Chapter IX

CREATION OF YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

The return of Everts operated as a springboard for an attempt to get government action. Graphic accounts of the exploration in general filled the columns of the _Helena Herald_ during October. An article written by Cornelius Hedges, which appeared in the issue of November 9, suggested an extension of Montana's southern boundary to include the whole Yellowstone region. He also outlined the proposal for appropriation of the same for public purposes. An excited public interest consumed every issue. Bursting upon national attention, these highly entertaining narratives, spontaneous and vivid like tales from Arabian Nights, carried a large measure of conviction.

Nathaniel P. Langford went east to proclaim the discovery. He first announced the good news to his own people in a public meeting in Minneapolis. They gave him a responsive hearing, which encouraged him for the work ahead.[143] On January 19, 1871, a large crowd listened intently to his delineation at Lincoln Hall in New York City. The people of Washington accorded similar attention. In fact, one of the lectures was presided over by Senator James G. Blaine, and one of the most alert auditors was Dr. Ferdinand V. Hayden who was soon converted to the importance of the project and agreed to conduct a government geological survey the following summer. Hayden's leadership was an important factor in making Yellowstone a live political issue. Sam Hauser also visited Washington, D. C., and he was subsequently joined by Truman C. Everts. Henry D. Washburn started for the national Capitol, but he fell ill on the way and died at his former home in Clinton, Indiana, on January 26, 1871. Walter Trumbull was serving as clerk of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which his father was chairman. Interesting accounts of Yellowstone's features by Langford and Trumbull appeared in the May and June numbers of _Scribner's_ and the _Overland Monthly_. The Firehole campfire resolution was bearing fruit.

Montana's new but able territorial representative, Hon. William H. Clagett, went assiduously to work upon the members of Congress. In his view there was a great prize to be secured for the benefit of all people and especially his constituents. A wonderland was available for the taking. As yet there were no complications of private ownership to arrest an alert government's purpose. The Congress responded with alacrity by making provision for an official exploration. The sundry civil service act of March 3, 1871, carried an item of $40,000 for the construction of the Hayden Survey, to complete "the season's work about the sources of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers." In fact, the bill also provided for a reconnaissance of the upper Yellowstone under Captain J. W. Barlow and Captain D. P. Heap of the Army Engineer Corps. Congress was not entering into the problem halfway; it was actually doubling up.[144]

The chief officer, Dr. Ferdinand V. Hayden, was an unusually capable geologist. In addition, he possessed an inspiring personality and statesmanlike views. There were nineteen scientists directly under his command. The personnel included James Stevenson, managing director; Henry W. Elliott and Thomas Moran, artists; Professor Cyrus Thomas, agricultural statistician and entomologist; Anton Schonborn, chief topographer; William H. Jackson, photographer; George B. Dixon, assistant photographer; J. W. Beaman, meteorologist; Professor G. N. Allen, botanist; Robert Adams, Jr., assistant botanist; Dr. A. C. Peale, mineralogist; Dr. C. S. Trunbull, physician; Campbell Carrington, in charge of zoological collections; William B. Logan, secretary; F. J. Huse; Chester M. Dawes, son of Representative Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts; C. De V. Hegley and J. W. Duncan, assistants. Barlow's army detail also had a competent and well-balanced personnel.[145]

A military escort, including Lieutenant Doane, rounded out these expeditions and provided all that could have been desired in point of training and ability. Each detachment had a retinue of helpers. Two technical studies and scientific reports, which not only substantiated but actually enhanced the findings of the previous civilian explorations, resulted from these two expeditions.

Hayden's party left Fort Ellis, near Bozeman, on July 15, 1871. Upon reaching the junction of the Yellowstone and Gardner rivers they elected to ascend the latter. It was a good choice because within the hour they beheld a white mountain which resembled a vast cascade of frozen snow. The Mammoth Hot Springs Terraces "alone surpassed all the descriptions which had been given by former travelers."[146]

As this expedition progressed, the geological record was interpreted. Thereafter, rocks were identified as travertine, gneiss, rhyolite, dacite, basalt, breccia, geyserite, sinter, and obsidian. Trees and plants were likewise classified, and in addition to geysers, springs and pools there were fumaroles and _solfataras_. Geological speculations were formulated relative to petrified forests, Grand Canyon, the lake's former Snake River outlet, and the relationship of heat, water, and "plumbing" essential for geyser action.

Henry Elliott and Campbell Carrington launched a canvas boat and made a survey of Yellowstone Lake's hundred-mile shoreline. Later the temperatures of over six hundred hot springs were taken. Sketches were made of many features, and significant names were given, such as Architectural Fountain Geyser. Captain Barlow's division paid particular attention to the mapping of Snake River's headwaters. It also made a cursory survey of the Lamar River. Unfortunately most of the data and accompanying photographs were destroyed in the great Chicago fire. This delayed Barlow's official report until six weeks after the Park Bill was enacted. However, an interesting summary appeared in the _Chicago Journal_ for January 13, 1872. Thus, the report and collection of specimens and photographs by Dr. Hayden represented the principal result of the season's endeavor.[147]

The beauty of Jackson's photographs and Moran's paintings could scarcely be denied. Each represented the work of a master. Dr. Hayden's report to Secretary of Interior, Columbus Delano, was received in February, 1872. He also contributed feature articles to the _American Journal of Science and Arts_ and _Scribner's_. Thus, a number of authorities had taken up the national park cause without reservation. Indeed, after he became intrigued with the idea of government development, Dr. Hayden's efforts were so impressive that many people regarded him as the true originator of the movement. In fact, his own enthusiasm unfortunately caused him to make pretensions for which he was severely criticized by his colleagues in the effort.[148] Although Dr. Hayden's contribution was invaluable, it was not exclusive. It was through the combined effort of the entire Montana delegation, and its powerful friends, that Congress was made receptive and responsive.

On December 18, 1871, a bill to create Yellowstone National Park was introduced simultaneously in both houses of Congress. The direct sponsors were Delegate William H. Clagett of Montana and Senator Samuel C. Pomeroy of Kansas. A thorough canvass was made; photographs, specimens, and testimonials did heavy duty in both the Senate and the House. Four hundred copies of _Scribner's_ containing Langford's articles were distributed among the congressmen, and all were personally interviewed. The advocates were few, but effective, and there was never any doubt as to the outcome. In the Senate, Pomeroy's efforts were backed by George F. Edmunds, H. B. Anthony, and Lyman Trumbull. They made an unsuccessful attempt to bring the bill, S392, to a vote on January 22 and 23, but objections were raised, and it came up in calendar order on the thirtieth. Senator Edmunds appealed for unanimous support for the bill. Senators Cameron of Pennsylvania and Morton of Indiana were curious about the number of square miles in the proposed reservation. Senator Pomeroy assured them that, although it was a large tract, there were no arable lands therein because of the elevation.

The advocates were puzzled by the opposition exhibited by Senator Cornelius Cole of California. He entertained grave doubts as to the value of the bill. Settlers should not be excluded from such a large area. As to the natural curiosities, they would remain. Edmunds replied that the region was north of 40° and about seven thousand feet elevation. Pomeroy affirmed that:

... the only object of the bill is to take early possession of it by the United States, and set it apart, so that it cannot be included in any claims or occupied by any settlers.[149]

Opposition was removed from the discussion by the forceful and tactful speech made by Senator Trumbull. He reviewed the history of Yosemite and the Big Trees in California:

I think our experience with the wonderful natural curiosity, if I may so call it, in the Senator's own State, should admonish us of the propriety of passing such a bill as this.... Here is a region of country away up in the Rocky Mountains, where there are the most wonderful geysers on the face of the earth.... It is possible that some person may go there and plant himself right across the only path that leads to these wonders, and charge every man that passes along ... the gorges of these mountains a fee of a dollar or five dollars....

I think it is a very proper bill to pass, and now is the time to enact it.... Now, before there is any dispute as to this wonderful country, I hope we shall except it from the general disposition of the public lands, and reserve it to the Government.... At some future time, if we desire to do so, we can repeal this law, if it is in anybody's way; but now I think it a very appropriate bill to pass.[150]

The matter was then presented for a vote, and it passed without a call for the ayes and noes.

The progress of the Park Bill, H.R. 764, through the House was just as sure, if not so speedy, as in the Senate. On February 27 Chairman Mark H. Dunnell of the Public Lands Committee brought out a favorable report. He personally was convinced by careful investigation that the bill should pass. Henry L. Dawes clearly and forcibly explained its purpose and observed that it went a step further than the Yosemite precedent. In this case "the title will still remain in the United States.... This bill treads upon no rights of the settler ... and it receives the urgent and ardent support of the legislature of that Territory [Montana], and of the Delegate himself...."[151]

The roll call on February 28, 1872, showed 115 ayes, 65 noes, and 60 not voting. George W. Morgan, the minority leader, was opposed to the bill on partisan principles in general and his personal dislike for Secretary Delano in particular. Within ten weeks the measure had passed both houses by large majorities, and on March 1, 1872, it received the signature of President Ulysses S. Grant.

Upon passage of the act the _Helena Herald_ printed a laudatory editorial on "Our National Park," while the Helena _Rocky Mountain Gazette_ considered the bill "as a great blow struck at the prosperity of the towns of Bozeman and Virginia City ... if it were thrown open to a curious but comfort-loving public." Other local papers joined the _Herald's_ side of the controversy.[152]

A mild national reaction was generally favorable to the reservation idea. The bill even attracted attention abroad, as evidenced by an article in the _London Times_, April 10, 1873, under the caption, "A Very National Park."

Who should receive the credit for this eminent accomplishment? A careful examination of the facts warrants the conclusion that the idea of establishing Yellowstone as a public reservation had a dual birth. It was independently conceived in the minds of two men. This view is attested by the deliberate statement of N. P. Langford:

It is true that Professor Hayden joined with Mr. Clagett and myself in working for the passage of the act of dedication, but no person can divide with Cornelius Hedges and David E. Folsom the honor of originating the idea of creating the Yellowstone Park.[153]

In his _Westward America_, Howard R. Driggs states that the pioneer artist, George Catlin, made a similar observation about other parts of the Old West in the eighteen thirties. Surely it was Hedges' suggestion at Madison Junction campfire that initiated the conception of a program which other men were well conditioned to execute. N. P. Langford was the enthusiast, the zealous crusader. William H. Clagett was the man at the helm, but he was ably supported by the sage advice of Henry L. Dawes, representative from Massachusetts, who probably formulated the general principles of the measure.[154] Dr. F. V. Hayden's scientific reports and unstinted support must be weighed heavily in the scale. Senators Samuel C. Pomeroy and Lyman Trumbull gave strength to the movement. The good will of General Phil Sheridan was a constant factor. Beyond this spearhead of ability and integrity the number of contributors broadens. It was an altogether democratic effort, and little injustice results from the omission of other efforts toward the cause. Most of them would probably have had it so. It was a program for the benefit and enjoyment of all people, rather than the personal aggrandizement of a few.

The rapidity that characterized the government's action in this matter will always stand as a tribute to the common sense and natural idealism of the Forty-second Congress. Judge Hedges' idea had found ready acceptance as it journeyed along the legislative course. The "Dedicatory Act," as it is now called, was a remarkably well-drawn bill, especially when it is remembered that the issues involved were not only new in America but to the entire world. It was a pioneer measure in the field of conserving natural phenomena for recreational and spiritual appreciation. John Muir has cogently expressed the significance of the endeavor:

Fortunately, almost as soon as it--the Yellowstone region--was discovered it was dedicated and set apart for the benefit of the people, a piece of legislation that shines benignly amid the common dust-and-ashes history of the public domain.[155]

The philosophy in the statement of the purpose was both unique and basic. The reservation was "dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." Conservation was keynoted in "the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities or wonders within said park and for retention in their natural condition." There was a declaration against "the wanton destruction of fish and game--and the capture or destruction for the purpose of merchandise or profit." Senators Anthony and Tipton wanted to strike out the last phrase so there would be no destruction of game for any purpose. Anthony said, "We do not want sportsmen going over there with their guns," and Mr. Tipton, "... if the door is once opened I fear there will ultimately be an entire destruction of all the game in the Park."[156] Within a score of years their fears were fully vindicated, and their wishes realized in the passage of a Protective Act on May 7, 1894.

Altogether, the Yellowstone National Park bill represents a comprehensive glance into the principle of use without abuse. Nature was to be preserved, protected, and not improved. Art could not embellish what God had wrought in Yellowstone. The Act of Dedication became the touchstone of a national conservation policy whose blessings are legion. The bill did not carry an appropriation. It appears that the program was to be implemented entirely by voluntary service. In the years that followed there was a noble devotion which burned brightly, then waned, and almost died before resuscitation came. Eventually Yellowstone administrative experience evolved a program of surpassing merit which served as an example for the whole nation in the matter of managing certain phases of natural resources.