Chapter 2
Codifying Tradition:
The National Park Service Act of 1916 (continued)
The Statement of Purpose
In 1917, looking back on the campaign to establish the National Park
Service, Horace McFarland commented that the Organic Act's statement of
the national parks' basic purpose was the only item that proponents of
the act could not have done without. It was, he said, the "essential
thing" in the legislation, and "the reason we feel that [the Organic
Act] is worthwhile." Even as the campaign first got under way, Frederick
Law Olmsted, Jr., who would author the statement of purpose, had
believed it would be of "vital importance" and urged that the purpose of
the parks be defined in "broad but unmistakable terms." [30]
In its final form, the statement declared the parks' "fundamental
purpose" to be
to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations. [31]
Despite its ambiguities, especially in regard to potential conflicts
between preserving parks and opening them to public use, this mandate
would become the National Park Service's touchstone- its chief point of
reference for managing parks. The charge to leave the parks "unimpaired"
in effect perpetuated the charge to preserve "natural conditions" as
stated in the 1872 Yellowstone legislation and subsequent national park
enabling acts. And as "unimpaired" set the 1916 mandate's only actual
standard, it became the principal criterion against which preservation
and use of national parks have ever since been judged. [32]
The earliest draft of the statement of purpose was prepared by
McFarland, Olmsted, and others during a December 1910 meeting of the
American Civic Association. Somewhat vague, the draft merely stated that
the parks would not be used "in any way detrimental or contrary to the
purpose for which dedicated or created by Congress." [33] But the acts by which Congress had
established the different national parks were sufficiently varied and
ambiguous that Olmsted was concerned. Later that month he urged an
explicit statement that would "safeguard or confirm" the purposes of all
of the parks. He recommended a declaration that the parks were
agencies for promoting public recreation and public health through
the use and enjoyment... [of the parks] and of the natural scenery and
objects of interest therein. [34]
Olmsted expressly recommended that "scenery" be included in this
statement- the attribute of parks that was his greatest concern and that
contributed most to their public appeal. Writing to Henry Graves of the
U.S. Forest Service, McFarland declared this statement to be "for the
first time, a declaration of the real purpose of a National Park."
Echoing Olmsted, he believed it to be "of extreme importance that such
purpose be declared in unmistakable terms." With such remarks, his early
1911 correspondence to both Graves and Gifford Pinchot suggests how
important it was to McFarland to distinguish national parks from
national forests. [35]
It is significant that for nearly five years- from December 1910
until November 1915- this working version of the statement of purpose
defined the national parks primarily as agencies to promote "public
recreation and public health" through "use and enjoyment" of the scenery
and its special features. This strongly utilitarian concept of the
fundamental mission of the parks was not only in accord with the
attitudes expressed at the national park conferences and elsewhere, but
also may have served to counter the Forest Service's brand of
utilitarianism.
Even with its emphasis on recreation and health, Olmsted's statement
of purpose raised concern that it might tie the hands of the proposed
new bureau. In late 1911 Secretary of the Interior Walter Fisher wrote
to McFarland that the statement had the potential to curtail managerial
discretion in the parks; it could "embarrass the proposed bureau" and
cause questions to be "constantly raised as to the character of each act
undertaken." He added that "any one who claimed that any particular
action would be detrimental to the value of the parks might undertake to
restrain the bureau from the proposed action." [36] (Indeed, Fisher's concern foreshadowed
criticism of national park management that would recur many times
through the ensuing decades, and that would use as its justification the
Organic Act's statement of purpose.)
McFarland responded to Fisher that without the statement even the new
bureau itself might not understand the basic purpose of the parks it was
being created to manage. To McFarland, the national parks needed a
"Gibraltar"- a statement of their "true and high function"- in order to
defend the parks against those who would damage them. He asserted that
if Yosemite National Park had had a proper definition of purpose in its
legislation, the threat to inundate the Hetch Hetchy Valley might not
have arisen. Although he preferred wording that would "avoid the
difficulties of too great restriction upon administrative discretion,"
Secretary Fisher acquiesced and agreed to retain the statement as
written. [37]
In the autumn of 1915, after several years of failure to get the
national park bill enacted, the American Civic Association redrafted the
legislation and arrived at wording close to what would appear in the
final bill. At first, the review draft that Richard Watrous of the
association forwarded to Olmsted in October 1915 contained essentially
the same utilitarian, recreation-and-health definition of parks as
before, except that it called for "conservation of the scenery
and of the natural and historic objects" found in the parks
(emphasis added)a more protective statement than before, and more
explicit about the kinds of objects (or resources) to be conserved. [38]
But Olmsted concluded that a different version was in order. He
reviewed Watrous' draft and responded on November 1, 1915, with a
revised statement of purpose that omitted reference to the parks as
agencies for public recreation and health. Retaining the commitment to
conservation of natural and historic features and to use and enjoyment
of the parks, he strengthened the statement by adding that the parks
should be left "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
Within two weeks, his new version appeared in the working draft of the
bill, the only substantive change being the addition of "wild life" to
the short list of resources to be conserved. [39] This revision would be incorporated into
the final legislation with only minor alterations.
In recommending wording that required the parks to be left
unimpaired, Olmsted did not indicate that he considered the intent of
the new version to be a particularly significant departure from that
expressed in the bill's earlier public recreation and health statement.
In fact, he suggested the new wording almost offhandedly in the last
paragraph of a three-page letter, asking "would it not be better to
state [his proposed new version]?" [40]
Olmsted's original statement of purpose had emphasized public
recreation and health needs, and his final version seems to have been
intended to further similar goals. Mentioning "enjoyment" twice, the
final statement provided for the enjoyment of the parks, but required
that parks be left unimpaired so that future generations also
could enjoy them. These goals could be met by essentially the same means
as those of the earlier public health and recreation mandate- by
maintenance of the parks' scenic landscapes, which would help ensure
continuance of public enjoyment of the areas. Olmsted could have perhaps
strengthened the preservation aspects of the statement by plainly
requiring the parks to be left "unimpaired for future generations"
rather than "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations"
(emphasis added). But given the legislative history's repeated focus on
parks as scenic pleasuring grounds, even without the specific references
to "enjoyment" the act would not necessarily have called for rigorous
preservation of the parks' natural conditions.
Anticipating public use, Olmsted sought to protect the beauty,
dignity, and nobility of national park landscapes from commercial
blight. Aside from his desire to make management more efficient,
prevention of excessive commercialism in the parks was the one concern
that Olmsted repeatedly emphasized. Early in the legislative campaign,
he expressed fear that some would attempt to "make political capital"
out of the parks by developing them for tourism; later he envisioned
that a statement of purpose would provide a "legal safeguard" against
"exploitation of the parks for commercial and other purposes." In early
1915 he worried about General Superintendent Mark Daniels' eagerness to
make the national parks, in Olmsted's mocking words, "accessible to the
`Pee-pul.'" Daniels, he feared, was more concerned with securing an
array of "improvements" than with maintaining "the perfect conservation
of the quality of the landscapes." [41]
The new mandate was very much a reflection of Olmsted's professional
interests. A landscape architect who had developed parks and other
public places across the country, he made his living designing outdoor
areas for aesthetic appeal, enhancing their scenic beauty for the
enjoyment of the people. Indeed, in an unsuccessful effort to include in
the legislation authorization of a special board to provide advice and
assistance to national park management, the only profession for which
Olmsted specifically sought inclusion on the board was landscape
architecture. [42] Protecting the majestic
national park landscapes through restricted, judicious development was
Olmsted's primary concern. His final statement of purpose- against which
so much national park management would be both justified and criticized-
was thus in accord with the widely held concept of national parks as
scenic pleasuring grounds.
|