YELLOWSTONE Early History of Yellowstone National Park and Its Relation to National Park Policies

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,     
Washington, May 11, 1932.

TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

SIR: As a part of the study of national park policies which I have been making in cooperation with your Service by direction of the Secretary, I have, at your suggestion, made considerable study of the early history of Yellowstone National Park. This study has to do chiefly with the early exploration, the passage of the act of March 1, 1872, authorizing the park, and the protracted and constant struggle for its proper administration, protection, and development.

During that period of time, there was fought out in the Congress of the United States and gradually crystallized in the Nation that fairly definite code of policies which now obtains in the administration of the national parks and monuments under your charge. The history of the first quarter century of Yellowstone National Park is in fact the history of the development of our present national park policies.

Some of these policies are so universally concurred in that it does not occur to us now that they ever could have been questioned. Others, not so universally accepted, have become thoroughly established as our national policy in connection with the areas under your administration through the trials of Yellowstone. Among these policies may be noted the following:

1. That the Federal Government may, under proper circumstances, itself undertake the administration of a reservation of land "dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." It is true that in 1872 thIs region was a part of the public domain of the United States within certain of its Territories and, therefore, the question of turning it over to a State for administration was not at that time directly an issue. That course had been followed a few years previously in the case of Yosemite, and the brief debate in the Senate January 30, 1872, in connection with the passage of the Yellowstone bill shows that the experiment of turning great scenic regions over to the State for administration was not deemed successful. The merit of Yellowstone as a park project and its outstanding importance did much to establish a general policy of Federal control in such cases. After the Territories concerned became States, demand for transfer of control to the States could, as to Yellowstone, make no headway.

2. The twin purposes of such a reservation are the enjoyment and use by the present, with preservation unspoiled for the future. The act of March 1, 1872, set the area apart as a "pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people," and at the same time required "the preservation, from injury or spoliation of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities or wonders within said park and their retention in their natural condition." There has never been any serious controversy in Congress concerning the wisdom of each of these.

3. The parks are to be administered primarily for the enjoyment of the people. The early and long continued contest concerning leases and concessions in the park has always revolved around the determination of Congress that the welfare of the visitor shall be the first consideration in park administration.

4. Enjoyment of these areas shall be free to the people. The preface to Dunraven's "Great Divide" voices protest against the fee system universal in Europe which was securing widespread foothold in the United States and popular appreciation of a nonfee system in national parks.

The park came into being within a few years after the close of the CivIl War when the national debt was large, taxation was onerous, and economy in Federal expenditures was necessary. Very soon came panic and years of depression. But at no time was there any proposal for adoption of a fee system in Yellowstone. All the debate stressed the idea that this wondrous land be free to the public. At first there was the theory that revenues from leases of needed utilities would be sufficient for the development and maintenance of the park. But as it became clear that this would not be the case and the needs became understood, the policy of appropriations from the Federal Treasury began, 1878, and has never been seriously challenged.

5. Administrative responsibility shall be civil rather than military. The act of March 1 provides, "Said public park shall be under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior."

With negligible appropriations and resulting lack of administration, attended by alarming reports of game destruction and park spoliations, Congress in 1883 directed the Secretary of War, upon the request of the Secretary of the Interior, to make necessary details of troops for park protection. It was also provided that the construction of roads should be under the supervision and direction of an engineer officer detailed hy the Secretary of War. In 1886 the appropriation for the park carried the provision that thereafter a company of cavalry should he stationed there for the protection of the park and eliminated any appropriation for civilian administration. Complete transfer of the administration to the War Department was proposed in bills introduced and in congressional debates. Because of the presence of troops on the frontier and the need for economy in Federal expenditures this same military administration continued for some years, but at no time did the complete transfer of the administration to the War Department make any headway in Congress. Eventually Congress eliminated the military protection and became definitely committed to civilian administratIon and civilian protection.

6. The welfare of the public and the best interests of the park visitors are conserved by protective permits for needed utilities. In the early days there was much fear, probably well-founded, that some monopoly would secure leases of land at strategic points which would enable them to hold up the public. No feature of park administration has had the amount of debate in Congress that there has been about Yellowstone leases. Through the insistence of Congress that the welfare of the visitor be the first consideration and through gradual growth of understanding of the necessities of the situation, the policy of protective permits with Government control of rates, service, and the extent and character of improvements has been developed.

7. The park area is to constitute a game preserve and not a hunting reservation. When the bill was under consideration in the Senate, it being observed that the destruction of game and fish for gain or profit was forbidden, Senator Anthony urged that "Sportsmen going over there with their guns" were not wanted, that the park ought not be used as preserve for sporting. Senator Tipton urged a prohibition against their destruction for any purpose. They were satisfied with assurance that hunting would not be permitted, and that policy has remained unquestioned.

8. No commercial enterprise in a park is to be permitted except so far as is essential to the care and comfort of park visitors.

9. The national interest shall be supreme in the park area, and encroachments for local benefit shall not be permitted. The fight to maintain and establish this policy in Yellowstone was spectacular with well-financed and influential private interests supported by some official sanction determined to secure a right-of-way in the park area for a railroad connection, ostensibly for mining development, but actually, in considerable degree at least, for speculative purposes. Failing to secure such a right-of-way, the effort was made to eliminate from the park the area involved, in return adding to the park much larger areas desired elsewhere. For years the House was amenable to the desires of these private interests, and the Senate was the stronghold of opposition under the leadership of Senator Vest. It is interesting to note how in this critical period so many men of the greatest caliber in the Senate rallied to defense of the public interests. And when the Senate lost hope and was prepared to accept the inevitable the House reversed its attitude. Finally the time came that any railroad right-of-way proposal or park segregation scheme brought definite adverse report from congressional committees. The disintegration of national park areas to meet local demands has been made impossible through the struggles that revolved around the Yellowstone.

10. Recreation is an essential purpose of park use even though secondary or incidental. The Yellowstone act sets the area aside as "a pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." Senator Pomeroy in urging the bill in the Senate said, January 23, 1872, that it was proposed to "consecrate and set apart this great place of national resort, as it may be in the future, for the purposes of public enjoyment." The park then being 500 miles from any railroad and its nearest railroad point so remote from centers of population under existing modes of travel, it is surprising that any large park travel could have been at that time anticipated.

The Montana Legislature, in its memorial in 1872, asked that this area "be dedicated to public use, resort, and recreation." The Hallett Phillips report which had much influence with Congress in 1886 said the first object accomplished by Congress in the establishment of the park was "a pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." Preservation of these areas for scientific study, or for the enjoyment of the esthetic taste in looking upon the beauties of nature, or the preservation of the great species of game from extermination, or the protection of an important watershed, are all purposes that have had congressional support. But the simple idea of the common people going to these regions and enjoying themselves, recreation, has always had strong appeal to Congress.

11. "In a national park the national laws and regulations should be enforced by a national tribunal." These are the words of Joseph Medill, the great publisher, and was his verdict after he had observed at first hand the workings of the attempt to enforce laws of the State of Wyoming through local officials in the Yellowstone. When the park was created its nearest boundary was 140 miles from the nearest civil authority. The country loudly demanded park protection, but Congress was loath to give substantial appropriations. Finally the State of Wyoming passed a law specifying offenses and punishments, and its enforcement was attempted. The best legal authorities questioned any such authority in the State, and the effort was abandoned.

Vest fought for years to secure an enactment of needed legislation prescribing offenses with penalties therefor and sought a Federal organization to administer the park. Because of the deadlock which ensued as to railroad and boundary legislation the needed park legislation was not secured until 1894, when the Lacey Act became effective, May 7, 1894. This act followed debate and controversy of a score of years. It declares that the Yellowstone National Park shall be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; that the park, although portions of it are in Montana and Idaho, shall constitute a part of the United States judicial district of Wyoming and the district and circuit courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of all offenses committed within the park; that any offense committed which is not punishable by Federal law shall be subject to the punishment provided by the law of Wyoming; that the United States circuit court shall appoint a commissioner who shall reside in the park and try persons charged with offenses in the park, an appeal being possible from his decision to the Federal court; that one or more deputy marshals may be appointed to reside in the park, but that arrests may be made by any officer or employee in the park of any person taken in the act. This whole structure of Federal control through existing Federal courts supplemented by a resident commissioner was worked out after 20 years of debate. Once enacted, its wisdom is generally accepted.

12. In the national parks nature is to be preserved and protected and not improved. The act of March 1 requires "retention in their natural condition." The report of the subcommittee of the committee on appropriations by Representative Holman in 1886 reads: "The park should so far as possible be spared the vandalism of improvement. Its great and only charms are in the display of wonderful sources of nature, the ever varying beauty of the rugged landscape, and the sublimity of the scenery. Art can not embellish these."

The above are the principal policies of a legislative character, or affected by legislative influences, which now govern in our park system. I have no doubt that many of our present policies and practices of a more purely administrative character in vogue to-day in various parks were likewise evolved through experience in Yellowstone.

I have no doubt a study of the legislative history of the Yellowstone from 1897 to date would also be of interest. The fundamentals, however, having been developed in the first quarter-century, it does not seem desirable for me to take the additional time necessary to bring the study down to date.

The accompanying report does not attempt any study of the geological or other scientific or scenic aspects of the park.

Accompanying the report is an epitomized legislative chronology down to 1897. There is also a Yellowstone bibliography. In the latter there has been no attempt to cover the field of references having to do with the scientific or the purely descriptive.

There has been no attempt to do more in the accompanying report than to assemble facts for reference use. As Chittenden's "Yellowstone" is so generally available in the Service I have treated more briefly subjects covered therein.

Sincerely yours,

LOUIS C. CRAMTON,     
Special Attorney to the Secretary.