept. 1162. ________. ________. ________. Functions of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, Public Building Commission, Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission, and National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 73d Cong., 1st sess., 1933. S. Doc. 22. ________. ________. ________. Joint Committee on The Reorganization of Government Departments. Reorganization of the Executive Departments. 67th Cong., 4th sess., 132. S. Doc. 302. ________. ________. ________. National Conference on Outdoor Recreation: Proceedings . . . 1924. 68th Cong., 1st sess., 1924. S. Doc. 151. ________. ________. ________. Committee on Public Lands and Surveys. To Aid in Providing Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational Area Purposes. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. S. Rept. 610. ________. ________. ________. To Aid in Providing the People of the United States with Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational Area Purposes, Etc. 73d Cong., 2d sess., 1934. S. Rept. 1412. ________. ________. ________. Disposition of Recreational Demonstration Projects. 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939. S. Rept. 909. ________. ________. ________. Authorizing the Disposition of Recreational Demonstration Projects. 77th Cong., 2d sess., 1942. S. Rept. 1403. ________. ________. ________. Natchez Trace Parkway Survey. 76th Cong., 3d sess., 1941. S. Doc. 148. ________. ________. ________. National Park Trust Fund Board. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. S. Rept. 829. ________. ________. ________. Preservation of Historic American Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities of National Significance, and for Other Purposes. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935. S. Rept. 828. ________. ________. ________. Public Parks, Parkways, and Recreational Areas. 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936. S. Rept. 1547. ________. ________. ________. Public Parks, Parkways, and Recreational Areas. 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936. S. Rept. 1694. ________. ________. ________. Transferring Jurisdiction Over Certain National Military Parks and National Monuments from the War Department to the Department of the Interior. 70th Cong., 1st sess., 1928. S. Rept. 1026. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture, 17-1923. ________. Forest Service. Reports of the Forester to the Secretary of Agriculture. . ., 1907, 1914-23, 1925-33. ________. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1925-1934. ________. Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture, 1908, 1917, 1923, 1934. U.S. Department of the Interior. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1906-07, 1911-17, 1933-42. ________. Annual Report of the Superintendent of National Parks to the Secretary of the Interior, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1916. Washington, 1916. _______. Proceedings of the National Park Conferences, 1911, 1912, 1915, 1917. ________. Report to the Secretary of the Interior on the Preservation of Historic Sites and Buildings, by J. Thomas Schneider. 1935. ________. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. America's Park and Recreation Heritage: A Chronology," by Carlton S. Van Boren and Louis Hodges, 1975. _______. Civilian Conservation Corps. A Brief History of the National Park Service. 1940. ________. ________. Civilian Conservation Corps Program of the United States Department of the Interior, March 1933 to June 30, 1943: A Report to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, by Conrad L. Wirth, Departmental Representative on the Advisory Council, CCC. January 1944. _______. General Land Office. Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 1900, 1904, 1906-07, 1911-34. ________. National Park Service. Administration Manual for Recreational Demonstration Areas. October 27, 1941. ________. ________. Annual Reports of the Director of the National Park Service to the Secretary of the Interior . . ., 1917-1941. [1917-32--separately published; 1933-41--published in Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Interior.] ________. ________. The Annual Report of the Southwestern Monuments, 1933-36. ________. ________. The Antiquities Act of 1906, by Ronald F. Lee. November 16, 1970. ________. ________. A Brief Organizational History of the Office of Design and Construction National Park Service, 1917-1962, by Vernon L. Hammons. 1962. ________. ________. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina; Historical Research Management Plan, by J. Fred Roush and Charles E. Hatch, Jr., June 1, 1968. ________. ________.Centennial Edition: National Park Service Officials, March 1, 1972 .________. ________. Circular of General Information Regarding Yellowstone National Park Wyoming. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1929. ________. ________. Emergency Activities in National Parks and Monuments, State Parks and Recreation Areas, Recreational Demonstration Areas. January 1937. ________. ________. Field Manual for Museums, by Ned J. Burns. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1941. ________. ________. General Information Regarding the National Monuments Set Aside Under the Act of Congress Approved, June 8, 1906. Washington, 1917. ________. ________. Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument, New Mexico, Statement for Management, June 1976. ________. ________. Glimpses of Historical Areas East of the Mississippi River Administered by the National Park Service. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937. ________. ________. Glimpses of Our National Monuments. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1926. ________. ________. Glimpses of Our National Parks, by Isabelle F. Story. Rev. ed., Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934. ________. ________. Glimpses of Our National Parks, by Isabelle F. Story. Rev. ed., Washington: Government Printing Office, 1941. ________. ________. The Historic American Buildings Survey. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1936. ________. ________. Historical Overview of Resources Management Planning in the National Park Service, by Garrett A. Smathers, ca. 1975. ________. ________. A History of National Capital Parks, by Cornelius W. Heine, 1953. ________. ________. Emergency Activities in National Parks and Monuments, State Parks and Recreation Areas, Recreational Demonstration Areas. January 1937. ________. ________. Laws Relating to the National Park Service, the National Parks and Monuments, comp. by Hillory A. Tolson. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1933. ________. ________. Laws Relating to the National Park Service: Supplement I, July 1933 through April 1944, comp. by Thomas Alan Sullivan. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1944. ________. ________. National Park Service Master Plans, by Thomas C. Vint, 1946. [Reprint from Planning and Civic Comment, April-June 1946]. ________. ________. The National Park System As Developed "For the use and enjoyment of the people." Rev. January 1938. ________. ________. The National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings, Supplement to Theme XIX, Conservation of Natural Resources, Chapter IX, Formation of the National Park Service, by Charles W. Snell. July 1963. ________. ________. The Origin and Evolution of the National Military Park Idea, by Ronald F. Lee, 1973. ________. ________. Park and Recreation Structures, Parts I-Ill, by Albert H. Good. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938. Section in "Historical Preservations and Reconstructions" contains NPS restoration policy and rationale behind it (Part II). ________. ________. Procedure for Park, Parkway and Recreational - Area Study. January 1937. ________. ________. Prospectus of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. March 1938. ________. ________. Research and Education in the National Parks, by Harold C. Bryant and Wallace W. Atwood, Jr. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932. ________. ________. Southwestern Monuments Special Report Number 24: "Anthropology and the Museum," by Katharine Bartlett. ________. ________. Statement of Appropriations, 1879-1918, Inclusive, for National Parks and National Monuments Under the Jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Washington, 1917. ________. ________. A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1941. ________. ________. Yearbook, Park and Recreation Progress, 1937-38, 1940-41. ________. ________. Board of Planning. Park Structures and Facilities. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1935. ________. Office of the Secretary. Progress in the Development of the National Parks, by Stephen T. Mather. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1916. ________. Natural Resources Library. Law Branch comp. Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935, Public Law 292, 74th Congress, 1st Session, 49 Stat. 666. July 1980. U.S. Emergency Conservation Work Organization. Summary Report of the Director of Emergency Conservation Work on the Operations of Emergency Conservation Work, For the Period Extending from April 1933, to June 30, 1935. Washington, 1935. U.S. War Department. Annual Reports, 1917-1920, 1922-1934. ________. Index to General Orders and Bulletins, 1920-1933. Washington, 1934. INTERVIEWS Interview of Horace M. Albright by Amelia Roberts Fry, June 16, 1968. Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by John F. Luzader and Edwin C. Bearss, January, 1982. Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by Edwin C. Bearss and Barry Mackintosh, January 25, 1983. Newton B. Drury. Parks and Redwoods, 1919-71: An interview conducted by Amelia Roberts Fry and Susan Schrepfer. 1972. 2 vols. (University of California, Berkeley, Bancroft Library, Regional Oral History Office). Columbia University Oral History Research Office. Horace M. Albright: Reminiscences. An interview conducted by William T. Ingersoll. New York, 1962. 3 vols. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Harpers Ferry Center, Division of Reference Services, Library and Archives. (Transcribed, typescript copies of interviews.) Interview of Horace M. Albright by Erskine, January 28, 1959. University of California, Berkeley, Regional Cultural History Project. Horace Marden Albright and Newton Bishop Drury: Comments on Conservation, 1900 to 1960. An interview conducted by Amelia Roberts Fry, 1962. Typescript. University of California, Berkeley, Regional Cultural History Project. Herbert Evison and Newton Bishop Drury: The National Park Service and Civilian Conservation Corps. An interview conducted by Amelia Roberts Fry. 1963. Typescript. CORRESPONDENCE Edwin C. Alberts TECHNICAL STUDIES Borresen, Thor. "Report on American Guns and Carriages." 1940.
Buck, Paul Herman. The Evolution of the National Park System of the United States: A Thesis Presented for the Degree of Master of Arts, Ohio State University, June 1921. Reprinted by United States Government Printing Office, 1946. Cramton, Louis C. "The Department of the Interior: Its History and Proper Functions." Interoffice Memorandum, December 7, 1932. Harper, Charles Price. The Administration of the Civilian Conservation Corps: A Dissertation Submitted to the Board of University Studies of the Johns Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1937. Clarksburg, West Virginia, 1939. Historical Notes, I (January-February 1932), 1-14.
Huth, Hans. "Observations Concerning the Conservation of Monuments In Europe and America." Washington, 1940.
Northington, Oscar F., Jr. "Research Report on Wakefield, George Washington Birthplace, Westmoreland County, Virginia." February 7, 1938.
McDermott, John Dishon. "Breath of Life: An Outline of the Development of a National Policy for Historic Preservation." March 1966. Palmer, Genevieve. "The Establishment of National Parks: An Example of Federalism." Unpublished M. A. thesis, St. Mary's University, 1968. Carl Parcher Russell. An Indexed Register of His Scholarly and Professional Papers, 1920-1967, in the Washington State University Library. Pullman, 1970. Southwestern Monuments Association. The Guide to Southwestern National Monuments. Coolidge, Arizona, December 1938. Stanford Research Institute. "The Concession System in United States National Parks: Background, Services Performed, Public Attitude Toward, and Future Considerations," by Terrence Cullinan and Barbara Matthews, January 1976. Tweed, William C. "Parkitecture: Rustic Architecture in the National Parks." Draft Mss., 1982. Endnotes
1. Remarks of Walter L. Fisher, in Proceedings of the National Park Conference Held at Yellowstone National Park, September 11 and 12, 1911 Washington, D.C., 1912), p. 3. At this time, Fisher was speaking only of the national parks. 2. Index, National Park System and Related Areas, 1982. The total includes the recently-authorized Harry S. Truman National Historical site, and excludes cemeteries. There are presently twenty-one different types of units in the system: National Parks (48), National Monuments (78), National Preserves (12), National Lakeshores (4), National Rivers (11), National Seashores (10), National Historic Sites (63), National Memorials (23), National Military Parks (10), National Battlefield Parks (3), National Battlefields (10), National Battlefield Sites (1), National Cemeteries (14, administered in conjunction with associated units), National Historical Parks (26), National Recreation Acres (17), National Parkways (4), National Scenic Trails (1), Parks (other) (10), National Capital Parks (1), White House (1), National Mall (1). 3. Donald C. Swain, Wilderness Defender: Horace M. Albright and Conservation (Chicago, 1970), p. 82; Ronald F. Lee, Family Tree of the National Park System (Philadelphia, 1972), pp. 10, 14, 18-19. Lee's work contains a number of errors, these have been corrected wherever possible using the Index, National Park System and Related Areas, 1982. Dates given in the following refer to authorization, or in case of national monuments, to proclamation. 4. "An Act to set apart a certain tract of land lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River as a Public Park." 17 Stat. 32 (March 1, 1872). This is not to ignore the ideas or events that preceded the creation of Yellowstone National Park. It is believed, rather, that such a discussion is not appropriate here. A growing body of literature that examines the growth of the park idea in 19th century America is available. See, for example, Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1979); Leo Marx, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America (New York, 1964); and Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven, 1967). 5. Roderick Nash, "The American Invention of National Parks," American Quarterly (Fall 1970), p. 726. 6. "The National Park Service and Its Future," Speech by Horace M. Albright, 1939. Horace M. Albright Papers, Box 149, Department of Special Collections, University Research Library, University of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; "Introductory Remarks by Hon. Walter L. Fisher, Secretary of Interior," in U.S. Department of Interior, Proceedings of the National Park Conference Held at the Yellowstone National Park, September 11 and 12, 1911 (Washington D.C., 1912), p. 3. 7. Lee, Family Tree, p. 10. Mackinac Island National Park was ceded to the State of Michigan in 1895. Sullys Hill was later converted to a game preserve, General Grant was incorporated in Kings Canyon National Park, and Platt was incorporated in a national recreation area. 8. Ronald F. Lee, The Antiquities Act of 1906 (Washington D.C., 1970), passim. Alfred Runte places the Antiquities Act in a philosophical context in his National Parks, pp. 71-74. 9. 34 Stat. L. 225 (June 8, 1906). Ronald Lee did an excellent job of describing the legislative history of the 1906 act, as well as the earlier, unsuccessful efforts. Antiquities Act, pp. 47-77. 10. Section 2, 34 Stat. L. 225. The act did not prohibit Congress from establishing national monuments. In the case of Chalmette and Colonial, they did just that. 11. In the case of private lands donated to the federal government, administrative responsibility would go to the Secretary of the Interior. 12. Administration of monuments by the departments of Agriculture and War is discussed on pp. 35-42. 13. Proceedings of the National Park Conference, 1911, p. 100. Much of the same sentiment was echoed by Horace Albright in 1917. U.S. Department of the Interior, Report of the Director of the National Park Service to the Secretary of Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1917 and the Travel Season, 1917 (Washington D.C., 1917), pp. 4-5. 14. Mukuntuweap became Zion National Park, Sieur de Monts became Acadia National Park, and Petrified Forest National Monument became Petrified Forest National Park. Lee, Family Tree, p. 8. 15. Ibid., pp. 33-34. The Forest Service administered those monuments under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Department. 16. U.S. Department of Interior, Glimpses of Our National Monuments (Washington D.C., 1926), pp. 1-2; Lee, Family Tree, p. 19. 17. Horace Albright to Stephen Mather, October 23, 1919, Albright Papers; Frank Pinckley to Horace Albright, September 25, 1924, and Pinckley to Stephen Mather, September 25, 1924, File, Carlsbad National Monument, New Mexico, Records of Horace M. Albright, Records of the National Park Service, Record Group 79, National Archives. 18. General Superintendent Robert Marshall in 1916, in U. S. Department of Interior, Annual Report of the General Superintendent and Landscape Engineer of National Parks to the Secretary of Interior, 1916 (Washington D.C., 1916), p. 5. A similar idea was expressed in Jenks Cameron, The National Park Service, Its History, Activities, and Organization (New York, 1922), p. 7; U. S. Department of Interior, General Information Regarding the National Monuments Set Aside Under the Act of Congress Approved June 8, 1906 (Washington D.C., 1917), pp. 5-6; "Guardian of our National Parks, March 15, 1924," unidentified newspaper article in Scrapbook, Vol. 10, Stephen A. Mather Collection, Manuscript Division, Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California; and "Handling the Parks," Saturday Evening Post, June 24, 1916, in Scrapbook, Vol. 4, Mather Collection. 19. Lee, Family Tree, p. 14. 20. Ibid., p. 14. Sitka was a small monument established to protect a Russian soldier's burying ground in Alaska. The rest were in Arizona and New Mexico. 21. Ibid., p. 14. Additionally, Pinnacles National Monument in California was transferred from the Forest Service on December 12, 1910. Three--Lewis and Clark Caverns, Shoshone Caverns, and Papago Saguaro--were eventually abolished. 22. Proceedings of the National Park Conference, 1911, p. 3. 23. A number of people have described the administration of the national parks before 1916. See, for example, Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917, pp. 2-3; 1923, p. 2; Paul Herman Buck, The Evolution of the National Park System of the United States (Washington D.C., 1946), pp. 43-45; Cameron, National Park Service, passim; Donald C. Swain, "The Passage of the National Park Service Act of 1916," Wisconsin Magazine of History, 50 (Autumn 1966), 4-6. 24. Annual Report of the General Superintendent, 1915, p. 8. 25. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, A Bill to Establish a National Park Service and for other Purposes, Hearings on HR 104, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., April 29, 1914, p. 4; Buck, National Park System, p. 43. 26. Ibid.; Walter L. Fisher, "The Need For a National Parks Bureau," American Civic Association, Series 11 (December 1912), pp. 3-4. 27. Annual Report of the General Superintendent, 1916, p. 13. 28. Buck, National Park System, p. 44; Horace J. McFarland, "Are the Parks Worthwhile?" American Civic Association, Series 11 (December 1912), pp. 18-20. 29. Hearings on HR 104, p. 10. 30. Annual Report of the General Superintendent, 1916, p. 15. The number of visitors rose from 69,018 in 1908 to 235,193 in 1914. Cameron, National Park Service, p. 137. It was a protest over conditions in the parks that eventually brought Stephen Mather to Washington. Robert Shankland, Steve Mather of the National Parks (New York, 1951), p. 7. 31. Annual Report of the Secretary of Interior, pp. 55-67. Quoted in Swain, "National Park Service Act," p. 5. 32. Swain, "National Park Service Act," pp. 4-5; H. Duane Hampton, "The Army and the National Parks," Forest History 10 (October 1966), pp. 3-17. 33. Buck, National Park System, p. 43. 34. U.S. Department of Interior, Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Secretary of Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1907 (Washington D.C., 1907), p. 24; Ibid., 1916, pp. 49-50. 35. Ibid., 1911, pp. 37-38; 1912, p. 38; 1913, p. 30; and 1914, p. 50. 36. Ibid., 1916, p. 62. 37. U.S. Department of Interior, Reports of the Department of Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1913. Administrative Reports in 2 volumes (Washington D. C., 1914), 1:867. 38. Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 1913, p. 30. 39. R.T. Galloway to Secretary of Interior, August 15, 1913. Quoted in U.S. Department of Interior, Historic Structure Report, A History of the Anglo Period, Tumacacori National Monument, by A. Berle Clemensen (Denver, 1977), p. 31. 40. Ibid. 41. G.W. Helm to Robert Selkiak, October 10, 1913. Quoted in Clemensen, Tumacacori, p. 31. 42. Swain, "National Park Service Act," p. 5. 43. Information provided by John F. Luzader. Mr. Luzader is currently preparing a history of professions in the National Park Service. 44. Proceedings of the National Park Conference, 1911. Similar conferences, attended by superintendents, concessioners, departmental officials, and other interested parties were held in 1912, 1915, and 1917. 45. Swain, Albright, p. 41; Horace Albright, "The National Park Service, 1917-37," Reprint of article in American Planning and Civic Annual, 1937. Albright Papers, Box 162; Cameron, National Park Service, pp. 8-10. 46. Swain, Albright, p. 41; Cameron, National Park Service, pp. 5-8; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917, pp. 2-3. 47. Swain, Albright, p. 41. Lane did not increase the salary, nor did he relieve Miller of the other duties that came with the position. 48. Annual Report of the General Superintendent, 1915, p. 5. 49. Annual Report of the General Superintendent, 1916, pp. 4-5; Cameron, National Park Service, p. 10. 50. The Civil Appropriation Act of July 1, 1916 (39 Stat. L., 309), provided for a staff of four. 51. Interview of Horace Albright by Mr. Erskine, January 28, 1959. Transcript at library, Harpers Ferry Center, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. A copy is also available at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. For a scholarly biography of Albright, see Donald Swain's Wilderness Defender: Horace Albright and Conservation. 52. Shankland, Steve Mather, pp. 7-8; Swain, Albright, p. 36. Miller resigned in January 1915 and became a member of the Federal Reserve Bank Board. 53. The best biography of Mather is Robert Shankland's Steve Mather and the National Parks. 54. Interview, Albright by Erskine, January 28, 1959. 55. U.S. Department of Interior, Progress in the Development of the National Parks, by Stephen T. Mather (Washington D.C., 1916 , pp. 5-6; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917, pp. 11-12; Shankland, Steve Mather, pp. 83-99. 56. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1923, p. 2. War in Europe, of course, contributed to increased travel in America. 57. 39 Stat. 535. Swain, "National Park Service Act," gives a good overview of Mather's publicity campaign. The forthcoming study by John Luzader includes as clear a description of the legislative history of the act as is available. 58. 39 Stat. 535; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917. 59. Shankland, Steve Mather, p. 107; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, p. 2. 60. This was Mather's second nervous collapse. Interview of Albright by Erskine, January 28, 1959; Shankland, Steve Mather, pp. 111-12. 61. Shankland, Steve Mather, pp. 109-11; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917, p. 2; Swain, Albright, pp. 64-65. 62. Ibid. 63. Swain, Albright, p. 100; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1918, pp. 11, 32-33; Stephen T. Mather, "Report on Do Functions of the National Park Service Overlap those of Other Bureaus?" [ ], pp. 1-2, K5410, Policy and Philosophy to 1929, HFC; "Memorandum of Agreement between the National Park Service and the Bureau of Public Roads Relating to the Construction and Improvement of Roads and Trails in the National Parks and National Monuments," 1926, Albright Papers, Box 150; "Graphic Chart Showing Cooperation Between the National Park Service of the Department of Interior and the Departments and Bureaus of the Federal Government," 1919, corrected to 1923 and 1932, Albright Papers, Box 150. 64. Annual Report of the General Superintendent, 1915, pp. 5-8. 65. File 12-0, Administration (Part 1), Central Classified Files, 1907-36, Records of the Secretary of Interior, RG 48. The letter was printed in its entirety in Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1918, pp. 273-76. The letter, which was actually written by Horace Albright, incorporated his philosophy as well as Mather's. 66. Statement of National Park Policy, March 11, 1925, in ibid. There were, of course, some changes to meet new conditions. In 1925, for example, grazing of cattle in national parks would be eliminated. 67. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1932, pp. 7-9; U.S. Department of Interior, The Department of Interior, Its History and Proper Function (Washington, D.C., 1932). Louis C. Cramton, a former Michigan congressman serving as a special attorney to the Secretary of Interior, was largely responsible for this report. 68. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1929, pp. 2-3. Mather had suffered a crippling stroke the previous November. 69. "Announcement Regarding Changes in Executive Officers," Park Service Bulletin, 3, (August-September, 1933), pp. 34-36. Copy in Albright Papers, Box 104. 70. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1918, pp. 100-103. 71. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1929, pp. 44, 46. Grand Teton N.P., authorized one week after he resigned, was 150 square miles. The national parks added were: Mt. McKinley (February 26, 1917); Grand Canyon (February 26, 1919); Zion (November 19, 1919); Hot Springs (March 4, 1921); Great Smoky Mountains (May 22, 1926); Shenandoah (May 22, 1926); Mammoth Cave (May 25, 1926); and Bryce Canyon (June 7, 1924). The national monuments were: Verendrye (June 29, 1917); Casa Grande (August 3, 1918); Katmai (September 24, 1918); Scotts Bluff (December 12, 1919); Yucca House (December 12, 1919); Fossil Cycad (October 21, 1922); Aztec Ruins (January 24, 1923); Hovenweep (March 12, 1923); Pipe Springs (May 31, 1923); Carlsbad Cave (October 25, 1923); Craters of the Moon (May 2, 1924); Wupatki (December 9, 1924); and Glacier Bay (February 29, 1929). 72. Shankland, Steve Mather, p. 184; John Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore, Maryland), p. 322; Annual Report of the Secretary of Interior, 1920, pp. 21-22; Robert Sterling Yard, "National Parks Situation Critical: A Report to the System's Defenders, November 7, 1928," Albright Papers, Box 156. 73. Shankland, Steve Mather, p. 134; Accommodations for Visitors to Areas Administered by the National Park Service, December 29, 1936, File G-201, part 1, Administration and Personnel, Administration (General), RG 79; "Memo to the Secretary, April 14, 1928," Central Classified File 12-0, 1907-26, Administrative (Part 1), RG 79. 74. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1918, p. 38. 75. Albright to Robert Sterling Yard, December 20, 1928. Quoted in Swain, Albright, pp. 181-82. 76. Carlsbad Caverns National Park had been Carlsbad Cave National Monument. "Announcement Regarding Changes in Executive Offices," p. 34; Swain, Albright, p. 192. As superintendent of Yellowstone, moreover, Albright had played a major role in the establishment of Grand Teton National Park. The national monuments were: Badlands (March 4, 1929); Arches (April 12, 1928); George Washington Birthplace (January 23, 1930); Colonial (December 30, 1930); Canyon de Chelly (April 1, 1931); Great Sand Dunes (March 17, 1932); Grand Canyon (December 22, 1932); White Sands (January 18, 1933); Death Valley (February 11, 1933); and Black Canyon of the Gunnison (March 2, 1933). The eleventh Bandelier--was transferred from the Forest Service on February 25, 1932. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1932, pp. 75-78; Annual Report of the Secretary of Interior, 1933, pp. 159-60. 77. Swain, Albright, p. 192. 78. Swain, Albright, p. 191; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. 2. Mather had rid the system of politically-appointed superintendents replacing them with men responsible to him. 79. C. Frank Brockman, "Park Naturalists and the Evolution of National Park Service Interpretation through World War II," Journal of Forest History, 22 (January 1978); Ansel Hall, "Suggestions for Organization of Educational Department, January 19, 1925, Box K1810, History of Interpretation to 1925, HFC: Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1924, pp. 7-9; ibid., 1925, pp. 10-11 80. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1930, p. 2. Interview of Dr. Harold C. Bryant by Herbert Evison, October 25, 1962 (transcript at HFC). 81. Swain, Albright, p. 194; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, pp. 36, 49. As a result of reorganization in 1930, there were four major branches: operations; use, law, and regulation; lands; and education. Illustration I shows the organization under Albright. 82. U.S. Department of Interior, Statement of Appropriations, 1879-1978, Inclusive for National Parks and National Monuments Under Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior (Washington, D.C., 1917); Annual Reports of the Director of the National Park Service, 1918-28; and Annual Reports of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 1913-16. 83. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1924, pp. 65-66. Under this agreement Pinkley had general supervision over twelve national monuments in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, in addition to custodial duties at Casa Grande and Tumacacori. 84. Albright's motives were complex; see discussion on pp. 48-49. 85. Horace M. Albright, Origins of National Park Service Administration of Historic Sites (Philadelphia, 1971), passim; Swain, Albright, pp. 197-200. 86. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1930, p. 6. 87. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. 8; Annual Report of the Secretary of Interior, 1933, p. 153. A 1933 resume of Albright's career described the establishment of Colonial National Monument as the "most notable achievement of Director Albright's career"; "Announcement Regarding Changes in Executive Officers." 88. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. 16; Memorandum for the press, August 7, 1931, File 101, General History, 1926-32, Central Classified Files, RG 79; Verne E. Chatelain to authors, April 17, 1982. 89. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 4. 90. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917, pp. 7-8. 91. Lee, Family Tree, pp. 33-34. Lava Beds had important historical aspects as well. 92. Ibid., 39 Stat. 1812. 93. Lee, Family Tree, pp. 33-34; Secretary [Agriculture] from L. Kneipp, February 15, 1932, General Correspondence, 1906-35, Records of the Secretary of Agriculture, RG 16, National Archives. 94. See Chapter 2. 95. Minutes of the 686th regular meeting of the Service Committee, June 29, 1916, Minutes of the Service Committee, Nos. 664-771, 1916, Records of the Forest Service, RG 95, National Archives. Other than references to efforts to transfer the monuments, this was the only discussion of the national monuments in the Service Committee meetings between 1916 and 1933. 96. These were uniform rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War to carry out the provisions of the "Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities," December 28, 1906. 97. Memorandum for the Secretary from R.Y. Stuart, September 1933, Monuments, 1933, General Correspondence, 1906-35, RG 16. 98. Ibid. 99. Ibid. 100. Lee, Family Tree. Father Millet Cross and Castle Pinckney would be abolished in 1956, and Meriwether Lewis would become part of Natchez Trace Parkway. 101. For an analysis of the background and development of this military park system, see Ronald F. Lee, The Origin and Evolution of the National Military Park Idea (Washington, D.C., 1973). 102. U.S. Department of War, Office of the Quartermaster General, National Military Park National Park-National Battlefield Site and National Monument Regulations (Washington, D.C., 1931), pp. 2-3. 103. Information from ibid. 104. Ibid, pp. 33-34; 39 Stat. 385; 43 Stat. 1109. 105. War Department, Regulations, pp. 2-3. Two of the twelve battlefield sites, where American soldiers fell in Santiago, Cuba, and Peking, China, are not considered here. 106. Ibid. 107. War Department, Regulations, p. 2. The term monument refers to all units. The Quartermaster General had been responsible for the areas since 1924. 108. Ibid.; U.S. War Department, Annual Report of the Secretary of War, 1931 (Washington, D.C., 1931), p. 21. 109. Ibid.; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Military Affairs, Qualifications for Superintendents of National Cemeteries and Parks, Report on HR 10809, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 1928; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Reorganization, Reorganization of the Executive Departments, Hearings, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1924, p. 82. 110. "A report on HR 8502, 72nd Congress, 1st Session, (The Proposal to transfer military parks and monuments to the National Park Service)." [1932], Old History Division Files, WASO. In testimony before a Senate committee, Horace Albright stated that no division in the War Department was charged with responsibility for parks and monuments. U.S. Congress, House, A Bill To Transfer Jurisdiction over Certain National Military Parks and National Monuments from the War Department to the Department of the Interior, and for Other Purposes, Hearings on S 4173, 70th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1929, p. 18. 111. Chief of Engineers to District Engineers Offices, April 30, 1913, War Department Records: National Monuments, General, Subsequent to 1894, RG 79. 112. On June 11, 1926, President Coolidge approved "An Act to provide for the study and investigation of battlefields for commemorative purposes." Colonel H.L. Landers was in charge of carrying on the investigations required under the act. The War Department regularly reported the results of his efforts to Congress. See, for example, Senate Document No. 14 (December 12, 1927); Senate Document No. 187 (December 12, 1928); H.R. Report No. 1525 (May 19, 1930); and Senate Document No. 27 (December 19, 1931). 113. Annual Report of the War Department, 1920, 1: 1943-74; 1922, pp. 106-07. 114. Hearings on S4173; Herbert E. Kahler to authors, May 3, 1982; George A. Palmer, to authors, April 29, 1982. Mr. Kahler served as a CCC technician at Chickamauga-Chattanooga before transfer of the military parks, and Mr. Palmer was at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields. 115. Lee, Family Tree, p. 22. 116. See, for example, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Military Affairs, Report to Accompany H.R. 175, 54th Cong., 1st Sess., 1896; Statement of Otis S. Bland (Representative from Virginia), Hearings on S4173, 1929; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Military Affairs, Establishment of National Military Parks-Battlefields, Hearings before the Committee and Subcommittee No. 8, 71st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1930; J.L. DeWitt, "National Military Parks," National Parks Bulletin, 11 (August 1933), p. 6. 117. For a history of the National Capital Parks, see Cornelius W. Heine, A History of National Capital Parks (Washington, D.C., 1953). 118. Ibid., p. 1; Lee, Family Tree, p. 22. 119. Ibid., Table IV and passim; Lee, Family Tree, p. 24. In 1933 the National Capital Parks, including units in Virginia and Maryland consisted of 6,367.39 acres. 120. Annual Report of the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, 1931, p. 1. The director was the legal successor to the three federal commissioners who laid out the federal city in 1791. Heine, National Capital Parks, p. 27. 121. Annual Report of the Director of Public Buildings, 1931, p. 2. 122. Letter From the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital Transmitting in Response to Senate Resolution No. 351 72d Cong.) A Report of all Functions of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital, Public Buildings Commission, Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission, and National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Annual Cost Thereof, Document No. 22, 73rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1933; Annual Report of the Director of Public Parks, 1931, p. 2; Report of the Secretary of Interior, 1933, pp. 154-55.
1. Proceedings of the National Park Conference, 1911, p. 101. 2. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on the Public Lands, National Park Service, Report to accompany H.R. 15522, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 1916, pp. 1-2. A similar section had been included in H. R. 104, introduced in 1914 by Congressman Raker of California. 3. D.F. Houston to Scott Ferris, May 16, 1916, in Report to accompany H. R. 15522, 1916; Henry S. Graves to William Kent, January 31, 1916, File 0-120-05, Part 1, Parks General, Legislation, Acts, Act to Establish National Park Service, RG 79; Minutes of the 667th, 682nd, 687th, and 692nd Regular Meetings of the Service Committee, February 3, 1916, May 25, 1916, July 6, 1916, and August 10, 1916, RG 95. 4. Forester to Henry Graves, February 24, 1921, Forester's File, Supervision (W. B. Greeley, 1911-28), RG 95. For a National Park Service perspective of the relations between the two bureaus, see Memo for Mr. [Harry] Slattery: Re Forest Service Opposition to the National Park Service, March 12, 1934, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, 12-0, Administrative (Part 2), RG 79; Forest Service Opposition to the National Park Service, February 12, 1925, Albright Papers, Box 149; Interview of Horace Albright by unnamed person, September 1960, HFC. 5. Ben W. Twight, "The Tenacity of Value Committment: The Forest Service and Olympic National Park," Ph.D dissertation, University of Washington, 1971, p. 4. 6. See, for example, Minutes of the 735th Regular meeting of the Service Committee, June 21, 1917, Minutes of the Service Committee, Nos. 712-62, 1917, RG 95; Memorandum for the Secretary [Agriculture], October 25, 1923, Forester's File, Supervision, General, 1923-27, RG 95; Memorandum for the Files, February 10, 1925, File 201-014, Forest Service, RG 95; Diary of Harold Ickes, entries for April 18 and 19, 1933, Papers of Harold Ickes, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. 7. See discussion following. 8. Memorandum for the Secretary, March 6, 1922, and March 14, 1922, Forester's File, F, Supervision, General, 1922, RG 95. A record of Forest Service opposition to boundary adjustments is in memorandum for Mr. Slattery; Re Forest Service Opposition to the National Park Service, March 12, 1938. 9. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917, p. 8. 10. Swain, Albright, p. 198; Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Preservation Comes of Age from Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-49, 2 vols., (Charlottesville, Virginia, 1981), 1:476-77 11. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1917, p. 6. 12. See, for example, Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1918, p. 36; ibid., 1919, p. 41; and ibid., 1920, p. 89. 13. Albright to the Director, National Park Service, August 30, 1919, Albright Papers, Box 166. 14. Proceedings of the National Park Conference, 1917, p. 108. 15. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Reorganization of the Administration Branch of Government, Reorganization of the Executive Departments: Report of the Joint Committee on Reorganization, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1924. 16. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of Government, Letter from the President of the United States to Walter F. Brown . . . Transmitting a Chart Exhibiting in Detail the Present Organization of the Government Departments and the Changes Suggested by the President and the Cabinet, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., 1923, p. 2. 17. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 6. 18. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Reorganization of Administrative Departments, Hearings Report on Reorganization of Executive Departments, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1924, p. 127. 19. Ibid., pp. 126-29. 20. Hearings Report on Reorganization of Executive Departments, 124, pp. 19-21; Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 6. 21. Hearings Report on Reorganization of Executive Departments, 1924, p. 279; Minutes of the 1050th meeting of the Service Committee, January 24, 1924, Minutes of the Service Committee, Nos. 1002-89, 1923-24, RG 95. 22. Hearings Report on Reorganization of Executive Departments, 1924, p. 279. 23. Ibid. 24. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 7. 25. Ibid. Albert Fall resigned as Secretary of the Interior in March 1923. The scandal that would eventually send him to prison had not yet surfaced. 26. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 8; U.S. Congress, House, A Bill to Transfer Jurisdiction Over Certain National Military Parks and National Monuments from the War Department to the Department of the Interior, and for Other Purposes, Hearings before the Committee on Military Affairs, 70th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1929, p. 2; "Park Service May Direct Battlesites," New York, March 25, 1928, in File 120, Administrative (Part 1), Central Classified File, 1907-36, Records of the Office of Secretary of Interior, RG 48, National Archives. 27. U.S. Congress, Senate, Transferring Jurisdiction Over Certain National Military Parks and National Monuments from the War Department to the Department of Interior, S. Rept. 1026 to Accompany S4173, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 1928. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid. The national historical park would be "such of these parks, monuments, and other areas as shall be so designated by the Secretary of the Interior." 30. U.S. Senate, Transferring Jurisdiction . . . 1928. 31. U.S. Congress, House, Hearings on S. 4173. 32. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 8. 33. Ibid. 34. U.S. Congress, House, Hearings on S. 4173, pp. 2-5. 35. Ibid., passim. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid.; Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 9; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1929, p. 10. 38. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 12. 39. Ibid. Albright did not make clear whether this meant the national monuments administered by the Forest Service as well. It does seem likely that this was the case, however. 40. Opinions of Attorney Generals, 1929-32, Vol. 36, pp. 75-79. Xerox copy in Lee Papers, Box 111, HFC. 41. Ibid. 42. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, pp. 12-13. 43. Ibid. 44. U.S. Congress, House, Message from the President of the United States Transmitting a Message to Group, Coordinate, and Consolidate Executive and Administrative Agencies, . . . 72nd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1932, p. 1. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. Neither Park Service nor departmental officials had requested transfer of cemeteries. 47. Ibid.; Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 13. 48. See, for example, H.H. Chapman, "Conservation or Departmental Jealousy--Which?," American Forest and Forest Life, XXXVI (April 1930), pp. 211-12; "Reorganization Conservation," American Forest and Forest Life, XXXV (June 1929), pp. 357-58. 49. Louis C. Cramton, The Department of Interior: Its History and Proper Function (Washington, D.C., 1932), pp. 39-40; "President Hoover on Conservation," American Forest and Forest Life, XXXVI (January 1930), p. 11. 50. Message from the President, December 9, 1932, p. 1. 51. U.S. Congress, House, A Bill to Transfer Jurisdiction Over Certain National Military Parks and National Monuments to the Department of the Interior and for Other Purposes, 72nd Cong., 1st Sess., 1932. 52. A Report Upon H. R. 8502, Old History Division Files, WASO. 53. Ibid. 54. Interestingly, Horace Albright never discussed the Collins bill in his narrative of the events leading up to Executive Order 6166. Administration of Historic Sites. 55. Minutes of the 1431st Meeting of the Service Committee, January 26, 1933, RG 95. 56. Swain, Albright, p. 210. 57. Ibid., p. 220; Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 17. This is not to say that a skillful public relations campaign by Albright and some influential friends was neither unnecessary nor uneffective. See Swain, Albright, pp. 209-12. 58. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 17. 59. Ibid. 60. There are several descriptions of the events of that day, all of which are similar. See Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, pp. 18-21; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 17 530-31; Swain, Albright, pp. 226-28; Diary 2, Harold Ickes, entry for April 9, 1933, Ickes Papers, LC. 61. U. S. Congress, House, Message from the President of the United States Transmitting an Executive Order for Certain Regroupings, Consolidations, Transfers, and Abolition of Executive Agencies and Functions Thereof, Doc. No. 69, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 1933, p. 1. 62. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 21. At the same time, Roosevelt ordered Albright to "get busy" and have Saratoga Battlefield made a national park or national monument. 63. See, for example, Horace Albright to Harry Myers, March 31, 1933; Carlos C. Campbell to Albright, March 28, 1933; William Greedy to Albright, March 17, 1933; and Albright to A. Willis Robertson, January 11, 1933. All in Records of Horace M. Albright, Personal, RG 79. 64. Diary of Harold Ickes, entries for April 18 and 19, 1933, Ickes Papers, LC; Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 23; Swain, Albright, p. 228. 65. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites; Swain, Albright, p. 229. 66. Memorandum for the Secretary from Horace M. Albright, April 17, 1933, 0201-014 (Part 2), General, Administration Reorganization, RG 79. 67. U.S. Congress, House, Message from the President of the United States Transmitting an Executive Order for Certain Regroupings, Consolidations, Transfers, and Abolitions of Executive Agencies and Functions Thereof, Doc. No.69, 73rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1933, pp. 2-3. Section 19 provided for the transfer of records and personnel, and Section 20 provided that unexpended appropriations be transferred. 68. In 1934 the Service maintained 98 buildings in the District of Columbia and nine buildings scattered across the country. In 1938, the last year it carried that responsibility, the numbers were 46 and 11. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1934, pp. 199-200; 1938, pp. 35-36. 69. Swain, Albright, p. 229. 70. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 21. 71. Ibid., p. 22; Swain, Albright, pp. 229-30. Most of Albright's objections were incorporated in a memorandum for Mr. Brown from Secretary of the Interior, June 9, 1933, File 0-201-014, (Part 2), General, Administration, Reorganization, RG 79. 72. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 22; Swain, Albright, pp. 229-30. Delano was President Roosevelt's uncle. 73. These were Antietam, Battleground, Chattanooga, Fort Donelson, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Poplar Grove, Shiloh, Stones River, Vicksburg, and Yorktown. 74. Annual Report of the Department of Interior, 1933, pp. 154-55; Swain, Albright, p. 230. 75. Memorandum for all Field Offices, March 10, 1934, File 0-201-14, Parks General, RG 79. Restoration of the name was accomplished by Senator Carl Hayden's amendment to the Senate Interior Appropriations Bill. Arno B. Cammerer to Horace Albright, February 23, 1934, Central Decimal File, 201-01, Administration (General), RG 79. 76. Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 21. 77. Ray Lyman Wilbur to Secretary of War, February 20, 1932, and Patrick J. Hurley to Secretary of Interior, February 13, 1932, Albright Papers, Box 157; Albright, Administration of Historic Sites, p. 17. 78. Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by John Luzader and Edwin C. Bearss, January, 1982. 79. Memorandum for the Director from W. B. Lewis, April 11, 1929, Records of Horace M. Albright, General Files, Part 1, RG 79. 80. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Military Affairs, Establishment of National Parks - Battlefields, Hearings before the Committee and Subcommittee No. 8, 71st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1930, pp. 22-23. 81. Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by John Luzader and Edwin C. Bearss. A copy of this memorandum from Landers to the President was not located. 82. Harry Woodring to the President, June 21, 1933, File 0201-014, Part 2, General Administration, Reorganization, RG 79. 83. Harry Woodring to the President, June 22, 1933, ibid. In a July 3, 1933 letter to Ickes, George Dern echoed Woodring. 84. Ibid. 85. Memorandum for Mr. Demaray, Re: Transfer of Building under Supervising Architects Office, July 7, 1933, File 0201-014, Part 2, General Administration, Reorganization, RG 79. 86. Memorandum for Mr. Demaray, July 7, 1933, ibid. 87. Swain, Albright, pp. 229-30. 88. Harold Ickes to Secretary of War, July 10, 1933, File 0201-014, Part 2, General Administration, Reorganization, RG 79. 89. See, for example, Memorandum for Mr. Albright and Mr. Demaray from [Verne E.] Chatelain, July 25, 1933, Files 0-201-014, Part 3, Parks General, Reorganization, RG 79; Harold Ickes to Lewis W. Douglas, August 19, 1933, File 12-32, Administrative, (Part 1), Central Classified File, RG 48; George Dern to Secretary of Interior, August 10, 1933, ibid. 90. Douglas MacArthur to Secretary of Interior, August 3, 1933, File 0-201-014, Part 3, Parks General, Administration, Reorganization, RG 79; George Dern to Secretary of Interior, August 30, 1933, Records of the Adjutant General's Offices, RG 94, NA; Annual Report of the Secretary of Interior, 1933, pp. 161-62. Appendix 1 contains a list of all areas transferred. 91. L. F. Kneipp to Guy F. Allen, July 25, 1933, File 0-201-014, Parks General, Administration, Reorganization, July 17, 1933-August 31, 1933, RG 79. In his Ph.D. dissertation, Ben W. Twight wrote that Forest Service officials did not become aware of the order until August 26. "Tenacity of Value Committment," p. 72. 92. Kneipp to Allen, July 25, 1933. 93. Ibid. 94. Twight, "Tenacity of Value Committment," p. 72. 95. Diary of Harold Ickes, entry for April 18, 1933, Ickes Papers, LC. Wallace thought that they would be under Agriculture; Ickes thought it would be Interior. 96. Ibid., entry for April 20, 1933. 97. Twight, "Tenacity of Value Committment," p. 84. 98. L.F. Kneipp to Guy F. Allen, July 25, 1933, File 0-201-014, Parks General, Administration, Reorganization, July 17, 1933, August 31, 1933, RG 79. 99. Quoted in Twight, "Tenacity of Value Committment," p. 72. The eight monuments that the National Park Service had indicated should be transferred were Gila Cliff, Lava Beds, Tonto, Walnut Canyon, Jewel Cave, Lehman Caves, Oregon Caves, and Timpanagos Cave. Seven others--Chiricahua, Devils Post Pile, Holy Cross, Mount Olympus, Old Kasaan, Sunset Crater, and Wheeler--would be most economically administered by the Forest Service. Memorandum for Mr. Bailey from A. E. Demaray, August 14, 1933, File 201-014, (Part 3), Parks General, Administration, Reorganization, RG 79. 100. Ickes to Secretary of Agriculture, September 29, 1933, File 12-1, Administration, Central Classified File, RG 48. 101. H. A. Wallace to Secretary of Interior, September 29, 1933, File 0-201-014, Part 4, Parks General, Administration, Reorganization, August 10, 1933-December 22, 1933, RG 79; Memorandum for the Secretary [Agriculture], September 28, 1933, ibid. Also see, Minutes of the 1462nd Meeting of Service Committee, September 28, 1933, RG 95. 102. Harold Ickes to Secretary of Agriculture, November 11, 1933, ibid.; Memorandum for the Secretary, October 24, 1933, ibid. 103. Ickes to Lewis H. Douglas, January 18, 1934, ibid. At the same time, Ickes requested transfer of $3,800 for administrative purposes. Interestingly, while Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument was one of the monuments transferred, in 1933, by an April 1975 cooperative agreement with the National Park Service the Forest Service assumed administration and management of the monument. Cooperative Agreement Between the National Park Service, U-5. Department of Interior and the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 14, 1975. Provided to the authors by Thomas Lucke, Environmental Coordinator, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe. 104. Ickes to Rexford G. Tugwell [Assistant Secretary of Agriculture], February 19, 1934, File 12-1, Administrative, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. An interesting sidelight to this exchange of letters was a memorandum from Ickes to Harry Slattery, Personal Assistant to the Secretary, indicating that an answer prepared by Mr. Demaray was "too contentious" to send, February 14, 1934, ibid. 105. Memorandum to Mr. Slattery, Re: Forest Service Opposition to the National Park Service; see chapter following. 106. Donald C. Swain, "The National Park Service and the New Deal, 1933-1940," Pacific Historical Review, XLI (August 1972), p. 319. 107. Ibid. 108. Swain, "National Park Service and the New Deal," p. 320. 109. Memorandum for the Director, February 24, 1933, Files 0-201-15 (Part 1), National Parks General, Administrative and Personnel, 1933, RG 79. He did propose going ahead with new park and monument projects at the Great Smokies, Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave, Isle Royale, and the Badlands, as well as continuing efforts to secure legislation creating Everglades, Morristown, and Boulder Canyon Military Reservations. 110. Ibid. 111. In an effort to gauge the reaction of NPS employees, the authors contacted NPS people who were active in the 1930s. See, for example, George A. Palmer to authors, April 19, 1982; Howard Baker to authors, April 17, 1982; Herbert E. Kahler to authors, May 3, 1982; and Edwin C. Alberts to authors, April 27, 1982. A complete list of those who wrote to the authors is included in the bibliography. 112. Lee, Family Tree, p. 35. Appendix 1 is a list of the areas that came into the system on August 10, 1933. 113. Ibid. 114. Albright to Ernest Allen Connally, February 13, 1970, Old History Division Files. 115. Albright, Administration of Historical Sites, p. 23. 116. Ibid.; Swain, Albright, pp. 229-31; Memorandum for the Press, July 5, 1933, Director File, H.M. Albright, July 1-2, 1933, RG 79. 117. The story of Cammerer's appointment is a complex one. Ickes indicated a desire to appoint an "outsider" to replace Albright. When Newton B. Drury, Executive Secretary of the Save-the-Redwoods-League and former University of California classmate of Albright, refused the position, Ickes gave in and grudgingly appointed Cammerer. Swain, Albright, p. 231. 118. The seven natural areas: Cedar Breaks National Monument (August 22, 1933), Everglades National Park (May 10, 1934), Big Bend National Park (June 20, 1935), Joshua Tree National Monument (August 10, 1936), Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (April 13, 1937), Capitol Reef National Monument (August 2, 1937), and Channel Islands National Monument (April 26, 1938). In addition Olympic National Monument, transferred on August 10, 1933, became Olympic National Park on June 29, 1938. Capitol Reef National Monument would become Capitol Reef National Park in 1971. Historical areas: Ocmulgee National Monument (June 14, 1933), Fort Jefferson National Monument (January 4, 1935), Andrew Johnson National Monument (August 29, 1935), Fort Stanwix National Monument (August 21, 1935), Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (December 20, 1935), Richmond National Battlefield (March 2, 1936), Homestead National Monument (March 19, 1936), Fort Frederica National Monument (May 26, 1936), Whitman National Monument (June 29, 1936), Pipestone National Monument (August 25, 1937), Salem Maritime National Historic Site (March 17, 1938), Saratoga National Historical Park (June 1, 1938), Fort Laramie National Monument (July 16, 1938), Hopewell Village National Historic Site (August 3, 1938), Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (September 23, 1938), Federal Hall National Historic Site (May 26, 1939), Tuzigoot National Monument (July 25, 1939), and Old Philadelphia Custom House (May 26, 1939). Andrew Johnson, Fort Laramie, and Whitman national monuments were changed to national historic sites. Recreation areas: Blue Ridge Parkway (1933), Natchez Trace National Parkway (1934), Catoctin Mountain Park (November 14, 1936), Prince William Forest Park (November 14, 1936), Lake Mead (October 13, 1936), and Cape Hatteras National Seashore (August 17, 1937).
1. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1940," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 208. When the huge increase in number of units is considered, this increase is almost negligible. 2. Swain, "National Park Service and the New Deal," 324. 3. Ibid., 327. 4. The Civilian Conservation Corps Reforestation Act, passed by Congress on March 31, 1933, as an unemployment relief measure, established the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was authorized to provide work for 250,000 jobless male citizens between the ages of 18 and 25. The CCC was to commence a national conservation program including reforestation efforts, road construction, prevention of soil erosion, and national park and flood control projects. Work camps were established for those enrolled in the CCC, and the youths received $30 per month, part of which went to dependents. Four government departments (War, Interior, Agriculture, Labor) cooperated in carrying out the program. The CCC had as many as 500,000 on its rolls at one time, and by July 2, 1942, when Congress ordered its liquidation, it had employed over 2,000,000 young men. Robert Fechner, general vice-president of the International Association of Machinists in Boston, was named director of the CCC in April 1933. Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History: Bicentennial Edition (New York 1976), pp. 404-05; Conrad L. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People (Norman, 1980), pp. 65-175; Summary Report of the Director of Emergency Conservation Work on the Operations of Emergency Conservation Work For the Period Extending from April 1933, to June 30, 1935 (Washington D.C., 1935); John A. Salmond, The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study (Durham, 1967); and Civilian Conservation Corps Program, United States Department of the Interior, March 1933 to June 30, 1943, A Report to Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, [by] Conrad L. Wirth, Departmental Representative on the Advisory Council, CCC, January 1944. 5. Swain, "National Park Service and the New Deal," 325. 6. Executive Order 6160, June 7, 1933, Box 1, A98, CCC Material, HFC; U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of National Parks, Buildings and Reservations, National Park Emergency Conservation Work, Handbook of Emergency Conservation Work, [1934], Box 158, Albright Papers. Later, the Park Service would be given responsibility for supervising the ECW in the recreational demonstration areas. This will be considered more fully in chapter four of this study. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Emergency Activities in National Parks and Monuments, State Parks and Recreation Areas, Recreational Demonstration Areas (January 1937), pp. 1-2. 7. Handbook of Emergency Conservation Work [1934], Box 158, Albright Papers; Albright to All Superintendents and Monument Custodians, August 9, 1933; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 167; and Charles Price Harper, The Administration of the Civilian Conservation Corps (Clarksburg, 1939), pp. 61-72. 8. Salmond, Civilian Conservation Corps, p. 87. 9. Ickes to Director of Emergency Conservation Work, April 28, 1933 (Approved April 29, 1933), Executive Departments and Establishments (Forest Service), Central Classified Files 0-20, RG 79. Later on February 7, 1935, Fechner authorized these same types of CCC work to be carried out in the national and state forests. The CCC activities in these areas were under the direct supervision of the Department of Agriculture through the U.S. Forest Service, contributing to the long-simmering rivalry between the Park Service and Forest Service. Granger to Fechner, February 7, 1935; Demaray to the Secretary, May 22, 1935; WaIters to Fechner, June 12, 1935; Fechner to Walters, June 21, 1935; and Wirth to Demaray (with enclosures), August 30, 1935; ibid. Also see Personal Memorandum for Mr. Slattery, Re: Forest Service Opposition to the National Park Service, n.d., Records of Arno B. Cammerer, 1922-40, RG 79. 10. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1933, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1933, pp. 156-58. Also see U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The National Parks and Emergency Conservation, by Isabelle F. Story (Washington D.C., 1933), pp. 21-24. 11. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, pp. 167-69. During fiscal year 1935 an advisory committee on state parks was appointed to assist in formulating park policies and programs dealing with the states. Colonel Richard Lieber, president of the National Conference on State Parks, was named chairman of the committee. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 181. 12. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service." 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, pp. 181-82, 214, and Wirth, Parks, Politics and the People, p. 130. 13. Summary Report of the Director of Emergency Conservation Work on the Operations of Emergency Conservation Work, For the Period Extending from April 1933, to June 30, 1935 (Washington 1935), pp. 31-35. Also see Demaray to the Secretary, October 14, 1935, which lists the broad divisions of the work accomplished by the CCC:
Demaray to the Secretary, October 14, 1935, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 618, Public Works Administration, RG 79. Also see Cammerer to Fechner, April 9, 1935, and Secretary of the Interior to the President, n.d., 618, Public Works Administration, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79, for an outline of the proposed Park Service research program in history, geology, forestry, wildlife, and recreation to provide the necessary background for the various development projects of the bureau. 14. U.S. Department of the Interior, Civilian Conservation Corps, A Brief History of the National Park Service (Washington, D.C., 1940), p. 37. 15. Annual Report of the Director of Emergency Conservation Work, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1936, pp. 36-39, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, pp. 103-13, 139. Also see United States Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, Release, June 23, 1938, 601-12, Lands (General) Recreational Areas, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The National Parks and Emergency Conservation Work [Civilian Conservation Work] by Isabelle F. Story (Rev. ed., Washington, D.C. 1936), pp. 22-27; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Emergency Activities in National Parks and Monuments, State Parks and Recreation Areas, Recreational Demonstration Areas, January 1937, passim. 16. For more information on the declining number of CCC camps, personnel, and projects under the supervision of the Park Service, see Regional Director [Region II] to the Director, November 14, 1938, 601-12, Lands (General), Recreational Areas, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. Also see, "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 39. 17. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1938, pp. 42-48, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 33. 18. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 295-96, and Wirth to Regional or Acting Regional Directors, National Park Superintendents, National Monument Custodians, Inspectors, and Auditors, November 26, 1938, Memoranda Sent to Field Officers, 1936-42, RG 79. 19. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939, pp. 58-65. 20. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940, pp. 44-48, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, pp. 201-02. 21. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, pp. 304-05, and Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1941, pp. 28-29. 22. Annual Report of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1942, pp. 36-38; Wirth, Parks, Politics and the People, pp. 144-51; and Civilian Conservation Corps Program of the United States Department of the Interior . . . January 1944, p. 27. See Appendix 5 for a more lengthy excerpt from Wirth's report. For more information on the impact of the Emergency Conservation Work program on National Park Service architectural and landscape planning, design, and construction see William C. Tweed, "Parkitecture: Rustic Architecture in the National Parks" (typescript draft, Office of Professional Publications, 1982), and Norman T. Newton, Design on the Land: The Development of Landscape Architecture (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971), chap. XXXVI. 23. The Federal Emergency Relief Act, passed on May 12, 1933, created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and authorized an appropriation of $500,000,000, allotting half this amount as direct relief to the states and the rest for distribution on the basis of $1 of federal aid for every $3 of state and local funds spent for relief. FERA was based on a system of outright grants to states and municipalities, and the act left the establishment of work relief projects for employables to state and local bodies and authorized the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to supply the funds for distribution to the states through the Federal Relief Administator--Harry L. Hopkins. The works program of FERA closed in December 1935. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, p. 405. 24. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1933, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1933, p. 191. 25. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 172. 26. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 210, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 114. 27. On November 8, 1933, the CWA was established as an emergency unemployment relief program for the purpose of putting 4,000,000 jobless persons to work on federal, state, and local make-work projects. Harry L. Hopkins was appointed as its administrator. Funds were allocated from FERA and PWA appropriations supplemented by local governments. The CWA was created to offset a drop in the business revival of mid-1933 and to cushion economic distress over the winter of 1933-34. After its termination in March 1934 the functions of the CWA were transferred to FERA. Of the more than $933,000,000 spent on some 180,000 work projects, more than $740,000,000 went directly into wages and salaries. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, pp. 409-10. 28. The total CWA allotments for the National Park Service projects amounted to $2,490,678.06--labor cost, $1,988,960.33; other than labor cost, $425,105.13; and administrative cost, $76,612.60. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, pp. 165-66, 198. 29. Final Report of Civil Works Activities Under the Jurisdiction of the National Park Service, May 31, 1934, Records of Arno B. Cammerer, 1922-40; and Demaray to the Secretary, October 14, 1935, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 618, Public Works Administration, RG 79. 30. Title II of the NIRA, passed on June 16, 1933, established the Public Works Administration for the construction of roads, public buildings, and other projects, for which a fund of $3,300,000,000 was authorized. Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes was named to head the agency on June 16. The PWA was created for the purpose of increasing employment and business activity by means of "pump-priming." During its recovery phase, the PWA spent more than $4,250,000,000 on some 34,000 public projects. U.S. Department of the Interior, Back of the Buffalo Seal: An Account of the History and Activities of the Department of the Interior, the Natural Resources Committee, and the Federal Administration of Public Works (Washington, D.C. 1936), pp. 97-104. 31. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1933, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1933, pp. 190-91, and Albright to All Superintendents and Monument Custodians, August 9, 1933, CCC Material, A98, Box 1, HFC. Also see "Public Works Under Interior Department, National Park Service: A Statement Showing the Amounts Allowed by the Bureau of the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1933, Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year 1932, and Amounts Expended in the Fiscal Year 1931," Public Works Administration, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 618, RG 79. 32. Among the new or reconstructed roads and portions of roads built with PWA funds were: Going-to-the-Sun Highway, Glacier National Park; General's Highway, General Grant National Park; Sequoia-General Grant Approach Highway; Mineral Approach Road, Lassen Volcanic National Park; Glacier Point Road, Yosemite National Park; East and West Side Highways and White River Road, Mount Rainier National Park; Rim Road, Crater Lake National Park; Grand Loop Road, Red Lodge-Cooke City Approach Road, and Tower Junction-Cooke City Road, Yellowstone National Park; Trail Ridge Road, Rocky Mountain National Park; North-South Highway, Mesa Verde National Park; Cameron-Desert View Approach Road, Hermit Run Road, and Grand Canyon Desert View Road, Grand Canyon National Park; North and South Road, Petrified Forest National Monument; Walnut Canyon Road, Carlsbad Caverns National Park; Rim Road, Bryce Canyon National Park; Rim Road and Valley Floor Road, Zion National Park; Custer-Wind Cave Approach Road, Wind Cave National Park; Trans-Park Road, Mount McKinley National Park; Haleakala Highway, Hawaii National Park; Bear Brook Road, Acadia National Park; Newfound Gap-Clingmans Dome Road and Newfound Gap-Fighting Creek Junction Road, Great Smoky Mountains National Park; Swift Run Gap, Thornton Gap, and Front Royal-Compton Gap roads, Shenandoah National Park; and York River Cliff-Hubbards Lane, Colonial National Monument. Perhaps the most popular Park Service roads to be built with PWA funds were Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway. 33. "Statement Regarding P.W.A. Activities in the National Park and Monument System," June 4, 1935, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 618, Public Works Administration, RG 79. A memorandum written by Demaray to Ickes on October 14, 1935, listed other physical improvements performed with PWA funds: headquarters office structures, employees quarters, ranger stations, garages, mechanical shops, warehouses, barns, fire lookouts and towers, communication and electric power lines, generating stations, water and sewer systems, comfort stations, chlorinating plants, piers, wharves, entrance arches, shelter cabins, range enclosures, and revetments. Demaray to the Secretary, October 14, 1935, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 618, Public Works Administration, RG 79. 34. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, pp. 138-40. 35. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, pp. 68-70. 36. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 275-76. 37. The Emergency Relief Appropriation Act signalized the withdrawal of the federal government from the arena of direct relief, which was left to state and local governmental bodies. The act established a large-scale national work program for jobless employables, who were required to meet a means test in order to qualify for work relief. Harry L. Hopkins was appointed administrator of the WPA, which after 1939 was called the Works Projects Administration. By March 1936 the WPA rolls reached a total of more than 3,400,000 persons, and by June 30, 1943, when it was officially terminated, the WPA had employed more than 8,500,000 persons on 1,410,000 projects, and had spent about $11,000,000,000. While most of the projects were geared to the employment of manual labor, provision was made by way of arts projects for writers, actors, artists, and musicians. In addition to the WPA, other participating agencies in the national works program included the CCC, PWA, and the National Youth Administration. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, pp. 413-14. 38. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, pp. 103-04, 138. The WPA work camps also became involved in some historic preservation work. For instance, see Operating Procedure, No. 0-4, Works Progress Administration, Projects for Restoration of Sites and Structures of Historical or Archeological Importance, August 26, 1936, 0-20, Executive Departments and Establishments, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 39. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 68. George A. Palmer recalls that there were also WPA projects in National Park Service areas that were funded by local WPA offices. These included projects at Fort McHenry, Antietam, Salem, and Statue of Liberty. 40. Ibid., pp. 39-40, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 34. 41. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 297-98. 42. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, pp. 202-04. 43. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 306.
1. John D. Coffman, "How Much and What Kind of Forest Land Should be Devoted Exclusively to Recreation and Aesthetics?", Journal of Forestry, XXXV (February 1937), 210. 2. Henry S. Graves, "A Crisis in National Recreation," American Forestry, XXVI (July 1920), 39. 3. Ibid., 398, 400. 4. Organization and Program of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, 1924-1925 (Washington, D.C. 1925), p. 3, Forester's File, General File, 1912-30, FX 1925, RG 95. Also see U.S. Congress, Senate, National Conference on Outdoor Recreation: Proceedings of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation . . . May 22, 23, and 24, 1924, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1924, S. Doc. 151. 5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, America's Park and Recreation Heritage: A Chronology, by Carlton S. Van Doren and Louis Hodges, [1975], p. 4. 6. National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, Recreation Resources of Federal Lands (Washington D.C. 1928), pp. 138-39. 7. Donald C. Swain, "National Park Service and the New Deal," 324-25. The National Park Service had actively encouraged the state park movement ever since Mather played a leading role in organizing the First National Conference on State Parks at Des Moines, Iowa, in 1921. See Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1920, p. 46; 1921, pp. 32-33; 1922, pp. 17-18; 1923, pp. 15-18; 1924, pp. 16-17; 1925, p. 20; 1926, p. 22; 1930, pp. 41-42; and 1931, pp. 41-42. 8. Lee, Family Tree, p. 52. 9. U.S. Department of the Interior, Civilian Conservation Corps, A Brief History of the National Park Service, 1940, pp. 36-37; Emergency Conservation Work Organization, Summary Report of the Director of Emergency Conservation Work on the Operations of Emergency Conservation Work For the Period Extending from April 1933, to June 30, 1935 (Washington D.C. 1935), pp. 33-34; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1933, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, pp. 156-57; and Lee, Family Tree, p. 53. 10. Brief History of National Park Service, pp. 36-37; Lee, Family Tree, p. 53; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, pp. 167-68; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, pp. 103-13; and Tweed, "Parkitecture: Rustic Architecture in the National Parks," pp. 76-79. The functions and procedures of this branch are outlined in BRPSC-Office Memorandum No. 35, October 26, 1936, by Conrad L. Wirth, and BRPSC-Office Memorandum No. 91, July 30, 1938, 205, Instructions and Orders (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 11. Organization Chart, National Park Service, Approved 10/10/35, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 201-13.1, Administration (General), Organization Charts, RG 79. 12. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 171. 13. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, p. 172; Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 364; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 171; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 183. 14. National Resources Board Report, December 1, 1934, p. 113; Lee, Family Tree, p. 53; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 183. 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Procedure for Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study, January 1937, pp. 1-2; Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 166-67; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, pp. 172-73. 16. Ickes to DeRouen and Robert F. Wagner, May 28, 1934, in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Aid in Providing the People of the United States with Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Purposes, Etc., 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1934, H. Rept. 1895, p. 2, and U. S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, To Aid in Providing the People of the United States with Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Purposes, Etc., 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1934, S. Rept. 1412, p. 2. For the negative reaction of the U.S. Forest Service to the proposed legislation, see the letter from H.A. Wallace to Robert F. Wagner, June 12, 1934, in S. Rept. 1412, pp. 3-4. 17. "Annual Report of the Director the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 173. 18. Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 364; U. S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Aid in Providing the People of the United States with Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Purposes, Etc., 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1935, H. Rept. 586; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, To Aid in Providing Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Purposes, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1935, S. Rept. 610. The views of the Department of Agriculture on the proposed legislation may be seen in the letter from H.A. Wallace to Robert F. Wagner, January 30, 1935, in S. Rept. 610, p. 2. 19. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of Secretary of the Interior, 1935, pp. 183-84; H.R. 6594, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., March 9, 1935; and Ickes to DeRouen, April 3, 1935, 12-33, Legislation, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. 20. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Public Parks, Parkways, and Recreational Areas, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., S. Rept. 1694, 1936, pp. 1-2. 21. Ickes to the President, June 22, 1936, 12-33, Legislation, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. 22. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, To Aid in Providing the People of the United States with Adequate Facilities for Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Purposes, and to Provide for the Transfer of Certain Lands Chiefly Valuable for Such Purposes to States and Political Subdivisions Thereof, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 1936, H. Rept. 1914; and Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 365. 23. Ise, Our National Park Policy, pp. 365-66. 24. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Public Parks, Parkways, and Recreational Areas, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 1936, S. Rept. 1547. 25. Senate Report 1694, p. 2. 26. 49 Stat. 1894. 27. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, pp. 104-05. 28. F.D.R. to Secretary of the Interior, June 25, 1936, 12-33, Legislation, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. 29. Procedure for Park, Parkway and Recreational-Area Study, p. 2. Also see "Definitions for Outdoor Recreational Areas," Report of Recreation Committee to Land Planning Committee, April 30, 1936, National Resources Committee, June 1936, Policy and Philosophy to 1949, K5410, HFC. 30. Procedure for Park, Parkway and Recreational-Area Study, pp. 11-20; Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, March 9, 1937, and Wirth to Demaray, September 24, 1936, 601-12, Lands (General), Recreational Areas, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 31. Wirth to Emergency Activities Officers, June 15, 1937, Memoranda Sent to Field Officers, 1936-42, RG 79. 32. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 40. 33. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, February 9, 1938, 601-12, Lands (General), Recreational Areas, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 34. Ibid., and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 35. 35. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 298-99. 36. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 170, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 283. 37. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States, 1941; Ise, Our National Park Policy, pp. 366-67; and Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 172-75. Also see Gardner to Director, July 26, 1940, with attached summary statements on "Park, Parkway and Recreational Area Planning," 601-12, Lands (General), Recreational Areas, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 38. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 105. 39. U.S. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, October 5 and November 2, 1937, 601-12, Lands (General), Recreational Areas, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 40; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 35. 40. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 40. 41. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 207-08. 42. "State and Federal Agencies Join Forces in Park Programs," State Government, XII (September 1939), 171; Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, May 24, 1939, A38, Press Releases Before 1940, HFC; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 35; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, p. 299. 43. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 20.4-07; Tweed,"Parkitecture," pp. 110-1.4; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 35. 44. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 40. 45. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 298-99, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 170. 46. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 170, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 283. 47. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 35; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 298-99; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 284. 48. National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Parks for America: A Survey of Park and Related Resources in the Fifty States and a Preliminary Plan, 1964, passim; Lee, Family Tree, p. 53; Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 173-76; and America's Park and Recreation Heritage: A Chronology, pp. 5-6. 49. Sigler to Pressman, December 12, 1935 (with attached "Chain of Authority to Use Land Program Funds"), 205-01, Instructions and Orders (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79; Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 176-77; and Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 367. 50. Lansill to Ickes, July 16, 1934, 205-01, Instructions and Orders (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 51. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 172. 52. Ibid. 53. Director [National Park Service] to Assistant Secretary [of the Interior], April 6, 1937, 205-01, Instructions and Orders (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 54. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 208. 55. Sigler to Pressman, December 12, 1935 (with attached "Chain of Authority to Use Land Program Funds"), 205-01, Instructions and Orders (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 56. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 10.4. 57. Executive Order 7.496, November 14, 1936, 1907-49, 205-01 Instructions and Orders (General), Central Classified Files, RG 79. A list of the 46 recreational demonstration projects transferred by the executive order may be seen in Appendix 3. For correspondence leading up to the executive order see Ickes to the President, October 23, 1936; Dudley to Director, National Park Service, October 21, 1936; and Cammerer to Ickes, October 14, 1936; ibid. 58. Cammerer to Emergency Activities Officers, November 27, 1936, with attachments, Field Officers, Administration, Memoranda Sent to Field Officers, 1936-42, RG 79. 59. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, pp. 38-39. 60. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, pp. 33-34, and Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, August 23, 1938, Press Releases Before 1940, A38, HFC. 61. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "An Invitation to New Play Areas," [Spring 1938], Box 2, CCC Material, HFC. Also see Brief History of the National Park Service, p. 38, for a description of facilities in recreational demonstration areas. 62. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 296-97. 63. Director to Washington and All Field Offices, September 18, 1939, Memoranda Sent to Field Officers, 1936-42, RG 79. 64. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 202. 65. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, pp. 305-06. 66. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Administration Manual for Recreational Demonstration Areas, 1941, pp. 1-3. By 1956, when the last conveyance of the recreational demonstration areas to the states was finalized, several adjustments had been made to this list. The changes were: (1) Catoctin in Frederick and Washington counties, Maryland, was retained by the Park Service as Catoctin Mountain Park (name changed and boundary changed, July 12, 1954), but some 4,000 acres were transferred to Maryland; (2) some 848 acres of French Creek in Berks and Chester counties, Pennsylvania, were transferred to the National Park Service and became known as Hopewell Village National Historic Site (designated, August 3, 1938; boundary changes, June 6, 1942, July 24, 1946); Chopawamsic in Prince William and Stafford counties, Virginia, was retained by the Park Service as Prince William Forest Park (name changed, June 22, 1948); and N. Roosevelt in McKenzie County, North Dakota, and S. Roosevelt, in Billings County, North Dakota, were joined and established as Theodore Roosevelt National Memorial Park on April 25, 1947. Lee, Family Tree, p. 56; Wirth, Park, Politics, and the People, pp. 184-87; and Index: National Park System and Related Areas, 1982. 67. H.R. 3959, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 1939, Legislative Files, RG 79; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to Dispose of Recreational Demonstration Projects, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 1939, H. Rept. 501; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Disposition of Recreational Demonstration Projects, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 1939, S. Rept. 909; and Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 368. 68. H.R. 2685, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 56 Stat. 326; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Laws Relating to the National Park Service: Supplement I, comp. by Thomas Alan Sullivan, 1944, pp. 17-18; Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 369; U. S. Congress, House, Committee on the Public Lands, Authorizing the Disposition of Recreational Demonstration Projects, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 1941, H. Rept. 248; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Authorizing the Disposition of Recreational Demonstration Projects, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 142, S. Rept. 1403. 69. Lee, Family Tree, p. 56, and Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, p. 187. 70. Harley E. Jolley, The Blue Ridge Parkway (Knoxville 1969), p. 19. 71. Lee, Family Tree, pp. 53-54. 72. 46 Stat. 855; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Laws Relating to the National Park Service, comp. by Hillory A. Tolson, 1933, pp. 311-13; and Executive Order 1929, December 30, 1930, in Albright Papers, Box 18.4. For more information on the subsequent development of the parkway see 48 Stat. 1706; 49 Stat. 1783; 52 Stat. 1208; Laws Relating to the National Park Service, pp. 106-07; and S. Herbert Evison, "The National Park Service: Conservator of America's Scenic and Historic Heritage," typescript mss., 1964, p. 469, Evison's History, K5410, HFC. 73. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 22. For more background data on the Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace parkways see Evison, "The National Park Service," pp. 474-89. 74. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "The National Park System as Developed For the Use and Enjoyment of the People," January 1938, p. 23. 75. Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, p. 20, and Lee, Family Tree, p. 54. 76. Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, p. 102. 77. Lee, Family Tree, p. 54; Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 415; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1933, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1933, p. 166. 78. Lee, Family Tree, pp. 54-55. 79. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 196; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 210; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 113. 80. 49 Stat. 20.41; Laws Relating to the National Park Service: Supplement I, pp. 183-84; and Ise, Our National Park Policy, pp. 415-17. 81. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 55; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 22; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, p. 277; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, pp. 164-65, 196. 82. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 300. 83. Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, pp. 128-29, and Lee, Family Tree, p. 55. 84. Lee, Family Tree, p. 55. 85. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 196; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 210; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 114; and 48 Stat. 791. 86. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 55. 87. 48 Stat. 791, and Laws Relating to the National Park Service, Supplement I, pp. 190-91. 88. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 22; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, p. 277; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 196; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 300; and U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Natchez Trace Parkway Survey, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 1941, S. Doc. 148. 89. Lee, Family Tree, p. 55, and Index, National Park System and Related Areas as of June 30, 1979, p. 38. 90. Johnston to James, May 25, 1939 (including attached draft, "A National Parkway Survey"), 601-12, Lands (General), Recreational Areas, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79; 52 Stat. 752; Laws Relating to the National Park Service, Supplement I, pp. 192-93; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, p. 196; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 210; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 114. 91. Johnston to James, May 25, 1939, RG 79. 92. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 101. 93. Drury to Skinner, February 17, 1949, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 101, History (General), RG 79. 94. Acting Director to Washington Office and All Field Offices, February 8, 1937, Memoranda Sent to Field Officers, 1936-42, RG 79; Ise, Our National Park Policy, p. 369; Lee, Family Tree, p. 57; and "The National Park System As Developed For the Use and Enjoyment of the People," p. 23. 95. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 38. 96. Index, National Park System and Related Areas as of June 30, 1979, p. 41. 97. Lee, Family Tree, p. 57. 98. Ibid., p. 52, 58. 99. Ibid., p. 59. 100. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, p. 192. 101. Ibid,; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 64; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 31; and Lee, Family Tree, p. 58. 102. 50 Stat. 669; Laws Relating to the National Park Service: Supplement I, pp. 195-97; Ise, Our National Park Policy, pp. 425-26; and Lee, Family Tree, p. 58. 103. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Prospectus of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, March 1938, pp. 1-2. 104. 54 Stat. 702; Laws Relating to the National Park Service: Supplement I, p. 197; Department of the Interior, Information Service, "National Park Service to Start Purchase Program at Cape Hatteras," [1949], in Albright Papers, Box 138; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, p. 291; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 189; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 313. 105. Lee, Family Tree, pp. 58-59; Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 193-97; U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, Historical Research Management Plan, by J. Fred Roush and Charles E. Hatch, Jr., June 1, 1968, p. 16; "National Park Service to Start Purchase Program at Cape Hatteras," [1949]. 106. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 198-200, and Lee, Family Tree, pp. 58-59.
1. 20th Anniversary: National Park Supplement to Planning and Civic Comment, II (October-December 1936), 24-25. 2. Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Preservation Comes of Age, I: 469-509; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1930, p. 6; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. 8; Executive Order 1929, December 30, 1930, Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, November 16, 1933, and Public Law No. 510, 71st Congress, H.R. 12235, July 3, 1930, Albright Papers, Box 184; Public Law No. 34, 71st Congress, S. 1784, January 23, 1930, and "Washington Birthplace National Monument, Wakefield, Virginia," n.d., Albright Papers, Box 157; and U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Creating the Colonial National Monument, Hearings Before the Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, Seventy-First Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 8424 to Provide for the Creation of the Colonial National Monument in Virginia (Washington D.C. 1930). 3. Chatelain had received his education at Nebraska State Teachers College in Peru and at the universities of Chicago and Minnesota. He had taught in the public schools of Omaha and as a member of the Nebraska bar had practiced law for a short time. While doing graduate work at the University of Minnesota he served as acting assistant superintendent of the Minnesota State Historical Society, having charge of liaison activities between state and local historical activities and editing Minnesota News, a research monthly. He was a member of the American Historical Association, Mississippi Valley Historical Association, Minnesota Historical Society, and the Nebraska History Teachers' Association. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 513-14; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. 16; Memorandum for the Press, Immediate Release, August 7, 1931, and Russell to Chatelain, November 23, 1931, 101, History (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79; Chatelain to the Director, February 20, 1935, 201-13, Administrative (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, Organization, RG 79; and Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., September 9, 1961, pp. 1-3, (typescript mss. on file at HFC). 4. "Historical Conference," November 27, 1931, Old History Division Files, WASO. 5. Toll and Chatelain to Director, December 12, 1932, 201-15, Administrative (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, Policy, RG 79. 6. Chatelain to Demaray, April 21, 1933, Old History Division Files, WASO. 7. "History and Our National Parks," [June 1935], Old History Division Files, WASO. 8. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age: I: 501-05, and Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. 16. 9. "Historical Methods Used in the Development of Colonial National Monument," paper presented to Session on Archeological and Historic Sites, Meeting of American Planning and Civic Association, Washington, D.C., January 23, 1936, in Albright Papers, Box 9, and "Statement of National Park Service Program for Colonial National Historical Park," [1936], Albright Papers, Box 184. Also see Department of the Interior, Information Service, for Release, February 9, 1941, for a description of the preservation, interpretation, and development of the program adopted for Jamestown as the result of a cooperative agreement between the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities and the National Park Service in September 1940, Albright Papers, Box 184. 10. Chatelain to Director, April 16, 1932, in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Creating the Morristown National Historical Park: Hearings Before the Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, Seventy-Second Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 14302. . . . (Washington D.C. 1933), pp. 28-30. 11. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 516-21, and Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., December 17, 1971 (typescript mss. on file at HFC). 12. Wilbur to Evans, January 27, 1933, in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Morristown National Historical Park, N.J., 72d Cong., 2d Sess., 1933, H. Rept. 1962, pp. 3-4, and U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Provide for the Creation of the Morristown National Historical Park in the State of New Jersey, and for Other Purposes, 72d Cong., 2d Sess., 1933, S. Rept. 1162, p. 3. Also see Albright to the Secretary of the Interior, January 21, 1933, in both documents. 13. House Report 1962, pp. 1-3, and Senate Report 1162, pp. 1-3. 14. House Report 1962, pp. 2-3. 15. Public Law No. 409, 72d Congress, S. 5469. 16. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 523-24. 17. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1933, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1933, p. 159. 18. Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., September 9, 1961. 19. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, pp. 170-71, 182. 20. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 532-48, and "Notes on Historical and Archeological Program, Prepared for Educational Advisory Board," by Verne E. Chatelain, ca. 1934, Old History Division Files, WASO. 21. John D. McDermott, "Breath of Life: An Outline of the Development of a National Policy for Historic Preservation," March 1966, p. 28, Old History Division Files, WASO, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, pp. 270-71. See Appendix 4 for a partial listing of the state parks in which the National Park Service supervised preservation activities through the ECW program. Later in June 1938 the Park Service would issue a policy statement entitled "Conservation of State Historic and Archeologic Sites" as a means of aiding the states in planning, establishing, and administering their historic preservation programs . Cammerer to Regional or Acting Regional Directors, Regional Supervisors, Inspectors, State Supervisors, Assistant State Supervisors, Park Authorities, June 6, 1938, Old History Division Files, WASO. 22. Memorandum to: ECW Historical Organization, March 18, 1935, 201-13, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. Also see Wirth and Lee to Sixth Regional Officer, June 19, 1935, CCC Material, Box 2, HFC. 23. Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by Charles E. Hosmer, Jr., September 9, 1961. For more information on the selection, training, and activities of historical technicians and assistants under the ECW program, one should consult the typescript mss. of taped interviews with some of these men on file at the Harpers Ferry Center. Among the most pertinent interviews that should be consulted are: Roy E. Appleman, Elbert Cox, T. Sutton Jett, Edward A. Hummel, Herbert E. Kahler, Charles E. Hatch, Jr., Merrill J. Mattes, Edwin W. Small, George A. Palmer, Melvin J. Weig, Charles W. Porter III, Francis F. Wilshin, and Rogers W. Young. Also see: "Notes on Historical and Archeological Program Prepared for Educational Advisory Board," by Verne E. Chatelain, ca. 1934; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1933, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1933, pp. 167-68; and Wirth to Chatelain, December 8, 1934, Old History Division Files, WASO. 24. Cox to Chatelain, January 8, 1934, and Chatelain to Cox, September 1, 1934, Old History Division Files, WASO; Setser to Chatelain, April 12, 1934, CCC Material, Box 2, HFC; and Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 539-40. Chatelain remembers taking a 6,000-mile automobile trip to all the military parks in 1933 ("the big year for the historical program") to "accept the surrender" of the War Department superintendents (some of whom stayed on and made good Park Service superintendents). 25. Cammerer to Flickinger, September 25, 1934, and "A National Parks Historical-Educational Program," August 21, 1933, by Carlton C. Qualey, Old History Division Files, WASO, and Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 569-70. 26. McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 30. 27. Quoted in Charles E. Peterson, "Thirty Years of HABS," Journal of the American Institute of Architects, XL (November 1963), 83-84. Also see Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, November 28, 1933, Lee Papers, Vol. 10, HFC. 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Historic American Buildings Survey (Washington D.C. 1936), pp. 1-2. 29. Ibid., pp. 2-4. 30. Ibid., p. 2; McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 29; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1934, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, pp. 166, 197. 31. The Historic American Buildings Survey, pp. 2-5, 11-15; Peterson, "Thirty Years of HABS," 83-84; McDermott, "Breath of Life," pp. 29-30; and Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 548-62. 32. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 174, and U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of Information, For Release, September 18, 1939, Press Releases Before 1940, A38, HFC. 33. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 299, and Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People, pp. 190-92. 34. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 562-64; Herbert E. Kahler, Ten Years of Historical Conservation under the Historic Sites Act," Planning and Civic Comment, XII (January 1946), 20-21; and U.S. Department of the Interior, Report to the Secretary of the Interior on the Preservation of Historic Sites and Buildings, by J. Thomas Schneider (Washington D.C. 1935), pp. 16-19. 35. Roosevelt to Blair, November 10, 1933, Old History Division Files, WASO; McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 31; and Lee, Family Tree, p. 47. 36. Cammerer to Blair, December 18, 1933, 12-33, National Historical Areas, General, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48; McDermott, Breath of Life," p. 32; and "A National Policy for Historic Sites and Monuments," by Verne E. Chatelain, n.d., Old History Division Files, WASO. 37. Lindsay to Blair, March 3, 1934, Blair to the President, March 7, 1934, and FDR to Ickes, March 10, 1934, Old History Division Files, WASO. 38. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 565-66, and McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 33. 39. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 566, and McDermott, "Breath of Life," pp. 33-34. 40. National Resources Board, Recreational Use of Land In the United States, Part XI of the Report on Land Planning (prepared by the National Park Service for the Land Planning Committee of the National Resources Board) (Washington D.C., 1938), pp. 51-52. Also see "National Resources Board Report," n.d., Old History Division Files, WASO. 41. Burlew to Demaray, September 10, 1934, 12-0, Administrative, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48; Brief History of the National Park Service, p. 33; Carl P. Russell, "The History and Status of Interpretive Work in National Parks," The Regional Review, III (July 1939), 12; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1935, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, pp. 190-92. 42. Ickes to Margold, September 28, 1934, Old History Division Files, WASO. 43. McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 35, and Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 566-67. 44. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 570-71; McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 36; Schneider to Ickes, January 25, 1935, 12-33, Legislation, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. According to the recollection of Verne E. Chatelain, the bill was drafted with his assistance in Assistant Director George A. Moskey's office and then taken to Rufus G. Poole in the Solicitor's office. The role of Schneider in drafting the bill was peripheral in Chatelain's recollection. 45. For a legislative history of the Historic Sites Act see U.S. Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, Law Branch, comp., Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935, Public Law 292, 74th Congress, 1st Session, 49 Stat. 666, July 1980. 46. Congressional Record, 1935, pp. 2,710, 3,583, and 4,251; Administrative Assistant and Budget Officer to Bell, [January 1935]; Bell to Ickes, February 7, 1935; Poole to Ickes, February 8, 1935; Ickes to Director, Bureau of the Budget, February 9, 1935; Bell to Ickes, February 18, 1935; and Bell to the President, February 21, 1935; 12-33, Legislation, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48; H.R. 6670, H.R. 6734, S. 2073, and S. 2074, 12-33, Legislation, RG 48; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 572; and McDermott, "Breath of Life," pp. 36-37. 47. Ickes to DeRouen, March 26, 1935, in U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Preservation of Historic American Sites, Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities of National Significance, and For Other Purposes, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1935, H. Rept. 848, pp. 2-3, and Ickes to Wagner, March 30, 1935, in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Preservation of Historic American Sites, Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities of National Significance, and For Other Purposes, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1935, S. Rept. 828, pp. 2-3. 48. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Preservation of Historic American Sites, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1935, pp. 4-5, and "General Statement on the Historic Sites Act," n.d., 201-13, Administration (General), Central Classified Files, 1907-49, Organization, RG 79. 49. Preservation of American Historic Sites, p. 17. 50. Roosevelt to DeRouen, April 10, 1935, in House Report 848, p. 2; and Roosevelt to Wagner, April 10, 1935, in Senate Report 828, p. 2. The letter was drafted by Verne Chatelain. 51. House Report 848, pp. 1-2; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Creation of a National Park Trust Fund Board, 74th Cong. , 1st Sess., 1935, H. Rept. 849, p. 1; and Congressional Record, 1935, p. 2,275. 52. House Report 828, pp. 1-2; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, National Park Trust Fund Board, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1935, S. Rept. 829, p. 1; Congressional Record, 1935, p. 8,823. 53. Congressional Record, 1935, pp. 8,981 and 9,346. 54. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Creation of a National Park Trust Fund Board, 74th Cong. , 1st Sess., 1935, H. Rept. 1254, pp. 1-2; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Public Lands, Preservation of Historic American Sites, Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities of National Significance, and for Other Purposes, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1935, H. Rept. 1255, pp. 1-2; and Congressional Record, 1935, p. 9,616. 55. 49 Stat. 477. See Appendix 6 for a copy of this act. 56. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 575-76. 57. Congressional Record, 1935, p. 12,509. 58. Byrd to Ickes, August 7, 1935, and Ickes to Byrd, August 13, 1935, 12-33, Legislation, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. 59. Congressional Record, 1935, pp. 13,055 and 14,228; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 575-76; and McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 40. See Appendix 7 for a copy of the act. 60. "History and Our National Parks," [1935], Old History Division Files, WASO, and McDermott, '"Breath of Life," p. 2. 61. John D. McDermott, "Thirty Years Under the Historic Sites Act: The History Program of the National Park Service," [1965], p. 1 (typescript mss. on file in Old History Division Files, WASO). 62. Lee, Family Tree, p. 48; McDermott, "Breath of Life," p. 42; McDermott, "Thirty Years Under the Historic Sites Act," pp. 1-2; Brief History of the National Park Service, pp. 33-35; Herbert E. Kahler, "Ten Years of Historical Conservation under the Historic Sites Act," Planning and Civic Comment, XII (January 1946), 21-22; "Historical Conservation Through the National Park Service," [1935], Old History Division Files, WASO; Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, September 30, 1935, Press Releases Before 1940, A38, HFC; and Kahler to Tolson, January 7, 1953, Advisory Board--Functions, Rules, Establishment, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. For an indepth study of the specific provisions of the Historic Sites Act see McDermott, "Breath of Life," pp. 43-74. 63. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, September 14, 1935, Press Releases Before 1940, A38, HFC; Barton to Director, August 16, 12-0, 1935, Trust Fund Board, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48; and White to Gill, April 21, 1939, Old History Division Files, WASO. The first two presidential appointees were J. Horace McFarland of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Louis Hertle of Gunston Hall, Virginia. The first donation to the fund was a $5,000 gift from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer for use of the facilities in Sequoia National Park in filming "Sequoia." Ickes to Adams, November 6, 1935, 12-0, Trust Fund Board, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. 64. Cammerer to Washington Office and all Field Offices, August 1, 1935, 201-13, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79 65. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 115. See Appendix 8 for a list of the personnel of the branch as of October 11, 1935. George A. Palmer recalls that a civil service examination covering rangers, naturalists, historians, and foresters had also been given during the spring of 1934. Branch Spalding, Herbert E. Kahler, and Palmer were on that register. 66. Memorandum - Historical - Number One, Subject: Organization and Functions, Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, July 30, 1936, 201-13, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 67. Demaray to Washington and All Field Offices, September 15, 1936, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. Spalding, who was considered to be an expert in the interpretation of Civil War sites, had received a master's degree in English and had taught at the University of Virginia. During the summer of 1933 he was working on his Ph.D. in English at Johns Hopkins University when he was hired by Chatelain as an assistant historical technician. He served in a number of Civil War areas including Richmond, Petersburg, and Fredericksburg before taking the job as acting assistant director on a temporary basis. Self - Interview of Branch Spalding, Fall 1976 (typescript mss. on file at HFC). 68. Acting Assistant Director to Field Historians, August 27, 1937 (with attached "Organization and Functions, Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, August 27, 1937), 201-13, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 69. Cammerer to Field Historians and Superintendents of Historical Areas, November 24, 1937, 201-15, Administration (General), Policy, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 70. Tolson to Washington and Field Offices, May 28, 1938, 201-13, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. Lee was a graduate student at the University of Minnesota when he was hired as a historian by Chatelain in 1933. After serving at Shiloh National Military Park, Chatelain had him transferred to Washington to act as his principal assistant in the fall of 1934. Lee aided in several research projects connected with Schneider's drafting of the Historic Sites Act that fall. Early in 1935 Lee became historian for the State Park Division of the ECW in which position he hired and supervised a staff of eighteen historians as the chief historical administrator of all the restoration work being carried out by the CCC in state and park areas throughout the United States. He also helped to set up the Federal Survey of Local Archives, a program for cataloguing municipal, county, and state documents. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 583-87, 604-07. 71. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Branch of Historic Sites, Functions, July 1, 1938," approved August 1, 1938, 201 -13.1, Administration (General), Organization Charts, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. For more information on the implementation of the program of the Branch of Historic Sites under this reorganized plan see: Lee to Advisory Board Members, November 23, 1938, 9th Advisory Board Meeting, November 30-December 2, 1938, Advisory Board Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO; Tolson to Washington Office and All Field Offices, August 6, 1938, and "May Report, 1939, Branch of Historic Sites," 201-13 and 207-3 respectively, Administration (General), Organization, and Reports (General), Historians; respectively; Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 72. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 605. Kahler had entered the Service as a historical technician under the CCC program in 1933. He had served at Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park, Castillo de San Marcos, Fort Matanzas, Ocmulgee, and Fort Pulaski. In 1939 he was superintendent of Morristown and coordinating superintendent for Salem, Federal Hall, Statue of Liberty, and Saratoga. Kahler to authors, May 3, 1982. 73. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, December 3, 1935, Press Releases Before 1940, A38, HFC, and Barton to Demaray, September 5, 1935, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, 201, Administration (General), RG 79. 74. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 576, and Report to the Secretary of the Interior on the Preservation of Historic Sites and Buildings, by J. Thomas Schneider. In 1936 parts I and II of the report were published, and in 1937 part III was mimeographed for use by the Advisory Board and the National Park Service staff. Finally in 1938 all three parts were published in one volume. 75. Acting Secretary of the Interior to the Director, National Park Service, February 28, 1936, 1st Advisory Board Meeting, Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. A copy of the entire code of procedure may be seen in Appendix 9. 76. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, February 3, 1936, 1st Advisory Board Meeting, Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. 77. Cammerer to Secretary, February 19, 1936, Central Classified Files, 12-33, National Historical Areas (General), 1907-36, RG 48, and Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, February 11, 1936, 1st Advisory Board Meeting, Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. 78. Department of the Interior, Memorandum for the Press, For Release, February 13, 1936, 1st Advisory Board Meeting, Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. 79. Resolutions on Policy and Procedure Adopted by the Advisory Board, May 9, 1936, 12-33, National Historical Areas, General, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. 80. "A Statement of Policy to Guide the Service in the Matter of the Historic Sites and Building Survey, As Authorized by Public Law 292, 49 Stat. 666, 74th Congress," December 8, 1936, Old History Division Files, WASO. 81. Spalding to Director, October 12, 1936 (approved December 8, 1936), and ibid., October 17, 1936, Old History Division Files, WASO. 82. 4th Advisory Board Meeting, March 25-26, 1937, at Washington, D.C. , Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. 83. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 3. According to Herbert E. Kahler, Advisory Board determinations of national significance with respect to historic sites were kept confidential in the 1930s. Because sites found to have national significance were considered to be prospective units for the National Park System, there was concern that owners would become alarmed about federal designs on their properties. Not until after World War II, or perhaps not until the inauguration of the National Historical landmarks program, were the board's determinations publicized, and then nationally significant properties were announced in large numbers to allay fears that the NPS might be after particular sites. 84. Acting Supervisor of Historic Sites to Regional Supervisors of Historic Sites, November 20, 1940, Old History Division Files, WASO; Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 174; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1941 , in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1941, p. 298; and Kahler, "Ten Years of Historical Conservation," 22-24. 85. McDermott, "Thirty Years Under the Historic Sites Act," p. 7. 86. Lee, Family Tree, pp. 44-45. 87. Executive Order 7253, December 21, 1935, 205-01, Executive Orders, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79; "The Jefferson National Expansion Memorial: A Brief History of an Important Project," Missouri Historical Society Bulletin, IV (April 1948), 177-79; and Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, I: 626-49. 88. See p. 75 for a list of areas. 89. Lee, Family Tree, pp. 44-45. 90. Ickes arrived at this opinion through Jane Dohlman, a distant relative whom he placed on Chatelain's staff as a researcher at the Library of Congress (where much of the branch was physically located). Chatelain characterized her as a "spy" in his organization. Soon afterward she became the third Mrs. Ickes. Interview of Verne E. Chatelain by Edwin C. Bearss and Barry Mackintosh, January 25, 1983). 91. Ickes to Cammerer, June 11, 1936, Cammerer to Ickes, July 7, 1936 (with attached "Statement Regarding the Activities in Historical Research of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings), and Slattery to Ickes, July 18, 1936, 12-33, National Historical Areas, General, Central Classified Files, 1907-36, RG 48. Among the major studies undertaken by the National Park Service in 1935-38 were the following: Civil War guns and carriages; 18th century Spanish ordnance; Oglethorpe Trail; Collection of manuscripts relating to La Purisima Mission, California, and to Morristown National Historical Park; Route of Death Valley pioneers, 1849-50; Fort Laramie, Wyoming; Derby Wharf, Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Massachusetts; Ackia Battleground, Mississippi; Civil War in the West; Fort Raleigh, Roanoke Island, North Carolina; Battle of Manassas, Virginia; Battle of the Wilderness, Virginia; Castle Pinckney, South Carolina; Wakefield, Virginia; Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia; Second Battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia; Catalog and index of Mathew Brady Civil War Photograph Collection; Construction history of Fort Pulaski, Georgia; Brompton, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Study of early Texas and Mexican manuscripts on Goliad Mission, Texas; and A Study of Medical Practices in the Revolutionary War made in connection with the installation of exhibits at Morristown Continental Army hospital. Cuthbertson to Chatelain, October 31, 1935, Old History Division Files, WASO; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service." 937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, pp. 51-52; and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, pp. 15-16. 92. Cammerer to Washington and All Field Offices, June 20, 1938 (with attached "Research and Development Policies for Historic Sites--Recommended by the Regional Historians' Conference, June 6-10, 1938"), Old History Division Files, WASO. 93. Lee to Tolson, July 21, 1938, 201-13, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. For a critical review of the various park research programs in Region I , see Stauffer to Spalding, August 23, 1937, Old History Division Files, WASO. 94. Cammerer to all Washington Officers and Field Officers, May 19, 1937, Albright Papers, Box 138. Also see Spalding to Director, February 11, 1937, Old History Division Files, WASO, and "Restoration and Procedure Adopted by the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments, Fourth Meeting, March 25-26, 1937," 4th Advisory Board Meeting, March 25-26, 1937, at Washington D.C., Minutes and Resolutions Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. Copies of the three restoration policies may be seen in Appendix 2. 95. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 46; "Annua Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, p. 269; and "Annua Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, pp. 173, 194. 96. Evison to Superintendents of Areas Having Historical Interest, March 31, 1937, and Paul R. Franke, "Prehistoric Ruins and Their Preservation," August 13, 1937, Old History Division Files, WASO. 97. For a comprehensive study of the history and evolution of the nomenclature designations of historical areas in the National Park System see the study prepared by Dr. Harry Butowsky which is attached to a memorandum from Director Russell E. Dickenson to Morris K. Udall, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated January 28, 1981. 98. "Definitions and Objectives of National Historical and Archeological Monuments, National Military Parks, etc.," 4th Advisory Board Meeting, March 25-26, 1937, at Washington, D.C., Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions, WASO. For a discussion of the definition and objective of a national historic site one should refer to the Historic Sites Act and the code of procedure for implementing the act treated in earlier sections of this chapter. 99. Lee to Moskey and Wirth, October 6, 1938, 201-15, Administration (General), Policy, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. Despite the defeat of the proposal in 1938 there were several instances during this time when the designation of a particular area was changed. Examples of such changes include: Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Site to Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, June 26, 1935; Chalmette Battlefield Site to Chalmette National Historical Park, August 10, 1939; Abraham Lincoln National Park to Abraham Lincoln National Historical Park, August 11, 1939; and Fort McHenry National Park to Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, August 11, 1939. 100. Supervisor of Historic Sites to Regional Historians, September 15, 1936; Tolson to Vint, Wirth, and Spalding, June 7, 1937; and Appleman to Branch of Plans and Design - North, October 25, 1937; Old History Division Files, WASO. 101. MacGregor to Director, July 6, 1937; Ludgate to Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, October 14, 1937; and Appleman to Branch of Plans and Design - North, October 25, 1937; Old History Division Files, WASO. 102. Thompson to Files, November 5, 1937, and Lee to Spalding and Ronalds, November 23, 1937, Old History Division Files, WASO. 103. Lee to Field Historians, May 18, 1938, and Lee to Regional Historians, July 21, 1938, 201-13, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 104. Supervisor of Historic Sites to Vint, October 25, 1940, and "Section III, Interpretation, Historical and Archeological Areas, Drawings and Outline," Manual of Standard Practice for Master Plans, 1941, Old History Division Files, WASO. 105. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1937, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, pp. 49-50. 106. Johnston to National Park Superintendents, National Monument Custodians, Inspectors, Historical and Archeological Technicians, May 17, 1940 (with attached Recommendations, Committee Reports, Minutes of Historical Technicians Conference, Region One, April 25-27), Old History Division Files, WASO. Also see Johnston to Superintendents, Historical Areas, Custodians, Historical Areas, Historical Technicians, November 9, 1940, and Roberts to Superintendents, Historical and Archeological Areas, Custodians, Historical and Archeological Areas, Historical Technicians, Archeological Technicians, Inspectors, December 11, 1940, History of Interpretation to 1935, K1810, HFC. 107. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1936, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1936, p. 127. 108. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1939, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1939, p. 286. 109. Lee to Superintendents of Historical and Archeological Areas, and Historical Technicians, July 15, 1940, Administration (General), Organization, Central Classified Files, 1907-49, RG 79. 110. Alvin P. Stauffer and Charles W. Porter, "The National Park Service Program of Conservation for Areas and Structures of National Historical Significance," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXX (June 1943), 29; McDermott, "Thirty Years Under the Historic Sites Act," pp. 1-3; Kahler, "Ten Years of Historical Conservation under the Historic Sites Act," 22-24; and McDermott, "Breath of Life," pp. 76-101.
1. Frank T. Gartside to Cammerer, August 11, 1933, Entry 18, Mr. Cammerer, Box 2, RG 79. The Arlington Memorial Bridge Development Commission had been abolished on June 10, 1933. Representatives of the director sat on the Motor Transport for the District of Columbia, the Recreation Committee, and Committee on Work Planning and Job Assignment. 2. Albright to Cammerer, July 14, 1835, quoted in Swain, "National Park Service and the New Deal," p. 324. 3. Department of Interior, Press Release, June 18, 1940, Box 149, Albright Papers. 4. Memorandum for Mr. Gill, Mr. Gartside, and Mr. Taylor from Arno Cammerer, October 3, 1933, File 0-201-014 (Part four), Parks General, Administration, Reorganization, August 10-December 22, 1933, RG 79. 5. Ibid. Cammerer gave no specific figures of the reduction. 6. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1935," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1935, p. 179. 7. Memorandum to the Director from H. C. Bryant, October 12, 1934, File 0-201-13 (Part One), National Parks, General, Administration and Personnel, 1933-November 1937, RG 79. In 1938, when he announced a program to exchange supervisory personnel between Washington and the field, Secretary of the Interior Ickes referred to the loss of the closely-knit organization that had previously existed. Memorandum for the Press, October 10, 1938, File 0-201-13, (Part Three), General, Administration and Personnel, Organization, RG 79. 8. National Park Service Personnel and Areas Before and After Consolidation, File 0-201-14, Hillory A. Tolson, Personal File, RG 79. In his 1940 "Annual Report" (p. 203), Director Cammerer wrote that the number on the rolls "when the New Deal started" was 2,027. Cammerer gave no exact date at that time, nor did he break down the figures. He repeated that figure in his resignation letter, and indicated then that the date was June 10, 1933. No material was found that would explain what is, in fact, a significant discrepancy. One explanation could be the normal fluctuation in temporary personnel in the parks during the summer. In any case, because the 1,073 figure gives a more precise breakdown, it is used here. 9. National Park Service Personnel and Areas Before and After Consolidation, RG 79. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. Employees of Stones River and Fort Donelson were all counted under cemeteries. Of the two permanent and seven temporary employees located in the national monuments, one was in those administered by the War Department and eight in the areas administered by the Forest Service. 12. Ibid. The figures include both permanent and temporary personnel. The latter number included 138 people employed in the Building Branch outside Washington, D.C. 13. Ibid. 7,480 were listed under ECW, 287 under PWA, and 75 under WPA. 14. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1940," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 203. 15. Memorandum for Director of Personnel, August 8, 1939, File 0-201-13, (Part Three), General, Administration and Personnel, Organization, RG 79. There is no indication whether the number refers to both permanent and temporary personnel. If this included only the former, the actual increase would be larger than indicated. In 1940, Director Cammerer indicated that the number of employees was 7,341, with 3,956 holding appointments under PWA, CCC, and ERA. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1940," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 203. 16. A forthcoming study by John F. Luzader will examine the growth of professions in the National Park Service. Charles B. Hosmer examines the growth of professions related to historic preservation in Preservation Comes of Age, 2:866-952. 17. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 2:871. 18. Ibid. Also see the following correspondence with the authors:Albert C. Manucy, May 30, 1982; Roy Appleman, May 6, 1982; F.L. Rath,Jr., June 30, 1982; Melvin J. Weig, April 17, 1982; George A. Palmer,April 4, 1982; Herbert E. Kahler, May 3, 1982; and Ralph Lewis, May 4,1982 19. Verne E. Chatelain to authors, April 17, 1982, and B. Floyd Flickinger to authors, April 28, 1982. 20. Chatelain to authors, April 17, 1982; and interview of Ronald F. Lee, by Herbert Evison, January 30, 1972, HFC. 21. Quoted in Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 2:870. Lee went on to become Chief Historian and retired as Regional Director in the Philadelphia office. Interview of Ronald F. Lee by Herbert Evison, January 20, 1982. 22. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1930, pp. 36-37. 23. See p. 263. 24. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. II. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. In his 1930 Annual Report, Horace Albright indicated that the Branch of Lands would administer the national monuments. This was not the case in 1931, apparently. 27. Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1931, p. II. 28. Ibid. The superintendent of national monuments was Frank Pinkley. Chief Engineer Frank Kitteridge headed the Engineering Division and Thomas Vint, Chief Landscape Architect, headed the Landscape Architectural Division. 29. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1934," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1934, pp. 199-200. A new assistant director was in charge of the Branch of Public Buildings. Much of the information on organizational changes comes from Herbert Evison, "NPS Organization and Organization Charts," File A6415, WASO Organization Charts, HFC. The inventory of National Park Service records at the National Archives indicates that these charts are in the records. However, most have apparently been misfiled and were not retrievable for use in this study. 30. Evison, "NPS Organization and Organization Charts," p. 3. The duties of the Branch of Forestry were not spelled out in the 1934 organization chart. 31. Ibid. Interestingly the National Recreation Survey Division was created before passage of the Park, Parkway, and Recreation-Area Study Act. 32. Evison, "NPS Organization and Organization Charts," p. 3. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid.; Organization Chart, National Park Service, October 10, 1935. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. By 1936, the Branch of Planning and State Cooperation had taken charge of all emergency activities in which the Park Service was participating. The Chief of the Branch of Forestry, who had responsibility for the program in 1935, became Chief Forester. Evison, "NPS Organization and Organization Charts." 37. One of the most significant organizational changes made during the decade was the creation of regional offices, whose directors were responsible to the director. A discussion of regionalization follows. 38. Organization Chart, National Park Service, January 3, 1939. The Branch of Buildings Management would be abolished when that function was transferred. 39. Organization Chart, National Park Service, January 3, 1939. 40. Ibid. 41. Memorandum for Director Cammerer from Horace Albright, May 19, 1936, Director's File, July 1, 1933-July 2, 1934, Records of Horace Albright, RG 79. Albright was a frequent and influential advisor to Cammerer on the question of regionalization. 42. Ibid. In 1930, while Horace Albright was director, a landscape office was established at Yorktown. 43. Memorandum for the Secretary, April 1, 1936, File 0-201-12 (Part Two), National Parks General, Administration and Personnel, Organization-Reorganization, April 1936-December 1939, RG 79. 44. Proceedings of the Park Superintendent's Conference, November 21, 1934, p. 206, Park Service Archives, HFC. 45. Ibid. The first historian hired as such by the Park Service in 1931, Flickinger served at Colonial until he left to work for the National Parks Association. B. Floyd Flickinger to authors, April 28, 1982. 46. Proceedings of the Park Superintendent's Conference, November 21, 1934, p. 206. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid., p. 204. 49. Ibid. Details regarding boundaries were not discussed. 50. Ibid. Each person would stay for four or more months in Washington. 51. Memorandum to the Director, February 10, 1936, File 0-201-13,Part 1, Parks General, Organization, Reorganization, December 23,1934-December 30, 1936, RG 79. Members of the committee were: Conrad Wirth, Roger Toll, Charles Thompson, C. Marshall Finnan, Ben Thompson, George Wright, John Coffman, Thomas Vint, Verne Chatelain,and Oliver Taylor. 52. Proposed Regional Organization, Filed February 17, 1936, File 0-201-13 (Part 1), Parks General, Regionalization, December 27, 1934-December 30, 1936, RG 79. The committee spelled out many of the administrative details of the proposed plan in February 9 and 10 memorandums. In ibid. 53. Ibid. Proposed Regional Organization, February 17, 1936. 54. Memorandum for the Director, filed February 27, 1936, File 0-201-13 (Part One), Parks General, Organization Regionalization, December 21, 1934-December 30, 1936, RG 79. 55. Ibid. Chatelain was recommended for the position with the understanding that when and if a new Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was established, the assistant director of that branch would be regional director of Region 1. In addition to his duties as regional director, the chief executive officer of Region 1 would serve as a consultant to the other regional directors with respect to historical areas in their regions. 56. Ibid. It was not immediately apparent whether or not the superintendents would have retained their present positions in addition to their new duties. 57. (blank) 58. Memorandum for Mr. Burlew from A. E. Demaray, March 14, 1936, File 0-201-13 (Part One), Parks General, Organization, Regionalization, December 27, 1934 to December 30, 1936, RG 79. 59. Ibid. 60. Memorandum for Director Cammerer, March 25, 1936, File 0-201-13 (Part One), Parks General, Organization, Regionalization, December 27, 1934-December 30, 1936, RG 79. 61. Memorandum to the Secretary, December 7, 1936, File 0-201-13 (Part One), Parks General, Organization, Regionalization, December 23, 1934-December 30, 1936, RG 79; Cammerer to William E. Colby, February 2, 1937, File 0-201-13 (Part Two), National Parks General, Administrative and Personnel, Organization-Regionalization, April 1936-December 1939, RG 79. 62. The reaction of NPS personnel does not appear in Park Service records--i.e., no superintendents' proposals at the superintendents conference. Proceedings of the Park Superintendent's Conference, November 21, 1934; Cammerer to Horace M. Albright, February 17, 1936, Director's File, Horace M. Albright, July 1, 1933-July 2, 1934. Rather, the information came from correspondence with former NPS personnel, particularly George A. Palmer, July 27, 1982; Herbert E. Kahler, May 3, 1982; Aubrey L. Haines, May 12, 1982; and Howard W. Baker, April 17, 1982. 63. Of particular concern was the belief that ECW people would staff the regional offices. Aubrey L. Haines to authors, May 12, 1982; Memorandum for the Secretary, December 7, 1936, File 0-201-13 (Part One), Parks General, Organization, Regionalization, December 27, 1934-December 30, 1936, RG 79. 64. Memorandum for the Secretary, January 12, 1937, File 0-201-13 (Part Two), National Parks General, Administration and Personnel, Organization-Regionalization, April 1936-December 1939; "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1937," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1937, p. 35. 65. Memorandum for the Washington Office and all Field Offices, August 7 and August 6, 1934, File 0-201-13 (Part Two), National Parks General, Administration and Personnel, Organization-Regionalization, April 1936-December 1939, RG 79. The illustration shows a map indicating the regional boundaries. Subsequently, minor changes were made in the make-up of the regions in the 1930s. On August 25,1937, for example, Dinosaur National Monument was transferred from Region IV to Region II and on September 17, 1937, Great Sand Dunes and Wheeler national monuments were transferred from Region II to Region III. Memorandum for the Washington Office and all Field Offices, August 25 and September 13, 1937, in ibid. 66. Memorandum for the Press, July 14, 1937, File 0-201-15, RG 79. Russell had been involved in education since 1923, and was then Chief of the Wildlife Division. Kitteridge had been Chief Engineer. Allen had served as superintendent at Hawaii, Zion, Bryce Canyon, Hot Springs, and Rocky Mountain national parks. 67. Ibid. 68. See, for example, Memorandum for Regional Director, December 8, 1937; September 15, 1937, October 13, 1939, and August 10, 1939, File 0-201-13 (Part Two), National Parks General, Administration and Personnel, Organization-Reorganization, April 1936-December 1939, RG 79. In 1939, an unsuccessful effort was made to change the provision requiring regional directors to be in Washington four months every year to three months every two or three years. Memorandum for the Secretary (rough draft), August 30, 1939, ibid. 69. Memorandum for the Washington Office and all Field Offices, August 6, 1937, File 0-201-13 (Part Two), National Parks General, Organization-Regionalization, April 1936-December 1939, RG 79. Appendix 10 is a memorandum containing an organizational chart, functions, and general correspondence procedure for a typical region (II). 70. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1938," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 5. 71. Recommendations of the National Park Superintendent's Conference, January 1939, pp. 2-3, File 0-201-015, RG 79. 72. Interview of Edward A. Hummel by Herbert Evison, October 22, 1962. Hummel later served in a variety of administrative offices in the Service, including superintendencies at Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania National Battlefields and Glacier National Park, and assistant Regional Director, Western Region. 73. Interview of Roy E. Appleman by Herbert Evison, February 10, 1971. 74. Recommendations of the Historical Technicians Conference, Region One, National Park Service, Richmond, Virginia, April 25-27, 1940. Old History Division Files, WASO. 75. Swain, "National Park Service and the New Deal," p. 327. During the travel season that ended on September 30, 1938, the director announced 16,233,688 visited the National Park System, a new record. This represented an increase of over a million visitors from the previous year, and nearly a five-fold increase since 1932. "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1938," in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 1, and Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1932, p. 1. 76. National Parks Bulletin, 13 (February 1936), pp. 1-4. 77. James A. Foote, "Mr. Ickes--Your National Parks," National Parks Bulletin, 13 (December 1937), p. 7. Ickes reply to Foote was published as "Mr. Ickes Replies," National Parks Bulletin, 41 (June 1938), p. 7. William P. Wharton, president of the National Parks Association, expressed similar sentiments in 1938. "Park Service Leader Abandons National Park Standards," Xerox copy in File A-40, Conferences, 1926-39, HFC. 78. "Report on the Place of Primeval Parks in the Reorganized National Park System," National Parks News Service, Number 4 (June 8, 1936), p. 1. 79. "Standards of the National Park System," June 22, 1936, File 201-15 (Part One), National Park Service, Administration, National Park Standards, RG 79. 80. "Are the National Parks Over-Developed?" Copy in File K-5410, Policy and Philosophy to 1949, HFC. Park Service officials were aware of the paradox in their mission that Demaray alluded to and spoke of it often. In his 1938 "Annual Report," p. 37, for example, Director Cammerer said:
81. When Cammerer resigned, Secretary Ickes was able to persuade Newton B. Drury to become director. 82. "The National Park System and Its Future," 1939, copy of a speech in Albright Papers, Box 149. Appendix 1 WAR DEPARTMENT National Military Parks Chickamauga Battlefields Antietam National Monuments Big Hole
Battlefield Memorials Camp Blunt Tablets Cemeteries Battleground National Parks Abraham Lincoln DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Chiricahua Appendix 2 ??? Buildings, in consultation with technicians from other Park Service branches and the Advisory Board, held a series of discussions regarding the establishment of a "proper restoration policy" for historical areas. Following approval by the Advisory Board at its meeting on March 25-26, 1937, Director Cammerer issued a memorandum detailing three specific restoration policies, each designed to meet a given set of problems and issues in the historical areas. The policies, which took effect on May 19, 1937, included those for general restoration, battlefield area restoration, and sample restoration. The three policies read: General Restoration Policy: The motives governing these activities are several, often conflicting: aesthetic, archeological and scientific, and educational. Each has its values and its disadvantages. Educational motives often suggest complete reconstitution, as in their hey-day, of vanished, ruinous or remodelled buildings and remains. This has often been regarded as requiring removal of subsequent additions, and has involved incidental destruction of much archeological and historical evidence, as well as of aesthetic values arising from age and picturesqueness. The demands of scholarship for the preservation of every vestige of architectural and archeological evidence--desirable in itself--might, if rigidly satisfied, leave the monument in conditions which give the public little idea of its major historical aspect or importance. In aesthetic regards, the claims of unity or original form or intention, of variety of style in successive periods of building and remodelling, and of present beauty of texture and weathering may not always be wholly compatible. In attempting to reconcile these claims and motives, the ultimate guide must be the tact and judgment of the men in charge. Certain observations may, however, be of assistance to them: (1) No final decision should be taken as to a course of action before reasonable efforts to exhaust the archeological and documentary evidence as to the form and successive transformations of the monument. (2) Complete record of such evidence, by drawings, notes and transcripts should be kept, and in no case should evidence offered by the monument itself be destroyed or covered up before it has been fully recorded. (3) It is well to bear in mind the saying: "Better preserve than repair, better repair than restore, better restore than construct." (4) It is ordinarily better to retain genuine old work of several periods, rather than arbitrarily to "restore" the whole, by new work, to its aspect at a single period. (5) This applies even to work of periods later than those now admired, provided their work represents a genuine creative effort. (6) In no case should our own artistic preferences or prejudices lead us to modify, on aesthetic grounds, work of a bygone period representing other artistic tastes. Truth is not only stranger than fiction, but more varied and more interesting, as well as more honest. (7) Where missing features are to be replaced without sufficient evidence as to their own original form, due regard should be paid to the factors of period and region in other surviving examples of the same time and locality. (8) Every reasonable additional care and expense are justified to approximate in new work the materials, methods and quality of old construction, but new work should not be artificially "antiqued" by theatrical means. (9) Work on the preservation and restoration of old buildings requires a slower pace than would be expected in new construction. Battlefield Area Restoration Policy: Consideration of a proper restoration policy for historical areas raises many important problems. Not the least of these is the proper application of such a policy to national battlefield areas. Those areas offer conditions not usually present in other historical sites and the problem is more immediate in view of the present rapid development program. In a sense a wise policy might better be described as one of stabilization rather than restoration. Stabilization embraces necessary restoration without subordinating to it the entire physical development program. It is convenient to discuss the problem in two parts, the elements usually presented in a battlefield area when the National Park Service takes it over, but before any development program has been initiated; and, the successive steps in a sound stabilization program. I. When the National Park Service takes over a military area, it usually consists of the following elements:
II. To stabilize conditions on a battlefield area after it is taken over, the following policies are hereby approved:
The foregoing policies should aid in developing a battlefield area to provide a combination of elements remaining from the time of the battle, plus the normal additions of age affected through the natural accretion of natural processes. When a battlefield area has been so treated as to represent this combination, it can be said to be "stabilized." Sample Restoration Policy: The Advisory Board approves the guiding policy of the treatment of the Morristown camp site, in accordance with which the restoration of only a very small number of representative structures is attempted, and expresses its opposition to any attempt at complete or large-scale restoration of such sites, especially where the building of structures is involved. Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Big Bend State Park, Texas "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1938, in Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1938, p. 17, and "Annual Report of the Director of the National Park Service," 1940, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1940, p. 173. Appendix 5 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE The Civilian Conservation Corps advanced park development by many years. It made possible the development of many protective facilities on the areas that comprise the National Park System, and also provided, for the first time, a Federal aid program for State park systems through which the National Park Service gave technical assistance and administrative guidance for immediate park developments and long-range planning. Of approximately 3,114 CCC camp years of work under the supervision of the National Park Service, 880 or 28 percent were on National Park Service areas, and 2,234 or 72 percent, on non-Federal park and recreational areas. It is believed that the work accomplished in the park conservation field in the 10 years of CCC was equal to what might have been expected in 50 years without its assistance. The National Park System benefited immeasurably by the Civilian Conservation Corps, principally through the building of many greatly needed fire trails and other forest fire-prevention facilities such as lookout towers and ranger cabins. During the life of the CCC the areas received the best fire protection in the history of the Service. Over 414,000 man-days were spent on the work of fire prevention and over 250,000 on fire suppression. The value of the man-days spent in fire protection and suppression in the great scenic areas of the Nation cannot be overestimated. The CCC also provided the manpower and materials to construct many administrative and public-use facilities such as utility buildings, sanitation and water systems, housing for its employees, service roads, campground improvements, and museums and exhibits; to do reforestation and work relating to insect and disease control; to improve the roadsides; to restore historic sites and buildings; to perform erosion control, and sand fixation research and work; to make various travel and use studies; and to do many other developmental and administrative tasks that are so important to the proper protection and use of the National Park System. The CCC made available to the superintendents of the national parks, for the first time, a certain amount of manpower that allowed them to do many important jobs when and as they arose. Many of these jobs made the difference between a well-managed park and one "just getting along." If the CCC or a similar organization is established in the future, a more flexible use of the men assigned to National Park System areas would increase its value to them. The State park program received a tremendous impetus through the CCC. Without having had any previous official relationship with State park organizations, the National Park Service was asked to supervise CCC work on non-Federal park areas. This required the setting up of a supplementary organization on a regional basis. Many States were not prepared to utilize effectively the manpower and materials that were suddenly available to them--in fact, the majority of them had practically no State park system or organization. The CCC was not just a pick-and-shovel project. It contributed tremendously to the Nation's thought on parks and recreation. It was soon realized that one of the first requirements for adequate programs, both immediate and long-range, was a comprehensive survey and study of the entire park and recreational problem on a Nation-wide basis. In 1936, Congress enacted the Park, Parkway and Recreation Study Act (49 Stat. 1894), and pursuant to this act, 40 of the States and the Territory of Hawaii participated in the conduct of State-wide studies. Thirty-seven of the States completed reports on their studies and 21 published them. In 1941, the National Park Service published its report, "A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States." Between 1936 and 1942, the National Park Service responded to the request of 18 States in helping to rewrite their general conservation laws, which placed parks and recreation in a stronger position. During the 10 years of CCC, the National Park Service issued the following publications relating to park work--all made possible by the CCC:
The above-mentioned work was fundamental and essential to insure proper physical improvements on the State park and recreational areas throughout the country. Civilian Conservation Corps Program of the United States Department of the Interior . . . January 1944, pp. 27-28. Appendix 6
ACT CREATING NATIONAL TRUST FUND BOARD AN ACT To create a National Park Trust Fund Board, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a board is hereby created and established, to be known as the National Park Trust Fund Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), which shall consist of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the National Park Service, and two persons appointed by the President for a term of five years each (the first appointments being for three and five years, respectively). Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the Board shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed. The Board may adopt rules and regulations in regard to its procedure and the conduct of its business. No compensation shall be paid to the members of the Board for their services as such members, but they shall be reimbursed for the expenses necessarily incurred by them, out of the income from the fund or funds in connection with which such expenses are incurred. SEC. 2. The Board is hereby authorized to accept, receive, hold, and administer such gifts or bequests of personal property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the National Park Service, its activities, or its service, as may be approved by the Board, but no such gift or bequest which entails any expenditure not to be met out of the gift, bequest or the income thereof shall be accepted without the consent of Congress. The moneys or securities composing the trust funds given or bequeathed to the Board shall be receipted for by the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall invest, reinvest, or retain investments as the Board may from time to time determine. The income, as and when collected, shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States in a trust fund account to be known as the "National Park Trust Fund" subject to disbursement by the Division of Disbursement, Treasury Department, for the purposes in each case specified: Provided however, That the Board is not authorized to engage in any business, nor shall the Secretary of the Treasury make any investment for account of the Board that may not lawfully be made by a trust company in the District of Columbia, except that the Secretary may make any investments directly authorized by the instrument of gift, and may retain any investments accepted by the Board. SEC. 3. The Board shall have perpetual succession, with all the usual powers and obligations of a trustee, including the power to sell, except as herein limited, in respect of all property, moneys, or securities which shall be conveyed, transferred, assigned, bequeathed, delivered or paid over to it for the purposes above specified. The Board may be sued in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which is hereby given jurisdiction of such suits, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of any trust accepted by it. SEC. 4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting or restricting the Secretary of the Interior from accepting, in the name of the United States, gifts or bequests of money for immediate disbursement or other property in the interest of the National Park Service, its activities, or its service, as heretofore authorized by law. SEC. 5. Gifts or bequests to or for the benefit of the National Park Service, including those to the Board, and the income therefrom, shall be exempt from all Federal taxes. SEC. 6. The Board shall submit to the Congress an annual report of the moneys or securities received and held by it and of its operations. Approved, July 10, 1935. 49 Stat. 477 Appendix 7 HISTORIC SITES ACT AN ACT To provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is hereby declared that it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States. SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary), through the National Park Service, for the purpose of effectuating the policy expressed in section 1 hereof, shall have the following powers and perform the following duties and functions: (a) Secure, collate, and preserve drawings, plans, photographs, and other data of historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and objects. (b) Make a survey of historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and objects for the purpose of determining which possess exceptional value as commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States. (c) Make necessary investigations and researches in the United States relating to particular sites, buildings, or objects to obtain true and accurate historical and archaeological facts and information concerning the same. (d) For the purpose of this Act, acquire in the name of the United States by gift, purchase, or otherwise any property, personal or real, or any interest or estate therein, title to any real property to be satisfactory to the Secretary: Provided, That no such property which is owned by any religious or educational institution, or which is owned or administered for the benefit of the public shall be so acquired without the consent of the owner: Provided further, That no such property shall be acquired or contract or agreement for the acquisition thereof made which will obligate the general fund of the Treasury for the payment of such property, unless or until Congress has appropriated money which is available for that purpose. (e) Contract and make cooperative agreements with States, municipal sub divisions, corporations, associations, or individuals, with proper bond where deemed advisable, to protect, preserve, maintain, or operate any historic or archaeologic building, site, object, or property used in connection therewith for public use, regardless as to whether the title thereto is in the United States: Provided, That no contract or cooperative agreement shall be made or entered into which will obligate the general fund of the Treasury unless or until Congress has appropriated money for such purpose. (f) Restore, reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve, and maintain historic or prehistoric sites, buildings, objects, and properties of national historical or archaeological significance and where deemed desirable establish and maintain museums in connection therewith. (g) Erect and maintain tablets to mark or commemorate historic or prehistoric places and events of national historical or archaeological significance. (h) Operate and manage historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and properties acquired under the provisions of this Act together with lands and subordinate buildings for the benefit of the public, such authority to include the power to charge reasonable visitation fees and grant concessions, leases, or permits for the use of land, building space, roads, or trails when necessary or desirable either to accommodate the public or to facilitate administration: Provided, That such concessions, leases, or permits, shall be let at competitive bidding, to the person making the highest and best bid. (i) When the Secretary determines that it would be administratively burdensome to restore, reconstruct, operate, or maintain any particular historic or archaeologic site, building, or property donated to the United States through the National Park Service, he may cause the same to be done by organizing a corporation for that purpose under the laws of the District of Columbia or any State. (j) Develop an educational program and service for the purpose of making available to the public facts and information pertaining to American historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and properties of national significance. Reasonable charges may be made for the dissemination of any such facts or information. (k) Perform any and all acts, and make such rules and regulations not inconsistent with this Act as may be necessary and proper to carry out the pro visions thereof. Any person violating any of the rules and regulations authorized by this Act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 and be adjudged to pay all cost of the proceedings. SEC. 3. A general advisory board to be known as the "Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments" is hereby established, to be composed of not to exceed eleven persons, citizens of the United States, to include representatives competent in the fields of history, archaeology, architecture, and human geography, who shall be appointed by the Secretary and serve at his pleasure. The members of such board shall receive no salary but may be paid expenses incidental to travel when engaged in discharging their duties as such members. It shall be the duty of such board to advise on any matters relating to national parks and to the administration of this Act submitted to it for consideration by the Secretary. It may also recommend policies to the Secretary from time to time pertaining to national parks and to the restoration, reconstruction, conservation, and general administration of historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and properties. SEC. 4. The Secretary, in administering this Act, is authorized to cooperate with and may seek and accept the assistance of any Federal, State, or municipal department or agency, or any educational or scientific institution, or any patriotic association, or any individual. (b) When deemed necessary, technical advisory committees may be established to act in an advisory capacity in connection with the restoration or reconstruction of any historic or prehistoric building or structure. (c) Such professional and technical assistance may be employed without regard to the civil-service laws, and such service may be established as may be required to accomplish the purposes of this Act and for which money may be appropriated by Congress or made available by gifts for such purpose. SEC. 5. Nothing in this Act shall be held to deprive any State, or political subdivision thereof, of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over lands acquired by the United States under this Act. SEC. 6. There is authorized to be appropriated for carrying out the purposes of this Act such sums as the Congress may from time to time determine. SEC. 7. The provisions of this Act shall control if any of them are in conflict with any other Act or Acts relating to the same subject matter. Approved, August 21, 1935. 49 Stat. 666 Appendix 8
Appendix 9 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Washington February 28, 1936. The Director, My dear Mr. Director: Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior by the Act of August 21, 1935 (Public Law No. 292, 74th Congress), the following procedure is established for the purpose of preserving for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States. These shall continue in force and effect until otherwise directed by the Secretary. 1. The National Park Service, through its Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, shall perform the duties prescribed in the Act, and in so doing it shall study and investigate historic and archeologic sites and buildings through out the United States, and list, describe, tabulate, classify and evaluate such sites for the purpose of developing a comprehensive long-term plan for their acquisition, preservation and use. It shall submit annually to the Secretary of the Interior a report on the areas studied during the preceding year. 2. The Director of the National Park Service, after consultation with the Advisory Board or the appropriate sub-committee thereof, shall recommend to the Secretary the designation as National Historic Sites of any such historic sites and buildings as appear to possess the necessary attributes, including national historical or archeological significance, availability, possession of suitable physical characteristics, capability of development and control, and the possibility of administration as a National Historic Site. The procedure in designating a National Historic Site shall be as follows: a. Study of the site by the National Park Service and a determination of its national importance within the scope of the Act. b. Preparation by the National Park Service of a memorandum for the Secretary's approval, including a map of the recommended boundaries and descriptive material of the site to be designated. The memorandum shall include recommendations as to the official name of the site and the method of administering it if and when accepted. The justification must show that the recommended site is of national significance. c. Approval by the Secretary of the memorandum and preparation by the National Park Service for the approval of the Secretary of appropriate contractual agreements with Federal departments or agencies, state or local governments, or private owners, when necessary to facilitate the administration of areas under the scope of the Act. d. Examination and acceptance of the necessary deeds by the Secretary, if title to the area or any part of it is to be vested in the Federal Government. e. Approval by the Secretary of the contractual agreements, where necessary, and preparation of the order for the signature of the Secretary designating the area as a National Historic Site. f. Filing of the original and two duplicate originals of certified copies of the signed departmental order with the Division of the Federal Register, National Archives, upon which the area is then to be considered a National Historic Site. 3. Upon its designation as a National Historic Site, the following procedure shall govern: a. As contemplated by the Act, jurisdiction and control over National Historic Sites may be exercised by the National Park Service or in the discretion of the Secretary, by prior agreement, such designated sites may remain under private control or under the jurisdiction of a State or local government in accordance with the terms of Section 2 (c) of Public Law No. 292. When jurisdiction and control are vested in the National Park Service, the area shall be administered in the same manner as a national historic park or monument. Any National Historic Site within or in the vicinity of a national park or monument shall preferably be administered in connection with such park or monument. Whenever practicable, appropriate fees shall be charged for admission to such national historic sites, such fees to be fixed in each case by the Director of the National Park Service, with the approval of the Secretary. Provided, that no child sixteen years of age or under, accompanied by a parent or guardian, shall be charged a fee for admission to any national historic site, and that classes from educational institutions, accompanied by teachers or instructors, shall be admitted free of charge. b. As a condition precedent to the designation of National Historic Sites which will be under the control of persons or agencies other than the United States, the National Park Service shall, with the approval of the Secretary, make contracts or arrangements with the owners, whether private parties, organizations, or public agencies, defining the terms under which such site is to be controlled and administered. In such cases, the National Park Service may arrange for the use of available funds, if any, for the restoration or improvement of such sites, provided the contractual agreements with the owners, made in consideration of such restoration or improvement, are satisfactory to the Secretary. The National Park Service shall also make such arrangements as may be necessary and feasible for the protection of historic sites against impairment, encroachment, or danger from adjacent areas. All such contractual agreements shall contain a covenant on part of the owner of the site that such owner will not make nor authorize to be made any changes in the state of the premises, that he will not erect or permit to be erected thereon any monument, building, marker or sign of any nature whatsoever, nor disseminate to the public any historical information concerning the particular site without the consent of the Director of the National Park Service. Such contractual agreements shall be executed in such form and manner as to be satisfactory to the Secretary. In all contracts with such owners for the operation of the sites by the National Park Service, a provision shall be inserted prescribing the use of any funds collected as admission fees or from other sources for the maintenance and repair of such sites and structure thereon, or for payment to the owners for the use of the property, or for making payments on the purchase price in case of an option or agreement for purchase by the United States. 4. In making the surveys and investigations prescribed above, the Director of the National Park Service, shall, whenever practicable, accept the assistance of, and cooperate with interested State, or municipal departments or agencies, or educational or scientific institutions, or patriotic or historical associations, or public or private corporations or associations, or individuals, provided such assistance is furnished without expense to the United States. All plans, drawings, photographs, and other data secured as a result of such surveys and investigations shall be preserved by the National Park Service and shall be open to public inspection except in case of rare documents, as determined by the Director, copies of which shall be made available. The National Park Service may arrange to publish such data as may be necessary for an educational program to make available to the public facts and information pertaining to American historic and archeologic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance. Reasonable charges may be made for the dissemination of any such facts or information. 5. Upon the recommendation of the Director and the approval of the Secretary, historic sites will be acquired by the United States by gift, purchase or otherwise, subject to the restrictions contained in section 2 (d) of the Act of August 21, 1935. In all cases of acquisition the title and evidence of title to lands acquired shall be satisfactory to the Secretary. 6. a. No monument, marker, tablet, or other memorial shall be placed upon any part of a national historic site until the design, text, description, material, finish, and location shall have been approved by the Director of the National Park Service. Where important matters of design are involved the advice of the National Commission of Fine Arts shall be secured. In all cases, monumentation shall be kept to the essential minimum, and only such memorials will be approved as are appropriate thereto. b. All monuments or markers in national historic sites shall be erected in strict accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Director of the National Park Service. Those engaged in placing monuments or markers shall notify the Director prior to the beginning of work and shall not proceed with their construction and emplacement until authority in writing has been received. Those engaged in placing said markers or monuments shall exercise special care to avoid injury to the grounds, trees, shrubbery, buildings or other structures. After the completion of the work the contractor must clear the grounds, trees, shrubbery, buildings or other structures of all debris which may have accumulated and leave them in as good condition as before beginning the work. Where necessary a certified check or bond to accomplish this purpose shall be required. 7. A board, known as the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments, has been established to advise on any matters relating to National Park Service activities and to the administration of the above mentioned Act as may be submitted to it by the Secretary of the Interior. It may also recommend policies to the Secretary pertaining to national parks and to the restoration, reconstruction, conservation and general administration of historic and archeologic sites, buildings, and properties. The Director of the National Park Service, as the representative of the Secretary, may submit to said Advisory Board from time to time matters on which that Board's advice is desired. When deemed necessary, technical advisory committees may be established to act in an advisory capacity in connection with the restoration or reconstruction of any historic or prehistoric building or structure. Sincerely yours, /s/ Charles West Acting Secretary of the Interior 1st Advisory Board Meeting, Minutes and Resolutions, Advisory Boards and Commissions Office, Department of the Interior. Appendix 10 UNITED STATES Subject: Functions and General Procedure, Region Two. Under date of August 6, the Director's Office in Washington issued a memorandum whereby the National Park Service was regionalized and stating the policies under that regionalization. The following memorandum is intended to state in more detail the application of the Director's memorandum to the activities in Region Two. This memorandum carries forward a good many statements exactly as made in the Director's original instructions. They are repeated simply for easy reference both at Omaha and in the field.
ORGANIZATION Principal Officers in Region Two now consist of: Regional Director, Thos. J. Allen, Jr. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES REGIONAL DIRECTOR The headquarters of this Region are at Omaha, Nebraska. As one of the Regional Directors will be on duty in the Washington Office at all times, Regional Director Allen will serve there during part of the year. Contacts between the Washington Office Branches and the Regional Offices will be handled through the Regional Director on duty in the Washington Office. Correspondence between the Washington Office and the Regional Director shall be routed through the Regional Director on duty in the Washington Office. The Regional Director is the Director's administrative representative for Region Two and is generally responsible for the furtherance of the Service's regular and emergency programs in the Region. He will be in general charge of public contact work in accordance with approved plans and policies, and of the development of cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, legislators, State planning boards, etc. He will have supervision over, and be responsible for, the coordination of the water rights and historic sites and buildings surveys, and of the park, parkway, and recreational area study. He will exercise administrative control over the technical forces in the Region. The accepted policy that the Superintendents and Custodians are responsible for all activities in the parks and monuments will obtain. The Regional Directors shall study the problems in the national park and monument areas in collaboration with the Superintendents and Custodians so that the policies and practices of the Service will be handled uniformly, and so that there will be continuity of policy, regardless of individual interpretations and changes in personnel. The National Capital Parks, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Project and similar memorial projects, and the Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace Parkways and similar parkway projects during the planning and construction stages shall be handled independently of the Service Regions, except where experience dictates that cooperation between the Regional Director and the official or officials in charge of the activities mentioned is advantageous to the Service. In Region Two the Rushmore Mountain National Memorial is handled independently of the Region. Special duties and responsibilities may be assigned by the Director to the Regional Directors for handling outside of their regions. The Regional Director will personally approve plans covering projects in national park and monument areas in Region Two, regardless of the source of funds, in accordance with instructions outlined by Washington Office Order 342, dated September 28, 1937. ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR The Associate Regional Director while concerned with all matters in the Region is individually responsible for heading up the administration of the State Park program in the Region; for formulation of procedure affecting planning and development of State and other park areas; for approval of plans covering projects in State Parks; collaboration with technicians and review of master plans and work programs on State Parks; for cooperation and consultation between Park Service officials and State Planning agencies on matters pertaining to State Parks. In the absence of Regional Director, the Associate Regional Director is designated to serve as Acting Regional Director. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR This Assistant Regional Director will have supervision over all office procedure, all fiscal matters and personnel; control of expenditures; determination of accounting requirements; custody of files and records; control of project and job allotments, all travel itineraries and travel accounts; all procurement activities and cost records; supervision of accident prevention programs; direction of and collaboration with the Assistant Regional Director, in charge of ERA procurement. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR Responsible for the administration of ERA fiscal matters in Region Two. Administers the activities of the regional technical staff by coordination of routing and progress of job plans, job comments and review by technical branches concerned. Maintains progress charts on individual jobs throughout the region. REGIONAL FORESTER Coordination of administrative matters affecting field educational programs, geological investigations, wildlife and fish protection management, compilation of scientific data, planning and development of museums, exhitibs, [sic] or displays, interpretative and research programs pertaining to historic and archeological sites; correlation of forest and fire protection activities; and general administrative coordination of activities affecting the park ranger programs. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR Reviews and approves Project Work Outline Programs and Estimates of Costs. Makes recommendations as to project and job allotments. Reviews individual Job Applications and Plans to determine whether they can be entertained within existing legislation, Service and other guiding regulations, instructions and orders and National Park Service policy. To review and recommend approval or disapproval all plans including Master Plans. Coordinates all steps as to acquisition of tracts of land on Recreational Demonstration Project areas and activities in connection with acceptance, development and maintenance and operation of same. Collaboration with the Regional Supervisor of Recreation Study on the broad aspects of his work and its relation to the general regional administration. REGIONAL SUPERVISOR OF RECREATIONAL STUDY Supervision of work of the Recreational Area Study in the Region; correlation of planning and technical matters in this field with state recreational authorities and planning commissions; cooperation and consultation with Federal and State Planning agencies on matters pertaining to recreational area studies and programs. Supervision over Regional Recreational Planners in the Recreational Area Study. "Long Range Planning" Aid the Assistant Regional Directors in the coordination of activities relating to master plans and Recreational Study. CHIEF CLERK Under supervision of Regional Assistant Director, is responsible for office management, including personnel and records, fiscal and accounting, pay rolls, mail and files, travel vouchers, procurement, and project, and job allotments. INSPECTORS Inspectors in the various states or other outlying districts are the administrative representatives of the Region and will carry on the administrative direction and control of all matters concerned with the Region in their area, reporting directly to the Regional Director. All persons assigned to an Inspector's office are under his control. TECHNICIANS The principal technical representatives in the Region, such a [sic] Regional Engineer, Regional Landscape Architect, Regional Architect, Regional Forester, Regional Historian, Regional Wildlife Technician, Regional Geologist, etc., will each exercise technical direction of the subordinate employees in their particular branch and will direct the work of these subordinates and be responsible for it. They will have no other duties except representing the technical phase of their branch unless additional duties are assigned to them by the Regional Director. The Director's instructions of August 6 place administrative control of technicians assigned to regions in the Regional Director. The relationship between the Regional Director and the regional technicians shall correspond to that existing in the Washington Office between the Director and the heads of the Washington Office Branches. Travel and programs of region technicians are subject to detailed approval in the Regional Office. Itineraries covering proposed field trips will be submitted in detail together with justification of the need for each item in the itinerary not less than forty-eight hours before the proposed beginning of the trip, for presentation to the Regional Director through the Assistant Regional Director in charge of operations. The Director's memorandum of August 6 is quoted as follows:
The requirement of advising superintendents and custodians in advance of visit is to be strictly complied with, as also is the requirement that technicians when in a national park or monument shall work under the administrative direction of the person in charge of that area. NEW AREA INVESTIGATIONS The initiation of any investigation of a proposed new park or monument area must emanate from the Director, who will instruct either the Regional Director or designate some other especially qualified official to handle such investigation. He will advise the Regional Director of the contemplated investigation and, if considered advisable, will request the Regional Director, or a representative of his office, to accompany the investigating party. Copies of all communications regarding a proposed new area shall be sent to the proper Regional Director. In no case will persons assigned to such duties make public any opinion or recommendation, or commitment prior to approval of their report by the Director in Washington. CORRESPONDENCE PROCEDURE The Regional Director, the Associate Regional Director, and the Assistant Regional Directors are to sign all communications except those relating to routine matters. There are certain types of correspondence and official papers which only the Regional Director shall sign, and, where not specifically covered in this memorandum, good judgment will indicate in individual cases where his signature is essential. To effect an orderly and expeditious handling of such papers, and until further notice, these shall be prepared for signatures of officials of the office as follows: REGIONAL DIRECTOR Communications involving Service policy, particularly where new policy or construction of old policies is involved. Communications to the Director, except as noted under "Associate Regional Director" and "Assistant Regional Directors." Communications to heads of other bureaus and of independent offices. Communications to Senators and Congressmen. Important communications regarding finances, accounts, and general determination of allotment of funds. Correspondence concerning projected or newly-authorized National Park Service Areas. Important communications relating to parkway projects. All correspondence with National Parks and Monuments. All other important correspondence on which, by the very nature of the subject matter, the Regional Director s signature should appear. Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
