Chapter Two: Reorganization of Park Administration

On June 10, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6166 which, among other things, combined "all functions of public buildings, national monuments, and national cemeteries" in an Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations--the renamed National Park Service. Far-reaching as this action proved to be for the National Park Service, it was not a radical innovation on Roosevelt's part. Rather, it was the culmination of a campaign to consolidate administration of all federal parks and monuments that began in the first decades of the 20th century.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 left administration of the national monuments divided among the Departments of Interior, War, and Agriculture. Almost from the passage of the act, the nation's preservationists/conservationists recognized that such a fragmentation of authority was both uneconomical and inefficient. One of the first to address the problem within the government was Frank Bond, chief clerk of the General Land office. Speaking at the National Park Conference in 1911, Bond detailed the failures of the system as it existed, and concluded that

administration of all national monuments of whatever character, or wherever located, or however secured, should be consolidated and the responsibility for their development, protection, and preservation placed where it can be made effective. [1]

Almost five years later, H.R. 15522, introduced by Congressman William Kent of California, addressed the problem outlined by Frank Bond in 1911. Section 2 of his bill to create a National Park Service provided

That the director shall, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior have the supervision, management, and control of the several national parks and national monuments which are now under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and of the Hot Springs Reservation in the State of Arkansas, and of such other national parks and reservations of like character as may be hereafter created by Congress. Provided, That in the supervision, management, and control of national monuments situated within or contiguous to national forests the Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate with said national-park service to such extent as may be requested by the Secretary of the Interior. [2]

The Forest Service opposed any attempt to transfer the national monuments under its jurisdiction, however. It marshaled its powerful lobby in opposition to Section 2, and managed to defeat it. [3]

The act that established the National Park Service did not include provisions transferring the national monuments from the War and Agriculture departments to the new bureau. The conflict over passage of the enabling act, and the effort to secure transfer of the monuments administered by the Agriculture Department, however, left a residue of bitterness that contributed to the continued friction that characterized relations between the Forest Service and National Park Service in the 1920s and 1930s. This friction was not merely bureaucratic wrangling between two highly aggressive bureaus, but was often, as described by the Forest Service's chief forester in 1921, "continued warfare." [4]

In public, at least, officials from both bureaus dismissed the notion of a conflict, insisting that the work of the two was complementary and their relationship harmonious. It is true that examples of cooperation between the two bureaus through the years are plentiful. Yet, each viewed the other warily, convinced that the other was working to absorb it. These concerns were, in fact, not unjustified. As early as 1906 and 1907, for example, Gifford Pinchot, then Chief Forester, had actively worked to transfer the national parks from Interior to the Forest Service. [5]

After the creation of the National Park Service, through the 1920s and into the 1930s, Forest Service and Department of Agriculture officials consistently argued that the National Park Service should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. [6] A clear assumption in this argument was that once transferred, the Park Service would be merged into the Forest Service. In 1923-24, 1928-29, and 1932-33, efforts to effect such a transfer would be made. [7]

Just as National Park Service officials worried that their agency would be absorbed by the Forest Service, officials in that agency were convinced that Park Service people were working behind the scene to transfer the Forest Service to the Interior Department. Efforts to consolidate administration over parks and monuments in the 1920s specifically referred only to transfer of sites administered by the War Department areas to the National Park Service. Forest Service officials clearly believed, however, that such a transfer would be merely a first step that would ultimately lead to transfer of all national monuments to the Park Service. Particularly after 1922, when Interior Secretary Albert Fall proposed transferring the national forests to the Interior Department, Forest Service officials viewed almost all National Park Service actions, and that included boundary adjustments, with considerable suspicion, if not hostility. [8]

With passage of the National Park Service enabling act in 1916, a new personality emerged as a leader in the campaign to consolidate administration of the parks and monuments. More than anyone else, it was Horace Albright who kept the movement alive for seventeen years, and it was his political acumen that was largely responsible for the final success in 1933.

Under Albright's leadership, the focus of the campaign shifted. As indicated, before 1916 efforts had been directed largely toward consolidating administration of the national monuments under one agency. Albright, on the other hand, would be concerned primarily with transferring the national military parks and battlefields under the jurisdiction of the War Department to the National Park Service.

The new emphasis reflected Albright's long-standing interest in history. He argued, too, that coordination of the administration of those areas would assist in capturing American tourists who would spend their money at home, rather than in Europe, now that the great war was over. [9] More important than either of these, however, was Albright's belief that such a transfer was necessary to insure the continued independence of the National Park Service. Almost all the War Department's areas were east of the Mississippi River, while Park Service areas were confined without exception to the western states Absorption of the military parks would allow the Service to extend its influence nationwide, and to build a national, not regional constituency. Such a national constituency would effectively guarantee that the National Park Service would not be absorbed by another federal agency. [10]

Albright lost no time, once passage of the National Park Service enabling act was assured and the organization was in place, in undertaking a publicity campaign aimed at securing transfer of the military parks. In the first annual report of the director of the National Park Service, Albright outlined his views in a section entitled, "National Parks in the War Department, Too:"

This discussion brings me to a similar question that deserves consideration soon. It has arisen numerous times during the past year when this Service has been requested for information regarding the military national parks--where they are located, how they are reached, what trips to them would cost, etc. The question is whether these parks should not also be placed under this department in order that they may be administered as a part of the park system. The interesting features of each of these parks are their historic associations, although several of them possess important scenic qualities. Many of the monuments and at least three of the national parks were established to preserve the ruins of structures that have historic associations of absorbing interest, or to mark the scene of an important event in history. [11]

Each succeeding annual report included some similar statement. [12]

At the same time, Mather and Albright began to lobby with their counterparts in the War Department as well as with influential members of Congress. In August 1919, for example, Albright reported to Mather that he had been able to convince Senator Kenneth D. McKeller of Tennessee to support the principle of transfer of the military parks. [13]

The campaign carried on by Park Service officials was paralleled outside the government. As had been the case in the campaign to secure passage of the National Park Service enabling act, leadership here was provided by Horace J. McFarland, president of the American Civic Association. Never one to mince words, McFarland declared:

We want unification in national park management. It is now the fact that there are three departments handling national parks--an obvious absurdity. If the departments do not soon fix it up between themselves, some independent agency like the American Civic Association, not caring whose toes it treads on will soon need to try to eliminate some of the duplication. [14]

The first viable opportunity to effect a transfer of the War Department parks and monuments came on December 17, 1920, when the two houses of Congress established a joint committee to study a general reorganization of the executive departments. [15] Nearly three years later, on February 13, 1923, President Warren G. Harding outlined the major reorganization proposals recommended by his cabinet. Along with such recommendations as the coordination of military and naval establishments under a Department of National Defense and a new Department of Education and Welfare was the transfer of nine national military parks to the Department of the Interior. [16] The last recommendation had been prepared by Park Service officials and transmitted by Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall. [17]

Officials in the War Department generally supported the Park Service's efforts to effect the transfer of areas under their jurisdiction, largely because they were concerned over the expense generated in their administration. Secretary of War John W. Weeks testified in favor of the proposed transfer before the Joint Committee on Reorganization. While admitting under sharp questioning by the committee that there may have been cases where a battlefield should remain under the jurisdiction of the War Department, Weeks nevertheless was firm in his opinion that "the entire park system should be under one control." [18]

Members of the committee expressed skepticism at Weeks' assertion, however. Of particular concern, as evidenced by the questions they asked, was the apparent difficulty in clearly separating the military parks from military cemeteries. Transfer of the military parks to the Department of the Interior, they quite clearly believed, would inevitably lead to civilian control over military cemeteries. [19]

Whether as a result of this concern, or whether as Horace Albright later wrote, the proposal "got lost in the shuffle," transfer of the national military parks to the Department of the Interior was not included in the report issued by the Joint Committee on Reorganization. [20]

While the National Park Service hoped to use the general reorganization of the executive departments as a means of acquiring the national military parks, Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. Wallace advanced another proposal. In testimony before the joint committee, Wallace asserted that administration of the public domain, and that included the national parks and all national monuments, should be solely the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. [21] Wallace admitted that he was not prepared to say whether any economy would result from his proposal. Nevertheless, he argued that many of the problems facing the parks and forests were similar, and "as far as the parks are concerned, it would be practicable." [22]

Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, a long-time friend of the National Park Service, observed that any reorganization plan that proposed transfer of the national parks to the Department of Agriculture would not pass. With that observation, Secretary Wallace's suggestion died. [23]

Failure to secure transfer of the national military parks as part of a general reorganization of executive departments did not long deter Park Service officials. After 1924, according to Horace Albright, he and Mather worked hard to insure that a proposal calling for transfer of the national military parks would be a part of the program developed by President Calvin Coolidge's National Conference on Outdoor Recreation. [24]

Secretary of War Weeks resigned on October 12, 1925. Albright, Mather, and the new Secretary of the Interior, Hubert Work, immediately contacted his successor, Dwight F. Davis, to resume inter-departmental talks regarding transfer of the military parks. [25]

Despite some growing opposition at the lower echelons of his department, Davis was swayed by their arguments, and indicated that he would support another attempt to transfer the military parks. On April 20, 1928, a bill that had been drafted jointly by Interior and War Department staffs was sent to Congress, along with a letter signed by the two secretaries. [26]

Introduced by Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, Chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, S. 4173 went further than previous efforts, proposing to transfer all military parks, national parks, and national monuments from the War Department to the Department of the Interior. [27] In addition, the bill provided for the transfer, as well, of all civilian employees and unexpended appropriations. [28] Of particular interest, because it was apparently the first time the term was used, the bill provided for a new unit in the Park System--the National Historical Park. [29] It is quite probable that this term reflected the direction of Horace Albright's thinking.

Senator Nye's committee supported the proposal and reported it to the full Senate within two weeks, on May 3, 1928. [30] In the House, however, the reception was quite different. Hearings were not held until the following winter. [31] Although the bill was originally sent to the Committee on Public Lands where it would have been received more favorably, hearings were held before John M. Morin's Committee on Military Affairs. Horace Albright later wrote that the committee "was mildly hostile . . ., or at least the members present were not favorably disposed." [32] Had the secretaries of War and Interior appeared before the committee in person, he continued, the result might have been different. [33] An examination of the record of the hearings, however, suggests that in this case, the normally realistic Albright cast events in a too-favorable light. Congressmen Otis Bland, E.L. Davis, and S.D. McReynolds all either wrote letters or testified against the bill. Congressman Bland said that transfer of the military parks made "as much sense . . . as putting military instruction in a medical school," and Congressman McReynolds speculated that the National Park Service would "put yellow buses and [hot-dog] stands throughout . . . ." [34] Clearly these congressmen and those on the committee believed that the purpose of areas administered by the two agencies was so different--the War Department areas for military instruction and memorialization while the National Park Service's areas were "pleasuring grounds"--that one agency could not possibly be equipped to deal with both. [35] As had been the case in 1924, both the congressmen who testified against the bill and committee members were particularly concerned that the transfer would lead to civilian control of military cemeteries. [36]

Horace Albright, who was by now the Director of the National Park Service, and Charles B. Robbins, Assistant Secretary of War, testified as best they could under sometimes almost sarcastic questioning. They could not, however, overcome the opposition of the committee. The tone of the hearings was a clear signal of the outcome, and, as expected, the committee took no action. Albright did attempt to secure another hearing, but when that failed the bill died in committee. [37]

Disappointed as he must have been over the failure of the House committee to act on S. 4173, Horace Albright was not one to long nurse his bruises. In March 1929, a new president, Herbert C. Hoover, was inaugurated. Within weeks Albright initiated discussions regarding transfer of War Department areas with the new secretaries of War and Interior, John W. Good and Ray L. Wilbur. [38]

Both men, who were old acquaintances of Albright's, proved receptive to the idea. Wilbur further indicated that President Hoover intended to seek authority from Congress for a general reorganization of the executive departments. He assured Albright that any reorganization would include transferring "historic sites from other agencies" to the National Park Service. [39]

President Hoover, himself, obviously intended to transfer the national monuments from the War and Agriculture Departments to the National Park Service. On May 15, 1929, he wrote his Attorney General William D. Mitchell, requesting his opinion as to whether such an action could be taken without specific legislative authority. [40] On July 8, 1929, Mitchell replied that in his opinion, such an action would infringe on the constitutional prerogatives of Congress, and would be illegal in the absence of legislation to that effect. [41]

Meanwhile, work on a general reorganization of the executive continued. In October 1929 Secretary Wilbur sent an Interior Department plan to an interdepartmental coordinating committee created to evaluate such proposals. Included in Wilbur's reorganization plan was a request to transfer "historic sites and structures in other departments, especially the War Department" to the National Park Service. [42] A new element was added to the proposed transfer when Wilbur requested that the parks and buildings in Washington, D.C., also be transferred to the National Park Service. [43]

From time to time, over the next several years, President Hoover sent messages to Congress regarding reorganization of the executive branch. It was not until June 1932, however, that Congress finally provided him with the specific authority he needed to proceed. [44]

On December 9, 1932, one month after he had been defeated at the polls, President Hoover submitted a general reorganization proposal to Congress, as required. Included were some, but not all, elements of the Interior Department's reorganization plan submitted three years earlier. The proposal would have created a number of divisions within Interior. Among those agencies grouped under a Division of Education, Health and Recreation, were the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Public Health Service, Division of Vital Statistics, and National Park Service. [45] As Park Service officials hoped it would, the plan would have transferred the national parks, monuments, and certain national cemeteries in the War Department to the National Park Service. [46] Although Secretary Wilbur had proposed transferring the National Capital Parks, the Office of Public Buildings and Parks, which administered those parks, would have been transferred from its position as an independent agency to the proposed Division of Public Works in the Interior Department. [47]

From the first days of the Hoover administration it had been anticipated, apparently, that President Hoover's proposed reorganization proposal would provide for the transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, or possibly for the establishment of a Conservation Department which would combine all federal land-use agencies. [48] Former Representative Louis Cramton, who now served as a special attorney on the staff of Secretary Wilbur, proposed the former, while President Hoover had noted the wisdom of the latter in a December 3, 1929, message to Congress. [49]

Both proposals were highly controversial, and either would have raised considerable opposition both in Congress and outside the government. The decision not to include either in a general reorganization proposal was certainly a wise one.

The legislation that provided President Hoover with the authority to reorganize the executive branch included a provision requiring that the proposals be forwarded to Congress for sixty days before becoming effective. [50] Congress rarely has been willing to give much cooperation to a lame-duck president, particularly when one was as thoroughly repudiated by the voters as Herbert Hoover was in 1932. It should not have been surprising to anyone that a broad-ranging reorganization such as the one he proposed would not be approved.

Earlier in the year, another bill, H. R. 8502, introduced by Representative Ross A. Collins of Mississippi, provided for transfer of the War Department parks and monuments to the Department of the Interior. [51] The bill, which was nearly identical to S. 4173, introduced by Senator Nye in 1927, was drafted by the Interior Department staff at Congressman Collins' request. [52]

The National Park Service prepared a favorable report on the bill, and in a January 28, 1932, letter to the Secretary of War, Interior Secretary Wilbur reaffirmed his support of the proposal. [53] Hearings were never held on the bill, however, quite possibly because of the anticipated reorganization of the executive branch. [54]

While President Hoover's reorganization proposal was before Congress, another bill, this one proposing transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior was before the House Agricultural Committee. [55] H.R. 13857, introduced by Representative Eaton, was apparently never given serious consideration.

The change in administrations in March 1933 posed potentially serious problems for the National Park Service's campaign to unify administration of all national parks and monuments. From the beginning the Service had stood above partisan politics. Despite the fact that he diligently sought to preserve that tradition, Horace Albright had become identified closely enough with the Hoover administration that he harbored some concern that he would be replaced by the incoming administration. [56]

Harold L. Ickes, President Roosevelt's choice as Secretary of the Interior, asked Albright to stay on, however. Within a short time, Albright would emerge as a close and influential advisor to the irascible Secretary of the Interior. [57]

Albright lost no time, once it was clear his job was secure, in approaching Ickes regarding transfer of the military parks. Within days after Ickes had taken office and begun to settle in his new job, Albright had won his approval of the proposal. [58] In the first hectic week of the New Deal, moreover, Albright had met with and secured the approbation of George Dern, the new Secretary of War. [59]

More importantly, because of the close relationship developed with Ickes, Albright soon found himself in a position to present his case at length with the one man who could guarantee its success--Franklin D. Roosevelt. On April 9, 1933, Albright was among the invited guests on an excursion to former President Hoover s camp on the Rapidan River in nearby Virginia. [60] As they prepared to return to Washington, Roosevelt asked Albright to ride along in his touring car. Never one to be reticent, or to miss an opportunity, Albright used a discussion of Civil War battles to press his case for transfer of the War Department parks. Roosevelt had decided to reorganize the executive branch within weeks of his inauguration. [61] In what must have almost been an anticlimax to some sixteen years of effort, Roosevelt asked no questions, but merely agreed that it should be done, and told Albright to present the proper material to Lewis Douglas, chief of staff for reorganization activities. [62]

Some anxious moments followed. In early 1933 Gifford Pinchot, who was a long-time acquaintance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and others had revived efforts to transfer the National Park Service to the Department of Agriculture, where it would be merged with the Forest Service. [63] In mid-April, both Albright and Ickes heard rumors that suggested Albright had seriously misinterpreted the president in their April 9 discussion regarding reorganization--that reorganization in the Roosevelt administration would result in transfer of the National Park Service to the Department of Agriculture. [64] An early May meeting with Lewis Douglas reassured Albright, however, and the NPS director promptly submitted his proposals for transfer of the War Department parks and monuments. [65]

The proposals Albright submitted to the reorganization committee were modest--the same, essentially, that the National Park Service had been supporting since 1916. [66] He certainly was not prepared for the scope of the proclamation that emerged. Executive Order 6166, issued on June 10, 1933, and effective sixty days later, dealt with a wide range of agencies and functions--procurement investigations, statistics of cities, insular counts, and Internal Revenue were only a few of the subjects addressed. Section 2 spoke directly to the National Park Service:

All functions of administration of public buildings, reservations, national parks, national monuments, and national cemeteries are consolidated in an Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations in the Department of the Interior, at the head of which shall be a Director of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations; except that where deemed desirable there may be excluded from this provision any public building or reservation which is chiefly employed as a facility in the work of a particular agency. This transfer and consolidation of functions shall include, among others, those of the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior and the National Cemeteries and Parks of the War Department which are located within the continental limits of the United States. National cemeteries located in foreign countries shall be transferred to the Department of State, and those located in insular possessions under the jurisdiction of the War Department shall be administered by the Bureau of Insular Affairs of the War Department.

The functions of the following agencies are transferred to the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations of the Department of the Interior, and the agencies are abolished:

Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission
Public Buildings Commission
Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital
National Memorial Commission
Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Commission

Expenditures by the Federal Government for the purposes of the Commission of Fine Arts, the George Rogers Clark Sesquicentennial Commission, and the Rushmore National Commission shall be administered by the Department of the Interior. [67]

Not only would the Park Service inherit the War Department parks and monuments as Albright had proposed, but also all national monuments within the continental United States, the national monuments administered by the Forest Service, the parks, monuments, and public buildings in the District of Columbia, and some elsewhere in the country, [68] the Fine Arts Commission, and the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Especially galling to Park Service employees, was the provision in Executive Order 6166 that changed the name of the National Park Service to the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations. [69]

Albright had seen a draft of the proposed executive order at a second meeting with Lewis Douglas in May. [70] In the face of Douglas's growing impatience, he argued that Arlington and other national cemeteries still open for burial should remain under the jurisdiction of the War Department, that only those buildings that were clearly monumental in character--the White House, Washington Monument, and Lincoln Memorial, for example--should be transferred, that the Fine Arts Commission and National Capital Park and Planning Commission should remain independent, and that the name, "National Park Service," should be retained. [71] After consulting with Ickes and Frederic A. Delano, however, Albright decided further opposition to the proposal would jeopardize all that he had worked for. [72] The wisest course of action would be to accept the proposal as drafted, and work to reverse these elements that he considered objectionable after the president issued the order.

For the next month, Albright did just that. On July 28, largely as a result of his well-orchestrated campaign, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6228, an order that clarified Section 2 of Executive Order 6166, "postponing until further order," transfer of Arlington and other cemeteries still open for burial, while leaving the cemeteries associated with historical areas in the soon-to-be Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations. [73] In addition, Albright was able to secure separation of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and Fine Arts Commission, save for some administrative functions. [74]

He saw no immediate chance of restoring the name, however, and decided to postpone that battle to a later date. It was not until March 10, 1934, that his successor, Arno B. Cammerer, was able to announce that the old name had been restored. [75]

Writing about the events leading up to the reorganization of 1933 some years later, Horace Albright said that when he first saw a draft of Executive Order 6166, he "was stunned by its scope." [76] He was most certainly not the only person in Washington that reacted that way. Particularly surprising to Park Service officials must have been the reaction of the War Department. Since the early 1920s, successive Secretaries of War had registered support for transfer of War Department parks and monuments to Interior, and had testified so before Congressional committees. In February 1932 Patrick Hurley had reaffirmed that position, and Albright had secured George Dern's approval in March 1933. [77] After June 10, 1933, however, it became evident that sentiment for transferring the parks and monuments came more from political appointees who headed the War Department than from professional officers there.

Perhaps the most vocal opponent of transferring the War Department areas was Colonel Howard E. Landers, who, according to Verne Chatelain, fought it "tooth and nail." [78] Since the 1920s, Colonel Landers had been responsible for investigating battlefields for commemorative purposes, and as such was more knowledgeable than anyone else with the War Department's administration of military parks and battlefields. He was a frequent critic of the War Department's administration, particularly in what be believed to have been the failure to properly use the data he collected. [79] His criticism may have been misinterpreted by Park Service officials, for whatever feelings Colonel Landers had regarding use of his material, he had never favored transfer of military parks to the Interior Department. [80] According to Dr. Chatelain, Colonel Landers felt strongly enough to send a memorandum to President Roosevelt in an effort to prevent transfer after June 10, 1933. [81]

Colonel Landers was the most vocal opponent, but he was not the only person in the War Department who expressed misgivings once transfer became fact. There is no question that these misgivings were raised to a large extent because of the inclusion of the national cemeteries in the transfer order. In general, though, the impression that emerges from Park Service records is that despite years of official approbation of the principle of transfer, the War Department's attitude was one of reluctance that sometimes bordered on resistance or non-cooperation, once that transfer was ordered.

This attitude was not confined to the military professionals in the department. On June 21, 1933, Harry Woodring, Acting Secretary of War, wrote to President Roosevelt to request that all military cemeteries, including those on or adjacent to the military parks and battlefields, be excluded in the executive order. They were all, he wrote, military in nature, and the Department of the Interior could not possibly "be as interested in the proper maintenance of these cemeteries as the War Department." [82] The next day Woodring sent another letter to the president, this time to request postponement of the effective date of Executive Order 6166 until all plans for improvements at the various areas--and he indicated these were extensive--were accomplished, and work on the establishment of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Petersburg, and King's Mountain was completed. [83] In closing Woodring seemingly took a position that would have pleased even the most vociferous opponent of transfer:

In fact I am of the opinion that as a matter of economy and efficiency--not to mention reasons of sentiment, these nonmilitary activities, which have been under the War Department since their inception, should remain in their present status. [84]

As Park Service staff took the first steps to effect transfer, they reported back a general lack of full cooperation on the part of their counterparts in the War Department. On July 7, for example, Chief Clerk R. M. Holes reported that Lieutenant Colonel J. H. Laubach, Chief, Memorial Section, Quartermaster's Office, would not provide him with any definitive information regarding the number of field employees at the various military parks. [85] On the same day, E. E. Tillet reported to Arthur Demaray that he had been able to obtain very little information from an interview with the same office. [86]

Park Service officials were no more interested in obtaining the cemeteries open for burial than War Department personnel were in giving them up. In fact it was Horace Albright who took the lead in reversing that portion of Executive Order 6166. [87] Officials in the Interior Department made considerable effort to reassure War Department staff that the military flavor of the areas would not be altered, that the agency was well equipped to administer the areas effectively, and that the Office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations would consult with the War Department on matters involving the military parks, battlefields, and historic cemeteries. [88]

Few in the War Department seem to have been implacable in their opposition to transfer. With the assurances made by Ickes to George Dern and after postponement of the transfer of Arlington and other cemeteries open for burial, resistance in the War Department, save for some occasional instances of footdragging at the local level, disappeared. [89]

On August 10, 1933, eleven national military parks, two national parks, ten battlefield sites, ten national monuments, three miscellaneous memorials, and eleven national cemeteries that had been administered by the War Department were formally transferred to the Department of the Interior. [90] After that date, there is no evidence of any significant friction between the departments resulting from transfer. Nor did the War Department make any effort to regain control of the areas transferred.

Perhaps even more surprising than the misgivings first expressed by War Department officials to Executive Order 6166 was the initial response of the Forest Service. Given the history of relations between the two agencies, Horace Albright had every right to expect that Forest Service officials would immediately fight any effort to transfer the national monuments as they had on previous occasions. Yet, the initial response to the order by the bureau's Washington office was no response at all. It was not until July 24, 1933, less than three weeks before the end of the sixty-day contesting period, that the Washington office appears to have become aware of Executive Order 6166. [91] When he contacted the Budget Office the next day, Chief Forester L.F. Kneipp's response was surprisingly mild:

Strictly interpreted, Section 2 of Executive Order 6166 of June 10, 1933, would place these fifteen National Monuments under the jurisdiction of the office of National Parks Buildings, and Reservations of the Department of Interior. [92]

He continued that because national forest status for the areas was not revoked, the order had the effect of transferring administration of the national forests as well. [93]

Ben W. Twight speculated that the delay in reaction suggests that Forest Service officials were simply not consulted prior to the date the order was issued. [94] Yet, it was no secret that President Roosevelt had secured authority to reorganize the executive branch and had established an inter-departmental committee to coordinate reorganization efforts within a month of his inauguration. Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace was aware, surely, of reorganization, and knew that it would somehow involve his department. On April 18 he discussed the possibility of combining the Forest Service and Park Service in a department with Ickes. [95] On April 20 Ickes wrote in his diary that he had received a copy of a letter that Gifford Pinchot had written President Roosevelt protesting transfer of the Forest Service to Interior. [96]

Even had Forest Service officials been unaware of all that was happening before June 10, 1933, Executive Order 6166 was made public as a congressional document on that date. Given their past responses to similar suggestions, the failure of Forest Service officials to react to the loss of the national monuments under their jurisdiction for six weeks is something that defies explanation.

Whatever the reason, by the time Forest Service officials finally reacted to the order, there was little they could do to reverse it. For a short time, apparently some in the Washington office considered appealing to Congress to block the order, but quickly rejected that avenue as impolitic. [97] The only realistic possibility they had of reversing the order was in convincing the Secretary of the Interior that:

Section 2 of the Executive Order stipulates that there may be excluded from this provision any public building or reservation which is chiefly employed as a facility in the work of a particular agency. It would seem logical to hold that national monuments are withdrawn for national forest purposes would fall within this excluded class. [98]

August 10, 1933, the day that Executive Order 6166 became effective, came and went without any official request from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior to exclude the national monuments from provisions of the order. On August 26, Assistant Chief Forester Kneipp indicated that the monuments were still being administered by the Forest Service:

The National Park Service indicated a desire to take eight of the fifteen national monuments now administered by the Forest Service. How long will it be before they ask for the other seven is wholly conjectural. [99]

By late September, however, the decision to bring all the monuments, not just eight, into the Interior Department had been made. On September 29 Ickes notified the Agriculture Department that Interior was prepared to assume jurisdiction of all national monuments administered by Agriculture, unless he received some official request for their retention as a facility to the work of the Forest Service. [100]

On the same day, Secretary of Agriculture Wallace wrote Ickes requesting just that. Basing his arguments on the department's solicitors opinion, and echoing the arguments advanced by L.F. Kneipp on July 25, 1933, Wallace recommended that the fifteen monuments be excluded as "facilities essential to the work of this Department, or to the redemption of the responsibilities imposed upon it by law." [101]

Acting on the advice of Departmental Solicitor Nathan Margold, Ickes rejected Wallace's recommendation, and on November 11, indicated that Interior was prepared to assume jurisdiction over the fifteen national monuments "at once." [102] It was not until January 28, 1934, however, that Ickes was finally able to inform Lewis Douglas that the Forest Service was in full compliance with Executive Order 6166, and that the administration of the fifteen national monuments had been transferred to the Department of the Interior. [103]

Transfer of jurisdiction over the national monuments from the Forest Service on January 18, 1934, did not mean, however, that the issue was laid to rest. Nor did it significantly reduce the rivalry that had existed between the Forest Service and National Park Service. In February 1934, for example, Secretary Ickes rejected a new Forest Service appeal that the Department of the Interior recognize the jurisdiction of the Forest Service over the national monuments transferred by Executive Order 6166. [104] On March 12, 1934, Arno Cammerer complained that "subtle opposition" that came largely from field men in the Forest Service had been ever-present since June 10, 1933, and Forest Service opposition would play a major role in delaying enactment of the Park, Parkway, and Recreation-Area Act. [105]

The differences continued through much of the decade, becoming particularly heated as a result of Harold Ickes efforts to remodel the Interior Department into a Department of Conservation which would have incorporated the Forest Service. [106] In 1936, the park lobbyist Rosalee Edge commented on the relations between the agencies in a way that must have echoed National Park Service officials:

We, also, deplore the hostility and jealousy that exists between the Forest Service and the National Park Service, and the resulting injury to the public and to the Parks. We must, however, point out that it is the same kind of mutual misunderstanding that exists between a wolf and a lamb. [107]

In 1939, leaders of both agencies, finally wearied of long years of controversy, set out to find a way to settle their differences. In that year they set up a joint committee to find compromise solutions to the thorny problems of park extensions. The move would prove to be the first step in a major rapprochement. While the two bureaus would still clash occasionally, much of the bitterness that characterized their relations gradually disappeared. Following World War II, a willingness to cooperate with each other became predominant. [108]

Reaction of National Park Service employees to Executive Order 6166, beyond a universal condemnation of the name change, was mixed. Even before June 10, 1933, there were those who believed that the bureau and system were growing too fast. Conrad L. Wirth, Assistant Director, Branch of Planning, spoke for many when he observed on February 24, 1933, that the service might be wise to retrench for a period. [109] Such a policy, he said, would assist the Service in dealing with budget cutbacks, allow it to develop and maintain the system, and to blunt growing criticism that the National Park Service was an expansionist bureau. [110] While there were many in the Service who agreed with Horace Albright that expansion of the system into the east was a necessary and commendable step, others, and this was particularly true of "old-line" NPS people, believed that incorporation of non-scenic, eastern areas weakened the standards established by Stephen Mather and Horace Albright. [111]

Whatever the feelings of NPS employees, it is clear that no event in NPS history, save passage of the enabling act itself, had a more profound impact on the National Park System and the bureau that administers it. In terms of size alone, the number of units more than doubled--sixty-seven to 137. [112] The number of natural areas increased from forty-seven to fifty-eight while the number of historical areas nearly quadrupled, increasing from twenty to seventy-seven. [113]

Important as it was in terms of numbers, the impact of Executive Order 6166 cannot be discussed in terms of size alone, for the location and diversity of the areas was just as important. Inclusion of the National Capital Parks brought the National Park Service into metropolitan urban parks. George Washington Memorial Parkway represented a new type of unit in the National Park System, one which was predominantly neither historical nor natural, but recreational.

Horace Albright has over the years considered the impact of Executive Order 6166. He did feel, upon reflection, that in the haste to send information forward, the Service failed to include some sites it should have had--the Andersonville Prison site and cemetery in Georgia, for example. [114] But, he wrote in 1971, the order made the National Park Service a truly national bureau, with a national constituency. The Service became the primary federal entity responsible for the administration of historical and archeological sites and structures, and he might have added, the leader in the field of historic preservation. Finally, Executive Order 6166 was almost a declaration of independence for the National Park Service. The Service became a strong bureau that would never again be threatened with consolidation with another. [115]

With the success of his efforts to consolidate administrative control of the national military parks and battlefields and national monuments, Horace Albright decided it was time to step aside as Director of the National Park Service and accept one of the several offers he had received from the private sector. On July 5, 1933, he tendered his resignation to Secretary Ickes. He left the Park Service after having served as Director some four years on August 9, the day before Executive Order 6166 went into effect. [116]

Albright was replaced as director by Arno B. Cammerer, who had served as assistant director, then associate director since 1919. [117] It would be up to the quiet, hardworking Cammerer to deal with the far-ranging impact of Executive Order 6166.

If the huge increase in number of areas and personnel that were a result of reorganization in 1933 were not enough to tax any man and organization, Cammerer and the Park Service would have to grapple with the addition of seven natural areas, seventeen historical areas, and six recreational areas in the next six years. [118] Moreover, the National Park Service would be a key agency in President Roosevelt's efforts to solve the nation's economic ills--and the impact of those programs would be staggering.