Chapter 9:
The Culmination of an Idea
TWENTY-TWO YEARS ELAPSED between the passage of
legislation providing legal machinery in 1894 and the formation of the
National Park Service in 1916. Meanwhile the military commanders in the
Parks continued the policies established by their predecessors and
developed new elements of management that were later adopted by the
civilian administrators who succeeded them. Changing conditions in and
around the Parks terminated some of the older problems and gave rise to
new ones. Game animals, once so ruthlessly hunted by poachers, were so
well protected that new policies had to be developed to handle
adequately the resulting surplus. A program to interpret Park wonders to
the public was originally suggested by the military commanders and
scientific data were collected by them. Cooperation of individuals who
lived near the Parks was achieved by the impartial and effective
policing of the Park areas, and many earlier administrative problems
were thus negated. The road and trail systems used by modern tourists
were planned and constructed by Army engineers using Army labor. Fort
Yellowstone, built of quarried stone, stands today as the central unit
of the National Park Headquarters in the Yellowstone. In the California
Parks, seedling sequoias planted by Army personnel remain as testimony
to the labor and foresight of the earlier military guardianship.
The advisability of eventual transfer of the National
Parks to civil authority had been foreseen by several military
commanders and their suggestions and plans enabled the transfer of
authority to be made with some facility. Many of the military personnel
who had served in the Parks accepted discharges from the Army and formed
a cadre around which was constructed the first civilian ranger
service.
One of the larger legacies resulting from the
military administration is the fact that the National Parks are game
refuges. In the Yellowstone, the administrators could have easily and
naturally provided protection for the thermal features only; in the
California Parks, the major administrative problems would have been
eliminated had protection been confined only to the big trees and
Yosemite Valley. Fortunately, the early policy makers looked beyond the
obvious and extended protection to include most life within the parks.
[1] One beneficent result of this policy was
the preservation and restoration of the American bison an animal that
was rapidly nearing extinction in the 1890's.
Estimates place the original number of bison at sixty
million; by 1830 the once vast herds had been pushed west of the
Mississippi River and their numbers reduced to an estimated fifteen
million. The slaughter of these remaining animals was so rapid that by
1886 the chief taxidermist of the National Museum in Washington was able
to locate only 541 of the beasts, and most of these were found in the
Yellowstone National Park. By 1894 the animals in the Yellowstone were
the only bison still living in a wild state in the United States.
Poachers, old age, accident, and disease reduced the Yellowstone herd to
an estimated fifty animals in 1900. [2]
The continual decline in the Park herd forced the
military commanders to re-examine the policy, originally inaugurated by
Captain Moses Harris, of not introducing "domesticated animals" into the
Park, and as early as 1893 Captain George S. Anderson suggested the
infusion, through purchase, of outside blood into the dwindling wild
herd. No action was taken on this suggestion at the time, but when the
number of bison in the Park dropped to twenty-two and the danger of
inbreeding and eventual sterility became apparent, Major John Pitcher,
Acting Superintendent of the Yellowstone, again suggested the purchase
of outside animals in order to start a new herd and to diffuse new blood
into the original wild herd. Through the efforts of Congressman John F.
Lacey of Iowa an appropriation of $15,000 was obtained; fourteen cows
were purchased from the Pablo-Allard herd in Montana, and three bulls
from the Goodnight herd in Texas. Several calves were captured from the
wild herd and all were placed in a large fenced enclosure, with the idea
of setting them free after they had been confined long enough to assure
that they would remain in the vicinity of the Park. [3]
The natural increase in the new herd developed from
the three separate strains was so great that in 1907 a "buffalo ranch"
was established in the Lamar Valley, an area some what removed from
tourist travel. The ranch was placed under the direction of a salaried
"Buffalo Keeper," who requisitioned supplies and reported directly to
the Acting Superintendent. Though nonprofit, the ranch was operated in
the same way as a domestic cattle ranch. Corrals, chutes, shelter sheds,
barns, and fences were constructed; red top and timothy hay were sowed,
irrigated, and harvested, and in the first year of operation, 200 tons
were cut and stacked for winter feed. All of the animals were branded
with a "U.S." on the left hip, some of the bulls were made into steers,
and births of young bison were carefully noted. The total number of
bison in captivity was placed at sixty-one in 1907. [4]
With the infusion of new blood into the wild herd by
the periodic release of bulls from the tame herd, it too began to
increase and in 1916 seventy-two wild bison were counted. These animals
were the descendants of that small number that had escaped capture and
killing, and thus represented the only true line of bison to have
continuously lived in a wild state in all of the United States. By 1916
the domestic herd had increased to 273 animals and it had become
possible to transfer some buffalo to other game refuges and municipal
parks throughout the country. The American bison had been saved from
total extinction and the military commanders of the Yellowstone National
Park had played an important role in its preservation. [5]
The story of the elk is quite different. The wapiti
or American elk had, like the bison, been forced into smaller and
smaller areas of wilderness as civilization continued to envelop the
West. Historically these animals had lived and grazed in the mountains
during the warmer months of the year, but as winter approached they
formed into herds and migrated to the open valleys and plains in search
of food. As the American settler pushed into these lowland regions,
fenced the land and pre-empted the grass for his domestic stock, this
migratory pattern was destroyed. Meat hunters took their toll of these
animals and, just as the bison had been killed for their tongues, many
elk were slaughtered for their canine teeth, which sold for as high as
ten dollars a pair and were used as unofficial badge of membership in
the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.
Large numbers of elk found refuge in the Yellowstone
National Park and these were, during the winter months, diverted into
two separate groups, the Northern and the Southern herd. Protected from
illegal hunters, these herds increased tremendously at a time when their
customary winter feeding grounds outside the Park were being reduced by
settlement. The Northern herd had traditionally migrated northward
outside the Park during the winter, but now this was endangered by armed
hunters who formed a firing line in anticipation of the annual
migration. The Southern herd faced the same danger as it migrated into
the Jackson Hole country to the south. As these animals moved southward
they became wards of the State of Wyoming, and had to be fed by the
State in order to prevent starvation due to the shrinking grazing area
and the concomitant increase in the number of animals. Some animosity
was thereby aroused and the Governor of Wyoming said: "When the elk are
far and sleek they belong to the government of the United States. When
they are starving they belong to the people of Wyoming." [6]
When it was suggested in 1911 that the Park
authorities institute a winter feeding program to reduce the number of
animals that annually died from starvation, the Acting Superintendent of
the Park protested that such a procedure would only increase the number
of animals, and thus produce a problem of ever-increasing magnitude. He
maintained that not only would winter feeding be very expensive, but
that once started it would have to be continued since the animals would
very soon develop a dependence upon this unnatural assistance. The
original problem would increase each year until some other process was
devised to reduce the herds to the number determined by their summer
grazing ranges. His suggested solution was to accelerate the program
begun in 1892, of capturing the excess animals and shipping them to
areas in the United States where they had become extinct. He was
confident that the capture of a thousand of these animals a year would
not be detrimental to the balance of the herds that would remain, and
would be less expensive than any feeding program. [7]
The transshipment of surplus elk was accelerated, but
unfortunately so was the winter feeding of the animals in the Park. The
latter process produced more animals than could be drained off by
transshipping and the problem of annual elk reduction remains to this
day one of the most controversial subjects faced by the Yellowstone
administrators. Elk are no longer fed and live trapping procedures begun
under military rule are still utilized, but the elk problem persists.
Today, excess numbers of elk are killed by the Park Ranger force, and
while practical and realistic, this judicious slaughter has produced, in
addition to much emotion, an unsatisfactory answer to the dilemma raised
by a realistic wildlife management program on the one hand and the
maintenance of National Park policies of preservation and protection on
the other. [8]
Although the military authorities were unable to
solve the problem of an overabundance of game animals, they were
successful in establishing the rudimentary beginnings of the National
Park interpretive program. Admittedly, the average soldier was not
equipped to answer all the inquiries of the curious tourist, and it was
not uncommon for him to rely upon the fantastic in order to cover his
lack of scientific knowledge. Troopers detailed to patrol the natural
curiosities in the Parks were instructed to give what information they
could, in a courteous manner, when requested to do so. The information
produced by these men was probably far different from that given today
by the "ranger naturalist" who is trained in botany, geology, zoology,
and other branches of natural history, but a step had been taken toward
what eventually evolved into the naturalist program later developed by
the National Park service.
In the Yellowstone particularly, surrounded as they
were with strange natural phenomena, the early military commanders
attempted to maintain a close watch on the freaks of nature; geyser
eruptions were charted and any change in activity was closely noted.
Constant observation of the various geysers made it possible to predict
their time of eruption with sufficient accuracy to inform tourists of
impending geyser activity, and it was discovered that there was a close
connection between the temperature of the water in a geyser and the time
of its eruption. Newly formed geysers were examined and measured,
temperature readings were taken, and their locations were duly reported
to the Acting Superintendent. One civilian observer stated that the
Park's military guardian "had a pronounced weakness for geysers . . .
stopping at every little steamjet to examine it." He supposed that the
Acting Superintendent felt "a personal responsibility in having them
[geysers] go regularly." [9]
Definite steps were taken toward the development of
an interpretive program in the Yosemite National Park when the Acting
Superintendent requested the Secretary of Agriculture to send him books
and publications treating the natural history, sylva, flora, and fauna
of the Park. He then proceeded to construct an arboretum and botanical
garden in the Park. An area comprising some 100 acres was selected,
paths were opened, trees trimmed, debris and deadwood cleared, and signs
designating the scientific and common nomenclature of the local trees
and plants were erected. Trees and plants found in other parts of the
Park were transplanted to the selected area and seats provided for the
tourists. The originator of the arboretum hoped that it would "some day
be supplemented by a building serving the purpose of a museum and
library." This same farsighted individual suggested that the entire park
be developed and preserved as a "great museum of nature for the general
public free of cost." Unfortunately the location selected for the
arboretum was on patented land within the Park. When the boundaries were
relocated in 1905, that portion was excluded from the Yosemite Park. [10]
With the advent of the National Park Service a
definite interpretive program was developed, guide folders were printed,
and conducted nature tours and lectures were made available in some of
the Parks. Later, museums were established and experiments in visual
education were inaugurated, largely through the cooperation of the
American Association of Museums and the Smithsonian Institution,
augmented by funds from the Rockefeller Foundation. As early as 1908,
however, the Acting Superintendent of the Yellowstone had requested that
books on natural history be furnished his office for the "better
education and information" of the protectors of the Park. The entire
museum and interpretive program later developed by the National Park
Service was suggested in 1913, when Acting Superintendent Lieutenant
Colonel L. M. Brett of the Yellowstone called the attention of the
Secretary of the Interior to the "necessity for an administration
building, housing all that is interesting in historical data and
specimens of natural curiosities, etc." He suggested that "small
branches of the administration building in the shape of bungalows might
be erected at Norris, Upper Basin, and the Canyon, containing like data
and specimens, and presided over by one able to give intelligent
information." The same suggestion was made later by M. P. Skinner, who
was destined to become the first National Park naturalist. But Skinner,
after talking with the Secretary of the Interior, said that "the
consensus of opinion seems to be that the project is a little too
advanced for the present. The museum feature in connection with the
administration building they are not ready to handle yet." [11]
The military commanders also suggested what has only
recently been adopted by the National Park Service, namely, inducing
Park visitors to remove themselves from the heavily traveled portions of
the Parks and to visit the less frequented and wilderness areas. The
Acting Superintendent of the Sequoia Park in 1899 lamented the fact that
there existed no guidebooks or hotels to "advertise the highest and
roughest mountains" in the Park; as a consequence "those travelers who
are content to stumble over the discarded baskets of the last camping
party" missed the finer pleasures of Park travel. This perspicacious
individual maintained that:
If one is to know the real beauties of the Sierra
country, he must penetrate many places which are most difficult of
access, must reach the summits of the highest mountains and explore the
gorges of the deepest canyons. Rough and broken, steep and high as the
Sierras are, they can still be traveled, and will be by enthusiasts,
too, if the Government will take the initiative and introduce them to
its people. [12]
While almost all of the procedures inaugurated and
suggested by the military commanders have been adopted by the National
Park Service, many of them spread far beyond the Parks themselves. The
Acting Superintendents were frequently requested to give advice on
proper game protection, fire fighting methods, administrative policy and
methods, financial procedures, and indeed, any and all information
concerning the establishment and management of parks. Information
forwarded to Japan was considered by the Japanese to have been of "no
small service" to them in their "preparations for the scheme of [their]
National Park" information supplied to the museum director in
Stuttgardt, Germany, permitted him to greatly expand the perspective of
the Museum für Länder und Volkerkunde. The military management
of the Yellowstone became the model for game control in the Game
Preserve on Grand Island, Michigan; the Commissioners of the Palisades
Interstate Park in New York requested and received information
concerning rules and regulations. Information concerning fire-fighting
methods was forwarded to the State Forester of New Jersey upon request,
and a state senator of North Carolina, faced with the imminent question
of establishing a National Park in his state (Appalachian National
Park), requested from the Acting Superintendent of Yellowstone all of
the information at his command on administrative procedures. The advice
and suggestions made by the military commanders thus became a part of
the world-wide conservation movement. [13]
Fortunately, the military administrators were able to
avoid the pressures that occasionally overwhelm present-day Park
superintendents. Operating on the wise assumption that nature cannot be
improved upon, they resisted the temptation to introduce into the Parks
every modern convenience and innovation. When tourists complained about
the lack of improvements in the Yellowstone, for example, Acting
Superintendent Brett replied:
To make the Yellowstone National Park resemble
Atlantic City is unthinkable. . . . To put a rustic dress on each
geyser, chain in every hot pool, and erect pagodas over the paint pots,
would certainly complete the grotesque picture . . . this wonderland is
Nature's entertainment for mortals, and every touch of the human hand is
a desecration.
The Army Corps of Engineers laid out roads so that
they did not interfere with natural conditions and restricted them to
the smallest area consistent with access to the principal objects of
interest. Hiram M. Chittenden, one of the most prominent of the
engineers, believed that Government policy was to maintain the Parks "as
nearly as possible in their natural condition, unchanged by the hand of
man." Some modern Park administrators appear to think that nature
can be improved upon and go about building unsightly roads,
housing developments, and tourist lodgings and committing other acts of
official vandalism. [14]
Gradually the military superintendents were able to
convince a skeptical public that preservation of the Parks was in the
public interest and not an unwelcome invasion of private rights. The
initial hostility on the part of residents of the area was in time
overcome. This was a major contribution. For a while, as game became
rarer in other parts of the country, but increased within the areas
protected by the cavalry, the feeling of enmity toward the government
Parks was intensified. But the military commanders were able to convince
the settlers around the Parks that the benefits of keeping the Parks
intact and the game protected would eventually outweigh any immediate
gain they might realize by sabotaging Park operations. Legislators of
the surrounding stares were aided in drafting realistic game laws and
close cooperation was obtained from game wardens and other state
officials. Citizens protective clubs were organized in the surrounding
communities by the military commanders, and men who had once been
enemies and poachers now became friends and protectors of the Parks.
President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the significance of citizen
support when he wrote, "Eastern people, and especially eastern
sportsmen, need to keep steadily in mind the fact that the westerners
who live in the neighborhood of the forest preserves are the men who, in
the last resort, will determine whether or not those preserves are to be
permanent. They cannot . . . be kept . . . game reservations unless the
settlers roundabout believe in them and heartily support them." [15]
With the passage of the Lacey Act in 1894, the
military commanders of the Yellowstone Park found their duties
materially lightened. The existence of legal machinery, coupled with an
occasional but well-publicized conviction, provided an effective
deterrent to vandalism and poaching. One major fault remained in the
law, however. A violation of the Lacey Act was meant to be a
misdemeanor, but the inclusion of the phrase stipulating "imprisonment
not exceeding two years" automatically elevated any violation of the law
to the status of a felony. Felonies were legally treated as crimes under
the Constitution and any person so accused must be indicted, prosecuted,
and tried by a court. This legal technicality vitiated the jurisdiction
of the resident United States Commissioner, and all cases arising under
the law had to be tried before the District Court at Cheyenne, Wyoming.
This fault was not discovered until 1913, however, and the Acting
Superintendent immediately recommended that the Lacey Act be amended to
remove the difficulty. Four separate bills were introduced into
Congress, all designed to lessen the penalty provided for in the
original act, making the offenses against Park law misdemeanors rather
than felonies. On June 28, 1916, Congress approved legislation providing
for a maximum penalty of $500 or six months' imprisonment rather than
the $1,000 fine and two-year imprisonment provided for in the original
act. The change greatly simplified enforcement proceedings and
substantially reduced the time and expense of criminal proceedings. [16]
The purely military activities of the cavalry units
assigned to the Parks were necessarily few, for the troops were usually
dispersed in small detachments varying from two to six men. This
arrangement was not conducive to formal military training, but
discipline was maintained, and the constant mounted work required of the
soldiers on detached service taught them how to ride and care for their
horses and gave them a certain self-reliance which they were not liable
to gain in ordinary garrison duty. They became, if not good parade
ground soldiers, good field soldiers. Troop activities were not confined
to the pursuit and capture of poachers, however. In the Yellowstone, the
usual garrison duties were attended to, military inspections were held,
a lyceum was established to teach signaling and hippology, and weekly
drills were held. The troops annually assigned to the California Parks
returned to garrison every year, and the summer assignment provided six
months of intensive field training, including the overland march to and
from the Presidio of San Francisco.
Yet the isolation of the Park commands and the hard
work in an uncomfortable winter climate convinced many troopers that $13
per month, plus food and clothing, was not sufficient recompense for the
hardships of military service, and many deserted. Others found that
guard posts were frequently usurped by hungry bears or marauding moose,
and discovered that they, as protectors of the game animals, faced much
more severe penalties for killing game than did the civilian poacher.
For officers, park service presented the opportunity of more autonomy
and greater freedom in command. Many officers realized, however, that
the duties required of them were not precisely those for which they had
been trained and suggested that a civilian service be designed to
relieve the military of its civil duties. In 1907 a retired Army officer
was named Acting Superintendent of the Yellowstone Park with
instructions from the President to devise a plan for a civil guard to
replace the military in the Park. [17]
The scheme proposed by Lieutenant General S. B. M.
Young to establish a Yellowstone National Park Guard included an
estimated $50,000 annual appropriation. The Park was to be divided into
four districts; a chief inspector, four assistant inspectors, and twenty
civilian guards were to form the entire protective force. During the
heaviest part of the tourist season the guard force was to be enlarged.
The estimated $50,000 included neither the salary of a superintendent
nor funds for the maintenance of park roads; the construction and
maintenance of roads supposedly would be left under the direction of the
Army Engineers. According to the general's estimates, the annual cost of
military administration was over $150,000; his proposed civilian guard
could be established at one-third this cost and its members could be
recruited from among discharged soldiers who had served in the parks.
[18]
The plan thus proposed was remarkably similar to that
eventually utilized in the formation of the National Park Service some
ten years later. By the time the plan had been drawn up and presented to
the Secretary of the Interior, the President had changed his mind and
the Secretary of the Interior was not willing at that time to request an
increased appropriation. Admitting that the administration of the parks
was developing into a sort of three-headed monsterwith the roads
under the direction of the Army Engineers, the cavalry under control of
the Secretary of War, and the Acting Superintendents serving both the
Department of the Army and the Department of the Interiorthe
Secretary still thought that the moral effect and the saving of expense
were enough to justify the continuation of military control. [19]
The Secretary of War, however, was beginning to think
otherwise. The system was obviously unjust to the Army. Appropriations
charged to the War Department were being spent on duties that were the
responsibility of the Department of the Interior. Although the soldiers
assigned to the Parks were gaining valuable field experience, some
military men thought that such duty was detrimental to military
discipline and training. Several years passed before the dilemma was
resolved by events beyond the borders of the United States.
Revolution in Mexico in 1910-11, followed by
counter-revolution in 1913 and the presidency of Victoriano Huerta, led
many Americans to believe that military intervention into Mexico was not
improbable. The Secretary of War suggested that the squadron of troops
then on duty in the Yellowstone be immediately reduced to a detachment
of selected cavalrymen having a natural taste and aptitude for Park
duty. Thus, should the necessity arise, these men could be discharged
from the Army and taken over by the Secretary of the Interior as
civilian rangers. The Secretary of War further suggested that the
military detail in the Yosemite Park be reduced to one troop of cavalry
and that no troops be detailed for service in the Sequoia and General
Grant Parks. These suggestions were acceptable to the Secretary of the
Interior and organization of the Yellowstone Park Detachment was
initiated. [20]
The Acting Superintendent of the Yellowstone was
instructed to recommend the names of those soldiers who preferred
transfer to the newly formed organization. A force of 200 men was drawn
from nine regiments. According to the original plans, this Detachment
would exist as a military unit for only a short rime, and form the
transition from military to civil control. Complete civil take-over did
nor occur until 1918, however, and in the interim, the military
commanders lobbied incessantly for an end to the military administration
of the Yellowstone. [21]
Military management of the Yellowstone would have
ended several years earlier had it not been for the resistance of some
members of Congress. Congressman J. J. Fitzgerald of New York, Chairman
of the House Committee on Appropriations, held that a civil guard would
be far more expensive than continued use of the military. Fitzgerald
maintained that Congress had placed the Yellowstone under the protective
arm of the military and he believed that Congress intended for it to
remain there. [22] The military commanders
fell back upon arguments previously used: that conditions in and around
the Yellowstone had changed considerably, that the surrounding states
had provided protective laws over the adjoining lands and had also
legislated excellent game laws. While poachers formerly had to be
guarded against by constant vigilance, they were now a threat only a few
months out of each year when game seasons were closed in the surrounding
states. The military lobbyists claimed that the sentiment of the
communities around the Park was now overwhelmingly in favor of strict
compliance with the regulations. [23] It was
suggested that the use of soldiers to work on roads and telephone lines,
to check automobiles, stock streams with fish, fight forest fires,
register tourists, and indeed, to perform any duties other than those
specified in the Act of March 3, 1883, was strictly illegal. If the law
were to be followed, the soldiers could only eject trespassers, leaving
other tasks to be performed by a large civilian force.
All these arguments had previously been cited in
reference to the California Parks, but now there was a new argument: the
President had stated that the United States Regular Army was not large
enough for the military demands of the country in times of peace; hence
it could not afford to detach troops for use in the Parks, it was
claimed. The cost to the government for the military guardianship of the
Yellowstone for fiscal 1915 was placed at $194,193.59 and it was alleged
that a civilian force could be formed for less than half that sum. When
Newton D. Baker was named Secretary of War in the spring of 1916, the
opposition to continued use of the cavalry in the Yellowstone increased.
All the previous arguments were repeated, and strengthened by an opinion
from the Judge Advocate General staring that the troops could be used
only to prevent trespassers from entering the Park, and to remove those
who did gain entrance.
Comprehensive plans for the development of a civil
guard to replace the cavalry in the Yellowstone had been developed by
the military superintendents as early as 1907. Subsequent military
commanders advocated the formation of a separate government bureau that
would have the responsibility of guarding and administering all of the
National Parks. In 1911 the first of several conferences between
Department of Interior officials, Acting Superintendents, and other
interested persons was held in the Yellowstone National Park. A second
conference was held in the Yosemite National Park the following year,
and a third was convened in Berkeley, California, in 1915. Out of these
conferences there developed an increasing awareness that conditions in
and around the various parks had changed and military protection was no
longer necessary. Several bills were introduced into Congress, all
designed to establish a separate bureau within the Department of the
Interior to supervise, manage, and control the National Parks and
monuments under that Department's jurisdiction. The continual opposition
to the use of cavalry units as Park guardians finally proved effective
and on August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed an Act
establishing the National Park Service. The newly formed bureau did not
begin functioning until after funds providing for its formation were
approved in the deficiency appropriation act of April 17, 1917. [24]
Members of the Yellowstone Park Detachment who
desired to remain in the Park were discharged from the Army and
appointed as rangers in the Park Service. The military force then
guarding the Park was withdrawn, Fort Yellowstone was abandoned as a
post, and the guardianship of the Park was transferred to the Department
of the Interior, effective October 1, 1916. No attempt was made to
establish the valuation of improvements made by the Army, and all
buildings were transferred to the Department of the Interior without
cost. The men who desired to remain in military service were reassigned
to their original units and, accompanied by the last military Acting
Superintendent, departed from the Park on October 26, 1916. For the
first time since 1886, no cavalry troops were stationed in any of the
nation's Parks. [25]
The abandonment of military establishments has always
been accompanied by a furor of protests by residents of towns situated
near those establishments, and the abandonment of Fort Yellowstone was
no exception. Opposition came from residents who looked upon the
maneuver from a purely commercial standpoint. Petitions opposing the
withdrawal of troops were forwarded to the Secretary of War and, since
1916 was an election year, the politicians were drawn into the fray.
Senators Thomas H. Walsh and H. L. Meyers of Montana were attending the
Democratic National Convention in Chicago when they learned that orders
had been given ending the military guardianship of the Yellowstone.
Walsh immediately telephoned the Secretary of the Interior and demanded
that the troops not be recalled from the Park until January 1; telegrams
were sent by both him and Meyers demanding that they be heard before any
further action was taken. When informed that the orders had already been
given, the two Senators pleaded that the order be at least postponed
until after the election. Apprehensive over the effect the withdrawal of
troops might have upon their constituents, the two Senators placed their
case before the President of the United States, claiming they had
received only evasive replies from the Secretary of War. President
Wilson, in the midst of a campaign for re-election, stated that he was
very much disturbed and requested that the Secretary of the Interior
confer fully with the Montana Senators before executing the order. But
this was too late to have any effect, for the troops were even then
departing from the Yellowstone. [26]
Unable to obtain what they wanted by telegrams and
letters, the Senators from Montana turned to Congress for relief. By
exerting pressure upon their colleagues in the House of Representatives,
they were able to have included in the sundry civil bill for fiscal
1918, the provision that no part of the appropriation for the
Yellowstone Park be used for payment of salaries for a civilian
protective force, and that protection of the Park be performed by a
detail of troops. The Secretary of War protested these provisions and
claimed that the war with Germany necessitated the employment of every
soldier in the wartime army then being constructed. However, since the
appropriation bill included the two noxious provisions, the Secretary of
the Interior faced the dilemma of either requesting a detail of troops,
or closing the Park to visitors. Either alternative involved the
discharge of the previously selected ranger force. A request for troops
was made, a squadron of the Seventh Cavalry was detailed to Fort
Yellowstone to police the Park, and upon its arrival on June 26, 1917,
the ranger force was dismissed from service. The civilian Supervisor
remained at his post, and no administrative duties were assigned to the
military commander. [27]
The immediate results were chaos and confusion. The
Department of the Interior, through its civilian Supervisor, controlled
the concessionnaires, authorized the rate charges, and supervised the
admission of automobiles and the care of the wild animals; the water,
electric and telephone systems were under the control of the Interior
Department also, but its authority went no further. All road and trail
construction was done by Army Engineer Corps, and the actual protection
of the Park was entrusted to the cavalry. This three-headed
administrative animal was less than docile and conflict soon erupted
between its separate parts. Owing to the exigencies of war, the Army
officers were changed several times within a matter of months; general
dissatisfaction among the soldiers assigned to the Park resulted in
gross inefficiency; tourists complained about the soldiers' arrogance
and sometimes drunkenness and were curious as to why troops were
patrolling the Park when their sons and brothers were being drafted to
fight a war. The civilian Supervisor found that it was not safe to leave
any personal belongings unguarded, lest they disappear, and complained
that the War Department was utilizing the Park command as a transient
station for unassigned officers and men, that the troopers never learned
their duties and cared nothing for the welfare of the Park. One seasoned
cavalryman assigned to the Yellowstone questioned the advisability of
using 450 men trained in the art of combat to replace fifty rangers for
peaceful patrol work, and claimed that if he did not have a mother and
sisters he would "pull our" and enlist in the Canadian Army.
Congress was finally convinced of its folly, the
clause providing for the non-use of funds for administrative and
protection work was deleted from the sundry civil bill in 1918, and in
that year the United States Army was finally and completely withdrawn
from the Yellowstone National Park. [28]
|