Cabrillo An Embarrassment of Riches The Administrative History of Cabrillo National Monument

The Reorganization of 1933

On June 10, 1933, under the authority of a bill passed by Congress the previous March which authorized the reorganization of the executive and administrative agencies of the government, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6166. By virtue of this order, the administration of national parks, monuments, cemeteries, public buildings and reservations came, for the first time, under one central office, that of the National Park Service. To clarify the order, Roosevelt issued another on July 28 that specifically named the reservations to be transferred. These included: eleven national military parks, two national parks, ten battlefield sites, ten national monuments, four miscellaneous memorials and eleven national cemeteries. [1]

The consolidation and transfer of properties to the Park Service was the culmination of years of effort by Horace Albright, who in 1917 became assistant to the first director of the Park Service, Stephen Mather, and later served as director from 1929 to 1933. The first years of the Service under Mather and Albright were tumultuous ones. Acquiring vast areas of natural wilderness, providing for their protection and establishing viable policies for their administration consumed the energy and time of the director and his small staff. Looking beyond this, Albright envisioned a future for the Park Service that would go farther than wilderness conservation and would come to include a new role, that of historic preservation. [2] Believing the American heritage was made up of history as well as scenery, natural resources and wildlife, Albright suggested as early as 1917 that all historical areas be administered as part of the national park system. Not until he gained the sympathetic ear of the newly appointed Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes under Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, did his plan for making the Park Service a "truly national entity" have a real chance of being put into effect. Since Roosevelt would soon be making organizational changes throughout the executive branch by virtue of Executive Order No. 6166, Ickes suggested that transfer of properties then held by the Departments of Agriculture and War could be accomplished as part of that general reorganization. [3] Albright had the opportunity to personally present his idea on April 9, 1933, when he was invited to take a drive with the President. A discussion of Civil War battles, in which Roosevelt had great interest, led Albright into the subject of the military parks still under the jurisdiction of the War Department. "The National Park Service ought to have charge of administering all of those parks," said Albright. "It's right." According to Albright the President "did not ask any questions, he simply said it should be done, and he told me to take up the plan with his office and find out where to submit our papers at the proper time." [4] Carrying now the personal approval of the President, the plan went forward as part of the general reorganization.

During 1933, agencies and personnel were transferred, combined and reshuffled as consolidation under the Park Service proceeded. At the end of the year, the Secretary of the Interior, reported that: "Officers of the Office of National Parks, Buildings and Reservations are convinced that the new organization, comprising as it does a consolidation of all Federal-park activities, under one responsible head, will be a smoothly functioning machine that will measure up to the best traditions of the various organizations involved and furnish to the public service of the highest type." [5]

With the addition of properties so diverse, both geographically and in purpose, Park Service administrators were thrust not only into institutional preservation but were faced with a new responsibility—that of developing educational programs to make the public more aware of the Nation's history. Thus, Cabrillo National Monument as one of the transferred properties became a training ground for establishing policies in the virtually unchartered areas of preservation, interpretation of historic events and community relations.

Cabrillo — Planning Under the Park Service

Initial planning for Cabrillo got under way early in 1934. Colonel John R. White, Superintendent of Sequoia National Park, whose jurisdiction also included Cabrillo, arrived for his first visit to the monument on January 4th. White, like many of those involved in the early development of the national parks, came to his job with a colorful background. He had run away from home in his native England at the age of sixteen and immediately joined the Greek army. After having been wounded, he decided to come to America to take part in the Klondike gold rush in Alaska but, like many hopeful prospectors, he wound up sweeping out saloons. Arriving in the States too late to participate in the Spanish American War, he joined the Philippine constabulary when United States troops were withdrawn from the area. In this capacity, he advanced to the rank of Colonel, a title to which he was referred from then on. Having contracted tuberculosis, he came to the American West to "take the cure" and it was at this time that he became acquainted with the national parks. Visiting with Acting Director Albright in 1919, he asked for a job with the National Park Service to which Albright replied that he had nothing available for a man of Colonel White's experience. According to Albright, White replied, "Never mind the Colonel, what do you have? I don't care how menial it is, I want a job in the Parks." He was given the job of ranger in Grand Canyon National Park for the salary of one hundred dollars a month. (He had to provide his own uniforms and a horse.) Two years later, he was made Superintendent of Sequoia National Park. [6]

Though he came to be respected and admired by the people with whom he would have contact in San Diego, he had little patience with the slow grinding of the bureaucratic process and often found himself at odds with his superiors in Washington. On the other hand, he loved work in the field and viewed his assignment to make Cabrillo part of the park system with characteristic energy and enthusiasm.

His initial step upon arriving in the area was to contact the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in the hopes that they could put him in touch with "any persons particularly interested in the Monument." He found, however, "an almost complete ignorance on the subject and the place." [7] The manager of the publicity department of the Chamber promised his assistance in finding those who might be interested in the project and true to his job as publicist took White to the offices of the San Diego Union for an interview and photographs.

White's first report on Cabrillo was not particularly encouraging nor his recommendations ambitious:

We then went to the Monument, which is situated at the extreme end of Point Loma, and contains only about 22,000 square feet in an ellipse around the old light house. The lighthouse building is now locked up, although formerly a concessioner there sold postcards and candy....

Not very much can be done, but a tremendous improvement over actual conditions may be made at a minimum cost. Some sort of curbing or parapetting around the parking grounds, general cleanup of signs and posters, white washing of the light house, planting with native shrubs and flowers, etc. will make a big improvement [8]

The press dutifully reported his visit the following day and announced that money would be allocated to landscape the area and that a plaque commemorating Cabrillo would be placed on the grounds. [9] The article elicited immediate community response that was enthusiastic but showed a penchant for ambitious plans that proved to be somewhat beyond what the Park Service had in mind. In a letter to White, Arthur H. Hill, a local businessman, revealed a plan which he had discussed with a group of San Diego citizens including real estate developer and later State Senator Ed Fletcher. The plan included the erection of a "Vista House" which would "far surpass in fame the original Cliff House in San Francisco." [10] Architectural drawings by William Henry Wheeler featured a revolving dining room, an observatory and a promenade, the last two being "of course...absolutely free to the public." [11] In forwarding the letter to his superiors, White charitably ignored the grandiose nature of the plan and mentioned instead its value in "pointing out the commanding view from Point Loma." [12] His own move toward getting the improvement program under way was to request that a landscape architect from the Branch of Plans and Designs at San Francisco be sent to the site to make preliminary drawings.

From his first visit to the monument, White was aware of the potential of Cabrillo and the opportunity it afforded to acquaint the public with the Park Service. In a letter to the Director he wrote:

From a publicity point of view affecting the Park Service and the Department of the Interior, El Cabrillo National Monument is strategically located, because there is no National Monument or National Park anywhere in Southern California. San Diego is a great tourist center, and practically every visitor drives out to Point Loma. There is a real opportunity to place the Department of the Interior before the public in a prominent way at El Cabrillo. [13]

Before the landscape architect arrived, however, the "interested citizens" sought by White had gathered under the auspices of the San Diego Historical Society, which was headed by former state senator Leroy A. Wright. Wright's flair for generating publicity and his political connections would come to prove invaluable in getting the Cabrillo project launched.

The first meeting of the new Cabrillo National Monument committee was held on January 19. One of its members, Lois Kimball, explained that she and her husband, who was principal of Cabrillo School on Point Loma, were very much interested in having a Portuguese or at least a combination of Portuguese and Spanish motif to the proposed memorial. [14] She submitted to the committee the plans of architects Gilbert Reynolds and Richard S. Requa which combined Spanish and Portuguese types of architecture. Primary features of the plans included: "a fountain of bright glazed tiles, a bronze tablet to be placed upon the bowl commemorating Cabrillo's discovery of California..." In addition, the plans provided for "a plaza surrounded by a low wall with embrasures to provide seats and an artistic Portuguese fireplace where picnic parties may carry on traditions of the famous spot". [15]

While the Spanish connection had been prevalent in the original plans for Cabrillo which were formulated in 1913, twenty years later emphasis shifted to the Portuguese. This approach certainly made sense given the large, active Portuguese community in San Diego. To further underline this connection, the committee voted to notify F. P. de Aragao e Costa, consul of Portugal in San Francisco, of their plans and to solicit his cooperation.

On January 23, members of the committee set about drafting some concrete suggestions to be submitted to Superintendent White when he returned. Discussions ran the gamut from the type of plantings to be made ("I am not favorably disposed to cacti. They are typical at the same time not very inviting") [16] to the more mundane aspects of parking and plumbing. Though most details were left for future discussion, there was consensus on the basic form that the committee wished the monument to take: the theme of monument should lean toward Portuguese; space should be set aside for a suitable memorial to Cabrillo whether in the form of a plaque or preferably a statue; and the lighthouse should be saved. The final point was raised by Col. George Ruhlen, the commanding officer at Fort Rosecrans, and at the suggestion of the Chairman a resolution was unanimously passed which said: "it be the sense of this committee that the old lighthouse remain as a permanent feature and that it be protected." [17] This was certainly a turnabout from 1913 when demolition had been the plan of choice.

Obtaining Funding — The First Step

Coming as it did in the middle of the Depression, the reorganization of the National Park Service was not accompanied by an increase in funding. In fact, 1934 saw direct appropriations for the agency cut by more than 50 per cent from $10,820,000 to $5,085,000. [18] Some of the shortfall was made up by appropriations through various programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and other agencies which had been set up to relieve the nation's unemployment problems. Even so, competition for available funds was fierce and superintendents each set up a clamor to get their piece of the pie. Colonel White was no exception and he used his growing influence with the local community to fan interest and create publicity for Cabrillo to assure that the tiny monument would not get lost in the bureaucratic shuffle.

When White returned to San Diego on February 5, 1934, the San Diego Union ran a large headline: "$50,000—Plans Approved by Park Official and San Diegans." A careful reading of the article below revealed that the headline was more than a little optimistic. In reality, Sen. Hiram Johnson, Sen. William G. McAdoo and Rep. George Burnham had all sent telegrams to Secretary of the Interior Ickes asking for a $50,000 appropriation for the project. Actually securing funds, however, took several more months of local and congressional pressure with accompanying foot-dragging on the part of the besieged bureaucrats in Washington.

Though no commitment to the project had been made by the national office, the landscape architects requested by White were finally sent in early February of 1934. After inspecting the site, they reviewed the suggestions submitted by local groups with W.G. Carnes, chief of Plans and Designs in San Francisco. In reporting to his superior in Washington, Carnes showed little enthusiasm for their elaborate development plans:

Several San Diego architects sent up suggested sketches for the monument but they seemed to have all visualized the building of a very formal system of gardens, patios, wall and fountains, none of which have any bearing on the history of the spot, and while they might be suitable in connection with a civic center as an example of how Portuguese (or Spanish) influence can be carried into modern design, they would certainly be out of place on this wild sandy point [19]

He did agree, however, that restoration of the lighthouse should be the top priority and suggested that "if the government would restore the building and improve the grounds, the citizens of San Diego could raise funds for a statue or commemorative tablet of some kind." [20] Publicity for the project continued unabated in the local papers for the next few months and White kept up a barrage of letters and memos to his superiors touting development for the monument. These were buttressed by letters and telegrams from Rep. George Burnham to both the Secretary of the Interior and National Park Service Director A. B. Cammerer such as the one sent on May 7th: "In Col. White's letter, he asked the Department to give immediate attention to the design of the monument...I would appreciate it if you would keep me advised on any action that might be taken in regard to this project." [21]

The badgering was not particularly appreciated by Washington and a memo sent from Verne E. Chatelain, Chief of the Historical Division to Isabel Story, head of Public Relations, exemplified the general feeling:

I think that the publicity in this matter should be carefully guarded. Before any development at Cabrillo takes place a very careful study and consideration of problems involved will be necessary. White is taking us too fast. [22]

Director Cammerer, for his part, replied to Representative Burnham that: "Mr. White...has made recommendations...in this matter but there are no funds at the present and no work is contemplated." [23] In spite of this, Leroy Wright and his Historical Society were not discouraged. In an extensive, lavishly illustrated front page story arranged by Wright that was later picked up by the Christian Science Monitor for national distribution, the San Diego Sun announced that, "the lighthouse will be restored soon to its former glory if efforts to win an appropriation from the Public Works Administration are successful." [24] The article continued:

"Already Sen. William McAdoo and Congressman George Burnham have gone to bat with Secretary of Interior Ickes for the appropriation, according to Sen. L.A. Wright, head of the historical group."

More impetus was added to the effort by the opening of a new state highway, fortuitously named "El Camino Cabrillo", which extended 2.7 miles along the bluffs of Point Loma and encircled the old lighthouse. The highway was dedicated on July 17, and the officials taking part included a representative of Superintendent White, Rep. Burnham and Leroy Wright as well as assorted state and federal dignitaries. [25] When it became obvious that still no action was forthcoming on the monument, an exasperated White wrote to Cammerer and enclosed clippings of the event:

...You will note that this was sufficiently important to be attended by the State Director of Public Works representing the Governor of California, as well as by many other influential citizens.

I sent Superintendent Tobin to represent me and tell of our plans, or lack of plans, for the development of the El Cabrillo Monument. [26]

With the completion of the road, he reasoned, "There will be such a demand now for comfort stations and other accommodations...that we should either do something immediately or we should revert the monument to San Diego city or county or to the state park system if they would be willing to receive it."' [27] The chorus of demands for action continued and W. G. Carnes, noted to the Director, "The interest of the San Diego people in developing this area is unsurpassed by any I have yet encountered." [28]

The bureaucratic log-jam was finally broken when Congressman Burnham convinced Cammerer to visit the monument as part of a West Coast tour of national parks. Impressed by both the local enthusiasm and the beauty of the area, the Director agreed to act. On August 22, he informed Wright and Burnham that he would approve the project and that $38,000 would be allocated for its completion. [29]

With the definite commitment of funding, White then began a vigorous campaign to initiate work on the project and to have it completed by June 1, 1935. a date which marked the planned opening of a new San Diego Exposition. Said White: "It is highly important that the National Park Service do its share and have proper representation in connection with the exposition and we are fortunate indeed in having the Cabrillo National Monument where we may focus our activities." [30]

White, astute in his understanding that the future of the smaller monuments depended on exposure, appeal to tourists, and the interest of the community, set a precedent for Cabrillo by soliciting and encouraging local support. For their part, the community groups of San Diego realized the benefit of developing Cabrillo as a tourist attraction. Members of the Historical Society which led the effort recognized, however, that they, like the Order of Panama and Native Sons of the Golden West before them were long on ideas but limited in their the ability to raise funds. (Shortly before its involvement in the project, the treasury of the Society contained $20.71 with outstanding bills of $199.95). [31] Under the leadership of ex-Senator Wright, they applied a combination of political pressure and widespread publicity to get attention. Encouraged by Colonel White, they helped nudge the Park Service administrators into committing funds to what had at first been deemed by them a minor project.

From Plans to Reality — Beginning the Project

Though the funds for Cabrillo had been allocated, it now fell to White to get construction begun and completed by June of 1935, less than a year away. In a letter to W. G. Carnes, Chief of the Western Division of Plans and Designs he explained the urgency of the project. Invoking the names of Director Cammerer, Congressman George Burnham, the Chairman of the Board of the San Diego Exposition and even Harry Carr, "the well-known columnist of the Los Angeles Times", White imparted the message that this was an important project and must begin immediately. [32]

Carnes personally conducted an inspection of the monument from September 11 to 15 and his resulting report contains an account of the deterioration of the lighthouse and specific plans for its rehabilitation. [33] Realizing the historical importance of the structure, he arranged for detailed drawings to be prepared under the Historic American Buildings Survey. This program began in November 1933 in an effort to put unemployed architects to work making photographs and measured drawings of those buildings throughout the country deemed to have significant architectural and historical value. [34] Thus, rehabilitating the lighthouse became not just a matter of providing a tourist attraction but an attempt to restore, in as accurate a manner as possible, a piece of the nation's heritage. Using photographs and documents provided by the Historical Society as well original blueprints and drawings from 1855, Park Service engineers and members of HABS prepared detailed plans for the restoration. [35] When the project began in March of 1935, the building was found to be in very poor condition having been subjected to years of vandalism and the deterioration of age and weather. While the exterior walls were in generally good condition, the interior walls had to be stripped of their plaster and, in some places, "three layers of variegated colored wallpaper on canvas...[that] showed some of the past endeavors of the occupants to make the building a better place of abode." [36] Woodwork, doors, door frames, moulding, fireplace mantels, hardware, iron work and even the old square cut nails were boxed and stored as they were removed. In excavating the basement "a hundred or more of the old type Spanish tile were encountered" [37] that the engineers believed came from the old Spanish fort on Ballast Point. Since these remnants of the old building were to be replaced with new material, it was suggested that they be shown to the public as part of a museum exhibit. This was apparently not done and there is no record of what finally became of these artifacts.

Rebuilding continued and by the September 11, 1935 completion date, woodwork and flooring had been replaced, new railings and decks were installed to replace the old iron work and the "old original wooden steps of the [interior] stairway [that] were very badly worn and unsafe" were replaced with a metal stairway. [38] While the old metal framework of the tower was deemed in good enough condition to remain intact, plate glass was installed in the tower in lieu of the original wood and glass panels. Although historical accuracy was a stated goal of the project, these and other concessions had to be made to its planned use. In addition, electricity, modern plumbing, and fireproof doors and window frames were installed. [39] The budget for restoring the lighthouse had been set for $10,000 and an additional $3,750 was needed to complete the job. All work was done by contractors from San Diego and Los Angeles under foreman C.A. Potter. Potter was chosen for the position because he had been superintendent on the restoration of several old Missions and other historical landmarks in Southern California. [40]

In addition to the work done on the lighthouse, other projects included: construction of a comfort station, water system, sewer system, walls, walks and steps, landscaping and the installation of a commemorative plaque to Cabrillo.

In Commemoration of Cabrillo — The Monument Gets a Plaque

With funding having been accomplished and restoration of the lighthouse in the hands of the Park Service, the Historical Society turned its attention to planning a suitable memorial to Cabrillo. At the early stages of development of the project, there was still much discussion as to what form the memorial should take. In June 1934, Congressman George Burnham became interested in the matter through Wright and the Historical Society, and discussed it with Director Cammerer. Expressing his awareness of the community's enthusiasm for a large statue, Cammerer said, "it would, in my opinion, be impossible to secure the necessary authority for the expenditure of Federal funds at this time for such a purpose." [41] Though sympathetic to some sort of memorial to Cabrillo, he said that he "was not sure that the erection of a statue would be the satisfactory solution." [42] He added: "The area is small and any statue would, it seems to me, be in conflict with the main mass of the lighthouse which is the chief memorial feature there at this time and by such conflict lose importance." This comment exemplified a shift of the Park Service's interest from a memorial which had never existed to a tangible historic feature, the lighthouse. Yet, the Historical Society was determined to have if not a statue, at least a plaque, and Wright, in a letter to Congressman Burnham conceded: "I am inclined to agree with Cammerer that owing to the limited area, a bronze statue of heroic size would not be appropriate." He "therefore ordered a bronze plaque on which a brief statement as to the adventures of Cabrillo including a outline of a ship will appear." [43] Superintendent White had suggested earlier that since Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo was a Portuguese, "the Portuguese of California if properly approached would be willing to contribute handsomely to the development of the Cabrillo National Monument and to a fund for the erection of the statue or plaque to Cabrillo." [44] It had also been suggested that a competition be held "among various artist and sculptors for the execution of this plaque" but the Park Service administrators decided to refrain from any involvement in a competition because, "there is always dissatisfaction among the unsuccessful entrants as to the deciding of the contest, etc." Therefore, "the opinion was unanimous that it was preferable to include this plaque in the Government program and not to leave it to the Portuguese people of California or to other interested but non-official groups." [45]

In spite of the efforts of the Park Service to avoid controversy, one began almost immediately involving the brass plaque that was to be installed at the monument. On Dec. 19, 1935, the Grand Council of Cabrillo Civic Clubs had been formed in San Francisco. Among the group's objectives was to foster civic progress by its members in memory of "John Rodrigues Cabrillo (Joao Rodrigues Cabrilho) the discoverer of California and to perpetuate the deeds of the forefathers of this state." [46] Other objectives were to erect monuments and markers to Cabrillo, to honor and observe Sept. 28 of each year as Cabrillo Day in California and to erect a suitable memorial of Cabrillo in San Diego. [47]

It was with understandable interest that the Club followed closely the activities taking place on Point Loma during 1934. While visiting the National Park Service offices in San Francisco, Manuel F. Sylva, the president of the Cabrillo Civic Club, read the inscription inscribed on the plaque being prepared for the monument. Though the Park Service had followed through with its decision to provide the plaque, the inscription contained on it was prepared by Winifred Davidson, of the San Diego Historical Society. The wording, as submitted on March 20, 1935, contained the phrase, "Cabrillo's caravel...had been assembled at Navidad, Mexico, under order of the great conquistador, Hernando Cortez...." [48]

In a letter to Congressman Richard J. Welch, Sylva pointed out that "the inscription as to Cortez was absolutely incorrect, as Cabrillo was in the service of Don Antonio de Mendoza, Viceroy of Spain." More important to his group, however, was the spelling of Cabrillo's name. According to Sylva "the name of Cabrillo is as follows: Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in Spanish, Joao Rodrigues Cabrilho in Portuguese and John Rodrigues Cabrillo anglicized." Citing the fact that in American history, Christopher Columbus had been anglicized, Sylva requested that the name on the plaque be changed to John. "This may seem a trifle," he wrote, "but you can understand the feeling of half million of Californians of Portuguese origin who resent in the application of a Spanish name on one of its own." [49]

The plaque was recast with the reference to Cortez changed to Mendoza. However, the controversy concerning the spelling of Cabrillo continued. Congressman Welch thought Sylva's argument (not to mention the opinions of a half-million Portuguese-Californians) had merit. [50] Cammerer replied to Welch that he had turned the question over to his historical research staff. On August 22, Malcolm Gardner of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings rendered his opinion:

It seems to me that the name should not be Anglicized in spite of the precedent set by our spelling of Christopher Columbus. Cabrillo comes to the notice of history as a servant of the crown of Spain, and history refers to him by the Spanish form of his name. Living at a time when class and creed were much more important than accident of national nativity, Cabrillo's birth on Portuguese soil is now only of sentimental value.

I would recommend therefore, that the present Spanish spelling on the memorial be retained...if however, the Portuguese of California feel deeply about the matter, I would suggest not the English John, but a complete Portuguese rendition, Joao Rodrigues Cabrilho. [51]

Associate Director Arthur E. Demaray concurred that the Spanish spelling should stand and added a practical note: "to adopt the Portuguese spelling Cabrilho would change the name of the National Monument." [52] Though the question was settled for the moment, this and other matters dealing with Cabrillo as a Portuguese hero would continue to be a recurring issue throughout the monument's history and into the present day.

Extending the Boundaries — An Agreement with the Army

From the time of the first inspection of Cabrillo National Monument, Park Service engineers realized that it would be impossible to improve or develop the area without some extension of its one half acre boundaries. In his report of September 1934, W.G. Carnes said:

The present monument boundaries were arbitrarily set some years ago when a society desired space to erect a commemorative shaft or memorial to Juan Cabrillo.... In providing the essential public facilities to serve a large visiting public, it is going to be necessary to utilize so much area outside the monument boundaries for such things as parking areas, water tank and comfort stations, that some consideration should be given to the desirability of requesting an extension of the boundaries. [53]

There was no doubt that more land was necessary. However, discussion centered on how best to accomplish an extension. Thomas C. Vint, head of the landscape and architecture division, suggested that the most logical approach might be to obtain another Presidential proclamation similar to the one establishing the monument in 1913. [54]

On the advice of the Director of the Park Service, the Secretary of the Interior sent a letter to the Secretary of War on December 22, 1934, explaining the problem. In view of the fact that visitation was anticipated to increase from 200,000 per year to a potential one million because of the Exposition, the necessity of providing for visitors was obvious. "However," he wrote, "the limited land area set aside in the original Presidential proclamation will not take care of these developments and I am very anxious to ascertain your viewpoint toward having the present monument boundaries extended by means of a second Presidential proclamation to set aside a reasonably sized area which will accommodate all of the development which Cabrillo National Monument will ever need." [55]

The War Department apparently felt little urgency in the matter since the Secretary of War took four months to reply. In April of 1935, he informed Secretary Ickes that after giving the matter serious consideration "it has been determined that, owing to existing installations in the area desired and to other installations proposed for such area, it will be impossible to grant the full use thereof for the purposes desired by the Department of the Interior." [56]

Although turning over more land to the Park Service was out of the question, the War Department would agree to a revocable permit to use land which included an area south of the monument boundary for a parking lot and a parcel of land southwest of the lighthouse on which a comfort station could be built. The permit, issued on May 23, 1936, included the following provisions: that the War Department reserved the right to revoke the permit and resume possession in the case of an emergency; that all proposed structures to be erected by the Department of the Interior be submitted to the War Department for approval; and that all construction, operation and maintenance of the structures and utilities be accomplished without expense to the War Department. [57] Except for repairs on the lighthouse itself, the improvements to the land around the monument had to be made with the cooperation and approval of the War Department. Though Sam Hendricks, who supervised the project, reported frustrating delays caused by the need to get authorization from the Army for nearly every detail of construction, he also praised them for "cooperating with the Park Service to the fullest extent." [58]

Sporadic requests were made by Superintendent White during the next few years for a more permanent addition to the monument. The coming of World War II, however, made any demands by the Interior Department moot. It would not be until 1959, after an intense campaign led by San Diego civic organizations, that the monument would, at last, receive additional land.

The Dedication of the Monument — 1935

The ceremony to dedicate the new plaque to Cabrillo was planned as part of the activities of the 1935 California-Pacific International Exposition just as the ceremonies in 1913 had figured prominently in the Exposition of that year. Rather than celebrating Southern California's romantic and glorious past, the Exposition of 1935, coming as it did in the midst of the Depression, emphasized "the courage and ambition [of] forward-looking San Diego." [59] The new buildings, taking their places next to baroque edifices still standing from the preceding fair, represented progress, modernity and material development.

Unlike the dedication festivities at Cabrillo in 1913 with their emphasis on San Diego's Spanish past, the idea in 1935 was international cooperation and the theme was definitely Portuguese. Decidedly less flamboyant and political than the activities of 1913, the ceremony that took place on September 28, 1935, was formal and subdued. The plaque, which had been completed but not yet, mounted in its permanent place, was unveiled by Dr. Joao Antonio de Bianchi, Portuguese minister to the United States. Speaking to the small crowd gathered in front of the lighthouse he said: "Monuments are far better than any peace treaties. This is the way to bring together two nations who are both prosperous and peace loving. It gives me great pleasure to unveil this tablet to the great navigator, Cabrillo." [60]

The program was introduced by Leroy Wright representing the San Diego Historical Society and addresses were given by Rep. Burnham and Superintendent White, as well as various dignitaries from the Native Sons of the Golden West and the California State Historical Society. [61]

Presented with less fanfare than the preceding one sponsored by the Order of Panama, this ceremony commemorated a real, though modest accomplishment. In spite of its simplicity, it represented the result of dedicated effort and cooperation among the people of San Diego, the Park Service and the Army. It also foretold of the increasing identification of the Portuguese people of San Diego with Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo and the monument dedicated to his name.

Notes

¹John Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), 353.

²William C. Everhart, The National Park Service (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983), 23.

³Horace M. Albright as told to Robert Cahn, The Birth of the National Park Service: The Founding Years, 1913-33 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Howe Brothers, 1985), 295.

⁴Ibid., 296.

⁵U. S. Department of Interior. Annual Report of the Department of Interior, 1933 (Washington, D.C., U. S Government Printing Office), 155.

⁶Albright, The Birth of the National Park Service, 91-92.

⁷John R. White to Arno B. Cammerer, Director, National Park Service, 8 January 1934, National Park Service Records, Cabrillo National Monument File, RG 79, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

⁸Ibid.

⁹San Diego Union, 5 January 1934.

¹⁰Arthur H. Hill to John R. White, 6 January 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

¹¹Ibid.

¹²John R. White to Director National Park Service, 11 January 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

¹³Ibid.

¹⁴Minutes of Cabrillo Committee, San Diego Historical Society, 19 January 1934 (on file San Diego Historical Society).

¹⁵San Diego Sun, 20 January 1934.

¹⁶Minutes of Cabrillo Committee, 23 January 1934.

¹⁷Ibid.

¹⁸John Ise, Our National Park Policy, 359.

¹⁹W.G. Carnes to Thomas C. Vint, 23 February 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

²⁰Ibid.

²¹Representative George Burnham to Director, 7 May 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

²²Verne C. Chatelain to Isabel Story, 3 May 1934. CNM File, RG 79. NA.

²³Director to George Burnham, 8 May 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

²⁴San Diego Sun, 10 May 1934.

²⁵W. L. McFadden, "El Camino Cabrillo, New Highway to Point Loma Officially Opened to Public," California Highways and Public Works, 12 (August 1934), 10-11.

²⁶John R. White to Director, 23 July 1934, CNM File, RG 79. NA.

²⁷Ibid.

²⁸W.G. Carnes, "Report of Inspection of Cabrillo National Monument," 26 September 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

²⁹San Diego Tribune, 22 August 1934.

³⁰John R. White to W. G. Carnes, 24 August 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

³¹Minutes San Diego Historical Society, 17 August 1933 (on file San Diego Historical Society).

³²John R. White to W. G. Carnes, 24 August 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

³³W. G. Carnes, "Report on Inspection of Cabrillo National Monument," CNM File, RG 79, NA.

³⁴William C. Everhart, The National Park Service, 59-60.

³⁵W. G. Carnes, "Report on Inspection of Cabrillo National Monument," p. 2, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

³⁶Sam D. Hendricks, "Final Construction Report on Alteration and Restoration of the Lighthouse, Project No. F.P. 619," 31 December 1935, p. 4, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

³⁷Ibid.

³⁸Ibid., p. 6.

³⁹Ibid. There has been some to criticism as to the quality and appropriateness of the reconstruction done by the Park Service in 1933. F. Ross Holland discusses this in detail in F. Ross Holland, Jr. and Henry G. Law, Historic Structure Report: The Old Point Loma Lighthouse Cabrillo National Monument, San Diego, California (Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1981).

⁴⁰Ibid., p. 3.

⁴¹Director to George Burnham 13 June, 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁴²Ibid.

⁴³Leroy A. Wright to George Burnham 19 June 1934, Cabrillo National Monument File, San Diego Historical Society.

⁴⁴John R. White to W.G. Carnes, 24 August 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁴⁵W.G. Carnes to John R. White, 26 January 1935, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁴⁶Promotional booklet published by Grand Council of Cabrillo Civic Clubs, 1936, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁴⁷Ibid.

⁴⁸Typescript titled: "Original wording for Cabrillo plaque", CNM file, San Diego Historical Society.

⁴⁹Manuel F. Sylva to Richard J. Welch, 13 August 1935, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁵⁰Richard J. Welch to Director, 16 August 1935, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁵¹Gardner to Director, 22 August 1935, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁵²Marginal note by Arthur E. Demaray on memo of Malcolm Gardner to Director, 22 August 1935, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁵³W. G. Carnes, "Report on Inspection of Cabrillo National Monument," p. 6, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁵⁴Marginal note by Thomas C. Vint on W.G. Carnes, "Report on Inspection of Cabrillo National Monument," CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁵⁵Secretary of Interior to Secretary of War, 22 December 1934, CNM, RG 79, NA.

⁵⁶Acting Secretary of War Woodring to Secretary of Interior, 6 April 1934, CNM File, RG 79, NA.

⁵⁷Permit issued to Department of Interior (National Park Service) by Department of War, 23 May 1935, CNM File, RG 79, NA. The permit, though renewable, was issued for a period of only five years. This caused contention because the Park Service felt that it made planning for long term development impossible.

⁵⁸Sam D. Hendricks, "Final Construction Report." p. 9, CNM File, RG79, NA.

⁵⁹American Automobile Association, Westways, 26 (October 1934), 1.

⁶⁰San Diego Union, 29 September 1935.

⁶¹Ibid.