WHILE THE ARMY was protecting the natural features and wildlife of the Park, others were working for legislation to aid in that protection. The battle for legal machinery was a long and difficult one, extending from 1882 to 1894. On one side were arrayed the forces advocating protection and conservation; on the other side were those who sought to exploit and disrupt the Park. The conservationists had as their spokesman Senator George C. Vest of Missouri; their opponents included several Senators and Congressmen who heeded the influence of a powerful lobby known as "The Railroad Gang." Vest, backed by Senator C. F. Manderson of Nebraska, enlisted the aid of George Bird Grinnell, editor of Forest and Stream, Arnold Hague, William Hallett Phillips, and all of the Acting Superintendents of the Park, and focused his campaign on one target: the passage of a bill providing legal machinery to punish violators of Park rules. Their opponents, the mining interests and real estate speculators in Cooke City and the surrounding territory, directed their attack on two fronts, both designed to frustrate the purpose of the National Park. One was termed "segregation," designed to reduce the area of the Park; the other was designed to gain a right-of-way for a railroad through the Park. Ultimately the proponents of protection and preservation won the battle, with the passage of the Lacey Act in 1894.

On December 12, 1882 Vest secured adoption by the Senate of a Resolution calling upon the Committee on Territories to review possible legislation to protect the wildlife, forests, and natural wonders of the Yellowstone National Park. In response to this Resolution, he, as chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported a bill to amend the Yellowstone Park Act of 1872. Vest proposed to extend the area of the Park, place it within the criminal jurisdiction of the Montana Territorial courts for offenses against life or property, and create within the Park a police jurisdiction for the arrest, examination, and punishment of those who violated the rules made by the Secretary of the Interior. Unfortunately, no action was taken on this or a similar bill introduced in the House; but the groundwork was established for an eleven-year struggle, culminating in 1894 with the passage of similar legislation. [1]

Six times, between 1883 and 1893, Senator Vest maneuvered his bill through the Senate; six times his bill was reported favorably in the House, but each time it emerged with a crippling amendment granting a railroad right-of-way through the Park. The proponents of the right-of-way assumed that those who wanted to protect the Park would rather have a bill providing protection and carrying the railroad rider than no bill at all. The advocates of Park protection, however, feared that not only would the construction of a railroad destroy natural features of the Park, but that it would also establish a precedent making the exclusion of other railroads impossible. These men chose to bide their time, backing every "Vest Bill" in its course through the Senate, opposing the amended bill as it was reported out of the House. [2]

Blocked in other directions, [3] proponents of the railroad began agitation for a boundary readjustment that would restore the northern part of the Park to the public domain and thus allow access to the Cooke City mines without going through the Park. The Northern Pacific Railway Company had previously extended a branch line to the northern entrance of the Park, thus connecting Gardiner and Livingston, Montana. The residents of Livingston were the most vocal supporters of the various segregation bills, fearing that if a line were not run into the mining area from the West, the trade of Cooke City would be drained eastward. The various bills proposed to accomplish this dismemberment were collectively known as "segregation bills" and were vigorously opposed by friends of the Park, who maintained that the proposed boundary change would exclude from the Park one of its most attractive portions, in addition to destroying the winter range of the elk, antelope, and mountain sheep, which would in turn "lead to the destruction of half the game in the Park." [4]

The pressure applied by the railroad lobby to segregate a portion of the Park was so intense, however, that even those Senators who had long been stalwart defenders of the Park trembled and tottered. A bill introduced by Senator Francis E. Warren of Wyoming, designed to return to the public domain the northern portion of the Park desired by the railroad promoters, was placed before the Senate on February 26, 1892. [5] When it came up for debate on May 10, Senator Vest, the man who had repeatedly fought off all attempts at encroachment, confessed "with considerable humiliation" that he had finally been defeated. Noting that Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming had recently become states, he claimed that, out of senatorial courtesy, he would henceforth bow to the wishes of the Senators from those new states. In a frank admission of senatorial impotence, Vest admitted that "a persistent and unscrupulous lobby are able to do almost what they please with the public domain" and that "the fact remains that no legislation can be had for the park until the demands of these people are conceded." When questioned as to why the Senate of the United Stares must concede to the wishes of a mere lobbying group, Vest replied that the railroad lobby was "exactly like a compact military organization working for one object alone. They are persistent, aggressive, sleepless, untiring, and they are determined to own a charter into this reservation." Because of this constant pressure, he, for one, was submitting to the segregation legislation "because I can not help myself, not because my judgement approves it." Explaining his apparent capitulation to the railroad power, Vest maintained that, if all railroad companies were allowed to construct roads on the land segregated from the Park, the attempts by one company to form a monopoly would be frustrated and the sole object of the railroad lobby would be defeated. "I do not believe," he said, "they [the railroad lobby] will permit—and I use that language with its full significance—this bill to go through the House of Representatives." [6]

With the foremost defender of the Park seemingly rendered helpless, opposition to the segregation bill was confined to Senator William B. Bates of Tennessee. Senator Bates thought that the very existence of a powerful lobby operating in the halls of Congress was reason enough to vote against the bill, and although he had never visited the Park, his speech on its behalf illustrated an exact understanding of its purpose:

. . . the Yellowstone National Park is a reservation set apart by the Government for the people in common. . . . I do not desire to see it diverted from the original intention. . . . I look upon it as I do upon the reservation of Yosemite Valley and of the big trees in Mariposa Grove. If someone thinks he can make a fortune out of the big trees of Mariposa, shall we allow him to go there and cut down those wonderful . . . natural objects and destroy that magnificent scenery ...?... shall we give away the principle that this park [Yellowstone] was to be kept sacred and held apart for the people of this country . . . and that strangers from all parts of the world who come hither to see the beauty and grandeur of our country may look upon it with admiration ...?... I want to preserve that park in its entirety, and I do not wish to see the object for which it was originally set apart changed and diverted into other channels. [7]

In rebuttal to this eloquent plea, Senator James H. Berry of Arkansas, representing the materialistic attitudes of the age, stated that he did not believe that the "Government ought to engage in the raising of wild animals," that it was not a "profitable industry" for the government, and that he would, if given the opportunity, vote to abolish the Park entirely, breaking it up into 160 acre lots, allowing settlement and cultivation, and if that process were not practicable, he would "sell it to the highest bidder and place the money in the Treasury." [8]

Senators Henry M. Teller of Colorado, Francis E. Warren of Wyoming, Wilbur F. Sanders of Montana, and Orville H. Platt of Connecticut all rose in defense of the segregation bill, while a somewhat feeble opposition was voiced by Senators Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, Arthur P. Gorman of Maryland, and John M. Palmer of Illinois. On roll call vote, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 32 to 18. In the House, the Senate version was favorably reported out of the Committee on Public Lands, but fortunately for the integrity of the Park, no further action was taken. [9]

The passage of this bill through the Senate marked the apogee of the railroad group's effort to gain control of a portion of the Park. While the senatorial supporters were weakening, other proponents of the Park idea were forming themselves into an articulate and persuasive lobby group. George Bird Grinnell filled the columns of Forest and Stream with editorials and articles denouncing those who advocated the reduction of the Park, and in 1892 he distributed throughout the country a pamphlet entitled, "A Standing Menace; Cooke City vs. the National Park." Acting Superintendent Anderson bombarded the Secretary of the Interior with letters opposing the entrance of a railroad line into the Park and maintained that if any of the segregation bills were passed or a railroad franchise given, the results would be "the ruin of the Park and its complete destruction as a forest or a game preserve." He further stated that if "any public good would be subserved" by such a procedure, he would not oppose it, but in his opinion, the proposed legislation was "purely in the interest of private greed, and that too of not a very high order." Anderson traveled to Washington, and there appeared before a House committee in opposition to the boundary change and railroad permit. [10] A United States Civil Service Commissioner, Theodore Roosevelt, thought that "so far from having this Park cut down it should be extended, and legislation adopted which would enable the military authorities . . . to punish in the most rigorous way people who trespass upon it"; [11] residents of Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah signed petitions of protest against the granting of a railroad right-of-way through the Park and presented them to Congress; [12] President T. F. Oakes of the Northern Pacific Railway stated that his company had thoroughly examined the mines at Cooke City and the various proposed routes to them, and that under no circumstances would his company build a road to them. [13]

Soda Butte Soldier Station, Yellowstone, 1905. National Park Service.

When the 53rd Congress was called into special session by President Cleveland, primarily in order to repeal the Sherman Silver Purchasing Act, the railroad lobby again be came active, but they were now fighting a losing battle. Bills were introduced into both Houses of Congress designed to authorize the construction and operation of an "electric railroad in the Yellowstone National Park," but the immediate response by Captain Anderson, who labeled the bills as "unneeded, unadvisable and vicious," had salutary effect and both bills were reported adversely from committees. [14] Senator Vest again introduced his bill providing for legal machinery and punishment of violations in the Park, but no action was taken on it. If the supporters of the Park were disheartened by Congressional refusal to pass the Vest bill, they had cause to rejoice when Congress also refused to provide legislation favoring the railroad interests. Segregation bills were introduced by Senator Joseph M. Carey of Wyoming and Congressman Charles S. Hartman of Montana; Representative Coffeen of Wyoming proposed a bill that would have granted Park lands to a railroad company. The Secretary of the Interior and the Acting Superintendent of the Park opposed these measures and supporters of the Park in the Senate and the House managed to kill the bills.

Thus ended the last serious attempt to segregate Park lands and force a railroad through the Yellowstone Park. Much bitterness was engendered in this fight, and the very existence of the Park was threatened. One man reported: "I heard some men talking today about the failure of the Government to grant the right of way through the National Park . . . they said that at a certain time fires would be started in the Park and all of the Park timber burned." A local editor reported rumors of arson and commented that, "Everyone concedes that the destruction of the Park by fire would be a public, a national calamity." He thought that the only way to avert such an impending danger would be for Congress to grant the "reasonable request of the people of the West and pass the segregation bill." As late as 1913 segregation was still contemplated by some, and on May 1 of that year Senator Meyers of Montana introduced a bill providing for the return of the public domain of "that area of the park lying north of the Yellowstone River," including the same area previously desired by the railroad interests. The bill was not reported out of committee and appears to have been the last attempt to remove that portion of the Park. [15]

With the defeat of the railroad lobbyists, the advocates of conservation and preservation were now able to direct their energies to the long-standing campaign of achieving legal protection for the Park and its wildlife. Every civilian Superintendent and every military Acting Superintendent had constantly urged the adoption of such necessary legislation, but the general public, then as now, was generally apathetic. Until public opinion could be marshaled by the defenders of the Park, it appeared that Congress would continue to ignore the pleas for legal machinery. The lamentable situation in the Park was publicized in the columns of Forest and Stream and its editor, George Bird Grinnell, utilized every capture and subsequent release of poachers in the Park as a cause for editorials, news releases to newspapers throughout the country, and the printing of circulars, all of which were thrust upon Senators and Congressmen every time one of the Vest bills was before committee in hearing. Influential persons visiting the Park were told of the deplorable situation by Captain Anderson, and others were requested to write their Congressmen and join the ranks of those already enlisted in the campaign to preserve the Park. Still no action was forthcoming from Congress. The 53rd Congress refused to pass Vest's bill (S. 43); Senator Joseph M. Carey of Wyoming introduced a similar one (S. 166), reported it from the Senate Committee on Territories, only to see it meet the fate of the previous Vest bills. [16] Fortunately, one adventitious event finally prodded a reluctant Congress into action.

Edgar Howell, a resident of Cooke City, was arrested on March 13, 1894, in the Yellowstone Park and charged with the wanton killing of buffalo. This was considered by Captain Anderson to be the "most important arrest and capture ever made in the Park," and was replete with all of the suspense and surprise of a popular novel. In reporting the capture to the Secretary of the Interior, Captain Anderson wrote:

Some time since one of my snowshoe [ski] parties got on the trail of a man with a sled, on Astringent Creek, near Pelican. The trail was old when discovered, and in consequence it was not followed. About the same time a man ascertained to be one Ed. Howell of Cooke City, passed my station of Soda Butte in the night—and went on into Cooke. I knew that . . . he was not carrying out any trophies so I determined to make further search on the Pelican. . . . On the 6th inst. I started our a party consisting of Captain Scott, Lt. Forsyth, Burgess [Felix] the scout, two sergts. and Haynes [F. Jay], the park photographer . . . on the 12th inst. in a terrific storm, Burgess and the Sergt. starred across to the Pelican country and camped. . . . Next A.M. he found, near his camp, a cache of 6 buffalo scalps and skulls, 3 good skins and 3 more that the hair had been partially taken off. . . . The trail was there,—but dim—of the poacher and it was soon lost. However Burgess kept on and about noon of that day he ran into a fresh trail which he followed to a lodge, erected near the mouth of Astringent Creek. While there he heard several shots & soon saw the culprit down in the middle of the Pelican Valley. Here he performed an act of bravery that deserves especial mention and recognition. The poacher was undoubtedly armed with a repeating rifle; it was equally certain that he was a desperate character & would resist arrest even to the point of taking life. The only arms Burgess and the Sergt. carried was a single Army revolver. Notwithstanding the serious risk, they boldly started forward over the 400 yards of open valley. The poacher was so occupied in skinning his buffalo that he did not see Burgess until he was within 15 or 20 feet of him. He then started for his rifle, but on order from Burgess stopped and surrendered. Near him were the bodies of 5 buffalo, freshly killed. [17]

Howell was confined in the guard house at Fort Yellowstone pending instructions from the Secretary of the Interior; his bedding, tepee, and toboggan were destroyed, and the scalps of the slaughtered bison were preserved with the intention of presenting them, mounted, to several select military and government officials. Anderson immediately sensed that the event could be capitalized on and recommended to the Secretary that it "be made the occasion for a direct appeal to Congress for the passage of an act making it an offense . . . for any one to kill, capture or injure any wild animal in the Park," and that the punishment "should be graded between a small fine only and a long term of imprisonment." [18]

Two things set the arrest of Howell apart from the previous arrests of poachers. This was the first time a poacher had been apprehended in the very act of killing and skinning game and his guilt undeniably established by the presence of still warm bodies. Also, by a happy coincidence, a team of reporters was in the Park, sent by George Bird Grinnell to collect material for Forest and Stream. Through the reportorial skill of Emerson Hough and the photographs of F.J. Haynes, the facts of the case were immediately made known to Grinnell, and he, together with influential friends, at once set out for Washington hoping that this flagrant case of bison killing would convince a still skeptical Congress that legislation was necessary to protect the game animals in the Park. In less than two weeks the desired legislation was introduced in the House by Congressman John F. Lacey of Iowa. [19]

Lacey's bill included the main features of the bill so often introduced in the Senate by Vest. It was reported from committee on April 4, 1894, slightly amended, and passed the House without debate on April 6, 1894. [20] This rapid process in a House that had previously crippled all attempts to provide a legal framework for the Park was due in part to the active role assumed by the bill's advocates. Grinnell had filled every issue of Forest and Stream with articles by Hough about the Howell case, together with editorials demanding Congressional action. Suggesting that "every reader who is interested in the Park . . . should write to his Senator and Representative," Grinnell advised his readers that the last remnants of the once numerous bison would surely be slaughtered if some action was not taken immediately. [21] When his cry was picked up by the national press, Congress was inundated with petitions and letters from an indignant public finally made aware that no law existed whereby poachers could be punished. Theodore Roosevelt planned to appear before the Senate Committee on Territories and stated that he would "use the recent unfortunate slaughter of buffaloes for all it was worth for trying to get legislation through." He thought that Howell should be "sent up for half a dozen years," and talked with every Congressman he could find in an attempt to hurry the protection bill through Congress. [22] Another friend of the Park, W. Hallett Phillips, convinced members of the Senate Committee on Territories that the bill before it was "a pretty poor one, too weak to do any good," and was responsible for the addition of penalties more severe than those provided in the House bill. He informed the Park Superintendent that "Roosevelt says you made the greatest mistake of your life in not accidentally having that scoundrel [Howell] killed and he speaks as if he would have shot him on the spot." Phillips said merely that "the killing of the buffalo has excited people very much and may stir Congress up to do something." [23]

It did. The bill, reported from the House Committee on Public Lands by Representative Lacey, was passed by the House and went over to the Senate, where it was immediately referred to the Committee on Territories. Senator Vest, as a member of this committee, secured the substitution of his bill for the House measure and his substitute was favorably reported out on April 14. When this substitute bill was debated on the Senate floor on April 21 and 23, Vest was able to obtain several amendments that increased fines and provided an annual salary for a United States Commissioner with jurisdiction over the Yellowstone Park. Thus amended, the bill passed the Senate and a conference committee was appointed. This committee agreed to some thirty amendments that dealt with unimportant changes in wording; the committee report was agreed to by the House on May 1, and by the Senate the following day.

In the Senate, the bill was questioned only by Senator Charles F. Manderson of Nebraska, who had to be assured that the bill did not in any way change the boundaries of the Park, and that the bill included "nothing looking to any entrance by any railroad." Vest assured him on these two points and reminded the Senate that "all that could be done . . . with a criminal the other day who killed a number of buffalo . . . was to take his old gun and a pair of blankets and put him outside the park." He thought that the bill before the Senate was "a good measure as far as it goes," admitted that it did not go so far as some of the bills previously introduced by him, but thought that "it is as far as Congress can go now under existing conditions." Senator Joseph M. Carey of Wyoming stated that "it is a bill that should be placed upon the statute book quickly, as it is said that during the last month one party of men, or as we call them in the West an 'outfit,' killed game to the value of more than $10,000, and they remarked when they were arrested and finally turned loose . . . that they would have made two or three thousand dollars in their two months' work if they had not been apprehended." Government for the Yellowstone National Park became a reality when President Grover Cleveland signed the Act on May 7, 1894. [24]

Surpassed only by the Act that established the Yellowstone Park, the Act of May 7, 1894, stands as a great landmark in Park legislation and a monument to those unselfish individuals whose efforts and continued interest brought it about. By this Act the Park was placed under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and constituted as a part of the United States judicial district of Wyoming. The laws of the state of Wyoming were made applicable in cases where an offense was not prohibited or punishable by federal law or regulations laid down by the Secretary of the Interior. All hunting, killing, wounding, or capturing of any bird or wild animal, "except dangerous animals, when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human life or inflicting an injury" was prohibited. The Secretary of the Interior was directed to make "such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary and proper for the management and care of the park and for the protection of property therein . . . and for the protection of animals and birds in the park . . . and for governing the taking of fish." Possession within the Park of dead bodies of any wild bird or animal was to be prima facie evidence of violation of the Act. It made it a misdemeanor for any "persons, or stage or express company or railway company" to transport animals, birds, or fish taken in the Park, such transportation being punishable by a fine not exceeding $300. The heart of the Act was embodied in the following paragraph:

Any person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or regulation that may be promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior with reference to the management and care of the Park, or for the protection of the property therein, for the preservation from injury or spoliation of timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities or wonderful objects within said park, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subjected to a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, and be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings.

The practice of confiscating the offender's equipment and vehicles was legalized and made mandatory. [25]

Legal administration was provided for the Park by a United States Commissioner and provision was made for the appointment of one or more deputy marshals, all of whom were to reside permanently in the Park. The Commissioner was given jurisdiction to hear and act upon all complaints of violations of the Act and of violations of regulations made by the Secretary of the Interior. He was empowered to issue process in the name of the United States for the arrest of any person charged with violations, and to hear evidence in the case of a person accused of having committed a felony, binding the accused over to the United States District Court of Wyoming. The Commissioner was to receive, in addition to the fees allowed by law, an annual salary of one thousand dollars and the use of an office to be constructed near the Park headquarters. Although a significant and necessary part of the legal process provided by the Lacey Act, the Commissioner has historically been little more than a legal functionary, performing the duties usually associated with a justice of the peace. John A. Meldrum was appointed the first Commissioner of the Park on June 20, 1894. He held that position until June 30, 1935, resigning at the age of 91 years. [26]

The enactment of this law should have pleased the advocates of Park protection but there were some who wanted more. Theodore Roosevelt thought that the law was "by no means as good" as he would like, but admitted that it was "a good deal better than the present systems and . . . it at least gives us a groundwork on which to go." [27] Edward A. Bowens, Commissioner of the General Land Office, attempted to have the bill amended so that the deputy marshals would be appointed by the Acting Superintendent, and in this way remove the "danger of some of the outlying poachers and that sort of cattle getting the appointments . . . as political favors." While the law would have been better with the inclusion of amendments proposed by W. Hallett Phillips and himself, he thought that "on the whole it is pretty good." [28] Phillips advised Anderson that, as the law stood, "it is very doubtful whether the Commissioner can exercise jurisdiction over offenses committed within that portion of the Park, which lies within the boundaries of Montana and Idaho," since when those states were admitted into the Union they did not relinquish jurisdiction over those portions of the Park. He pointed out, however, that "this point . . . is not generally known, and if I were you I would not mention it to any one but go on and enforce the Act over the whole Park." [29] Anderson regretted that the Act did not provide for the appointment of additional scouts, but Phillips said this complaint surprised him as he (Phillips) had "labored very hard" to have the Park bill amended to enable the Acting Superintendent to get as many scouts as he wanted under the "guise of Deputy Marshals." [30] Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the law was effective and has served as the cornerstone for all subsequent Park legislation.

Ironically, the first man to be arrested and tried under the new law was Edgar Howell, whose original arrest had led to passage of the Act. Howell had been illegally confined in the guard house at Fort Yellowstone until his release was ordered by the Secretary of the Interior. He was then escorted to the Park boundary, expelled, and ordered never to return. But he did return, and when apprehended in the Park the following summer he was arrested, charged with violating the order of expulsion, found guilty by the newly appointed Commissioner, fined fifty dollars and sentenced to thirty days in jail under the provisions of the Lacey Act. Howell appealed his conviction to the United States District Court and was subsequently released. Gibson Clark, United States Attorney for the United States District Court of Wyoming, stated that Howell could not be prosecuted criminally upon the charge of returning to the Park after having been removed because such an act did not "constitute a criminal offense under any statute of the United States." Nor could Howell be tried for the killing of the buffalo in March, because "there was no statute in force at that time." An act of the Wyoming Legislature making the killing of buffalo an offense was not applicable because the Act of Congress admitting Wyoming into the Union provided that "exclusive jurisdiction and control over all the Territory embraced in the Yellowstone National Park was reserved to the United States." Faced with this legal frustration, Gibson could only state, "If I could see any way by which this man could be prosecuted criminally, I should most gladly exhaust the power of the court in bringing him to justice for his outrageous wanton acts." [31]

Howell's relationship to the Park and its guardians in later years was changing and contradictory. In 1896 he was refused permission to make a trip through the Park, but a year later he was employed by the Acting Superintendent as a scout with the sole duty of apprehending poachers—a case of "using a thief to catch a thief."[32]

The provisions of the Act of May 7, 1894 marked a major turning point in the military administration of the Park. No longer would the military commanders be forced to utilize extralegal methods to punish violators of the rules; no longer would profit-minded poachers prey upon the Park's wildlife without fear of retribution. Poaching did not completely cease with the passage of the Act, but it was substantially reduced. Vigilance was still maintained, patrols continued to search the back country, and an occasional hunter or trapper was apprehended.

The first eight years of military control had been successful ones. The Park had been protected, the forests and wildlife preserved, and major elements of policy had been determined. During these years, the rules and regulations governing the Park had been constantly revised and enforced; the very real threats of segregation, commercialization, and railroad ingress had been met and defeated; and a definite policy, in reference to lessees, of "controlled monopoly," had evolved. A permanent military post had been established, the Yellowstone garrison doubled, fish planted, snowshoe cabins constructed, and Congress had been persuaded to pass legislation providing legal machinery and laws for the Park.

The successful military administration of the Yellowstone National Park prompted the establishment of the same type of administration in the National Parks in California. Yosemite, General Grant, and Sequoia had been established as "public parks" or "forest reservations" in 1890 and placed under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress as usual failed to provide legal means for the protection and preservation of these parks. Ultimately the provisions of the Act of May 7, 1894, were extended to these and other parks later established by Congress, but until this was done, it was the responsibility of the United States Army to protect them from devastation and destruction. Operating in the California Parks from the time of their inception until 1900 without Congressional sanction, and for the duration of the military administration without the aid of law enforcement machinery, the United States Cavalry saved these parks from destruction in much the same manner that it had saved the Yellowstone.