Rock Creek Park An Administrative History

The First Vision

The first official interest in creating Rock Creek Park stemmed from dissatisfaction with the White House.

By the 1860s the executive mansion, less hallowed by tradition than it would later become, was judged to have serious shortcomings. As yet unexpanded by wings, the house accommodated offices as well as rooms of state and living quarters, yielding presidents and their families little privacy. The pestilential Washington City Canal along present-day Constitution Avenue disgorged its wastes in the shallows of the Potomac River directly below the mansion grounds (reclamation of the Potomac flats to fill in the Washington Monument grounds and create Potomac Park was a generation away). To escape this crowded and unhealthful situation, President Abraham Lincoln often removed to a cottage at the Soldiers Home, north of the Capitol beyond the old Washington City limits.

On June 25, 1866, the United States Senate directed its Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds "to inquire whether a tract of land of not less than three hundred and fifty acres, adjoining, or very near this city, can be obtained for a park and site for a presidential mansion, which shall combine convenience of access, healthfulness, good water, and capability of adornment." Sensing that it may have overly limited its options, the Senate passed another resolution five days later lowering the minimum size to 100 acres. Then realizing the need for professional landscape gardener or topographical engineer to examine the different tracts of land offered to the committee" and to report on their suitability for the desired purpose. [1]

Sen. B. Gratz Brown of Missouri, chairman of the Public Buildings and Grounds committee, asked Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton to detail a Corps of Engineers officer to the task. The assignment fell to Maj. Nathaniel Michler, a West Point graduate who had been breveted brigadier general for Civil War service. After examining "the many beautiful localities to be found in the vicinity of the capital, and having caused an accurate and detailed survey of its environs to be made," Michler submitted his report to the committee on January 29, 1867. [2]

Departing from the apparent intent of the Senate, Michler chose to separate the subjects of the presidential mansion site and the park. The mansion should be a secluded retreat, he suggested, whereas the park should be generally accessible. His primary interest was evident from the greater attention and eloquence he lavished on the park proposal, beginning with his brief for urban parks in general:

Where so much has been written on so interesting a feature to any large city as that of a park, and where the necessity of public grounds, either for the sake of healthful recreation and exercise for all classes of society, or for the gratification of their tastes, whether for pleasure or curiosity, has become apparent to every enlightened community, it would seem to be unnecessary for me to dilate further upon the matter, to say nothing of the natural or artificial beauties which adorn a park, and so cultivate an appreciative and refined taste in those who seek its shades for the purpose of breathing the free air of Heaven and admiring nature. It certainly is the most economical and practical means of providing all, old and young, rich and poor, with that greatest of all needs, healthy exercise in the open country. To accomplish these ends there should be a spaciousness in the extent of the grounds, not merely presenting the appearance of a large domain, but in reality possessing many miles of drives and rides and walks. There should be a variety of scenery, a happy combination of the beautiful and picturesque--the smooth plateau and the gently undulating glade vieing with the ruggedness of the rocky ravine and the fertile valley, the thickly mantled primeval forest contrasting with the green lawn, grand old trees with flowering shrubs. Wild, bold, rapid streams, coursing their way along the entire length and breadth of such a scene, would not only lend enchantment to the view but add to the capabilities of adornment. While nature lavishly offers a succession of falls, cascades, and rapids to greet the eye, as the waters dash through some romantic dale, the hand of art can be used to transform them into ponds and lakes as they gently glide through the more peaceful valleys What so useful as an abundance of water, or so ornamental when converted into fountains and jets to cool the heated atmosphere? It furnishes, also, opportunities for the engineer and artist to display their taste in constructing ornamental and rustic bridges to span the stream. [3]

The valley of Rock Creek in the District of Columbia, Michler found, lent itself admirably to park treatment:

All the elements which constitute a public resort of the kind can be found in this wild and romantic tract of country. With its charming drives and walks, its hills and dales, its pleasant valleys and deep ravines, its primeval forests and cultivated fields, its running waters, its rocks clothed with rich fern and mosses, its repose and tranquility, its light and shade, its ever-varying shrubbery, its beautiful and extensive views, the locality is already possessed with all the features necessary for the object in view. There you can find nature diversified in almost every hue and form, needing but the taste of the artist and the skill of the engineer to enhance its beauty and usefulness; gentle pruning and removing what may be distasteful, improving the roads and paths and the construction of new ones, and increasing the already large growth of trees and shrubs, deciduous and evergreen, by adding to them those of other climes and countries. [4]

In his further description of the valley, Michler elaborated on how its natural qualities might be improved upon:

Rock creek winds for more than four miles through the centre of the proposed grounds, receiving at the convenient points the waters of the Broad and Piney branches, and several smaller tributaries. For a short distance it courses through a narrow but beautiful valley, then wildly dashes for a mile over a succession of falls and rapids, with a descent of some eight feet, the banks on both sides being bold, rocky, and picturesque; then passes again though narrow valleys or between high, bluff banks. At many points the creek is capable of being dammed, thus forming a series of lakes and ponds for useful and ornamental purposes. The many deep ravines setting in towards it can furnish romantic walks and quiet retreats for the pedestrian. The larger part of the ground is thickly wooded, and capable of great adornment. Here we find the several varieties of oak, the beech, the locust, the mulberry, the hickory, the sassafras, the persimmon, the dogwood, the pine, with a great many shrubs, vines, and creepers Beautiful vistas, artistically arranged, can be cut through them, exhibiting distant points of landscape, while charming promenades can invite the wanderer to seek cooling shades. Nature has been so rich in her vegetable creation that the plan of transplanting trees of large growth, which has been adopted in most of the modern parks, will be unnecessary Here and there some prominent point offers commanding views of the surrounding country, where observatories can be located, conservatories built for exotic plants, and geometrical flower-gardens planted. Back from the stream some level plateaus extend, which can be appropriately employed for zoological and botanical gardens, grounds for play and parade, and many other useful purposes. [5]

Michler urged swift action to acquire sufficient land before it became occupied by "costly suburban villas." He outlined two park alternatives. The first, embracing 2,540 acres, would include several of the Civil War defenses of Washington, "which have become historical, and from the parapets of which extensive views can be had." He estimated the acquisition cost at $508,000. The second, "[i]n case my recommendations should be considered too extravagant," encompassed 1,800 acres at an estimated cost of $360,000. Another $100,000 would be needed initially for enclosing the grounds, improving and repairing existing drives and walks, and constructing others. [6]

Senator Brown immediately introduced legislation to acquire a tract "along and adjacent to Rock creek embraced within the limits and designations of the survey made by Brigadier General N. Michler...for the purposes of a public park, free to all persons under such regulations as to police and government as may by proper authority be established." The bill would constitute a committee of Maj. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, Maj. Gen. Horatio G. Wright, and Michler to negotiate with the landowners and make purchase agreements. The agreements would be subject to congressional approval. The bill provided for no appropriation (nor did it make any mention of a presidential mansion site). [7]

Brown brought his bill to the Senate floor on February 19. "The character of the ground around and adjacent to [Rock Creek] is exactly suited to the purposes we desire," he told his colleagues. "It has running water; it has rugged hills; it has picturesque scenery; it has abundance of varied forest timber; it has a native undergrowth blushing with beauty. It has the tangled vine and the clustering wild-flower, and the quiet mosses gray with age, and indeed a thousand imprints of native adornment that no hand of art could ever equal in its most imitative mood." [8]

Rising to still greater heights of rhapsody, Brown proclaimed the special value of the proposed park to congressmen and government officials:

Those who, for any length of time, have undergone the wear and tear of such life as this, who have all their energies run to brain, and all their souls fused into politics, need not be told that anything which holds out hope of either mental or passional relief is seized upon with avidity. How necessary, then, that all the ennobling influences of nature--the scenic splendor or shifting views, the life and animation of gay concourse, the uprisen majesty of the forest, the intoxicating gladness of spring flowers, the laugh of the heavens through playing branches, the shimmer of the waters, the song of birds, graceful forms, inspirations--should be so abundantly grouped around this nation's capital I would have you, Senators, inaugurate a public park that shall have no rival anywhere for beauty or extent or ornamentation, as it will have none for the illustrious character gathered from a whole continent in the after time to wisely rule our republic from this center of its power.

Like Michler, Brown counseled haste to acquire the land before its increase in value, "now that the uncertainty with which sectional discord and disunion so long threatened the stability of the capital has passed away." The cost would be less than $500,000, he stated--"a mere trifle of expenditure for 'a thing of beauty' which will prove 'a joy forever."' [9]

Not all were moved by Brown's appeal. "We know very well how much below the actual costs of lands that the Government proposes to buy are the estimates that are made beforehand of what they will cost...," Sen. Samuel J. Kirkwood of Iowa retorted. "I think these lands will not cost us much less than a million dollars to begin with, and God knows how many millions it will cost to improve them Let us wait until the country is in a more flourishing condition before we do it." [10]

Although the Senate passed the bill the next day by a vote of 28 to 7, Kirkwood's position prevailed. The House tabled the bill in the last hours of the 39th Congress on March 2. [11] B. Gratz Brown did not return to the next Congress, and the measure was not reintroduced by another champion.

Renewal of Interest

Not until 1883 was sufficient interest generated to revive the Rock Creek park proposal. In that year Capt. Richard L. Hoxie, assistant to the engineer commissioner of the District of Columbia, advocated a park embracing all the Rock Creek region in the District north of the Washington City limits, east of Tenleytown Road (present Wisconsin Avenue), and west of Rock Creek Church Road. Hoxie's plan had a utilitarian basis: the need to increase the city's water supply. To do this, he proposed a major dam across the creek just above Georgetown; it would create a four-mile-long reservoir submerging the portion of the valley later occupied by the National Zoological Park. [12]

That November three prominent civic leaders, William Wilson Corcoran, Justice William Strong, and Josiah Dent, communicated their support of a Rock Creek park to the District commissioners. Their letter recalled Michler's report and the early interest it had stimulated and cited the benefits to New York from Central Park, to Philadelphia from Fairmount Park, and to Baltimore from Druid Hill. Anticipated objections were countered with the "worthless lands" argument often used by early park proponents:

A large part of the grounds needed, though admirable for a public park, is worthless for agricultural or building uses, arid most of it is undesirable for residences, in its present condition; but the establishment of the park would add greatly to the value of the lands surrounding it, would make them very desirable for rural residences, and, in fact, would prove a bonus to the owners of such surroundings. It may be presumed, therefore, they would sell to the city such portions of their lands as may be included in the park for a very moderate price, or even donate them.... [13]

The correspondents urged the commissioners to seek congressional authority for park establishment, and they and others of their class lobbied Congress directly. On June 17, 1884, Sen. Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware introduced a joint resolution "upon the recommendation and continued application of gentlemen well known to us all, large property owners, men of intelligence, of character, and cultivation in this city " Explaining the background of the Michler survey, he said that Frederick Law Olmsted had been enlisted to help revive interest and had prepared the preamble of the resolution. It asserted that Rock Creek valley was ill-adapted to the extension of city streets, which would destroy "passages of scenery of extraordinary interest and public value." [14]

Bayard's resolution called for appointment of a joint committee of three senators and five House members. They would review the Michler report, make further surveys under the direction of the Secretary of War, and report back to the next session of Congress. Wholly tentative in nature, the resolution provided for no appropriation and no further action. It passed the Senate without difficulty, but as with the Brown bill 17 years before, the House did not act. [15]

On June 2, 1886, Sen. John J. Ingalls of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, introduced legislation "[t]o authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to condemn land in Rock Creek for the purposes of a park, to be called Rock Creek Park." The bill would layoff a park not exceeding 1,000 feet wide from Massachusetts Avenue to the District line. The cost would be ascertained by agreements with landowners and condemnation proceedings where necessary; the District commissioners would then report to Congress so that it could decide whether to appropriate the necessary funds. The Senate again approved the bill, which was then referred to the House and recommended by its District committee. [16] But again it was kept from a vote on the House floor.

Senator Ingalls resurrected the measure in the following Congress, and Rep. Jonathan H. Rowell of Illinois introduced a companion bill on January 9, 1888. As reported by the House District committee, Rowell's bill would direct the District commissioners to survey and plat the proposed park. The survey map would be recorded and the land condemned, but no money would be paid unless and until appropriated by Congress. If Congress did not act within two years, all proceedings would be voided. [17]

Rep. John J. Hemphill of South Carolina, House District committee chairman, brought the bill to the floor on August 13. He and other proponents declared the proposed condemnation procedure necessary to fore-stall undue increases in land prices as a result of government interest. They argued that the measure was in effect a fact-finding bill that placed no obligation on Congress should it judge the expense too great. Minimizing the probably cost, they suggested that certain landowners would be willing to donate to the park.

Others were unpersuaded. Their reaction reflected the long-standing hostility to District expenditures of congressmen whose distant constituents benefited little from taxpayer-financed local improvements. "If I gave an opinion I should say it was clearly, very clearly, a plan to commit this Congress to a proposal to expend perhaps a million dollars, more or less..., to secure this creek bed and banks, inclose, protect, and beautify them at the expense of the Government, the primary result being to largely enhance the value of the speculative holdings of the owners of real estate thereabout...," said Rep. Lewis E. Payson of Illinois. Opponents burdened the bill with so many weakening amendments that Hemphill requested and obtained unanimous consent to return it to his committee for revision. [18]

Undiscouraged, the local interests behind the park project redoubled their efforts. That Thanksgiving Day, Charles Carroll Glover, a prominent Washington banker, Capt. Thomas W. Symons, assistant to the District engineer commissioner, and other civic leaders rode through Rock Creek valley. A few days later at Glover's house, Crosby S. Noyes of the Evening Star newspaper presided over a strategy session. There followed a mass meeting at the Atlantic Building on January 11, 1889. Glover, Noyes, F. A. Richardson, George E. Lemon, B. H. Warner, and A. T. Britton were appointed a permanent executive committee to lobby for passage of park legislation. [19]

On January 14 Hemphill introduced a new bill, which his committee reported favorably to the House 12 days later. In addition to the aesthetic argument for the park, the report cited the health hazard that would arise if development and its attendant sewage were not kept away from Rock Creek. The new bill, it noted, set a 2,500-acre limit on land acquisition and specified the same condemnation process recently adopted for obtaining the Library of Congress site across from the Capitol. The House declined to consider the bill, however, and the Senate took no action on Ingalls' bill, reported from committee there on February 15. Hemphill tried but failed to attach his park measure to another pending bill, enacted March 2, 1889, that established the National Zoological Park in Rock Creek valley under the Smithsonian Institution. [20]

Success

Charles Carroll Glover found a new and powerful ally in Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, whom he called upon with a new draft bill supported by his lobbying group. On December 4, 1889, at the start of the 51st Congress, Sherman introduced the bill. Senator Ingalls resubmitted his own bill but deferred to Sherman's version, which the District committee swiftly reported and brought to the floor. The Senate amended its provisions for financing and management, passed the bill on January 28, 1890, and sent it on to the House. [21]

On March 18 the House District committee, now chaired by Rep. William W. Grout of Vermont, recommended House approval of the bill with further amendments. One, inspired by the forthcoming quadricentennial of Columbus's discovery of America, would designate the area "Columbus Memorial Park." Another would have the District of Columbia pay half the park's cost from its revenues. Bringing the bill to the floor a week later, Grout minimized development prospects. He foresaw initial action only to enclose the grounds and to erect over the entrance an arch, whose cornerstone would be laid on the 400th anniversary of Columbus's sailing. "Let future generations, and as opportunities arise, develop this park into a thing of beauty, when there will be a million of souls here, at the end of the next century," he declared. [22]

Opponents were not mollified by the cost-sharing provision and the talk of deferred development. "Mr. Chairman, this city of Washington is growing to be a very expensive necessity to the people of the United States," complained Rep. Daniel Kerr of Iowa. "We are beginning to think, out West, that if the people here want breathing-places they should provide them by taxing themselves, just as Chicago, St. Louis, and other places have done." After lengthy debate, further consideration was postponed until April 28, when Representative Payson introduced and the House adopted a lengthy amendment designed to make benefited adjoining land-owners defray park costs. Even so, the bill was then defeated by a 78-88 vote. Supporters marshaled their forces and brought the measure up again a month later when it passed 107 to 82. [23]

A conference committee was needed to reconcile the different House and Senate versions. The resulting compromise restored the Senate's "Rock Creek Park" designation but in most respects favored the House, whose provisions for assessing neighboring landowners and cost sharing were retained. Senator Ingalls called the latter "an unjust burden upon the already overtaxed resources" of District residents, but as a conferee he supported the committee's product. Both houses approved it on September 25, 1890, and President Benjamin Harrison signed the legislation into law two days later. [24]

The Rock Creek Park authorization came at a significant time in the development of what would later become the National Park System. In 1872 Congress had reserved the first area titled a national park, Yellowstone, "as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people"; its authorizing legislation went on to prescribe regulations to "provide for the preservation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park" and their retention in their natural condition." Not until September 25, 1890--the day Congress completed action on the Rock Creek Park bill--was another permanent national park, Sequoia, authorized. A vast natural wilderness area, Sequoia's kinship with Yellowstone was clear. But the legislation for Rock Creek Park as well as that for Sequoia adopted language from the Yellowstone act. Each was "dedicated and set apart as a a public park or pleasure ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." The protective prescription for Rock Creek, modified slightly from that of the other two areas, called for regulations to "provide for the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, animals, or curiosities within said park, and their retention in their natural condition, as nearly as possible." [25]

Enactment of the Rock Creek Park bill was followed four days later by authorization of two more national parks: General Grant (predecessor of Kings Canyon) and Yosemite. Thus, although not on the scale of these California wilderness preserves and lacking their "national" park labels, Rock Creek Park was part of the first post-Yellowstone influx of natural parks established by the federal government. [26]

The Rock Creek Park act provided for acquisition of no more than 2,000 acres extending north from Klingle Ford Bridge, the northern limit of the National Zoo. It created a commission comprising the chief of engineers of the Army, the engineer commissioner of the District of Columbia, and three presidential appointees to select the land and have it surveyed by the assistant to the engineer commissioner in charge of public highways, who would act as executive officer. Recording of the survey map would constitute condemnation of the included properties. A procedure was prescribed for compensation, requiring the supreme court of the District to appoint another commission to appraise the values of lands whose owners did not accept the prices offered; this valuation when approved by the President would be final. Having ascertained the costs of the lands and related expenses, the park commission was to "assess such proportion of such cost and expenses upon the lands...specially benefitted by reason of the location and improvement of said park, as nearly as may be, in proportion to the benefits resulting to such real estate."

The act appropriated $1,200,000 for all survey, appraisal, acquisition, and related costs, half of which would be reimbursed to the Treasury from District revenues. Likewise, half of the annual appropriations for park improvements and maintenance was to be charged to the District. When established, the park would be jointly controlled by the District's commissioners and the Army's chief of engineers, "whose duty it shall be, as soon as practicable, to lay out and prepare roadways and bridle paths, to be used for driving and for horseback riding, respectively, and footways for pedestrians; and...to make and publish such regulations as they deem necessary or proper for the care and management of the same." [27]

The long legislative battle had been won. But Rock Creek Park existed only on paper. Still more time and toil would be needed to make it a reality.

Pierce Mill with Teahouse Porch (circa 1930)