Pipe Spring Cultures at a Crossroads An Administrative History of Pipe Spring National Monument

Introduction

The reasons for the establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument can best be understood within the context of the overall development of parks, transportation systems, and tourism in southern Utah and northern Arizona during the late 1910s and early 1920s. To a much greater extent than is the case with other national parks and monuments, Pipe Spring's creation and later development hinged heavily on what was happening to parks in the surrounding area and to improvements to the region's transportation network. The development of the region's scenic attractions required a massive and coordinated effort of the federal government (most importantly, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Public Roads), state and county governments in Utah and Arizona, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church) officials at all levels, the Union Pacific System (Union Pacific or UP) and its subsidiaries, local businessmen, and private citizens. With such a conglomerate of interests involved, it is hardly surprising to discover - as events will show - that this remote site became the vehicle to accomplish a wide variety of goals. Some objectives were quite temporary in nature; others were decidedly permanent. The metaphor for Pipe Spring as "vehicle" is most appropriate, for the invention and popularization of motorized transportation would have long-lasting impact on the fate of this historic site.

21. Barbara Babcock opening gate for car at Pipe Spring, ca. 1920 (Courtesy Union Pacific Museum, image 643).

The Impact of Auto Touring on Utah's Southern Parks and the Arizona Strip

The first automobiles in the United States were produced just prior to the turn of the century. At first considered a luxury, rapid technological improvements and Henry Ford's mass production methods soon made them available to the middle class. The advent of the automobile dramatically changed the nature of tourism in the American West. No longer dependent on the stagecoach or the railroad to reach one's destination, travelers with the incredible "horseless buggy" could now strike out courageously at a moment's notice and tour the countryside to their heart's desire. Edwin Gordon Woolley did just that in June 1909. (Woolley was a son of Edwin Dilworth Woolley, Sr., former manager of the Pipe Spring ranch.) Woolley drove with his wife and brother-in-law, D. A. Affleck (who drove a second auto), from Salt Lake City to Kanab. There they picked up Edwin G. Woolley's half-brother, Edwin D. Woolley, Jr., and Graham McDonald, then they took off for the Grand Canyon's North Rim. Three days later, they arrived at Bright Angel. "Indians came from miles around to see their first 'devil wagons,' which they were loath to believe could run," wrote Angus M. Woodbury about the event. [336] The Woolleys envisioned the wealth of development opportunities that would arise, if only good roads could be built and auto-owning tourists could be enticed into venturing across the desolate Arizona Strip! The U.S. Rubber Company, "to demonstrate the wonderful performance of their product," later proudly displayed the nine tires they wore out on their journey. [337]

Utah politicians could also see the potential for tourism to revive the state's agricultural economy, which plunged into a serious depression after the "boom" years of World War I. [338] Senator Reed Smoot introduced a bill to establish Zion National Park (previously Mukuntuweap National Monument) on May 20, 1919. The bill was passed by Congress, and was signed by the President on November 19, 1919. Stephen Mather was in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park for the fifth annual conference of superintendents when word came that Zion National Park had been established. At Albright's urging, Mather made his first visit to the area. He became enamored with the park, returning every year for the remainder of his life.

One of the most notable accomplishments of the good-roads movement, in relation to the national parks, was the August 1920 establishment and designation of a great, connected highway between the major national parks of the Far West. The purpose of the National Park-to-Park Highway was three-fold: 1) to make scenic areas more accessible to the public, 2) to aid further development of the West by bringing its industrial resources to the attention of the traveling public, and 3) to attract new settlement. The National Park-to-Park Highway Association (NPPHA) accomplished the undertaking, in cooperation with the American Automobile Association (AAA) and other western organizations. The official designation tour began in Denver, Colorado, on August 26, 1920, "at which time," Stephen Mather reported, "I formally dedicated the National Park-to-Park Highway with appropriate ceremonies to the American people." [339] The 4,700-mile-long circle tour passed through nine western states, crossed every main transcontinental highway and touched most of the north and south highways west of the Rocky Mountains. The only parks in the southwest included on this route were Mesa Verde, Petrified Forest, and the Grand Canyon's South Rim. Mather envisioned the Park-to-Park Highway as "but a nucleus of a great interpark road system which will be developed later on." [340]

22. Map showing National Park-to-Park Highway and interpark road system (Reprinted from Report of the Director of the National Park Service, 1920).

In conjunction with the dedication of the highway, a National Park-to-Park Highway conference was held in Denver, Colorado. Utah's Governor Simon Bamberger sent Randall L. Jones as its representative. (Jones was an architect and a native of Cedar City.) There, plans were laid to coordinate the local movements for good roads into a park-to-park system. The NPPHA and AAA continued to hold annual conferences each year in various western cities. By 1923, thanks to their efforts and those of chambers of commerce, boards of trade, and other local civic organizations, the "great circle route" had expanded to 6,000 miles and included 12 national parks. [341] The NPPHA's objective was to hard surface the entire route (only one-fourth of this length had been "permanently improved"). In support of the work of the NPPHA, the National Highway Association offered in 1923 to print maps depicting the National Park-to-Park Highway for public distribution by the Park Service.

While the nation wide effort to provide a highway to link national parks was growing, state and local officials in Utah and Arizona were well aware of the need for local road improvements. Without them, the vast majority of motorists would visit only the most well known and easily accessible of the parks. In the early 1920s, most of Zion National Park's visitors were Utah residents, folks long accustomed to the terrible conditions of rural roads. To reach Zion from the east, travelers drove down through central Utah to Fredonia in northern Arizona, then, passing Pipe Spring, westward to Hurricane "on a mere faint trail where there was some danger of getting lost and perishing," wrote historian John Ise. [342] There was a rough road from Hurricane to Rockville and to Zion's entrance. Even the best of roads and bridges were susceptible to washouts from flash floods, making a well-planned road trip still a gamble during some seasons. If one was spared the fate of washouts and of having one's vehicle mired in the tire-clenching "gumbo" created by rainstorms, a road trip through many parts of Utah or Arizona in those days was always accompanied by a steady diet of dust.

23. Map detail, Utah State trunk Lines, State Road Commission, 1923 (Courtesy Union Pacific Museum). (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

In his 1923 annual report to Congress, Mather wrote that more than 60 percent of park visitors came in their own private automobiles. [343] A detail from the following map produced by the Utah State Road Commission and dated 1923, shows existing roads in Iron, Garfield, Washington, and Kane counties (as well as the Hurricane-Fredonia road) in 1923. Also depicted is the Union Pacific's Los Angeles and Salt Lake City Railroad line passing through Lund with its newly constructed spur line to Cedar City. (Pipe Spring National Monument is not shown on the map, perhaps because it was located in Arizona or because the map was produced prior to the establishment of the monument.)

Mather Visits Pipe Spring

Stephen T. Mather's first visit to Pipe Spring was made in conjunction with his participation in the dedication of Zion National Park that took place on September 15, 1920. Among those speaking at the dedication were Senator Reed Smoot and Church President Heber J. Grant. (In the usual blurring of lines between Utah's Church and State, Grant was representing Governor Bamberger at the event). The park's new status resulted in an immediate boost in visitation, which doubled between 1919 and 1920, from 1,914 to 3,692. After attending the dedication ceremony at Zion National Park, Mather drove south to visit other southwestern monuments. During his tour he stopped at Pipe Spring and took photographs of the fort. [344] (At this time the old wagon road traveled by motorists from Hurricane to Fredonia passed right by the fort.) Mather briefly discussed the idea of making Pipe Spring a national monument with the Heatons. Not only were they receptive totheidea, they promised to furnish labor should the National Park Service (Park Service or NPS) decide to undertake a restoration. [345]

On June 6, 1921, about nine months after making his first visit to Pipe Spring the previous fall, Mather wrote to Office of Indian Affairs Commissioner Charles H. Burke that he had found "a very interesting old homestead" on the Kaibab Reservation that he wanted to acquire for the park system. [346] What transpired during the time between Mather's letter to Burke and his next visit to Pipe Spring is only sparsely documented. If he was not already aware of the legal troubles Charles C. Heaton was having in proving his Pipe Spring claim, it is quite likely that Commissioner Burke informed Mather of the facts in 1921. Consultation with Arizona's Governor Thomas E. Campbell and U.S. Senator Carl Hayden would have also been in order, but no record of such contacts have yet been located. [347]

Mather returned to Pipe Spring in the fall of 1921, this time in the company of Union Pacific's President Carl R. Gray, Senator Hampton of Montana, and possibly one or two others. [348] Mather took the group on a tour of southern Utah and northern Arizona to demonstrate the area's potential for tourism. The men left Zion early one morning in Mather's Packard heading for the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. At Short Creek, Mather's automobile got stuck in the sand. In a 1991 interview, C. Leonard Heaton related the rest of the story as follows:

They were stuck there for about three or four hours in the sand, and when they come to Pipe Spring, along about one or two-o'clock, they were so famished and they didn't have any water with them. And while they were resting there he [Mather] began to look around the fort and my father [Charles Heaton] was down there riding on the range...

And then my father come up on horseback and Randall Jones was with him from Cedar City. He was promoter of tourism in southern Utah, and Dad knew Randall Jones, and he introduced him to Mather. And after Mather walked through the fort, the old fort (a lot of it was torn out then, inside of it and things like that), he asked my dad what the history of the place was. So Dad told him... about the early history of the place.

And then Randall Jones said, 'How close is it where we can get something to eat? These fellows,' he says, 'they haven't had anything since six o-clock this morning.' And my dad told him, 'You can go up to Moccasin and I think my wife can fix you a dinner.' ...And Dad told them how to get to Moccasin and he got on his horse and galloped up to here and by the time they got up here my mother had dinner about ready for them.... Mather had thought that Pipe Spring would be a good place for tourists to stop on the road from Zion to the Grand Canyon or the Grand Canyon back to Zion. And that was it. From that time it was Randall Jones and these other fellows, they decided to make Pipe Spring a national monument... [349]

Leonard Heaton was not at Pipe Spring at the time of Mather's visit, so he most likely heard this account from his father, Charles C. Heaton. The fact that Randall Jones was present with Heaton is a sure indication that this was a prearranged meeting. [350]

According to historian Robert H. Keller, Mather was sympathetic to the Church and fascinated by its history. He also could see the benefits of making the site a part of Union Pacific's tour package. He soon took direct action to acquire Pipe Spring for the National Park Service. On January 18, 1922, Mather wrote to Apostle George A. Smith, a high Church official, and asked him to approach the Heatons about selling Pipe Spring. Mather asked Smith to negotiate a purchase price and to then act as spokesman to raise the necessary funds. In his letter, Mather placed a heavy emphasis on his belief that Pipe Spring as a national monument would "be a big stimulus to the work that is now going on to develop the tourist possibilities of this southern Utah and northern Arizona country." [351] Smith and President Heber J. Grant worked together to help Mather achieve his goal, but progress was very slow. In the meantime, Mather, Union Pacific officials, and federal and state government officials began to focus on the daunting challenge of providing a road system capable of handling the tourist traffic they all dreamed of.

"If You Build It They Will Come" - The Challenge of Roads Less Traveled

On Director Mather's second visit to Pipe Spring, his party experienced first-hand the problems associated with Utah's poor roads. Yet in 1921 much was happening that would soon greatly impact the ability of states to improve their roads. That year the Federal Aid Law was passed which provided that the federal government would aid in the construction of highways in several states to the extent of funding seven percent of the total mileage of the public highways in each state. [352] This law is sometimes referred to as the "seven percent system" for highway development. Under this program, Utah received 74 percent of the construction costs of roads and paid the balance of 26 percent plus preliminary engineering costs. [353] Plans, specifications, and estimates had to be approved by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. Roads were required to have at least 18 feet of either gravel or paved surfacing with a three-foot shoulder on each side. Maximum grades were not to exceed six percent and there were certain specifications for bridges, culverts, and other road features.

The difficulty in Utah in the early 1920s was that the state had no funds for road construction, thus the 26 percent amount payable by the state had to be raised by individual counties through subscriptions. [354] Many rural counties in southern Utah were poor, resulting in a delay in financing road projects in some areas. County residents needed to be convinced that development of roads in their county would result in general economic or other improvements. Local associations were formed to promote the development of roads, while both state and local officials, as well as businessmen, acted as ardent boosters (Cedar City's Randall L. Jones was one such booster). Road development was a costly gamble toward future economic prosperity, with much at stake. Not surprisingly, competition for road funds and highway projects was at times fierce and always intensely political. While the struggle to raise local funds would be slow-going, the new Federal Aid Law set into motion in 1922 a number of serious road studies by federal agencies (including the National Park Service), the state road commission, and Union Pacific.

Along with its surveys of Utah's roads, Union Pacific directed its information-gathering efforts toward accumulating knowledge of the agricultural, mining, and scenic resources in southern Utah with the intent of expanding its transportation network in those areas with marketable resources. In 1921, at the urging of Utah politicians, Union Pacific's President Gray made a personal investigation of some of Utah's southern agricultural communities (Cedar City, Parowan, and Fillmore) and interviewed farmers and ranchers. Impressed with the area's potential, Gray authorized the building of a railroad spur to Fillmore, which was completed the following year. Later trips were made by UP officials in September and October. The latter occurred during the week of October 22, involving a Mr. Platt and an unidentified official who filed the report. Their purpose was to continue the company's survey of southern Utah and northern Arizona attractions. The two men traveled from Kanab to Zion via Pipe Spring and Hurricane. Their later trip report stated,

After making this second trip via the Pipe Springs desert and Hurricane, I am more than ever confirmed in the opinion that a touring trip in which the railroad is interested in advertising must avoid the most unpleasant hot desert trips via La Verkin, Hurricane and Pipe Springs on the south, and via Parowan, Bear Valley and Panguitch on the north. These hard hot trips would soon result in some very unfavorable advertising by tourists. The highways and roads on these portions of the trips are very bad. On account of being out of line of general travel, these particular stretches stand very poor chance of being maintained properly. A large part of these stretches are unattractive. The heat, dust and poor roads destroy the pleasure of the entire trip. [355]

This official proposed a route that would have excluded the "most unpleasant" roads described above and a loop tour that would have excluded Pipe Spring. This alternative route, however, required additional road construction and improvements. The significance of this report is that it appears to have been the first of several to recommend against use or development of the Hurricane-Fredonia route, a sentiment that resulted in continued isolation for Pipe Spring National Monument.

The problem of roads for the National Park Service was two-fold: first, how to construct and maintain a viable system within parks, and second, how to persuade state and local officials to finance a transportation network that would enable visitors to get to the parks. In late 1921 Director Mather called for a meeting to be held to discuss park developments in southern Utah. Called the Governor's Committee on National Park Development, the assembly was scheduled for December 19-20 in Salt Lake City. About three weeks prior to the meeting date, Mather wrote D. S. Spencer, General Passenger Agent of the Union Pacific System, regarding plans for the event. Mather's remarkable political acumen is illustrated by the request he made of Spencer, whose office was in Salt Lake City:

The success of the meeting will largely depend on how representative a one it is. We should absolutely count on having President Grant there, and Apostle Smith if possible. We will want men like Lafayette Hanchett and Mr. [William W.?] Armstrong of the National Copper Bank, besides the Governor, Mayor [C. Clarence] Neslen, and others. Cedar City should be represented by Randall Jones and one or two of their important men. Petty and some of the Chamber of Commerce men from Hurricane should be there, as well as Mr. [Joseph?] Snow of St. George. We ought also to get the elder [Ole] Bowman of Kanab, and Johnson [sic; Jonathan] Heaton, or one of his sons, as it will be advisable to bring up the Pipe Springs proposition at the same time. We should also count on having Mr. Adams and Mr. Basinger present. [356]

Lafayette Hanchett was president of the National Copper Bank in Salt Lake City and chairman of the Governor's Committee on National Park Development; H. M. Adams was vice-president of UP, in charge of traffic; W. S. Basinger was UP's passenger traffic manager. Joseph Snow was a promoter of the Arrowhead Trail, as well as represented St. George in the Southern Utah & Northern Arizona Road Association.

Horace Albright (at the time both superintendent of Yellowstone National Park and field assistant to Director Mather) was unable to attend the December meeting but sent a letter to Mather at Hotel Utah expressing his views on park development in southern Utah. It would be important to connect financial interests in Salt Lake City to the new developments, he advised. Albright also stressed the importance of a Park Service alliance with Union Pacific:

That Union Pacific support for the new project would be the biggest guarantee of its success. Such support would be beneficial in every respect and I do not see where any grounds could be found for criticism of the Park Service for dealing with the Union Pacific. I mention this because in the past it has been customary for everybody to rap a big corporation, particularly the railroads, and to look upon their every action with suspicion. I believe we are getting away from this sort of thing now and are coming to realize that railroads and other big organizations are necessary and desirable in our commercial life and that any business is not necessarily bad because it is big. [357]

Mather followed Albright's advice and achieved successful results in the region, as evidenced by later events.

The December meeting was held in Salt Lake City at the State Capitol's Commercial Club. It was called to order by Governor Charles R. Mabey and chaired by Lafayette Hanchett. One hundred representatives attended, including some from almost every county in southern Utah where scenic attractions were located. In addition to the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service was represented. Officials from the State Road Commission and from the railroads (Union Pacific System and the Denver & Rio Grande Western) were also present. The chief business of the meeting was "The Marketing of Utah Scenery." Topics for discussion included linkage of Utah's southern attractions with the Grand Canyon; the construction and maintenance of connecting highways and selection of best available temporary and permanent routes; the provision of adequate lodging and transportation facilities; plans for securing adequate state and federal legislation; enlisting the cooperation of national, state, and county organizations, as well as chambers of commerce and other civic organizations; and plans for adequate surveys of park territory and highways. Those present passed a resolution endorsing and pledging support for the plans made. Five subcommittees were created to tackle all of these issues. Appointees to the five committees constituted exactly the kind of powerful coalition that Mather had envisioned. Unfortunately, there is no record of whether or not Jonathan Heaton or a family representative attended the conference, but the fact that Mather had requested that a family representative attend strongly suggests that a Pipe Spring "deal" was already in the making by December 1921. [358]

At this meeting, Mather presented a plan for a system of roads that would link the scenic attractions of Utah. The convention unanimously adopted his recommendation. This system was intended to connect Zion, Cedar Breaks, Bryce Canyon, Kaibab National Forest, and the Grand Canyon's North Rim. The Salt Lake City meeting and Mather's proposals drew considerable attention in the press. The Deseret News published a lengthy report, which included the following excerpt:

State and local organizations and citizens must unite in placing suitable accommodations in the region of Utah's scenic wonderland and with these accommodations installed developments will be pushed rapidly by the federal government and the railroads. This appeared to be the consensus of opinions expressed today at the conference of officials called by Director Stephen T. Mather of the National Park Service for deciding on some definite course of action to pursue in exploiting the scenic attractions of the state...

The necessity of good roads and the founding of good hotels so that the people could be cared for was urged...

Director Mather presented a definite proposal before the convention that a state park association be organized in Utah with representatives from various part of the states as members. [359]

The next day, the Deseret News followed up the meeting with three more articles. The first, "Highway System to Link Utah Parks Proposed," reported that plans were adopted at the conference for the improvement of existing roads and the construction of new ones that would link the scenic attractions of southern Utah and northern Arizona together, hopefully by the 1922 travel season. Among a number of proposed plans was the construction of a road from Rockville to Short Creek and improvement of the segment between Short Creek, Fredonia, and Kaibab National Forest. The article reported another proposal: "Construct a road from Mount Carmel to the rim of Zion canyon." [360] No one at the time knew if such an idea could be carried out, or at what expense. The engineering subcommittee was to coordinate with the National Park Service, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Forest Service, and state, county, and local authorities to develop the improved road system. This article also points to the driving enthusiasm of Church President Heber J. Grant, who spoke at the conference. The newspaper referred to his speech:

Heber J. Grant told of the power of scenic attraction and how he had been led to visit the Yellowstone park and the Grand Canyon after being told of their wonders in Europe. He pronounced himself a thorough convert of the possibilities of a national park in Cedar Breaks and Zion canyon and announced that he believes in the 'gold mine of tourists.'

'I am ready to work,' he said, 'to the best of my ability to try to persuade other people to put up their money. I have been called long ago the 'boss beggar' in the 'Mormon' church.' [361]

President Grant meant what he said. His persuasive "begging" would eventually be successful in helping to raise the funds needed for the Park Service to acquire Pipe Spring from the Heaton family of Moccasin. The hopes of conference attendees that the new road network would be in place for the 1922 tourist season, however, were overly optimistic.

The second article appearing in the Deseret News referenced plans for an improved road system and reported that resolutions made at the Salt Lake City meetings included a call to enlarge Zion National Park to include Cedar Breaks, and for the state to take action to make Bryce Canyon a state park. [362] While Albright wanted to see Bryce Canyon brought into the national park system, Mather at this time favored the idea of it being part of a state park system that would supplement the national system. [363] (The Department of the Interior inaugurated the state park movement in 1921 with its first national conference held that year in Des Moines, Iowa. [364] ) A third newspaper article focused on Utah's need to complete a primary concrete road called the Arrowhead Trail. [365] The road passed through Iron and Washington counties, linking Cedar City to St. George. Large amounts of money were being spent to promote it as an all-year route from southern Utah to Los Angeles, reported Joseph Snow of the Arrowhead Trail Association, who believed their efforts had led to a substantial increase in automobile traffic and revenue in his home town of St. George.

The Role of Union Pacific in the Parks' Transportation Network

While the railroad and National Park Service shared a common goal - to attract people to the parks and to ensure them a memorable visit - there were different reasons behind their objectives. The Park Service's primary goal was preservation-oriented. It recognized that survival of the national parks and monuments hinged on the number of people who claimed direct benefits from scenic preservation. [366] As might be expected, the railroad companies' objectives were profit-oriented. There was a long and successful history of the railroads investing in Western tourism, both in promoting the establishment of scenic preserves and in offering transportation and accommodations to tourists to the relatively remote locations of such places. The Northern Pacific promoted the 1872 creation of Yellowstone National Park; Southern Pacific campaigned for Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant reserves in the 1890s, all ultimately set aside; the south rim of Arizona's Grand Canyon was made accessible in 1901 by the Santa Fe Railway; and the Great Northern Railway's Louis W. Hill enthusiastically supported the 1910 establishment of Glacier National Park in Montana. Some of the railroad companies constructed grand hotels in the nation's parks and spent huge sums of money advertising their scenic splendors in brochures, complimentary guidebooks, and full-page magazine spreads. [367] The parks needed the railroads and the railroads needed the parks. Their alliance was well established before World War I.

Immediately after World War I ended, the United States experienced what can only be described as a transportation revolution, brought on by the invention, mass production, and rapid spread of the automobile. By 1919 the availability and popularity of motorized vehicles posed a serious financial threat to the economic well-being of the railroads as former rail passengers purchased and used their own automobiles. Trucking companies were formed, offering expeditious freight transportation service. The motor bus was developed in 1912 by C. S. Wickman of Hibbing, Minnesota, who later founded the Greyhound Corporation. Steamships using the Panama Canal, opened in 1912, increasingly diverted freight traffic away from rail transport. Along with other railroad company managers, Union Pacific President Carl Gray found himself facing a new world. Railroad historian Maury Klein wrote that in 1919, "On every side, Gray found himself hedged in by forms of competition that had scarcely existed before the war." [368] A revolution in energy sources as well as means of transportation was in progress. Pipelines now transported much of the West's oil and natural gas to market, increasingly preferred by industries over coal, a staple of Union Pacific traffic. The rapidly developing field of commercial aviation was already eating away at one of the railroad's most lucrative services, mail delivery. To survive the challenge, wrote Klein, "the railroads had to redefine their place in an expanded transportation industry." [369]

As more and more people bought automobiles, the summer vacation emerged as a national institution. Not only were vacations touted as enjoyable recreation, but as a means of bringing about wholesome family togetherness. The transportation revolution required the rapid development of a road system. The total mileage of surfaced highway doubled between 1910 and 1920, then doubled again between 1920 and 1930. [370] Ironically, a major portion of the highway system came to be constructed on right-of-ways leased from the railroads. State and federal governments poured $1.8 billion into highway construction between 1922 and 1930. [371] Until 1929, states were challenged to find sources of funding for road development. Then in 1929 a gasoline tax was imposed in every state to defray the expense of road construction and maintenance.

The impact of the new forms of transportation was immediately felt by the railroads. In 1920 rail passenger travel reached a peak of 1.27 million passengers. Over the next 10 years, the numbers steadily declined toward 707,987 passengers in 1930. [372] Passenger revenues went from $1.17 billion in 1921 to $731 million in 1930, a drop of 37 percent. [373] The railroads were forced to accept the popularity of the auto, and to find a way to integrate automotive transportation into their tourism-related plans and operations. As a result some redefined themselves as transportation companies that not only sold rail travel, but offered planned motor coach tours, complete with restaurant and lodging accommodations, as well. During the 1920s, Union Pacific pioneered the practice of operating buses along with its rail lines in southern Utah and northern Arizona parks.

The January 1922 issue of The Union Pacific Magazine, included an article entitled "Zion - Our Newest National Park - And Other Southern Utah Scenic Attractions," by UP official D. S. Spencer. The first in a series of articles on scenic attractions found along the transportation routes of the Union Pacific, the article painted a highly romantic picture of travel in the area's "undiscovered country:"

The opening of Zion National Park to tourist travel during the last few years, has resulted in directing attention to other remarkable scenic regions in southern Utah and northern Arizona, including Cedar Breaks, Bryce Canyon, Kaibab Forest, and the North Rim Grand Canyon National Park, so that it is now impossible to think of Zion National Park without thinking of these other attractions, each of which has a distinctive geological individuality. To reach a fair estimate of them you must see each one, and as you pass from one to the other, inspiration exalts the soul, and reverence bows the head. [374]

Alluding to the Great Northern Railway's "See America First" campaign, Spencer declared "...until one has seen Zion and Southern Utah, he has not seen America." Along with the article, a map was offered to readers to assist them in their planning of future vacations.

The map herewith, based partly on actualities and partly on proposed improvements, gives an idea in tabloid of the relative locations of the features mentioned. Reference to it demonstrates that when the road plans are consummated, the schedule of the Southern Utah attractions will embrace a circle tour... [375]

What is interesting to note on this map is the 18-mile "trail" shown traversing Zion National Park toward Mt. Carmel. This trail appears to be the basis for Union Pacific's confidence that a road could be constructed that would perfect their plans for their circle tour, a multi-park trip they began to promote (at least internally by way of The Union Pacific Magazine) as early as January 1922. This approximate route would later become the Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway, not to be completed until 1930. In addition, the UP map shows a 25-mile "trail" from Zion to the Hurricane-Fredonia road, terminating at about the location of Short Creek. This route approximates the Rockville cutoff road, to be constructed 1924-1925. The development of both routes was an important part of UP's plans and, when completed, would considerably shorten the travel distance between parks while improving the scenic aspects of the tour.

The Union Pacific tour outlined in this article began at Lund then went to Cedar Breaks, Zion National Park, the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, and then ended at Lund. While tourist camps then existed at Zion, Bryce Canyon, and the North Rim, the article promised readers,

..it is reasonable to assume that within the next few years each of the four attractions [Cedar Breaks included] will be provided with both hotels and camps and; with the completion of the necessary connecting highways, will provide accommodations corresponding in service with those in Yellowstone Park and others of our long known National Wonderlands. [376]

24. Map showing Union Pacific's future five-day "circle tour" of southern Utah parks and the Grand Canyon's North Rim, 1922 (Courtesy Union Pacific Museum). (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

The map showed no planned tour routes to travel the Hurricane-Fredonia road or to go to Pipe Spring (yet to be declared a national monument) on its 464-mile circle tour. The tour route counted heavily on road improvements along the route from Mt. Carmel to Kanab and on an entirely new road, the Zion-Mt. Carmel road. With planned road developments accomplished, Spencer assured readers, the circle tour could expected to take only five days. This article is an excellent example of a marketing tactic used by Union Pacific in its southern Utah campaign throughout the 1920s: that is, creating a public desire and demand for an improved road system in Utah by having its agents paint a glowing picture of the future that lay ahead, once the new road system was in place. It was so effective a tactic, in fact, that on at least one occasion, a Utah official pleaded for them to stop promoting the region until the necessary road improvements had been completed. UP official, J. T. Hammond, Jr., reported that in a November 1923 meeting he had with State Land Commissioner John T. Oldroyd, that Oldroyd "...stated to me that he thought it would perhaps be for the best interest of the Union Pacific and for the State of Utah as well for the Union Pacific not to feature Southern Utah until the roads were made safe and convenient for handling tourist travel." [377]

Union Pacific was by no means alone in agitating those in power in Utah for improved roads. In addition to the successful Salt Lake City Governor's Conference of December 1921, Mather worked on a local level to obtain his objectives where road improvements were concerned. Correspondence of April 1922 attests that Mather personally wrote to William W. Seegmiller of Kanab and Charles B. Petty of Hurricane urging them to push through the construction of the Hurricane-Fredonia road. (Petty and Seegmiller served on the committee of the Southern Utah and Northern Arizona Road Association. The committee included representatives from a dozen towns in the two areas. Zion's Acting Superintendent Walter Ruesch represented Springdale on this committee; Dr. Edgar A. Farrow represented Moccasin.) This Hurricane-Fredonia route took travelers from Zion to the Grand Canyon, which at the time some favored over the poor road that lay between Mt. Carmel and Kanab.

While construction work on the road from the Hurricane end commenced about February 1922, Petty informed Mather that nothing had happened on the Fredonia segment. Mather expressed his appreciation to Petty and informed him, "We have had a number of inquiries about travel conditions in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona, and I confidently believe that an increased number of people will visit that beautiful and interesting section during the coming year." [378] At Petty's suggestion, Mather then wrote Seegmiller, telling him of the progress in Utah under Mr. Petty while adding, "I know that you will see to it that construction on the Fredonia end of the road is carried out as soon as possible so that the whole road will be in good shape for this season. It is bound to be a great help to travel which should develop this year." [379]

During early July 1922, a party of UP traffic officials, headed by Carl Gray, H. M. Adams, and W. S. Basinger, toured the scenic areas of Utah's south. During this trip Gray reportedly offered to buy the El Escalante Hotel (designed by Randall L. Jones) in Cedar City. [380] Numerous other investigatory trips were made by UP officials in the following months, including one that consisted of a party of 10 men, with hotel and engineering experts, led by Basinger during the second week of October 1922. Accompanying the high level officials on this trip was NPS Chief Civil Engineer George E. Goodwin. The group traveled to Zion, Cedar Breaks, and Bryce Canyon studying potential sites for hotels and water sources.

The following month (November 1922) The Union Pacific Magazine touted its commitment to the development of transportation to and tourist facilities in the attractions mentioned above. It reprinted an article by D. S. Spencer previously published in the Salt Lake Tribune on October 16, 1922. [381] The article described the company's plans to construct two railroad branch lines, a 31-mile spur from Fillmore to Delta and a 32-mile spur from Lund to Cedar City, at a cost of $3 million. The company also planned to acquire and complete the El Escalante Hotel in Cedar City (which had been under construction for several years), to construct two hotels at Zion and Bryce Canyon, and to furnish a lunch station and limited hotel accommodations at Cedar Breaks, at an additional estimated cost to the company of $2 million. The Lund-Cedar City spur line would open up markets to agricultural land and enable locals to market the area's rich iron ore and coal deposits to industrial promoters. A new steel mill was planned in Provo in anticipation of access to the rich iron fields of Iron County; even automobile manufacturers had their eye on the area. The attention of railroad men, however, was first and foremost on developing the gold mine of tourism.

The Railroad Comes to Cedar City

The year 1923 was quite an eventful one in the history of tourism in southern Utah. The first step in Union Pacific's development program at Zion and Bryce Canyon was the completion of the Lund-Cedar City line. In 1922 the Interstate Commerce Commission had granted a certificate of necessity and convenience to Union Pacific allowing them to build the spur line from Lund to Cedar City. The new line was justified on the basis of anticipated traffic from livestock, agriculture, iron ore, and tourist travel. Cedar City residents had raised $57,000 to purchase a right-of-way for the new branch line. On March 12, 1923, the Salt Lake Tribune announced construction on the Union Pacific's Lund-Cedar City line would begin on March 15 and reported extensively on related southern Utah developments. [382] The UP had already taken over the El Escalante Hotel in Cedar City, repaying its citizens for the $80,000 already invested in a cooperative plan for the building's construction. (Union Pacific completed its construction by the summer of 1923. [383]) In addition, it was reported that Union Pacific would invest $250,000 to construct a 100-room hotel in Zion, with plans to invest another $200,000 in constructing a second hotel at the rim of Bryce Canyon.

In March 1923 a federal appropriation of $133,000 for Zion National Park was allocated for survey and specifications of park roads. The appropriation included $40,000 for the construction of a bridge on public land outside the park boundary, crossing the Virgin River near Springdale, Utah. The bridge was to be used to permit a shortcut into Arizona (later known as the Rockville shortcut or Rockville cutoff) with work undertaken during the winter of 1923-1924. The U.S. Forest Service, both in southern Utah and northern Arizona, continued its program of improving roads on lands under its jurisdiction. Not all improvements were the result of state and federal governments, however. In Washington County citizens raised $27,000 in subscriptions for road improvements in their area. Union Pacific's Parks Engineer Samuel C. Lancaster and NPS Chief Civil Engineer George E. Goodwin were reportedly in the process of going over the southern Utah territory. In anticipation of road improvements, Union Pacific planned to invest $750,000 in motor buses in 1924.

In early March 1923, Utah passed legislation allowing the leasing of state school lands at Bryce Canyon for hotel and tourist camp purposes for up to 25 years, with the option of a 25-year renewal. John T. Oldroyd had drafted the bill with the approval of Governor Mabey. It went into effect on March 26 when the governor signed it. On March 29, 1923, the Deseret News announced the incorporation of the Utah Parks Company, a subsidiary of the Union Pacific System. (Carl Gray and H. M. Adams headed both as president and vice-president, respectively.) The corporation was formed, reported the newspaper,

...for a period of 100 years for the purpose of building, buying, owning and operating practically every conceivable convenience for tourists visiting the park section including hotels, chatels, inns, restaurants, garage and livery stables, stage and truck lines, skating rinks, tennis courts, golf links, swimming pools, bowling alleys and billiard rooms, power lines and plants, water systems, real estate and concessions of various descriptions. [384]

By this time, the federal government had already given Union Pacific approval to construct visitor accommodations at Bryce Canyon. They and their subsidiary, the Utah Parks Company, were not interested, however, in investing huge sums in building tourist accommodations on land leased from the state. Rather, they sought to purchase sufficient land on which to site primary developments and to lease additional land. On May 4 Oldroyd announced that the former action withdrawing the entire school section of Bryce Canyon land from sale had been revoked. [385] The very same day UP's solicitor George H. Smith filed application to purchase a 40-acre tract of a state school land section located on the rim of Bryce Canyon and to lease an adjoining 600 acres. [386] The proposed sale was opposed by some on the grounds that scenic resources were the property of all the people and future generations. The Chamber of Commerce voted on May 12 to refuse endorsement of UP's application to purchase land at Bryce. [387]

Meanwhile, President Gray set about garnering support for Union Pacific's plans among the state's businessmen. On May 20, 1923, a large delegation of Los Angeles UP officials and Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce businessmen arrived in Utah to conduct a three-day inspection of the Delta-Fillmore agricultural area, to which UP had just completed building a spur line. [388] Gray traveled from New York City, arriving in Delta on May 21, to meet with the delegation and to present addresses at Delta's Chamber of Commerce. The following day, Gray and his party inspected Fillmore with Gray making another presentation at Fillmore's Commercial Club. Gray announced his intention to assist the community in growth and progress, and spoke of UP's $15 million campaign then underway "for the betterment of Utah." [389] On May 23 Gray made a third presentation at a luncheon held at Salt Lake City's Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Clarence C. Neslen and 61 retail merchants attended the event from six states. At the gathering Gray disclosed UP's plans to develop the economic and scenic resources of Utah. Gray and vice-president Adams then met with high-ranking members of the Chamber of Commerce to inform them that the company was willing to build a $200,000 hotel at Bryce Canyon only if the state would sell them the land or if it were owned by the federal government and then leased to them.

On the same day that Gray made his presentation to Salt Lake City's Chamber of Commerce (May 23, 1923), Governor Mabey returned from a 10-day trip to Washington, D.C. There, a federal road project was discussed that had a bearing on southern Utah's Arrowhead Trail. At a May 14 hearing concerning road projects before Department of Agriculture Secretary Henry C. Wallace, Lincoln Highway Association representatives argued against development of the Arrowhead Trail due to its poor "scenery." [390] Mabey also conferred with NPS officials in Washington, D.C., on how to handle the Bryce Canyon situation. Park Service officials favored a leasing system. "They are against the sale of any land except a very small area upon which a hotel resort is to be built," Mabey later reported. [391]

In response to Gray's firm position on Bryce Canyon development, the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce board of governors voted on May 24, 1923, to endorse UP's application to purchase 40 acres at Bryce and to lease the remainder of section to the company. [392] Negotiations were not yet over. Mabey and Oldroyd put off action on UP's application in order to reinspect the school section at Bryce with UP officials. Meanwhile, NPS and UP architects and engineers began surveying building sites and sketching preliminary plans. Confident that the Park Service would approve its developments in Zion and Bryce Canyon, Union Pacific started cutting timber and quarrying stone for its Zion and Bryce Canyon hotels in late May. Major construction efforts on the hotels at Zion and Bryce Canyon (as well as completion of Cedar City's El Escalante Hotel) hinged on the completion of the Lund-Cedar City branch line, which was projected for June. [393] All developments were planned to be ready for the 1924 tourist season. Meanwhile, campgrounds at Zion and Bryce Canyon were available in the 1923 season.

In the fall of 1923, Union Pacific's General Solicitor George H. Smith wrote Carl Gray a letter concerning federal aid for highway construction. Certain roads had already been selected by the State Road Commission for expenditure of federal funds with the approval of Secretary Wallace; others had been designated by the Commission, but still needed Wallace's approval. The total mileage of these roads equaled seven percent of all the roads in the state (1,612.7 miles out of 24,000 miles). The vast majority of funding was to come from the federal government either through the Federal Aid Law or the U.S. Forest Service. In the meantime, the State of Utah began to assume some of the road maintenance tasks formerly poorly performed by local counties in the area of Zion National Park, in order to assure better maintenance of approach roads to the park. Near year's end, Randall L. Jones assured UP's Vice-president H. M. Adams, "The roads next season should be in very good shape and with the maintenance being in the hands of the State Road Commission, there will be not only a decided improvement by the addition of many miles of new construction, but they will undoubtedly be kept in good repair." [394]

Shortly after this communiqué, Jones informed Adams that the Cedar City-Cedar Breaks road was financed in mid-November, and that he now would turn his attention to the Cedar City-Zion road. He later wrote to H. M. Adams,

With no road funds in the State Treasury and very little prospect of getting any in the near future, with the southern counties bonded to capacity and assessing for road purposes the legal limit, it became necessary to look to other sources for funds to build Utah's parks. There was only one source - liberal subscriptions from those interested in the development of the parks - Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and the towns in the park district. [395]

Toward that end, the State of Utah looked beyond its borders to southern California. In early December 1923, a series of meetings took place in Utah and in Los Angeles to raise funds for road development, particularly for the beleaguered Arrowhead Trail. A party consisting of Randall L. Jones, Governor Mabey, Preston G. Peterson (Chairman, Utah State Road Commission), F. D. B. Gay (Secretary, Scenic Highway Association) and reporters from the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News first met with citizens of Parowan, Cedar City, and St. George. Then the whole entourage headed by auto for Las Vegas except for Governor Mabey, who took the train from Las Vegas. At the Los Angeles station he was met by Union Pacific official, M. de Brabant. Also in Los Angeles for the meeting were UP officials H. M. Adams and W. S. Basinger. On December 7, 1923, Mabey and Peterson presented Utah's road problem to the Auto Club of Southern California's Board of Governors. The following day, at the Auto Club's suggestion, they repeated their presentation to the officers of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. By the end of the two meetings, the two organizations had promised Mabey they would raise $100,000 toward the completion of the Arrowhead Trail through Utah. [396]

There was a very good reason why Randall Jones appeared so eager to assure UP officials that road improvements in southern Utah would take place at a rapid pace. President Carl Gray's commitment to building hotels at Zion and Bryce Canyon had always been contingent on Utah improving the transportation network that served the region. The company was not willing to make a tremendous outlay of capital on hotels - not to mention a new fleet of motor coaches - if it wasn't convinced its concerns about safe and comfortable road travel would be addressed. [397] At the same time, UP had their own headaches: construction of a dependable water supply for developments at Bryce Canyon was proving to be more costly than anticipated, and the company's rights to offer motor transport service between Cedar Breaks, Zion National Park, and Bryce Canyon had yet to be secured. [398] Meanwhile, Director Stephen T. Mather had managed to line up a delightful place for tour buses to stop for lunch, once Union Pacific actually got its tour operations underway.

The Establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument

While Union Pacific officials were negotiating over the purchase and lease of lands at Bryce Canyon just prior to its establishment as a national monument, Director Mather was working in Washington, D.C., to have Pipe Spring established as another national monument. It would be seven long years before a feasible alternate route was available for travelers to go from Zion National Park to the Grand Canyon's North Rim. In May 1923 no one knew if it were even possible to construct such a road or just how and when the means could be found for the undertaking. Thus, the immediate concern for Union Pacific, state officials, and the National Park Service was to improve the existing route from Zion to the North Rim and to make it as pleasing to tourists as possible. Mather envisioned the majority of tourist traffic would traverse the Hurricane-Fredonia route, at least until the Rockville shortcut to Short Creek could be built. The fort and its natural spring water would offer a welcome respite to tour buses and individual travelers, weary from crossing miles of the desolate Arizona Strip. The establishment of a National Park Service site at this strategic location would, however, require more than the usual amount of political maneuvering. Issues of ownership of the Pipe Spring ranch had never been completely settled. The Office of Indian Affairs and General Land Office had refused to recognize Charles C. Heaton's claims to the tract and he had filed a motion for a rehearing on their decision. The creation of the new monument at Pipe Spring called for that problem to be addressed, along with others. To achieve his goals, Mather appears to have solved the problem in a rather convoluted yet successful fashion.

As mentioned earlier, Mather asked Church officials in January 1922 to serve as intermediary between the government and the Heaton family in determining a selling price for the Pipe Spring ranch. Nearly a year and one-half later on May 12, 1923, President Grant wrote to Mather to inform him that Charles C. Heaton had set the selling price at $5,000. The Church promised to subscribe some of the money and to approach the Oregon Short Line (a Union Pacific subsidiary) for additional funds. [399] Grant wrote,

Perhaps my associates may reconsider allowing the Church to subscribe for at least 10% toward purchasing this property, although it hardly seems in line for a 104.church, which is a charitable institution, to be spending money to purchase property to make a present to the United States government. [400]

Mather replied to Grant on May 21 informing him of the urgency of raising the funds within a month so that President Warren G. Harding could sign the proclamation establishing the monument before he left on a trip to the West. His letter ended with the plea, "so please do all in your power to put this pet project of mine through in the next thirty days." [401] Leaving little to chance, Mather also acted to enlist the aid of Lafayette Hanchett, president of National Copper Bank in Salt Lake City. Mather had scheduled a trip to take several congressmen to southern Utah and northern Arizona after President Harding departed the area. It was critical to establish the monument at Pipe Spring prior to President Harding's trip to southern Utah, Mather explained, "so that we can convince the Congressmen who are going to accompany me, and who happen to handle these specific appropriations, that we need funds for its [the fort's] proper restoration." [402] (In fact, the funds to purchase Pipe Spring were not raised in time, but this will be discussed later.) Hanchett offered to do his part while stating, "The preservation of Pipe Springs wakens little or no enthusiasm among non-Mormons, who seem to regard the place strictly as an old outpost of the Mormon Church, and who frankly say it is up to the Mormons to take care of the matter if they wish anything done." [403]

Meanwhile, Mather asked his assistant Arthur E. Demaray to draw up the proclamation, which was completed on May 23. [404] Mather then gave the draft proclamation to Commissioner Charles Burke, Office of Indian Affairs. Burke returned the draft to Mather two days later, disapproving it for lacking a provision by which the reservation's Kaibab Paiute could utilize the waters of Pipe Spring. Mather hastily inserted a clause prepared by Burke and returned it for the Commissioner's signature. Burke signed it on May 28 and returned it to Mather with the following memorandum addressed to Secretary Hubert Work:

The forty-acre tract described in the proposed Presidential Proclamation attached is within the Kaibab Indian Reservation in Arizona. The Indians have no special need for the land, and as a clause has been inserted giving the Indians the privilege of utilizing the waters from Pipe Spring for irrigation, stock watering, and other purposes, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, I concur in the proposed action to set the land aside as a national monument. [405]

There were still legal issues to work out over the clouded title to the land. The same week that Director Mather was working to obtain Commissioner Burke's cooperation and support of the monument's establishment, General Land Office Commissioner William Spry sent a memorandum to Assistant Director Arno B. Cammerer about the ownership of the Pipe Spring tract. The memorandum summarized actions related to Pipe Spring and surrounding lands, including those leading up to the creation of the Kaibab Indian Reservation. It stated that Charles C. Heaton's March 3, 1920, application to locate the Valentine scrip on the Pipe Spring tract was rejected on April 15, 1920, "for conflict with the withdrawals and for other reasons. The evidence of assignment from Daniel Seegmiller to the applicants [sic] was not sufficient." On December 10, 1920, Heaton's case "was transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior on appeal and has not since been returned," stated Spry. [406] Oddly, the fact that Assistant Secretary Edward C. Finney denied Heaton's appeal on June 6, 1921, and that Heaton had filed a motion for a rehearing of the case was not brought out by Spry in his memorandum to Cammerer. [407] It is also worthy of note that the date of Finney's denial of Heaton's application - June 6, 1921 - is exactly the same date that Director Mather wrote to Commissioner Burke about his interest in making Pipe Spring a national monument.

On May 29, 1923, Mather transmitted a form of the proclamation establishing Pipe Spring National Monument to Secretary Work. The transmittal included the proclamation, a draft letter to the President recommending its establishment, and three other memoranda: a copy of Commissioner Spry's memorandum of May 23 to Cammerer (cited above), Commissioner Burke's May 28 memorandum (also cited above), and a memorandum from Mather himself. The memorandum from Mather is quoted in full below:

Attached letter to the President transmits form of proclamation for the establishment of the Pipe Spring National Monument, Arizona.

There is attached memorandum from the Commissioner of the General Land Office relative to the Pipe Spring property in Arizona. It will be noted that on March 3, 1920 Chas. C. Heaton and the Pipe Spring L. S. Company filed application to locate the Valentine Script [sic] on the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec. 17, which is the area to be established as the National Monument. The application has been held for rejection for conflict with the prior withdrawals and on December 10, 1920 the record was transmitted to the Secretary on appeal and has not since been returned to the General Land Office.

I have personally visited Pipe Spring several times and realize the desirableness of having this area established as a National Monument for the benefit of motorists traveling between Zion and Grand Canyon Parks. I have interested a number of Utah's representative citizens in this matter and have secured promise from the claimants of the property to sell it to myself and associates for $5,000. It is my intention, when this purchase has been completed, to have the claimants withdraw their application now pending on the appeal in order that the National Monument proclamation may be made effective.

[signed, Stephen T. Mather]
Director

At the suggestion of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs a clause has been inserted in the proclamation, giving the Indians of the Kaibab Reservation the privilege of utilizing the waters of Pipe Spring for irrigation, stock watering and other purposes under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. [408]

Secretary Work transmitted the proclamation to President Harding on May 29, 1923, with the following memorandum, quoted in full:

There is enclosed form of proclamation to establish the Pipe Spring National Monument, Arizona, reserving 40 acres on which are located Pipe Spring and an early dwelling place, which was used as a place of refuge from hostile Indians by the early settlers. Pipe Spring, first settled in 1863, was the first station of the Deseret Telegraph in Arizona. The spring affords the only water on the road between Hurricane, Utah, and Fredonia, Arizona, a distance of 62 miles, which is the direct route from the Zion National Park, Utah, to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. It is an oasis in the desert lands and with the increasing motor travel between the two National Parks, it is highly desirable that this area be established as a National Monument.

I have, therefore, to recommend that you sign the enclosed form of proclamation. [409]

President Harding signed the proclamation establishing Pipe Spring National Monument on May 31, 1923. A copy of Presidential Proclamation No. 1663 establishing the monument and accompanying map depicting the monument's boundary is attached to this report as Appendix II. It states that the monument "affords the only water" between Hurricane and Fredonia, "a distance of 62 miles;" that Winsor Castle was used as a place of refuge from hostile Indians by early settlers; that it was the first station of the Deseret Telegraph in Arizona; and that, "...it appears that the public good would be promoted by reserving the land on which Pipe Spring and the early dwelling place are located as a National Monument, with as much land as may be necessary for the proper protection thereof, to serve as a memorial of western pioneer life..." [410]

The details of the sale and transfer of the Pipe Spring property to the federal government were still to be worked out. [411] While Pipe Spring had been proclaimed a national monument, the Heaton family still owned it, or - in the eyes of the Office of Indian Affairs - they still maintained their claim to ownership of Pipe Spring. Mather worried that the Heatons might not continue caring for the property so he had B. L. Vipond contact the Office of Indian Affairs to investigate the possibility of having the Kaibab Reservation superintendent look after the place to prevent vandalism. [412]

In July 1923 Mather's assistant, Arthur E. Demaray, led a congressional delegation to Pipe Spring in hopes of obtaining funds for the fort's restoration. (Mather was ill at the time and was directed by his physician not to make the trip.) Representative Louis C. Cramton of Michigan, chairman of the subcommittee for Interior Department appropriations, accompanied the group. When they arrived at Pipe Spring on July 1, an angry Charles C. Heaton met them. Apparently, Dr. Farrow had been to the fort at some point prior to this time to check on it, as requested by his superiors. Heaton thought that Farrow had come to the monument to oust John White, his caretaker, and to take over the administration of the site. Neither Heaton nor other local ranchers liked or trusted Farrow, given his six-year history of vigorously defending the interests of the reservation's Kaibab Paiute. Heaton had also received word of the last-minute clause inserted into the proclamation at the insistence of Commissioner Burke giving the Kaibab Paiute the "privilege" of using Pipe Spring water. Heaton feared that if left in charge of the monument, Farrow would take all the water for the Indians. Heaton informed Demaray and the accompanying delegation that he would not sell Pipe Spring unless assured that White would be retained as caretaker. He also told them that he had sold some of the water rights to local ranchers, and that this sale had to be recognized prior to his selling the property to the government. When Demaray told Heaton he could make no such promises, the argument intensified. Representative Cramton then declared he could not accept Heaton's demands and added that, under the circumstances, he would not promise any money for improvements and restoration. Mather's hope that this trip would result in funding for his "pet project," was thus unexpectedly dashed. In late July Mather made a partial concession to Heaton's demands by agreeing to let White and his family continue to live at Pipe Spring until the end of 1923. [413]

The unpleasant confrontation that occurred on July 1, 1923, at Pipe Spring exemplifies the realities and conflict involved in the final process of the sale and transfer of Pipe Spring to the federal government. Government agencies, represented by the National Park Service and the Office of Indian Affairs, had conflicting goals to a great degree. The national monument was established to preserve and interpret the historic site for future generations. The Park Service also had to take into consideration the needs of the traveling public. The reservation was established on behalf of the Kaibab Paiute and its agents had the responsibility for protecting the interests of the Indians. Charles C. Heaton, on the other hand, represented both the interests of the Heaton family and those of other cattlemen with a continuing interest in Pipe Spring water.

Reasons for the Establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albright: Oh, the Mormon fort, Pipe Springs.

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

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

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

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

Hosmer: It was given to the Parks?

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

Hosmer: They all bought it?

Albright: Bought it.

Hosmer: Why did Mather want that?

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

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

Bryce Canyon Declared a National Monument

On June 4, 1923, the day after Governor Mabey's party returned to Salt Lake City, John T. Oldroyd announced Utah's decision to sell Union Pacific 21.61 of the 40 acres at Bryce Canyon's rim that UP had desired to purchase and to lease 138.39 acres to the company. [424] While UP had offered to pay $2.50 per acre, the state requested $25 per acre; UP had offered to lease land at 25 cents an acre, the state countered with a request for $1 an acre. Other stipulations were included, primarily that a road right-of-way (ranging from 100 to 200 feet in width) was reserved along the rim and that the company was not to charge the public for water. This counterproposal was put forth by the state as being more in the public's best interest. [425] Union Pacific was given 30 days to respond.

On the same day the state of Utah made its Bryce Canyon counterproposal to Union Pacific, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article entitled "Scenic Utah to Be Viewed." The article, whose main focus is an upcoming trip to the region by Mather and an influential U.S. Congressman, references the National Park Service Director's opposition to the selling of Bryce Canyon land to Union Pacific. Buried halfway through the piece was an announcement about the establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument. Excerpts are cited below:

Stephen T. Mather, director of national parks, and Representative L. C. Crampton [sic] of Michigan, chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations...will make an extended tour through the park region of southern Utah in about a month.... [426]

The visit is calculated to encourage greater liberality in congress toward Zion park and the north rim highway, and incidentally, may encourage the move to have Bryce Canyon made a national park.

Mr. Mather, seeing the possibility of having congress create the Bryce Canyon national park, is hopeful the state of Utah will not make an outright sale of its lands on the rim of Bryce Canyon to the Union Pacific, but, instead, lease those lands as lands are leased in national parks....

On the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, President Harding has established by proclamation the Pipe Springs [sic] national monument, containing forty acres. The monument was created primarily for the benefit of motorists traveling between Zion National Park and the north rim of the Grand Canyon, as it contains the only pure water along the road between Hurricane, Utah and Fredonia, Arizona, a distance of sixty-two miles. [427]

The article provided a brief history of the fort then added the following information:

At present there are two old stone buildings and it is planned to have the old fort restored as it was formerly, with a wall connecting the two buildings.

Pipe Springs is within the Kaibab Indian reservation and is involved in certain private claims. It is the intention of public-spirited citizens in Utah to recompense the present claimants for improvements made, in order that the Department of the Interior may take over the active administration of the monument. [428]

On June 1, 1923, Utah state officials (including Governor Mabey, Congressman E. O. Leatherwood, John T. Oldroyd and others), Union Pacific's Parks Engineer Samuel C. Lancaster, and reporters from four newspapers departed in three automobiles from Salt Lake City on a three-day, 600 mile driving trip to Bryce Canyon by way of Richfield and other Sevier County communities. It was reported that the trip was made for the purpose of conducting "a study of road conditions and of development of scenic resources of southern Utah, with particular reference to the plans of the Union Pacific railway in that direction..." [429] The trip's primary focus was to enable concerned parties to assess the situation at Bryce Canyon with regards to UP's request to buy land for its developments and to come to some mutually acceptable agreement. [430] They met on June 2 at Bryce Canyon with UP's solicitor George H. Smith, Randall Jones, and others to discuss the proposed land purchase and hotel site. Lancaster was later lauded as the engineer in charge of the Columbia River Highway, "the greatest scenic highway in the world, and who...may yet supervise construction of a still greater highway connecting the scenic wonderlands of southern Utah," proclaimed one Deseret News] reporter. [431]

On June 8, 1923, President Harding created Bryce Canyon National Monument by Executive Order No. 1664. Since the monument was located within Powell (formerly Sevier) National Forest, it was placed under the administration of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service (unlike the Park Service) had funds available to build roads, reported the Salt Lake Tribune, which also reported that the monument could possibly be converted to national park status "within a few years." [432] Events leading up to and surrounding the establishment of Utah's Bryce Canyon National Monument appear to have been considerably more publicized than those connected to the establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument, perhaps because development plans for the entire region hinged so heavily on Bryce Canyon. At the time of its creation, provisions were made to elevate Bryce Canyon to national park status once 640 acres of land within its boundaries, owned by the state of Utah and Union Pacific, were turned over to the federal government in exchange for other public lands. Years would pass before Union Pacific was willing to give up its holdings. [433]

On June 27, 1923, President Warren G. Harding paid an official visit to Zion National Park. The stop was one of several scheduled during his trip to the West and to Alaska. His entourage included Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work, Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. Wallace, Secretary of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover, and all of their wives. Speaker of the House of Representatives Frederick H. Gillett and U.S. Navy Admiral Hugh Rodman were also in attendance, along with about 70 other public officials and newspaper reporters. Utah officials included Governor Mabey, President Heber J. Grant, and Senator Reed Smoot. On the same day, the Union Pacific officially opened its 33-mile spur line from Lund to Cedar City with President Harding's special train. The spur line created a new railhead for tourists visiting southern Utah's scenic attractions. In bidding farewell to a group of original Latter-day Saint settlers gathered in Cedar City, Harding made the following speech:

I have today viewed the greatest creations of the Almighty in the majestic natural wonders of Zion National Park. It has inspired me with a deeper religious conviction.

I am acquainted with pioneer stock. It has made the United States. By the difference between the arid and cultivated sections I can read the story of your work. To you men and women who came with your families in covered wagons into this country when the water still flowed through its natural gorges, the nation owes a debt of gratitude. I am the first President of the United States to come and express that gratitude but I feel sure when I tell of this trip to my successors all future Presidents will come to visit this country of wonders. [434]

25. President Warren G. Harding at Angel's Landing, Zion National Park, June 1923 (Courtesy Union Pacific Museum, image 3321).

In fact, Harding had just recently demonstrated his appreciation for Utah's "pioneer stock" less than one month prior to this speech by authorizing the establishment of Pipe Spring National Monument. It is unknown if he made public reference to Pipe Spring during his whirlwind tour through southern Utah. In addition to Zion, Harding also visited Yellowstone and Yosemite on his tour. President Harding never returned home from this trip. On his way back from Alaska, he died suddenly in San Francisco on August 2, 1923. In a June 30, 1923, Salt Lake Tribune article entitled, "Bryce is Made U.S. Monument," it was reported that the U.S. State Department made public the proclamation establishing Bryce Canyon National Monument on June 29, only two days after Harding's stop in southern Utah. (One can only speculate that the announcement was held off so that Harding could have the pleasure of personally announcing the historic event during his trip to southern Utah.) The article references the impact Bryce Canyon's new status would have on road development in the area:

Unlike other national monuments, which are under jurisdiction of the Interior Department, Bryce Canyon is placed under control of the Department of Agriculture, which in effect, means under the Bureau of Forestry. And in view of the limited appropriations available for the National Park Service, this is a fortunate move, for the Forest Service has on hand a lump sum for the building of roads, and now that it had been given full jurisdiction over Bryce Canyon, will at once begin the construction of both roads and trails... [435]

In another article of the same date, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that the cutting of timber for construction of a $300,000 hotel at Zion National Park had begun. During 1923 the National Park Service granted the Utah Parks Company the concession for touring accommodations in Zion, Bryce Canyon, and the Grand Canyon's North Rim. [436] Engineer Samuel C. Lancaster was placed in charge of Union Pacific's development program in southern Utah. [437]

On July 2, 1923, the Deseret Evening News reported that an agreement had been reached between Union Pacific and the state of Utah on the terms of sale at Bryce Canyon. Forty acres was to be sold to UP "with the reservation that the company will deed back the original reservation along the rim desired by the state." [438] Union Pacific was to pay $25 acre, with the remainder of state section lands it wanted leased for 25 years at 50 cents an acre. The company was also granted a 25-year renewal option. The next day's Salt Lake Tribune reported that the agreement between the state and Union Pacific assured UP's commitment to development of hotel and water there. [439] Nineteen of the 40 acres sold to UP were deeded back to the state. On September 25 the Utah Parks Company purchased Ruby S. Syrett's improvements at Bryce Canyon, along with water rights for $10,000. [440]

"Shall We Go This Way, or That Way?" - Officials Decide Best Route for Tourists

26. Church President Heber J. Grant at Angel's Landing, Zion National Park, undated (Courtesy Union Pacific Museum, image 557).

By 1923 primitive but passable auto roads reached Zion National Park, Kaibab National Forest, the Grand Canyon's North Rim, Bryce Canyon National Monument, and Cedar Breaks. Some routes, however, were either circuitous or had to be retraced in order to go from one park to another. Popular demand grew for improved roads, as well as for shorter, more direct routes. In 1923 both the Federal Bureau of Public Roads and the Utah State Road Commission intensified their study of the problem of linking southern Utah's scenic wonders with those of northern Arizona. In June 1923 Bureau of Public Roads District Engineer B. J. Finch and Utah State Road Engineer Howard C. Means met in southern Utah to conduct a five-day investigation of available routes in the region. The men's objective was to determine a way to link Kanab (the Kane County seat) with the business centers of south-central Utah, the railroad at Cedar City or Marysvale, and the Federal Highway System. There were three aspects to the problem, Finch wrote in his later report: 1) economic considerations, which had to do with the difficulty of providing a road to and from Kanab that could be traveled year round and its consequent effects on development of all of south-central Utah; 2) social considerations, which had to do with the possibility of improving life in the isolated communities east of Zion Park and south of Panguitch; and 3) scenic considerations, in that any improvement of the transportation conditions would make more accessible the points of interest in southern Utah and increase the number of people who would see its scenic wonders.

In June 1923 Kanab could be reached only by two routes, one from Marysvale via Panguitch, and the other from Cedar City via Andersons Ranch, Toquerville, Hurricane, and Fredonia. The first route involved crossing a summit (7,150-foot elevation) south of Panguitch, a route blocked by snow at least four months of the year and often impassable for another two months due to melting snow, muddy road conditions, or inadequate maintenance. If one got beyond this point, the Mt. Carmel-Kanab portion of the road crossed what was then known all over Utah as "the Sands of the Desert." Recent county road improvements had made this 17-mile stretch passable for automobiles within the previous two years. [441] The second route to Kanab from Cedar City posed its own set of problems, although it started out well enough. The portion from Cedar City to Andersons Ranch, known as the Arrowhead Trail, lay on the approved Federal Highway System. The section from Andersons Ranch to Toquerville was the route taken by travelers to Zion National Park. The Toquerville-Hurricane portion passed through irrigated farmland, then ascended 1,500 feet up the Hurricane Cliffs before running southeast toward Short Creek. From the Arizona state line, Coconino County had rebuilt the road to Utah's border for a distance of 15-20 miles. Finch commented that the new Arizona road was poorly located ("The previous location of the road in Arizona was much better..."), climbing a long, narrow dugway to the top of Cedar Ridge then "twisting and turning in all directions over rocks and ridges until it joins the former road." Neither this new route nor the original one "has been anything more than passable," Finch reported. [442] In fact, the Cedar City-Kanab road was so fraught with problems that Kane County had recently expended $40,000 to improve the alternate Marysvale-Kanab route. [443]

Economics aside, Finch remarked,

From the social standpoint the isolation of these Kane County communities is most pronounced. We found that a large percentage of the population had not been beyond the County line in years. Many of the younger generation have never seen a railroad.... An all the year round road to the railroad would bring new blood into these communities and stimulate those already there to a greater activity. [444]

From the standpoint of scenery and tourism he added,

In no other State is there to be found in so small a space three such scenic attractions as Cedar Breaks, Zion Canyon and Bryce Canyon. Add to these the North Rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona and the combination becomes greater in attraction to sightseers than any other part of the United States within a similar area. But the means of reaching these points of interest is over the two routes [just] described.... The round trip from one to the other cannot be made without more hardship than the average tourist will endure. [445]

27. Utah Parks Company map of southern Utah and northern Arizona, ca. 1923 (Courtesy Union Pacific Museum). (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

For the purpose of finding an all-Utah, year-round route, engineers Means and Finch spent June 19 and June 20, 1923, in Orderville and Mt. Carmel interviewing Kane County commissioners and others familiar with the outlying territory. They were convinced by these informants (and by their own later observations) that the Cedar City-Kanab route south of the Virgin River (the one Mather had counted on to get tourists to the Grand Canyon via Pipe Spring) was impracticable. "This territory is so broken and faulted that any further investigation on that side was given up," Finch reported. [446] They explored the region west of Mt. Carmel by horseback, accompanied by county commissioners. The men then drove an auto from Kanab to Hurricane by way of Fredonia, observing the dismal road conditions described earlier.

On the morning of June 20, Means and Finch drove from Hurricane to Zion National Park where they spent the day riding horseback, exploring Pine Creek Canyon with John Winder of Springdale. They also walked portions of the route, at one point accompanied by Superintendent Walter Ruesch. "This is the only side canyon emptying into the Little Virgin of sufficient length to give promise of possibility of the necessary grade development," Finch observed. The men continued their investigations on June 22, concluding that there was indeed a feasible route from Zion to Mt. Carmel, one that would be no more than 25 miles long. Only six miles would entail heavy expense, Finch estimated, a section in which tunnels would be required to pierce the wall at the upper end of Pine Creek Canyon. The new road would shorten the distance from Cedar City to Kanab by 12 miles. An impressive 93 miles would be saved in traveling from Cedar City via Zion to Bryce Canyon. The driving distance from Cedar City to the North Rim was about the same, 186 versus 187 miles.

On June 25, 1923, Means and Finch presented their study findings and recommendations to Utah's State Road Commission Chairman Preston G. Peterson and State Road Commissioner Henry H. Blood. The two state officials viewed the Zion-Mt. Carmel road as a "very promising proposal," the newspapers reported the following day. [447] From this preliminary survey by Means and Finch evolved the route that later became the famous Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway.

While one source stated there was a great deal of skepticism by private citizens and public officials about the proposed Pine Creek Canyon route, there were a number of factors in its favor. [448] First (and perhaps most influential), being within park boundaries its construction would be completely federally funded. Second, this route had been promoted by Union Pacific as part of its planned circle tour since at least 1921. Thus, only one month after Pipe Spring National Monument had been designated by President Harding, its fate was irrevocably altered by an informal decision by Means and Finch (heartily supported by commissioners of Kane County) to recommend construction of a road that would divert tourist traffic across Zion National Park to Mt. Carmel, then southward via Kanab and Fredonia to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Nevertheless, it was well known that the new route across Zion National Park would be years in the making. Stephen T. Mather, along with local and state officials and tourism boosters, continued to focus their efforts on providing at least temporarily serviceable routes to link together the outstanding tourist attractions of southern Utah and northern Arizona. Pipe Spring National Monument was a one of those attractions.

A Deal Is Struck at Pipe Spring

In September 1923 Mather planned a 10-day trip through southern Utah and northern Arizona. The trip was planned to coincide with the September 12 dedication of the new Union Pacific spur line from Lund to Cedar City, completed in June. Mather was scheduled to take part in the ceremonies. Mather's friend, Francis P. Farquhar of San Francisco, was invited along; he also assisted in making preparations for the trip and acted as the official record keeper. Farquhar wrote Jonathan Heaton shortly before the scheduled trip and informed him the Mather party would be visiting Pipe Spring on September 7 and inquired if they might spend that night as the Heatons' houseguests in Moccasin. If the Heatons could not keep them, Farquhar wrote, would he kindly ask "the Indian Agent at of the Kaibab Agency" (Dr. Farrow) to accommodate them? [449] Without delay Heaton replied, "We will be pleased to take care of Mr. Mather and party at Moccasin." [450]

Farquhar's daily journal of the trip records that on September 3 he and Mather traveled from San Francisco by rail to Salt Lake City where they were met James W. Good and A. W. Harris, President of Harris Trust Company, both of Chicago, at the Hotel Utah. Horace Albright and Senior Landscape Architect Daniel R. Hull met them there. Three other Utah officials joined the group that Mather addressed in the Hotel Utah that day: Dan S. Spencer (Union Pacific), Lawrence Maringer (Salt Lake Transfer Company), and Church President Heber J. Grant. Albright returned to Yellowstone that evening while Mather, Good, Harris, Farquhar, and Hull rode the Union Pacific night train to Lund, arriving in Cedar City the following morning.

28. Charles and Maggie Heaton with 8 of their 10 children in Moccasin, Arizona, September 1923. Back row, left to right: C. Leonard, Charles, Maggie, Jennie, Clifford (far right). Front row, left to right: Grace, Grant, Kay with baby Kelly (Melvin K.), and Richard. (Courtesy National Archives, Record Group 79).

There Walter Morse, who had driven Mather's 1917 Packard from San Francisco, met the Mather party. The same day (September 4), Morse chauffeured the five men to Zion National Park, which they toured for two days. On September 6 they drove by way of Hurricane from Zion to Pipe Spring. Mather found caretaker John White at the fort. The party visited that day with Dr. Farrow and his family at the Kaibab Agency, then with members of the Jonathan Heaton and Charles C. Heaton families in Moccasin. Farquhar took photographs during these visits. (He could not resist noting in his log that Jonathan Heaton had 26 children by his two wives, 15 sons and 11 daughters, and "unnumbered grandchildren.") On September 7 Farquhar reported, the party traveled to the North Rim, then returned to Pipe Spring for further inspection of the site and for a conference with the Heatons over terms of sale of the property. Farquhar later described the scene at Pipe Spring that day:

Mr. Mather sat on the wall with the Heatons and worked out the terms under which the Heatons would dispose of their interest in the property. Mr. Mather turned to me and said: 'Francis, you have heard what has been said. Make a note of it and we will write it out more fully later on.' So I took the first piece of paper that came to hand and jotted down the notes in pencil. [451]

29. Jonathan and his plural wife, Lucy Elizabeth (Carroll) Heaton in Moccasin, Arizona, September 1923. The couple had 10 children. (Courtesy National Archives, Record Group 79)

30. Jonathan and his first wife, Clarissa Amy (Hoyt) Heaton, September 1923. They had 15 children and maintained a home in Alton, Utah. (Courtesy National Archives, Record Group 79).

Farquhar recorded the following memorandum in the presence of Mather and the Heatons. He read the agreement back to them, whereby it was approved by all:

It is understood that one-third of the water supply was disposed of on August 26th, 1920 to cattlemen of Kane, Washington and Iron Counties. The water was to be taken from the Tunnel Spring first. [452]

The Heatons will let the place go for $5,000.

The Heatons will donate toward the purchase price the sum of $500 provided the people of Kane and Washington Counties will donate $500. If the $500 is not raised from the Counties the Heatons will stand the whole $1,000.

It is understood if the [Valentine] script [sic] is sold the Heatons will get proportionate shares of the amount they have donated. [453]

Farquhar also noted, "Pinckley [sic] and Gov. Hunt [plan] to look the place over and meet with Heaton on restoration" (reference is to Southwestern National Monuments Superintendent Frank Pinkley and Arizona's Governor George W. P. Hunt). Thus the purchase terms of the Pipe Spring property were negotiated more than three months after Pipe Spring was proclaimed a national monument. A letter written 24 years later by Farquhar to Zion's Superintendent Charles J. Smith reported that those at the signing of this 1923 agreement included Jonathan Heaton and "several of his sons." (The photograph Farquhar took suggests four of his sons were present.) A number of photographs were taken by Francis P. Farquhar. Photographs 28-30 were probably taken on September 6 and photographs 31-33 on September 7, 1923. Mather's tour continued on after the Pipe Spring meeting to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. From there the group traveled to Kanab, Bryce Canyon, and Cedar Breaks before returning to Cedar City on the night of September 11. [454] After participation in the town's "Old Home Celebration" the following day, Mather traveled by rail to Yellowstone while Harris and Good returned to Chicago. Morse and Farquhar drove the Packard back across the Nevada desert to San Francisco. The following month, Farquhar sent copies of photographs taken during the trip to D. S. Spencer for Union Pacific's collection. In addition, he sent Pipe Spring photos to five Heaton women in St. George, and to Jennie Heaton and Myrtle White of Moccasin. [455] Farquhar forwarded copies of photographs taken during the Moccasin visit and Pipe Spring meeting along with copies of his handwritten and typed agreement to Zion National Park's Superintendent Charles J. Smith in July 1947. Many are included in this report.

31. Mather standing on wall of west cabin with the Heatons, Pipe Spring, September 1923 (Courtesy National Archives, Record Group 79).

32. View of Pipe Spring fort, taken from the north, September 1923 (Courtesy National Archives, Record Group 79)

33. Jonathan Heaton and four sons, September 1923. From left to right: Charles, Jonathan, and Fred; two at right are either Ed, Chris, or Sterling (Courtesy National Archives, Record Group 79).

The Heatons Have Second Thoughts

One of the most unusual circumstances surrounding the creation of Pipe Spring National Monument is the fact that by the time the monument was officially established, Mather had not formally worked out the terms of how the Pipe Spring tract was going to be purchased from the Heaton family. [456] The fact that he proceeded with having the monument established prior to the government obtaining legal ownership is evidence of the high level of confidence he placed in the cooperative actions of other interested parties, including the Heatons, Union Pacific supporters, Church officials, and the Office of Indian Affairs. (What appears to have driven his sense of urgency in the matter, as mentioned earlier, was the timing of President Harding's trip and the trip to Pipe Spring by a congressional delegation immediately following this trip. Mather wanted the monument established in order to appeal to this delegation for funding the fort's restoration.) The Pipe Spring property remained under the private (albeit disputed) ownership of Charles C. Heaton for another 11 months after the monument's establishment. What Mather could not have foreseen was the mounting level of antagonism and distrust between local cattlemen and the reservation's Superintendent Farrow, primarily (but not exclusively) over the issue of water. While relations had never been very good, tensions were most certainly heightened during the early 1920s due to the frustrated efforts of the Heaton family and several others to obtain legal title to thousands of acres within the reservation and their foot-dragging at the Agency's demands that they remove fencing from those lands. [457]

A series of events transpired within months of the monument's establishment which very nearly threatened to capsize all the carefully laid plazns of Director Mather, Church officials, and Union Pacific representatives to establish Pipe Spring National Monument. The terms for sale of the Pipe Spring tract had been established during Mather's September 1923 meeting with the Heatons at Moccasin and Pipe Spring, referenced earlier. The Heatons wanted to preserve the monument along with the cattlemen's water rights, but weren't willing to entirely give the property away. The Heatons promised to contribute $500 toward the $5,000 price tag "provided the people of Kane and ashington Counties will donate $500," stated the agreement; "If the $500 is not raised from the Counties, the Heatons will stand the whole $1,000." It is clear that the Heatons were willing to make a significant sacrifice, both to see the site made into a monument and to see the property not fall into the hands of the Indian Office, which was sure to happen if they lost their case on appeal. The Union Pacific System contributed $1,000, as did the Church. Mather gave $500 of his own personal funds toward the purchase. The challenge was to raise the additional funds. Mather had approached both Lafayett Hanchett and President Heber J. Grant to ask for their assistance. While the two men were largely successful, only $3,000 had been collected by December 5, 1923, when Union Pacific made its $1,000 contribution. Still $500 short of the goal, Mather wrote to Ole Bowman of Kanab to inquire about donations from Kane and Washington county cattlemen. [458] Bowman replied that he was unaware that anything was being done to raise the money. [459]

About the same time, Charles C. Heaton learned the final $500 had not been raised. He then informed President Grant that he was willing to donate the cattlemen's $500 in addition to the $500 he had pledged. He also told Grant that he had drawn up a quitclaim deed by which the National Park Service would get two-thirds of the Pipe Spring tract while the remainder would be held by local ranchers, "that is one-third of the water and enough land for corrals in handling cattle." [460]

This was an unexpected turn of events. Why was Heaton going back on the September 1923 agreement and setting new conditions for the sale of Pipe Spring? It appears that Heaton and the other cattlemen had reason to suspect that Dr. Farrow, staunch representative of the interests of the Kaibab Paiute, intended to terminate the cattlemen's rights to water from Pipe Spring at some point in the near future. Heaton was simply trying to insure that the upcoming sale and transfer of title to the federal government did not compromise the cattlemen's interests regarding stock water and corrals at Pipe Spring. The agreement made at Pipe Spring in September 1923, whereby Mather acknowledged the cattlemen's right to one-third of the water at Pipe Spring, was no longer sufficient guarantee for Heaton and the stockmen, given the threats they perceived in Farrow's actions.

The land division proposed by Heaton's description of the quitclaim deed surprised President Grant who notified Mather of Heaton's change of mind. Mather telegramed Grant on January 4, 1924, to say Heaton had evidently misunderstood the water agreement they had made. The Park Service wanted a deed for the entire 40 acres without additional conditions. Mather instructed Grant to "please defer payment." [461] Mather was unable to attend to the Pipe Spring matter for another month, due to other work and travel. Upon his return in February, Mather wrote Heaton to firmly reject his new proposal while attempting to reassure Heaton about his concerns.

I have been out in California for a month or two on Park matters and find on my return that things have not finally been settled up as regards the relinquishment of Pipe Springs and the payment to you of the $4,000 by President Grant. Of course, it will be necessary for you to give a clear title or relinquishment for the entire Pipe Springs ranch, not the two-thirds as stated 129.in your letter to President Grant. The United States could not accept partial title to this property.

I plan to work things out so that the cattlemen could use the water of Tunnel Spring as they have been doing. As regards corrals for handling cattle, our plan, as you remember, was to carry the water down some distance away from the buildings so as to avoid the necessity of having corrals at their present location where they would interfere more or less seriously with tourist travel. At the same time, [they] would take away from the attractiveness of the spot after it was properly developed.

As regards the pipeline, you will remember that we figured that the water could be handled better if it was carried down a mile or two. [462]

Charles C. Heaton responded to Mather on February 29, 1924, saying that he was only trying to make sure the cattlemen got their one-third share of water. He asked if a public water reserve could be set aside to ensure the cattlemen's access to water from tunnel spring. [463] (On May 31, 1922, Secretary Albert B. Fall had adjusted the boundaries of Public Water Reserve 34, created April 17, 1916. [464] ) Mather responded to Heaton on March 13, promising to take up the matter of a public water reserve with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He hinted, however, that the matter could be complicated as public water reserves could only be created on public lands. Heaton was requesting one be established on reservation lands.

On the same day (March 13, 1924), Mather requested that Commissioner Burke amend the executive order which established the Kaibab Indian Reservation so that a water reserve could be located where Heaton wanted it. [465] On April 8, 1924, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs telegraphed instructions for Supervising Engineer C. A. Engle of the U.S. Indian Irrigation Service in Blackfoot, Idaho, to make an official trip to the Kaibab Indian Reservation. Engle made a two-day visit (April 27-28) and there "investigated conditions affecting the establishment of a proposed public watering place near Pipe Spring." In his five-page report, Engle gave a largely confused and inaccurate historical summary of the property's ownership:

Some time prior to 1888, Pipe Spring and the adjacent land came into the possession of an individual named Valentine and since that time, claims to this tract have been based on the 'Valentine Scrip.' It is doubtful whether there has been such settlement or continuous use of these premises and springs, as to constitute a legal and valid claim to the property, on the part of anyone other than the Indians. As indicated above, it is now, and has been since 1907, part of the lands withdrawn for the Kaibab Indian Reservation....

Mr. Charles C. Heaton, who claims Pipe Springs, Moccasin Springs and a large portion of the Kaibab reservation, has suggested to Director Mather of the National Park Service, that a portion of the Indian reservation a short distance southwest of Pipe Springs be set aside as a public watering reserve. In this connection he suggests the use of Tunnel Springs as a source of supply 130.for the proposed watering place. The land referred to by Mr. Heaton is within the most desirable portion of the reservation not yet claimed by the Heatons and the Tunnel Springs, suggested as a source of water, has been developed by Superintendent Farrow, at considerable expense, for the use of the Indians engaged in stock raising, and also for some white lessees holding grazing permits on the reservation. [466]

Mr. Heaton objects to the use of Pipe Springs and the 40 acre tract for a National Monument as provided for by the Presidential proclamation of May 31, 1923, claiming to have sold a portion of it on August 28, 1920, to stock growers for corral purposes. [467] He therefore suggests the use of another tract of land, as above indicated, to which he at this time, makes no claim.

We are firmly of the opinion that under no circumstances should the proposed public watering reserve be established within the Kaibab reservation. More than 4,000 acres, constituting the most valuable portion of the reservation, and including practically all of the springs, which are the only sources of water supply in this country, are already claimed and used and virtually owned by white people. To take from the Indians any additional land, and especially any of the water supply that has been developed on land not claimed by whites, would constitute a grave injustice and would only lead to endless friction and trouble and possibly to violence between the whites and the Indians...

If the cattlemen have a vested right in this water on the Indian reservation, it should be conveyed to a watering place by means of a pipeline to a point entirely outside and at some distance from the reservation boundary, as indicated on the attached sketch. [468]

Engle recommended that water be piped at least a mile outside the reservation boundary to minimize the possibility of conflict between Indians (or their Agent) and stockmen. A map of the Kaibab Indian Reservation was also produced in connection with Engle's trip and is shown in figure 34.

34. Sketch map showing suggested watering place for local non-Indian cattlemen, May 1924 (Pipe Spring National Monument).

35. Map of Kaibab Indian Reservation, May 1924 (Courtesy Bureau of Indian Affairs). (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

Engle's recommendations were as follows: 1) that immediate steps be taken to "secure a decision as to the ownership of Pipe Springs;" 2) that the rights of the claimant (if proved) be purchased "at any reasonable price;" 3) that the monument be enclosed by a suitable fence; 4) that all water at Pipe Spring "not needed for use in connection with the National Monument be made available for the Indians at Kaibab Reservation;" 5) that the proposed watering place ("the necessity of which is considered doubtful") be established outside the reservation, at least one mile from its boundary at the stock growers' expense; and 6) "that any future proposals to further decrease the size of the reservation and especially to surrender a drop of water originating on the reservation, be firmly rejected." [469]

Engle investigated establishment of a water reserve at Pipe Spring on April 27-28, 1924. Charles C. Heaton executed a quitclaim deed for Pipe Spring to the United States of America on April 28, 1924. Also on this date Heaton withdrew the pending application to locate Seegmiller's Valentine scrip certificate No. E-13 that the Pipe Springs Land & Live Stock Company filed earlier. (The two documents are provided as Appendices IIIa and IIIb of this report.) This is the second, extremely intriguing coincidence of dates that occurs in the Pipe Spring story. [470] Had Engle made his views known to Charles C. Heaton about his opposition to creating a public water reserve at Pipe Spring? Did he share any of his other views with Heaton, all of which were strongly in favor of protecting the rights of the Kaibab Paiute? Was Heaton aware that Engle's report recommended that the Office of Indian Affairs pursue legal ownership of PipeSpring? Did he know that should the Indian Office fail in its attempts to acquire Pipe Spring for the reservation, that they were advised to insist that all water at Pipe Spring not needed for national monument purposes be turned over to the Indians? There is no written evidence that Heaton knew of Engle's views or of the recommendations he intended to make. However, something caused Heaton to finally act, to turn the property over to the National Park Service, in spite of ongoing (and still unresolved) concerns he had expressed to President Grant and Director Mather in December 1923 and early 1924. While Heaton had only the September 1923 agreement to pin the cattlemen's "hat" on, had Engle been successful in encouraging the Office of Indian Affairs to pursue certain goals advantageous to the Kaibab Indian Reservation, the Heatons and the cattlemen would have lost all.

While at Moccasin, Engle examined other conditions pertaining to the reservation and prepared a separate report that he submitted to the Commissioner a day after his first report, on May 14, 1924. Engle's final conclusions to his report are highly illustrative of the challenges faced by the Kaibab Paiute, the U.S. Indian Irrigation Service, and the Office of Indian Affairs with regard to the Kaibab Indian Reservation. These conditions would also be those faced by the National Park Service after it took on the administration of Pipe Spring National Monument. Engle made the following observations:

Many of the Indians on this reservation are thoroughly disheartened, and have lost faith in the desire of the government, and the power and ability of the government, to protect their rights.

Various officials informed them, at the time of the Withdrawal Order of October 15, 1907, and again at the time of the promulgation of the Executive Order of July 17, 1917, that the land included within the boundaries of the reservation was their undisputed possession. Failure on the part of the government to fulfill these promises has caused these Indians to lose faith in the government and has caused lack of respect and confidence in the government officials. Many of them are of the opinion that their reservation will gradually fall into the possession of their white neighbors.

In this connection is should be borne in mind that the Indians lived at or near Moccasin Springs for a long time after the coming of the white settlers, and only moved away when they were forced to do so.

Present conditions and past experience seem plainly to indicate that the Heatons will, in a very few years, be in entire control and virtual possession of the entire reservation by gaining control of the water resources, most of 134.which they already claim or use. It is manifestly a question of either the government or the Heatons vacating.

The fact that the first white settler at Pipe Springs was killed by the Indians, and that it was necessary for later settlers to construct a fort for protection against the Indians, would seem to indicate that the Indians did not willingly submit to the conquest of their lands and springs. [471]

Even though Charles C. Heaton signed the quitclaim deed conveying Pipe Spring to the United States of America in late April, this legal document had yet to be turned over to the government. Mather sensed that immediate action was needed to keep his plans on track and on May 25, 1924, he directed Superintendent Pinkley to go to Pipe Spring in early June. Mather then informed Heaton of the objectives of Pinkley's visit: "Pinkley is going to look into the question of the water hole pretty thoroughly and talk over matters generally with you, as well as seeing the cattlemen and finding out what they will do toward running the water from Pipe down to the proposed water hole and corrals." [472] Mather informed Heaton that Pinkley "may be accompanied by one or two others." He chose not to tell Heaton that Pinkley also planned to meet with Dr. Farrow.

Director Mather had his driver, Walter Morse, drive from Barstow, California, to Needles where Morse met Pinkley on June 1, 1924. (The men were there to investigate the proposed new monument of Mystic Maze.) The following day the two men drove to St. George where Pinkley met with Joseph Snow. Upon Mather's instructions, Pinkley discussed with Snow the general road situation, the Rockville cutoff, and the Pipe Spring water matter. While in St. George, Pinkley received a telegraph that William Reed, chief engineer of the Indian Irrigation Service, would be leaving Washington, D.C., for Cedar City the next day to attend the meeting at Pipe Spring. Pinkley stalled for time in Hurricane and at Zion National Park investigating road matters and trail development. On Saturday, June 7, Morse and Pinkley met Reed at the Cedar City train depot. Dr. Farrow had also driven up from Moccasin in his Ford to meet Reed. Pinkley, Reed, Morse and Farrow dined that evening in the El Escalante Hotel, spending the night in Cedar City. It was decided that the following morning Farrow would drive back to Moccasin alone and that the others (now including Randall L. Jones) would take the Packard and stop at Zion en route to Pipe Spring.

After arriving at Pipe Spring, the group looked around for an hour, then dropped Reed off at Dr. Farrow's office. Jones, Pinkley, and Morse spent the night in the home of Charles C. Heaton. Reed spent the night with the Farrows. Pinkley later wrote Mather of his visit, "I need hardly detail to you the pleasure it was to meet the Heatons, because you have met them yourself and know what fine people they are. We sat up until nearly eleven o'clock that night and then arose early in the morning to resume our talk." [473]

The next morning at nine o'clock (now June 9, 1924), all the men met at Pipe Spring to thresh out the issues. The cattlemen had a five-year permit to graze cattle on the reservation with three years yet to run. Reed said he was not opposed to the cattlemen using tunnel spring water for the life of their grazing permit, but beyond that would not comment. During negotiations, Pinkley determined that Farrow intended to cease issuing cattle permits at the end of the three years and to use the water from Pipe Spring for irrigating Indian lands. He asked him outright if that was the case and Farrow admitted that it was. This revelation frightened Charles C. Heaton, who then could see that any pipeline serving the cattlemen's needs would have to go completely outside the reservation boundary. Reed suggested they go back to Farrow's office to go over records, which they did. (It is doubtful that Heaton accompanied the officials.) Pinkley later reported to Mather,

It was at this time that Dr. Farrow turned his heavy artillery loose by attacking directly the right of the President to legally proclaim the Pipe Springs a national monument. His argument is based on a rider, which he says the Interior Department appropriation bill carried in 1921 or 1922 to the effect that Indian reservation boundaries should not thereafter be changed by executive order. He had already hinted at this once before when we were talking in Cedar City, and I feel sure from the way he talked about it that he is sincere in his belief. Whether he is correct or not I do not pretend to say, but it might be worthwhile to look into the matter and see what there is at the bottom of it, for the Canyon de Chelly lies on an Indian reservation and it looks like we may be asked to make a monument in there in the near future.

Dr. Farrow is very sincere in his belief that the Indian rights are being abused by the white man. The white men seem to have been running cattle on that range since about 1861 and the Indians had no cattle until some time after 1900 when the Government bought them some. By right of use, then, I should think the white men have the prior right to use Pipe Spring for watering cattle. [474]

At some point, Charles C. Heaton told Superintendent Pinkley and Chief Engineer Reed that if the cattlemen could pipe the water from tunnel spring through the reservation to the public domain they would be satisfied. Unfortunately, due to the low price of cattle and having had a bad year, the cattlemen would be unable to raise funds to build the pipeline, reported Heaton. After further discussion, agreement was finally achieved. Pinkley drew up a memorandum to make it official. Dated June 9, 1924, the memorandum states:

At a conference held upon the ground at Pipe Springs, located on the Kaibab Indian Reservation, at which representatives of the National Park Service, of the cattlemen's organization, of Mr. Heaton (claimant of Pipe Springs), Mr. Jones of the Cedar City, Dr. Farrow and Mr. Reed were present.

The object of this meeting was to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement concerning the use of water from Pipe Springs by the aforesaid association of cattlemen. It was the consensus of opinion and practically agreed upon by those present as being a fair and just solution of the situation that the cattlemen had the acknowledgement of all parties present to an ownership of one-third 136.the waters from these springs and since a permit exists over the adjacent portion of the Indian reserve that they have the right to conduct water to and upon any portion of the land covered by permit during the life of that permit and at the expiration of the permit, if said permit is not renewed, to conduct the water off the reservation. [475]

Pinkley, Farrow, Reed, Jones, and Charles C. Heaton signed the agreement. (While Jones identified himself on the agreement simply as "Citizen," he had ties to the state and local governments, to local business interests, and to Union Pacific.) Charles Heaton represented the interests of the Heaton Brothers of Moccasin (Charles C., Fred C., Christopher C., Edward, and Sterling) and 12 other parties: The Bulloch Brothers, Lehi Jones, and John A. Adams of Cedar City, Utah; Heber J. Meeks and B. A. Riggs of Kanab, Utah; David H. Esplin and Ed Lamb of Orderville, Utah; and E. Foremaster, John Schmutz, John Findlay, Mrs. Andrews, and Ben Sorenson of St. George, Utah. [476]

Superintendent Pinkley considered his Pipe Spring trip a complete success. The objections Dr. Farrow had raised about the monument's establishment, however, created sufficient doubt in his mind so that he wrote the following in his report to Mather: "I told Mr. Heaton that he had probably better hold the papers which you had sent him until he heard from you, thinking that you might want to clear up the question of the legality of the proclamation making the monument before any money was paid over." [477] Pinkley's report was received and promptly responded to by Acting Director Arno B. Cammerer who replied,

The question brought up by Dr. Farrow as to the right of the President to create the Pipe Spring Monument has been looked into. The act of Congress making appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, approved June 30, 1919, (41 Stat., 3), contains the following provision: 'That hereafter no public lands of the United States shall be withdrawn by Executive Order, proclamation, or otherwise, for or as an Indian reservation except by act of Congress.' I think this is what Dr. Farrow had in mind, as there is no similar reference in the Indian appropriation acts for 1921 or 1922. This provision does not prevent the setting aside of a national monument within an Indian reservation by Presidential proclamation as contended by Dr. Farrow, and this is the informal view of the Chief of the Land Section of the Indian Bureau with whom this matter was discussed this morning. Had this question been involved it would have unquestionably have been brought out by the Indian Office at the time the Pipe Spring proclamation was prepared. The monument proclamation was approved by the Indian Office before it was submitted to the Secretary to the President for signature.

In closing I want to congratulate you on the manner in which you handled this rather difficult situation, as the solution worked out is probably the very best that could be accomplished in view of the circumstances. [478]

Conflict over water was not the only source of antagonism between the Indian Agency and the Heatons. Since late 1922, the Office of Indian Affairs had pushed for the Attorney General to take legal action to force removal of unlawful fencing on reservation land. Documentation suggests that efforts toward this end intensified during 1924. On June 25, 1924, in response to a request from the Attorney General, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Francis M. Goodwin sent him a description of the lands within the Kaibab Reservation which were unlawfully fenced by "Charles C. Heaton, et al, of Moccasin." Two areas were fenced, each enclosing a certain amount of cliff. Goodwin stated that the area enclosed by the fencing, including the cliffs, was "something in excess of 4,000 acres of land. [479] As mentioned earlier, the fencing was removed in 1925. [480]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Developments, Late 1924

On October 9, 1923, Mather wrote a letter to Union Pacific's President Carl Gray regarding the company's developments in southern Utah and northern Arizona. While the Commission of Fine Arts in Washington, D.C., had approved plans for the company to build a hotel in Zion, Mather believed that the company's desire to build a large hotel on the floor of Zion Canyon would be "a grave mistake." He outlined the manner in which he wanted to see regional developments proceed:

I believe that the orderly way to do this is to develop the present [Zion] camp to a high degree and, if necessary, build a small hotel to house thirty or forty on the beautiful bench two hundred feet above the camp with its fine outlook on the whole canyon. This would then make it possible for you to concentrate on the transportation system, which is going to be a costly investment at best, and also to make the camp development at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon which is so badly needed. Then, too, at the town of Kanab there should be something in the way of an inexpensive hotel to take the place of the very poor 141.hotel which is not giving service and which is going to militate against the whole circle travel. I think too you should put in a lunch station at Pipe Springs, which we are going right to work to restore to its original basis and intend to make a very attractive spot. Just such an excellent man as you have at the Zion Camp, who is giving a far better service than Wylie ever gave, would be an ideal one to have at Pipe Springs.

It may be a little late to shift around, but I have now made four trips into this country, have studied the situation in the light of my experience in the last eight or nine years with all the National Parks, and am confident that I am on the right track in making these recommendations. I might say that Secretary Work... agrees with my point of view. [492]

Ultimately, the Utah Parks Company abandoned their plans for a large hotel and opted for a central building with small cottages. [493] Zion Lodge and cottages were under construction in 1924, completed in time for the 1925 season. What is interesting to note about Mather's above reference to Pipe Spring is his suggestion that Union Pacific develop a lunch stop facility there and hand-pick their own man to run the operation. Mather was still counting on his excellent working relationship with Union Pacific to provide much-needed visitor services at this very convenient point for a rest stop. In the midst of their crossing a particularly monotonous section of Arizona Strip desert to reach the Grand Canyon, the oasis-like quality of the fort and its ponds and the sight and sound of the running spring water would provide a welcome respite to visitors traveling on Union Pacific's tour buses as well as to individual auto tourists. Their $1,000 contribution toward the purchase of Pipe Spring was evidence of UP's interest in having the site made available to their tours as a rest stop. As events would show, however, Union Pacific wasn't disposed to comply with Mather's suggestion to sink any additional money into Pipe Spring development. Company officials cared little for the uninspiring Hurricane-Fredonia route and had long decided to route their buses across Zion National Park to Mt. Carmel, then directly southward to the North Rim, eliminating Pipe Spring National Monument from their circle tour entirely. They were only biding their time until the completion of the new road. With such plans on the table, why should Union Pacific invest money in a lunch stop at Pipe Spring, even if it was going to be "a very attractive spot"?

The 1924 travel season marked the official beginning of Union Pacific's circle tour which included stops at Cedar Breaks, Zion National Park, Pipe Spring National Monument, Kaibab National Forest, the Grand Canyon's North Rim, and Bryce Canyon National Monument. At this time, the complete tour was still seven days long. Travelers riding in one of UP's new fleet of motor coaches left Zion on the morning of the third day of the tour and arrived at Pipe Spring about four hours later, conveniently at 12:30 p.m., just in time for a leisurely lunch and restroom break. Thus in 1924, by virtue of its location on Union Pacific's tour route from Zion to the Grand Canyon's North Rim, Pipe Spring National Monument received an influx of tourists destined for neighboring scenic attractions. Advertised in Union Pacific brochures, depicted on their maps, listed as a scheduled tour stop, the new monument's future in 1924 appeared very bright indeed.

36. Union Pacific tour map, 1924 (Courtesy Union Pacific Museum). (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

Meanwhile, Utah state road crews were constructing several shortcuts in 1924 for travel use. Perhaps the most important was the Rockville cutoff to Short Creek, later renamed Colorado City. [494] Completed in 1925, this short section of road eliminated the westward trip from Zion back to Hurricane in order to then travel eastward toward Pipe Spring and the North Rim. [495] It would shorten the travel distance from Zion to Pipe Spring by 30 miles. [496] Not surprisingly, the $40,000 steel truss bridge spanning the Virgin River (constructed 1924-1925) was partly financed by a $5,000 contribution from Stephen Mather. [497] In April 1924 Mather telegramed Union Pacific's D. S. Spencer, "I fully understand Utah situation and will take full responsibility for getting cut-off road built." [498] Mather appeared determined to get tourists to the North Rim via the Pipe Spring route and to make the trip as enjoyable as possible.

In mid-July 1924, the Annual Conference of the Western Highway Association was held in Yellowstone National Park. Two sessions held in conjunction with the conference were called especially to consider plans for the further development of the trunk line roads to the southern Utah parks. Attendees included Governor Mabey, Lafayette Hanchett, officials from the Bureau of Public Roads (Deputy Chief Engineer L. I. Hewes, District Engineer B. J. Finch), the National Park Service (Superintendent Horace Albright, Chief Civil Engineer George E. Goodwin), Utah State Road Commission (Henry H. Blood, Henry W. Lunt), as well as State Highway Engineer Howard C. Means and Randall L. Jones. Among the decisions made at this meeting were the following: the Utah State Road Commission agreed to spend $30,000 on the Rockville cutoff road from the Virgin River Bridge (then under construction); a road survey was to be conducted on the proposed road from Zion National Park to Mt. Carmel; the National Park Service agreed to spend $300,000 on the construction of the Zion-Mt. Carmel road; and Deputy Chief Engineer Hewes of the Bureau of Public Roads authorized expenditure of $30,000 of U.S. Forest Service funds to build and surface the road from Fredonia to the Kaibab National Forest. [499] The construction funds for the Zion-Mt. Carmel road promised by Albright and Goodwin were contingent on Congressional approval of the budget for park improvements, an appropriation estimated to be $7.5 million. [500]

Meanwhile, by the fall of 1924, Union Pacific's "Sell 'em Utah" campaign was in full swing. In late November the Salt Lake Tribune reported that $200,000 was to be spent by the company during 1925 to advertise southern Utah's scenic wonders by the issue of 100,000 high-class booklets with colored illustrations of Utah's scenic attractions. [501] In addition, there would be advertising in east and west coast newspapers and national magazines. The article described Utah Parks Company developments at Cedar City, Bryce Canyon National Monument, and Zion National Park. Forty-two rustic cottages had been completed at Bryce Canyon, and another 42 cottages of similar design were under construction at Zion. Transportation facilities for the 1925 season "will be greatly enlarged and improved with the purchase of forty, twelve-passenger automobile buses..." [502]

All in all, remarkable development had taken place in southern Utah from 1923 until the end of 1924. A railhead for tourists had been constructed to transport visitors to Utah's scenic south, two new monuments had been created, hotel and other lodging accommodations had been either completed or would be by the 1925 season, and considerable progress had been made in improving the state's network of roads. Road officials had recommended a route from Zion to Mt. Carmel and the National Park Service promised to fund its construction. Its completion would further cut down the travel time between scenic attractions and enhance the scenic component of the Utah Parks Company's tours. Also worthy of mention, an incredible system of trails had been constructed in Zion National Park "destined to bring fame to Zion as a wonderful trail park," stated Mather in his annual report. [503] Mather now looked toward future development at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Toward this end, the Park Service Director would once again rely on his close alliance with Union Pacific. All of these events bore on the history of newly created Pipe Spring National Monument. Still, no permanent caretaker had been chosen and there was no money to pay one. Until funding could be found for the nascent monument, Pipe Spring would remain as it had been for many years, a quaint place to pass by or to stop on one's journey from one scenic area to another.