SITKA Administrative History

Lovers Lane at Sitka National Monument, ca. 1935. (Photo courtesy of Anchorage Museum of History and Art, #B75.134.61)

Overview

This section treats the years between 1910, when a presidential proclamation designated the park as a historical monument, and 1940, when the first National Park Service employee arrived to staff the park. The period encompassed General Land Office custody of the park between 1910 and 1916, National Park Service assumption of responsibility in 1916, and a variety of subsequent management approaches. Significant additions to the park resources during the period included donation of a replica Russian blockhouse by Sitka residents.

Agencies vie for monument control

When Sitka National Monument was created in 1910, the National Park Service had not yet come into being. It took some time to determine which agency would take responsibility for national monuments.

Local interest in the park remained after the Sitka property was assigned monument status. The District of Alaska government also continued its concern for the park, begun when the seat of government was at Sitka between 1884 and 1906. The Alaska Road Commission, originally known as the Board of Road Commissioners for Alaska, also tended to matters in the park. Congress had created the commission within the War Department in 1905 to build and maintain roads in Alaska. An army engineer officer appointed by the Secretary of War and two other army officers drawn from troops stationed in Alaska oversaw the commission's work. [102]

Given Tongass National Forest Supervisor William A. Langille's role in creating the monument, the Department of the Interior might have asked the Forest Service for help in managing the new monument at Sitka. But national-level rivalries between the Departments of Agriculture and Interior were reflected in antagonistic relations between field divisions. [103]

On September 16, 1912, the Secretary of the Interior decreed that A. Christensen, chief of the General Land Office Field Division at Seattle, would superintend all national monuments in Alaska. Christensen, in turn, directed that employees of his office -- located in Seattle -- whenever in the Sitka area, should exercise such supervision as they could over the monument without incurring additional expense. In particular, they were to act "with the object of preventing unauthorized exploration or vandalism, or the removal of relics, and . . . be prepared to report on . . . action in the matter." [104]

First report documents Sitka National Monument

W.J. Lewis, Special Agent of the General Land Office at Juneau, was the first Interior official to visit and report on the new monument. He made two trips to the Sitka in 1912. His report, issued in May of 1913, was both thorough and sensitive to issues that were to remain significant in park management and is there fore quoted here extensively.

Landing from the ship one passes first through the old Russian Custom House, with its walls built of massive hewed logs still in a good state of preservation. Thence past the old log trading post now falling into decay and soon to become a pile of ruins. On the sidewalks sit a number of native women, young and old, with their baskets, their moccasins, and various wares and trinkets spread out before them to catch the eye of the tourist souvenir hunter. The handiwork of the Sitka natives is generally of superior quality, and the price of many of their wares is lower than at other places in Alaska.

The walk to the Park leads through the main street of the town, around the bay about a mile southerly and past the Presbyterian Mission grounds and buildings. The road is firm and clean, about all the mould or mud being washed away, exposing the natural gravel that seems to come almost to the surface.

Entering the Park the road plunges at once into the shadow of the timber. Except for a few little openings where the Totem Poles are planted, the roads and trails all wind about in the timber. The trees are mostly small spruce, not more than 18 inches in diameter, but in among these larger trees is a dense growth of smaller trees, brush, fallen timber, and debris in all stages of decay. This is so dense that one would make very slow progress in attempting to pass through it. Consequently all travel is confined to the roads and trails.

In the immediate vicinity of the water front (see plat), the timber appears to be a reproduction. It is evident that the land here was cleared at one time from the fact that the ground is now free from debris and well grassed among the trees.

At several points along the road one is greeted by those interesting figures in wood, the Totem Poles. Silently they stand, each telling its own story. To understand the Totem it is necessary to be familiar with the history of the family it represents, when it will be seen that each figure or emblem is designed to immortalize some historic event or some noble deed of a member of the family.

Lewis commented in detail on many of the monument's resources.

The totems were in good repair, set in concrete or cement in the summer of 1911 after having originally been set in gravel. Their backs were hollowed out, and he speculated that this had been done to reduce their weight when they were shipped to St. Louis for the 1904 exposition.

Lewis recommended that the poles be painted front and back to help preserve them. He also suggested that "A good NATIVE mechanic" should be employed to replace damaged or missing parts. Figures on some of the poles were broken or missing, eyes and ears were knocked off, and the eyes of some were filled with birdshot.

On the site of the "Native stockade of 1802" four small totems had been set as corner posts in anticipation of a reconstruction of a traditional community house and a giant totem had been located before the prospective door.

The site of the "grave" of the Russian midshipman and six sailors required attention. Sitkans who counted Russians among their forebears were making an effort to raise money to erect a permanent monument there. Only about $45 had been collected.

. . . the natural condition of the ground is in many places most interesting and instructive to the tourist. Along the winding trails near Indian River are found vigorous shrubbery bearing a variety of wild berries and wild currants. Then the portions of the Park in their natural condition offer an exceptional opportunity for the visitor from the States to study the native timber growth, the wild mosses, and the small verdure.

The trails were in good condition, but guide boards needed to be erected at each intersection. These would help visitors to find their way out of the park.

Lewis also commented at length on the museum on the campus of the Sheldon Jackson school. He had been unable to find out if it was owned by the school or by "some historical or ethnological society," but recommended that the federal government acquire its collections.

In my opinion the national Government should try to purchase the collection of relics in the museum at Sitka. The thousands of relics collected and lying indiscriminately in the show cases in this museum should be systematically catalogued, and a careful historical sketch prepared, setting forth the use made of each implement and the function it performed in the social system of the people.

Lewis strongly asserted that serious effort to preserve to posterity the history of Alaska's Native people should not be left to chance, or to the efforts of "some single patriotic individual or patriotic society."

He then summarized his report by recommending that the totem poles be repaired, guide boards be set up, a permanent stone monument be placed at the Russian sailors' "grave," trails be cleared and rehabilitated, and the Sheldon Jackson museum collection be purchased. [105]

While the General Land Office of the Interior Department had official responsibility for the Sitka monument, the War Department's Board of Road Commissioners for Alaska was doing some work in the monument. The board had previously spent $3,500 to build a bridge over Indian River, [106] and it continued expenditures through the years to make repairs to the road through the park. [107]

Appropriations and visitation increase

The Sitka Camp of the Arctic Brotherhood was soon asking that money be appropriated for monument maintenance. This was only the first of a number of instances in which the Sitka camp took an interest in the monument.

The brotherhood, a male fraternal organization, was open to men who had hiked the Chilkoot Trail to Lake Bennett. Like many such organizations, the brotherhood shrouded itself in ceremony and regalia including secret initiation rites, robes, and pins for members. In addition to its social activities, the brotherhood also sponsored community service projects. Its ten camps in communities around Alaska and the pioneer character of its members made the brotherhood a significant political force in the newly-created Territory of Alaska. [108]

In January of 1913, James Wickersham, Alaska's voteless delegate to Congress, forwarded the Arctic Brotherhood petition to Washington. [109]

About the same time, the Alaska Territorial Legislature for warded a joint resolution to the Secretary of the Interior asking that $5,000 be spent on Sitka National Monument. [110] Concurrently, Wickersham renewed his efforts to encourage the Interior Department to take action with regard to Sitka. He asked that the department publish Lewis' report on Sitka and asked for an annual appropriation of $5,000 for maintenance of the Sitka monument. [111]

The secretary's reply was not encouraging. Although Lewis' report would be considered for publication "if conditions warrant and funds are available for the purpose," the secretary advised that it might be inadvisable to attempt to obtain appropriations for individual monuments. Instead, the department had been trying for several years to obtain "a small appropriation for general administrative purposes in connection with the National Monuments, thus far without success." [112]

Wickersham and other Alaskans kept up the pressure. In 1914 the Interior Department asked Congress to appropriate $1,500 for maintenance of the Sitka monument. [113]

No money was forthcoming. In 1914 Christensen advised the Commissioner of the General Land Office that none of his staff had been able to visit Sitka since Lewis' 1912 visit. Christensen noted that the Secretary of the Interior had appointed Arthur G. Shoup, a Sitka attorney, to oversee the territorial home for Alaskan pioneers at Sitka. Shoup, born in Challis, Oregon, in 1880, had come to Sitka with his parents in 1897. He studied political science and law at the University of Washington for three years, then served as Deputy United States Marshal at Ketchikan and Sitka from 1902 to 1910. By 1910 he was practicing law at Sitka, where he went on to serve three terms as mayor. His father, James McCain Shoup, had been an Idaho state senator before serving as U.S. Marshal at Sitka from 1897 to 1906 and at Juneau from 1906 to 1909. [114]

Special Agent Lewis recommended Shoup as the best man at Sitka through whom the department might work. According to Lewis, Shoup had worked with Langille to have the monument established. Shoup was willing to assume charge of the monument and use his best efforts to prevent vandalism. He estimated that $5,000 was needed for repairs at the monument and recommended that an archway be erected at the entrance. [115]

The situation had not changed by the following year. Christen sen reported that his staff had still not visited Sitka. The monument still needed repairs. The number of visitors, however, had risen from an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 in Fiscal Year 1914 (July 1, 1913 - June 30, 1914) to 9,000 to 10,000 in Fiscal Year 1915 (July 1, 1914 to June 30, 1915). The visitor figures were estimated by counting the number of steamers docking at Sitka and assuming that about 100 passengers visited the monument during each port call. In 1914, for instance, the steamers City of Seattle, Dolphin, State of California, and Spokane made two trips per month to Sitka with about 100 passengers each over a four- month tourist season. [116]

Although the field division responsible for the monument, now the Alaska Field Division headquartered at Anchorage, speculated that visitation at Sitka might be up because of the war in Europe, the count for Fiscal Year 1916 showed a decline. Some where between 6,000 and 7,000 visitors were estimated. [117]

Some visitors were traveling through the park in two-horse drawn vehicles. There was no objection to this traffic. The vehicles were light and no damage was being done to the road. The road was in good condition as the Alaska Road Commission had spent approximately $1,500 making repairs and gravelling it. The Indian River bridge was also in good condition, but trails on both sides of the river needed work. About $500 was needed for this rehabilitation, and an additional $750 was needed for totem pole rehabilitation. Another $100 was needed for guide boards and $500 to $1,500 could be used for a stone tablet at the entrance to the park. Without some sort of identifying entrance sign, "hundreds of tourists [were] passing through the park each year without getting any information as to the monument itself, and even knowing that the park is set aside as a National Monument." [118]

This situation began to change soon after Congress created the National Park Service in 1916 to care for the nation's national parks and monuments.

Officials search for Sitka's first custodian

Robert B. Marshall, general superintendent of the national parks in Washington, wrote to Arthur Shoup in December of 1916 stating that it was possible to set aside about $300 for work at the Sitka monument. He offered Shoup the position of custodian of the monument at a token salary of $2 per month. Shoup replied on January 5 that he would be glad to accept the appointment. The $300 would be adequate for the cost of repairs to the "big totem," which needed to be painted and supported with guy wires. The other totems needed painting too. Also, nothing had been done about brush in the park since federal prisoners had been removed from Sitka about 1905. Work of that kind, wrote Shoup, was badly needed. [119]

This auspicious start quickly came to a halt. Within a month, National Park Service officials advised Shoup that he could not be appointed custodian since he was "admitted to practice as an attorney before the Department of the Interior." Moreover, it appeared desirable to defer work until the $300 could be supplemented with money from the next year's appropriation. [120]

What followed was a series of attempts to arrange for management of the monument with Shoup maintaining a strong influence. He replied to advice that he could not serve as monument custodian with a recommendation that Ross Reed of Sitka be appointed at a rate of 62.5 cents per hour for repair work and token compensation otherwise. Shoup also commented cryptically that "the other man" would not have time to give proper attention to the park. [121]

Horace M. Albright, acting director of the service, responded that the desired appropriation was still pending. Appointment of a custodian and improvement work at Sitka must wait until the money was available. [122]

Albright and the man for whom he was acting in 1917, Stephen T. Mather, provided leadership for the National Park Service during most of the early years of Sitka National Monument. Mather was appointed director of the National Park Service in 1916 and he immediately selected Albright as his assistant. [123] The two men faced a tremendous job in making sense out of the many disparate properties lumped together in the new organization. Immediate pressures as well as personal proclivities appear to have directed their attention to parks in the American west such as Yellowstone and Yosemite. It is understandable that they had little time for the 57-acre tract in far-away Alaska.

Records show no other action with respect to Sitka until the summer of 1918. Then, Territorial Governor Thomas C. Riggs, Jr., suggested to park service director Mather that E.W. Merrill be appointed as custodian. Riggs noted that he had "gone over the matter" with Mr. Shoup. [124] Elbridge Warren Merrill was a Boston engraver and news photographer who had come to Alaska in 1897. He arrived in Sitka that year, is said to have gone on to the Klondike, and returned to Sitka in 1899. After working at odd jobs in Sitka, Merrill opened a curio store and photography studio in 1905. His store was located in downtown Sitka in the Mills Building, and his studio was on Jamestown Bay. At the time it was accessible only by a footpath that wound along the beach and through Indian River Park. In 1906, Governor Brady hired Merrill for work at the park where he arranged the totem poles earlier exhibited at St. Louis and Portland. Later Merrill supplied photographs supporting the petition for national monument status for the Indian River Park and also for Lewis' 1913 report. [125]

While waiting for the National Park Service to act on his recommendation that it make Merrill official custodian of Sitka National Monument, Riggs "on [his] own hook," authorized Merrill to replace broken pieces on some of the totem poles and to cut limbs of trees that were rubbing on poles. He also estimated that $25,000 was needed for totem pole preservation. [126]

On receiving this estimate, Mather advised Riggs that only $10,000 was available for work on all the monuments for which the park service was responsible. Of this amount, $1,000 had been allocated for work at Sitka. The park service accepted the recommendation of Merrill and would take steps necessary for his appointment. [127]

What followed may have been an illustration of the incompatibility of Merrill's artistic temperament with bureaucratic requirements. The park service showered Merrill with forms and guidelines, including the "Metric Manual for Soldiers." [128] Merrill failed to respond.

By April of 1919 Riggs was writing to Washington that Merrill was "making no move" at Sitka. Could he authorize repair at the monument and to what extent? Riggs also relayed a report from Shoup that someone was trespassing on monument grounds and re quested that the monument boundaries be resurveyed. [129] Albright replied for the National Park Service, authorizing expenditure of up to $1,000 and asking if Shoup could not find someone else at Sitka. He also arranged for a surveyor from the General Land Office staff at Juneau to resurvey the monument boundaries. [130] In subsequent correspondence, F.C. Sheridan of Sitka was recommended to do the necessary work at the monument. Since the 1919 appropriation had been diverted for pressing needs at two monuments in Arizona, it was decided that he should not begin until after July 1, 1919. [131]

Merrill upset these tidy arrangements. On June 11, Riggs ad vised Mather that Merrill already had the work at Sitka underway. He had expended $400 but was willing to wait for reimbursement until new appropriations were made. Riggs suggested allowing Merrill to proceed, noting that the work should not be stopped. Sitka's damp climate made June the most suitable time of year for the required work.

Indian River, Sitka National Monument, date unknown. (Photo courtesy of Anchorage Museum of History and Art, #B75.134.62)

Mather's answer reflected the creativity of a skilled administrator. He understood that "Merrill does not care to qualify as custodian." He was prepared to appoint a custodian when a suitable candidate was found. In the meantime, he considered that Merrill was painting the poles under Sheridan's supervision with Shoup's advice. Up to $700 could be expended from 1919 funds and an additional $800 could be anticipated from 1920 funds that would become available after July 1, 1919. [132] Working under this "understanding," Merrill seems to have completed his tasks by June 30, 1919. In early July he reported on his project. The monument had 18 large totem poles, painted in six colors. Of red cedar, the poles were badly cracked and had extremely rough surfaces. Merrill had built scaffolds around the poles, chiseled out and replaced broken and decayed pieces, and applied two coats of paint. Other work undertaken included placing benches at "Selected sightly spots with grandure [sic] as Indian River, the harbor, the islands, the ocean, Mt. Edgecumbe, chain of other beauty spots." Dead limbs and small trees had been removed. Accumulated dead moss, spruce needles, and cones had been cleaned up. B. Hirst (painter), W.A. Alcorn (painter), T. Berkland (teamster), Peter Kastromentinoff (carpenter and painter), H.M. Woodruff (carpenter and woodsman), and J.H. Gilpatrick (expert painter) had worked with Merrill from May 14 to June 30, 1919. The billed project cost was $688.46. [133]

Merrill's next association with the park came in the spring of 1920 when he advised Riggs that the monument bridge across Indian River should either be repaired or closed to visitors. Although Riggs corresponded with the National Park Service about the $450 needed to repair the bridge, nothing seems to have been done. [134] The park service still assumed that Merrill was interested in the custodian's position. Arno B. Cammerer, a member of Mather's staff, requested that he "kindly execute" the papers sent on August 30, 1918, by Riggs, so "that your entrance on duty under your appointment of August 12, 1918 as custodian of the monument may be noted." [135]

Administration in the 1920s

Cammerer would play a significant role in the history of Sitka National Monument during the coming years. Mather brought him into the National Park Service in 1920, since both he and Albright recognized Cammerer's abilities as an administrator. According to Albright, the new recruit had been in federal service since 1904. He had worked his way up from Treasury Department clerk to Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, then had be come Assistant Secretary to the national Commission of Fine Arts. [136] After serving in a variety of capacities in the National Park Service, he became its director in 1933. Perhaps be cause of his background, or perhaps because of Mather's and Albright's focus on the large western parks, Cammerer's name appeared frequently on correspondence related to Sitka.

Another person whose interest was important to the Sitka monument also appeared on the scene in 1920.

U.S. Army Col. James G. Steese became chairman of the Alaska Road Commission at the end of World War I. Steese was a 1907 West Point graduate. After serving in Panama during the canal construction, he taught at West Point, Fort Riley, and Fort Leavenworth. During World War I he rose to the rank of brigadier general in the Corps of Engineers and subsequently received a Congressional Distinguished Service medal for his war work. After the war, reverting to colonel in the shrinking army, he was appointed to the general staff and then as President of the Alaska Road Commission in July 1920. Later in life, Steese be came a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society of England. [137]

A man of many interests, Steese's support for the Sitka park often seemed to be greater than that of National Park Service officials.

In March of 1924 Steese wrote to Mather with a proposal that set the course of Sitka National Monument administration for the next two decades. In his letter, Steese outlined previous work accomplished by the road commission at Sitka, Katmai, and Mount McKinley. In the summer of 1920 the commission had repaired the footbridge across Indian River at Sitka and strengthened the bulkheads along the river's bank. More than $1,000 in road commission funds had been spent on this work, together with $200 furnished by the National Park Service through the Alaska governor's office. Steese closed his letter with an invitation for suggestions relative to road work in connection with national parks in Alaska and a wish to work closely with the park service. [138] Steese's proposal led gradually to what would later be characterized as an "informal agreement" in which the Alaska Road Commission took over on-scene responsibility for Sitka National Monument administration. The relationship was probably furthered by the fact that Steese, like many other early territorial officials for Alaska, spent much of each winter in Washington attending to his agency's business.

The era of Alaska Road Commission administration began with a tripartite effort in which the National Park Service, the Territory of Alaska, and the road commission all provided small amounts of funding for work at Sitka.

In January of 1922 Steese wrote to the National Park Service to report that the past summer's work at Sitka had included putting up a new bridge outside the monument boundaries.

Prior to erection of this new structure, wheel traffic had crossed Indian River at a ford within the monument boundaries just below the footbridge. But, said Steese, the roads and paths in the monument were really foot paths. He was excluding wheel traffic from the part of the monument west of Indian River where the totem poles were located. The eastern part of the monument was "unimproved" except for the road commission's wagon road. It followed the line of the old army wagon wood road to Sawmill Bay.

Other 1921 work in the monument included $500 for the continuing effort to prevent erosion of the Indian River bank. Of this amount, $200 had been provided by the National Park Service and Steese had charged the balance off to road commission work to protect the west abutment of "our suspension bridge." [139]

Steese's letter brought a reply from Cammerer. Prohibiting wheeled traffic in the monument met with National Park Service approval. He asked if Steese would put up "Wheel Traffic Prohibited" signs at the ford and where the old road entered the monument at Corner No. 2. Steese, who apparently was in Washington for this exchange of correspondence, replied the following day that the signs would be erected, "using your letter as authority." [140]

Road commission willingness to share part of the burden at Sitka seems to have been acceptable to the park service. In September of 1922 Cammerer advised Steese that the service had $150 available for work there. He asked if one of Steese's men could visit the park and report on what work needed to be done. Cam merer also noted that the service needed a custodian for Sitka. The pay was only $12 per year, "but such appointments carry considerable prestige in other monuments." Could Steese recommend someone? Steese replied that the road commission had done some minor work at the Sitka monument at its own expense during the 1922 field season. He recommended that the National Park Service make $150 available for bridge repair in the spring of 1923 and that Peter Trierschield, road commission foreman at Sitka, be appointed custodian for the monument. [141]

Trierschield submitted a report on monument needs before the end of the year. The Indian River bulkhead needed to be raised above the suspension bridge and extended below Lovers Lane. The footpath on the left side of the river needed to be graded and graveled. It also needed several culverts. The 30-foot bridge was rotted. Some totem poles needed to be painted and others needed to be braced. The suspension bridge (apparently different from the "30-foot bridge") needed two coats of preservative. If money were available, two footpaths should be made through the park and a number of small benches should be erected. By early 1923, National Park Service officials were addressing Trierschield as "Custodian, Sitka National Monument." His status was regularized by a June 1923 park service personnel action that defined his duties as "general supervision, care of totem poles, and control of traffic." [142]

New administrators demonstrate interest

Sitka Wharf and Power Company finally, in 1930, relocated the powerline that had bothered Steese so much. Since the relocation was entirely outside monument boundaries--to the seaward--the park service had no grounds for objecting. [143]

George A. Parks, serving his last term as territorial governor; John W. Troy, who followed Parks in 1933; and United States Forest Service officials took over Steese's active interest in the Sitka monument. The governors were the ones who wrote to Washington to seek additional funds for repairs necessitated by the wandering and occasionally flooding Indian River. Alaska Region foresters C.H. Flory, M.L. Merritt, and Wellman Holbrook not only suggested additional resources for the monument, as discussed below, but also communicated with Interior officials about the condition of the monument and its routine maintenance. [144]

While the foresters' concern for the monument developed, the park service, temporarily known as the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations, continued Peter Trierschield as custodian. Trierschield reached age 70 on September 3, 1933, but Ike P. Taylor, then head of the road commission, reported that he was in good condition. It was unlikely that anyone else would render equivalent service for the compensation of $12 per year. [145]

As the park service expanded in the mid-1930s with the infusion of depression-era relief funds, its bureaucracy grew and began to pay more attention to Sitka.

In August of 1936 Washington officials inquired about Trierschield's reply to a memo on the handling and sale of milk in national monuments. They also noted that they had no reply to the "Survey of Highway Auto Camps." The next year, they asked him to complete a personal history statement, including his first name and middle initial. But on July 9, 1937, Trierschield died at age 74. [146] Trierschield's death marked the beginning of a period in which the "informal agreement" instituted in 1922 gradually came to an end. Peter's son John had worked for his father in the monument for a number of years and Taylor recommended him for the custodian position. [147]

John Trierschield finished out the 1937 season as custodian at Sitka and worked through 1938. Then J.D. Coffman, Chief of Forestry for the National Park Service, visited Sitka. He reported on conditions there at the end of the 1938 visitor season. Coffman summarized the administrative situation at the monument and made a number of resource-related comments.

Administrative problems included the cows of Mrs. Burkhart, an adjacent property owner. The cows wandered into the area of Lovers Lane and the totems, requiring the custodian to frequently dung out that section of the monument. Toilet facilities were needed. Signs were marred by bullet holes. Trierschield and a laborer, John G. Panamarkoff, kept the 18 totem poles in repair by painting and by replacing damaged and decaying parts. Re placement parts were carved by them, then bolted into place.

Trierschield, Coffman said, was industrious and interested in the monument, but "he does not have the education and personality that ordinarily characterize an administrative representative of the National Park Service." He recommended that Sitka needed a full-time, qualified, custodian.

Coffman concluded that "If the Sitka National Monument is to be retained in the national park and monument system it should receive the official attention, administration, and maintenance compatible with that system; otherwise it should be turned over to some other agency...." [148]

The park service proposes a full-time custodian for Sitka

These recommendations resulted in a reassessment of the situation at Sitka. It was still possible to request funds for a full-time custodian at Sitka in the fiscal year 1940 budget. Coffman's report also triggered a recommendation that the Branch of Plans and Design should develop a master plan for Sitka as soon as practicable. [149]

By November of 1938 the Bureau of the Budget knew that the park service wanted a full-time custodian at Sitka. The estimated cost was $2,360. That amount needed to be added to the National Park Service estimate of $450,775 for national monuments administration in fiscal year 1940. That fiscal year would begin on July 1, 1939. [150] The appropriation passed, and on August 30, 1939, the park service announced the availability of a Ranger-Custodian position at Sitka.

The new Ranger-Custodian would be responsible for patrolling the monument area, keeping records and compiling all periodic and special reports, and handling visitor contact and educational work. [151 The National Park Service notified the Alaska Road Commission that when the position was filled, Trierschield would be terminated. [152]

The Alaska Road Commission learned that a ranger-custodian had been appointed when Taylor read about the appointment in the Juneau Alaska Daily Empire of January 23, 1940. Miffed, Ike Taylor forwarded the clipping to Washington. From it, he had learned that on January 23 Ben C. Miller, former District Ranger at Glacier National Park, had passed through Juneau to take up duties at Sitka. Although the park service later apologized to Taylor, it had unceremoniously ended the "informal agreement" between the National Park Service and the Alaska Road Commission for administration of Sitka National Monument. [153]

Resource management problems

While attempting to find an on-site manager, the National Park Service also began to deal with management problems in Sitka. Late in 1918, Alaska's Delegate to Congress Charles A. Sulzer for warded a claim from Sitkan Charles A. Haley regarding alienation of his property by creation of the monument. Haley's property, on the east bank of Indian River, lay outside the monument boundaries and the Park Service rejected his claim. [154]

Haley's unauthorized occupancy of the land in Tongass National Forest had been noted earlier, in 1910, when the Secretary of Agriculture forwarded the Arctic Brotherhood's petition for monument status to the Secretary of the Interior. In that correspondence, the agriculture secretary stated that the Nicholas Haley family reportedly had been squatting on the land since June 1, 1882, and that Nicholas Haley had filed a claim for it on February 19, 1883. [155]

It was soon after this that a perennial problem began to be documented in records about the monument. Riggs telegraphed Mather on September 30, 1919, to ask for $200 to reinforce bulkheads along Indian River. The bulkheads were needed to prevent the river from further eroding its banks. [156]

Correspondence about repairs to the monument continued through 1920. In May, Merrill advised the governor that the bridge across Indian River had to be repaired or closed. Riggs telegraphed Mather about the dilemma in July, estimating that $450 was needed for the required work. Nothing happened until October, when Arno B. Cammerer, acting for Mather, let Riggs know that $200 had been authorized for reinforcement. [157]

Correspondence over the next few years between Trierschield, Steese, and National Park Service officials -- primarily Cammerer -- documents their efforts to maintain and improve the Sitka monument. Money trickled from the park service to the Alaska Road Commission, from the road commission's own coffers, and from the Territory of Alaska. Generally, road commission and territorial funds equaled or exceeded park service allotments to Sitka.

A powerline running across the seaward boundary of the park was among the first management issues dealt with by the new management team. Cammerer said that the powerline should be removed. According to Cammerer, "It was the purpose of those who laid out this road [Lovers Lane] to accord the visitors the benefit of the fine views of Sitka Bay...." He believed that the powerline seriously interfered with the seaward outlook from the monument. Although the Federal Power Commission at first agreed to be governed by Cammerer's recommendation, Mather subsequently over ruled his assistant. He concluded that if the powerline were put entirely in Sitka Bay the obstruction of the seaward view would be worse than the existing situation. If it were put through heavy timber it would be even more of an eyesore. The park service director reached an agreement with the Federal Power Commission that the line could remain in place, if the power company agreed to any later changes deemed necessary by the service. [158]

Prohibition of wheeled vehicles in the park also became an issue. C.F.M. Cole, editor of the Sitka newspaper, and Eiler Hansen, secretary of the Sitka Commercial Club, visited the road commission offices to complain. According to Hansen, the order embarrassed the people of Sitka. When the late President Warren G. Harding and Mrs. Harding had visited the park it had been impossible to take them through it in a car without technically violating the order. Cole, who was "much wrought up," claimed that the prohibition hurt Sitka's tourist industry. Visitors refused to disembark from visiting ships unless they could ride in jitneys through the monument. He had a two-part solution. Re place the footbridge in the monument with a vehicle bridge and put a loop road through the park. Cole said that the City of Sitka would be willing to put up funds for road maintenance. [159]

When a memorandum recounting the Sitkans' woes found its way to Mather, he dismissed the idea of wheeled traffic in the monument. If the monument were opened to wheeled traffic, it would have to be accessible to all except heavy commercial vehicles. There was, in any case, no money for the increased expenses that would be incurred. Vandalism would be less if vehicles continued to be excluded. Finally, without vehicle traffic the area would remain more scenically attractive for the traveling public. [160]

Mather's comments probably pleased Steese. In relaying the park service decision to the Sitka Commercial Club, Steese said "I am deeply interested in the Sitka National Monument, as I consider it the most beautiful point in all Alaska." The road commission president also pointed out that the monument was only a couple of hundred yards wide. Tourists could leave their vehicles at the west entrance and rejoin them where the highway skirted the boundary on the east side of Indian River. [161] Steese's decision to exclude wheeled vehicles from the monument, endorsed by Mather, had far-reaching effects. Without it, the character, esthetics, setting, and general development of Sitka National Monument would have been far different.

Steese soon reinforced his efforts to maintain "the most beautiful spot in all Alaska" with a ban on hunting and firearms in the monument. After a hunter was apprehended shooting tame deer and other wildlife within the boundaries, Steese had signs posted forbidding firearms in the monument. Once the signs were up, Steese telegraphed Washington to find out what authority the Secretary of the Interior had to control the issue. A prompt reply advised that the secretary had in fact, under 1921 regulations, prohibited hunting in national monuments. Violators should be taken to the nearest United States Commissioner for a hearing. [162]

Another resource issue arose briefly in 1925 when Frank L. Kuhn, an attorney, wrote to Mather on behalf of descendants of Nicholas Haley. They asserted that a road that Haley built about 1881 lay within monument boundaries. The government should compensate them for the loss of this improvement. Attached affidavits described road construction and other improvements on the property Haley had claimed. Cammerer, writing for Mather, dismissed the case of Haley's descendants as being without merit. General Land Office records did not show that Haley had perfected his claim; therefore the descendants had no basis for a claim against the government. [163]

The powerline still nagged at Steese's vision of the monument. In May of 1925 he sent six photographs of the "unsightly" power line to Washington. In July he submitted the first of several annual reports to the National Park Service. Afterward, he queried Cammerer "Is there anything further we can do?" Photographs attached to the annual report brought the unsightly powerline to mind. In response, Cammerer summarized the accommodation reached with the power company. [164]

The 1925 annual report also gave Steese an opportunity to recapitulate Alaska Road Commission accomplishments in maintaining Sitka National Monument since 1922. Since the informal agreement of April 1, 1922, authorizing that maintenance, a combination of National Park Service, Road Commission, and Territory of Alaska funds had been spent on the monument. The park service had contributed $342.37, the road commission $410.11, and the territory $350. Steese detailed the work that had been accomplished since 1922. Custodian Trierschield's work included not only routine maintenance, but construction of two footpaths in the monument, erection of a totem pole that had lain in three pieces for the past three years, and erection of an ornamental gateway consisting of two totem poles and two heavy concrete pillars connected by a heavy chain. [165]

Trierschield also kept busy counting and recounting the totem poles. In 1924 Cammerer asked how many there actually were. He had encountered references to 16 and also to 18. The Sitka custodian replied on August 19, 1924, "I have checked. There are 18 totem poles in the monument." [166] When Cammerer asked the same question in the fall of 1925, Trierschield replied -- in February of 1926 -- that there were 16 poles. [167]

Blockhouse becomes monument resource and erosion is checked

Not long after Trierschield's February totem pole count, Mather made a decision about Sitka National Monument resources that later caused his service a great deal of trouble. John Panamarkoff, secretary of the Sitka Commercial Club, wrote to say that citizens of Sitka wished to donate a replica of a Russian blockhouse to the park. The Alaska Historical Association and the Territorial Museum supported the proposal, as did Steese and Territorial Governor George A. Parks. The Alaska Road Commission would supervise the project. Mather replied that "I give my approval to this proposal." [168]

The Department of the Interior press release announcing the blockhouse reconstruction incorporated the first National Park Service statement concerning an interpretive theme for Sitka National Monument. The Battle of Sitka had paved the way for Russian supremacy in Alaska. "Had Russian supremacy failed early in the nineteenth century England's effort to acquire the Territory would have been successful." [169]

Nineteen-hundred and twenty-six was otherwise a quiet year, but early in 1927 Alaska's Delegate to Congress Donald Alexander (Dan) Sutherland notified Mather that Indian River was undermining the witch tree at Sitka. Mather left the matter to Cammerer. He in turn corresponded with Steese. The colonel already had the matter in hand, having visited Sitka in December of 1926 to investigate. Temporary protection costing $100 had been instituted then. Steese subsequently arranged for the stream to be cleared of obstructions above the tree's location, reconstruction of 100 feet of road, and placing of a bulwark along the bank at the tree's location. His telegram confidently advised Cammerer, "Your share $250." [170]

Steese also moved ahead with monument development. He often advised the park service after the fact about what he regarded as minor improvements and only sought Washington's approval for major undertakings. In addition to a recitation of maintenance work and expenditures in his 1927 annual report, Steese noted that in the coming summer he planned to construct a new path following the boundary from the west entrance around the west and northeast sides. This would allow the entire monument boundary to be patrolled.

The July 1927 annual report also advised that the blockhouse replica had been thrown up, using heavy cedar logs and hardware from the original Blockhouse No. 2 (Blockhouse D). [171] A Sitka Commercial Club drive raised the $2,500 cost of blockhouse reconstruction, with the Alaska Steamship Company being the largest contributor. Titus Demidoff and W.R. Hanlon of Sitka built the replica, using Blockhouse D as a model. Blockhouse D had been a point, toward Swan Lake, on the wall separating the Russian and Native settlements at Sitka. The United States Observatory crew at Sitka demolished the original blockhouse in 1921 because its metal affected their instruments. [172]

Mather's authorization for construction of the replica had come in April of 1926, and by April of 1927 Steese was forwarding photographs of the completed structure to Washington. The photographs elicited a response from A.E. Demaray, acting assistant director of the service, that "it [the blockhouse] was certainly well done." [173]

Steese proposes additional resources

At the end of the 1927 season, Steese proposed to Mather that abandoned totem poles at the site of the former Native village of Howkan be relocated to the Sitka National Monument. [174] A Haida community on the northwest coast of Long Island in the Alexander Archipelago, Howkan had gradually lost its population to the village of Kaigani and thence to Hydaburg. Howkan's post office, established in 1882, was transferred to Hydaburg in 1917. [175]

A flurry of correspondence ensued. It involved Steese, Mather, Parks, officials of the Bureau of Education, and the Smithsonian Institution. No government funds were available for a totem pole retrieval project. When an appeal for private funds failed the project was dropped. The exchange of letters, however, revealed that Mather had visited Alaska in 1927. [176] This event was otherwise unrecorded in records relating to Sitka National Monument.

Steese's retirement in 1928 marked the end of aggressive road commission interest in Sitka National Monument. Although his successors dutifully oversaw fulfillment of the "informal agreement" with the National Park Service, their correspondence and annual reports noted few attempts to enhance the monument's resources. Steese had been a fairly steady correspondent of Mather and Cammerer. Maj. Malcom Elliott, the succeeding road commission president, submitted brief annual reports and usually wrote only when additional money was needed for such things as emergency work on the Indian River bank.

New poles proposed for Sitka

The idea of adding resources to the monument came up once more in 1931. C.H. Flory, Alaska Regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service, suggested retrieving abandoned totem poles from the defunct national monument at Old Kasaan and relocating them to Sitka. [177] This was an old idea, suggested as early as 1914 and considered again throughout the years. Old Kasaan, a former Haida village on Prince of Wales Island, had been abandoned in the 1890s. The village, with its name derived from an Indian word for "pretty town," was noted for its large number of ornate totem poles. [178]

Old Kasaan had been designated a national monument in 1916 after much documentation by the Forest Service and a campaign by the Alaska Cruise Club. Much to everyone's consternation, the designation came after a 1915 fire had destroyed many of the surviving traditional houses and damaged the totem poles at the site. With many of its resources destroyed, the Prince of Wales Island site was never actively managed as a national monument. After Flory took over as District Forester in the South Tongass National Forest in 1919, he recommended moving some of the surviving poles to Sitka National Monument. Flory became Alaska Regional Forester before the executive reorganization of 1933 transferred administration of all national monuments to the National Park Service. In his new capacity, he again proposed relocating the Old Kasaan totems, as well as totems at other abandoned village sites within Tongass National Forest boundaries, to Sitka National Monument. [179]

Flory resubmitted his proposal in 1934. M.L. Merritt of the Forest Service visited with National Park Service officials to follow up. He recommended retrieval of poles from Cat Island, Howkan, Old Kasaan, Klinkwan, Tongass Island, and Tuxekan; also salvage of enough good materials to reconstruct one traditional Native dwelling. [180] Like other such proposals for relocation of abandoned poles to Sitka, however, Flory's died without action.

Merrill plaque proposed

Sitka's citizens raised the idea of adding another resource to the monument in 1933. Elbridge Warren Merrill, the first albeit unofficial custodian of the monument, had become ill with influenza late in 1929. This turned into pneumonia which caused Merrill's death on October 27, 1929. The Sitka post of the American Legion raised money for a commemorative plaque which read:

Elbridge W. Merrill who dedicated his life and artistic attainments towards picturing the scenic beauties surrounding Sitka, Alaska, 1932. [181]

According to Eiler Hansen, who wrote as adjutant of the Sitka post to the National Park Service in 1933, the plaque was to be mounted on a natural granite monolith about 14 feet in height. Hansen asked permission to erect the plaque and its monolith within the monument. [182]

The answer was no. Cammerer replied for Albright: "Mr. Merrill never entered on duty as custodian of the monument . . . I regret that it would be against the policy of the National Park Service to permit its erection within the Sitka National Monument, even had he been officially connected with it." Cammerer asked if the memorial plaque could be placed on the approach to the monument outside it boundaries. It was placed outside the boundaries, where it remained into the 1980s, although it was removed temporarily during visitor center construction in 1964. [183]

Territorial governor initiates totem pole project

Alaska's governor John W. Troy submitted the final proposal of the late 1930s that affected the resources of Sitka National Monument. He wrote to A.E. Demaray, a senior park service official, to suggest that it would be possible to get Civilian Conservation Corps help not only for landscaping at Sitka, but also to rehabilitate the totem poles there. Such work would need a National Park Service technical advisor. It could begin as early as October 1938. [184]

Demaray responded that the park service was interested. It had "no general plan of development for Sitka National Monument," and would be glad to participate in the program. He regarded it as essential that a technician be employed to see that the work was properly planned and executed. Would the Alaska Civilian Conservation Corps (administered by the U.S. Forest Service) be able to employ the technician? If arrangements could be made, Demaray said, details would be worked out by the park service regional office at San Francisco. [185]

Alaska Regional Forester B. Frank Heintzleman, who may have been behind Troy's original suggestion, followed it up in January of 1939. The Forest Service had obtained Works Progress Administration funding for totem pole restoration. He telegraphed Demaray with the news that funds were available. If the park service could provide a qualified foreman, the project would begin. [186] Cammerer, now Director of the National Park Service, replied that no park service specialists were available to super vise the work. The service could pay for the services of an ethnologist or qualified graduate student in anthropology to give initial supervision. He suggested looking for such an expert at the University of Washington or the University of Alaska. If such scientific assistance were not available, the project could go ahead so long as before and after photographs were made and "record card file" documentation of work was created. [187]

By April of 1939 Heintzleman was able to write to Cammerer that the totem pole work at Sitka was underway with WPA funds. He enclosed a photographic record of the poles in place on February 18. The Forest Service would submit a final report when the work was finished. [188]

The Alaska Road Commission provided a dump truck for the project. The Forest Service Wood Products Laboratory sent advice on preservation treatment for the poles. John Maurstand served as foreman for the project, with George Benson as chief carver and nine Indian workers. The WPA funds were used up by March and the Forest Service continued work with Civilian Conservation Corps money. About half of the old poles, many of which were badly deteriorated, were duplicated. Duplicates and repaired poles were treated with Permatox B, painted with compounds care fully constructed to match original Native colors, and then treated again with Pentra-Seal. [189]

Most of the work at Sitka was completed by March of 1940. Although plans were discussed to build an open air shed in which to store originals of the duplicated poles, they were eventually shunted aside to uncovered storage on skids. [190]

While the totem pole work was beginning, the park service began to reassess its treatment of Sitka National Monument's resources. Mount McKinley National Park Superintendent Frank T. Been and Earl A. Trager of the service's research and information bureau visited Sitka to look things over. [191] Carl P. Russell, Supervisor of Research and Information for the service, suggested a special study of the area from "anthropological, historical and museum standpoints." [192]

The totem pole rehabilitation and duplication project marked a significant resource policy decision for Sitka National Monument. When the park service agreed to plans to duplicate entire poles and then concluded that some of the originals were beyond preservation, it established a lasting ethic of resource management that extended through the next 30 years of Sitka National Monument administration.