PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

Interpretation

While the war years called an abrupt halt to physical developments at Pipe Spring, efforts to develop the monument's interpretive program continued. After the monument's transfer in February 1942 to Zion National Park, Park Naturalist Russell K. Grater was put in charge of the fort museum's development plan. Southwestern Monuments' Acting Superintendent Charles A. Richey suggested to Superintendent Franke that Grater contact Mrs. George Shields, who had long been "very enthusiastic" over plans to develop a museum at Pipe Spring and who could put him in touch with Church leaders, "whose assistance should be most helpful." [1309] George Albert Smith, Trails and Markers Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Andrew Jensen, Church historian, were listed as important contacts, along with Charles C. Heaton of Moccasin. Richey added,

We hope that this information may be of assistance to Assistant Naturalist Grater in developing a complete museum of Mormon pioneer activities in the Southwest. This is a project which has been close to the hearts of interpreters at Southwestern National Monuments, and we are very glad that a capable man like Assistant Naturalist Grater is in a position to carry forward aggressively this project. [1310]

In late March 1942, Grater sent a request to Southwestern Monuments asking for copies of any museum development plans that existed for Pipe Spring. The response received from Richey was not encouraging: "No exhibit prospectus or plan has ever been drawn up for Pipe Spring; it is still a virgin." [1311]

Meanwhile, Senior Archeologist Jesse L. Nusbaum wrote George Albert Smith seeking his review and comment on the first edition of the monument's two-fold leaflet, which had been published without any input from the Church. Nusbaum asked Smith to provide "Church data," such as the origin of the site's name, the time of Bishop Winsor's arrival, the date of the buildings' completion, and to make "any other suggestions that you would like to have considered" in a future edition of the leaflet. [1312] Smith replied with information provided by Assistant Church Historian A. Wm. Lund from Church records. [1313] In October 1942 Acting Regional Director Milton J. McColm submitted corrections to the Pipe Spring National Monument leaflet to Director Drury. The changes included corrections provided by Church officials the previous February, corroborated by Arthur Woodward's historical research. [1314] The brochure was reprinted in 1943. At the time he received 10,000 copies of the revised leaflet, Heaton still had an estimated 7,000-8,000 copies of the 1941 edition. Not wanting to be wasteful, he continued giving out the 1941 leaflet for the rest of the decade. [1315]

Assistant Superintendent Dorr G. Yeager visited the monument on September 15, 1943, to provide assistance to Heaton with the fort exhibits. (Before coming to Zion, Yeager was formerly Assistant Museum Chief, Western Museum Laboratories.) This was Yeager's first visit to Pipe Spring. Up to that time, Yeager later reported to Superintendent Smith, the "spring room" had been used for storage and had not been open or exhibited, although Yeager regarded it as "the focal point of the entire fort." [1316] Yeager decided items pertinent to the site's dairy operations should be displayed in this room - churns, cheese-making equipment, meat grinders, milk pails, several chairs, a table, and a bench. ("While not spectacular, these pieces give authenticity to the room," he reported. [1317] ) Some of the artifacts found unsuitable for the fort display, either because they were in poor repair or were duplicative, were stored in one of the fort's upstairs rooms. Tools, old harnesses, and the like were moved to the "structure below the fort" (the west cabin) which Yeager wanted set up as a workshop exhibit.

Yeager was very enthusiastic about the interpretive potential of the fort:

It is definitely a spot for a historic house museum and I am convinced that with careful planning and additional accessions, it can be made one of the outstanding historic house museums in the west. A large amount of the material is already on hand. More items must be procured in order to round out the exhibits and give a complete picture of the life at the fort in the early days, but we have the basic pieces. [1318]

Considering that most of the physical changes made to the fort during the Woolley period of occupation would be reversed by the Park Service in 1959, the following comment by Yeager is noteworthy:

There will be need, eventually, to establish a definite date beyond which we will not go in renovation. After the original structure was built a number of changes such as doors and windows were made. Most of these appear to have been done during the '80s and it is my belief that they are all sufficiently old [enough] to be retained. [1319]

(The 1880's changes would not be retained. See Part IX, "Historic Buildings, The Fort" section.) Yeager emphasized the need to construct a custodian's office so that "this foreign element" could be removed from the fort, and he commented on plans received from the regional office. [1320] After his departure, Heaton diligently carried out Yeager's directives regarding changes in the fort displays. The custodian remarked in his monthly report for September 1943,

... several changes were made in the exhibits of the museum articles at the fort and further work is planned this winter in labeling those that are on display. There is much work to the museum display [needed] before the fort is equipped as it should be to represent the early pioneer life of the 1870s. [1321]

The reprinting of the monument's brochure in 1943 resulted in a spirited correspondence between brothers H. E. ("Bert") Woolley and Judge Dilworth ("Dil") Woolley, sons of Edwin Dilworth ("Dee") Woolley, Jr., superintendent of the Church's cattle herds at Pipe Spring in the late 1880s. At the time of the correspondence, Judge Woolley was a lawyer residing in Manti, Utah. H. E. Woolley was employed by the Department of the Interior's General Land Office (GLO). H. E. Woolley's GLO position allowed him access to official records in Washington, D.C., which he used to research the Pipe Spring land title. Judge Woolley was already in the process of gathering material for a family history when he received the new Pipe Spring brochure from H. E. Woolley in August 1943, along with information on the history of the Pipe Spring title and their father's homestead claim in Upper Kanab. Judge Woolley took exception to some of the information contained in the brochure, including the statement that the fort was constructed directly over the main springs. [1322] (In one letter Judge Woolley wrote the main spring was located "about 15 feet outside of the south building" and in another, written less than two weeks later, he stated the spring was "about 30 feet" west of the fort's west gate. [1323] ) H. E. Woolley later furnished Associate Director Demaray with copies of the brothers' correspondence in hopes the Park Service would use the information when next revising the monument's brochure. The Park Service later forwarded copies of the Woolley correspondence to Leonard Heaton who in turn began corresponding with Judge Woolley. "I surely welcome your letters," Heaton wrote, "as they give me some valuable information that I have wanted to know for along time..." [1324] He went on to write about what he knew of some of the points raised by Woolley.

There was still much work to be done at Pipe Spring in the years ahead. The question "what (and whose) story should be told?" would come up again and again in the decades following World War II.