Parks and redwoods, 1919-1971 : oral history transcript / and related material, 1959-1972

University of California • Berkeley

University of California Bancroft Library/Berkeley

Regional Oral History Office

Newton Bishop Drury
PARKS AND REDWOODS, 1919 -19 ?1

With Introductions by
Horace M. Albright and DeWitt Nelson

An Interview Conducted by
Amelia Roberts Pry and Susan Schrepfer

VOLUME II

0 1972 by The Regents of the University of California

sity of California Bancroft Library/Berkeley

Regional Oral History Office

Newton Bishop Drury
PARKS AND REDWOODS, 1919-1971

With Introductions by
Horace M. Albright and DeWitt Nelson

An Interview Conducted by
Amelia Roberts Pry and Susan Schrepfer

VOLUME II

1Q7? >w 'TVi*» T?(3<re»n-hc! o-P -hVio TTnl iri=»-n<3l f.v n-T Hal

Newton B. Drury

Director of the National Park Service
1949

Photograph by Hans Knopf

All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal
agreement between the Regents of the University of
California and Newton B. Drury, dated October 18, 1972.
The manuscript is thereby made available for research
purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including
the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library
of the University of California at Berkeley. No part of
the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the
written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library
of the University of California at Berkeley.

Requests for permission to quote for publication
should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office,
Jf86 Library, and should include identification of the
specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the
passages, and identification of the user. The legal
agreement with Newton B. Drury requires that he be notified
of the request and allowed thirty days in which to respond.

.
•

TABLE OP CONTENTS ~ Newton B. Drury

PREFACE i

INTRODUCTION 3y Horace M. Albright ii

INTRODUCTION By DeWItt Nelson viii

INTERVIEW HISTORY xv

SENATE RESOLUTION xxi

VOLUME I

PART I: BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION

FOREBEARS 1

Fatally Tree 2

Mother, Ella Lorraine Bishop Drury 3

Father, Wells Drury 4

Early Childhood 4

From Indian Interpreter to Printer 7

Wells Drury and Other Journalists 12

Newspapermen Then Versus Now 18

Politics and Views 2k

THE CHILDHOOD OF NEWTON DRURY 2?

The Mobile Drurys 2?

The Earthquake and Fire 29

Family Life 31

Theater .anil Musi c 3^

Church 36

Schools 37

High School 39

Newspaper Work &2

Issues and. Youthful Politics 44

Alameda and Berkeley, Quiet Villages 50

Early Growth of Berkeley 51

College Days in Berkeley, 1908-1912 56

Academic Life 56

Student Activities of the Drury Brothers 60

The Illustrious Class of 1912 6?

Aubrey Drury 1914-1917 7^

t

The University 1912-1918 77

Formation of the College of Letters and Science 77

Drnma and Lectures 79

Bob Sproul, Assistant Comptroller 85

Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President 86

World War I and the Balloon Corps 97

PART II: SAVE-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE AND THE
STATE PAHK SYSTEM

DRURY ADVERTISING COMPANY AND THE SAVE-THE-
REDWOODS LEAGUE 102
Formation of the Drury Advertising Company 102
Organizing the Save-the-Redwoods League 105
Pre-Save-the-Redwoods Conservation Efforts 110
Structure of the League 112
Men in the Early Years of the League 116
Funds for the League 119
Publ fcity 'and Mail Campaigns 119
Personal Contact and Influence 126
Acquisition Processes and Problems; Humboldt

County " 133

Early Holdings 133

First Appropriation . 135

Lumber Company Negotiations 137

Comments on Condemnation 1&3

Cruising and Appraising, Enpch Percy French 1^-7

Aubrey Drury in the 1920*5 and 1930*s 152

Metric System Campaign 153

Educational Institution Accounts 156

Conservation 158

Avocations 160

DEVELOPMENT OF CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM I6j

Composition of the Bond Issue Bill -

A Critique by Hindsight 163

Support and Opposition in the Legislature 169

California State Parks Council 17^

Campaign Techniques 176

The State Press 178

National Conference on State Parks 182

The State Park Commission 186

Its Formation 186

The First Commissioners and Governor Young 191

Political Turnover in the Commission 195

Olmsted's Survey 201

The Team 201

Problems in Maintaining Balance 203

Frederick Law Olmsted 209

Protection Through Planning 213

Pressures Against Protection 21?

Commercial Pressures 21?

Fires and Floods 223

Parks, Highway Development, and Planning 229

Financing the Parks 23^

Park Money From Private Sources 23^

Community Tax Problems 238

Decreased Taxable Land with Increased

Land Values 238

In-lieu Taxes
Organization of Funds
Park Operations
Park Personnel

Ranger and Naturalist Programs
Civilian Conservation Corps, State

Emergency Relief Agency, and Parks 255

Civil Service 261

Accommodations - Public Versus Private

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS 269

The Oil Royalties 269

General Financial Picture 269

Royalties and the 1955 Legislature 2?2

Planned versus Unplanned Distribution of Funds 2?2

Administration of Parks by Legislative Action 2??

Individual Legislators 288

Aoqul sit ions; Case Histories 292

Policy Questions 292

Transfers and Trades 295

Installment buying 298

Butano Redwoods 300

Santa Cruz Redwoods and Point Lobos 302

Calaveras Sequoias 30?

The North Grove 308

The South Grove 309

Corridor Land 313

Pueblo de Los Angeles 318

Hearst Castle 319

Comments 321

Angel Island 321

Golden Gate Headlands 322

Monterey Sites 323

Emerald Bay 326

Men and Parks 326

FAMILY 338

"Tho Team" - Aubrey and. Newton 338

Wife, Elizabeth Frances Schilling, and Family 343

VOLUME II

PAH? Ill: NATIONAL PARKS

DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

•The Initiation 349

The Appointment 349

Working Conditions of the Job 355

Policy 358

Wildlife 361

Plants 366

Related Activities 369

Organization 377

Parks and Monuments 378

Historical Areas 382

Parkways and Local Parks 386

Program 389

Planning 389

Problems: Artificial Lakes, Inholdings 393

APPROPRIATIONS

Budget Requests 401

Deferred Maintenance 402

Land Acquisition Funds 407

Pork Barrels 410
Internal Division of National Park Service Budget 413

National Redwood Park Proposals 4l6

Congressional Committees and Hearings 421

Congressmen 438

Bureau of Budget 442

PROTECTION 445

Fire 445

Insects and Disease 450

Public Use and Park Interpretation 455

Ranger Naturalist Program 457

Vandalism 463

Inholdings 465

Fee Structure 467

Segregation 469

6/1 -. • * '"?•• :-f i^ '

CONCESSIONS 4-72

Advisory Committee ^?2
Government-ovmed Plant, with Operations

Contracted 4-77

Changes in Demands of Public? ^85

THREATS AND CONTROVERSIES ^88

Jaokson Hole 4-88

Grazing 507

Dams 511

Bureau of Reclamation 511

Ar pheplpfii oal Pre s ervati on 518

SECRETARIES KRUG AND CHAPMAN 521

The Rise of the Assistant rSecretaries 521

Drury's Resignation and Secretary Chapman 522

AUBREY DRURY IN THE 19^0 *S 526

OTHER NATIONAL PARK WRITING 528

John Ise's National Park Policy 528
Herbert Evlson's Manuscript in Preparation
Albright -Drury Interview

PART IV: ADDENDUM, JUNE 6, 1963

THE 1960»S: THE YEARS OP (UN) RETIREMENT 536

First World Conference on National Parks 536

Trip Abroad 5^0

Recent Activity of the Save-the-Redwoods League 5^-7

PART V: ADDENDUM, MARCH 17, 1970

FREEWAY THREAT TO PRAIRIE CREEK PARK 552

BULL CREEK (HUMBOLDT REDWOODS STATE PARK) FLOOD

DAMAGE AND CONTROL 562

RECENT FUND RAISING AND ACQUISITIONS 569

Fund Raisins 569

Acquisitions; General 572

Prairie Creek ParkTdditions 577

PART VI: REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK

HISTORY OF REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK ISSUE AND ITS

REVIVAL IN EARLY 1960'S 582

Douglas Bill 583

Grants-i-n-Aid 586

Jedediah Smith State Park (Mill Creek) 588
Revival of the Redwood National Park Project

in 1960*5 590

REDWOOD CREEK VS. MILL CREEK 593

Position of the National Park Service 593

The Sierra Club and the League 595

Alignment of Forces (Governmental and
Conservation Groups)

LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES 608

Four Washington, D.C« Conferences 608

June 25, 1964- White House Meeting 608
December 15-17, 1965, Meeting with Foundation

Renresentatives 609

Meeting of Sierra Club and League 612
Senate Committee Hearing, Subcommittee on Parks

and Recreation, April 17, 1967 613
Bill in Conference Committee (Conference Report

" H. Rep"trTor9b'"for S 2515 • September 11. 1968) 6l4

U.S. Fore s t Servi oe ; " Redwood Exchange Uni t 6l6

Congressman Wayne Asplnall 6l8

LOCAL OPPOSITION 6l9

Economic Problem; Del Norte^ County 619

Residential Opposition to Park Acquisitions 622

Miller-Rellim Lumber Company 627

Redwood Lumbermen; United or Divided 632

AFTERMATH 635

Rounding Out the Watersheds 635

Transfer of State Parks to Federal Government 643

Future; Save-the-Redwoods League 650

Conclusion t Was the National Park Worthwile? 650

APPENDIX 652

INDEX 750

PART III
NATIONAL PARKS

349

DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
The Initiation
The Appointment

Fry: How would you suggest we approach this rather large
subject of your experiences in the national parks?

Drury: Well, it is as you imply a large order. The great
problem is that sometimes the person who's immersed
in the everyday affairs of an organization like the
National Park Service can't see the woods for the
trees. I take it that the purpose of these inter
views is not in any way to develop an exhaustive treatise
on an institution like the national parks or the state
parks, but to give collateral matter that perhaps in
the more conventional types of records such as books
and magazine articles, even correspondence, might be
missed*

Fry: Plus the advantage of this being from a unique point
of view, that of the drafter himself,

Drury: [Laughing] The person who had to bear all the slings
and arrows of both good and outrageous for tune <>

Fry: Would you like to start at the very beginning of your
national park career by telling us how you found out
about your appointment?

Drury: Perhaps I ought to mention when we begin to express

my relationships to the National Park Service that in
1933 Secretary Ickes to my surprise offered me the
position of Director of National Parks. This was done
on the recommendation of the advisory committee that
he had appointed at the time when Horace Albright indi*
cated that he wished to resign to go into private
business. One of the members of that committee,

350

Drury: and I think the chairman, was Dr. John C. Merriam,
who was also president of the Save-the-Redwoods
League. A number of others with whom I was connected
through the Save-the-Redwoods program and state parks
were also on it. One was Dr. Harold Bryant who for
many years was chief of interpretation in the national
parks. I wouldn't say that it was exactly a stacked
committee, but it wasn't an unfavorable one. I felt
complimented at the time, but after studying the whole
situation in California I decided that I could render
my best service by remaining in California where the
situation had not yet reached its climax; so I de
clined the appointment with thanks. There's a lot
more to it than that but that's the essence of it.
You can understand my surprise therefore when
seven years later, in 1940, Dr. Merriam and others
intimated to me that Arnold Cammerer, who had been
appointed director and had served seven years, was
in a difficult position so far as his health was
concerned and had to take it easy; and that they were
considering me again as his successor, My first inti
mation of it was meeting on the street in Berkeley
Professor Joel Hildebrand who'd just been to Washington
and seen Harold L, Ickes. Out of a clear sky Joel
said to me that when I was going to Washington shortly
Harold Ickes wanted me to see him. Well, I was first
going to New York and to Baltimore to meet with the
ladies of the Garden Club of America and then I had
an engagement to go to Washington and spent the week
end with Dr. and Mrs. John C. Merriam. When I arrived
there I found a message from Harold L. Ickes. By
that time I knew pretty well what he wanted but of

682

June 17, 1040.

Hon. Zarold L» Icias,
Secretary of the Interior »
Washington, 2. 0*

My dear Secretary Ickaa:

It haa to-day been possible f or n» to
plate arraagesaearfca "Bita the various interesta to
I have obligation in California, and I hava wired you
that I en Tilling to accept the appointneat aa Director
of the national Park Serrioe. Thia I dd witk full real- j
ization of the responsibility involved, as veil aa the
opportunity for public service and the difficulty of
tho task.

Beoanae of my deslra to assure ay cnm offset-
iveneBa in living up to your expectationa^ at least
•srithi^ the liaits of my ability, I auggaeted, at the
conference with yoo and Aa Blatant Secretary Burlew on
Jiuit) 3d, certain conditions governing 337 acceptance*
Thase I trailaratood to be approved lay yon aa being rea
sonable and satisfactory,

baling that you vottld dsslra, aa 1 do, that
-ilioae considerations be clearly -under utood, I sm COEB-
msnting on each:

"I. Coneorrauce by incwnbent »w

Tliis 7?e agreed -aas desirabla. perhaps I can
lialp 12: this respect if you approve the suggeation in
cy tals^rtia of June I-4th that Mr. Casaoerer (tdxoae health
I know is not good) present to you, if ha is Trilling,
airalisaticn for transfer to a lass onerou* poat in the
ITatioaal Parlc Service, If you desire, 1 could go to
Washington in tha rear future to diacusa this natter
v?ith you and with aim. Probably the precise nature of

351

Drury: course I maintained the fiction of being duly sur
prised when I called him*

Fry: The office had been vacant for quite a few months
at this time, I believe*

Drury: I remember that just before I went over to talk with
Secretary Ickes I had luncheon at t he Cosmos Club
with John C. Merriam and Dr. Waldo Leland, who was
quite active in conservation matters and was later
chairman of the National Park Advisory Board. Well,
I was utterly green, didn't know my way around
Washington, so after luncheon Dr. Leland kindly
walked up the street with me and pointed out the
Interior Building. Ten and a half years later when
I was in some difficulties I told Dr. Leland that if he
hadn't done that for me that day perhaps I never
would have found the Interior Building and it would
have spared me a lot of trouble. [Laughter]

Anyhow, I had a very pleasant talk with Secretary
Ickes and told him I'd let him know within a few days,
that I was favorably inclined towards taking the posi
tion; I didn't expect to impose any conditions but
that I did want certain things understood that I was
sure he would agree to, and that it would be worth my
while to put in the time on it. I sent him a list
of those things and I'll give that to you when I find
it.* He readily agreed to them although he said, as
I have said, that of course nobody takes a government
appointment conditionally*

The announcement of my appointment was made a
little prematurely* I'd come back to California and
was about to send in my acceptance of the appoint
ment. I was up in Yosemite with John C. Merriam and

^Appendix.

352

Drury: his son Lawrence C. Merriam, who at that time was
superintendent of Yosemite. We were at Glacier
Point. There was a radio loudspeaker in one of the
camps up there, and over that loudspeaker we heard
that I had been appointed Director of National Parks,
which was as much of a surprise to me as it was
to a lot of other people. In other words, Secretary
Ickes evidently got a little impatient and thought
he*d force the issue.

Fry: When Ickes talked to you that day did he give you
his evaluation of the state of the national parks
at that time at all?

Drury: Not in any detail, no. We just talked in very general
terms about conservation generally and about parks*
He was very friendly and kind in his remarks to me,
as he always had been during the time he was in office*
I told him that I was a little surprised because of
the well-known fact that lightning never strikes twice
in the same place and I never expected to have him
offer me the position again. At the time I was
sworn in he made a little speech, and all I said
in reply was "I thank the Secretary for his persis
tence and his patience in regard to myself."

We had many discussions from time to time about
basic principles in national parks, and he was kind
enough to say that he thought that I could give an
element of inspiration to the program that it needed.

Fry: Have you read Ickes1 diary?

Drury: I've read portions of it, of the first volume. How
many volumes have been issued, do you know?

Fry: Three. He and Roosevelt apparently couldn't come to
agreement on a director. He suggested Bob Moses
twice to Roosevelt and was turned down twice.

353

Drury: Yes, he told me when I went to Washington that he
had offered it to Bob Moses. Moses was one of the
most brilliant men in public life, but I think it
would have been a sad day for the national parks if
he'd ever been Director of the Park .Service. He was
a far abler man than most of us ever could be, but
he was the promotional type — that is, from my can
tankerous viewpoint. I told him that. I said,"I'm
a great admirer of Moses, and of his ideology —
he's a right-winger and an anti-bureaucrat; but
nevertheless I think his ideas about development
particularly in the states would have been bad for
the national parks." As far as I was concerned, by
the time I left Washington my view was that it would
have been a happy day for me if he had appointed
Moses instead.

Fry: I believe Roosevelt had the reaction, according to

Ickes, that he felt that Moses simply couldn't be con
trolled. Ickes had said that they needed some new
blood, with a fresh viewpoint.

Drury: He wrote me some very nice letters about what we'd
done in California, and I guess he was impressed by
the fact that seven years before I considered the
California work more important than the directorship,
which I thought it was at that time*

Fry: Was Bob Moses actually offered this and turned it down,
or did Roosevelt never permit Ickes to ask him?

Drury: I don't know.

Fry: What did your family think about going back to
Washington?

Drury: My wife and I were in New York when I had this call
for an interview with Harold L. Ickes. We discussed

354

Drury: it then, and finally we more or less cavalierly

decided it would be a good idea and an interesting
experience during which I might be able to contribute
something if we went there for a year or two. Then
after I took the job the war came on. It was a
fascinating challenge, quite rewarding in satisfaction.

Fry: After the announcement of your new post, do you
remember any particular "first official act"?

Drury: I telegraphed my acceptance and appreciation, and

shortly thereafter went to Washington, Almost immed
iately I had to plunge into things like, for one thing,
the dedication of the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, which was quite an interesting experience. I
was just barely there when they hustled me off down
to North Carolina. Secretary Ickes presided and
President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the chief speech.
In my new capacity I had to sort of take the position
that I had a lot more knowledge than I really had.

There must have been eight or ten thousand people
down there at Newfound Gap, miles from anywhere, and
one of the most dramatic happenings was right in the
midst of this ceremony with all of these people
sitting there silently while the speaking was going
on. It happened that the Appalachian Trail — which
is like our Sierra Trail, the main hiking and packing
artery in the Appalachians — ran through Newfound
Gap. Suddenly two hikers with their back packs,
evidently having been in the wilderness for a
week or two, came up over a rise and to their sur
prise were confronted with 10,000 people [Laughter].
The audience was a little surprised, too.

About the only part I had in the dedication of

355

Drury: the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was a

decision on an issue that the superintendent of the
park at least thought was all-fired important;
Superintendent Ross Aiken had hired a brass band,
evidently local talent, and they were not very good.
The Secretary was a little irrascible that day anyhow;
it was pretty hot and the situation was a little
complicated and finally Ickes said to Aiken, "Now
don't you let that band play again, under any circum
stances." Just before we adjourned, Aiken turned to
me and he said, "I have this order from the Secretary
not to have the band play again. On the other hand,
you said we were going to sing the Star-Spangled
Banner. What shall I do?"

"Well," I said, "I think I can take the respon
sibility for having the band play the Star-Spangled
Banner « " which I did. So my sole exercise of auth
ority that day v,'as countermanding an order by Secre
tary Ickes « We both laughed about it afterwards.

Working Conditions of the Job

Pry: Your term of office, spanning the war years as it did,
did not lack in challenges, did it?

Drury: The difficulty was that almost immediately we began
to edge into World War II, and very soon Secretary
Ickes was absorbed with v/artime tasks, particularly
as the Director of Public Works and in the conserva
tion of resources like rubber and oil, helium, that
sort of thing, so that none of the bureau chiefs had
the kind of normal touch with the Secretary of the
Interior that we would have had if we weren't in
the war. That was one factor.

356

Drury: The second factor was that early in 1942 we were
notified that to save office and building space for
the government some of the non-combative agencies
like the National Park Service were to be de-central
ized and the headquarter office moved to Chicago.
Well, of course we had a lot of hearings on that and
we resisted it and there was considerable local
opposition to moving any of the old-line bureaus,
but it ended up with our moving to Chicago that summer.
This was a very expensive thing for the government;
they saved very little money because most of our
personnel simply transferred from the National Park
Service to war agencies — which of course was one
purpose of the order. We had very expensive space,
very good space, on the eleventh floor of the great
Merchandise Mart in Chicago overlooking the Chicago
River, a spectacular location. We stayed there for
almost five years. I had to engage in almost weekly
commuting to Washington but the enforced absence
diminished my touch with Harold L. Ickes. I always
regretted that I didn't have a more normal relationship
with him. We had of course an extensive correspondence
back and forth and every so often I would be there for
staff meetings or formal hearings, but he just didn't
have the time to give to a lot of the basic problems,
such as the national parks, that would have been
important in peacetime but were relatively unimportant
in the war picture.

When we finally faced the problem of decentraliza
tion to Chicago I had to decide whether I would stay
in Washington, where I would be closer to the
Secretary of the Interior, or move with the organiza
tion where I could keep it together, and I elected to

357

Drury: leave Associate Director Demaray in Washington. He

was born there; he'd lived in Washington all his life
and knew the ropes, a very able man. I moved with
the organization to Chicago and never regretted it
except that I unquestionably lost some touch with the
Secretary and his office in so doing, and some touch
with the Congress and other bureaus in the government
which remained in Washington.

Fry: It seems to me that would be the most unfortunate thing,
that you wouldn't be there right near Capitol Hill all
the time.

Drury: Sometimes I'd have to jump on a plane, if I could get
one, on half an hour's notice. There 'd be a Congres
sional hearing, I'd wait around a day or two, and
they'd adjourn the hearing till the following week.
I always had lots of other business to do in Washing
ton but that's the way it was frequently. It wasn't
the best of arrangements and yet by and large I think
the National Park Service did a higher quality of
work in fields like planning and interpretation, isolated
as they were in Chicago, than they did in Washington.
I think the mere effect of isolation may have helped
them somewhat to gain perspective. Anyhow, I was
beginning to get my hand on the organization and I had
a very capable group of colleagues, most of them, like
myself, beyond military age so that they were rendering
their service to the nation in their own calling.
We got the organization, I thought, very closely-knit.
Conrad Wirth, the present director of the NPS, was
one of the chief assistants, as was Hillory Tolson.
We had a very able group of division heads.

358

Policy

Fry: How would you like to divide your comments on policy?
I suppose there was first of all that policy that
originated from some of your own built— in ideals when
you joined the National Park Service.

Drury: I had one or two principal motives I will confess.

One of them and the least worthy perhaps was curiosity
to find out whether a man of good will, as I more or
less thought I was, and who wanted to do the right
thing, could get anywhere in the jungles of politics
and bureaucracy. But that was just a minor phase.
I did feel rather strongly, due to the inspiration
that I had from my contacts with Steven T, Mather, John
C. Merriam, Horace Albright and others that there
was a certain duty involved to try to give to this
enterprise the best that I could and to bring to bear
on it the somewhat varied experience that I'd had in
the park field. I had pretty definite ideas as to
what the National Park System should be. I must confess
that my ideals were more austere than were generally
acceptable. I think they were pretty close to the
original ideas of Stephen T. Mather. I had felt that
perhaps I might contribute something along those lines.
Then I had another motive, which was one of being
of service to the very fine corps of men who made up
the National Park Service. I felt that because of the
experience I'd had with state parks and related matters
and with the kind of people who dealt with them, as
well as my contact over the years with national park
people, I might help in bringing to bear on the running
of the national park more than sometimes is customary

359

Drury: of the experience and the thoughts of the men in

the field. They had, in my opinion, greater touch with
reality than did the staff. I had been appalled some
times to notice how newly appointed officials would
brush aside all the accumulated experience of years on
the part of such men, who not only were most closely
in touch with the park properties that they supervised
and the phases of park operations that they were in
charge of but who also professionally — and because
of their belief in the program — had most at stake.
I've seen many issues, still occurring, decided ab
solutely independently of the findings of the men
in government who are closest to the actual conditions.
Of course, even then and more now after the sobering
experience of about twenty years in government, I
realized that there are at headquarters modifying fac
tors that sometimes make it impossible to do what the
man on the ground thinks ought to be done. There are
fiscal considerations, there are political considera
tions, and there again I resolved that where compromise
was necessary I would at least take into my confidence
the men who perhaps expected to have their ideas more
fully recognized.

Those are some of the motives that I had when I
undertook this task and I am very happy that I did and
very proud to have served even as well as I did in that
capacity. I didn't do it for the salary, because when
I arrived in Washington I didn't know exactly what
the salary was. I found that out later.

Fry: Would you like to go into your specific ideals of
preservation in the national parks and especially
those that differ from the way things were being run
at the time?

360

Drury: I had no criticism in my mind of the way things were
being run or the ideals of Director Cammerer, who
preceded me, and who retired because of a nervous
breakdown, nor of the key men in the organization with
most of whom I was pretty well acquainted. Most of
the things that perhaps I objected to were the result
of the warping of the intent of the National Park
service officials through political and other pressures,
and I'm frank to say that I wondered whether with what
little footwork I'd learned in the California legis
lature and aspects of the Save-the-Redwoods League
such as the money-raising and all, I perhaps could
contribute some know-how as to the mechanics of
maneuvering in order to attain a good end.

On the subject of wildlife policy, for instance,
there were half a dozen moot questions that even to
this day probably haven't been settled fully, although
the National Park Service so far as I know today is
adhering to the purist idea of letting nature take its
course insofar as possible. It was felt that the
nightly spectacle of the bears congregating at the
garbage dump was surely an unnatural way to display
this noble animal. Before my time the movement against
this started and during my time we eliminated that
kind of a show. The same way with the annual drive
of the bison — partly because of the fact that that
again was a tour de force and also, frankly, partly
because it was an expensive process, it was eliminated,
There were several other matters of that sort.

Fry: You had a pretty good idea, I imagine, of what pres
sures you would be under as you tried to implement
these policies?

361

Drury: Yes, I think I had a pretty good sample of it in

California, although the sailing in California when
we initiated the state park system was a lot easier
than anything I encountered in Washington. We had
a friendly administration under Governor C. C. Young,
and there was a new public realization of the im
portance to California of preserving for the future
some of its outstanding scenic and recreational
and historical areas.

Wildlife

Fry: Speaking of policy measures, I had noticed in your
annual reports that you gradually were able to put
the wild animals back on a natural forage basis and
eliminate the garbage put out for the bears and the
feeding of the bears in Yellowstone by tourists.

Drury: Yes, I have already spoken of this. Perhaps I was
a little too austere. There were those who felt
that since the national parks had these animals to
show the people, they should be displayed in a more
or less spectacular manner to the largest possible
number. Long before I joined up with the National
Park Service I had belonged to the school of thought
that believed in letting nature take its course inso
far as possible. I recognized , of course, that the
whole world has been artif icialized; I also recognized
that while some parks involve millions of acres none
of the national parks or monuments is large enough
to give free range to natural forces. There is
bound to be artificial interference with the operation
of nature that has to be compensated for.

362

Fry: In cases of overpopulation of certain species, did
you ever allow hunters in for a limited time?

Drury: That was the dilemma we faced: whether we should
allow hunting in the national parks. There were
half a dozen reasons why hunting is inconsistent
with and abhorrent to the idea of national parka,
which are wildlife refuges. In general, I believed
that processes like predation should not be inter
fered with unduly. If there was danger, on the
other hand, of extermination of a valuable species,
it might be necessary to reduce the number of preda
tors. We faced that issue in Mt. McKinley National
Park where there was a great hue and cry because
apparently the population of the Dall sheep was
reducing rapidly. It was blamed on the wolvea,
that the policy of hands-off as to predators on the
part of the National Park Service was leading to
the extermination of the sheep. Probably there
were other factors, but there was a great pressure
to reduce the number of wolves or even eliminate
them. We were anathema to certain groups of sports
men because we were thought to be "wolf -lovers".
As a matter of fact, some of our naturalists like
Victor Cahalane, who was our chief naturalist during
my time, and Adolph Murie, a very eminent naturalist
and well-acquainted with Alaska and Mt, McKinley,
were great admirers of the wolf as an animal, aa a
spectacle of wild life. They contended, and I
think the facts brought out, that the wolves were
not exterminating the Dall Sheep, but finally after
a great parley and after sending a representative
of the American Museum of Natural History to make

363

Drury: a special report, I departed from my ideal to some
extent and issued an order sanctioning the killing
of ten wolves so as to reduce the number. Well,
you know the Mt. McKinley ranger force, with all
their trying never could locate and exterminate that
many wolves, which shows that the wolves weren't so
prevalent as they were thought to be, or at least
were smarter than we were. Meanwhile I'm pretty
sure that the Dall Sheep population has gradually come
up again. I remember in our hearings Tom Wallace, a
very eminent conservationist from Kentucky — editor
of the Louisville Times and one of the successors to
Col. Walterson of the Times and the Louisville Courier
— also a member of our National Parks Advisory Board,
was brought into the Congressional hearings as a
witness. He aroused the ire of the sportsmen and
some Congressmen by saying at one point that he
wasn't worried about the wolves consuming the Dall
sheep, what he was worried about was whether there
were enough Dall sheep to keep the wolves alive.
That had to be smoothed over.

Fry: Was artificial feeding in overpopulated areas ever
practiced?

Drury: Anyone would be unrealistic not to recognize that
one alternative was the possibility of artificial
feeding. It was practiced by the Pish and Wild
life Service, not by the National Park Service, al
though I believe in the early days the Park Service
did some feeding of the elk.

Pry: The elk must have presented an unusually sticky
problem, politically and biologically.

364

Drury: Yes. The Yellowstone and Jackson Hole elk herd,
which would migrate south in bitter winters and
would be bottled up in the Jackson Hole Valley, was
one of the outstanding examples of this dilemma.
In the original years of that migration they could
spread out over the desert to the south — until
that desert became settled and they were shut off.
We had the problem of reducing the elk population
within the limits of the food supply, but without
violating the principle that there should be no
hunting in the national parks. It was a very diffi
cult thing to do and our success was incomplete in
the end as far as Jackson Hole was concerned. We
faced there very great opposition from the organized
sportsmen, who apparently took the position, which
somehow or other I've never been entirely able to
comprehend, that it was cruel for the government to
shoot these animals but was not if sportsmen did it
for the fun of it. They apparently felt it was an
atrocious waste of a natural resource that could make
for recreation on their part. Some of them more or
less demanded to be admitted to the national parks
for hunting.

Well, it's another story. When we talk about
Jackson Hole we can discuss it more if you want, but
we finally did yield somewhat, and regretfully on my
part, so far as the Jackson Hole itself was concerned.
In finally getting through the bill to add Jackson
Hole to Grand Tetons National Park we tried to save
face by providing that the Secretary of the Interior
could deputize sportsmen as temporary rangers who

365

Drury: could qualify to shoot a certain number of elk in a
given season, thereby reducing the herd under the
supervision of the park superintendent.

Pry: In problems of overpopulation, do the preservationists
feel that if you simply let this go on for a few gen
erations the principle of survival of the fittest
would solve the problem for you?

Drury: Perhaps it would if it weren't for the fact that

these areas, large as they are, are nevertheless so
constricted that populations that would escape to
other areas are hemmed in.

Pry: It's not just a matter of letting the weak ones die
off from lack of food. Some also have to be able to
escape?

Drury: Well, it is partly so, but the whole strain is deter
iorated by an abnormal condition, you see. It's al
most an impossible ideal to live up to, the ideal of
maintaining in national parks or anywhere else a
so-called balance of nature, but I think that's a
more acute problem in relation to wildlife than it is
in other aspects which in a sense perhaps are more
important, namely the preservation of forests and of
earth forms and of vistas and examples of superlative
scenery. That to my way of thinking was the primary
purpose of the national parks — to preserve the
great spectacles of the original America as it was
seen by the pioneers, and somehow or other make it
possible for the public to enjoy these sights, to
have the experience 'of "being in this environment
without destroying it. That was the challenge that
anybody who was bold enough or benighted enough to go
into the national park business had to face.

366

Plants

Pry: There was never any problem about whether or not to

undertake all the research necessary in treatment for
plant diseases, such as the white pine blister rust?

Drury: Yes, there was a continual problem of getting money
for studies of that sort.

Fry: But this is no policy question?

Drury: Well, there are policy questions involved. There are
some cases perhaps where the cure would be worse than
the disease when you v/ould adopt artificial measures
in order to preserve the species. I myself couldn't
go so far as some of my colleagues but there were one
or two of them who were even opposed to the white
pine blister rust control program, which as you know
involved millions of dollars and thousands of men
over many years establishing camps, the main purpose
of which was to eradicate the host plant of this rust,
which has destroyed a great many of the white pines
and related species. I myself feel that it was
worth the try and I'm frank to say that I don't
know at this moment just how effective it was. I
know that the progress of the white pine blister
rust was impeded, but I've heard that it's pretty
close to Yosemite and some other national parks.
It affects only certain species but it's a deadly
thing.

We had a disease of the saguaro cactus that is
still being studied, the necrosis. They've identified
the disease but I don't think that they're at all
sure of the method of its spread or of its eradication.

367

Drury: That's still the subject of study by the plant

pathologists, who were in the Department of Agricul
ture related to the United States Forest Service and
with whom we worked very closely, I remember with
particular appreciation Dr. Willis Wagner of that
bureau who not only worked with us in the national
parks but who made a definitive study of the oypresa
canker which was threatening the cypress at Point
Lobos. Undoubtedly his studies and the preventive
measures that were taken to keep it from invading
Point Lobos were at least partly responsible for
saving the trees. In any event, I remember predicting
about thirty years ago that it looked as if the
Monterey cypress was doomed because cypress all around
Point Lobos had died from this disease. But somehow
or other we kept it out of the Point Lobos preserve.
It may well be, as I think Dr. Wagner believes,
that the presence of the salt spray from the Pacific
has something to do with keeping it out, and also
the fact that the trees on Point Lobos are native,
whereas the trees that were affected in the surrounding
country were many nursery trees that had been propa
gated.

There are other phases of what we have been dis
cussing, but the primary purpose of the national
parks in protecting the integrity of all the features
that make up their greatness is one of resisting,
and we hope effectively, any attempt to turn to
utilitarian purposes the resources represented by the
forests of the forage, which of course was subject
to some use of grazing. The minerals in the soil

368

Drury: fortunately were not as prevalent or as rich in the
national park areas as they were some places.
Latterly the water resources, which have been a
grave threat in the dam-building program which was
our nemesis and which led to many many bitter dis
putes. Y/e can talk about that more fully later.

Pry: Would you preserve these parks against all change,
including natural change that might come about?

Drury: No, I would say just the opposite, that if you

took the simon-pure policy it would be almost one
of laissez faire and would lead inevitably to recon
ciling oneself to change. We have plenty of concrete
examples of that, v/hicji always involved a lot of
discussion and soul-searching as to what was the
right thing to do. One of them had to do with the
vistas in Yosemite Valley. The oldtimers, like my
dear friend William E. Colby, objected to the fact
that the trees which in his youth were saplings had
grown to such proportions that they impeded some of
his favorite views, as of Yosemite Falls. The
problem was whether or not we were justified in tam
pering with the processes of nature to the point where
from an aesthetic standpoint we would probably get
a better effect or anyhow an effect that we liked
better. For instance, one of the great features of
aesthetic appeal in Yosemite Valley is the contrast
of the lyric beauty of the valley floor with the tower-
ing granite cliffs above; the forests on the floor
of the valley are in a sense just an addition thereto
which, as you suggest, is necessarily changing,
evolving. I myself was inclined to let nature
evolve, but there was a great deal of pressure on the

369

Drury: part of some of our friends to try to restore some

of the early Yosemite vistas, such as the open floor
of the meadows and the views of some of the falls like
Nevada Palls and particularly Yosemite Falls, so that
finally we compromised somewhat on that. We estab
lished a program of eradication of seedlings in cer
tain of the meadows so as to restore the views of
both the upper and lower Yosemite Falls from certain
key points. But the principle I always tried to
follow was this: that if any modification of natural
conditions was effected, the burden of proof should
rest upon the oerson who wanted to change the natural
process, and it shouldn't be based on purely a per
sonal idea that certain landscape arrangements would
be more acceptable or more pleasing than those that
existed.

Fry: In other words, not just for human aesthetics.

Drury: Yes, but the best thinking that we could give it

should be applied to this question, always recognizing
that the burden of proof was on the person who wanted
to make a change, whether he thought it was for
better of worse.

Now of course you have the other side of it,
where people want to cut down trees for lumber or
flood lands by building dams or scour the landscape
by mining or denude it by grazing. Obviously the bur
den of proof is upon them not to show that it's for
the benefit of humanity, and that's what most of our
arguments are about. Many times we lost.

Related Activities

Fry: As I understand it, you found your national park

system included not only parks but national cemeteries,

370

Drury: Some of the national military parks were taken over
in the 30 's of course in the reorganization act,
largely as an administrative expedient but also
because in certain quarters they were felt to be
nationally significant.

Fry: You also found yourself building airstrips and

things like that in lands outside national parks
under Civilian Conservation Corps, is that right?

Drury: Well, that was of a piece with the basic policy that
no construction should take place in a park unless
it were obviously necessary to the enjoyment of the
property for itself and its innate qualities, modes
of transportation, roads, modes of communication,
things like airstrips and all the rest of it according
to the national policy were held to a minimum,.

Fry: Weren't all Civilian Conservation Corps operations
under you?

Drury: The Civilian Conservation Corps so far as it related
to parks was under the National Parks Service. The
CCC was beginning to dwindle when I went to Washington.
Its heyday was in the Cammerer regime and it did a
tremendous amount of good, more good I think in the
national parks than it did in the state parks because
the national parks were organized to make use of it.
They needed the labor, they had the skilled super
visors to direct it.

Fry: What happened when the days of the CCC and the Emer
gency Conservation Work came to an end?

Drury: Well, the CCC and the Works Progress Administration
and other work agencies gradually dwindled in the
early forties, and I remember being way up on the
Olympic Peninsula when I got word that the Congress
had refused to make appropriations to continue the

371

Drury: COG, whereupon I had to fly down to San Francisco and
hastily call a meeting of all of our regional direc
tors from all over the United States to figure on the
problem of placing or eliminating about 300 employees
almost within a couple of weeks. It was a very
painful process. We had to make the program within
less than two weeks and when the fiscal year rolled
around some of these men went into state park work,
some of them into other callings, and some of them,
were absorbed into the regular national park organiza
tion. That was another of my objections to expanding
unduly these emergency programs, because I'd had pre
vious experience as to how painful it is when you have
to contract. Many a time I advised men against going
into that type of work as against the old-line estab
lished and reasonably well-financed basic work.

Pry: Didn't your policy have to cover much more than just
the national parks — you also had to think of lands
such as state recreational areas that originated in
an act of Congress.

Drury: Yes. The Park, Parkway and Recreational Area Act was
passed before my time, but under that the National
Park Service had begun to expand its functions to
include advisory services to state parks and even
to local parks in some cases, and I think some very
effective and worthwhile work was done there. I was
a little narrow in my view toward that in that I tended
to discourage expanding that phase of the work of the
National Park Service to the detriment of what I considered
the more basic task they had of completing, protecting,
and interpreting to the people, making available to the
people, the really great places of the nation that were

372

Drury: so important nationally that it was obviously the

proper function of the federal government to support
them. As you can readily divine I was a conservative,
even a Republican, so that I didn't believe that a
paternalistic federal government should reach into
every segment of government below it and more or less
interpose in their affairs. But then I must confess
that I was perhaps out of tune with the trend that was
coming along pretty rapidly and that now is here.

My attitude is not original with me — there are
lots of others like Frederick Law Olmstead and Duncan
McDuffie and all the fine men I worked with who believed
that the national park system should primarily be devoted
to things of national significance. Whether the National
Park Service is the best agency to do the local planning
and to take the backward communities by the hand and
guide them is no longer a moot question; it's been
decided that that is_ one of their functions. They're
doing it very well.

Fry: At the time you felt that local communities could handle
these problems better?

Drury: Well, I did, frankly. That is, I felt that the strength
of America lay in the fact of its diversity, and I
also have had the old-fashioned suspicion of bureaucracy
in this: that in a small segment of government if a
mistake is made it's immaterial, but in an all-pervasive
government organization one mistake is multiplied many
thousand times and its effect is sometimes almost dis
astrous. Questions, for instance, as to the over-devel
opment of areas for artificial sports and that kind of
thing, if that were a national policy followed consis
tently throughout the United States in uniform pattern
it would be much worse than if some local community takes

373

Drury: a fine natural area and defaces it by artificial! zing it
and putting in par aphen alia for recreation that could be
taken care of elsewhere.

Pry: Did you have any definite idea of the role that the
federal government should play in providing tourist
accommodations when you first went into national parks?

Drury: Yes, and I feel that that has been since the beginning
in greater or lesser degree the basic policy of the
federal government, that the accommodations and other
facilities provided by concessioners in the parks are a
means to an end and not an end in themselves. I tried
to make a definite distinction, for instance, between
that kind of activity in the national parks and that
kind of activity in a private resort, or even a govern
ment-owned resort, A resort is an area which might
be originally a natural area, could be remolded in any
way that the owner thereof pleased to attain his end,
which is to get patronage through giving people the
kind of experience they want, and endeavoring to do it at
a profit. But surely when hotels are placed in a place
like Yellowstone or Yosemite or Grand Teton or any of
the other national parks they should be an essential
facility and not an end in themselves; that is, the
fact that the parks are remote, and that people have to
have housing and be fed and accommodated in other ways
makes those things necessary, but their installation
should be related to the primary purpose of the park,
and in design and in remoteness and in the character
of their activities they should insofar as possible
harmonise with the primary purpose of the national parks,
which is to provide to the public these great spectacles
of nature.

374

Fry: The same would be true then for recreational provisions?

Drury: Yes, for certain types of recreation which require very
extensive artificial paraphenalia, such as power ski
lifts and that kind of thing. That of course has been
one of the moot questions since the beginning, and in
general our policy was to try to help them find alter
native sites to those within the national parks that
they proposed for this overdevelopment, not that
there was anything but good involved in those things,
but that they were inappropriate or inharmonious with
the purposes of the park. The prize park as far as I
was concerned was the Great Smokies, where we had no
concessions. It just happened historically that the
Great Smokies had the town of Gaplinburg and some of
the towns of North Carolina south of there which had
rather adequate accommodations, so that they made
money, which is the purpose of course of running a hotel
or a resorto Nobody objects to that, but they didn't
make it at the expense of the values in the park.

Fry: I guess the elimination of concessions within the parks
altogether would more or less change the type of tour
ists to those that are a little bit hardier and who
do their own camping.

Drury: Well, there was no element of austerity in that policy
in the Great Smokies.

The essence of an attitude that conservationists
took in matters like decentralization of the mechanics
of operation at Yosemite was that the finest places,
those that were superlative examples of nature,
should be held insofar as possible intact and unmarred
by artificial inclusions, they should be the object

375

Drury: of a pilgrimage to enjoy them rather than "being the

scene of all the mundane activities of living, sleeping,
eating, garbage collection and sewage disposal, and
all those things. It's just ordinary horse sense and
good taste, it would seem to me, to relegate that
kind of activity to the lesser lands.

Pry: Did you undergo any major policy changes? I read in
one of your annual reports about a reappraisal of
policy,

Drury: I don't think there's been anything fundamental, I

think the keynote was struck in the original National
Park Act and it was maintained by successive directors
and their staffs and by the Secretaries of the Interior,
I don't know of any institution where it's any clearer
as to what the ideal is than it is in the national parks.
The great problem in the light of all kinds of pressures
and the frailties of human nature and the vicissitudes of
politics and of financing is to live up to the ideal.

Pry: It seems to me that logically there should not be any
concessions in the parks. The problem is that of be
coming overcrowded anyway with tourists.

Drury: Well, if the surrounding communities can amply provide
accommodations for the public I think it's a grave
question as to whether concessions should be intruded
into the national parks.

Pry: How, in the early 1960s, do you see policy as taking
in more recreation and development in the parks?

Drury: Well, of necessity, as the millions of people come to
the parks they have to be provided for, in the absence
of some way of limiting attendance. I was up at the
dedication of the Tioga Road, which has been the subject
of considerable controversy. To me it represents a

376

Drury: great advance so far as transportation is concerned,

but surely at some points does not adorn the landscape.
Now maybe that's the price you have to pay for the in
creased attendance. We wrestled with and the Service
is still wrestling with the problem of possibly limiting
attendance, which is the only way that you can get
away from the inevitable erosion of park values
through mass use.

It isn't confined to the national parks at all.
The city of Berkeley's a good example of that kind
of erosion. In my neighborhood we had a little square
pleasantly planted with trees and shrubs, Fremontia
Park. It needed a new firehouse, so what did they do
but cut down some of the trees and stick their rather
futuristic-looking building -- it looks like a merry-
go-round — in the center of that park, and they justi
fied it on the ground of public need. I myself think
it was a breach of trust toward the people who estab
lished the park and I surely don't think it's an adorn
ment to the landscape, but that kind of thing is going
on by the hundreds of thousands in every community in
the United States.

ITow they're proposing to dispose of this little
body of water at the entrance to Berkeley, fill it in
and provide more taxable values by bringing in indus
trial sites. I would think it would be a violation of
trust to do that, and it surely would not be an adornment
to the city of Berkeley. I've seen in my time the city
of Berkeley descend from the status of a quiet attractive
village to that of a nondescript second-rate municipality,
And on that high note let's end this session. [Laughter]

377

Organization

Fry: Before we get too far in our accounts of what went on,
wouldn't it "be a good idea to explain the organization
of the national park system and what the various classi
fications of park areas mean? Here is a current list-

.«.
ing of them.

Drury: I think probably the best way I could describe the

functioning of the Service is to give you the organiza
tion chart as it was when I was there. It was prac
tically the same as it is now: administration, opera
tions, design, construction, interpretation.

How this summary of area types"""' was compiled
by Hillory Tolsen, who was our conscience in most
things and a very meticulous worker. He was assis
tant director, having to do primarily with management,
fiscal affairs, and personnel and office operations,
record keeping and that sort of thing. He was very
good on compilation and he enjoyed doing it. This
whole format was originated by him with my encourage
ment. After that time we really didn't have any other
very clear-cut summary of just what there was in the
national park system. Of course, like most institutions

•a-Areas Administered by the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, 1961.

-«~&!Tational parks, national historical parks, national
memorial parks, national battlefield parks, national
monuments, national military parks, national battle
fields, national battlefield sites, national historic
sites, national memorials, national cemeteries, national
parkways, national seashore recreational areas, national
capital parks, national recreational areas, and national
historic sites not ov/ned by the federal governments

378

Drury: that evolve, there was legislation that created a

National Park Service under the act of August 25, 1916,
but that act in a way was like the rules of grammar,
which do not precede but usually succeed the evolution
of speech.

Parks and Monuments

There were half a dozen of the national parks created
by Act of Congress prior to 1916 and some national
monuments. A national park usually, although not
always, is an area on the grand scale, the boundaries of
which are determined by an act of Congress. A national
monument t on the other hand, can be established either
by act of Congress or can be carved out of public lands
by Presidential proclamation. As far as the purpose
and administration of either area is concerned, I
have never recognized any difference. Both of them
are intended to be outstanding, superlative examples
of landscape or geological formations or other natural
phenomena that are worthy of preservation by the federal
government because they are of significance ID the
whole nation; it's worthwhile for the entire nation
to see to it that they are preserved and held intact.
That's at least my conception of the purpose of nation
al parks and national monuments.

Of course, the very presence of the word "national"
in all these different types of areas would imply that
they are of national significance, although of late
there's been a tendency to look upon the great white
father as just that and the word "national" really

379

Drury: means simply that the national government for one

reason or another has assumed the responsibility for
a given function or a given type of area. That I
think is particularly true of the national recreation
areas which are rather v/ell down on the list and came
in much later in the history of things.

Fry: Generally speaking, the terminology national park

is meant to give an area a little higher status than
a national monument, isn't it?

Drury: Yes, but most of these other categories, under author
ization from Congress, can be established by administrative
order by the Secretary of the Interior, National monu
ments can, national historic sites can, and national
memorials can.

Pry: But the money has to be appropriated.

Drury: The money has to be appropriated, yes, but the anomaly
in the situation is that sometimes Congress takes the
reins into its own hands and by specific legislation
also establishes national monuments and national mem
orials. There is confusion on that even within the
Department of the Interior.

I remember that Lindsay Warren when he was the
Controller of the Treasury in Washington, D.C., for
some reason wrote an article to a national magazine in
which he tried to distinguish between a national park
and a national monument. He made the point — this
was in the 40 's — that the main difference was that
national parks v/ere administered by the Park Service
and national monuments by the Forest Service, which
hadn't been so since the reorganization act of 1933.
Here he was seven years later, the Controller of the

380

Drury: Treasury, writing an article, or having an article

written for him under his signature, making a state
ment of that sort,

The World Almanac still saya so, as far as I
know. We never could get them to change their state
ment that national monuments are administered by the
U. S. Forest Service. All of them were transferred to
the Park Service under the reorganization of 1933o
Even some of our best friends in Congress had
strange ideas. They were asked continually what was
the difference between a national park and a national
monument and I remember one, Congressman J0 Hardin
Peterson of Florida, v/ho was the best friend we had
there and who we thought understood what it was all
about, when suddenly called upon to distinguish them
said the only difference he knew was that swimming was
allowed in national monuments but not in national parks,
which was a preposterous statement to make. He may have
been just kidding. But there is that constant confusion.

Fry: The question that's in my mind is why aren't more
monuments established by Presidential order?

Drury: Well, there are more and more being established by

proclamation. But you can't establish a national nark
that way. Now, in my mind, and I think in the mind of
all of the directors of the national parks, the word
national park is like the word sterling on silver.
It's the symbol of excellence. I tried to make a dis
tinction at least in the minds of our own personnel
between the primary national parks, the great parks
like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon and so forth,
and the areas that are related to them as a part of

381

Drury: the national park system administered "by the National
Park Service. But I know from having "been in charge
of all of them that they don't any of them differ in
their basic concept, after you've made that one dis
tinction I've already made, between the primary
national parks and the other areas in the system.

Pry: What about budgeting and development?

Drury: Well, that's one reason I suppose for having so many
categories e You can break it down into these groups
for budgeting and the money is appropriated usually
by national park regions and then by specific areas
under each region.

Pry: I imagine they would probably budget more for projects
in national parks than in lesser parks.

Drury: In general I think that was so, although not necessarily
so. Some of the areas that were popular with members
of the Appropriations Committee, like Boulder Dam
national recreational area, fared pretty well par
ticularly when Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada was
on the Appropriations Committee.

Pry: Can you reclassify an area once it has become a

national park but isn't really worthy of this classi
fication?

Drury: Attempt was made to do that in some cases, but I was

never successful in getting it done. We were success
ful in getting it done. Yfe were successful in getting
relieved completely of the responsibility for certain
areas, particular ly the recreation-demonstration areas
that were established during the early days of the
New Deal by act of Congress. A considerable number,
I'd say fifteen or twenty, of these areas by act of

Dedication of The Restored McLean House, Appomattox Court House National Historical Monument.
Appomattox, Virginia. April 16, 1950. Crowd larger than Lee's surrendering Army of Northerr
Virginia assembled in front of speaker's stand (left) and McLean House (background). Photo
by A. Fawcett, National Park Service.

382

Drury: Congress were authorized for transfer to the states,
which we did in many instances. One of them was
transferred to the state of California.

Historical Areas

Pry: I guess it's the distinction between historic sites
and battlefield sites that confuse me.

Drury: Well, the original national parks and national monu
ments were primarily concerned with works of nature.
There was, however, a very strong movement to have
the federal government preserve some of the outstanding
scenes of our history, such as battlefields like
Yorktown in the Revolutionary V/ar, and Gettysburg,
and the battle where Lee surrendered to Grant,
Appomattox, in the Civil Y,rar. (Y/hen we dedicated
the McLean House at Appomattox we had more people in
the audience to which we spoke than took part in the
battle of Appomattox.) Anyhow, the historical parka
and the battlefield parks originally were established
under the authority of the War Department. In 1933,
the beginning of the Hew Deal, an act of reorganization
was established which grouped together not only national
parks and monuments but other significant national
areas like the historical parks and the battlefield
parks and military parks under the jurisdiction of
the National Park Service.

It's more a question of the terminology used
when the orders were written or the laws were passed
that we have so many different categories; they're all
in purpose and function about the same.

Pry: They're not under different administrative structures

383

;pry: within the National Park Service?

Lrury: No. They're grouped regionally in the National

Park System. National parks had four regions during
my time and they've now added a fifth region, the
officers in the East in Philadelphia.

There is only one national memorial park. (Let's
see what it says on page 12; no one without reference
to this index could know.) It's the Theodore Roose
velt National Memorial Park. I can give you some
history of that because with my purist ideas and my
moderate familiarity with the badlands on the Little
Missouri River, when Congressman William Lemke of
North Dakota introduced a bill to create a Theodore
Roosevelt National Park, rightly or wrongly I took
the position that these lands weren't of caliber to be
made a national park in the true sense of the word,
and I opposed it, much to Congressman Lemke 's disgust.
Well, finally we compromised on calling it a national
memorial park, because Lemke was in a position to
put it through anyhow. He took the position that he
had the most important park in the whole system be
cause there was only one National Memorial Park.

Pry: This didn't actually make any functional difference,
did it?

Drury: No. They're all administered under the same policy.
All the lands are protected with the same rules as
to destruction of natural objects or wildlife or any
thing of that sort — and development for human use —
in such way as not to impair seriously the natural
qualities. There has been a tendency of late to weaken
the policy so far as National Recreational Areas are

384

Drury: concerned, but in the rest of these categories there's
no material difference.

Now, the national Cemeteries, in my humble opinion,
were transferred mistakenly to the National Park Ser
vice. I think it would have been much better for the
War department to have kept their management. It's a
very sad function to have to perform anyhow; to me it
didn't seem to be a matter of primary concern to the
National Park Service, although it should be to the
military forces. The reason that it was transferred
to the National Park Service undoubtedly was that most
of the national cemeteries adjoin these battlefields
that have been set aside as historic exhibits. For
instance, at Gettysburg adjoining the scene of the
battle is some land where a great many of those who
fell in battles in various wars and particularly the
Civil War are buried. One of the complicating fac
tors in World War II was that the War Department
notified all parents of boys who had been lost in the
war that they could select the cemetery of their choice,
and overwhelmingly most of them settled on Gettysburg
because it was the best known, and also I guess because
a great many of the boys who were killed in the early
stages of the war came from that part of the country.
Anyhow, we were certainly overwhelmed with applications
that we couldn't possibly meet. We had to acquire
more land and v/e had to persuade some people to trans
fer their interments to other battlefield sites.

Each one of these categories historically has some
reason for it. The national historic sites not belonging
to the federal government were made possible by the
Act of 1935, which provided that not only federally-
owned lands but also private lands could have the

385

Brury: stamp of approval of the federal government if an

agreement was reached that they should be preserved
and administered in a certain way and the public be
admitted to them. The old Swedes' church in Philadelphia
was declared a national historic site in my time by a
proclamation of the Secretary of the Interior simply
because we had a cooperative agreement with the owners
of it -- the Episcopal Ohurch has it now — under which
they would keep the historic structure as it is and
make it available for people to visit it. And Touro
Synagogue in New England was another one that I
remember our establishing. Each one of these involves
a long series of negotiation with the owners of the
property and \as made it possible to hold intact
certain outstanding historic areas even while they
might not be owned by the government. Some of these
of course were owned by the government. I spent some
very pleasant hours at the home of Franklin D. Roose
velt at Hyde Park; in fact I made a couple of trips
with the President up there when he was paving the
way for making the home of Franklin D. Roosevelt a
national historic site. It was ultimately transferred
by the Roosevelt family to the federal government.
And there were others — Fort Laramie, Wyoming, was
also transferred; the Adams mansion in Massachusetts
was owned by the federal government; Federal Hall
was designated a national memorial but is owned by the
city of Philadelphia.

Fry: Under these cooperative arrangements do you ever have
to put out money for the upkeep and the administration
of these sites?

386

Drury: NO, That's one condition, that the place shall "be main
tained by the owners.

Parkways and Local Parks

Drury: Now the only categories in this list that we haven't

discussed are the National Seashore Recreational Areas
and the National Capital Parks, Well, of course the
national capital parks are city parks in the District
of Columbia, and I'll be frank to say that during the
ten and a half years I was there I paid very little
attention to the capital parks. I'm not sure I would
have gone there if I'd known that we were responsible
for six or seven hundred city parks on top of every
thing else, some of them little patches about the
size of this room, but some of them tremendous areas
and very beautiful. The Rock Creek Park is to some
extent a man-made park; at least it was restored.
It used to be a garbage dump but it was taken over
by the District of Columbia and made into a very attrac
tive area of great recreational value to the people of
Washington, D.C. The national capital parks were ad
ministered primarily by a local superintendent under
the immediate jurisdiction, which I arranged, of the
associate director, who for a long time was Mr. Demaray.
Mr. Demaray knew all the properties intimately and he
was tremendously interested in them. I was very for
tunate in having an associate who was interested,
because my primary interest was out in the great open
spaces.

The National Parkways are a distinct phenomenon
which do not have all of the national park principles

387

Drury: applied to them. They're primarily scenic highways.
The most extensive are the Blue Ridge Parkway and
the Natchez Trace Parkway, the first of which runs
between Ghenandoah National Park and the Smoky Moun
tains Rational Park. The Natchez Trace runs between
Nashville, Tennessee, and Natchez , Mississippi; the
trace, which was the term for trail, was the route
that the boatmen on the Mississippi who were taking
cargo down to Natchez and other ports would take back
to where they started from. They floated down the
river and then they came back on foot or on horseback.
Both of those are extremely interesting in that along
them are relics of the early history of the region,
the Blue Ridge, the mountain culture and the Natchez
Trace, particularly the old inns and some of the old
plantations that are scattered through that country,
some of which are included in the parkway site and
some of which are simply nearby.

Pry: In these parkways, none of this is for picnicking or

camping or anything like that? It's just mainly to drive
through, isn't it?

Drury: Not necessarily. There are sections where they were
able to get enough land where campgrounds have been
developed and there are some places where concessioners
have cabins, particularly the Blue Ridge. The Blue
Ridge was much better developed during my time than
the Natchez Trace. I'm not sure just how much of that
has been done on the Natchez Trace,

Pry: The parkways kind of stump me because this seems to be
an eastern phenomenon, and I wondered historically
how did they become parkways? Why didn't they become
parks?

388

Drury: Well, because they were primarily related to a high
way. You see, the original parkways developed in
New York State, particularly around New York City and
environs. One of the founders of the Save -the -Red
woods League, Madison Grant, was also one of the
founders of the system of parkways in the Bronx in
New York. Later the Sawmill Parkway and a half a
dozen beautifully landscaped or preserved landscaped
highways were established, primarily for light travel,
not trucks and commercial travel, and to a consider
able extent for recreational travel. The New Yorkers
unquestionably are the most advanced in their attempt
to preserve the amenities of landscape, far ahead of
California. We've done probably just as much in
establishment of state parks but we haven't done
nearly as much in the field of parkways as New York.
In fact, only in the current legislature has a resolu
tion been passed which calls for recognition in high
way building of the parkway principle.

Pry: Y/hy were parkways undertaken by the National Park
System instead of by the Bureau of Public Roads?

Drury: It was done primarily because the Bureau of Public

Roads wouldn't have been justified in including in the
network of national highways travel routes that had as
little travel as there was in those Southern states,
and partly the colossal appropriations that we ob
tained for these parkways were due to the fact that
from 1933 on these were located in states south of the
Mason-Dixon Line. I remember during the height of
World War II when we put in a very modest budget —
we weren't allowed to put in much — we asked nothing

389

Drury: for the Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace parkways, and

when our budget finally went through they'd added two
or three million dollars. The key men on the Appropria-
tions Committee were also key men in those states.

They're wonderful accomplishments. The figures
of expenditure on them would run to hundreds of mil
lions now, because although these are highways of a
somewhat lower standard than modern freeways, they're
available for rather rapid travel, and they have the
element of a park in that there are no billboards,
practically no access, and there's some planting in
country that has been mutilated by logging or by
mining or whatnot. It's to preserve a natural route
of travel which people will enjoy as they go along.
It's primarily for recreational travel. That isn't
entirely true of the parkways out of New York, because
they're man-made and serve a dual purpose of pleasant
travel and an agreeable environment, and the drivers
get home to the suburbs quickly.

Program
Planning

Pry: I thought we could start out by talking about planning
in our discussion of the program of the National Park
Service. There is a great deal of data available on
this because your master plans and also the more speci
fic plans within the park nystem are a matter of
public record. Could you comment today on the ques
tion of planning being a realistic procedure, in view
of other influences over which you have no control,
such as acts of Congress?

390

Drury: Well, needless to say planning is basic to all human
activities, and it's particularly important when we
deal with lands, whatever their purpose. Before you
can make a plan for acquisition of land or development
of it for park purposes, you have to have what we used
to call our policy statement : to hold them intact for
the enjoyment of this and future generations. This
is simply the reason for existence and the purpose of
the area in question.

At one time I made the rounds of many of the parks
and personally asked each superintendent, and later I
confirmed it in writing, to prepare a brief — usually
a one-page — summary of what in his opinion and his
experience with the public visiting the park was the
reason for its establishment. Not until you have that,
and a policy statement so that you know exactly what
you want to do with the lands under your custody, is
there much point in making a plan for them. That was
one of the things I was able to incorporate in the
master plans, which of course involved a great many
other things.

They involved first of all the mapping of the
physical characteristics of the land; they involved
the existing holdings and a concept of the ultimate
boundaries. It's the same thing we're doing now, for
instance, up at the Rockefeller Forest in the Humboldt
Redwoods, where for thirty-five years we've had a con
cept that this area should include the complete Bull
Creek watershed from ridge to ridge — in other words,
from a fire protection standpoint and of course from
an aesthetic standpoint controlling everything in
sight from any adverse development. That thought is

391

Drury: important „ Making our master plans really involved

writing a book, almost, with abundant illustrations for
each nark.

There was a long process of investigating the
physical conditions; in many cases we had basic maps,
mostly from the U.S. Geological Survey, on which to
base our data, but in other cases extensive and expensive
reconnaissance and surveying were necessary to have an
adequate map of the terrain. Those maps were used in
various ways; to record the vegetative cover, including
the forest growth; to give the conformation of the
land, v/hich was essential in planning for construction;
and to indicate natural or historic or aesthetic
features, outstanding views or historic structures and
whatnot, that made the area significants

Then the development section would prepare detailed
preliminary maps — first of the broad aspects of
development such as the road system; the classification
of areas that were to be held inviolate as against
areas that could be developed for lodges and camp
grounds and the necessary mechanics of operation —
warehouses and machine shops and residences for person
nel. As money became available all those things v/ere
broken down into much more detailed plans and specifi
cations, and that's where the landscape architects
and engineers came in.

Always, anything that we did or anything for
which we asked anpropriations was promised upon the
then-existing master plan. Some of these master plans
were works of art, and some of them were distinctly
elementary. One thing that we had to keep in mind
was that they were not static; that is, times changed,

392

Drury: as for instance the attendance of a park increased,
as it has in places like Yosemite. It is often
necessary to change the traffic pattern; it's neces
sary to provide more par Icing and in some cases, un
fortunately, to widen roads, to provide more over
night accommodations, both through the lodges of the
concessioners and through campgrounds.

Pry: As I understand it the master plans were passed around
to all of the employees, is that right? Every
body knew,

Drury: During my time, the National Park Service one or two
years had large appropriations for development.
Most of the time, because of the war, we were almost
on a maintenance basis, but although we were rather
meager in staff we did have a breathing spell during
the war in which we could get a great many of our
master plans up to date. Incidentally, many of them
never were up to date and I guess they're not today.
You know, they're like good intentions everyone has.
At that time, in the forties, speaking of con
struction and development, we could foresee the increase
in attendance as soon as the war was over and we had
worked out a number of programs , the charts for which
we thought extremely interesting and which were fore
runners of Mission '66. They indicated what was
needed in various phases of development, for instance
employee housing, roads and trails, service structures,
campgrounds, and the like, and projected the amount
of appropriation in the then purchasing power of the
dollar that v/ould be adequate to meet these needs on
a basis of catching up in five years or in ten years
or in twenty-five or fifty years.

393

Fry: Was this the plan that President Roosevelt asked for
in 1943 for postwar planning?

Drury: Yes. Unquestionably the fine concept that Director
Wirth incorporated in the Mission '66 Program (a
program aiming to bring the parks, so far as physical
development and boundaries are concerned, up to the
needs of the estimated population in 1966) was based
on the data — not all of it, but a great deal —
that we started to gather in those early days.

Problems: Artificial Lakes, Inholdings

Fry: I wonder how you handled such things as the Theodore
Roosevelt Park, and Franklin D. Roosevelt lake, and
Lake Texoma. It might serve as an example of some
thing being put under your domain for recreation and
development that had little relationship to master
plans.

Drury: I don't think that Grand Coulee — now Franklin D.
Roosevelt Lake -- was actually incorporated in our
operation during my time.

Fry: It was mentioned in the 1946-4? report.

Drury: I do remember many trips to Grand Coulee, and my

vain efforts to keep from having anything to do with
it. I spent endless hours there with our planners.

Fry: There were no funds and no land —

Drury: Well, that's the point. The great defect of these
recreational areas on the artificial lakes such as
those created by the Shasta, Coulee, and Grand View
dams, and Lake Texoma, was that the Park Service had
no part in the initial planning. It got better as
time went on, but in spite of our recommendations the

394

Drury: agency that was building the dams, and was primarily

interested in construction and correct design, of course,
gave practically no attention to the acquisition of
adequate lands so that these reservoirs could be used
recreationally "by the public. Much of my time, which
I begrudged because I'd rather have spent it on the
major national parks where we were terribly behind,
was spent in trying to induce the Bureau of Reclama
tion and the Army Engineers to acquire, at the time
when they got their holdings (lands in fee or their
easements or flowage rights), adequate land on the
margin so that a satisfactory recreational development
could be planned and carried out. That was true at
Texoma; it was very true at the Shadow Mountain Grand
View Dam at Rocky Mountain National Park. I recom
mended that we not involve the National Park Service
in that kind of thing. # Needless to say I was turned
down, but I then recommended that if we were going to
do it, adequate land holdings should be acquired to make
it a worthwhile job. The primary answer to that was
that neither Reclamation nor the Army Engineers had
legal authority to acquire land beyond what was actually
needed for the operations of the dam.

]?ry: I remember that in Texoma there was a great deal of

local community feeling against acquiring any land at
all.

Drury: There always is, especially after the improvements are
put in and land values are enhanced. That's one of the

•»-3ee Appendix, correspondence with Strauss and Ickes,
"Ivory Tower - Black Magic".

395

Drury: things, not only there but even in my last years

in the state parks here in California, I vainly tried
to get the authorities to see, including the legis
lature, that land on the margin of proposed lakes
should "be bought in the original purchase. Shasta
was our big project in the state parks; we spent over
$2,000,000 to buy land at Shasta that could have
been bought probably for $100,000 if at the time
when the Army Engineers built it they had taken
an adequate holding.

Well, they contended that they didn't have the
legal authority to do that. That may have been true
about the Bureau of Reclamation, but I know that it
wasn't true of the Army Engineers because I helped
draft some of the amendments to the act under which
they had that authority. They just didn't want to
exercise it. They wanted to husband their resources
and use them on engineering works, which was only
natural. And they frankly weren't interested in the
recreational aspects. What I tried to do in this
"ivory tower" correspondence, which was quite famous
in the Bureau of Reclamation and in the National Park
Service and provided a lot of merriment (an inter
change between the commissioner, Mike Straus, and
myself) was strongly to recommend that each individual
bureau should plan, develop, and administer the
recreation that was incident to its operation, because
my firm conviction was that the importance of mass
recreation to the public was a by-product of some
purpose of different types of land management agencies.
And I almoot got away with it. Naturally the Reclama
tion Bureau and Army Engineers are primarily interested
in water storage and in water supply and in flood

396

Drury: control, and the use that the public can make of

the lands that are marginal to their artificial lakes
is purely incidental, a by-product, of their primary
function. I also contended, and as you know never
quite got away with it, that in the National Park
Service the purpose was to acquire, preserve, and
reveal to the public the great v/orks of nature and
the great sites of history and that the very laudable
and pleasurable and desirable incidental benefits
through mass recreation were simply a by-product of
that primary purpose.

The primary principle of course in connection
with the mass recreation activities insofar as they
are permitted in the national parks is that they should
be limited so that they do not impair the qualities
of the area that were the reason for its being made
a federal reserve or a national park.

Pry: In the general problem of inholdings before you were
able to get any of them, as I understand it the rail
road lands and the congressmen's lands were the two
that probably caused more pain in planning than the
others. Is that correct?

Drury: No, I think the railroad lands were susceptible of

being purchased. The question with all land purchases
is arriving at a value. The railroads as you know
accepted these alternate sections for a given number of
miles on each side of the lines as a government sub
sidy and their purpose was to turn them into money.
I don't recollect offhand that we had much to do with
railroad lands in the national parks. I'm sure we
didn't in the East because there weren't any, except

397

Drury: in Florida. I believe we negotiated with the Union
Pacific in Utah with respect to incorporating those
railroad lands into the parks. They were probably
the easiest people to deal with.

Fry: \Vere you able to acquire the property of people who
were in Congress.

Drury: Well, I didn't have any serious problems of that sort
that I remember. Of course, one of the outstanding
episodes, and it became something of a joke, was the
summer home of Senator Wheeler in Montana in Glacier
National Park. Heedless to say, all of the plans for
acquisition somehow or other managed to omit Senator
Y/heeler's home, and he also put on a lot of riders on
the appropriations bills that further cramped our style.
I think that in Glacier they're still forbidden by
law to acquire land that's used for domestic residence*
I'm not sure that that's still in effect, but it was
in my time.

Fry: Did that apply only to Montana?

Drury: It applied only to Glacier National Park. There are

other riders on all the others. There are all kinds of
limitations; you can expect that where you're dealing
with human beings, and congressmen are more or less
human beings.

Fry: I'd like to ask you about congressmen from California.
Did Helen Gahagan Douglas author a bill for
buying some redwoods?

Drury: She introduced in several sessions the so-called

Douglas bill, which had as its purpose the establish
ment of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Rational
Forest. It was a very interesting bill; I told her

398

Drury: right from the beginning it was an unrealistic bill:
it would have put under the jurisdiction of the
government the entire redv/ood industry, the entire
redwood belt extending from the Oregon line down to
lower Sonoma County. It didn't take in the Santa
Cruz redwood region. It was undoubtedly generated
by some members of the U.S. Forest Service, not the
top command but some of them who were very strong
for government ownership and operation of resources —
perhaps properly, I don't know. But the idea of
putting an entire region and an entire industry
under government control was something that I assured
them I didn't think they ever could do, even assuming
that it was the right thing to do. Secretary Ickes
asked me to help Mrs. Douglas with this bill because
of my knowledge of the redwood belt and my work
with the Save-the-Hedwoods League, and I did help her
considerably in that first of all I asked the Secre
tary to let me narrow the issue as far as the Interior
was concerned to those areas in the redwood belt
which were obviously of park caliber and should be
under government protection before the virgin forests
were cut, and that applied primarily to the program
of the Save-the-Redwoods League. Well, after con
siderable discussion both with Mrs. Douglas and with
Congressman Clarence P. Lea, who represented that
district, she did amend her bill to provide for so-
called memorial units, which I called park units,
that defined according to our suggestion certain
buffer areas around the existing redwood state parks.
The theory was that if federal money was spent on the
redwoods it would acquire these essential properties,

399

Drury: which are still, incidentally, in our long-range
master plan (which seems to get longer and longer
as the years go by), in the main following the prin
ciple that logical park units are watersheds, taking
the property from ridge to ridge.

Well, this bill went through several sessions
of Congress and I don't believe ever had a hearing;
I know that it didn't pass either house of Congress.
Finally Mrs. Douglas was defeated for office and the
thing dropped. But it did give the stamp of approval
on her part and I think quite a few other members of
Congress and of the Secretary of the Interior to
these areas necessary to round out the California
state parks. Now, I suppose I was carrying water on
both shoulders in a sense but I persuaded her to put
into the bill that although the federal government
might purchase these lands, they were to be turned
over to the state for administration inasmuch as the
core of each of these areas — Bull Creek Flat and
the raain Prairie Creek area, Jedediah Smith and Del
Worte Coast parks — was already under state juris
diction. Ifren today there's some discussion of the
possibility of a redwood national park. The thing
that really gave rise to the establishment of the
Save-the-Iiedwoods League back in 1918, one of the main
objectives, was to establish a redwood national park,
but because of the unwillingness of Congress to
appropriate any money for the purpose, and since all
of the finer redwoods v/ere privately owned, the state
of California had to take the initiative. It may
someday materialize.

400

Fry: The Save -the -Redwoods League did not back the Douglas
bill?

Drury: No. The Save-the-Redwoods League felt that it was

excessive, and felt also that they would not improve
their chances of preserving the superlative examples
of the redwoods if they championed the taking over by
the government of the entire redwood industry.

Fry: Oh, I meant the amended bill.

Drury: Well, the amended bill still called for the taking
over for U.S. Forest Service administration of some
millions of acres.

401

APPROPRIATIONS

Budget Requests

Fry: We're going on to the appropriations task of the

National Park Service. As I understand it, it takes
strategy as well as sweat to prepare the budget re
quest.

Drury: In general, we had a continual and somewhat frustrating
experience in spending interminable hours in charting
what we considered the irreducible minimum for both
maintenance and operation, and also for development.
Our conception of what was irreducible was not quite as
constricted as that of the Congress, and they gave us
rather short shrift. In fact I feel that a tremendous
amount of time that could have been spent on constructive
work was put in on making estimates that everyone should
have realized couldn't at that time be carried out.

Fry: Weren't the appropriation levels in your time very
different from those in more normal times?

Drury: Well, of course, when World War II came on there was
a very pronounced drop. In fact the -National Park
Service being engaged in a "cultural" enterprise, more
or less, was considered a non-essential branch of the
government, so much so that they even decentralized us
to Chicago for about four years. Consequently the
appropriations were pretty well on a maintenance budget,
even to the extent that there was practically no
construction, no building, no development; as a
matter of fact there was very little travel,

I remember for instance at Yellowstone, where
we had been having close to a million visitors

402

Drury: the year prior to the war, we had printed one million
copies of our park leaflet. Those lasted us about
five years because the attendance dropped down from
around a million to around 100,000. There were
similar situations, although Yellowstone was the
worst. The ban on travel, of course, and the ration
ing of gasoline was one of the reasons it's a little
hard to present the exact facts from the records of
the hearings or even from the actions taken by Con
gress because there are not only specific appropria
tions for what v/e call line items, but there is also
in Congress the custom of making authorizations of
a considerable sum of money subject to later appro
priation which might or might not materialize. That's
done particularly on construction projects such as
roads. V/e always had a backlog of authorizations but
the problem was to get the authorizations turned into
appropriations. Of course, all of the development
appropriations were dropped during the war. I have
a series of graphs that we prepared for out budget
hearings — I think I still have them — that outlined
in terms of dollars the deferred maintenance during
World War II and showed graphically how many years
it would take to catch up at various rates of appro
priation. I think we might introduce that in the
record.

Deferred Maintenance

Pry: Well, your maintenance problem was really a great one,

wasn't it?
Drury: Yes. Well, of course, v/e did a lot of what you might

call propaganda in and out of Congress on that, making

403

Drury: reports on the run-down condition of the facilities
in the parks and showing pictures indicating the
ghastly exhibits. Following the war, that was quite
effective. Most of my little speeches to the appropria
tions committees of the House and Senate revolved
around the theme that what the UPS was presenting in
its budget estimates was first an attempt to keep
abreast of its present responsibilities and next to
catch up on its arrears as far as maintenance and ex
pansion v/ere concerned. Of course, the unfortunate
thing was that the types of construction that harmonized
best with the outdoor scene were those that were per
haps least permanent. For instance, in the early days
all of the structures in the national parks consisted
of rustic architecture, you might call it, often made
with unpeeled logs and with heavy masonry bases
(usually not too "regelmassig" as the Germans say).
It was fitted much better into the natural scene than
the kinds of structures in the later days. Of course
we had to put up with the absence of the old-time
artisans -- stone-masons and the like who were able
to do excellent work, because of the cost of wages.
Some of the most attractive masonry had been furnished
in the CCC days when these boys who v/ent into the
camps had a flair for stone work. It probably cost
ten times what you could afford to pay for it if you
paid wages to union labor, but they were there to work
and many of them did it with zest. The same thing
also applied to a great many of the fittings like locks
on the doors and hinges which were made in the black
smiths' shops of the CCC camps by novices under the

404

Drury: supervision of old-time artisans who, like the boys,
were out of a job. There was that silver lining to
that cloud.

Pry: Was there much of a silver lining during the war when
you used the conscientious objectors?

Drury: The conscientious objectors were a pain in the neck.
[Laughter] I never will forget one tour that I made
to Sequoia National Park in the height of the war.
It was a very warm day and I had to leave early in
the afternoon and fly East, but they had some issue
up that they felt that I had to adjudicate with —
well, I won't name the sect. It might be just as well
not to. Anyhow, they insisted on my going down to this
camp right after breakfast to have parley with the
head of this religious group and we got down there
and found that about 9:30 in the morning they were
having prayers and we waited around for three-quarters
of an hour for them to come out. Needless to say when
they came out we didn't settle anything very much.
Another recollection I have, as long as we're
talking about Sequoia, v/as the time that after a hard
day I sat on the porch up there at the Giant Forest
Lodge and beside me sat down a tall blond giant about
six feet four who evidently recognized me and started
in quizzing me and giving me a great deal of personal
advice as to how the national parks should be run.
Well, I v/as a little fagged anyhow and a little on
edge. Finally I looked at this big hulk of a fellow
and I said, "Tell me, how does it happen that a boy
as husky as you isn't in the Armed Forces?" "Well,"
he said, "I'm only 14 years old." [Laughter] I think

405

Drury: he was from that conscientious objectors' camp.

Fry: Wasn't there some difficulty in administering the con
scientious objector program?

Drury: I didn't have much touch with that except on very

general questions of policy because where they were
put was determined by the Congress to some extent and
by the Administration. Our job was simply to find
work for them to do and it was sometimes pretty hard.
But I wouldn't say that they were an impediment. Some
of them did very good work. I think the CGC camp
was much more successful in the early days, especially
in the national parks. It wasn't so true of the state
parks; the national parks had better supervision.

Pry: Speaking of your wartime problems, there were a num
ber of uses made of national parks by the armed ser
vices. Did you have an income to cover these expenses?

Drury: In some cases we did, yes, but in the main we were sup
posed to get along with just what we had. We have a
report which I'll turn over to you on the quite extensive
wartime uses of the national parks.* Our primary problem
was to keep from defacing the parks and still comply
to the utmost to help in the waging of the war. We
were pretty successful in selecting those types of
activities auch as rest camps, recreation centers for
the troops, and some research projects; those things
were not harmful to the parks, and we were I think

^National Park Service Y/ar Work, December 7, 1941 to
June 30, 1944 (with supplement to October 1, 1945).
National Park Service, Ed. Charles W. Porter III.

406

Drury: surprisingly successful in persuading the armed forces
to look elsewhere than in the parks for sites for
training and activities that would have been very
detrimental to the natural features of the parks.

Pry: I wonder if this helped you any in the hearings, to
be able to point out the fact that the parks were
extremely helpful in wartime.

Drury: Yes. We surely rang the changes on that. [Laughter]
We probably would have gone out of existence if we
hadn't done that. But the present Mission 66 which
provides for a very extensive program of development,
roads, structures, facilities of all kinds, is the
outcome of that long lean period during World War II
when we just were on a purely maintenance basis.

Pry: Well, since the parks are on public display at all

times, did this problem of deferred maintenance lead
to a natural protest from the public?

Drury: In many cases it did, and particularly in the western

national parks. When we had Westerners on the committees
we had better treatment. I remember Congressman Carter wa
very much interested in our getting an appropriation
to make accessible the Crystal Cave in Sequoia National
Park, a very attractive, somewhat smallish cave, and
he finally did get an item in the budget.

Pry: Somewhere I got the impression that California's Albert
Carter was helpful in helping you protect the parka
from overuse by the armed services.

Drury: Congressman Albert E. Carter was for a great many years
chairman of the subcommittee on Interior appropriations
in the general House Appropriation Committee and was
instrumental in getting a great deal of support for

407

Drury: the parks. He was very sympathetic with the idea

that even in wartime we should avoid activities that
would be permanently damaging to the parks, unless
it was a matter of supreme necessity.

Land Acquisition Funds

Land acquisition was one of the big items, of course.

Fry: I was wondering if the privately-owned lands which
lay within parks were a very difficult thing to get
funds for.

Drury: Yes, it was very difficult to get any funds for land
acquisition at all. In these latter years, the Na
tional Park Service has been quite successful in
getting millions of dollars of appropriations to
extend the boundaries to a logical point and to buy
up inholdings. But in those days — well, when I
went to Washington we obtained nothing, and Mr. Wirth,
who was assistant director in charge of land affairs,
and I put a great deal of time on promoting the idea
of getting a recurring annual appropriation to buy
up private lands within the parks. Finally, we thought
we'd done pretty well when we got the Bureau of the
Budget to insert an item of $300,000 a year. But at
that rate we figured we could buy up at existing
values the inholdings in the national parks in perhaps
the next hundred years. [Laughter] A great many of
the solemn members of the committee weren't amused by
any such statement.

We finally got that, and under this present
Mission 66 a very satisfactory acquisition program is
being adopted.

408

Pry: Another drawback, as I understand it, and I wondered
how you worked with this, -was I guess in order to
get support in Congress a great many of these funds
were earmarked, so that you didn't have a great deal
of flexibility.

Drury: Almost all appropriations were line appropriations.
Even when we got a lump sum appropriation as we did
in this $300,000 a year for inholdings, we were required
by the appropriations committees and the Bureau of
the Budget to file with them a schedule of approximately
the amount of land that this money was to be expended
for, broken down not by legal description but by areas.
That had its benefits, too, because we got the ardent
support of the congressmen and senators from the states
in which we were going to spend some money. The only
trouble was we sometimes had to compromise in a way
that didn't carry out our first priorities. You can
see why that would be.

Pry: Well, my suspicious mind thought that probably a
great deal of these strings on this appropriation
originated with the congressmen from various states
who wanted to have these projects.

Drury: In some cases they did, but the congressmen that were
most active in that sort of thing were the members of
the appropriations committees. I remember that Con
gressman Taylor of Colorado and later Congressman
Scrugham of Nevada and still later Congressman Peter
son of Florida were all wonderful gentlemen and all
fine friends of the national parks, but they all saw
to it that a reasonable proportion of the appropria
tions were allocated to their bailiwicks, which is
only human.

409

Drury: Of course, Colorado is a beautiful state. And as I once
told the governor of Utah when we were talking about
taking land for national parks and he was expressing
some misgivings, "Governor, the main problem as you tra
vel through Utah is not what you want to make a national
park but to determine what can be left out of the national
park system," which was exagerated but which didn't hurt
the governor's feelings.

Fry: How important was it to you that the National Park Service
was almost alone among federal land-administering agencies
in not being permitted to reimburse the community for tax
losses when land was acquired by the government?

Drury: Are you sure that's true? I wasn't conscious of the fact
that it was. Is it true for instance of Reclamation and
of Fish and Wildlife Service and the Indian Service and
the others?

Fry: I'm quoting from an National Park Service annual report.

Drury: I think what it probably refers to is the fact that many
of these agencies paid a percentage of their revenues to
the local community, and that v/as especially true of the
U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture.
I think probably the text that you refer to made the invid
ious comparison between national parks and national forests
That's a question I've given a tremendous amount of time
to; I personally do not believe in in-lieu taxes. I
didn't believe in them there, and I don't believe in. them
in the state parks.

Fry: They're on an annually diminishing scale...

Drury: Well, I was a party to the compromise in the enlarged
Grand Teton Park Bill, where it seemed reasonable to
cushion the shock of taking these lands off the local

410

Drury: tax roll by providing a one hundred per cent reimburse
ment the first year, ninety per cent the next, and so on
down till the point where it tapered off, and that's worked
out very well, they tell me. The communities were reimbursed,
and the enhancement of assessed valuation because of the
existence of the enlarged park and the developments that
have occurred and the great rate of tourist traffic have
more than offset this loss of ten per cent per1 annum, so
that they surely have been made whole by that. But that's
a compromise, of course. We did that other places.

Pry: Do you think that the general policy against paying in-
lieu taxes was a serious problem in getting lands?

Drury: Oh, yes, and I think even more the problem was the desire,
which is only human I guess, of realtors and land specula
tors and financiers to make a fast buck through the enhance
ment of real estate values in the midst of a national park;
that surely is true of the state parks, also. So naturally
they resisted the attempt to incorporate these lands in,
the public reserve. This is a very interesting subject
to speculate on, and when you ask whether that was a handi
cap to us in the national parks in rounding out our lands
I can't say it actually was, because we didn't have enough
money with which to attempt acquisition so that it became
a problem. But it surely has been a handicap in the
state park program where for instance in one year the
Legislature voted $41,000,000 for land acquisittn alone,
as against the $300,000 a year that we used to get in the
national parks.

Pork Barrels

And then there were pork barrel projects. We haven't
talked at all about the parkways. That was purely an

411

Drury: eastern institution and even the New Deal finally reached

the conclusion that they shouldn't establish any additional
parkways. I personally have mingled feelings on them.
I think the Blue Ridge Parkway, which extends from Shenan-
doah to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, is a
wonderful thing. It's a wonderful achievement and it
ought to be, because it'll cost, when it's finished, about
$100,000,000, and the same way with the Natchez Trace,
which goes from Nashville, Tennessee, to Natchez, Missis
sippi. Those two projects were conceived during the
New Deal by Southern senators and congressmen and one
year when we decided not to ask for any money in our
budget for parkways, we ended up with three or four mil
lion having been added voluntarily by the Congress.

Fry: Another instance of unasked for funds was that given to
you for re-doing the Statue of Liberty, landscaping it
and so forth. It looked like that project was half your
entire appropriation one year for development, building,
and maintenance.

Drury: I don' t remember that. I probably v/as indignant at the

time. I think that it would be a good idea for you to at
least read this introduction to Freeman Tilden's book,*
because I think that summarizes better than I've done in
any of these talks my conception of the essence and pur
pose of the National Park System. Then you'll have this
compendium on the war work of the national parks, which
represents another great handicap that took a lot of our
time.

Fry: Wasn't the National Park Service a weak sister when it came
to enticing appropriations through pork barrel projects?

* Tilden, Freeman, The National Parks, What They Mean .to You
and Me, Knopf, N.Y., 1951 [Introduction by Newton Drury j

412

Drxtry: Yes. One of the things that didn't popularize me in the
Department of the Interior was the fact that I insisted
on ferreting out that in that department, when the
Bureau of the Budget gave the Department the over-all
limitation as to how much they could ask for, they would
then determine how much the great Bureau of Reclamation
should have. What was left of that limitation was par
celed out among the other agencies, such as Fish and
Wildlife and the National Park Service. Well, it got to
the point where we were so cramped for appropriations that
we were brash enough to draw up one of these pie charts
that showed how the lion's share went to Reclamation and
the crumbs that dropped from the table came to the conserva
tion agencies — which didn't popularize us with either
the Department or the Bureau of Reclamation, but it was
the truth.

Fry: Probably due to the fact that most of the congressmen

could start reclamation projects more easily than national
parks in their districts for their constituents?

Drury: Well, itfs like the old rivers and harbors bill, you know,
which was always a pork barrel measure before Congress.
It's inevitable and it's still the case and always will
be. Some of the national park appropriations v/ere sort
of treated like pork barrel items, too.

Try: But it was more difficult.

'Drury: It was more difficult. They v/eren' t large, and in many
cases we had pretty stenuous opposition to the expansion
of the national park system. That wasn't universally true.
There were some parts of the country where they were very
agressive in pressing upon us areas that we didn't really
feel measured up to national park standards and asking
appropriations for them. One interesting aspect was in

413

Drury: the South, where there weren't many opportunities to
establish areas of the first water.

Fry: But you had to deal with the Southern senators who had
accrued seniority on committees?

Drury: We usually did, yes. I remember Senator McKeller of

Tennessee and Senator Rankin of Mississippi and some of
the other southern senators were very aggressive in
insisting upon large appropriations for these parkways.
In fact, I remember one year when we did not — this
was during the yar — include in our request to the Bureau
of the Budget any item for extension of these two park
ways, and it was not included in the President's budget;
nevertheless when our bill came out of committee, several
million dollars had been added for the Blue Ridge and
Natchez parkways.

Generally, I'd say that the national park appropria
tions were not treated as pork barrel items. Pretty well,
within the ceiling that was established usually by the
Department and the Bureau of the Budget, we were able to
apportion our requests in accordance with priorities
that had been determined by pe6ple who knew the facts.

Internal Division of National Park Service Budget

Fry: Did you have any additional income from your various
organizations in conservation over the country?

Drury: No, I don't know of any substantial funds from organizations
over the country. We had what we called the National Park
Trust Fund, but that only ran to tens of thousands of
dollars a year, if that much. Occasionally somebody would
want some special thing done for which we couldn't get
government appropriations and they would make a gift of

414

a thousand or two dollars.

There are, of course, the outstanding examples of the
tremendous gifts by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and his
associated corporations. At the time when I was there we
cast up what Mr. Rockefeller had done for the national
parks and it was in excess of $15,000,000. The Mellon
interests in the field of historical preservation had made
pretty substantial gifts, and my understanding is that now,
through the Old Dominion Foundation, which is one of their
corporations, they have made lavish gifts to the NPS, as
has Mr. Rockefeller and his son Laurance and the other
Rockefeller brothers. But with the exception of occasional
appropriations by states like Tennessee and North Carolina
for the Great Smokies, and by states like Kentucky toward
the Mammoth Cave, and gifts of lands from states like
Florida for the Everglades National Park, money-wise the
NPS was pretty well on its own and had to rely on govern
ment appropriations. Any income that you obtained from
the parks did not go into your budget; it went into the
general fund. I think that's a sound way to do it, myself.
Of course, here in California we've had a special state park
maintenance fund into which revenues from the parks would
go, but I always felt both there and here that it was
perilous to rely on that kind of thing, because obviously
parks can't support themselves and I don't think as a matter
of public policy that they should be expected to, because
you could easily cheapen and commercialize them purely for
the purpose of raising revenue. However, in the federal
government we'd have cases like Carlsbad Caverns, which
is the only one I recollect, which brought in in admission
fees about twice as much as it cost to administer the area.

415

Drury: On the other hand most of the other parks were deeply
in the red. I don't think anybody contends that parks
should be run like a commercial enterprise and should
be closed if they don't show in the black.

Fry: In your internal budget, I understand that after the war
you had a "plans on the shelf" program; it was a five-
year program. Was this another name for the five-year
program you drew up for maintenance? This was apparently
anticipation of a post-war depression in which more CCC
boys might be forthcoming and some funds.

Drury: Yes, that may have been one phase of it, but it was mainly
following our custom. We had a section in the NPS that
devoted itself to keeping current a five-year and I think
also a ten-year program, estimates of appropriations that
would be needed at current values and prices for construc
tion to carry out the projects in our plans of development
and acquisition that have priority.

Pry: This "plans on the shelf" program really was not a separate
planning —

Drury: Well, it probably was something called for by the President
or by the Congress. We were making out reports all the
time to somebody. In fact, there were times that some of
us felt that we spent more time making out reports on what
we were doing than doing the things themselves. On the
other hand, I think that the function of Congress in
calling government agencies to task on their expenditures
is a sound one, but it can easily be run into the ground
as it was in the case of the Senator Bird economy committee.

Fry: How much were you allowed to juggle funds? If you saw

that something needed to be dono were you allowed to take
something out of one fund for another?

416

Drury: No, no. Neither in the federal government nor in the state.
In the state there's more latitude than there was in the
federal government, but it was a penal offense to expend
money for a purpose other than that for which Congress
earmarked it — within the limits of a general appropria
tion. For instance, if $50,000 were appropriated for
historical research in certain areas, that could be spent
on one of dozens of alternative projects within that frame
work, but you couldn't spend it on building structures or
putting in roads or in hiring more personnel. In fact,
at least one of my friends came to terrible grief years
ago, before I was in the National Park Service, because
in order to do something that he felt was in the interests
of the government he used funds to do that although they'd
been appropriated for another purpose. It was a tragedy
for him that he did that. Of course, Congress is very
jealous of its pov/er and its responsibility, rightly. That.' s
the reason why the government has so much machinery now
for checking that kind of thing,

National Redwood Park Proposals

Fry: Congressman Clarence F. Lea presented a resolution to the
House of Representatives to investigate the problem of
saving the redwoods in 1919 by creating national parks.
Was that a sort of first effort that later culminated in
the state funds?

Drury: Well, the origin of the movement for a redwoods national
park is sort of shrouded in mystery. I think we need a
lot more research on that. I believe that Willis L.
Jepson, who was head of the Department of Botany for a
great many years at the University of California, in his

417

Drury: early writings proposed a redwood national park. John
Muir, I know, very early wrote on the same subject, ,
probably well before 1919> when the Save-the-Redwoods
League began to operate.

I have and will send to you a photostatic copy of
an article in the journal — of which George Cornwell was
the publisher — in which the subject of the redwood
national park was discussed. John MacLaren, who was the
outstanding city park man in charge of Golden Gate Park
in San Francisco, was quoted, I remember, as advocating a
redwood national park. At that time, following the Lea
resolution, there was a report made to the Congress which
was commonly referred to as the Reddington Report because
the regional forester of the U.S. Forest Service, Paul
Reddington, reviewed it. It was made primarily by for
esters; the members of the field party who made it were
Richard Hammett and Donald Bruce of the U.S. Forest Service
and Merritt D. Pratt, who was the state forester of
California. We have copies of that report and a map
and I think they could be filed with this interview, if
you want to.
Fine.

Fry:
Drury:

It's interesting to note that that report took cognizance
of all of the four main areas that became the program of
major acquisition areas in which the state has made the
most progress, because when the Save-the-Redwoods League
came to make further study of the problem, it concluded
that the four outstanding examples of redwood forest which
were attainable and which were more accessible to the public
were, first, the Humboldt Redwoods State Park, which
originally extended from Miranda to Dyerville, a distance

419

Park Service with copies of the Reddington Report and also
two or three subsequent reports that were made at various
times on other areas like the Jedediah Smith Redwoods. It's
highly problematical whether there's a possibility of federal
appropriations adequate to establish a national park,
I have set forth my general view about that, which inciden
tally was written in a 1946 report to the Secretary of the
Interior when I was director of the National Park Service.
And the position of the Save-the-Redwoods League toward them,
which I transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior, was
that the State of California over the years had more or
less met its responsibility in establishing these four
primary parks and helping on the others, and that if there
was any help forthcoming from the federal government it
should be expanded partly at least in acquiring lands to
round out and complete the existing state parks. Then the
question was more or less a toss-up as to whether the federal
government should incorporate all these in a great national
park, or whether the federal government under some kind
of use permit, having bought the lands, should turn them
over to the state for administration. That really was the
position toward which I inclined.

There are a good many reasons for that. One of them
is that the state park holdings were purchased with money
given to the Redwood league and through them to the state,
matched by monies that were either appropriated by the
Legislature or voted as a bond issue by the people, so
that these park lands are to a considerable degree impressed
with a trust to maintain them as state r>arks. That prob
ably could be overcome.

All of that followed this resolution introduced by
Congressman Lea which led to the very interesting speculation

420

Drury: over the years as to. how far we should ^o with the

redwood national park. Of course, the federal government
in Sequoia and what was formerly General Grant, now
incorporated in Kings Canyon, and in Yosemite in the
Mariposa Grove has preserved the "bulk of the best
forests of the Sequoia gigantea, the Sierra redwoods,
and it's debatable as to whether there shouldn't be
a national park representative of the coast redwood,
too.

Fry: At present there isn't one, except I.Iuir Woods?

Drury: Iluir Woods is a national monument, but that again

was donated to the government by William Kent. They
wanted to call it Kent Woods, and he demurred. He
was a very modest man, and at his suggestion it was
named for John Iviuir.

Ft. Worth, Texas
February 5, 1942

421

Congressional Committees and Hearings

Fry: Preparation of testimony before the appropriation

subcommittees must have been one of your most impor
tant functions. What committees were the most important?

Drury: Our primary committees that had the fate of the national
parks in their hands were first the appropriations
subcommittees, and second, the policy committees such
as the House Committee on Public Lands and the Senate
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. I've men
tioned the committee on interior affairs, which was a
committee that passed on measures dealing with policy,
whereas the general appropriation committee had a sub
committee on interior affairs which had to do primarily
with appropriations for Interior, including national
park matters. However, as everyone knows, the money
bags control the authority more or less even in matters
of policy, and we never went into an appropriations hear-*
ing that we didn't get a lot of rather contentious dis
cussion on some of the policies that were involved in
the spending of the money for park purposes.

Fry: In the hearings, your previous mastery of the art of
debate must have been convenient to have at times.

Drury: Perhaps, but I think I ought to make thir. clear, that
the hearings before congressional committees are more
or less pro forma. The real analysis of the needs of
government agencies is made in the Bureau of the Budget,
and of course the requests for appropriations are put in
the President's budget which is presented to the Congress
as a whole* The section dealing with the Department of
Interior was more or less shaped by the Secretary of the

422

Drury: Interior and his fiscal advisors. There was a pretty
cut and dried formula.

Fry: It seemed to me that you had a little easier time in

the Senate subcommittee hearings on appropriations than
you did in the House, most of the time,

Drury: I think thaf's probably true, and largely due to Senator
Carl Hayden and his understanding, and the fact that in
general the senate operates on a little more dignified
plane. There's not as much heckling. There was a sort
of a disposition in these committees for some heckling
of the government administrators — perhaps it's justified
in some cases. I always felt that it was somewhat unfair.
We went there with a statement of our honest conviction
as to what we should have in order to do the job that
they asked us to do and there was a good deal of what
I thought sometimes was rather superficial and somewhat
prejudiced comment. That's particularly true in some
of the hearings that bore on items for local projects
that were being pressed upon senators or congressmen by
their constituents but regarding which the National Park
Service would surely not make a favorable recommendation.
That's the kind of situation where rather fast footwork
was sometimes required, and it's the kind of situation
that I spoke of where Congressman Jensen asked me
whether I was telling the truth and I replied that I
was trying hard to tell the truth. If we had revealed
our inner thoughts about some of these real estate deals
that were promoted by chambers of commerce that the
congressmen almost tried to force on us, we wouldn't
have helped our cause any and the net result probably
wouldn't have been any different, so that we had to be
supremely diplomatic. I romanbor particularly some of

423

Drury: the members of the House committees who heckled us quite
a bit. One of my somewhat disturbing experiences when
I first went to Washington, the first time I appeared
before the House Appropriations Committee, I found myself
in the midst of a. rather bitter controversy between the
pros and the antis as to further appropriations for the
Mt. Rushmore Memorial, you know, that tour de force that
Gutzon Borglum perpetrated. Well, I had my own inner
thoughts about it but I didn't know those fellows well
enough to expound them in a public meeting and wasn't
very sure of my ground, because there was one group like
Congressman Leavy of the state of Washington who denounced
it as a waste of public funds, and then there were others,
particularly from the Mt. Rushmore area in South Dakota
who defended it warmly. Finally, I remember Congressman
Leavy shook his finger in my face and said, "Now, I
want to know, does the NPS intend to perpetrate anything
more like this Mt. Rushmore atrocity?" And I thought fast
and finally I said to him, "Well, Congressman, it seems
to me that Mt. Rushmore should remain as it is now,
unique." Whereupon both sides were satisfied. [Laughter]
But I don't think I over rose to such heights again. It
was just an inspiration of the moment. I was a greenhorn
and had to think fast.

But I remember particularly the heckling we used to
get from Senator Kenneth McKellar of Tennessee in the
Senate. He was superannuated at that time and he got
more and more so as time went on, and it was really a
very serious thing. He was traditionally, for some reason
that I can never underat-md, an enemy of the NPS, and
he moved heaven and earth to put us in a difficult
position. I remember one time — he was quite deaf, and

424

Drury: I knew that — Arthur Demaray, who was associate direc
tor with me, was testifying at one of the hearings and
just to throw us off our stride McKellar interrupted and
said, "Mr. Demaray, how many employees do you have at
the Statue of Liberty National Monument?" Demaray said,
"Well, about so many, but I Couldn't give you the exact
figure." He said, "What, don't you know how many employees
you have at each of these areas? Why, if I were in charge
of an enterprise and didn' t know how many employees I had
in every part of it I'd resign." Well, I was in a some
what flippant mood and feeling pretty sore at the old
gentleman anyhow, and knowing he was deaf I whispered to
Demaray, "You tell him you'll resign if he will." And
Demaray turned white, for fear the senator had heard it.
But we got by. Oh, there were constant things of that
sort.

One of the members of the House committee that I
remember both with amusement and some distaste was a man
named Jed Johnson from Oklahoma. He had several pet
grievances that he always aired at every appropriations
hearing. He always repeated them again and again. One
of them was that when he and his mother-in-law and his wife
and three children went to Rocky Mountain National Park
several years before, before my time, they had been over
charged by a hotel, which, when I looked it up, I found
was outside the park and in no way under our jurisdiction.
But you couldn1 t explain that to him. And there were
several other things like that. Finally, one hot day in
the hearings when we were pretty well tired out with Jed
Johnson's heckling, he brought up this question again,
and when he was through I said, "Well, Congressman, I have

425

Drury: here the transcript of the hearings of last year, and on
page so-and-so in the second paragraph you'll find the
answer to that question." [Laughter]

We had a lot of things like that, but generally the
appropriations committees were sympathetic with our needs
and as I said in the beginning I believe that all of them
had their hands tied by a formula. I guess perhaps that's
the only way you can do it. You can't in a public hearing
adjudicate away competing interests such as are involved
in the appropriation of funds for public projects.

Fry: Were there any congressional blind spots that you learned
to steer away from in planning testimony?

Drury: We didn't try to avoid them, necessarily, but I remember
that one of the things that always struck me as rather
frustrating was the fact that particularly the House
appropriations subcommittee would go into a shrill rage
if we endeavored in our argument to point out the diminish
ing purchasing power of the dollar in buying land. They
would say, "Now, ten years ago you v/ere getting a million
dollars for this item, and here you come in with a one
hundred per cent increase." Mr. Tolson or I would reply
that that really didn't represent any increase at all,
but we were told that we shouldn1 t even think in terms of
that sort* It was a sort of ostrich-burying-his-head-in-
the-sajid attitude on the part of the appropriation com
mittees and to some extent on the part of the Bureau of
the Budget. They continually talked in terms of formulas
of increasing past appropriations by a certain per cent,
but they weren' t willing to cast those into present-day
dollars. I finally found that it was futile even to present
that argument.

Fry: Do you remember some arguments that really did sink in

426

Fry: and make a difference?

Drury: Well, of course, the primary argument that impressed

any legislator was the call from his own constituents for
more facilities in the parks, and in some cases for the
establishment of new parks. The term national park
is like the hallmark on silver; it's supposed to give
any region a distinction that it didn't previously
have. And I think that's true. But we had two ex
tremes: we had in some cases Chambers of Commerce
who felt we were taking too much land off the tax
roll, and in other cases Chambers of Commerce who were
urging us to do it because they wanted a national park,
It used to be my duty to present some of the prologues
to our appropriation bill because the committees always
insisted on the head of each agency appearing. If
he didn't they felt, or at least they pretended they
felt, that he was not interested, and both they and
my colleagues always insisted that I go to these hearings
and make the preliminary statement and then they han
dled the details. Sometimes after starting out in the
first fifteen minutes I frequently had a sense of
futility. You could sense that the whole thing had
been cut and dried. They were going through the motions
of giving you a hearing but they had predetermined just
about how much money you were going to get. And

\

possibly that's the only way to do. I'm not conscious
of any kind of argument ever having caused the appro
priations committee to change their minds about any item
in the budget. I think that a call from home districts
sometimes changed their opinions on things, but not
from the representatives of government agencies.
Fry: How much did you let yourself use this very effective
technique of arousing a call from home?

427

Drury: Not much. I think our record was very good on that

score. I felt at times when there were crises arising
where the national parks were threatened with destruc
tion, that since we had taken an oath of office to pro
tect the parks, we v/ere not barred from getting the
facts to the people in the constituencies of members of
Congress who were necessary to have them back us up in
protecting the properties. Sometimes, of course, we
were accused of propagandizing, but Secretary Ickes
never objected to it and neither did any of the other
secretaries. However, on the score of appropriations
I can't recollect ever having inspired amybody to in
cite the members of Congress to be more liberal with
the parks. Of course, we wrote articles for magazines
explaining, just as these graphs that I speak of explain,
how long it would take us to catch up with our deferred
maintenance and the expansion of the systen at given
rates of appropriation.

But as I say, within the limits of the ceiling
that some anonymous person always determined — probably
the director of the Budget under the President — our
appropriations in general followed a logical enough
pattern but they never were adequate. We always felt
that there was a formula that had not been divulged
to us. I may be exaggerating when I say that I can1 1
recollect any decision by a committee having been
arrived at because of argumentation on the part of
the opponents of the appropriations. There may have
been a few.

I dug up one of the transcripts of the hearings
before the Senate subcommittee on appropriations for

428

•.

Drury: the Interior for 1951, which I think is fairly typical

in that from pages 101 to 242 some of my colleagues
and I — Hillory Tolson and Keith Neilson, our finance
officer, and the assistant superintendent of the capital
parks — discussed item by item the different phases of
our appropriations. I thought that this might not be
inappropriate to have in your appendix as a typical
park hearing. It is not typical in one sense, in that
as I said before the Senate was always a more agreeable
place to be than the House; there was less heckling,
I think that if you run through it, it will also give
a pretty complete idea of the so-called mechanics of
operation of the national parks because we had each
item presented to them. This was after the House sub
committee had reduced our budget as approved by the
Department and the Bureau of the Budget and we were
there before them in an attempt to get restored $1,894,260,
which was only a part of the $2,661,000 that the House
reduction had amounted to. Well, item by item we take
up funds needed for maintenance and operation, some
very interesting discussion on the construction and
land acquisition, and a special item on the Lake Mead
National Recreational Area, v/hich frankly was not one
of my favorite projects — that is I didn't think it
was a typical national park, it was subject to so many
adverse uses, nevertheless it wa3 our duty as long as
we had it to try to obtain sufficient funds to take
care of it.

Well, both Senator McCarran of the committee and
Chairman Carl Hayden were from territory close to Lake
Mead. I note that a good portion of the hearing was
devoted to that subject. Senator McCarran (who inci-

#See appendix.

429

Drury: dentally wa?, a friend of my grandfather Dr. Bishop in

the early days of Nevada) I remember asked a whole series
of questions, some of which came perilously close to
a sheer attempt to put us on the spot, but we did as
well as we could. He was really a very benevolent gentle
man, although I remember an incident at one hearing out
in his own constituency at Fredonia — which I think is
just over the border in Nevada — at a meeting attended
primarily by stockmen who wanted to perpetuate grazing in
the national parks. McCarran was an Irishman and quite
a wit. At one point in the hearing, presumably jocosely,
he said, "Well, now, I want to be pre-eminently fair
in this hearing and yet give the National Park Ser
vice a little the worst of it." [Laughter]
[Reading from transcript of hearing] Well, here's
something. Senator Hayden and Senator McCarran were
both quite insistent that the NPS should put in an item
for a road to Scotty's Castle in Death Valley National
Monument. We come to the showdown here, where we didn't
particularly want to do it because we had hundreds of
millions of dollars of construction that we thought
was in high priority, and I notice they said, "Can we
get some of this done this year?" There is some
discussion and I point out, "It is a road that is un
doubtedly in our master plan but it is not a main stem
road. We can't even take care of the major roads in
the national parks." Whereupon Senator McCarran with
a touch of sarcasm said, "I am calling on your master
minds to get a road into Scotty." And perhaps just a
little flippantly I replied, "We will try to rise to
the challenge, sir." [Laughter]

430

Drury: This is all warmed-over material; I've forgotten all
this that happened, but as I read it now it's quite
amusing to rne to see the blind alleys into which I
was maneuvered and the attempts I made to extricate
myself.

There's a very fine book written on the operations
of Congress by a man named James Burns [Congress on
Trial, Harper & Brothers, 1949]. He was a professor
of political science at one of the smaller New Eng
land colleges. The burden of his whole discussion,
after giving what I think is a very accurate picture
of the workings of Congress and the motivation, was
that when you speak about lobbyists you have to realize
that by far the most potent lobbyists are the men who've
been elected to Congress. That isn't a fair generaliza
tion, but in many specific cases you know that men
were elected to Congress because they represented the
point of view of the stockmen or the mining interests
or some other group that they perhaps felt legitimately
should have a voice in Congress.

Fry: Did you find this was as true of senators as of con
gressmen?

Drury: It was rather true of senators, yes, in general. It
wasn't true of men like Senator Bill Knowland. It
might have been true of Senator Bird, the great advocate
of economy, who always caused 'us considered additional
expense because we had to hire extra men to furnish
the figures that he demanded. I think a great many
of them were like what they said of Senator LaFollette,
that he was a free trader except when it came to cheese,
that being one of the main products of Wisconsin.

431

Drury: Well, anyhow, the point I was trying to make was that
this heckling on the part of congressmen sometimes
represented their tendency to speak for certain inter
ests in their constituency, which I suppose was per
fectly normal. I think it also represented a rather
subtle psychology that would be very difficult to dis
cuss, and probably futile to try to describe. But I
know this, that I've traveled in the field with mem
bers of both the Congress and the Senate, and when
these men arc out of the halls of Congress they are
entirely different persons, broad-rninded and generous
and tolerant. But the minute they get into a committee,
there's a sort of atmosphere that tends toward narrowing
their point of view. For one thing, they're talking
for the record. These transcripts go back to their
constituents, and I knew just as well as I know ray
own name that some of the questions they asked were
primarily for local consumption.

Fry: I heard this sort of thing described once as the unseen
committee which sits behind every man.

Drury: Well, that's it, ;aid then of course the man v/ho is a
representative of a section of the country would be
benighted — in any event he v/ouldn' t last very long —
if he didn' t try to reflect the desires of his consti
tuency, selfish and unselfish. I remember one con-
rressmaii from Santa Barbara who was one of our great
advocates in the Jackson Hole controversy. In his
campaign for re-election after his first term he made
the statement that he was for humanity first, for the
nation second, for the state of California third, and
for Santa Barbara last. He was not re-elected — al
though he was from the standpoint of conservationists
a very fine man to have on the interior committee.

432

Pry: You must have had to learn how to be constantly

aware of the re-election concerns of the congressmen,

Drury: Yes, and one of the things that always interested me, if
you feel it's worthwhile to talk about the workings of
the minds of members of Congress, is the fact that a
great many statements are made for the record.

I remember one case which occasioned quite a little
excitement in the NPS in connection with our concessions
policy. Rightly or wrongly we had the feeling that the
dignity of the parks should be upheld in all phases of
contact with the public, including the commercial enter
prises like the hotels and souvenir shops and so forth,
and there was a pretty trashy order of so-called curioa
that they sold in some of the parks. So gradually we
tried to persuade the concessioners to eliminate the
junk and put in things that were reasonably appropriate
and had some quality. Anyone who's frequented souvenir
shops in and out of the national parks knows what atrociouj
things are sold, and it's unfortunately true that the
artistry of these things is not necessarily a guarantee
of their saleability. However, that's a very interesting
aspect of park management, and in many of the parks we
encourage them to sell local handicrafts. For instance,
down in the Great Smoky Mountains and out in the Indian
country, the Navaho silverwork, that kind of thing.
There were many local items that, while they were sold
for profit, nevertheless seemed to add to the richness
of the experience of the visitor.

Anyhow, what I'm leading up to is that one day to
our consternation we got a very bitter, scathing letter
from a courtly gentleman, Howard Smith, a congressman

433

Drury: from Virginia, who was chairman at that time of the
Small Business committee. Of course, all those
committees have their specialized staff who do a
great deal of the work. Well, I got this letter which
called us to task for presuming to interfere with
free enterprise on the part of these concessioners.
One sentence was that even in Nazi Germany they would
not presume to tell independent businessmen what
to do. Well, I called a group of my colleagues to
gether and we had a discussion of how we should
reply to this, and finally it was decided that I
was the one who should go over and call on Congress
man Smith and try to mollify him. So I prepared
as carefully as I could and I went over there,
made an appointment and greeted the congressman,
and brightly I told him how my ancestors had come
from Culpepper County, Virginia, v/hich he repre
sented, and talked about what a wonderful state Vir
ginia was, especially that part of it. Finally,
I said, "Senator, I know that you're interested in
the national parks and I hope you're interested in
some of the problems we have in connection with
our concessions. Now I would like to ask your advice

434

Drury: as to the degree to which we should try to con
trol the quality of the souvenirs that are sold
in these concession shops." He looked me in the
eye and said, "Mr. Drury, suppose you and the
National Park Service settle that question. I'm
not interested." And yet he had a signed letter
evidently prepared by a member of his staff that
just ripped the hide off us, and he'd completely
forgotten about it.

Pry: But his unhappy constituent got a copy of it.

Drury: Yes, that's the point exactly. I learned a
great deal from that one episode.

Pry: Herbert Evison, your Information and Education

officer, told me about the episode with Congress
man Taber and the limitation put on National Park
educational material.

Drury: One difficulty that I remember was in connection
with our appropriation for publications and Con
gressman John Taber, chairman of the Interior
subcommittee. Largely as a reprisal against Harold
L. Ickes the committee had put a limitation on the
total appropriation for printing in the Department
of the Interior, on the theory that they thought the

435

Drury: Department was engaging in too much so-called

propaganda. Well, that pinched the UPS more than
most of the agencies because we had in the course
of the year tens of thousands of applications for
the descriptive leaflets on the different parks —
people who wanted to have some foreknowledge of what
they were going to see at Yosemite and Yellowstone,
Grand Canyon, Great Smokies, etc. The National Park
Service was expected to send out these publications
in response to requests. Under this limitation that
the Committee imposed — and it v/as not necessarily
limitations on the total appropriation, it was
simply a ceiling on the amount to be spent on this
one item of publications — we came to the point where
we had a room stacked high with about thirty thou
sand unanswered requests for publications.

I remember getting a dressing down from Congress
man Taber in one hearing because in answer to any
number of complaints from congressmen whose consti
tuents had complained that we hadn't answered their
requests, I sent a letter to each member of Congress
telling t>iem the true facts, which Mr. Taber didn't
like. When I appeared with my colleagues he held up
this letter and said, "Wlio was it who sent out this
foolish letter?" I said, "Well, I'll have to con
fess that I did. I'm sorry if it gave offense to
anyone but it was an attempt to state the actual
facts." We had other episodes like that.

437

Fry :
Drury:

Drury: very few national park areas and where they v/ere noro or
less disinterested. Y/e usually tried to get into the
minds of t'iosc I'iidwesterners the .fact tVit the parka
\vere a national enterprise and belonged to all the
people, and v/c had fairly convincing statistics as to
the extent of travel to the national parks from states
like Illinois and Ohio and Kansas and so forth.
I was wondering for Instance about Jensen...
'Yell, Congressman Jensen was a very fine friend of mine
personally, and he I think wan interested in our affairs.
Frankly, he embarrassed us by pressing for us to make
a national pork of a project in his district — if I
remember rightly the name was Lake T.'Iinatare — and all
of our counter efforts v/ere to try to induce the
state of Nebraska to make it a state park, v/hich it
could appropriately have been. As far as I know Lake
Minatare never was included in the national nark system
even as a recreational area.

Pry: In the Midwest generally do you think the influence of

such unusually reactionary organs as the Chicago Tribune
contribxited any to trie lack of enthusiasm for parks?

Drury: V.'ell, I think Illinois was fairly conservation conscious.
I don't recollect any antagonism on the part of the
Chicago Tribune. They were not super-enthusiasts the
way, for instance, the :;ew York Times is and has been
for many years. In fact, Hew York, I think, is on a
parity with California and I think perhaps a little
ahead of it in advanced conservation thought, but you
couldn't say that Illinois was in that class, or most of
the midwestern states. I:ve never speculated as to why
it is, but I think ib's primarily because t'.ey don't have
the outstanding, dramatically scenic areas that you
find in the v/est.

437

Drury: very few national park areas and where they v/ere nore or
less dicintererted. Y/e usually tried to get into the
minds of fiosc ''idv/estcrners the fact tVit the parks
v/ere a national enterprise and belonged to all the
people, and we had fairly convincing statistics as to
the extent of travel to the national parks from states
like Illinois and. Ohio and Hans as and so forth.

Fry: I was wondering for Instance about Jensen...

Drury: 'Veil, Congressman Jensen was a very fine friend of mine

personally, and he I think was interested in our affairs.
Frankly, he embarrassed us by pressing for us to make
a national pork of a project in his district — if I
remember rightly the name was Lake Ylino.tare — and all
of our counter efforts v/ere to try to induce the
state of "febraska to make it a state park, which it
could appropriately have been. As far as I know Lake
Minatare never was included in the national park system
even as a recreational area.

Fry: In the hidwest generally do you think the influence of

such unusually reactionary organs as the Chicago Tribune
contributed any to the lack of enthusiasm for parks?

Drury: Y'ell, I think Illinois was fairly conservation conscious,
I don't recollect any antagonism on the part of the
Chicago Tribune. They were not super-enthusiasts the
way, for instance, the :.Tey/ York Times is and has been
for many years. In fact, Hew York, I think, is on a
parity with California and I think perhaps a little
ahead of it in advanced conservation thought, but you
couldn't say that Illinois was in that class, or most of
the midwestern states. I:ve never speculated as to why
it is, but I think it's primarily because they don't have
the outstanding, dramatically scenic areas that you
find in the v/est.

438

Congressmen

Fry: Were there any particular senators or congressmen whom
you could call on the telephone and tell your troubles
to?

Drury: Oh, yes. In the House Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs (the policy committee) one of the finest friends
the Park Service ever had was Congressman J. Hardin
Peterson of Florida. "Pete", as we called him, was
naturally park-minded and I think in any event would
have been fair and generous, but he was in the excel
lent position of coming from what you might say was a
neutral corner of the country. There were some pro
jects in Florida but they were all projects pre-eminently
worthwhile which we all agreed upon, such as the Ever
glades and the St. Augustine National Monument, the
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, but I think
that Pete in any event would have been impartial.
He was very helpful in many of our hearings.
For quite a while he was chairman of the interior sub
committee of the Senate. We had him out at Jackson Hole
during the controversy when the state administration,
I think largely for political reasons, because of the
local antagonism, did everything it could to disparage
the properties that we were taking into the Grand
Teton National Park. At one of the hearings the state

•>.*'

geologist of Wyoming testified against the expansion
of the park, and one of his arguments ran about as
follows: if you took away these mountains in the back
ground and the Snake River and the forests in the fore
ground, this would be just like any other landscape in

439

Drury: Wyoming. [Laughter] The reason I tell of that is that
the last day we were out there the Rotary Club gave
a banquet and Peterson was the main speaker. As he
wound up his speech, showing that he had noted this
rather weird testimony, he made a remark something like
this: "Now, gentlemen, one of these days I'm going to
come back to this state and take an advanced course in
geology in the University of Wyoming,"

One of our park naturalists, who belonged to a
geological professional society along with this Wyoming
man, took it on himself to write a letter to the state
geologist chiding him for unprofessional conduct —
whereupon the governor of Wyoming started to bombard
me, insisting that we discipline our naturalist some
way. And that was another case where I had to use
pretty deft footwork, because as far as I was concerned
he shouldn't have written the letter but I'm glad he
did it. He wasn1 t reprimanded.

I think of quite a succession of interesting gentle
men who were in key positions, both in the House arid the
Senate, in the ten and a half years when I had to appear
for appropriations. Carl Hayden was I think at the
beginning chairman of the interior subcommittee but he
is now I believe chairman of the entire committee.
Senator Hayden again was a Westerner, came from Arizona
and was a graduate of Stanford University and knew the
West. It was very helpful to have him as chairman of
the committee because he understood what we were talking
about and he was interested in the national parks.

Fry: What about LeRoy Johnson?

Drury: LeRoy Johnson happens to have been another classmate

of mine in the law school at Berkeley along with Chief

440

Drury: Justice Warren and Herman Phleger and Horace M. Albright.
He was the congressman from Stockton and I think more
through persuasion by Horace Albright than by myself he
always rallied to the defense of the national parks
when he was a member of Congress, and he was a very
good friend. I know that when I retired he was generous
in inserting in the Congressional Record a speech which

he made regarding my regime in the national parks. I

*.

think I have a copy of that somewhere.

Fry: Yes, that's another thing I want to append. We'll have
to have a second volume for our appendices. [Laughter]

Drury: LeRoy Johnson was a very excellent legislator. At

least I think so, because he almost uniformly agreed
with us.

Fry: People like LeRoy Johnson and Peterson of Florida, were
very good in supporting park measures. Do you think
this was because they came from areas where their con
stituents had the same point of view? I'm wondering if
anybody functioned this way just because it was a prin
ciple.

Drury: Yes, I think that's true of both of those men. Even if
he hadn't been a classmate of mine I think LeRoy Johnson
would have supported the national parks, in fact I know
so.

The same was true of a man like Peterson, and there
were many others that I could name. Pete's office was
a thing to behold. It was cluttered up with all sorts
of pictures and paintings of the parks, and he had
geological specimens and shells of molluscs, and I think
at one time he had a stuffed animal of some sort that
came from one of the park areas. He had a park bench

*See Appendix.

441

Drury: from St. Petersburg, Florida. His wife, who for a

while acted as his secretary, despaired of ever even
clearing enough space so that people could get through
his outer office.

Fry: Well, that's quite a testimonial to his sincerity.

Drury: [Laughter] A testimony to the exuberance of his interests.

Fry: You had Hiram Johnson in the Senate until 1947. In the
House, Congressman Albert E. Carter was one of the key
men. Later on Congressman Glair Engle, who's now
senator, became chairman of the Interior or House Com
mittee on Public Lands and Insular Affairs Committee.
Was he good for you to have?

Drury: Yes. One of the congressmen that was a very potent

force on the interior appropriations committee and who
was chairman for many years of the subcommittee that
heard our appropriations was Congressman James G.
Scrugham of Nevada, former governor of Nevada who later
became a senator, a very capable and aggressive gentle
man with a fine understanding of the purposes of the
national parks. Of course, he was like everybody
else: he could see the beauties of his own bailiwick
more clearly than he could those of some remote area.
They tell one story about a tour of congressmen — or
maybe they were senators — that was investigating Lake
Mead at the Hoover Dam and the Boulder Recreational
Area, which was under the aegis of the National Park
Service. Senator Scrugham was one of that party and
they were traveling by boat. The greater part of the
area and some of the more spectacular part is in
Nevada. Finally, as Senator Scrugham was standing up
in the boat pointing out to his colleagues the vivid
coloring of the cliffs and the picturesque geological

442

Drury: formations and all, somebody remarked that, "We've
now passed out of Nevada into" — I think it was
California. Whereupon Senator Scrugham subsided com
pletely and was no longer interested in the scenery
through which they were passing. [Laughter] That's
an extreme case. He was very helpful to us and was
quite interested in the historical projects, the battle
fields and that sort of thing.

Bureau of Budget

Fry: We've spoken so much about the congressional hearings;
what about those hearings before the Bureau of the
Budget? You said those were really the crucial ones.

Drury: I think that the hearings before the Bureau of the

Budget were sincere, but I always had the feeling that
they, too, were cut and dried; the issues had been more
or less predetermined and to some extent they were
courtesy hearings. However, I believe that we did make
some progress in those hearings in this respect: that
within the predetermined ceiling for our particular
function we sometimes were able to give higher priorities
to items that we felt were of supreme importance, as
against things that we felt were not too important*.
Of course, the great trouble about appropriations is
you go into a hearing — this is particularly true of
Congress — where certain people are plugging for a
specific project, such as those parkways in the South,
If those are granted it takes away from the more essen
tial things, according to the opinion of the agency.
But I look back with great pleasure on my associations

443

Drury: with the men with whom we had contact in the Bureau

of the Budget, One of them was a man named Sam Dodd,
who was very much of a southern gentleman with a fine
appreciation of park values. I couldn't help feeling at
times that his hands were more or less tiedo I think
the same thing applied to Randall Dorton, whom I had
taught speech and English composition, presiding for
the Bureau of the Budget. But he didn't give us any
breaks on that account. If anything he was more hard-
boiled than Sam Dodd. However, he was highly intelli
gent and appreciative of park values.
There was none of that sense of being heckled that you
always had before congressional committees. They were
a hundred per cent sincere so far as the questions were
concerned; there were no questions of the "Have you
stopped beating your wife?" type, which we frequently
encountered in congressional committees.

Fry: Was there anywhere along the way of preparation of the
budget that you had a chance to influence it besides at
the hearings?

Drury: Yes, I think you could say that here and there, through

the higher-ups in the Department of the Interior, through
certain friends in Congress, you made a slight dent
perhaps.

Fry: What about the President himself? Could you ever get
any influence channeled through him?

Drury: No, never. We'd never presumed to do that. But I'm

sure there were cases under Franklin D. Roosevelt where
he interposed to make sure that certain things were
taken care of, and they were always worthwhile things.

444

Drury: He had a. very fine sense of park values and he was a

good park conservationist. One of my earliest relation
ships with Franklin D. Roosevelt was in connection with
his home at Hyde Park, the ancestral home, which he
felt and a great many Americans felt should be a national
historic site, which sure enough it became. I went up
there with him and had a very interesting visit,

Fry: Did he want this on the basis of strict preservation?

Drury: Yes, preservation and display in the same way that the
homes of other presidents had been preserved.

Fry: Does this about wrap up your comments on the appropria
tion process?

Drury: There are many phases of the appropriations we haven't

touched on, but I think that most of the main collateral
thoughts that I would have on that have come out.

u>
<

o
o s;

So 5
s

a ic

w cr

hi ,<

n3 aa

CO Q/

u t-

a >-• co
o

CD O O

cr u o

a a. u

> as cu

(-,- i-,-

U U 83

gSTS
>-, IT

U U.

u> a CD

00 O S

a

IT CT 03

co u> tn

u.

" to ^
u. ID 3

TO C\3 O

c

0<3 • u

oo t-,
cr a u>

IT

tn CO
U> O

jQ O

cr a .

i--- in Q

a a

c c a

<< X,

^ • a

c cv &

>-t a

Q r< nq
a

M i-P

re to o

a " a

o u- o

U. a !->•

f, 1C U.

i* cr m

S H- O

CO K-

i» cr

<-< l-t U!

S M Q

445

PROTECTION
Fire

Fry: Could you tell us anything about problems or progress
in fire prevention and control while you were head of
national parks?

Drury: The fire protection system in the national parks was

well-organized when I went to Washington* John Coffman
was our chief forester, a title that has recently been
changed to "Chief of Park Protection." He was a very
able man who'd had previous experience with the U.S.
Forest Service, a very conscientious worker. He had
direct charge of that phase of the ranger work which
has to do with the prevention and suppression of fires,
through the superintendents of each park and the chief
forester of each region. As far as policy is concerned,
the chief forester of each region reports to the Washing
ton office, and as far as administration is concerned he
reports to the regional director. Some of the parks like
Yosemite have a forester on the staff. The U.S. Forest
Service, whose holdings in the West generally bordered
on the national parks, were very cooperative in coming
in at our request, although they always rendered us
a bill, as we did in the reverse case when we were
called to help them with fires; we were very grateful
for their help.

The parks had had some disastrous fires in the past,
One of them was at Glacier. As a consequence we had a
very thoroughly organized system of patrol and fire
detection and fire suppression. During my time, the
worst fire was at Acadia National Park where over a

446

Drury: quarter of the area was burned over in a fire that
nobody expected because the fire history in Maine
was practically nil. It just happened that there
was a period of low humidity for a long period, with
high winds, and it also happened that a fire on the gar
bage dump for the city of Bar Harbor, which was some
miles away from the park, escaped and made its way across
a bog and finally ignited some of the structures near
the park, and the first thing we knew practically a
quarter to a third of the town of Bar Harbor was destroyed,
It was a multimillion dollar fire and some of the finest
of the coastal scenery in the Acadia National Park was
marred. It was nobody!1 s fault except perhaps the local
authorities who should" have kept more careful watch on
the first fire, because it escaped during the night
after they thought they'd mopped it up.

This brings out one of the very important prin
ciples of fire-fighting, which is that it doesn't do to
assume that a fire's out. The mop-up is a very vital
phase of the whole process. Offhand I don't think of
any other disastrous fires that occurred during my time.
As you know, the Sierra is a tinderbox at certain times
of the year when the humidity is low and the winds are
high. Both at Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks we
had two or three fires, but they were always brought
under control within a few days.

One of the great troubles in California, and I
guess it's true elsewhere, is that in the fire season,
particularly in time of unemployment, they accuse the
local residents or itinerants of actually setting the
fires in order to get jobs as fire-fighters. It's hard

447

Drury:. to believe anyone would do that. No one who understood
the terrible calamities that sometimes ensue would do
it. I had the impression in the days when I was active
that the courts were never severe enough with people
who were accused of arson, setting fires. In fact,
I've known several cases where they would sentence
them and then suspend the fine. I believe that the
courts are more severe these days. They surely should
be.

Pry: Was this also due to a lack of federal legislation on
that score? Was it something, for instance, that you
could press for in Congress or the Legislature?

Drury: Well, no. There were plenty of laws; arson of course

is a crime. But it's very difficult to prove. Yellow
stone was subject every summer to dozens of lightning
fires, and of course lightning usually struck in the
remote parts of the park so there was scarcely a time
that we weren't alarmed about Yellowstone.

Fry: I wanted to ask you about the personnel for fire-
fighting.

Drury: Of course, I don't claim to know much about fire-
fighting, but the main thing that I insisted upon was
that whoever it was, there should be someone in sole
charge of each fire — usually the superintendent who
in some cases had been a ranger and had come up the ladder
in the conventional way, and who was experienced in the
technique of fire-fighting. Occasionally the superin
tendent preferred to delegate to his chief ranger the job
of fire boss.

The great difficulty in several of our fires was
that when the experts from Washington began to fly in

448

Drury: we'd have too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

At the fire in Saguaro National Monument we had con
siderable confusion because at one end of the park
was a very able forester who thought he was in charge
and at the other end was the chief ranger who had the
same idea. We learned the extreme importance of
unified command.

Fry: Was your fire-fighting personnal in the parks any dif
ferent then from what it is today?

Drury: I don't think so. The ranger force in the park was
organized for various types of duty.

Fry: And when you had to import fighters ?

Drury: Usually the U.S. Forest Service was in a position to
help us if our own ranger force couldn1 t suppress the
fires, and in times of great emergency people were
recruited from the countryside.

I had never done any fire-fighting in the national
parks; in fact I was a little mature for that kind of
active work when I became Director, but in my earlier
years up in the redwood country once or twice I was pressed
into duty as a fire-fighter. One time I was on a fire
line, battling away, keeping the fire from advancing,
and I looked up and here was my next-door neighbor in
Berkeley who had been touring in that country and had
also been impressed.

Fry: How did you get involved in the fire?

Drury: I was driving up the highway and in the old days they

used to just take people and say, "Here, we delegate you
as a fire-fighter." But I was a volunteer; I didn't
get paid for it».

Fry: On the prevention side, what about building fire

449

Fry: breaks in the national parks? Did that have to come
out of your budget?

Drury: Oh, yes. All of the construction work, fire trails

and fire breaks and of course equipment for fire-fighting,
motorized equipment, and in later years fighting fires
with airplanes — we didn't own any ourselves but we
could get the benefit of the U.S. Forest Service planes,
all of that was included in our budget.

There was one very finely-balanced problem in
relation to fire-fighting in the national parks. Our
ideal of course was to maintain a state of nature, to
interfere as little with the native landscape as possible,
so that in designing roads and trails, which of course
are the great facilities for getting fire fighters to
the fires, our landscape architects tended to be very
conservative, to put in the minimum necessary number of
roads and trails. [Laughter] On the other hand, our
foresters were constantly contending that we should have
a more elaborate network, trails and fire roads, so
that if we had followed their wishes completely we would
have practically decimated the parks. It was the job of
the Director of the national parks to try to adjudicate
that problem.

Fry: If you went too far either way you would defeat your
purpose.

Drury: That's it. It was a very neat point to adjudicate at
times.

In one instance we had a certain amount of controversy
between the national park foresters and the landscape
architects when we considered the possibility down in the
Shenandoah National Park of clearing vistas along the

450

Drury: park roads. The Skyline Drive, which penetrates through
the national park, is a magnificent scenic feature. It
extends clear down to the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. Anyone familiar with highway construction knows
that when you build a highway through a forest, the
opening up of the right-of-way and the scarifying of the
soil tend to accelerate the growth on the roadsides.
We've had the experience up in the redwood country of
a highway which, when it was built, opened up great
vistas, but as time went on and the growth increased, it
became simply a tunnel through a mass of trees. In
Shenandoah we did a certain amount of vista clearing,
but the foresters wanted a lot more done. One reason we
didn't do more is because we didn't have the money; it
was a very expensive process, cost tens of thousands of
dollars per mile to do it. But I finally mollified the
foresters by saying that we weren' t going to do any more
at that time but if there were any trees to be cut in
the future the foresters would have the fun of cutting
them. [Laughter] And that's the way we left it.

Fry: These were the foresters in the Forest Service?

Drury: No, the foresters in our own division of forestry in the
NFS, which is primarily a protection agency. You speak
of changes in organization; I'm not as well up on the
internal organization of the park service today as per
haps I should be. But I note that they have changed the
title of the chief forester to "protective officer" or
something of that sort.

Fry:

Insects and Disease

What about protection against insects and plant diseases?

451

Drury: Well, there is today a tremendous revulsion against the
widespread spraying to arrest diseases and to try to
exterminate insects, because the reaction on bird life
particularly and wild life generally has been very adverse
in many parts of the country. Some areas have been
depopulated of wild life because of an attempt to eradi
cate certain insects or fungi. Many of us feel that the
cure in most cases has been worse than the disease.

In the national parks we had that problem, of course*
We had, for instance, constant mosquito abatement prob
lems. We had to take a realistic view where you had
human habitations, as in the hotels and the campgrounds.
You couldn1 t just let nature take its course because the
insects would have taken over.

The same thing applied to the spraying to reduce insect
infestations like the bark beetle and fungi of various
sorts. In the national parks we confined that work to
the areas in the immediate vicinity of campgrounds and
other places of habitation, partly as a matter of policy
and partly because we didn't have the finances for whole
sale spraying. We had up in the Rocky Mountains a beetle
infestation, and then we had the spruce budworm, both of
which we attempted to eradicate in the vicinity of the
areas where people congregated.

The great scourge of the Sierra was the white pine
blister rust which during my time was steadily making its
way southward and now I think has pretty well surrounded
Yosemite and Sequoia, although I haven't had any recent
figures as to how much death of the five-needle pines
has taken place as a result of this blister rust. We
had during the days of the CCC dozens of blister rust
camps. They grubbed out intensively over thousands of

452

Drury: acres the ribes (gooseberry or currant) that was inter
mediate host for this blister rust before it was carried
to the white and sugar pines.

In fact, my two boys, Newt Jr. and Hugh Wells Drury,
worked in a blister rust camp one summer,. When they were
in Washington they had asked me to get them a job and
I had refused, so they went to our personnel officer
independently and were put to work. They both told me
afterwards that if they lived to be a hundred they never
expected to work as hard as they did there at Yosemite
that summer in the blister rust camp* The hours were
long and the temperature was high. Like all boys they
cotaplained about the food. They killed a rattlesnake
about every mile along the trail, I think it was very
good training for them, because no matter what work they
do now their yardstick is that summer they spent in
the blister rust camp.

Fryt How much research for the various diseases came out of
your budget?

Drury: We had a very fine wild life staff, headed by Victor
Cahalane. He's no longer with the Park Service; he's
with one of the larger museums in New York. But most of
the scientific research was done by related agencies of
the government. The Department of Agriculture has what
they called the Bureau of Plant Pathology in which there
are several very fine scientists who worked with us very
extensively. One of them was Dr. Willis Wagner, who
worked not only with the national parks but with the
state parks. That was a very common arrangement. The
same thing applied to specific wild life problems, too.
Anyhow, Dr. Wagner, for instance, made the basic study
on the cypress canker, which was one of the threats to

453

Drury: Point Lobos Reserve State Park, They never did find a
specific cure. For a while the cypresses all around
Point Lobos were dying from this infestation and of
course we took extreme care wi th the trees in Point
Lobos, which are one of the unique natural features of
the world. I saw Dr. Wagner just recently and asked
him what had happened. He said none of this disease
had hit the trees that were native at Point Lo"boq, which
seemed to indicate that it was a pest that attacked
trees that had been planted, or transplanted; and he also
felt that possibly the salt spray had a therapeutic
effect, in keeping out this carineum cardinale. which
was the so-called cypress canker.

He and Dr. Bailey and E.P.Meinecke, who was the
dean of the plant pathologists, worked with us on many
of our problems, including the problem of the disease
that was infecting the saguaro cactus in Saguaro National
Monument in Arizona. Dr. Meinecke, incidentally, was
with the U.S. Forest Service most of his life but was
also a plant pathologist; he was the originator of the
method of arranging campgrounds so as to give campers
some degree of privacy by shielding by vegetation, a big
improvement upon the stark regularity of the original
campgrounds, which were more like a military encampment
than anything else.

Did he have influence on the state parks?
Oh, yes. In fact, what he did was primarily for the
state parks. Not only did he design the system so
that we carried it out, but he also made some very
fundamental studies on the effect of trampling upon the
roots of the redwood trees. There's a pamphlet which we

454

Drury: still reprint, a copy of which I'll furnish for your

supplement, on the effect of excessive trampling. That
was one reason why we moved many of the state campgrounds
from the heavier and more atractive stands of redwood
forest, and the same thing applied in the national parks,
in Sequoia and other parks. Another reason why we moved
the campgrounds was the extreme peril that people were
in from falling limbs and also the fact that the summer
came much later in the dense forest than it did in the
open lands or the lighter timber on the fringe of the
forest. But in connection with this campground design,
somebody, surely not a purist in the English language,
designed the atrocious word, "Meineckeizing, " so that
when a campground was designed with staggered locations
and a screen of vegetation it was referred to both in
the national and state parks as a "Meinecke-ized" camp
ground. That's one way new words get into the language.

Fry: Did you set up any new research groups?

Drmry: Not in the field of biology or pathology. Some of the

research that we undertook during my time had to do with
the mechanics of operation, like the concessions, and some
of the historical programs.

Fry: How about archeology?

Drury: We did a considerable amount of pioneer work in archeology
under our history section, of which Ronald Lee was the
head. In connection with the Bureau of Reclamations 's
projects and the necessary destruction of archeological
remains, we were able to get meager appropriations under
which we, either directly through our own archeologists
or through contracts with universities like California
and Nebraska, tried to keep a jump ahead of the bulldozers
in salvaging and saving archeological remains. In many

455

Drury: cases measured drawings were made of objects of one sort
or another which couldn't be preserved. That was an
offshoot of the upsurge in water development under the
Bureau of Reclamation. The same way other phases of
history were gone into in connection with these projects.

Public Use and Park Interpretation

Fry: Would you like to go into how much regulation was ab
solutely necessary to control public use for the perpetua
tion of the park?

Drury: Of course, the parks would be without meaning if it

weren't for the people. They belong to the people, they're
paid for by the people for their inspiration and enjoy
ment. One of the close decisions that had to be made
constantly was the choice between restrictive regula
tions and enforcement, which tended to curtail the free
dom of the visitors, and the destruction of natural
features, which would occur unless we did adopt a pretty
stringent policy. There again we just had to feel our
way. We always tried to minimize the number of things
that were "verboten." We tried to be realistic and
reasonable, but the basic idea of the national parks,
and it applies also to state parks, was one of inviolate
protection. Needless to say that was an ideal rather than
a reality. The great problem, it seems to me , in dealing
with visitors in parks is to give them the maximum
natural experience.

One of the problems we wrestled with — and it still
is plaguing the Park Service and will have to be dealt
with before the public can get the most out of the exper
ience of visiting the national parks — is the problem

456

Drury: of limitation of attendance. It works in a good many
ways. In a great natural area its beauty is a fragile
thing usually — that's particularly true of mountain
meadows and other areas of relatively sparse vegetation,
slow-growing plants. In one day an undue visitation
might blot out many of the elements that made the beauty
of the place, so that many a great area carries in its
beauty the seeds of its own destruction. That to some
extent is true of Yosemite. You can't hold the more
fragile elements of vegetation and even geological
formations if you have traffic akin to the traffic on
city streets.

Then the other phase of it which I always deplored even
more was the fact that in your facilities to take care
of the public in such large masses you had to convention
alize. You had to put in, for instance, curbing on the
roads and the parking areas, whereas if in the course of
a day you had maybe one hundred people parking in a
given area such rather stark and artificial introductions
wouldn't be necessary. But when you have two or three
thousand in a day, as we did at parks like Sequoia and
Yosemite, it was anything but an improvement on the
native landscape.

The same thing applies of course to all kinds of
structures to provide shelter and public facilities
generally. The more people you have the larger they have
to be, the more difficult your problems of design and
construction and of safety, so that there always was
that problem of trying in some way or other to keep below
the point of diminishing returns the attendance at the
parks. Of course, World War II did pretty well in that

457

Drury: respect; as I remember the figures it cut down atten
dance in Yellowstone from a million to about a hundred
thousand a year. In that respect the landscape got a
little rest at Yellowstone, and to a lesser degree there
was a reduction in most of the parks,

Ranger Naturalist Program

The dealing with the public of course was not pri
marily one of regulating them, it was one of facilitating
their use and enjoyment of the parks. We had two phases
of our staff that dealt particularly with that; the
first were the rangers, who tried to keep the people
within line reasonably, to inform them as to what they
could and could not do, and if they got marooned on a
cliff to take the risks of rescuing them and in cases of
accidents bringing them in from the outlying country to
the park hospital and so forth, and on days of heavy
travel regulating traffic — they were in effect the
police force and yet I think the universal opinion through
the country about national park rangers is that there
was nothing dictatorial about them. They always tried
to be guides and friends of the public. I know that I
felt and I think most of our people felt that we had no
right to have any sense of possessiveness about this
property. It wasn't our property, it belonged to the
people. The people of course had a right to use it,
but they did not have any right to use it up, which
was the distinction that we tried to make,

Well, that was one phase of our public contact
which was all- important, and the other was our ranger

458

Drury: naturalist service, the interpretive service. That was
something that was built up gradually, first under
Stephen T. Mather and then through the successive directors.

Fry: I'd like to check with you on something that I found.
Dr. Hubert Jenkins, at Sacramento State, was supposed
to have suggested extending the ranger-naturalist
movement throughout the national park system, and you
were supposed to have been the one who did this. Do
you have any comment on that?

Drury: Yes, I do have. It was a matter of considerable embar
rassment to Dr. Jenkins and also to Mr. Goethe and myself
that that statement was made, because, frankly, the exten
sion of the ranger- naturalist system throughout the na
tional parks was made not at all at my instance but in
the time of Stephen T. Mather, Mr. C.M.Goethe of
Sacramento and Mrs. Goethe got Dr. Harold Bryant, who
now lives out at Orinda and who was then with the Calif
ornia Fish and Game Commission, to organize this program
and they carried it on for some years with increasing
popularity. Stephen Mather happened to learn about it
and he persuaded Mr. Goethe to transfer his subsidized
enterprise to Yosemite, so that's the way the naturalist
organization began. Dr. Bryant was one of the first
chief naturalists who carried it on in the national
parks, and Carl Russell — who also lives in Orinda, now
retired — was one of the later chief naturalists.
Dr. Jenkins felt a little badly about the error and so
did Mr. Goethe. It happened that this press interview
with Mr. Goethe took place in a hospital shortly after
he had had an operation. You know how these newspaper
reporters are; they'll go anywhere. The Sacramento Bee

459

Drury: was getting out a memorial issue — they were having
their first issue with a colored supplement and they
wanted to start it with a distinguished Sacramentan, so
they did on Mr. Goethe. He was having a relatively minor
operation. He told me that this and certain other
statements were made just as he was coming out from
the ether. [Laughter] That's why I don't always believe
what I read in the papers. " The Service puts as much
stress now — I know we did in my time — on the inter
pretive effort as they do on the regulatory effort of
the staff in the parks.

We had I imagine a hundred and fifty or more
naturalists in the different parks and monuments during
the forties, and while I don't have the figures right at
hand I imagine there are three or four hundred of them
now. Some of the parks have permanent naturalists —
I'm talking now of the national parks — who are sta
tioned there the year around and their work is supple
mented by temporary seasonal naturalists, many of them
science teachers in high schools and colleges, biologists
and some foresters. The naturalist work has been expanded
and pretty well codified. It's I think one of the most
important phases of the park work. However, some of the
seasonal naturalists have a hard time mastering the facts
about the parks they're interpreting before the season's
over.

Fry: How do they get all this information in their training?
Dr. Bryant says there was a training school in Yosemite.

Drury: That started I think largely because of this work that
Dr. Bryant and Mr. Goethe and others began. The field
was uncharted then. There was no such thing really as a
park naturalist, so that Dr. Harold Bryant felt it was

460

Drury: important to have some guidelines for the functions of
the position and to have some course of training for
men who could go into it. Regularly since that time they
have had some vestige of the course — I think that
during the war it was cut down to the minimum, during
World War II.

It recruited some very useful people. I know that
Elmer Aldrich, who was our naturalist in the state parks
until he took charge of this statewide recreational survey,
was a graduate of that school and half a dozen of our state
park naturalists as well as men in the national parks
took that course. Dr. Bryant is a very wonderful char
acter and quite a scholar as you can see, and he ren
dered a great service in keeping that school going.

Another very important man in that field was Dr. Carl
Russell, who succeeded Dr. Bryant as the chief naturalist
of the national parks in Washington and who in his earlier
years had been a naturalist and museum curator at Yosemite.
He's now retired and working on several books, one of them
on the fur trade, on which he is quite an authority*

Fry: Was the school accredited so that whoever went there

would be able to get any credit on a college transcript?

Drury: I don't think so, no. But it was important as field

training, important as qualification for civil service
positions both federal and state.

Fry: How did this differ from the National Park Association
training course?

Drury: The National Parks Association training course was a summer-
time program devoted to much younger people, and it was
not necessarily pointed toward obtaining positions in the
government. The other difference perhaps was that those
who went to Yosemite were a very select few, whereas
those in the National Parks Association training course
in Jackson Hole and elsewhere were recruited from

461

Fry:

Drury ;

Drury: universities, not so much on a basis of qualification
as on a banis of interest. It v/as partly a program to
stimulate interest in the national parks as well as to
;:ive people an in night into performing their tanks.
It v/as a contribution these students towards the
national park program.

But not necessarily students v/ho wanted to make this
a career,

ITo, not necessarily. That's what !_ understand; of
course, that v/as instituted after I left Washington,
when I was in Sacramento, In the state parks Ilrs,
Talbot, v/ho v/as Miss I.Iartha Haines, v/as quite active
with a classmate of hers.

Fry: That must be the one Dr. Bryant mentioned: Elizabeth
Cummings of Vassar.

Drury: Yes, They became interested in getting a course estab
lished in the state parks, which we were planning to
do, but the state had no money to finance it and the
national Parks Association found that they couldn't
swing it financially, either, so that never was done.
It was a very fine educational effort and ought to be
kept up.

How, my understanding is that the national Park
Service itself is getting appropriations to continue
that type of student training. But most of our park
naturalists are high school and college teachers in
the sciences v/ho welcome this chance to come as seasonal
naturalists and spend three or four months in various
parks. In fact, a good many of the parks do not have
a year-round naturalist staff but rely pretty largely
on the seasonal men, the same persons coming back year
after year. They were a very exceptional crew and
they still are.

462

Fry: How does public information fit into the interpreta
tion program?

Drury: Well, intellectually of course interpretation is at

the base of the whole philosophy of the parks, and their
meaning and their purpose and what they're for and why
they should be protected, why they were set aside in
the first place. All that's interpreted to the public,
and I don't doubt it has some effect on the public's
regard for the parks. That's quite apart from what we call
"public information," which is more regarding publicity
and public relations.

Fry: Is this handled apart, too?

Drury: Yes, it's handled in the National Park Service under an
assistant director who coordinates both, but there are
separate divisions.

Fry: Sometimes I think that the naturalists and the rangers
who give information to the tourists during the rush
season don't have access to an adequate fund of informa
tion and occasionally they give some wrong answers.

Dryry: That's particularly true of the seasonal rangers, more
true of the rangers than the ranger-naturalists. When
I was director of national parks, I happened in at a camp-
fire v/here a very young man, not a naturalist but a
ranger, was doing the best he could to keep the crowd
interested. In the question period I very unkindly
asked him the name of the Secretary of the Interior,
which he didn't know. I didn't dare ask him the name
of the director of national parks. [Laughter]

One very important aspect of the ranger-naturalist
force is their research, which in certain proportion
they carried on constantly, and particularly in the off
season*

Ery: This was inside the parks?

463

Drury: Inside the parks, yes, study and observations of wild

life and study of vegetation and tree diseases, matters
of that sort. In the Sierra some of the naturalists
engage in the recording of snow depths and consistency
of snow and so forth. That's done in connection with
the weather bureau. I know that I have an old photograph
that I think I sent up to Yosemite which shows half a
dozen of the earliest rangers on one of these snow-gauge
expeditions. Dr. Carl Russell was there.

Vandalism

Fry: Would you like to go on into control of vandalism?
Were you bothered with that very much?

Drury: Yes, that was one of the eternal problems of both the

national and state parks* There apparently was no com
plete cure for it. It was astonishing the weird things
that people would do. The Park Service tried to educate
the people to the importance of protecting their own
property and I would say that about 99 and 9/10 per cent
of the public respected the natural features of the parks,
but one-tenth of one per cent over a period of years
could do a tremendous amount of damage and great damage
was done, particularly in the earlier days before the
parks were as well-staffed as they are now.

Fry: Yes, when you had your great cut in personnel during the
war.

Drury: Yes. Of course, to compensate for that we had a great
reduction of the number of visitors, so that it about
balanced. The main thing that happened during the war
was deterioration of the plant because we had no adequate

464

Drury: funds for maintenance. But there are many examples of
vandalism in most of the parks that we could protect
against only by constant patrol plus public education.
I can't really say whether it's gotten better or worse
in the present day, and I know it's still a problem.

Fry: What about poachers?

Drury: We had some problems of that sort but we had the parks
pretty well patrolled and the boundaries adequately
marked. Poaching was not a major problem in the national
parks. When it came to the state parks, particularly
the redwood parks, increasingly trespass and the cutting
of timber on state land has become a problem. We had
half a dozen cases where either by intent or because of
ignorance of the boundaries, which of course was no
excuse, private individuals cut down and harvested state-
owned trees. It's particularly an aggravating problem
and I imagine it still is in the national parks also
because it's very difficult to go through the tortuous
legal processes necessary to get restitution. I know
that in the state I can1 t remember our ever having an
adequate payment in damages, and it was a very unfortunate
circumstance. But the national parks were better pro
tected, and then the merchantable species of trees
weren' t nearly as valuable as the redwoods, the only
exception perhaps being the sugar pine and the ponderosa
pine in Yosemite and Sequoia.

Fry: Did you have any trouble with grazing?

Drury: Not as a matter of trespass. That was well taken care of
by the ranger forces. There was constant pressure, of
course, to open up the parks to grazing.

465

Inholdings

Fry: What about administration of the inholdings?

Drury: Well, they surely were a headache. Usually, as in

Yosemite and Sequoia, they are subject to local laws.
It's a very interesting aspect to the whole problem
and it's one of the many reasons why the inholdings
should be consolidated.

Pry: By local lav/s you mean those outside the park.

Drury: Yes, county ordinances and state laws* You take for
instance the liquor lav/s. Up at Sequoia they still
have a privately owned subdivision in the General Grant
section of King's Canyon, a settlement established in
the gay nineties. One of our constant sources of
embarrassment was the insistence of some of the good
people in this settlement that we should establish a
no-liquor rule in some of these lands. Well, we didn't
own the lands and vie didn't have any jurisdiction until
the people came outside onto the national park lands;
and we had a similar problem in Grand Canyon National
Park. It's not a pleasant simile but in testifying
on these inholdings I sometimes would refer to them as
"festering sores," because that's what they almost were.
In the state parks as well as in the national parks
we had these often cheap developments, but even if they
were high-class developments they were a source of irri
tation and difficulty. In effect they got a lot of
free services, police service for instance, and
communications. They constantly were applying
for rights of way across national park lands where
we felt that it was a disfigurement of the landscape
to grant them, but they needed more roads for

466

Drury: transportation, and then there were moral issues sometimes
involved. There was also the problem of their competing
with the concessioners who were granted a more or less
controlled monopoly in the national parks, because they
gave assurance of continuous high-class supervised ser
vice with government control. Well, there were all these
considerations and a lot more why the inholdings should
be extirpatedo

I know that for instance Will Rogers, Jr., who be
came a good friend of mine and who was chairman of the
State Park Commission, in his youth owned a piece of
property on the brink of the Grand Canyon. He had
engaged Frank Lloyd Wright, the spectacular architect,
to design a structure where he would have had some kind
of a commercial establishment, probably a motel or souvenir
shop, right within a few thousand feet of the finest
part of the edge of the Grand Canyon. The plans for this
structure, in my old-fashioned opinion, were rather outre*
to say the least; it was a sort of cantilever construc
tion that would bring the veranda of this building out
over the Grand Canyon where you'd have a straight drop
of a mile and a magnificent view, but it wasn't in key
with the purposes of the Grand Canyon National Park*
Well, fortunately Bill Rogers ran out of money. I don't
know that he even paid his architect. Anyhow, he got
out of there and the government I think has acquired
that property. I know during my time we acquired by
condemnation a property that was owned by William Ran
dolph Hearst east of El Tovar. That was a more or less
friendly suit and the jury awarded him a very liberal sum,
which is as it should be.

467

Fee Structure

Fryx Would you like to comment on the question of fee struc
ture? You had already mentioned that Representative Jed
Johnson of Oklahoma was always getting upset about this.

Drury: Oh, yes. Of course, v/e were constantly making studies.
That's another thing in the off-season that everybody
turned to doing. The great trouble about most studies
is that by the time you get your data assembled and have
d£awn your conclusions, the conditions are changed.
It's like the census.

Fry: Were you ever able to determine what income brackets the
people were in who visited the parks, and if you were
really getting enough people from lower income brackets?

Drury: Yes, considerable progress has been made in the last

five or six years in the national parks in getting data
of that sort. They've carried on rather extensive studies
in several parks and as a result of those studies there's
been a very definite increase in the fees for admission
to the major national parks. They've been practically
doubled — which is something I was always in favor of
but it was a very unpopular cause in Congress and also
in the administration.

We found that same thing in the state. Governor
Earl Warren, who was the best friend the parks ever had,
nevertheless was against any kind of service fee, such as
a camping fee. We finally persuaded him to let us put in
a nominal fee, and since then it's been doubled, and I
think it should be doubled again. I'm talking now about
the overnight accommodations in the state parks. We found
no great objection to it on anyone's part. I think for a

468

Drury: normal family it's decidedly nominal because we made
quite an analysis and found that it cost us about two
dollars per night per party to service the camp units,
whereas the fee now is one dollar.

Fry: In state parks this remains as part of your fund, doesn't
it? But in national parks it doesn't. What was the ad
vantage of national parks charging?

Drury: There was no great advantage except two things: one was
the position it gave you budget-wise with the Bureau of
the Budget. For instance, one of the parks that was
easiest to get appropriations for was Carlsbad Caverns
where we had a very stiff entrance fee. There were no
camp units at that time; I don't know whether they have
them now or not. But under a strange tradition which so
far as I knew was present in the law only in a rider on
an old appropriation bill, we were precluded from making
a charge for overnight camping. In the national parks
there's no charge for the use of the camp units, you know,
just the automobile entrance fee, which it seemed to me
was a mistake but like a lot of other things on which I
had opinions, an infinite amount of effort resulted in
no progress.

Fry: So that the person who comes in just to drive around
pays the same as the person who comes in to camp?

Drury: Yes. I felt that was inequitable, and I know a good many

of my colleagues did. And also I believed that a reasonable
fee serves as a sort of protective tariff; it tends to
weed out the casual, idly-curious visitors who could
just as well be somewhere else, who don't go to a park
like Yosemite for the intrinsic qualities that it possesses.

469

Segregation

Fry: Another thing I wanted to ask you about which might be of
a little more interest to future historians. Did you
have any problems of integrated use of parks, especially
in the South?

Drury: That's an interesting question. Of course the problem

existed during my time. I imagine that my problems were
less in that respect because of the fact that it was
wartime and attendance in some of the years of my regime
was at a very low ebb, but nothing in the way of a crisis
occurred during my time. They'd had more trouble before,
during the administration of Arno Cammerer, in some of
the southern parks, particularly when they established
campgrounds and tried to segregate them. I was very much
interested at my own reaction a few years before I went
to Washington, the first time I'd been in the Deep South.
I think I was crossing from Jacksonville to St. Augustine,
Florida, on a ferry, and for the first time in my life
I suddenly was confronted with facilities marked "white"
and "colored." To a Westerner, that was a strange thing.
I must confess that I was a little taken aback by it.
And then when I made the rounds of some of the southern
national parks and historic battlegrounds I found that
originally there had been facilities with this same
distinction marked on them. The order of course had
gone out from Washington to eradicate them and the workmen,
who evidently were Southerners, had covered this lettering
over, but the paint was not quite opague and they still
were distinguishable, and I think by more or less common

470

Drury: consent in the South restrooms and things like that were
used separately. But I never happened to have had the
issue put squarely up to me. In the national capital
parks we had one or two flurries because of the integration
of use of the swimming pools, but even that was not a
serious problem then. I don1 t think that I evaded the
problem but I must confess that I was very grateful that
it never was a matter of major concern during my timeo
The concessioners professed, and I think sincerely, not to
discriminate on the grounds of race, color, creed, or
anything else. That was the universal rule — in fact,
it was in the concession contracts during my time that
there should be no such discrimination.

Fry: That really surprises me; I can hardly imagine Negroes
and whites eating together in a park restaurant in a
place like Mississippi.

Drury: Well, as I say it was very difficult, and more or less by
common consent the old customs are still followed although
in less and less degree. The closer you got to Washington,
D.C., the more acute the problem was. I remember once
at Shenandoah in Virginia, Shenandoah National Park, they
had a lodge where there was an episode I was involved in
and the complainant was Senator Byrd. I remember going
with him to the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secre
tary of the Interior standing firm that these concessioners
would have to live up to their contract.

Fry: Who was that?

Drury: That was Secretary I ekes. I remember Senator Byrd saying,
"Well, now, as far as these [Negro] people are concerned,
I like them but I don't want to live with them." Which
is the old hidebound southern idea.

Fry: Which issue was this with Senator Byrd?

471

Drury: This was the issue of allowing colored people to eat at
the lunch counter in the concessions. It was a govern
ment facility through contract, you see; but the Depart
ment stood firm on it, and we all did, as far as that's
concerned.,

Dedication

MISSISSIPPI RIVER PARKWAY EXHIBIT

Old Court House

St. Louis, Mo.

By The

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
HON HARRY S TRUMAN
June 10, 1950.

Yosemite Conference, Wawona Grove. Left, Lt. Col. Merwin Cowie , Director
National Parks, Kenya, and Newton B. Drury. October 18, 1950.

472

CONCESSIONS
Advisory Committee

Fry: When you took over national parks in the early forties,

most of the concessions were run on a leased basis, rather
short-term leases as I understand, and with a flat fee
charged for the franchise. Is that right?

Drury: I think I'd better say that I didn't take over the

national parks; they more or less took over me e[ Laughter]
I got to the point where I had a bear by the tail*
You couldn' t generalize about the concession
contracts, but I'd say that in the main the opposite was
the case from the establishment of the flat fee.
Usually the contracts were for a period of twenty years
with an option for twenty years1 renewal, subject to ap«f
proval by the Secretary of the Interior, with a provision
for a percentage of the net proceeds. There were some
cases where there was a flat rental fee, and there may
have been some cases where there was a percentage of
the gross revenue.

During my time we had quite a study made, something
that I initiated, to try to get a more or less uniform
policy and also, in the interest of protection of the
parks themselves, to get a sound relationship with con
cessioners. We had a very distinguished group of men
who acted as an advisory committee to whom we put various
problems. One of them was Clem Collins of Denver, who'd
been president of the National Association of Accountants.
There was Elmer Jenkins of Washington, who was the head of
the travel bureau of the American Automobile Association.

473

Drury: The third was Mr. George Smith, who until recently was
the owner and operator of the Hotel Mark Hopkins in San
Francisco. All of them men who were interested in the
subject and had a lot of experience with the hotel busi
ness.

Fry: And Charles G. Woodbury?

Drury: Woodbury was not on that advisory committee; he was on

the general advisory committee. And a great many people
like Charlie Woodbury presented testimony to this group.

Well, I spent a lot of time with them and I must
confess that the report they rendered was not entirely
in accord with my thoughts on what we should do, but in
general they made a recommendation that was accepted by
the Secretary of the Interior and as we made new contracts
we followed it. I'd have to review the files on it to
give you many of the details. But one of the new prin
ciples, which I understand has been adopted in a good
many of the other contracts now, was the collection by
the government of a percentage of the gross proceeds
from the concessions. The position a lot of people took
was that there were too many avenues for ambiguity and
perhaps misrepresentation when you started to base your
take for the government on the net profits. That was
one thing.

Frankly, my main interest was to get a high quality
of concessioner's, and concessioners that were not pressed
unduly to follow policies that were detrimental to the
parks in order to stay in business. That is, I believed
the government could afford to be fairly liberal with them
if they gave the thing that we wanted, which was public
service, and did it in a way that did not impinge on the
natural values of the parks. For instance, it might not

474

Drury: be in the interest of the park to have a thousand-room

hotel built, but it might be in the interest of the con
cessioner and might be necessary even for him to survive
if his contract were too stringent.

Another principle that I firmly believed in was
that competitive bidding did not necessarily give you
the best service from a concessioner, that the primary
things were his character, interest in the parks, finan
cial stability, and of course skill in the management of
facilities such as hotels and lodges, transportation and
so forth.

Fry: From reading in Congressional literature one gets the
idea that this study was more or less forced upon the
NPS by the appropriations subcommittee in the House in
1946 and 1947 } and then that you insisted on this outside
advisory committee to oversee it.

Drury: Of course, we never had a meeting of any of our committees,
either the appropriations or the public lands committees,
that there wasn't somewhere along the line a discussion
of concessions. It may be that that's what led us to
getting this study made.

There's one angle that I hadn't mentioned, and that
is that the Secretary of the Interior did not take the
advisory committee's recommendations in some respects,
in particular during the time of Secretary Krug, who had
been in the public utility field in his earlier experience.
There was an attempt to implant on the concessioners a
system under which their returns were regulated like
a public utility and held to a certain percentage return
on the investment. That worked out in weird and wondrous
ways for a while. For instance, we had two concessioners

475

Drury: in Rocky Mountain. One of them was a competent operator
and he by skillful operation was able to earn a much
larger percentage on his invested capital than another
operator who didn't give nearly as good service. Yet
under this rule of thumb for a while we allowed higher
rates to the inefficient operator because he wasn't
making any money. You can see how it reduced it to an
absurdity. That wasn't followed very long, as I remember.

Fry: Was that Davidson's idea? Assistant Secretary General
Davidson?

Drury: Well, Davidson was entirely in accord with that. It

may well have been Mr. Davidson's idea although I think
it originated with Mr. Krug because of his making the
analogy between these concessions and public utilities,
with which he'd had a lot of experience. He was I think
chief engineer of the Public Utilities Commission in
Wisconsin and a very fine public-spirited gentleman,
but frankly in that respect a little on the theoretical
side.

Fry: Well, is there any way to get around some sort of govern
ment subsidy of this, if not outright government owner
ship in the long run, due to the fact that most of these
facilities stand there in disuse for half of the year?

Drury: Of course that was one reason that it was difficult

for a concessioner to be judged by the standards of or
dinary business. It was seasonal business. However,
it's no more seasonal than a business at Palm Springs
or in Alaska in the hotel field, and quite a fev; of our
concessioners did the way private operators do: they
would in the wintertime operate in the south and in the
summertime in the north. It's a long and complicated

476

Drury: subject. It's a grave question as to whether a great

deal of the impetus to the national park movement prior
to the establishment of the National Park Service wasn't
given by existing and would-be concessioners. There were
one or two cases where would-be concessioners tried to
promote putting certain properties under the jurisdiction
of the federal government. I can't think of a very good
example offhand. I'm going to give you for the record
a copy of a report or a thesis by the dean of the faculties
at Harvard, Paul Herman Buck. When he was a young man
he wrote for his degree in Master of Arts at Ohio
State University in 1921. It's called The Evolution of
the National Park System £f the United States, and for
some reason I evidently had it reprinted during my time.
I don't think it's an entirely complete or fair repre
sentation of the motivation back of the National Park
Service, but it would be interesting for you to read it.
It points out that particularly in Yellowstone and to
some extent in Sequoia and other parks the main objective
was to provide a lure for travel, in most cases railroad
travel. The Union Pacific and the Great Northern in the
case of Glacier National Park unquestionably exerted a
great deal of influence which turned out to be helpful
in getting appropriations to administer and develop those
particular parks, and it was true in other cases. There's
undoubtedly a tie-in between these commercial enterprises
and the whole concept of establishing national parks.
I think, however, that as the system grew the basic
idea of the national park system was so great and so
appealing that it dominated the whole situation, even
though in the latter years we had to fend off somewhat
the insistence of the concessioners that things be done

477

Drury: primarily for their benefit. We used to have a saying that
the concessions exist for the benefit of the parks and not
the parks for the benefit of the concessions. The early
parks are dealt with pretty well in this essay by Dr.
Buck. Unquestionably the parks were very closely linked
in with the development of the concessions. Take Yose-
mite. It's pretty hard to separate traditionally
Yosemite from the Curry family, who were a very wonderful
couple just as their daughter Mary Tresidder is; they
have been identified with the Yosemite concession for
seventy-five years •*•*• since almost before it became a
national park. But they have persisted, as have the
Fred Harveys of Grand Canyon and some of the other
companies, because they gave excellent service to the
public. They were in harmony with the purposes of the
National Park Service and in general they didn't ride
a willing horse to death. I think we can be very proud
of them.

Government-Owned Plant, With Operations Contracted

One of the questions that was studied very care
fully by the Clem Collins committee was the question of
the ownership of the physical plant. I felt very strongly
and the committee felt perhaps a little less strongly
that the best arrangement would be for the government
to own the plant but to contract with private operating
concerns for a reasonably short period. I always felt
that the twenty-year period was too long, especially
when you prolonged it to forty years by giving them the
automatic renewal if they wanted it and if you could
make a proper deal. There were cases where we had con-

478

Drury: cessioners whose operations were distinctly inimical to
the best interests of the parks, and we would have been
in a better position had the government owned the plant
and we had a five or, say, even a ten-year contract, but
we were in a very poor position since we were tied up with
those people for twenty years and since they had invested
millions of dollars in plant.

They had under their contracts been allowed to plow
back earnings into physical facilities. The consequence
was that in some cases the tail more or less wagged the
dog in that the government was in no position to impose
upon them restrictions that they felt were good policy
from a park standpoint because these would be ruinous
from the fiscal standpoint, and the last thing in the
world we wanted to do was to put any of these people out
of business*

Fry: After the war didn't you have a number of concessioners
who wanted to sell out?

Drury: We had to declare a moratorium on operation. The direc
tor of national parks had the authority to indicate the
dates on which they should open their lodges and hotels
and the dates on which they could close them if they so
desired. Well, an oppressive use of that authority would
absolutely skim off all the profits from the concession,
so that you had that constant consideration that you had
to keep in mind although it perhaps wasn't in the best
interest either of public service or of the parks.
That was due to the large private capital investment,,
I never was rabid on that but in theory I believed in new
concessions being established with government-owned
facilities. That was done during my time in Big Bend
National Park and in the Everglades National Parko

479

Drury: We acquired the lodge at the Petrified Forest and con
tracted with Fred Harvey to operate it.

We came very close to acquiring the Yosemite's
Ahwahnee Hotel when it was wartime and the company was
discouraged and wanted to sell out, or at least was
willing to sell out. In fact, we went so far that I got
Secretary Ickes to write to Jesse Jones, who was then
the director of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation,
asking for a grant. Well, it just happened that, as
in other cases, Harold L. Ickes wasn't entirely en
rapport with Jesse Jones; they'd had some disputes over
other matters, so that when this letter came from Secre
tary Ickes proposing that they lend the National Park
Service enough money to buy out this concession, docu
mented to show that it would in the long run pay the
government to do it, and giving the policy reasons for
it, Jesse Jones simply wrote back, "Dear Harold, If
you want to go into the hotel business why don't you
get Congress to pass a law authorizing you to do so?
Truly yours." And that was the end of that. [Laughter]
We didn't press it particularly, and then the war ended
and the Yosemite Park and Curry Company had a new lease
on life and they rehabilitated the Ahwahnee. It had
been turned into a naval hospital during the war, so
they practically had to dismantle it and redecorate it,
and they re-established their concession on a very satis
factory basis.

Fry: Did you think about carrying your idea a little farther
and having a kind of a chain, a company to handle more
than one park in servicing concessions?

Drury: My colleague Arthur Demaray was more or less the originator
in 1941 of an organization known as National Park Conces-

480

Drury: sions, Inc., which was a "non-profit-distributing cor
poration." He always made the distinction that the title
should be not non-profit corporation but non-profit-dis
tributing corporation. Obviously they had to make a
profit in order to have any money to put back into opera
tions; its object was not so much not to make a profit
as not to pay out those profits in dividends to private
interests.

That was based more or less on the operations of
government concessions in Washington, B.C., which ran the
lunchrooms in the various government buildings. That was
a tremendous enterprise; I think they had to keep ready
cash of about $200,000 on hand at all times for current
purchases and making change and all the rest of it.

Fry: This covered about how many parks?

Drury: National Park Concessions went in at Big Bend, at Isle
Royale in Michigan, at the Everglades, and in Mammoth
Cave, Kentucky — that's another place where we bought
the plant from the concessioner, and a very fine gentle
man named Sanborn and his wife Beulah operated the con
cession. We inherited them from the old regime when the
state of Kentucky owned the Mammoth Cave, The plan had
this advantage: National Concessions, Inc., didn't own
the plant in any case, and in every case the provisions
in their charter were that if they should go out of
business their proceeds would go to the federal govern
ment, so that you didn't have the problem there of riding
herd on them and making sure that you were fair to
them from the standpoint of making profits. Under Sanborn
and under Arthur Demaray, the associate director who was
also one of their officers, they rendered very fine ser
vice in many of the parks.

481

Pry: Did this really lower the costs to tourists?

Drury: ITo, it did not. That was one of the principles, too,
that we had to scrutinize pretty carefully in the study
we made of concessions. I purposely asked that the
advisory commission be appointed because I had rather
strong views and I didn't want to be in the position of
trying to force them on anyone. One of my very strong
beliefs is that the government should not subsidize
enterprises of that sort to the detriment of competing
outside industry. I was always a believer that the
rates for hotel service and meals and transportation
and all the rest should be in every way comparable to
the rates charged by outside industry, taking into
account such government subsidy as existed — and there
always was a government subsidy. Of' course, the
greatest government subsidy was the lure of the national
parks. Millions of dollars wouldn't have bought the
publicity value that being located in Glacier or Yellow
stone or Yosemite did, and needless to say, especially
in the political climate of the government at that time,
the position I took wasn't universally popular. It was
popular enough among the concessioners, and it seemed
to me it was just ordinary fairness and common decency.
I remember while we had the rule of thumb under Secre
tary Krug as to four per cent return on investment, one
of our concessioners in Yellowstone, Hamilton, who had
a small investment but who had a tremendous volume and
was making a large return on his investment, objected
because the rule cut almost in half the price of milk
shakes. He said, "I don't object to the loss of profit
on the milkshakes but it makes me look like a fool
with the other people v/ho are in the milkshake business.

482

Drury: They know that you can't make and sell a milkshake
for twenty cents." And yet to apply your four per
cent return formula they had to make him cut things
down that way. My concern on that was that it wasn't
fair to outside competing industry. I've always taken
that position in the state parks also. As I say,
there are tv/o schools of thought on that, nowadays
under the Kennedy administration they even want to
subsidize opera singers, so I suppose ultimately the
government will "be bailing everybody out.

Pry: Were most of the Secretaries for ownership and opera
tion by the government?

Drury: ITo. Most of them I think were in favor of private

enterprise contracting v/ith the government. I think
in the main most of them were satisfied with the time-
honored system that had grown up. Secretary Ickes and
to some degree Secretary Krug were in accord with our
thought that it would be better for the government to
own the plant on an equitable basis, through the
government buying them out and contracting v/ith quali
fied private concerns outside the government. I'd
hate to be responsible for running a restaurant under
government civil service and fiscal policy and all the
rest. Nobody 'd ever get a decent meal, probably.
The civil service cook would not be oerhaps as competent
as he would be under the competitive system — at
least that's the way I felt about it.

?ry: I wanted to ask you too about Secretary Oscar Chapman's
new principles that were supposed to have been laid down
around 1949 o What does that refer to?

Lrxiry: I think that refers to this modified acceptance of the

committee

royort on concession policy. Of course, to

483

Drury: some extent it v/as all theoretical because many of

our concessions still had ten, fifteen, in some cases
almost twenty years to run, and there v/as no disposition
to modify their contracts in mid-course except where
voluntarily, as in one or two cases, the concessioners
relinquished them. However, during the war the con
cession at Lassen asked to have this National Parks
Concessions, Inc., take over, primarily because the
president of the company, Mr. Hummel, was in the armed
services and had to go off to war and partly because
it was an unprofitable enterprise.

?ry: I thought perhaps Oliver G. Taylor, who v/as chief of
public services and had been with parks almost from
the first, would have some ideas on concessions. Do
you remember his viewpoint?

Drury: I do, yes. Of course, I selected Oliver Taylor, in
spite of the fact that he v/as not a hotel man, tout
because he v/as a long-time engineer and superintendent
and administrative officer in the 1TP3, a very matter-
of-fact, sensible person. He served for six or seven
years as director of concessions, in fact until he died
of heart failure. Just the other day when I v/as in
Washington I had the pleasure of a reunion with Marshall
Jones, who now is the manager of the Hay-Adams Hotel,
one of the most expensive hotels in Washington. It
was fortunate for me that I knew Marshall so well be
cause [Laughter] when Marshall had had an illness and
had gotten out of the hotel business and v/as looking
for a job, I was very glad to induce him to come in as
an assistant to Taylor, Taylor being the man who under
stood overall park policy and Marshall Jonos being the
man who understood the mechanics of hotel operation.

484

Pry: \7hat did they think about the idea of government owner
ship and operation "by contract?

Drury: They were all in accord v;ith that. I don't think any
one considered it a very radical idea. Of course —

?ry: It seems to me it would "be a happy compromise.

Drury: It was, in the respect that you didn't have to concern
yourself with the impairment of the investment the way
you did with private enterprise. Of course, I wouldn't
be a party to impairing a government's investment, but
believe it or not, one of the primary concerns that I
had, 'and I know my colleagues and my predecessors had,
was that of being fair to the concessioners, aid it was
sometimes rather difficult to do so and still protect
to the full the soundest interests of the national parks.

Pry: In Demaray's 1951 annual report he seemed a little dis
enchanted Y/ith the 1948 policy. Lid he become disil-.
lusioned with this idea of the national park concessions?

Drury: Ho, £'m sure he didn't. Of course, he stayed as direc
tor tfnly about six months, you know, and then Conrad
'Jirth went in. But I'm sure that he was quite interested
in the national Park Concessions, Inc. In fact, he
continued on this board after he retired.

Pry: So this wasn't the source of his disenchantment?

Drury: !To. Well, I franklv don't remember .lust what details
were involved in changes in policy after I went out.
But the thins that impressed me was that yoi; couldn't
have a rule of thumb, as was once attempted, that
would apply uniformly to all concessions? you had to
tailor your contract to the local conditions. For
instance, there were one or two concessions that
practically v/ere on an all-year basis. They were in a.
quite different position from those t^at were seasonal.
And there were other circumstances.

485

Changes in Demands of the Public

Fry: I was wondering if you had noticed during your stint
with the national parks that the public's desires
and the kind of plant they wanted to use in the parks
changes over the years. Was the post-war public
demanding more, or less?

Drury: Oh, heavens, I think it's all of a piece with the
history of travel in America and the expansion of
people's demands for more and more comfort and more
and more facilities. The old-style cabins in
Yellowstone and Yosemite, people now would turn up
their noses at. Toilet facilities had to be the ut
most in modern design and the same with every
feature. Of course, with the coming of the automobile
age — and also the expansion of travel and of
national income — people's desires did change. I
don't think the people who visited the national
parks were any different from travelers generally.
There was a very great expansion of the needs, and
that was one of the great problems — having to re
quire that the concessioners put more and more of their
own capital into facilities. I think probably we've
gone too far to the other extreme nowadays and too
much government money is put into things that are
really luxuries. I remember when I was in Chicago I
became quite well acquainted with Burton Holmes,
the travelogue authority. He presented me with one
of his early books, which I guess is fairly rare,
a publication of his early lectures on Yosemite and
Grand Canyon and other parks. In that book I remem
ber seeing a picture of a tent with the flies rolled

486

Drury: back and there was an iron bedstead and a dresser
with a bowl and a pitcher of water on it: "These
are the deluxe accommodations now available at the
Grand Canyon National Park." [Laughter] You wouldn't
find many travelers who would even look at them now.
Of course, a great many people in those days derived
pleasure from the fact that they felt they were
"roughing it." Not now.

Fry: Yes. Now with the advent of the automobile don't
you have a larger percentage of the population —

Drury: Among the younger people there is a desire for

dormitory type of accommodations, which of course
are much simpler and more en masse. And then we
have a very large segment who prefer to camp. My
own personal inclination — I've done a certain amount
of camping, not as much as most people, but I've
always enjoyed it more in a solitary situation than
in a regimented camp. Yet I've been a party to the
design and operation of many many thousands of in
dividual camp units which personally I wouldn't
have wanted to occupy. But there again it's a ques
tion of what people want to get out of the experience.
People who don* t travel much, who have say two weeks
in the year and the rest of the time are in an office
or a factory with a ;;reat many people probably would
feel lost if they were out in the Main woods with the
nearest habitation ten miles away.

Fry: That's what I was told at Yosemite.

Drury: They're gregarious; they like to be herded together.
And then there is the question of cost.

Fry: What about the idea of eliminating all of the eyesore
type of accommodations, such as the enormous camp
ground in the floor of Yosemite Valley, and having

486a

Fry: most of the accommodations outside the park or up
in the wilderness areas that are really secluded?

Drury: Theoretically that's what I was personally in favor
of, but I tried not to be narrow-minded about it.
We established a long-range program, which is being
carried out to a considerable extent over the years,
under which we decentralized the mass recreation
activities in Yosemite Valley, tending more and more
to make that area the object of a pilgrimage for the
enjoyment of its essential qualities and relegating
to lesser lands the mechanics of operation — such as
the warehouses, which have now been moved down to
El Portal below the Yosemite Valley. Also, some of
the campgrounds have been decentralized. But anybody
who tries to change overnight an institution that has
evolved over half a century, whether he wants it or
not gets a lot of education. I think in general all
the directors of the national parks have deplored the
fact that, because of over-crowding, the so-called point
of diminishing returns has been reached in some of the
concession operations — as well as in some of the
government operations like the campgrounds. That's
another reason for a policy of having the government
make the investment in plant so that it could, when
it reached the point where from a policy standpoint
it was unsound to expand further, refrain from such
expansion without injustice to the concessioner.

I had some very interesting experiences with
members of Congress who occasionally intruded into
the concession field. They had constituents or
prote'ge's, you know.

I think we have already had quite a little talk
about Senator McKellar and his relation to things.
There is an eoisode that I remember that was a little

487

Drury: embarrassing at the time. He called me over one day
and said he wanted us to grant a concession to a con
stituent of his, a woman who wanted to run one of
the bathhouses at Hot Springs National Park. So we
went about our routine inquiry and uncovered a very
unfortunate thing; to everybody's embarrassment we
found that her reputation was perhaps not the best --
in fact, it was brought out that she was living in
sin with a handsome Greek, so it was my duty to go
over and tell the senator, who was duly shocked. He
said, "Well, that's too bad. I'll look into it."
About a week later he called back. "Well," he said,
"Mr. Drury, I know you'll be glad that we've shown
this little lady the error of her ways. I'm sure
that now — she's just recently married this Greek —
you'll have no trouble in granting her the concession."
And by gosh we ultimately did, and she was all right
as a concessioner, [Laughter] There were other cases
like that.

488

THREATS AND CONTROVERSIES
Jackson Hole

Fry: Here is a sort of preface to the Jackson Hole con
troversy which I've written out. [Reading]

The addition of Jackson Hole to Grani
Teton National Park caused one of the
biggest single controversies ever backed
by cattlemen and ranchers. The Park Ser
vice had attempted to annex it to its
system for decades when finally, in 1927,
the Snake River Land Company was organized
by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to buy the
privately owned parcels of land in Jack
son Hole for the purpose of making them a
gift to the National Park Service. Sub
sequent acquisition bills before Congress
failed for technical reasons and Mr.
Rockefeller at last wrote Secretary Ickes
urging the government to take the 35,000
acres off his hands. Unable to get Congress
to act, President Roosevelt on March 15,
1943, set up Jackson Hole as a 221,000 acre
national monument by presidential proclama
tion, which he could do under the Antiquities
Act of June 8, 1908. About 75% of the land
belonged to Forest Service and was simply
transferred.

The following week bills were rushed
to Congress by Wyoming Representative Frank
A. Barrett of Wyoming to abolish Jackson
Hole as a monument; some stockmen, like
Senator Robertson of Wyoming, began
efforts to amend the Antiquities Act.
Senator McCarran of Nevada, Congressmen
Chenoweth of Colorado and Dimond of Alaska
introduced similar bills; a suit testing
the legality of the President's action was
begun in the courts in Wyoming. Enormous
publicity campaigns against creating the
monument were hammered out, although the
Department of Interior had by this time
offered to extend the grazing privileges
that were then enjoyed under the Forest
Service, and to grant an annual tax reim
bursement to Teton County for lands removed

489

Fry: [Reading]

from its tax rolls. Strong opposition con
tinued in Washington, much of it led by the
same men who had offered or supported bills
for the annexation of the land in the '30's.
The acts were passed.

Although President Roosevelt vetoed
the final Barrett bill, the Department of
Interior was reportedly paralyzed in
protection of its new territory because
Congressman Barrett managed to prevent
any appropriations for its administration
from 1944 to 1948. This gave ranchers ani
hunters complete de facto access to Jackson
Hole. Toward the end of Newton Drury's
administration Senators O'Mahoney and
Hunt and National Park officials agreed
on points of arbitration so that in 1950
most of the area achieved national park
status by becoming a part of Teton National
Park. Unique provisions in the bill were:
the concession of the Department of Inter
ior for tax loss reimbursement to Teton
County — in full for five years then
decreasing 5% each year for twenty years;
stockmen and owners of summer homes were
allowed to perpetuate their current leases;
and to the Wyoming sportsmen it was
necessary to grant deputization of hunters
as "rangers," free of licensing costs, to
kill elk in the national park where over
population of the animals tended to endanger
the ecological balance of the area.

Drury: That is a good summary of what happened.

Fry: With this preface as an introduction to the Jackson
Hole controversy, you and I can dwell on the lesser
known facts about the case. Would you like to start
out explaining v/hat happened in your office preceding the
Presidential proclamation?

Drury: I didn't know about it till later, but before my time in
Washington apparently all the papers for a Presidential
proclamation, not only to establish Jackson Hole National
Monument but to establish dozens ^f national monuments on
United States Forest Service territory, were on file in

490

Drury: the office of the Secretary of the Interior. Apparently
this happened while I was out in Chicago. Secretary
Ickes had become tired of waiting, and spurred somewhat
by a letter from Mr. Rockefeller to the effect that he
didn' t feel that he should hold very much longer these
lands that he had purchased, the secretary sent the Jack
son Hole proclamation over to the President, and the
first I knew about it was when I was having a staff
meeting. in Chicago and George Mosky, our chief attorney,
came in, just having attended a meeting in Washington.
He sat for quite a while through a lot of more or less
inconsequential discussion; finally he interrupted and
said, "I think maybe I ought to tell you that just before
I left Washington this morning President Roosevelt signed
the proclamation establishing Jackson Hole National
Monument," whereupon I said, "The meeting is hereby
adjourned." I called together a group of our specialists
and assigned to each one of them the preparation of a
summary of the reasons for establishing the Jackson Hole
National Monument, so that we would be ready for the on
slaughts that I knew would be coming from Wyoming,

Fry: Could you lay out here what it was that made you know
that these onslaughts would be coming?

Drury: Oh, general expressions that we'd had from people in

Wyoming. I can't put my finger on .-any one thing. But
what somewhat amused me and also caused consternation
in our ranks was the fact that although there had been
periodic. discussion as to whether this action should
be taken, it finally came like a bolt out of the blue.

Fry: Ickes knew about it?

Drury: Oh, yes. He was the one who got the President to sign it.
It was, I suppose, a question of strategy. It would have
been very handy for us if we had known some months in
advance that this was coming up, because this way we had

491

Drury: hurriedly to be summoned to meetings and present to hearings
both out there and in Congress the justification for the
monument. Ideally, we could have used more time for
preparation.

I think you already have the record of the primary
hearing that was held to indicate the reasons for the
President's proclamation, which of course all of us
believed in but which when the chips were down just a
few of us had to defend. Another somewhat interesting
phase of the matter was that within about a week I was on
my way to California and stopped in at Wyoming. I had an.
interview with the then governor of Wyoming, Loren Hunt,
who is since deceased. He was most agreeable about it
and thought it was a good thing and had only one grievance,
and that was that the President hadn1 t taken him into his
confidence when he issued the proclamation. The National
Park Service was in the same boat. Later on when the
heat began to get intense, Governor Hunt became a very
bitter opponent of the whole program and was a party
to the suit that. was brought in the courts, and which
of course failed, to abolish the Jackson Hole Monument.
The President by law had authority to create the monument.

Fry: Questioning the legality of the Antiquity Act?

Drury: Yes.

Fry: What about the motivations of the opposition?

Drury: I think that in your preface to this discussion, you have
pretty well indicated the economic interests that were
concerned — the stockmen who had enjoyed certain
privileges under the U. S. Forest Service and the Grazing
Service of the Department of the Interior. There
were other interests, too: I think the mining interests
were apprehensive that having national and ultimate

492

Drury: park status on these lands would cramp their style as
far as exploration and extraction of minerals and oil
and gas were concerned. And there was of course the cus
tomary states' rights spirit with which I personally
have always been in sympathy. Undoubtedly that was one
motive for the violent opposition to placing these
lands in park status.

But above all else was the desire of certain in
dividuals to make themselves much more prominent than
they otherwise would be by opposing not only the great
federal government but also Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
It gave them limelight and prominence that they never
otherwise would have attained. The people who concurred
in the wisdom of preserving this area were not nearly as
spectacular as those who put up the fight. I think that,
when you get right down to it, was the main motive.

As a matter of fact most of the issues were trumped
up and had no great. validity. In our files there's an
article by a friend, Freeman Tilden, discussing in a
semi-humorous fashion the opposition to the Monument,
Among other things I remember Tilden said that whereas
the people of Wyoming had always bragged about the
explprers and pioneers, Jim Bridger and the rest of
them, now that this monument was created partly for its
historical importance they tended to depreciate their
heritage. Tilden says that, for once at least, understate
ment, which is more characteristic of the eastern states,
had arrived in Wyoming,

Fry: Do you think this economic issue was a real issue?

Because the number of cattle which were enjoying these
grazing areas was rather small.

Drury: Relatively few.

Fry: And weren't most of the ranchers eager to sell the land,
too?

Drury: It was an area of very high altitude and very mediocre
agricultural land. They were all starving to death.

492

Drury: There were some of the stockmen who I think were

genuinely opposed to the curtailing of their grazing
privileges — they weren't rights — granted on certain
types of federal land. The most obvious of those "rights,"
which we recognized from the beginning and incorporated
in the final act was the right to drive their cattle across
Jackson Hole from the summer to the v/inter range. Un
questionably they did a certain amount of damage in this
process but probably not nearly as much damage as the
tourists who were lured to that region because of its
beauty.

Fry: I wanted to ask you about Representative Frank Barrett.
Did you know him when he was in the balloon corps at
the same time you were?

Drury: I didn't remember him, no. In fact, I'd forgotten that
he was in it. I think he came from Nebraska; of course,
Omaha, Nebraska was the big balloon school. His name
sounded familiar to me.

Barrett was a quite able man. He was later governor
of Wyoming. He was rather over-emphatic, one might
almost say vitriolic at times, but I rather enjoyed parrying
with him. He was a Republican, and of course Senator
O'Mahoney was a Democrat, and I think the intensity of
the opposition was heightened by the fact that each vied
with the other to see who could be the bitterest enemy of
this supposedly nefarious deed that the great federal
government was perpetuating.

Fry: When Ickes was called upon to testify in the first

hearings on the bill to abolish the Monument, one of his
first statements was that the entire opposition was
caused by the Forest Service.

Drury: Of course, he had almost a complex about the U. S. Forest
Service. His ambition, conceived in ihe earlier days of
his tenure, was to get the Forest Service transferred

493

Drury: to the Department of the Interior. There was a bureau
of forests in the Interior many years before the U. S.
Forest Service was established in the Department of
Agriculture. I think any reasonable person would see
no objection to that, but there are a lot of more funda
mental things to which public officials can devote
their attention than simply the matter of departmental
jurisdiction. There's no question that from some
standpoints Secretary Ickes was logical, but he found
that it was more than he could accomplish.

In fact I can remember making a trip with President
Hoover after his time as president. It was in connec
tion with the Butano redwoods which were at that time
held in trust by Stanford University. During this trip
it was very interesting that Mr. Hoover spoke of his
youthful experiences at Stanford, his time as a young
engineer in China at the Boxer uprising, and his service
as food administrator in Belgium, but scarcely a word
about his four years as President of the United States.
[Laughter] He did say, however, with something of a
chucklef that he noticed that President Roosevelt was
having the same trouble getting the Forest Service
transferred to Interior that he had always had.

Fry: What sort of attitudes did you find on the part of the
local Forest Service people there?

Drury: They were not. uncooperative, and the U. S. Forest Service
in Washington, of which Lyle Watts was the chief, were
entirely cooperative about carrying out the mandate of
Congress and the President when the transfer of lands
within the monument was effected. Watts issued an order
to the effect that they should vacate the forest station
that they had out there and take their belongings, but
every time I meet Watts he still apologizes for the fact

494

Drury: that when the local rangers left their station they even
pulled the casings out of the well, which he made them
put right back. But I would say that all the time this
thing was going on out there, there may have been some
bitterness between the local U. S. Forest people and our
staff, but I never heard much about it. I know there
was none in Washington. I was always a very good friend
of most of the Forest Service in Washington. Very able
men.

Fry: The Cheyenne banker, Governor Leslie Miller — the one
that Rockefeller worked through in his Snake River land
company to buy up the land — had been in the Forest Ser
vice. This put a suspicious cast on this for Ickes,
because although Miller helped buy up the land he became
a leader in the controversy against acceptance —

Dryry: Well, I don't think that the opposition to the Jackson
Hole National Monument was fomented by the U. S. Forest
Service. I got no evidence of that. Of course I'm
sure that I'm much more charitable than Mr. Ickes was.

Fry: Well, I did want to ask you about Miller.

Drury: Well, Leslie Miller of course was a very fine and able

man, who over the years had done a great deal to further
the projects in which Mr. Rockefeller was interested.
He's still, I think, going strong.

And there was a local banker named Buckheister who
had also been in the U. S. Forest Service, and a local
attorney named Simpson who later became senator from
Wyoming.

Fry: The letter of his that was read at the hearings was one
that had the resounding clang of someone about to jump
into prominence somewhere.

Drury: That's true all along the line. Here were these little,
relatively unimportant local politicians who suddenly
found themselves in the national arena. It was only

495

Drury: human, I guess, for them to prolong the agony. They
hadn1 t anything to lose. And I think that probably
the national park concept was strengthened by the
controversy. The only thing we lost was a lot of time,
because when there were so many constructive things to
be done we spent most of our time in defensive effort.
It's debatable whether short of arbitrary action of that
sort anything could have been accomplished, and I was
very glad to be one of those who defended it because
I know that it was a fine constructive accomplishment
in the national park system.

Fry: The witnesses that Barrett brought up included nearly
all of the cattlemen's associations and the fisherman
and hunters associations in Wyoming. It was really an
impressive accumulation. I believe someone in Wyoming,
after all this was over, brought suit against the county
commissioners for money they had spent on propaganda for
this campaign,

Drury: I don't know about that. I never heard of that.

Fry: Could you give us a picture of the kind of propaganda in
the campaign?

Drury: It was a very skilfully managed campaign. They had some
top-notch talent. I had been in the propaganda business
myself for a great many years and was not a tyro at it.
Others. on our staff like Mr. Conrad Wirth and Mr. Herbert
Evison, for instance, surely knew their way around. We
had our own lofty type of propaganda which we contended of
course was simply the giving of information. There was a
top executive of a New York advertising agency whose
name escapes me who had a ranch out there, and he un
doubtedly gave generalship to their nationwide propaganda.

.1 remember this editorial in the Saturday Evening
Post, in which the most extravagant claims were made.
Among other things it spoke about the oppression of the

496

Drury: stockmen and mentioned Wallace Beery as a "prominent
stockman." I've already shown you the passage in our
reply in which we indicated that Wallace Beery had a
lease on one-half acre of forest service land, and he
had one cow, which died during the controversy.

I remember one cartoon that the opposition published
in a pamphlet — this apropos of our mutual friend Horace
Albright, who was in on the very beginning of this thing
and was the one who interested Mr. Rockefeller in buying
these lands. They had a pamphlet in which they spoke
about the structure shown herein as of great historic
importance. It said that Horace M. Albright once occupied
this. structure, and they took a quotation from my testi
mony, "It is an eloquent reminder of the past," and then
you opened it up and there was. an old outhouse,, [Laughter]

They carried on from many, many angles, all these
resolutions from sportsmen's organizations and all that.
Anybody that has had to do with campaigning knows that a
great many of those quotations are not automatically
generated. I guess the sportsmen did feel that they were
losing something, although the hunting of the elk in
Jackson Hole scarcely could be defined as a sport. It
was more like going out into a pasture and shooting cows
as they moved down through that narrow valley. That's
why when it came to the showdown and we finally got the
legislation adding Jackson Hole to the Grand Teton
National Park we felt it was probably in the public in
terest, to provide in the legislation that the reduction
of elk, which was an obviously necessary thing, could
logically be effected by the Secretary of the Interior
through the park service deputizing a certain number of
licensed Wyoming hunters to act as deputy rangers in the
process of elk reduction. I haven't followed it closely
but I've been told that they haven't resorted to that

497

Drury: expedient for several years. It hasn1 t been a major
drawback, although personally I always had misgivings
about it and had great reluctance to be a party to it.

Fry: You had to go out there in August of that year. Was
that about the first time that you were in Jackson
Hole for any length of time after the passage of the
proclamation?

Drury: I'd been there before, but I spent a lot more time in

Wyoming after this proclamation than I'd spent previously.

Fry: As you contacted the more hostile elements of the opposi
tion there, did you run into any rather unorthodox
methods of pressure on you, as a person?

Drury: No. The personal relationships were always friendly

enough. Of course, they were looking for an opportunity
to stir up controversy; that's why this suit was in
stituted in the federal courts. While we won the
case, the judge in his decision made a great dramatic
plea for states' rights and condemned the supposedly
underhanded way in which this monument was established,
Qne of the main complaints was that Wyoming officials
should have been consulted. Well, that was about tanta
mount to saying that if. they had been consulted they
would have prevented it, so that I don't think the
President or Secretary Ickes or the National Park Service
can be blamed for going ahead and doing something that
they were convinced was right and which all subsequent
experience has shown was a very constructive government
act.

Fry: Another wail that came up frequently was that of the

alleged promise of Albright to Senator John B. Kendrick
that no more land would be taken in that area after the
creation of Grand Teton National Park.

Drury: I would doubt that Horace made any such commitment. He

498

Drury: says that he didn't, and I believe him implicitly, but
even if he did, it really isn't germane to the issue:
that is, no question is settled until it's settled right.
I never thought when I was Director of National Parks
that I could commit the great federal government for all
time t° any course of action. I at. least had that much
sense, and Horace of course has too, so that I don't
believe that's so. We have an illustrious case where
Theodore Roosevelt to his ultimate grief stated that
he didn't want a third term. [Laughter] Later he tried
to explain it by saying that at that time he didn't
want it. It's like a man who's asked if he wants another
cup of coffee and he says no. That doesn't mean he's
never going to want another cup of coffee. But I don't
think that was the spirit in which Albright made any
statements.

I guess it was in connection with. another contro
versy where somebody way down the line, a wildlife con
sultant for the National Park Service, was held up as an
authority. This was in connection with one of the dams
in the north. They rang the changes on the fact that this
man, who was out there purely as a consultant on wildlife
subjects, had made a statement that the National Park
Service had no intention of including certain land in
the Dinosaur National Monument. We had more trouble
trying to deal v.-ith that allegation, which obviously
was unauthorized.

It's something that I tried to impress on our
representatives in the National Park Service, that the
aura of the great federal government is constantly hover
ing over them, and in the minds of some people anyone
who happens to work for the federal government can
speak for it, which is preposterous, of course.

499

Drury: Another thing that I used to emphasize was this
(being myself something of a states' Tighter): that
the federal label of itself did not endow any man with
virtue or wisdom above his fellows. As you doubtless
know in what they call the bureaucracy there is a
certain tendency — I think it's also true in large
corporations — for the employees to arrogate to them
selves some of the elements of greatness or omniscience
or omnipotence of their employer. It's a very dangerous
thing, and while we may have been guilty of throwing
our weight around to a slight degree out there, I think
in general we leaned over backward in all of our dealings
with the local people. In fact, I never noted any
personal hostility.

At the very beginning, right after the establishment
or issuance of the proclamation by President Roosevelt
creating the Jackson Hole National Monument, there was
an unfortunate incident in which our superintendent,
who was nicknamed "White Mountain" Smith, a very able
veteran of tne National Park Service, was asked what he
would do if people violated the rules and regulations
of the national monument, and he answered, forthrightly,
as any of us might have done, that he would arrest them,
Well, that of course was used as a rallying point, the
"arbitrary attitude" of the federal government, v/hich
led me to caution the boys all through the service never
to answer a hypothetical question. We had enough trouble
without stirring up controversy over v/hat we would do
if something happened when it might never happen. That's
a pretty general rule that can be followed in most
affairs.

Fry: I remember that Ickes refused to answer a hypothetical
question in front of the committee.

500

Drury: I remember very well one of the hearings on a typically
hot Washington day and the hearing rooms in the capitol
weren1 t air-conditioned in those days. He was in a
terrible state of mind because of the. great coal strike
that was going on, and they called him up. He asked me
to sit in back of him, and when questions of fact came
up he would turn to me occasionally. Finally he turned
to me, and he said, "This is just killing me. I can't
stand much more of this." About that time one of the
questioners said, "Mr. Secretary, you say there are
high wildlife values in this Jackson Hole monument.
Would you tell me what you consider the most important
wildlife value?" He said, "Yes, the size and ferocity
of the mosquitos." [Laughter] This was seized upon to
show the arbitrary attitude of the federal officials
toward the inalienable rights of the local people. I
think that the atmosphere out there in Wyoming is very
good now; so far as I know there's no hostility. ITobody
was harmed, ,-md the state of Wyoming tremendously bene
fited on it.

Ery: How did the local community manage to get $25,000 in
in-lieu taxes instead of the $10,000 that Rockefeller
had been paying oach year?

Drury: That's something that happened after my time, I guess,

and I don't know. It was a poor county; it was so small
that they say the town of Jackson was illegally incor
porated. They applied for incorporation and they had
to list, I believe, five hundred citizens. Anyhow, they
had four hundred and ninety-nine, so it is said they
listed an unborn child as the five hundredth — or
whatever the required number was. Which was more or
less typical of the rough and ready ways out in Wyoming.

501

But I liked them. It was a very interesting place to be.
You mentioned to me once off the tape about the cattle
drive across in objection to the whole thing, led by
Wallace Beery,

Well, that was staged by this New York advertising execu
tive. They say that to get Wallace Beery onto his horse,
they had to get a stepladder and hoist him on. But he
looked the part of a Western bad man.
What did the ranchers do?

They just drove across for publicity purposes. Nobody
was trying to stop them.

What about the objection to this by the National Parks
Association? I understand they did have some reserva
tions about the proclamation.

Oh, there were some aspects of it that none of us liked.
The compromise on grazing and also on hunting.
I mean right after the proclamation.
I don1 t know.

I think it had something to do with two lakes, because
they weren't natural.

It might have been that the attitude prevailed then.
Everybody's gotten bravely over that nowadays, inci
dentally. They're taking lands into the national parks
that are far from having their pristine quality. To me
it seems too bad in some cases. I believe that maybe
some of those in the National Parks Association felt
that an artificial lake lowered the standards of the
national park to incorporate an area of that sort within
it. It was Jackson Lake, which has a low earthen dam
and has been artificialized to some extent* I myself
hold that general belief, but to have left out the
primary lake there would have left an inholding of private
lands and would have been worse than the minor sin of
incorporating an artificial feature.
John Ise*says the dams were broken and the rivers re-

*Ise. John .National Park Policy, New -York, 1961.

502

Fry: stored to their original level.

Drury: Well, that isn't strictly true. There's still a law
dam. But one of the things we obtained before we
included it in the national park was a commitment from
the Bureau of Reclamation that there wouldn' t be any
increasing of the height of the dam. Of course, even a
commitment like that can be nullified in future years.
Anyhow, that's one of the many compromises you have to
make for a larger end, and the National Park Association
officially I'm sure supported us in our defense of the
Jackson Hole Monument even though they might not have
approved of it in some details.

Fry: I understand that Struthers Burt in Wyoming was a good
supporter.

Drury: Yes, he was. He died only four or five years ago. He

was a very energetic little fellow, a man of great ability,
a brilliant writer. He wrote these various books on
the great roundups, like Powder River and some others.
Struthers Burt had a sort of a dude ranch down there,
possibly for income tax purposes because I don' t think
he ever had many guests and I don't think he wanted
many. I'm sure he didn't make much money out of it but
he had a lot of fun and part of his fun was being one
of the champions of the Jackson Hole National Monument,
which was fortunate for us because he lived there and
people liked him and he had quite a little prestige
nationally as well as locally.

He rounded up an imposing number of supporters, too.
He was one of our best supporters.

Could you give us a picture of the support, because not
only have we dwelt a long time on the opposition this
afternoon, but the opposition is more picturesque and is
played up a lot in the other accounts, so that what
support you did have is sort of left out of the record.

503

Drury: Yes. We had the disadvantage that the nonconformist is
always more spectacular, but we had the National Parks
Association and the Audubon Society and the Izaak Walton
League, of which Kenneth Reid was the executive, and
dozens of other conservation organizations, all of whom
testified in our hearings and in their publications
supported the general position of the National Park
Service. And the women of the country I think were
very potent, including the Garden Club of America and
the National Council of State Garden Clubs. The Sierra
Club of course frequently took part in the hearings
and was a strong supporter.

Fry: Did Albright help you?

Drury: Oh, yes, Horace Albright testified at a number of the
hearings and always was very effective. He speaks of
the one episode where somewhat inadvertantly he quoted
the local newspaper which said that all that was
needed out there was a few first-class funerals, where
upon Senator O'Mahoney rose and made the welkin ring
in his denunciation of these cruel government officials
who would harbor a thought of that sort. Well, anybody
who knows genial Horace Albright knows that the last
thing in the world that he would wish would be the demise
of any citizen of Wyoming or anywhere else. But it
caused quite a stir, and while we didn't enjoy the in
cident at the time, in restrospect it's quite amusing*

Fryt I don1 t understand the Alaskan delegates' opposition to
this. Can you link that in? There was Anthony Dimond,
who used to be govenor, and Bartlett, who even went so
far as wanting to abolish about all the national parks.

Drury: Well, Bartlett and Dimond, as representatives of their
constituency, reflected the more or less resentful
attitude of the old-timer against any change in status
and particularly the local antipathy to regulation from

504

Drury: the central government, I think that's all that amounted
to. After one has been through a great many Congressional
hearings he can almost predict what the line of the
representatives of different districts will be. We
had some very staunch support also in Congress, men
like J. Hardin Peterson of Florida and a number of the
New York congressmen, and while Chenoweth of Colorado
is mentioned in your introduction, I would say that
generally he was very friendly to us and helped us in
getting things done.

Fry: Their bill to abolish the national parks and monuments
in Alaska was never taken too seriously?

Drury: Ho, that was just a sort of a counter-offensive, what
the politicians refer to as a "cinch bill."

Fry: What about your California senators and representatives,
such as George Outland from Santa Barbara?

Drury: He was very outspoken in his support, and the others,
like Claire Engle of California — I'm not sure that
Engle was on the committee in those days — and several
others were very friendly. Senator Carl Hayden of
Arizona was very friendly to the National Park Service
and helped us in various ways and there were quite
a few others.

Fry: Could you tell us about the meeting that you had about
four years later which eventually resolved this contro
versy into a bill for national park status?

Drury:. Yes. We had a series of meetings, some of them out in
Wyoming, which Mr. Wirth attended as our chief of lands,
and some of which we had in Washington where several of
us spent many hours with Senators O'Mahoney and Hunt
(Governor Hunt had become a senator by that time) and
Congressman Barrett, in which we tried to work out a
reasonable compromise that would accomplish what the
government wanted in the way of preserving the beauty
and intert:st of Jackson Hole and unifying the To ton
National Park. I'm not sure that Congressman Barrett

505

Drury: was as active in those meetings as Senator O'Mahoney.
He felt that the turmoil had gone on long enough, and
he might also have felt that it no longer was political
capital so far as he was concerned. Senator Hunt, I
think, from the very beginning would have liked to
support us, but he found that such a position was un
tenable for anyone representing the hotheads in
Wyoming, But it was O'Mahoney and Hunt particularly that
met with us day after day and ironed out these various
provisions that you've mentioned in your introduction,
particularly those relating to taxation and grazing
and hunting. Those were the three primary issues.
On each of those subjects we compromised somewhat
more than probably we should have, but the end re
sult probably justified it. We always tried, when it
was necessary in order to accomplish something, to
make a semblance of compromise, to agree to an arrange
ment that was terminable. That's what we did in the
case of the oil reservations in the Everglades, which
now have run out.

Fry: After this became a park, was there any change at all

within the administration of it, or did it more or less
run on as it would have?

Drury: It ran on just about the same. We had meager but never
theless some appropriations for the operation of Teton
National Park, which adjoined these lands, and while
we weren' t equipped to patrol and enforce regulations
on all of Jackson Hole until the Barrett rider was
taken off, there was no material damage done. As a
matter of fact we didn' t have much money for any of the
national parks in those days. It wasn't any worse off
than others that were impoverished because of the war
conditions. I didn1 t feel conscious of any great harm
from the Barrett rider. There weren't many visitors at

506

Drury: Jackson Hole and Teton National Park in those days.

We didn't have a twentieth of the visitation of Yellow
stone. That's one thing I used to like about it.
When Yellowstone v/as a madhouse you could take a half
day's trip to the south and you'd be in the relatively
undeveloped area of Jackson Hole and the Tetons. Now
it's just about as popular as Yellowstone and I don't
think it has nearly the charm that it did in the early
days.

Fry: Did Barrett have an agreement with the National Park

Service that he would continue this rider for a year or
two years, a specified length of time, at the end of
which he would try to comply with the compromise that
would be worked out? I got this impression from
something I read in the hearing.

Drury: I got that impression too, but you can bet he never
explicitly agreed to anything of that sort. He was
looking, as Senator O'Mahoney was, for an opportunity
to save face, and that's one of the most difficult
things in public life. You're apt in a controversy
like that to drive a man into a position from which
he cannot with dignity withdraw. That was the reason
some of our responses in these various hearings may have
seemed a little tame because of the fact that we felt
that as public servants it wasn' t part of our function to
make inflammatory speeches or to stir up controversy.
At the same time, we tried to adhere strictly to the
basic principles which had governed the national parks.
It's a tight-rope walking process. [Laughter]

As to Jackson Hole, I think we've pretty well
discussed the motivation, the surrounding circumstances
and some of the dramatic incidents. It came out very
well in the end, although it took a lot of time that
could have been spent on possibly more constructive

507

Drury: things. It was of a piece with half a dozen contro
versies that occurred during iny time in the National
Park Service. Most of them, as I've already stated,
centered around dam-building projects of the Bureau
of Reclamation or the army engineers, dam-building pro-
jects.

Grazing

Fry: We have spoken a little bit on grazing from time to
time, but we've never had a comprehensive discussion
about it. There seems to have been a fairly organized
lobby all the time in Congress.

Drury: Yes, the sheepmen and the cattlemen were both very well
organized, and whenever there was a proposal for a
new national park or monument, particularly in the
public lands states of the West, they'd gang up on
the congressional committees and try to defeat the whole
project or at least whittle it down as much as they
could. I think though, that Jackson Hole and the con
troversy there was more or less typical of our rela
tionship with the grazing interests and the pressures
they brought to bear. Of course during World War II
there were a number of proposals to open up some of the
meadowlands in the national parks to grazing. We were
able to fend those off, however, partly because of the
remoteness of the parks. We found, for instance,
that they wanted to turn cattle into some of the
meadows in the lower reaches of Sequoia National Park,
but the experts found that although the cattle might
take a lot of weight while they fed in the meadows,
they would work it all off being driven back to the point
at which the ca.ttle would be sold. So that we were
able to get the Secretary of the Interior, although he

508

Drury: was very patriotic about helping to win the war, to
refrain from granting any such permits. We did at
one time suggest that in Yosemite certain restricted
lands might be opened to the grazing of purebred
breeding stock, but there again when it came to a
showdown it was found that it was uneconomical for
them to do it. To my recollection, there was no land
in the national park system opened up to grazing during
World War II, although of course we still had some
areas where there was a holdover from the old days.
Now the reason, and you can understand it, why
some of these grazing interests felt aggrieved was
that originally a great deal of this land in the national
park system was public domain, and there had been a
very lax policy or no policy at all for three quarters
of a century with respect to grazing on the national
domain. There it was, and sometimes the lands had been
grazed under permit and sometimes just by suff ranee.
The grazing act, which was passed in the thirties,
establishing a grazing service and systematizing the
granting of permits, was the first orderly attempt to
deal with the grazing problem. One of the reasons we
had so much controversy in Jackson Hole was that part
of the land that was taken into the monument and later
added to the park was U. S. Forest Service land, which
was open to grazing leases. Part of it was in the graz
ing district, so that we had not only the permittees
who derived benefit from grazing on these lands but we
also had these two bureaus that in a sense were rivals,
or at least represented different points of view. To
say the least, they somewhat dragged their feet when
it came to cooperating towards setting up the Jackson
Hole Monument.

Fry: I was thinking that there were a few senators such as
McCarran and Robertson who were just always on hand to
try to put a bill through for the grazing interests.

509

Fry: Was this your impression?

Drury: Yes. Robertson represented Wyoming, of course, and his
special interest was the Jackson Hole area. McCarran
was from Nevada. Incidentally, my father and mother
came from Nevada and knew the McCarrans quite well in
the early days, when Senator McCarran was a little boy,
I always found Senator McCarran very friendly. I tried
to point out to him that we wanted to be reasonable
in our dealings with the interests in his state, but he
replied, "Maybe you do want to, but Secretary Ickes
won't let you be reasonable." [Laughter] Which gave
some key to his definition of "reasonable."

Of course McCarran in his capacity in the Senate
Public Lands Committee would spend the summertime using
up our vacations on hearings in Nevada and Arizona and
New Mexico. I remember one several-day hearing tnat we
had at Kanab, which is right on the border between
Arizona and Utah. Finally there was some dispute as to
whether the hearing was being conducted in a proper
manner, and. Senator McCarran, who as an Irishman was
quite a wit, said, "Well, all I've got to say is that
I want to be perfectly fair in this hearing and still
give the National Park Service a little the worst of it."
[Laughter] Which of course in the cattle country was

received with creat applause.

4t

Fry: I guess it's John Ise who tells us that McCarran tried
to get through a bill to allow grazing in the parks
in 1945, and in 1946 Senator Robertson attempted to
provide for wholesale turnover of all federal grazing
lands to the states, which then of course would be
turned over to the ranchers, and this didn't pass.
When bills like this came up did you have any recourse

*Ise, John, National Park Policy. New York, 1961.

510

Fry: other than counter pressure from your amateur conserva
tion organizations?

Drury: We have recourse in that we were free to testify against
such bills, and we also were able to summon our friends,
Sierra Club and Izaak Walton League and the National
Parks Association and all the rest that we've talked
about. We had some very spirited hearings on those
bills. Those bills were what in the terms of legislators
might be called "cinch bills," bills that are introduced
not so much to attain their ends as to embarrass the
other side and to try to get them to compromise or
temper their efforts. I don't think that either Senator
McCarran or Senator Robertson ever expected to open
the primary national parks to grazing.

Pry: Did you not think so at the time this bill came up?

Drury: No, I didn't think so. I thought they were for the
purpose of embarrassing us and also an attempt to
temper the enthusiasm of the park people who, they
claimed, were trying to take in too much territory. That
of course is one of the $64 questions that is still not
answered, as to what percentage of the face of America
should be set aside according to the National Park
pattern of land management, to preserve its beauty and
its interest, keep it intact as it was originally
created. I don't suppose there'll ever be a complete
answer to that.

Fry: In California, did you have the support of Senator
Engle in the grazing question?

Drury: Mostly we did. I'd say that Senator Engle was quite
park-niinded. There were one or two cases during the
war, as I remember, w.,ere he represented these people
who thought they wanted to graze in the park meadows,
but in general Senator Engle was a very good friend of

511

Drury: the national parks. And Senator William Knowland

the same way. Of course there's the old story, you know,
of Senator LaFollette of Wisconsin who was a free
trader except when it carne to cheese. All of these
senators and congressmen, in general, where their
bailiwick wasn1 t affected, stood on principle quite
well. But when some special interest in their con
stituency was involved they had to temper theory with
what they considered practical politics.

Dams

Bureau of Reclamation

Fry: Going on to dams, I think you have alluded to the
predicament that national Park Service often found
itself in, when it was competing with Bureau of Reclama
tion or Army Engineers for future jurisdiction over land.

Drury: It is a paradox of our time, that the one element in the
country that's done more harm to natural scenery, parti
cularly our national parks, is the water development
agencies, not necessarily by intent but because of the
fact that they're so large and what they deal with is
so vital that other perhaps equally important government
responsibilities are just brushed aside. That was the
constant problem we had: in fact I didn't endear myself
to the administration when I made a statement to a
Sierra Club meeting out here that whereas in the old
days the private interests — lumbering and mining and
grazing and other economic uses of government lands —
v/ere the great enemy of park preservation, currently
the arch enemy was the government itself through some
of its developmental projects, such as highv/ays and water

512

Drury: development. One of the things that I felt the lack
of, and I felt it both in the state and the federal
government, was the presence anywhere of any arbitrating
agency that could evaluate the relative importance of
different government functions, such as the park func
tion as opposed to the highv/ay function and t'.iat sort
of thing. That's particularly true today in California.

Fry: How do you account for the power behind the Bureau of
Reclamation?

Drury: Well, there were two or three reasons for that. One
was the tremendous size and the persuasive effect of
the large appropriations that the Bureau of Reclamation
could spend in a community if it put its projects through,

I think another was the fact tuat the Bureau of
Reclamation, much like the U. S. Forest Service, was
not as well centralized as some of the smaller bureaus
such as the National Park Service. The local inter
ests bore down more heavily on the .bureau of Reclama
tion and influenced tueir planning and their programs
I think, probably much more than was true of National
Park projects. On one or two of the dams, for instance,
the Glacier View Dam, Mike Strauss, who was then
Commissioner of Reclamation, would never admit it, but
I'm as sure as I am of my own name that he didn't
know any more about the plans for the Glacier View
Dam than !_ did until the project came to him full-blown
from his engineers out in the West. And that v/as true
I think of a good many other projects.

Fry: In the case of Glacier View, was that to be a power dam?

Drury: It was for flood control and power, if I remember
rightly.

Fry: I v/as wondering if some of these local interests would
be private power companies. Would they have stood to
gain by this?

513

Drury: Yes indeed, in many cases they would have. It's a

very complex situation and I've oversimplified it of
course, but as I say there were those cases where the
pork barrel aspects, as you've called them in your mem
orandum to me, were definitely to the fore. It was
a task of no mean difficulty to divert them. We were
successful, as you know, in one or two cases, and in
other cases — they're still wrestling with the problem
of the Rainbow Bridge National Monument, as you know,
and its inundation. While everybody seemed to agree
that they should put up protective works to prevent
Rainbow Bridge being flooded, the Congress conveniently,
or inconveniently, refrained from making the necessary
appropriation, but nevertheless they're going through
with the dam.

Fry: I'd like to ask one more question about the local

situation when dams were put forward as an idea in a local
community. I gather that in some instances there wasn't
necessarily any communication especially about these
plans to Washington, and that in some cases the national
parks really didn't know about it until it was almost
a fait accompli,

Drury: That's tru,;, that's true, and as Ise brings out, we
finally got Secretary Chapman to issue an order that
even for exploration purposes the Bureau of Reclamation
was not to send planning parties into the national
parks or monuments. That came pretty late.

Fry: Bernard De Voto wrote a comment that the National Park
Service was ignorant of the withdrawal that had been
made to Bureau of Reclamation concerning the Dinosaur
Dam in 1943. You suddenly found yourselves without that
land —

Drury: That's right. We read about it in a Salt Lake newspaper.
But that's one of those that I believed that Michael
Strauss, who was then the commissioner, himself didn't
know about until the thing was sprung on us. He might

*Ise. John. National Park Policy. New York. 1961.

514

Drury:

Fry:
Drury:

Fry:
Drury!

Fry:

Drury:
Fry:

have known about the withdrawal but he surely didn't

know about the full blown plan.

Wouldn't Ickes have known about it?

Well, in Ickes' time, as I remember, we fended them off.

Of course, there was an equivocal situation there, in

that the area of the extension of the Dinosaur national

Monument was subject to some kind of a stipulation.

I'm not clear in my memory as to what it was; I think

that a certain dam site, the Browns Park Reservoir Site,

was not to be upset by the expansion of the monument.

Then the great and complex situation that arose was

that the Browns Park Reservoir Site was abandoned by

Reclamation, but they then tried to develop new sites,

and that was what we objected to. What Ise says about

that is true, including the fact that Secretary Chapman

later on reversed himself — that was after I left

Washington — and was just as emphatic (he was never

very emphatic on anything) against the dam as he had

previously been in its favor.

What really was it that made him come out in favor of

the dam in the first place?

I don't know, but I would assume that the papers were

prepared for his signature by the Bureau of Reclamation

and some of his friends in the Congress pressed upon

him to sign them and that's about how much thought was

given to it.

You gave a few eloquent statements in the hearing on

April 3, 1950, held in Washington, D.C. under the title,

"Shall Dams Be Built in Dinosaur National Monument?"

It was printed April 7, 1950.

That was the hearing which I'm afraid was mostly

window-dressing.

Could you give us an idea of what the National Park

Service could do, if anything, with public sentiment

515

Fry: in these local situations? For instance, the superin
tendents in your parks might be able to do something,
but as a rule I suppose the local public seems to think
that any dams are a good thing,

Drury: Building the dams is usually profitable for the local
merchants and business enterprises, and in some cases
they're good for agriculture and the water users.
There was no pat formula, and of course each situation
differed from the others. But I would say that in gener
al there was local support on the principle of not in
vading the major national parks with dams. Such a
thing as the building of Hetch Hetchy Dam of course
wouldn't have been thought of after Yosemite National
Park was established.

In one or two cases taere are artificial lakes
that were present before the oark areas were estab
lished. A lot of marginal decisions had to be made;
there were some cases where I personally was disinclined
to include areas in the national park system because
artificial works of that sort were in prospect. You
have to v/eigh the compelling reasons other than that
which might tip the balance in deciding it. I think
it was some administrator who said that anybody can
decide the issues where you have a sixty to forty per
centage in favor of them; it's the fifty-fifty or less
situations that are difficult to deal with, where you
can't decide on any tangible evidence. You've got to
consider the nuances of the situation and try to fore
see what the consequences will be.

Fry: And the most subtle nuances are the deciding factors.

Drury: They are. That's what our good friends in the State
Department are up against today.

Fry: Did this problem of field-to-headquarters communication

516

Fry: subside any when the Bureau of Reclamation and the

Army Engineers agreed that before they actually started
planning and digging in a place they would check with
the particular land agency involved?

Drury: Oh, yes; that helped tremendously, and of course that
agreement was initiated by the National Park Service.
That's a very complex subject, but as you know the
federal power act now contains a prohibition against
water and pov.er development projects in national parks.
Yet it's always possible for the Congress to modify
that, and in some cases they have done so.

In that connection one of the things that we had
considerable internal turmoil about was the question
of the administration of the recreational activities
on a great many of the artificial lakes that have been
created by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army
Engineers. I probably took a narrow view, but I
always felt that to undertake the management of these
areas just because they provided recreation might
lead to the diffusing of the energies of the National
Park Service and somewhat the debasement of their
standards. I believe that has to some degree taken
place. How far that's inevitable nobody knows.

At the height of that kind of controversy my good
friend Hike Strauss, who was then the public relations
man of the Department of Reclamation, and I had quite a
passage at arms in which I tried to get Secretary
Ickes to compel the Bureau of Reclamation to manage
their own recreation on these lakes that we felt were
not of national park standards because of their

artificiality. There ensued the celebrated "black

*
magic-ivory tower" correspondence in which I contended

See Appendix.

517

Drury: that at Shasta Lake and Friant Dam, Millerton Lake in

Fresno County, and several others, the Bureau of Reclama
tion shoulu themselves organize, with such help as the
National Park Service could give them, their own
recreational departments to regulate boating and camping
and fishing and swimming arid all the rest. The theory
in my mind was that these were not of such superlative
character as to justify the National Park Service
expending its funds and energy upon them. Anyhow,
I tried to make the point that there was no "black
magic" in the administration of recreation, that it
was a managerial task that people who were experienced
and trained could perform, and that the primary and more
delicate task of the National Park Service was to
organize to preserve the outstanding natural qualities,
the scenic beauty, the wildlife, the geological signifi
cance and all natural phenomena in areas like Yosemite
and Grand Teton and Yellowstone, leaving the management
of recreation on any type of government area to the agency
that had the primary responsibility for it. In other
words, I always felt t.iat recreation was a by-product
of each of their functions, whether it be a national park
or national forest or reclamation development.

But Mike Strauss issued a memorandum to Secretary
Ickes also, urging that the National Park Service come
down from its "ivory tower" and that we be compelled to
undertake these responsibilities. Mr. Ickes on
February 9, 1945, concurred in Mr. Strauss 's recommenda
tion and turned mine down, so that we took over, for a
while at least, the management of Shasta Lake. Congress
later on transferred it to the Forest Service, which
was all right with us, and Lake Millerton was adminis
tered by the National Park Service, but now has been con
veyed to the state of California as far as jurisdiction
over recreation is concerned. I don1 t believe tnat

518

Drury: Secretary Ickes was one hundred per cent right; generally,
as far as the policy viewpoint was concerned, he was
what some of us considered sound, which was another
way of saying that he agreed with us.

Archaeological Preservation

Fry: You managed to arrange some archaeological surveys on
some of the sites that were to be flooded. Could you
explain how you managed to get that?

Drury: Yes. That was something that we were able to get into
our appropriations. We had the help of some very
eminent men in the field of archaeology and of history,
and then we had in the National Park Service a very
fine section of history, of which Ronald F. Lee was
then the chief. Herbert Kahler is now the section
head. Both of them were working on that, and we had a
number of able archaeologists on our staff as well as
several advisers such as Dr. Joe Brew of Harvard Univer
sity. Of course, Dr. Ralph W. Chaney, whom I've just
left this noon, was a member of our advisory board
and very close to people in that field. He's a paleon
tologist and geologist by profession — primarily a

*
paleobotanist, an authority on fossil plants.

Fry: In something like this that you were instituting, did

the advisory board really play a highly functioning part?
Drury: Yes, they had a very important part, especially in

helping us to get the appropriations. I remember Dr.

Brew appeared at several of the appropriations hearings.

Of course the amounts we got, twenty, fifty thousand

Cf. Chaney, Ralph: Paleobotanist, Conservationist, inter
view conducted by Edna Tartaul Daniel for the Regional
Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, University of
California, Berkeley, I960,

519

Drury: dollars per year, were inconsequential compared to

the hundreds of millions that were spent on reclamation
projects, but we had to fight for those items just about
as hard as you1 d fight for $100 million appropriation.

Fry: They didn't take this out of Reclamation, either, did
they? This was a separate appropriation for your
budget?

Drury: I wouldn't be sure, but that in some of tne projects,
I think maybe in some of the Army Engineers' projects,
they did allocate funds from the appropriations for the
dams to cover this work. But in general, for the
supervision of the work in our own organization we had
to get our national park appropriations. But it was a
fine far-sighted thing to do and as I say it took a
lot of effort to get accomplished.

Fry: Did anybody in Bureau of Reclamation help in putting
this through? Did you have any enthusiastic support?

Drury: Oh, not aggressively, but they were not unwilling.

Of course, the Reclamation and the Army Engineers were
in the same boat so far as the destructive effect of
these public works was concerned. I recollect that we
had archaeological projects in both kinds of dam sites.
A great deal of our archaeological work was done by con
tract with universities in the states where the areas
were located.

Fry: Did you use Smithsonian for this?

Drury: Yes. The Smithsonian was quite active in it. Alexander
Whitmore, who was first assistant and then director of
the Smithsonian, was a very close friend of mine and a
strong supporter of the National Park Service; he knew
a great deal about the national parks from the beginning,
He and one of our University of California alumni,
Matt Sterling, quite an eminent archaeologist, John
Graff, and Frank Setzler — all of t.iese men in tne
Smithsonian were extremely helpful in this program of

520

Drury: salvaging archaeological materials before they were

inundated.
Fry: I wanted to ask you what tangible results you got out

of this. Were you able to contribute to museums all

across the country?
Drury: Quite a bit, yes. The work I think was generally

recognized as being well worth while.

521

SECRETARIES KRUG AND CHAPMAN

The Rise of the Assistant Secretaries

Fry: What about Secretary Krug? Were there many things that
had to die on his desk during his period in office?

Drury: I wouldn't say that, but I would say that there were a
great many matters that took an interminable time to
carry througho Of course that's always true in govern
ment, but it was particularly true then. Secretary
Ickes was a very self-reliant type, and while he
operated soundly so far as line of authority is con
cerned, he wasn't much inclined to delegate to assis
tants. When Julius Krug succeeded Ickes he immediately
set up an echelon of assistants through whom the
services had to bore their way to get anything determined
by the Secretary. The Ickes system, from a bureau
head's standpoint, was far superior to that of the Krug
administration. It got so that every transaction was
processed two or three times and finally in disgust I
said to one of Krug's assistant secretaries, "Well, I
wish that you fellows would let us make the mistakes
instead of making them up here. It would save every
body a lot of time,"

It was the beginning of the kitchen cabinet idea
that had been early in the Roosevelt Administration but
hadn't found its way into the departments so much.
These bright young men and good-looking young women,
who were trained in various institutions of higher
learning with no practical touch of reality but with
lots of ideas, and some very fine ideas, were out to
remake the world. On the Krug administration one of the

522

Drury: difficulties, particularly with assistant secretaries,
was that they weren1 t content to coordinate affairs
but wanted to originate policies and have the veto
power on even minor transactions. In my humble opinion
they rode a lot of hobbies that were not entirely
realistic.

Fry: They were not just staff assistants then; they did have
authority over the services?

Drury: Oh, yes. They had delegated to them from the Secretary
his authority over the bureaus.

Drury's Resignation and Secretary Chapman

g
Fry: Would you say that what John Ise relates about you and

Secretary Chapman and your resignation is essentially
correct?

Drury: I think I'd better read these pages again in Ise's book
before commenting on them. I've read them once; I
think the statement there about my relationships with
Secretary Chapman is substantially accurate, although
as with everything written about government, it is
oversimplified. There were a lot of factors that entered
into the fact that I didn't get along as well with Mr.
Chapman as I did with most people.

I'm not inclined to comment very much on it,
because while in some ways it was a matter of regret
for me to leave Washington, the associations with the
personnel of the Service and the important unfinished
work and all, so far as many aspects of government work
in that environment were concerned it was a deliverance
that I had not sought, I can't find myself with any
feeling of rancor toward Chapman or anybody else.

*Ise, John, National Park Policy, New York, 1961.

523

Drury: Secretary Chapman, who doubtless meant well, was
utterly impotent in the hands of his subordinates.
He was very much in the position of the mahout who
rides the elephant and thinks he's guiding it but
really is being carried along. That wasn't true of men
like Ickes, but it surely was true of Chapman as
Secretary of the Interior. The great Bureau of Reclama
tion was the — Well, it was like the state of Prussia
in the German empire, where everything was weighted
in its favor. That's about the essence of the situa
tion.

Fry: This comes from the Congressional Record, the statement

*
of Congressman LeRoy Johnson on your resignation.

Drury: A very flattering statement. I was grateful to

Congressman LeRoy Johnson for placing it in the Con
gressional Record. I suspect that my classmate Horace
M. Albright had something to do with that. We'd all
three been in the law school at the University of
California together. In reading it, that has to be
borne in mind.

Fry: Congressman Johnson quotes a tribute from Waldo G.
Leland on page 7 of his speech.

Drury: Dr. Leland was for a good many years chairman of our
National Parks Advisory Committee. He was appointed
on the Committee by Secretary Wilbur in 1932 and served
for many years as chairman of the board. Any tribute
from him was an honor indeed.

Fry: I wanted you to comment on the accuracy and so forth
of these accounts that I've mentioned.

Johnson, LeRoy: "Newton B. Drury a Great Conservationist,"
Congressional Record, Friday, July 13, 1951*
See Appendix.

524

Drury: I would hesitate to comment very much on their accuracy
because they are unquestionably unduly flattering to
yours truly; but the details of events are all right,
the appraisals of accomplishment and all are debatable*
Of course, my experience in that kind of situation is
that when you're in any public capacity you are often
praised for things that you didn1 t really accomplish
and you're blamed for atrocities that you didn't really
perpetrate, so it all balances up pretty well.

Fry: The praise and the blame that you get in these is
more or less accurate?

Drury: Yes, I think so.

Fry: Prior to this fcad you given any thought to resigning?

Drury: Oh, of course I always wanted to ge't back to California.
In fact, I didn't want to leave California. But heading
the national parks really was a very rewarding job
and I think a rich experience and I enjoyed it, although
there were some distressing and frustrating aspects of it.

Dry: What about the comments in here that just a few months

before you resigned you considered a "high administrative
job in a great university?" According to the Washington
Evening Star, "Mr. Chapman explained that last June" —
that's the June previous to your resignation — you
"came to him to say [you] had a very good offer of a
job and were thinking of resigning," At that time he
urged you to stay on.

Drury: I guess that's substantially true. It was a state

position, it wasn't in a university, I was also thinking
of the statement Dr. Leland made, which was true, that
before I went East I had to decide among a post at the
University and a job with the Carnegie Institution of
Washington, which would have been much more peaceful
than the one that I elected to take.

525

Fry: Why did you choose National Park Service?

Drury: Oh, well, of course it was in a very important cause
and I had known Stephen Mather and I had known Horace
Albright. I'd been offered the position seven or
eight years before in 1933, and at that time I didn't
feel my work here was at the point where I wanted to
leave it, and furthermore I didn't feel I could afford
it. I found later that I couldn't afford it at a
later time either, but my wife and I thought we'd try
it for a while. I really went there for only two or
three years, and I stayed ten and a half, which is
pretty good for a Republican in Democratic territory.
[ Laughter]

Fry: Are you ready to go on to state parks in the 1940' s?

Drury: I think so.

In the national parks, simply for the record, let
me say that I sometimes have asked myself whether, if I
had it to do over again, I would have taken out those
ten and a half years in banishment from California.
But as I look back on it I think it was a very rich
experience, and the associations with the persons in
the National Park Service were surely tremendously worth
while. In fact, they compensated for some of the other
associations with some elected officials and pressure
groups, and the people who were out for a fast buck.

526

AUBREY DRURY IN THE 1940 's

Fry: While you were running the national parks in Washington,
Aubrey was in California with the Save-the-^Redwoods
League, wasn't he?

Drury: Yes. Aubrey Drury and I had worked together since the

beginning of the Drury Company on the affairs of various
organizations, principal among which was the Save-the-
Redwoods League, Aubrey had always been interested in
California; in fact he was then in the process of writing
his tourist guide which was later published by Harper's:
California. An Intimate Guide [1935]. So when I decided
to take a fling at Washington for a while he naturally
gravitated into the administrative position in the Save-
the-Redwoods League.

It's like a lot of other things; I went there
expecting to stay maybe a year or two and I didn' t get
back into the Redwoods League for twenty years. During
those twenty years Aubrey did some very remarkable things,
particularly in the way of money-raising and getting
widespread publicity for the save-the-redwoods movement
and building up the membership. I had never expected
to go back into anything but just a casual and consulting
relationship to it but suddenly he passed away in '59
and the directors asked me to go back into it. But
that's a later story of course.

Fry: The fact remains that he was very happy to go ahead
and fill your sh«es while you went to Washington.

Drury: Yes. It was just as familiar to him as it was to me.
He had a phenomenal memory and that was a great help
to him in the matter of personal relationships.

Fry: I believe that while your brother was heading the Save-
the-Redwoods League, there was a large itate appropria
tion for acquisition.

527

Drury: Yes, in 1945» There was an appropriation of $15,000,000;
however, two-thirds was for beaches and one-third for
inland parks. Unfortunately, I think, this act carried
language requiring that county master plans of shore
line development must be completed and approved by the
Park Commission before the money could be expended.
I say 'unfortunately1 because the state already had
its plan based on long experience and observation, and
to some degree that proviso slowed things up, and it
also introduced what I consider the erroneous principle
of subjecting state authority to veto by local
authorities. The counties, after all, are only segments
of the state. They are not distinct government en
tities. They are set up to enable the state to administer
county affairs in orderly fashion, and to give the county
supervisors what amounted to a veto power was very much
a deterrent to carrying out a sound, logical program.

Fry: Was this in response to pressure from the counties
against too much "land grabbing?"

Drury: I wasn't here when it went through the Legislature, but
my guess is that they got the best act they could, and
that the county master plan provision was put in during
the process of legislation. That happens to the best
of legislation.

528

OTHER NATIONAL PARK WRITING
John Ise's National Park Policy

Fry: Have you had time to read John Ise's new book?

Drury: I thought his book was a fine contribution to the cause
of national parks. Some of my friends like Herb Evison
have been a bit critical of it, but I couldn't very well
be because [laughter] for some reason he speaks rather
favorably of my administration in the national parks.
Perhaps my only critical thought about the book
was that it was derived from secondary and even tertiary
evidence in some cases. It would be very difficult I
suppose for anyone to gain firsthand knowledge of the
national parks without having been a part of the staff.
That's the great advantage that Herbert Evison will
have when he writes his voluminous history. On the
.other hand, someone from the outside can perhaps get
a better perspective.

Of course, partly because I initiated the arrange
ment, it seemed to me that Freeman Tilden, who wrote
in the late forties, The National Parks. What They
Mean to You and Me (Knopf), was in about as good a
position as anyone to interpret the parks, because he
had been a consultant on our staff and had travelled
widely through the parks. He was well versed in the
geography of America and its history. He is a very
able gentleman — in fact, I think that Freeman Tilden
probably is one of the leading essayists in the United
States.

Ise, John: Our National Park Policy, A Critical
History. Knopf, 1961.

529

Drury: He gets the background and philosophy I think more
profoundly than Ise does. Ise is more the detailed
historian.

Another thing about Tilden is his delightful sense
of humor. If you've read the section he wrote about
Carlsbad Caverns and some of the other caves and his
sense of claustrophobia — he dealt with that very deftly.
In general, all of his commentaries were leavened with
a certain amount of humor.

Fry: I don't believe he is quite as minutely analytical
as Ise is.

Drury: No. He was trying to tell what the message, the philo
sophy if you will, of the national parks was, and I
think he ended up as any of us would with the conclusion
that they were what they were to the person who gained
the experiences in them.

Fry: Do you think that Ise missed the boat in any important
place because of his lack of time in tracing down
primary sources?

Drury: No, I think that he unquestionably was accurate according
to the letter of the annual reports and the Congressional
hearings and the other documents he had access to.

Fry: I mean according to what actually happened as you
knew ito

Drury: There were just one or two things that I wrote him

about in April of 1961 after reading the book. He spoke,
I think, with considerable accuracy about several of the
compromises that had to be made in my time, notably at
the Everglades and at Jackson Hole National Monument.
But some of the nuances of the situations, of course,
he couldn't know because he wasn't in the thick of the
battle. I noticed on page 509, he had something about
the Everglades. Oh, yes, he spoke of the Everglades
National Park and the fact that we condoned oil drilling.
That happened during my administration. The state had
certain lands where, because of an oil flurry nearby,

530

Drury: they weren' t willing to relinquish the oil and gas

rights, so that in order to establish the Everglades
National Park we had to accept the land subject to those
rights, but for only ten years. Those ten years have
now expired, so that the Federal Government now has
a hundred per cent possession of the state lands that
were conveyed to it. The reservation of oil and gas
has lapsed. However, we had to agree also that if, in
the future (and I think this is all right myself, I
was a party to making the agreement) there is extrac
tion by the Federal Government of oil and gas on those
lands, directly or under leases, the royalties will
go to the state of Florida. If the park is violated
from now on, it will be the Federal Government that does
it. The question of who gets the money from the oil
and gas is a relatively unimportant question. Of course,
it's no more susceptible to oil-drilling than any other
national park; it would require probably an act of
Congress, and be done by administrative act, so that
the issue could be fairly debated by the public and the
question decided as to whether the natural values in
the Everglades were too great to allow the extraction of
oil and gas. That I think is an important point that
Ise didn't follow through — that while it was too bad
to have to make that concession, it was a calculated
risk that we thought was necessary to success in
establishing the Everglades National Parko The reserva
tion has now run out, the ten years having expired.
That's on page 509-510.

One thing that I wrote Dr. Ise about that I felt
gave a mistaken impression was in the footnote on pages
484 and 485. Although he didn't attribute i-t to the
period when I was in Washington, he spoke of the criticism
by Secretary Ickes of the practice that had been followed
in acquiring national park lands whereby the government

531

Drury: appraisers would put a value on the property, and the

government, out of an appropriation that required mat«hing,
would pay them one-half of that appraised value, I
never would be a party to that particular process because
I think it's fraught with danger. You mean the appraisal
was double the value of the land — No, I don't say
that at all, but there's always the danger of that.
Most of the purchases were made in Rocky Mountain
National Park. I think the appraisals were sound and
I think the owners and the government acted in good
faith, but there's the very great danger of inflating
the values because of over-eagerness to get the land*
Of course, appraising is not an exact science in any
event. I've had a lot of experience with that and
I've known appraisals to be nine hundred per cent apart
in cases of lands that were perhaps almost worthless
and for which there was no market, as in the desert,
I remember one case in the Anza Desert in the early
days when we were acquiring half a million acres, and
one appraiser put a value of one dollar per acre on the
land and the other one put a value of ten dollars per
acre on the land, and when I protested to the second
appraiser he said, "Well, what difference does it make?
Ten dollars is a nominal value in any event." To which
I replied, "It is if you're buying one acre, but it
isn't if you're buying 250,000 acres." We did get a
lot of the land, as you know, in the Anza desert for
less than one dollar an acre.

Fry: What do you think of Ise's portrayal of the Dinosaur
Dam controversy? This is on page 478.

Drury: Of course, I wish that Dr. Ise might have had access

to the official files, because some of us thought at the

time that we were casting pearls in a certain sense;

in some of our memoranda, the intimate memoranda between

532

Drury: the regional directors and the heads of the different

divisions of the Service, and in particular between the
Director's office and the Secretary's office. Those
memoranda got to the heart of many a controversy and
dealt with what for the lack of a better word I refer
to as the nuances of the situation, the political over
tones and that kind of thing.

Fry: I should mention for the record, that he wrote me that
he regretted very much that he couldn't get out here
and talk to you before he had to set down anything about
your administration*

Drury: That was very kind of him, but I had no objections to
that section. In the main it was I think fair; some
of the remarks perhaps a little over complimentary.

Fry: He has a very high regard for you; he wrote me that he
rates you up with Mather, that probably no one else has
protected the parks with the zeal that you did.

Drury: Well, that's very high praise and gratifying, but I
take that with a grain of salt. All of Mather's
successors, of course, were men who knew him well and
who derived their inspiration from him,

Ise also gives a very fair account of the unfor
tunate incident at the time when I left the National
Park Service and the administration of Secretary of the
Interior Oscar Chapman, But on page 517, there is a
very minor matter. Just as long as we're meticulous
about dates — he indicated that I had retired January
19, 1951. As a matter of fact, I retired April 1, 1951»
I had enough time to write my philippic and do a few
other things, get ready to come back to California, which
I never should have left. On the whole, I think it's
a well written book and it gives a very accurate

533

Drury: account of the genesis of the National Park Service
and its policies.

Pry: Do you think he has any personal biases that show
through?

Drury: Well, I wouldn't be critical of those because his bias

is very much like mine. It's favorable to the preserva
tion of the natural scene unimpaired and the limitation
of human use, to the degree that it's necessary, to
maintain natural values. He has a very interesting
chapter on protection of wilderness, and on the impact
of mass recreation on natural areas, which were some of
the things that I put my time on when I could get away
from Congressional hearings and investigations and that
kind of thing*

Herbert Evison is going to be here, and I think
it would "be very appropriate, if you want to, to try
and get him over for an hour's interview. He's a very

remarkable person: he was one of my colleagues with

*
whom I worked very closely, our information officer.

In fact, during my time back there, I was invited by
the University of Michigan to make a series of talks,
similar to those that Horace Albright is giving here,
and also a number of seminars, and I asked Herb Evison
to go with me. It made a very interesting tv/o weeks.
We met not only with the University of Michigan, but
also with Michigan State — they're close to each other.

Herbert Evison & Newton Drury; National Park Service
& Civilian Conservation Corps, interview conducted by
Amelia R. Fry for the Regional Oral History Office,
Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley,
1963*

534

Herbert Evison's Manuscript in Preparation

Fry: How do you think Mr. Evison's book will fit in with
histories already available?

Drury: I think Herb Evison's book will give a much more com
prehensive view of the mechanics of operation, because
Evison had a broad experience with almost every phase
of park work. For one thing, he was a former newspaper
man and he had the instinct for gathering detail and
correlating it. And he was imbued with the same

9

philosophy as Stephen Mather. Besides Mather's vision,
which was tremendous, his great trait that meant so
much to the success of the national park system was his
persistence and his ability te follow through. He was
like my classmate, Horace M. Albright; he liked people
and consequently he got a lot more done by more people
than the average person would.
Fry: He and Albright must have made quite a pair.

Albright-Drury Interview

Drury: I read rather carefully those two interviews we had in

**
company with Albright and I appended a note that it

seemed to me it was rather full of persiflage, but it
might give someone sometime a little conception of what
you might call the nuances of park administration, the
surrounding circumstances that sometimes modify the ideal.

**

See Herbert Evison's correspondence, appendix.

Horace M. Albright & Newton Drury; Conservation 1900 to
I960, interview conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the
Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, Univer
sity of California, Berkeley, 1962.

535

Ery: I think so, and the fact that you two, as ex-directors
of National Park Service are comparing notes might help
to make things fall into place for a scholar who's
been dealing with rather sterile material.

Drury: Well, I'm afraid that that transcript at least will
bear out the fact that government administrators are
sometimes human. I must say that I disagree with some
of the rather materialistic doctrine that Horace was
expounding, but neither did he go al«ng with some of
my so-called idealism. But the country owes a great
deal more to Horace Albright than most people realize.
Mather was the inspirer, you might say; Albright was
the organization man right from the beginning who
worked with Mather, and it was he who really erected
the framework of the organization, without which inspira
tion would have vanished into thin air. Horace was
primarily, you might say, the businessman of the team
and a very wonderful detail man, and Stephen Mather
was the inspirer, the prophet. Yet Horace also had
an important part in formulating national park philosophy,

PART IV

ADDENDUM

June 3, 1963

THE I960 «S: THE YEARS OP (UN) RETIREMENT

536

THE I9601 s: THE YEARS OF (UN) RETIREMENT
(Recorded June 6, 1963)

First World Conference on National Parks

Fry: Mr. Drury, would you like to tell us something about
the First World Congress on National Parks that took
place in Seattle last year? [1962]

Drury: In the few minutes that I have I'm afraid I can't do

justice to it because it covered many nations and many
topics. I might say that it was quite an interesting
and inspiring meeting. It was held primarily under the
auspices of the International Union for the Conserva
tion of Nature, whose headquarters I had the opportunity
to visit shortly after the Seattle session near Lausanne
in Switzerland.

Fry: This was co-sponsored by UNESCO and FAO?

Drury: Yes, under their general sponsorship, and the National
Park Service, and the spadework was done rather largely
by the Conservation Associates, Inc., of which George
Collins is the president and Mrs. Doris N. Leonard is
the secretary. Mr. Collins was secretary-general of the
conference and organized it admirably. Mrs. Leonard as
his assistant did a great deal of the detail work which
was most extensive.

I had the honor of presiding at one session, the
session on Tuesday, July 3rd, 1962. The general topie
was that of national parks and equivalent reserves,
particularly with respect to their scientific, economic
and cultural values.

Fry: Good, I wanted to ask you about that. Please go ahead
and explain.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization,

537

Drury: Well my outstanding experience there, aside from the

interest of the diversified panelists, was that for the
first time in my public speaking career I found it
necessary to wear my glasses when reading my notes.
[Chuckles] The auditorium was dark and there were so
many foreign names that required very close scrutiny
before they were pronounced that I finally succumbed
and put my glasses on.

Fry: I'd like to insert here that in addition to the section
you were leading, Section Two, there were four other
sections. One was"Purposes, Principles and Policies
of National Parks;" another was "Optimum Use of National
Parks;" another one was "Administration of National
Parks;" and the final one was "International Coordina
tion of Parks." So we can see which slice of the pie

you had, then, in discussing the scientific, economic,

*

and cultural values. The article in American Forests
brought out that the main concern became economic values.
Did you think this was true?

Drury: That unquestionably was true, and the interesting part
of it was that the representatives from these many
countries, all of whom were just as idealistic as we
tried to be, also shared our frustration because of
the constant inroads of commercial pressures on natural
areas. The note that ran through the conference was one
of hopefulness that something could be done to hold some
of the face of nature free from the impact of modern
economic activity, and if there was one theme more than
any other that was dominant, it was the question of
the management of wildlife. It seemed to me that on

Richard H. Pough, "The First World Congress on National
Parks," American Forests* August 1962, pp. 36-40.

538

Drury: that phase, particularly with respect to the representa
tives from Africa, there was quite a pronounced difference
of point of view. The concept of wild animals as food
supply, which is related to the population explosion and
the fact that a large percentage of the people of the
world are undernourished, led to some rather interesting
and heated debate as to the extent to which wild animals
could or should be protected.

It's the same problem that has always come up, but
it hasn1 t been an issue in this country as yet because
of our abundant resources. I can remember many years
ago the Inter-American Conference on National Parks and
Reservations at which I spoke in Denver, Colorado, in the
late forties. One of the representatives from Peru, I
think it was, asked what you would do if you had to
choose between preserving an area's superlative scenery
and natural resources intact and seeing people in the
surrounding country starving to death for lack of con
sumption of those resources. All I could say was that I
approached the answer to that question with great
humility because I was fortunate to be in a country
where we still weren't faced with that problem and had
a great deal of wild land which for many generations at
least we hoped we could preserve, and we hoped we would
never have to face that alternative.

Fry: Did they mention any trend toward developing domesticated
animal production in these countries?

Drury: This was just a sort of a side issue that emerged

every now and then. No, there was not much talk about
the culture of domestic animals, and that wasn't the
primary theme, of course.

One of the pleasures of this conference was that a
great many of my old colleagues in the National Park
Service were there — for instance, Horace Albright,

539

Drury: Lawrence C. Merriam, and Dr. George Ruhle, who was par
ticularly effective, I thought. He was for many years
a naturalist in the national parks, and now represents
the Service in international affairs. And Victor
Cahalane, who was our head man on wildlife, and of
course Director Conrad Wirth of the National Park
Service. The Sierra Club bulletin had a good summary of
the session at which I presided.

Pry: I was wondering if you had anything to tell us about
what went on in the halls and hotel rooms outside the
regular conference sessions in Seattle?

Drury: Well, I think, as is always true in the case of conven
tions, those sessions were more valuable than the formal
sessions.

One thing that struck me about everybody at that
conference was the faithfulness with which they attended
the general sessions. Apparently all of those represen
tatives, and they were highly trained and highly literate
individuals, many of them scientists, were there for the
purpose of trying to get some basic concepts. I thought
that the representatives of the National Park Service
did themselves proud in more or less leading the discussion;
particularly I think Dr. Ruhle, who is now on the staff
of the National Park Service in charge of international
affairs, made several very telling statements. Mr. Wirth
made a fine opening statement. Probably, the dominating
figure was Dr. Jean Baer, a very eminent scientist in
Switzerland; he's so eminent and his subject is so
abstruse that even the secretary of the International
Union couldn't define exactly what it was he was an
expert upon. He has to do with entymology, and is among
the very select few in scientific circles in the world
who is very well known. He is a splendid man and most
cordial. One of the things we arranged was to set up

540

Drury: an exhibit on the California redwoods in the head
quarters of the International Union, and also to send
a representative from the League to their next con
ference. It's to be in Africa somewhere.

Fry: Was there any seriaus discussion of foreign aid for
parks in the less affluent nations?

Drury: Yes, there was quite a little discussion and Carl
Gustafson, who's on the staff of the Rockefeller
group, and Horace Albright had several discussions
regarding projects in Africa and elsewhere, in which
the Rockefellers were interested. I think that's one
reason many of these representatives were there and
were so faithful in their attendance; they represented
their governments, and I believe they were thinking in
terras of the possibility of aid to some of their
conservation projects — some of which aid has mater
ialized.

Fry: I guess a lot of this happened outside the conference
rooms, too.

Drury: Yes.

i

Trip Abroad

Drury: One of the interesting offshoots of this international

session was that following it the directors of the Save-
the-Redwoods League, who had been given a special fund
for the purpose, asked me to go abroad for a few weeks
and compare notes with some of the leading conserva
tionists in countries like England, Switzerland, Germany,
France, and, just in passing, Spain. That was an ex
tremely interesting experience for me, and for a fellow
who isn't particularly seeking any more education I
got a great deal. [Laughter] Having met so many of these
people at the Seattle conference I found it quite an
effective entre'e.

541

Drury: The main impression I gained in these various
countries from conferring with these conservation
leaders, like the head of the National Trust and Nature
Conservancy of England, and of course Dr, Jean G, Baer,
who is the president of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature in Switzerland, was that from
the standpoint of preservation of the natural scene
those countries were in a way ahead of us, because,
paradoxically enough, in economic development they
are somewhat behind. In the north of England I visited
a very interesting station of the Nature Conservancy, in
Westmorland County, a place called Grange-over-Sands —
that's a good British name, isn't it? It was on the
coast, very picturesque country, utterly unspoiled —
no ugly intrusions into the landscape. Most of the
structures and the little villages were built of native
stone, and at this station, which is primarily a scienti
fic research station but is supported by the government,
they were conducting experiments in the regeneration of
the ancient oak and other forests that at one time flour
ished in that country. Grange-over-Sands is called a
wilderness area, but there's no such thing as virgin
territory, of course, in any of those European countries.
They've been beaten over for centuries. But some of
them have reverted to natural type, and that was true
of this area in Westmorland.

While I was there I got quite a little insight into
their point of view. The head of the planning organiza
tion of that agency, Nature Conservancy, took a very
definite position as to the effectiveness of their zoning
regulations. All of that country, the Lake District, is
called the Lake District National Park, but it's quite

542

Drury: different from our national parks in that the government
owns only a very small segment of it. It owns this
station at Grange-over-Sands but most of the land is
privately owned, subject to very strict zoning, which
accomplishes almost the same purpose as our restrictive
laws. Apparently they have much more persuasive effect
and also legal effect on people, as to what they can and
can't do in modifying the native landscape. I have a
great body of material that I hope to summarize some
time dealing particularly with that part of England
just south of the Scottish border. I took about four
hundred Kodachrome pictures on this trip, of which
about three hundred were pretty good. I took quite a
few of the Lake Country. These are views of Lake
Windemere ~ all that country has been developed exten
sively and is not in the same category at all with our
wild national parks like Yosemite and Yellowstone and
so forth.

Fry: If there is no virgin territory left, what forms the natural
character of the preserves?

Drury: Of course the natural regrowth was in many ways scenically
satisfying, and it affords scientific research too.

One of the high spots was a visit to Freudenstadt
and that section of the Black Forest of Germany; I
spent considerable time with Herr Kurtz, the Oberforstrat.
who spoke just about as much English as I spoke German.
[Laughter] I had studied German extensively fifty years
before, and about the time I left Germany it began to
come back. But we got along pretty well. Of course,
their forests are all utilized on a sustained-yield basis;
there isn't any virgin forest to speak of. He took me
to two areas that were supposed to be virgin territory.
One of them was the Grosse Tanne near Freudenstadt,
which was Abies pectinata — a giant fir. Some of their
trees were eight and ten feet in diameter. However,

543

Drury: they had been marked to be harvested as overripe.

Those trees were to some extent comparable to our redwoods*

The other area in Germany that interested me a
great deal was what they called a national park, the
Wildsee area. One of the grotesque aspects of this
trip into the wilderness was the fact that as we rounded
a corner here were the remains of some former picnic —
tin cans and so on. [Laughter] So I said jokingly to
this Oberforstrat. "Ach, ein National Park." The first
familar sight.

Then when we got all through and were saying our
good-byes, the only thing I could think of in German
to say about the whole business was to wave my hand
and I said, "Alles sehr regelmassig." All very tidy
and orderly.

Pry: Do they manage to keep theirs more orderly than we do?

Drury: Oh yes; European countries are much tidier than we are.
They work harder at it. The Germans use every twig —
even the small branches of the trees you could see bundled
up and stacked along the road. A tremendous orderliness.

Fry: That would chill the marrow of our conservationists,
who want dead and down timber to remain undisturbed
for compost. Did you see any Sequoias?

Drury: Yes. One of the things that I found quite interesting,
and which became quite a habit with me, was the observa
tion of Sequoias of both California species which have
been planted in foreign countries, particularly in
Switzerland the Sequoia gigantea; practically everywhere
you went you saw some specimens, many of which must have
been planted almost a century ago, shortly after the
species was discovered. For instance, I have a picture
of one at Geneva, south end of the lake, which must be
pretty close to ten feet in diameter.

544

Drury: Apparently the Sequoia gigantea thrives everywhere
in Europe; I found them in England, Italy — I have a
picture of a Sequoia gigantea on the grounds at Fontaine-
bleau, and on the Janiculum Hill overlooking Rome.
I took a picture of the Sequoia sempervirens. The
curator of the botanical garden at Geneva, Mr. Weibel,
took me out — in the rain, of course — and you can
see [ in the picture] that this Sequoia sempervirens is
anything but the thrifty growth that we have in our giant
coast redwoods in California. It's true also in England;
in the Kew Gardens the Sequoia gigantea is growing in
typical pyramidal form. You could spot them in the
landscape anywhere you went. The Sequoia sempervirens
over there is generally a very spindly tree. Of course,
Kew Gardens is one of the great showplaces of the world
and, in addition to the Sequoias, the trees there are
very interesting.

In France I went out to the Paris Botanical Garden
— the Jardin des Flantes. I had met at the Seattle
conference a M. Monau, who was a member of the staff of
the natural history museum to which the garden is attached,
and after some difficulty I found out where they were
and went by taxicab to this dimly-lighted and not-very-
well heated building. After poking around for a while
I finally found a jani tress, who of course couldn't
speak English, but I managed to make clear that I wanted
to see M. Monau. She beckoned me upstairs, so I went
upstairs and whenever I met anybody all I could think
of to say was, "Ou est M. Monau?" Finally I knocked on
a door and a gentleman in a white smock came out; he
turned out to be an ichthyologist and he knew many people
in America.

I tried this on him: "Ou est M. Monau?" And he
blinked and I repeated it, and then he said, "Sir, by

545

Drury: any chance do you speak English?" [Laughter]

He was not a botanist, and M. Monau was in Africa,
so I didn't get to see him, but I saw quite a few of
his colleagues and they showed me around the botanical
garden, which is extremely interesting and which, like
the others in Geneva and Germany and everywhere else,
had specimens of the Sequoia gigantea and the Sequoia
sempervirens. As I say, it became a kind of habit
with me looking on the landscape at the silhouette of
the trees; I could detect the characteristic form of
both the big trees of the Sierra and the coast redwood.

As we went along in the botanical garden we suddenly
came across a group of old gentlemen playing piquet,
or whatever they do — senior citizens of France — in
front of the great cross section of the Sequoia gigantea.
Upon it was a tablet saying that this had been presented
to the Republic of France by the American Legion of the
United States in 1928. I have yet to run down the
history of it, but it showed, as we do in our exhibits,
the historical events that occurred in the life of this
tree, which was nearer fifteen feet in diameter than ten.
It was interesting that right alongside this was a
laboratory with a sign which proclaimed that the theory
of atomic fission was first developed in this laboratory;
this is the Scientific Museum in Paris.

Probably scenically the most satisfying place was
Switzerland. We stayed at a delightful inn up in the
mountains, almost on the Italian border, a station
called H. Fuorn — from the fact that they once had lime
furnaces there. And along the route leading to Zernez,
which is the nearest town, you can see what magnificent
scenery they have.

546

Drury: We had another view of the Alps when we were in
Germany; we went down to Garmisch-Partenkirchen, and
just over the border into Austria. That's marvelously
spectacular country. It's like St. Moritz in that
it's a great ski center.

Zernez is on the same line as St. Moritz but very
few people go there. At a place called Chur you change
trains — and we made most of our tours by train, al
though we hired a car in England — but from Chur you
can go to the left to the fashionable resort area of
St. Moritz or you can take a bus to the right to the
Italian border and go to Zernez. I was glad that we'd had
an introduction to these people, because we met several
of the scientists who were particularly studying the ecology
of the red deer, which is to some extent comparable to
our Roosevelt elk, which we have in the Prairie Creek
redwoods. This was at the Swiss National Park, centering
around II Fuorn, about thirty miles from Zernez.

Fry: I hope we can have some of these pictures to illustrate
the manuscript. How do Europeans treat the protection-
versus-publio use dilemma?

Drury: There were certain conclusions that could be drawn —

particularly about their attitude toward the protection
of nature. For instance, in the Swiss National Park,
which is the only area designated by that title, the
visitor is a secondary consideration. It's quite differ
ent from our philosophy in America where we think in
terms of millions of visitors. The landscape and the
wildlife are given first consideration; the public are
regimented considerably, and they tell me that in the
summertime, when there are many visitors, if they even
step off the trail they're subject to mild penalties that
will teach them that they have to observe the regula
tions. One of these is that they can't wander at will
through the wilds, as we do in the United States. I
told them that we'd never get away with regimentation

547

Drury: like that in the United States, and I didn't know that
we wanted to.

Fry! From the point of view of someone who's supposed to

be a purist, did you find that Europe has been able to
preserve its wildlands as well as you would want them
to?

Drury: Well, the fact that in many regions there is less

economic progress than there is in America tends to
preserve the landscape better than we do, and the fact
that there is more regimentation in most of those
countries makes it possible to protect landscape from
the impact of human use. But they don' t have the
superabundant and rich natural resources that we have
to preserve, and I think that all the evidence is that
as they are becoming affluent economically and so-
called progress is descending upon them, they are doing
the same things that we've done -- in the way of highway
construction, for instance. All through England they're
beginning to put in freeways which are just as destruc
tive of the landscape as ours, although in general
the British road system is most charming and delightful.
They pay more attention to roadside beautification
then we have been doing.

Recent Activity of the Save-the-Redwoods League

Fry: Would you like to move on to the accomplishments of the
Save-the-Redwoods League?

Drury: Yes, I think so.

In the Bull Creek watershed we have acquired about
two- thirds of the land that we were aiming to purchase
in order to carry on erosion control studies. This
has been done in the last year; in one year the

548

Drury: Save-the-Redwoods League has raised $900,000 and has

spent over a million dollars in buying up these water
shed lands. (I'll send one of the bulletins for the

4t

record.) It represents a very gratifying accomplish
ment and puts us in a position where we're almost
ready to move on to our next big project. We have
in sight, with state appropriations which we believe
will materialize in this legislature, and with the
money the League has raised and the matching funds
that Rockefeller interests have pledged, about enough
funds to acquire the total of Bull Cree watershed.
We are agreeably surprised that we're able to do it in
such a short time. It will involve all told about
18,000 acres of land, some of which contains stands
of virgin timber and some of which unfortunately has
been cut over. But our most recent observations up
there assure us that nature, to a considerable extent,
is repairing the damage that was done by cutting and
fire and subsequent floods, and we're now on a definite
program financed with state funds for erosion control,
which appears to be very effective,,

One of our great problems is to keep the fire
out of the area that we've acquired. Practically all
of this watershed, except some lands owned by the
Pacific Lumber Company on the Ridge, has been acquired.
Right now we're moving into negotiations with this
company for those lands around the ridge of the Bull
Creek basin, and, more importantly, we're moving on
to our next big objective, which is the preservation
of the so-called Avenue of the Giants, insofar as it's
privately owned, north of the present Humboldt Redwoods
State Park. There are about six miles of remarkable

£.

Save-the-Redwoods League, San Francisco, Fall Bulletin,
September, 1962.

549

Drury: stands of redwood — not a very wide area but a very

important one — north of Englewood, between Englewood
and the town of Stafford, that we're hoping to acquire.
Within that is the famous Pepperwood Flat, part of
which has been talked of as a memorial to Dag Hamarskjold.

But more important than that, perhaps, from the
standpoint of raising funds for preservation is the
fact that just two weeks ago the president of the
National Geographic Society, Dr. Melville Grosvenor,
and the director of National Parks, Conrad Wirth, and
a group from their staffs, made a trip with us through
the primary projects of the Save-the-Redwoods League.
They spent three days on it; they even made a 25-mile
boat trip up the Klamath River, which was the first area
recommended back in the twenties as a possible redwood
national park. A great deal of it has been cut over
since then. The National Geographic Society has made
a gift of $64,000 to finance a study of the problems
of the redwood belt, including ecological and wildlife
studies and a certain amount of land planning to supple
ment what we've done over all these years, to define a
reasonable and logical objective as to the further
preservation of the redwoods. It was of great interest
and value to be able to outline both to the National
Park Service and to the National Geographic Society
the program that had developed out of the League's
observations and experience. It will be interesting to
see what they come up with in the way of conclusions
and recommendations.

I gave Grosvenor and Wirth photos tatic copies of
a local newspaper up there which was issued in 1926, in
which there was a picture of Stephen Mather, Hubert
Work, who was the Secretary of the Interior, and a
youngish-looking fellow whom you would never recognize
was myself. The eight-column head in the paper said
"Secretary Work Favors Redwood National Park."

550

Drury: Since 1926 a good deal has been accomplished, of
course, b the state and the Save-the-Redwoods League
so that, in my opinion, and I told them so, the core
of any redwood national park would have to consist of
these state holdings. Because of local opposition to
taking lands off the tax roll, and because of other
factors, it's going to be very difficult in the im
mediate future to accomplish anything in the way of a
redwood national park, although we've always recognized
since the beginning of the League (it was one of our
first objectives) that the redwoods are of such stature
that they merit national recognition. I think it'll
end up with some kind of federal recognition, such as
the establishment of perhaps a parkway of special area.

Fry: In raising all this money, have you tried something
new recently to get so much so fast?

Drury: Of course, the Save-the-Redwoods League has been one
of these slow-but-sure enterprises; over the last 43
years the League has raised in private contributions
between $8£ and 9 million, and the state has approxi
mately matched that amount. We've already put in the
record the fact that this total of $18 or 19 million
worth of property if purchased at present prices would
cost $250 million at least. We still have a program
ahead of us that, if it were carried out in the ideal
form, would involve $40 or 50 million — but we'll
settle for less.

Fry: But this enormous amount that came through in the past
year is the result of tried and true donors rising to
the occasion?

Drury: In the past year the American Conservation Association
and the Jackson Hole Preserve, both of which are Rocke
feller corporations, agreed to match whatever we could
raise toward the Bull Creek Watershed project. They

551

Drury: have now given us over half a million dollars in a
little more than the past year, and we have raised
an equivalent amount to match that. Now we're looking
forward to a program on the Avenue of the Giants that
will involve several million dollars, and we hope it
can be carried out over a period of perhaps ten years
with installments, with the state and the Save-the-
Redwoods League matching funds, and conceivably, if
certain legislation before Congress goes through, a
third element coming in in the form of grants in aid
from the federal government.

Fry: Well, thank you for coming over for this "addendum"
when you are so busy.

Drury: Thank you very much.

PART V

--

ADDENDUM

March 1?, 1970

FREEWAY THREAT TO PRAIRIE CREEK STATE PARK
BULL CREEK (HUMBOLDT REDWOODS STATE PARK)
RECENT FUND RAISING AND ACQUISITIONS

552

FREEWAY THREAT TO PRAIRIE CREEK PARK

Schrepfer: I wanted to ask particularly about the Prairie
Creek freeway controversy.

Drury: As far as we know, we're in very good shape on that.
Of course, time has been in our favor. The mode
today is to at least talk about preserving the
environment (Laughter) and we're very fortunate in
the new district engineer up there in Humboldt County,
Mr. Hal Larson, who is I think as great a conserva
tionist as any of us. He's a leader in the Boy Scouts
and spends a lot of time in the Sierra, and right
from the start he showed his sympathy for the point
of view of the Save-the-Redwoods League. They have
assured us, after a trip we took up there with a
member of the highway commission and the chief
engineer, Sam Helwer, who used to be up there in
Eureka. There's a quite different atmosphere than
there was ten years ago, as far as their attitude is
concerned.

Then of course, as you know, there has been
legislation passed which eliminates the requirement
that they take the shortest and cheapest route. We
deceive ourselves, but I think that it's assured
that the freeway at Prairie Creek will neither widen

553

Drury: the present road, which they wouldn't dare to do,
or go down along the coast, Gold Bluffs Beach, but
will have a route as yet not completely defined
along the east boundary of the park.

Sohrepfer: Were there any groups who were opposed to your
position of going around the grove?

Drury: Yes, some of the operating lumber companies because
of the somewhat steeper grade and the slightly longer
route, and therefore the extra costs entailed in
hauling. They were very definitely against it.*

Schrepfer: Was it the lumber companies or the trucking
companies?

Drury: The lumber companies, most of them, operate their
own trucks. That crowd are always in favor of the
cheapest and the shortest route of course.

Schrepfer: How about the people who live up in that area?

Drury: Well, a prophet you know Is not without honor save

in his own country. There's a nucleus of very what
we consider intelligent people up there, the
descendants of those who really started the save
the redwoods movement. You've met some of them.
Mrs. Mahan's family and others. The commercial groups

* Putnam Livermore to editor, San Rafael
Independent- Journal , April 25, 196*1-.

Drury: until recently and the local press have been very
hostile to the Idea of paying any attention to
aesthetics or planning. But there's been a change
there too. The main newspaper In Eureka Is now owned
by Lord Thompson In London, one of a series through
the United States, and they take a broader view.

Schrepfer: This actually changes local editorial policy?

Drury: Oh yes. Their position is not so hostile to anything
that borders on the aesthetic or conservationist.

Schrepfer: Do you suppose that they'll lose subscription rates?

Drury: I don't think so, because they're the only paper
there. [Laughter]

Pry: This is the bright side of those newspaper monopolies
we're always complaining about.

Drury: We have some very influential friends up there. I
don't know whether you've met Charlie Daly who
runs Daly Brothers, the department stores. He's
always been very supportive.

Schrepfer: I talked to him as a matter of fact, and he said
that he wrote a letter in the local paper?*

Drury: I noticed that in your questions. I didn't remember
that.

* Correspondence of Charles P. Daly to Save the
Redwoods League, 1938. Subject: Avenue of the
Giants, Acquisition.

555

Sohrepfer: He said he Incurred a great deal of hostility.

Drury: Yes. Yes. He did. And we have avoided embarrassing
him, because he is in business up there. But if I
knew that, it slipped my memory. A lot of things
have happened.

Anyhow, as far as Prairie Creek is concerned,
we think it's a closed issue. Now Just recently — in
fact, during my absence from the office — Mr. Dewitt
was up there for a hearing on the Jed Smith freeway.
More or less, that was promoted by Mr. Hal Larson of
the local highway engineering office. Of course by
law they're supposed to hold a series of hearings
with the supervisors and with the citizens. At that
hearing there was a good deal of talk pro and con.
The supervisors split three to two originally favoring
the route which had been approved by the California
State Highway Commission several years ago.

Pry: That was the route that went through the park?

Drury: Yes, what's known as the Blue Line. We have some
exhibits that we can give you in the way of news
releases, summaries, and Dewitt *s statement up there.
There was a good showing by the conservationists and
by the local people, in particular the students of
Humboldt State. In fact, they were as Intemperate

556

Druryj In their conservation position as the chamber of

commerce was [Laughter] in their commercial position.
The upshot of it was they didn't take a vote at that
meeting, that was Just to have a hearing. It was
reported that a majority of the supervisors had — three
to two — approved following the Blue Route, which we've
always considered would be ruinous to the park. But
later on, they reversed themselves, and they now have
unanimously approved what's called the Green Line,
which goes through Just a small portion of the park.
The Save-the -Redwoods League — our directors and all
of us here — feel that we would be very fortunate if
they would follow that route, and that's the route
the highway engineers want to follow.

We didn't pass a formal resolution because we
didn't feel that we needed to condone the invasion
of a state park, a potential national park, with a
freeway. But on both Prairie Creek and Jed Smith,
we think that we will fare very much better than we
did down in Humboldt Redwoods.

Schrepfer: About the Prairie Creek area, I read in the San

Francisco Chronicle during the controversy Itself
that Ford Foundation asked President Johnson to
prevent the freeway from going through Prairie Creek
Redwoods State Park.

557

Drury: Well, I'll tell you exactly what happened. As you
know, the Save-the-Redwoods League had a grant of a
million and a half from the Ford Foundation. They
gave us §500,000 out of hand, which enabled us to
complete the purchase of the Fern Canyon and the Gold
Bluffs Beach, and they pledged us a million dollars
on the condition that we match it twofold within
three years. We were able to do it in about a year
and a half, so that we earned that million and a
half from them. The chairman of their board of
directors at that time was Mr. John J. McCloy, who
was a great friend and co-worker of Mr. Herman Phleger,
my classmate who's on our council of the Save-the-
Redwoods League, a successful attorney here in San
Francisco. It was through Mr. Phleger that we got
Mr. McCloy 's attention and through his encouragement
that we got the grant.

One day while the thing was in process, Mr.
MoCloy called me across the continent and said,
"Say, I've Just been reading a magazine article about
the freeway that they're trying to force through the
Prairie Creek State Park. Does that have anything
to do with the grant that we're going to make to
the Save-the-Redwoods League?" [Laughter] I said,
"It surely does." "Well," he said, "Will you give me

558

Drury: a brief on it?" Needless to say, I did. In fact I
got up the text of the memorandum. Mr. McCloy I
notice Is still quite prominent as an advisor to the
Nixon administration; he was one of the Disarmament
Board and involved in a number of matters. He
incidentally was at one time high commissioner in
Germany after the war. He said, "I'm going up to
Washington first of next week. If you can get that
to me, I'll have a chance to talk to the president.11
Which he evidently did, because two or three days
later we got a very frantic call from Bill Duddleston
in the Department of the Interior, saying that Secretary
Udall is very anxious to get all the details about
the Prairie Creek freeway. It was about that time
that President Johnson appointed his Committee on
Recreation and Natural Beauty.*

•Committee on Recreation and Natural Beauty created
May 4, 1966 by executive order and composed of six
cabinet members plus the heads of the Federal Power
Commission, the TVA and the General Services
Administration and a Citizens Advisory Committee
headed by Laurance S. Rockefeller.

Drury: So, we got that material to Udall. We don't
know all of the things that happened; there was
quite a reversal of position, largely because the
federal government customarily put over fifty per cent
of the money into the building of that kind of freeway.
It isn't part of the federal highway system, the
primary system, but it's a federal aid road. And
the leverage from the Bureau of Public Roads, which
also was rather sympathetic with our position, and
needless to say, from the president's office and the
Secretary of the Interior resulted in a quite different
climate as far as the Prairie Creek freeway was
concerned.

Schrepfer: Is this a reason why Governor Brown changed his
position?

Drury: Governor Brown, as you know, is a very amiable

gentleman. He changed his position a number of times.
I'll content myself with saying that. Governor Brown
unquestionably is very sympathetic with our whole
point of view. We owe a good deal to Mrs. Margaret
Wentworth Owings, who was then on the State Park
Commission, for her persistence in interviewing
Governor Brown. Every time she got a meeting with
him, he was on our side. And then the director of
Public Works would get on him, and we weren't quite

560

Drury: so sure. But there's no question that Governor
Brown Is sympathetic with our hope that we could
keep the redwood parks Inviolate.

Pry: Wasn't there some kind of legislation passed last
year to define part of the highway commission's
power, its previously unlimited powers?

Drury: Yes. They passed legislation that removed from the
highway act the requirement that they take the
shortest and cheapest route. That's the main thing.
There was other legislation proposed which didn't
materialize. (In my papers is an article "by
Robert W. Jasper son outlining the powers of the
highway commission. )

Schrepfer: So they still are as powerful as they were, or have
been in the past?

Drury: It's still up to the highway commission. Have you
seen Nicholas Roosevelt's book on conservation?
Dodd-Mead just published it.* There's a very nice
chapter on the redwoods. In that book, he states
that the highway commission has the unrestricted
right of condemnation of i^ights of way through state

*Nlcholas Roosevelt, Conservation: Now or Never.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1970.

561

Drury: parks. Neither he nor I are lawyers, and I'm not
convinced that that is exactly the situation, but
there's no question that it would be very difficult
to stop the highway commission if they were minded
to follow a given route. Of course we had the
terrible example down in Humboldt Redwoods State Park,
Dyerville.

562

BULL CREEK (HUMBOLDT REDWOODS STATE PARK)
FLOOD DAMAGE AND CONTROL

Schrepfer: Do you believe that if it had not been for the

freeway and particularly the flood damage done in
195^-55 and 1965 to Bull Creek the American Forestry
Association report recommending Bull Creek as the
site for the Redwood National Park might have been
more widely accepted?*

Drury: Unquestionably, if that very destructive mutilation
of the park at a crucial point, the confluence of
the main and the south fork of the Eel River at
Dyerville, had not occurred, the Humboldt Redwoods
State Park, which is the largest and many of us feel
the most beautiful of the state parks, might very
well have been considered as the potential redwood
national park. That and the terrific damage and peril
of the Bull Creek watershed — because before we could
get it acquired the upper watershed was cut over and

*The American Forestry Association report was largely
financed by Laurance Rockefeller and was published as
follows: Samuel T. Dana and Kenneth B. Pomeroy,
"Redwoods and Parks," American Forests, Vol. 71, No. 5,
(May, 1965), pp. 3-32.

563

Drury: you know about the two years of big floods — were
at least our reasons for not concentrating on It,
when we were asked what we thought would be the
best redwood national park. Of course, questions
of aesthetics are infinitely debatable.

Schrepfer: There's a book out called America the Raped by Gene
Marine, a resident of Berkeley.*

Drury: Yes. I know about it, and I'm going to get it.

Schrepfer: He talked to the Sierra Club and as a result he
stated that the Bull Creek watershed has really
been destroyed.

Drury: Well, that isn't so.

Schrepfer: He said Rockefeller Forest has been badly destroyed.

Drury: We lost several hundred trees in the first flood, and
we lost a number in the second one. Exact statistics
as to the number of trees lost have never been given.
It's not true that the main flat, the Bull Creek Plat,
has been materially affected, except on the margin
of the stream, which it will take years for nature
to restore. In the 195^-55 flood we lost five or

*Gene Marine, America the Raped; the Engineering
Mentality and the Devastation of a Continent f Simon
and Schuster, 1969.

•

56k

Drury:

Schrepfer:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Schrepfer:

six hundred trees over three feet In diameter —

perhaps half million dollars worth of timber. In

the 196^ flood the loss was not so great.

I did talk to a few people up in the northern counties,

who said they felt that this kind of major flood did

occur approximately every hundred years, and that it

did substantial damage even without cutting or human

interference.

I donft think there's the slightest question about

that. You see evidences up there. They're still

making studies of the so-called ecology of the

redwoods there and elsewhere In the state parks, and

particularly I think now in the national park or

national park to be. It stands to reason that there

have been other floods. In fact, Percy French, whom

you both know, who was superintendent up there for

about thirty years, remembers (he's now in his nineties)

other floods that did tremendous damage.

Those root systems that the forestry faculty were

investigating showed that there had been repeated

floods with repeated root systems.

You are familiar with that tree displayed in

Richardson Grove which Emanuel Fritz prepared. That

shows six successive systems of roots.

They get a fake tap root from repeated floods,

565

Schrepfer: don't they?

Drury: There is no tap root. There's been a lot of what
we think is wild talk and I'll give you, for the
record, correspondence we've had with the present
superintendent up there, which gives his idea at
least. There's no question it'll take a generation
for the banks of Bull Creek to restore themselves.
I don't know how familiar you are with the records
of that flood, but I have here some pictures of the
banks of Bull Creek before and after the flood.

But I wouldn't be worried about the main Bull
Creek Plat being permanently affected by what
happened there. It was a shame we couldn't have
acquired all of that watershed because we could
have bought it for a song around 1955 when Douglas fir,
which is the dominant species on the slopes there,
came into the market.

Schrepfer: Is that what they were cutting?

Drury: Yes, mostly. There were some groups of redwoods

down in the canyons on Bull Creek, but no extensive
flats like Bull Creek. In fact there is no other
flat that we know of that ever existed that is as
extensive and as impressive as the Bull Creek Plat.

Pry: Percy still says he can gerrymander one million
board feet out of an acre down there.

•

566

Drury: Yes, he's saying that. I'm afraid his day of doing
that is over though. He's had some trouble with his
health. When did you see him last?

Fry: Oh, I saw him last summer.

Drury: Was he in bed then? He is now. I talked to him

about a month ago. He's all right, except when he
gets up, his left leg bothers him so much that he
goes back to bed.

Schrepfer: How much has been acquired in the Bull Creek watershed
and how much remains to be purchased?

Drury: We have never been able to get a firm figure as to

how much the state has spent, but I have the definite
impression that they've spent well over a million
dollars in measures to prevent further erosion up
there. There's been a good deal of volunteer effort
in the planting of particularly Douglas fir and
redwood. Just recently the local Sierra Club people
planted several hundred, I guess several thousand
seedlings. The survival of those is said to be about
twenty or thirty per cent, but it's a good device.
We are now in a position I think to clean up
private holdings in the Bull Creek watershed. There
are eleven ownerships left. We purchased over
18,000 acres, mostly cutover land but some that is
virgin timber. We'll give you a summary of the

56?

Drury: purchases we have made In the upper Bull Creek

watershed. We were helped by the Rockefellers, but
I'd say that two-thirds of the cost of It was paid
by the Save-the-Redwoods League. The state put
some money into It, but not very much.

Yesterday we were up in Sacramento. One of
our missions was to pave the way for the ultimate
acquisition — probably by eminent domain or
condemnation — of the remaining private holdings in
the watershed. We have a map over here that shows
where they are.

Pry: That's not very much is it?

Drury: No. Very little. There are over 18,000 acres that
we've acquired in about the last six or seven years.

Schrepfer: How satisfactory do you feel that report on flood
control in Bull Creek by W. C. Lowdermilk was?*

Drury: Very good. Mr. Lowdermilk is out of the running now.
He's an invalid. I'm afraid we won't get any more
help from him, but just the other day the superintendent

*W. C. Lowdermilk, Consultant, "A Report to the Save-
the-Redwoods League on Critical Problems in the Bull
Creek Basin, Humboldt County, California," October
20, 1961, Morongo Valley, California.

568

Drury: up there, up at Humboldt Redwoods State Park, Wendell
Davis, told me that they were religiously following
the recommendations of the Lowdermilk report.

Schrepfer: I understood Lowdermllk made some long-range
hypotheses.

Drury: Yes, the Lowdermllk report made some recommendations,
which we've never been able to get the money to carry
out. But the revetment work along the channel at Bull
Creek, which was one of the devices to arrest further
erosion of the banks, has been carried out very
thoroughly. As I say, I would estimate that the
state has spent at least a million dollars on that
since the first flood in 195^ and 1955-

569

RECENT FUND RAISING AND ACQUISITIONS

'

Fund Raising

Pry: Has the pattern of your contributions, the financial
backing, changed any In this Bull Creek watershed
fund raising?

Drury: We, as you know, have two primary ways of raising

money. One of them is through the establishment of
the memorial groves, which as far as the moderate
contributors are concerned is by far the dominant
method. Mrs. W. W. Stout, who has given over
$700,000, has named several groves. Of course the
Rockefellers, the Fords, the Mellons, the Phoebe
Watermann Foundation and several others have made
very large contributions without establishing
memorial groves. The Rockefeller Forest finally was
named for Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. more or less
against his expressed wishes. At the beginning we
suggested that and he wouldn't hear of it. Before
his death they finally persuaded him.

We have now between 250 and 275 of these
memorial groves. Contributors to them have given us
close to half of the money that we've raised.

Fry: Are you talking about the watershed lands or down

570

Pry:
Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

the line?

I'm talking about the money that goes Into the
treasury of the Save -the -Redwoods League In
consideration of which the memorial groves are
named In areas which have already been purchased.
Then that money Is transferred to a fund with which
we buy other lands, some of them watershed lands,
some of them virgin timber, which are then conveyed
to the state. It's not easy to explain.
I understand. I work enough with university
purchases [Laughter] that I know this business of
transferring funds.

What about the proportion of money now that
comes from the east as compared with local money?
Is It any larger In later years?

We've always had our largest contributions from the
east* I haven't checked It lately but I believe our
membership Is still about as It was a few years ago;
about 17,000 members are Calif ornian and the other
33,000 are from the rest of the United States. But
predominately I think New York Is the state from
which we've had our main contributions, the Pords
and the Rockefellers.
The big donors.

571

Drury:

Pry:
Drury:

Pry:
Drury:

We had one lady In Philadelphia who gave us $200,000.
When her mother died she found in her effects an
application for membership in the Save-the-Redwoods
League that she had never mailed to us. Evidently
they were people of large means and she made this
contribution' in memory of her mother.
You Just barely got in on that one.
We had an interesting episode here the other day
which we can't publicize, because for some reason he
doesn't want it. Mr. Andreas Peininger did this
magnificent book entitled Trees.* It has some
marvelous photographs. Take a look at it. We wrote
him a letter complimenting him on it, and about a
month later he wrote back and said that he had one
of his father's paintings — the celebrated painter —
that he was going to give to the Save-the-Redwoods
League and let a broker sell it for us. Just the
other day he said he valued it at $55»000 which
seemed preposterously high.
That gives him his tax deduction I guess.
Yes. Just the other day we actually got a check

*Andreas Peininger, Trees. New York: Viking Press,
1968.

572

Drury:

Schrepferi
Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

for half that amount; we'll get the rest next year.

Those are Just typical of the episodes. In
answer to your question, we don't know yet whether
the value is going to diminish. The collections of
the Save-the-Redwoods League were, I'd day, twenty
or thirty per cent less in 1969 than they were in
196? or 1968. The nationwide publicity about the
national park of course was then at its height.
How about before that, about 1964?
The League has raised close to a million dollars a
year for the last six years for our so-called land
fund. That is in addition to raising two to three
hundred thousand a year for our general fund, which
we use for operations, purchases of land and
incidental expenses like appraisals and reports.

Acquisitions; General

Well, is there anything else that you'd like to add
to things that Save-the-Redwoods League has been
doing over the last four or five years? Outside of
the national park, it's been the watershed lands at
Bull Creek Plat, in Humboldt, hasn't it?
Well, we've bought several million dollars worth of
property in Humboldt Redwoods State Park.

573

Drury t

Pry:
Drury:

Fry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

In 1970 we've bought maybe, oh, a oouple of
hundred thousand dollars worth of property, but
last year we conveyed about a million dollars worth
to the government, and we're holding about a million
dollars worth of property that we hope to get back
some money from, through matohing by the state. We
don't know if we will. I think it's going to be
pretty slim pickings for the next year or two in
California.

Why do you hope to get back some money?
Up until recently the state has followed the
principle of matching league contributions.
It would be interesting, Newt, if you could tell us
what the differences are in dealing with the Reagan
administration as compared to the Knight or Brown
admini st rat ions .

Well, there are no material differences —
Is money tighter and bonds harder to buy?
No, I think that William Perm Mott, Jr. is an
excellent director of the Department of Parks and
Recreation and that he and all of the staff (many
of them were my colleagues of course in the old days)
have been most cooperative. They are limited by the
legislature and its attitude toward appropriations.
And the situation apparently is going to get more

Drury i

Fry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

difficult before it gets any better. But the league
has had wonderful cooperation from every administration
from the time of the Young administration when the
park commission was established right up to the
present.

I think it would be of interest to posterity
to know how these parks have been built up piece by
piece, Just like putting a Jigsaw puzzle together.
Yes. I think the impression is that you kind of go
out and buy the land all at once.
No, we can't do that, because you can see how many
different ownerships there were. You can see on the
map, for Instance, the Buss Grove; that was given
to us in the early days. And the Bellows claim;
the county of Humboldt bought that. Then you see
the park commission has approved naming these
properties ^Long after they were bought. And that
money goes into a fund. No other way you could work
it, because you can't slice off small portions of
timber land from the holdings of these big companies.
They won't deal that way.

In the process of this, then, do you have to pay a
lot more for the last ones you buy because the
property values have gone up?
Yes, inflation and the scarcity of redwood and also

575

Drury: the escalating prices of land have all contributed

to increased costs.
Fry • I thought maybe Just the fact that you're buying

the land for a state park would inflate values

immediately surrounding it.
Drury: I don't think up here very much. But the fact that

we're known to have this land in our plan stiffens

the asking prices of the owners.

Here's a summary of the acquisitions from '63

to '70, to answer your question "What have we been

doing of late?" It shows 23,?88 acres that have

been added to the parks. This is since they've

started all the talk about the redwood national park.

The Sierra Club and everybody else have been talking

about it, but we — let's see, in six years, we have

spent about a million dollars a year buying land for

parks.
Pry: All of these listed in Humboldt are primarily the

watershed lands, Newt, would you say?

Drury: Yes. Most of them. Also some large Inholdings.
Pry: The Avenue of the Giants units had been pending for

many, many years, is that right?
Drury: Yes. For about forty years. That's a fact. The

president of the Pacific Lumber Company, Stanwood A.

Murphy, is really an elderly gentleman. His father,

576

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

A. Stanwood Murphy, was a young man when I first
talked with him In the 1920 's.

We've purchased four units after a period of
almost forty years. Finally we completed the
holdings in virgin timber up there on the Avenue of
the Giants from Dyervllle north to Stafford. We'll
send you a map of that too.

Were those four units all from Pacific Lumber
Company?

Yes. The first one, I think we paid six dollars a
thousand board feet, and the last one we paid about
sixty dollars a thousand board feet.
Isn't this the land that Pacific Lumber Company
reserved for a state park for a long time? I mean
they took care not to cut it?

Yes. I think their motivation was mixed. This
property is within, oh, six or seven miles of their
mill. It was available at any time and they knew
that it wouldn't get any cheaper. But then I think
they were partly motivated by the thought that, if
they could get their price for it, they'd rather
see it preserved than destroyed. The senior
Stanwood Murphy was rather reluctant to sell it.
He always referred to it as "the chocolate on our
cake." You've been there so you know what it's like,

577

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

It's a very wonderful stand of redwoods, uniform

stand*

But the senior Murphy felt it would be kind of

superfluous to what you already had apparently.

That you had enough!

Well, we didn't have the money then either. We

finally got around to buying it, and Stanwood A.

Murphy, who was the son, as distinguished from A.

Stanwood Murphy, who was the father, had a more

modern viewpoint, cooperating with the conservationists,

What side did he take on the national redwood park

controversy?

Oh, the lumber companies all stood together.

Prairie Creek Park Additions

I have the report here from Save-the -Redwoods League
to its membership on the acquisition of Pern Canyon
and Gold Bluffs Beach. I must confess I don't
understand it, and. I thought maybe you could explain.
We Just waited too long, that was all. I was in on
the original purchase of the Prairie Creek lands
from the Sage Land and Improvement Company, but we
didn't have enough money to buy all of them so they
gave us an option on a part of the land. To make a
long story short, that option, if we had exercised

578

Drury: It, was at one dollar and 50 cents per thousand board
feet for redwood, and nothing for the other species.
When we finally bought it, about thirty years later,
we paid around $^K) a thousand for the redwoods, as
I remember it.

When we first began acquiring property in the
state parks, I started maps that have listed all of
the transactions and the dates recording the deeds
from the different ownerships. We have one of
those of Prairie Creek. I can get you a copy of
that if you'd like.

We Just gradually raised money and bought
property. I remember that the county of Humboldt
bought a piece of property, known as the Bellows
claim, 160 acres, and gave It to the state. They
paid $50 » 000 for it, which we thought was scandalous,
and it was at that time, because we were buying a
comparable tract for about twelve, thirteen thousand
dollars. Then the Buss family of Ferndale, big
landowners in Humboldt County, donated to the state
the Russ Grove very early in the game. And
gradually the league bought up additional land in
Prairie Creek.

When I was up there in Sacramento, we were
concerned, about Pern Canyon. In fact it wasn't given

579

Drury:

Fry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

any public protection. We finally decided to try
to hold the fort by filing a condemnation suit on
Fern Canyon, but we never had enough money to go to
trial on it. So it was after my leaving Washington,
D. C. that they finally tried the case up there, and
they got an award from the jury, around $60 a
thousand for the same kind of timber that we'd once
had under option for a dollar a thousand.
Well, another thing that puzzled me was that according
to this Save-the-Redwoods League special Gold Bluffs
bulletin in 1965, $2,^-00,000 is the cost of this 2,000
acre addition, and $550,000 is the amount the Save-the-
Redwoods League must still pay Pacific Lumber Company,
and yet Pacific Lumber Company gave Fern Canyon to
the league?

They made a deeded gift, yes. Of course we can't
look a gift horse in the mouth* The price that we
paid for the property —

For the rest of the Gold Bluffs property around
Fern Canyon?

Yes — compensated them fully for Fern Canyon, which
really had no commercial value. It's a very
beautiful place, but there was nothing particularly
of market value there. It might possibly have become
a tourist attraction like the "Trees of Mystery" or
something of that sort. Of course that's exactly

580

Drury:
Pry:

Drury:

what we were trying to avoid.

On Fern Canyon-Gold Bluffs Beach, there was one
other question in my mind. I thought that this had
oome up as a high priority item when the price was
quite low, and that there was some reaction to it
from your council or from someone on your council
that prevented Save -the -Redwoods League from going
ahead at that time.

Well, the only thing I can remember was that we didn't
have enough money. Unfortunately, you see, we had
filed condemnation on a limited area — I've forgotten
the number of acres — and it was to come to trial,
but it never did, because the Pacific Lumber Company
proposed — I remember they flew down to San Francisco
in their company plane with Mr. Tom Greig — that they'd
sell us the whole property, and we agreed to make an
appraisal, and we purchased it, finally, with the
aid of a number of agencies and persons, like the
Ford Foundation and Mrs. William W. Stout, and our
general contributors. We were just a Jump ahead
of the sheriff. We didn't have a plugged nickel left
when we got through with it. In fact, when we made
the deal, we were about half a million dollars short
of what we needed, but we knew we had expectations
from the Ford Foundation, and so we were safe enough.

'

•

•

PART VI
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK

582

HISTORY OF REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK ISSUE AND ITS
REVIVAL IN EARLY 1960's

Schrepfer: We might begin with the history of the redwood
national park idea and its revival in the early
I960 's. Your chronology shows that the Sierra Club
and others revived the idea in 1961. What was the
league's reaction?

Drury: Frankly the Save-the-Redwoods League from the very

beginning had favored a redwood national park. When
it was found that the federal government was going
to do nothing for about forty years, the Save-the-
Redwoods League then, as you know, (it has been set
forth in our previous interviews) largely of itself
brought about the establishment of the California
state park system through the creation in 192? of
the State Park Commission and passage of the original
bond issue of 1928. Then over the years we built up
these parks and gradually developed the program
toward which we had always hoped that federal aid
would come, but toward which none was forthcoming
for many years.

Fry: I remember reading in the minutes of the Save-the-
Redwoods League Board of Directors from the thirties,
where the league at that point advised against any

583

Pry: concept of a national park. Were you aware that for
a while this was actually advised against in favor
of state action?

Drury: There's been a great variety of opinion on the part
of the officers and the council of the Save-the-
Redwoods League. Some of them have been for the
ultimate establishment of the redwood national park,
and some of them more or less against it. John C.
Merriam, after the state had made its large investment,
was very doubtful whether that should be transferred
to the federal government.

Douglas Bill

Schrepfer: What was your reaction to the Douglas Bill calling

for a redwood national forest?
Drury: In 19^6 and 19^7- That bill would have been passed,

I think, if Helen Gahagan Douglas hadn't been

supplanted by Richard Nixon in the Senate.
Pry: Oh, you think it would have been?
Schrepfer: You think it had any chance at all?
Drury: I think it had a good chance, but I voted for Nixon.

[Laughter]

Pry: That puts you in a difficult position.
Drury: I had quite a time in persuading Mrs. Douglas, who

finally very graciously accepted it, that whether or

•

Drury: not they established this colossal redwood national
forest which would have taken two-thirds of the
redwood belt — there ought to be certain portions of
it surrounding the existing state parks which would
be treated, not as national forest, but according to
national or state park principles. She finally
embodied that provision in the bill.

Schrepfer: Would that have included Mill Creek?

Drury: Yes. It would have taken in Mill Creek and Prairie
Creek. It would not have taken in Redwood Creek.

Pry: That bill was written in the United States Forest
Service, as I remember. It was sort of a forest
service bill? You were on the scene at the time.
Is that your impression?

Drury: We never knew exactly who was the author of it.

There were a number of people. You wouldn't remember,
perhaps, Dewey Anderson, who at one time was director
of finance for the State of California.

Schrepfer: Is he still alive?

Drury: He's in Washington, D.C. Yes.

Schrepfer: In the Conservation Association?

Drury: Yes. He has a planning organization, of which he's
the head. Dewey Anderson had quite a little to do
with it. And the acting head of the United States
Forest Service, Earl Clapp, was also quite active.

•

•

585

Drury: The position that I took as director of the National
Parks Service was that the extent of the national
forests was something that was up to them more
than to the National Park Service. But I was
successful in getting them to provide for these
park units within that forest area.

Schrepfer: You opposed the bill, did you not?

Drury: No« Neither the Department of Agriculture nor
Interior either opposed or favored the bill.

Schrepfer: I thought I had read a statement you made at the
time that you thought that the bill could not be
passed, in that the impact on the economy of the
northern counties would be too drastic.

Drury: No. That doesn't sound like me.

Pry: What about the Save-the-Redwoods League?

Drury: The Save-the-Redwoods League did pass a resolution

opposing the Douglas bill, but I was inactive in the
Save-the-Redwoods League. Oh, I think it was a
pipe dream.

Pry: It was so big.

Drury: In those days it wouldn't have cost, oh, a third of
what It would today.

Schrepfer: Would it have been a good measure to have passed in
the long run?

Drury: That's a debatable question. I was always in favor

•

586

Drury: and the Redwoods League was in favor of extending

the United States Forest Service's so-called purchase
unit, which they now have more or less dismantled
under the act creating the Redwood National Park
providing that a good deal of the timber can be cut
by the private operators. We were disappointed
that the Forest Reservation Commission didn't make
steady progress in acquiring redwoods. They could
have bought a lot of the redwoods for a dollar a
thousand board feet and we're paying as high as $60
per thousand now.

Fry: That commission was under what?

Drury: It is a separate commission allied with the

Department of Agriculture. It is known as the
Forest Reservation Commission. It's still in existence
and they still are purchasing additions to national
forests through the United States. But they never
did much in the redwood region.

Grants-in-Aid

Schrepfer: What is your feeling about the idea of grants-in-aid

as a means of park acquisition?

Drury: Well, I'm reconciled to them. [Laughter]
Schrepfer: I remember there was a big bill for federal aid to

the states in 1929 and 1930 and that the league was

58?

Sohrepfer: not particularly overjoyed about the idea at that
time.

Drury: I don't recollect what bill that was.

Pry: It would have been in the Hoover administration.

Maybe that was as a result of some of the activity of
the National Conference on State Parks?

Schrepfer: This one was initiated in Oregon.

Drury: I don't recollect that.

Pry: It must have been when Oregon was setting up its
state parks. [Laughter]

Sohrepfer: It was.

Drury: Up until my time there in Washington, there never
was a plugged nickel appropriated by Congress for
national park land. It was all carved out of the
public domain or was donated. For instance, Great
Smokies National Park in the states of Tennessee and
North Carolina, who donated a lot of land. We got,
in my time, a very meager appropriation. I think
it was $300,000 for the year, finally, to begin the
purchasing of the inholdings in the national parks.
It wasn't until the Udall administration that there
was any material amount of money under this Land and
Water Fund. As far as being a states' Tighter is
concerned, having worked in both the national and
state parks, I think that you should render unto

588

Drury: Caesar those things that be Caesar's and there's
no question of that, as I tried to point out In
this memo on the Douglas bill back In the forties.

Schrepfer: That's the one I was referring to, the memorandum
on the Douglas bill.

Drury: I haven't read that for a great many years. You

have a copy of it, do you? In that I think I said
that it took forty-two years to establish Yosemite
National Park [laughter], that the redwood national
park might come in time, and that surely the redwoods
were one of the outstanding features of scenic
America and should perhaps be given the dignity of
being a national park.

Meanwhile, the state of California's done
everything that's constructive. I think it'll be
some years before they'll get any accord at all, and
I don't think it's going to do any harm because
both the state and federal government have plenty
to do up there.

Jededlah Smith State Park (Mill Greek)

Schrepfer: Did you feel before the national park idea was

revived that you could save the Mill Creek watershed
by yourself?

Drury: No, and that's one reason why we felt that the

589

Drury: interposition, if you want to call it that, of the
federal government was absolutely essential.

Fry: Why has Mill Creek been so difficult? Or is it
that the other projects have really been more
urgent?

Drury: We haven't raised the money fast enough. If we had
been a little more assiduous or our contributors had
been a little more generous and forehanded, we could
have bought the whole Mill Creek watershed at a
dollar a thousand. This was before Miller owned it,
when the bulk of it was owned by the Del Norte Lumber
Company.

Schrepfer: Wasn't Mill Creek the last of your projects? You
waited on it because you felt that it was not as
immediately in danger as Bull Creek and the other
areas, so it is in your priority sequence last?

Drury: That's right. It was in the hands of a landholding

company, the Del Norte Lumber Company. Incidentally,
the president of that company (who is now dead) was
the husband of Mrs. William W. Stout.

Schrepfer: They were the largest stockholders.

Drury: The Stout Grove was established by Mrs. Frank D.

Stout, whose husband was once the president of the
Del Norte Lumber Company. He was the uncle of W. W.

.
•

;; Kfi/'V

590

Drury: Stout. They weren't an operating company. All they

did was to pay taxes.
Schrepfer: I remember, from reading over the correspondence on

that, that Prank Stout wished to contribute to the

League, but died before he could, so she was actually

fulfilling his wish.
Drury: Yes. I remember going up there with her.

Revival of the Redwood National Park Pro.leot in 1960*s

Schrepfer: Who or what was mainly responsible for the revival
of the redwood national park project in the I960 'a?

Drury: Unquestionably the main motive force was the National
Geographic Society.

Pry: Oh. That's what Dr. Crafts says, too.

Drury: Yes, there's no question about that. And they Just

happened to form this divisive program by discovering
the world's tallest known standing tree, which may
or may not be. The Sierra Club took that up.

Dr. Rudolph Becking thought he'd found a tree
that was several feet taller than this tree, but
when they applied engineering methods to his measure
ments they found it was fifty feet shorter than Mr.
Becking thought it was.

Pry: Is that where the National Geographic study came in?

591

Fry: Had Becking gone to them for money or something
like that?

Drury: They made the grant to the National Park Service.

Conrad Wirth, who was then director of the National
Park Service, and Melville Grosvenor, of the
National Geographic Society, were great friends, in
fact Wirth was on their board, and it was very
generous of them. They've been very generous to
the Save -the Redwoods League. Gilbert Grosvenor,
the founder of the National Geographic, was one of
the founders of the Save -the -Redwoods League.

Schrepfer: The Fred Smith interviews — which we must discuss

later — with Miller of Miller-Rellim Lumber Company
are the earliest specific knowledge that I have of
the revival of the idea of the redwood national park.

Fry: Is that as early as you know about for this
particular project?

Drury: Of course, the basic document is the National Park
Service publication called The Redwoods «» which was
started about 1961 and wasn't issued until 1964.

Schrepfer: This report of the National Park Service under
Hartzog was the one sponsored by the National

*The Redwoods, Special Report Prepared by the National
Park Service, United States Department of the Interior,
September 15,

592

Sohrepfer: Geographic Society, called The Redwoods, which

favored the Redwood Creek areas, with only grants-in-

ald for portions of Mill Creek?
Drury: Yes.
Schrepfer: Was this what the National Geographic Society itself

favored?
Drury: Yes, at that time. Later on they came around to this

measure that Senator Kuchel and his committee proposed.

593

REDWOOD GREEK VS. MILL CREEK

Schrepferi

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Position of the National Park Service

The National Park Service actually changed its
position in the middle too did it not?
Yes. In 1966 we had a meeting — to make this thing
fully complicated — Hartzog was out here, and Edward
Hummel, who was then regional director, arranged a
meeting with what they called the Senior Executive
Committee of the National Park Service, which
consisted of the former directors Horace Albright,
Conrad Wirth and myself, and Eivind Scoyen. We met
for a good part of a day out at the National Park
Service office here in San Francisco, and as a result,
this measure which involved the total Mill Creek
watershed was given the approval of the National
Park Service under Hartzog and it was because of
that, undoubtedly, that Kuchel introduced his bill,
which never was recommended by his committee. That's
the thing I Just showed you there, that green outline.
Yes. But it did form an important part on which
the compromise was based?

Yes, it was the main project. But Cohelan and his
group in the House felt that it didn't go far enough

Drury: In that It should include a good portion of the
Redwood Creek watershed.

Schrepfer: Yet the Sierra Club continued until the end to
call their plan the National Park Service's
recommended plan.

Drury: Well, it wasn't. I remember very distinctly in the
Senate hearing we had back there, both Ed Crafts
and Hartzog testified as to the superiority from
several standpoints of the Mill Creek project over
the Redwood Creek project. We never, in the Redwoods
League, indulged in any Invidious comparisons.
Whether we were right or wrong I don't know.

Schrepfer: The Johnson administration was behind the Mill Creek
proposal almost from the beginning, was it not?

Drury: Not from the beginning. As I say, Wirth told me

that he felt that the report that recommended Redwood
Creek was premature and shouldn't have been published.
It sort of fixed people's ideas as to what should
have been done.

Pry: So, Mill Creek as the site for the national park was
really still a question when this report came out.

Drury: Yes. This initial report published in 1964

recommended only grants-in-aid toward a portion of
the Mill Creek area and left out most of the main
watershed of Mill Creek.

595

Drury: As they say, these questions are Infinitely

debatable .
Fry: Can I ask you more about the meeting Hummel arranged

when Hartzog came out here which you, Albright,

Scoyen and Wlrth attended?
Drury: Yes, well I think at that time of that meeting,

there is no question of Hartzog1 s position. It was

that they should concentrate on the total Mill Creek

watershed with the corridor and the section

surrounding the tall trees on Redwood Creek.
Pry: At that meeting there wasn't any opposition to Mill

Creek?
Drury: No, it was Just Director Hartzog conferring with

this Senior Executive Committee of the National Park

Service.

The Sierra Club and the League

Fry: I look at this from a kind of distant oversimplified

view. How come the National Park Service and National
Geographic were interested in that area down there
where the tallest tree was at a time when I thought
they were seriously considering the Mill Creek area?
Is that wrong?

Drury: I think unquestionably the Sierra Club, with whom we
had several conferences — in the hope of getting a

596

Drury: common program — wanted to have a new project on
which to work. They were Just about as much
Interested In having a cause, I believe, a fresh
cause, as they were in establishing a redwood
national park.

Fry: I see. They had Just completed their big controversy
over the dam at Glen Canyon?

Drury: Well, they've had so many.

Pry: They thought they had to have another controversy?

Drury: Our position has never been one of opposing anybody * s
ideas. The more redwoods that are preserved, the
better, but we also have always felt that It should
be done according to a logical pattern and bringing
the Redwood Creek area into the picture had two
shortcomings, one of which is the lack of realism.
It wouldn't be completely accomplished, and subsequent
events have shown that we were right on that. The
other was that we felt that it at least was no better
than the Mill Creek watershed in its entirety which,
as the action of Congress shows, was realizable.
The amount of money that they voted would have bought
up the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel, on the
Mill Creek watershed.

Schrepfer: Do you feel that Redwood Creek was of national park

597

Schrepfer: caliber, if it had been realized?

Drury: If the total Redwood Creek basin had been a feasible
thing, no question that it would have made a very
wonderful reservation. It was not the same type of
forest that you find down there at Bull Creek.
Redwood Creek has very little flat land. This area
where the tall trees are located is less than a
section, 6*K) acres. And there are only a few very
limited flats in the entire project. So as far as
the superlative redwood is concerned, it isn't in
our opinion equal to the forest either in Mill Creek
or in Bull Creek.

But, as I say, at no time has the Redwoods
League ever tried to derogate the ideas of other
people. It of course is a free country and they
have the right to have their own ideas. By the same
token we felt that the Save -the -Redwoods League,
which has been on the scene from the beginning,
surely was competent to establish its own program,
which we have done.

Schrepfer: There was a thesis done on the Redwood National Park
by Thomas Vale, and his contention is, I'm sure
you have read it, that the league wanted Mill Creek
merely because it had always been part of their plan.
He maintains too that Redwood Creek had been dropped

598

Schrepfer: by the league very early and that the only mention
it ever had by the league was by Madison Grant in
an article in 1919 where it said that Redwood Creek
might be of national park caliber.* In the area
where he was, could that have been Prairie Creek?

Drury: I think it was. That's my guess. I wasn't with
Madison Grant, but I'm sure that Grant didn't
penetrate into the main valley of Redwood Creek.
He couldn't because there was no way of getting in
there in those days.

Schrepfer: So he could well have been standing in land now in
Prairie Creek State Park.

Drury: Yes, Prairie Creek is a tributary of Redwood Creek.

Schrepfer: That's what I wanted to know.

Drury: That is my thinking. But that's all right. We've
always taken a position that the Sierra Club of
course had a perfect right to espouse any project
that they wanted, just as the Save-The-Redwoods

*Thomas Randolph Vale, "The Redwood National Park:

a Conservation Controversy," thesis submitted for

Master of Arts in Geography, University of California,

Berkeley, 1966.

Madison Grant, "Saving the Redwoods," National Geographic

Magazine , XXXVII, 6 (June, 1920), pp. 519-535-

599

Drury: League has. We were sorry that there wasn't

unanimity on it. The interesting thing was that
this issue was waged back and forth, you know. There
was a period when President Johnson advocated the
acquisition of the total Mill Creek watershed. The
National Park Service, after Hartzog supplanted
Wirth as director, changed its program in spite of
their report. Wirth told me, when we were together —
he, Albright and I were together testifying in
Washington — that they never should have published
this report. It was premature. Of course this
report, which incidentally was excellently written
and had some very able men like Chester Brown and
others working on it, concentrated almost entirely
on the Redwood Creek as far as federal appropriations
were concerned. It did recommend certain grants -in-
aid to the state out of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for Mill Creek and Prairie Creek.

Schrepfer: Was it merely a question of impracticality, or was
it a value Judgement that Mill Creek was, in your
estimation, better?

Drury: Prom what I know about the two areas — and it's been
many years since I went to any extent over the
Redwood Creek area — the Mill Creek is the more perfect
of the two forests, and we took the position that

6oo

Drury: the perfection of its charm is not determined by
its size but by its quality. And you have to be
practical and reasonable about these things.
There is no question that if the federal government
was going to do what they ultimately did — namely
condemn, in effect, private property — they could,
for the amount of money that they put up for the
Redwood National Park, have acquired everything,
lock, stock and barrel, from the Rellim Company,
which would have given the complete Mill Creek
watershed.

Of course, our friends in the Sierra Club were
from the beginning determined that some new area
should be the primary national park and they settled
on the Redwood Creek area, which is a splendid area.
I'll talk about that a little bit later on. We felt
that it was more Important to have one complete and
perfect area that was attainable than to strive for
something that we knew, from our experience with
legislation and conferences with the federal fiscal
authorities, was simply beyond possibility. There
was never any chance that a complete watershed in
Redwood Creek could be acquired. It would have cost
maybe $200,000,000 or more. Of course, the Bureau
of the Budget, which usually dominates, although it

5n

602

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

raise and spend the money to do things, or getting

appropriations from the government. We observe

the law in that we don't try to affect legislation,

immediately at least. We're not entirely free from

that. And on many oases where we're invited to give

testimony I think we've been reasonably effective.

Is that the first time that the Sierra Club was actually

involved in acquiring land for a park?

Of course they have supported things like the

extension of the Sequoia National Park. They have

always worked along with the Save-the-Redwoods League

in saving for instance the Sierra Sequoias. They've

given a little money for that. But the league has

raised most of the money for the redwoods.

Has their heat and light always been a little on

the excessive side, so that it sometimes creates

more difficulties?

That's debatable I think. But well, I Just got a

clipping the other day in which one of the lumber

barons up there condemns the Sierra Club and their

position on the timber supply act, which they were

successful in holding up in Congress. They accused

the club of downright prevarication, as to what the

bill would do. And it is true that the bill was

totally amended between the time that the Sierra Club

603

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:
Pry:

started Its opposition and the time It got to the

floor of Congress.

I remember there was one rule about debating, and

you* re an old debater, that said never overstate

your position to such an extent that it's easy to

refute It. [Laughter]

I think the Save-the-Redwoods League, on the things

that really count, has been very forthright. We've

very clearly outlined our program. We haven't

deceived anybody about what our intentions are, even

in some cases where they didn't agree with us, and

we have fought vigorously for the protection of parks

like, for instance, down there in Portola Redwoods

where the army engineers are playing with the idea

of building a dam and flooding a portion of the

park. I think we can stop that.

Are the Sierra Club coming in on that too?

Yes, their local chapter is in hearings on that.

I can't quite get my hands and feet on a focal point

for the contributions of the Sierra Club.

Do you get their publications?

Yes, but I don't have anything historic yet. I mean,

Newt, when you look at them over the whole historical

span, how has Sierra Club fitted in? It's done a

lot to make people aware of the Sierras. But more

60if

Pry:
Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

than that, too.

Well, they've extended that to practically the

whole world, parti cularly the United States, and

Alaska, Hawaii.

Maybe a historian should try to document their

educational methods because this is where their

prime contribution has been, rather than in creation

and acquisition of parklands and things like that?

They took practically no active interest in saving

the redwoods until this last episode of the Redwood

Creek and Mill Creek.

Alignment of Forces (Governmental and Conservation
Groups )

Drury:

Schrepf ers
Drury:

One thing that I wanted to make a matter of record

was that after a great deal of stuttering back and

f orth ,by the National Park Service under Hartzog,

they accepted, more or less, the program of the

Save -the -Redwoods League.

This was after the report by Hartzog?

Yes. This was considerably after that time. The

administration plan (Kuchel Bill) in 1966 and 196?

involved the Mill Creek watershed and the tall trees

and the small corridor from Prairie Creek down to

605

Drury: the tall trees. At that time not only the National
Park Service, the President, and the Bureau of the
Budget, but the American Forestry Association in
April of 1967; Governor Brown in February, 1966;
the California State Park Commission in 1966 and
196?; the Daughters of the American Revolution; the
National Audubon Society in August, 1966; the
National Conference of State Parks in August, 1966;
and the National Geographic Society who had sponsored
this project, all came around to it. And the
National Wildlife Federation, meeting out in San
Francisco in 196?, passed a resolution favoring the
total Mill Creek watershed. The Nature Conservancy
in 1967, Governor Reagan in April of 1967 » Laurance
Rockefeller in June of 1966, the Save-the-Redwoods
League in 1965, the Izaak Walton League (the
California state division) — (the national division
I think supported the Cohelan bill), and the
Wilderness Society supported both Mill Creek and
Redwood Creek. And the Wildlife Management Institute.
All of those were in favor of that measure which
never got completely embodied in legislation, but
which was the government program, largely I suppose
because it was a smaller program, and the Bureau of
the Budget were willing to pass it.

606

Drury:
Sohrepfer:

Drury:

Pry;

Drury:

Pry:

The thing was pretty well mixed up.
I have a statement here which came out in one of the
magazines, that only the Wilderness Society and the
Garden Club of America remained with the Sierra
Club, supporting the Redwood Creek area.
I think that's probably right.
And the Wilderness Society was supporting both?
The Wilderness Society, and I want to be charitable
to everybody, but Dick Leonard is a director of it
and he gave me a copy of their resolution which
supported both projects. But Stuart Brandborg, who
was the manager, ignored the action of his board.
That's the way I Interpret it. As I get older and
older, I am more and more tolerant of sinfulness.
He threw his weight toward the Redwood Creek. All
of our efforts were directed to trying to avoid the
appearance of any breach of opinion among conser
vationists. We were very anxious. The series of
resolutions we passed from year to year indicated
that at least we tried to turn the other cheek.
How did this work out when you attended and
testified at committee meetings with David Brower
and Michael McCloskey of the Sierra Club while
supporting different plans?

60?

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

That happened of course when we went back to that

Senate hearing. But the bill which emerged from

the Senate-House conference committee was unlike

any bill that any of us presented to either the

House or the Senate. It was a fragment. This map

published by the National Geographic Society shows

the essence of the program. It shows in the tracing

plan the administration bill which was approved by

the Senate committee, but not by the Senate. That's

what all these people I just read off to you were

behind.

[looking at map] So it included the corridor of

land too.

The Cohelan bill of course included all of this,

which is less than half of the Redwood Creek watershed.

The measure passed by Congress finally Included only

about 1,300 acres of the Mill Creek watershed.

The Sierra Club plan never did include the whole

watershed of Redwood Creek?

No. That would have cost at least twice as much as

the Congress finally appropriated for the whole

project.

608

LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES

Four Washington. D«C. Conferences
June 25, 196^f White House Meeting

Pry: When you first started having meetings about the
national park, whom did you have them with?

Druryz I went back to Washington, D.C. for three different
hearings, one of them very reluctantly. There was
one hearing I didn't go to.

Pry: I was going to ask you how come you weren't at the
one on June 25 » 196*f.

Drury: I can't answer that question. I don't know why I
wasn't there. [Laughter] The league was not
invited. I have a number of letters from friends
who had the same question. But the way it came out,
I'm glad that I wasn't there.

Schrepfer: How did that come out?

Drury: It resulted in focussing attention on the Redwood
Creek area.

Pry: Was that the turning point that shifted it from Mill
Creek to Redwood Creek?

Drury: The turning point and that bears on your question,
who was primarily responsible for the revival of
the national park issue in the sixties? It was the

..

609

Drury:

Pry:

Drury :

National Geographic Society, as I have already told.

The Sierra Club also was Involved.

Were the three meetings you did attend congressional

hearings?

No, they were hearings in the Department of Interior.

December 15-17, 1965, Meeting with Foundation
Representatives

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

I went back there, at the request of Secretary Udall,
with Mr. Dick Leonard, the vice president of the
Save- the- Redwoods League. Udall summoned executives
of a number of large corporations, the Rockefellers,
the Fords and of the Phoebe Watermann Foundation.
I thought at the time it was premature. Nothing
really much came of it. At that time Secretary Udall
put it up to these foundations that they should Join
with the federal government in establishing a fund
for a national park. The response to It was practically
nil. We already had the grant from the Ford
Foundation.

You said that in one of these meetings you went back
for, you did so reluctantly.

That was the one with the foundations, because I

•

didn't think there was any chance of Mr. Udall fs
project going through.

•

I

610

Sohrepfer: What, more exactly, was the plan in Instigating this
meeting with the foundations?

Drury: Mr. Udall, I think, expected to get the foundations

to put up half the money for the national park, which
I never thought was a realizable thing. Then we had
one episode: Ed Crafts, director of the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, and Fred Jones, who was then
State Park Director, and I went down to see Miss
Doris Duke in Los Angeles.* She was flirting with
the idea of giving three or four million dollars.
That was largely predicated on the idea of acquiring
Mill Creek. She didn't, because three or four
million dollars was Just a drop in the bucket to
the total project. She's on our list still. A
person is marked if they ever express any interest,
you know; some of our projects we've realized forty
years after they started.

Schrepfer: Yes, I hear some of the people now contributing
became interested as a result of your brother
Aubrey Drury fs efforts during the 19^0 's and 1950 's.

Drury: Yes. Aubrey stimulated a lot of memorial groves

*Edward C. Crafts, President's Conference on

•

Outdoor Recreation.

'

-

611

Drury: and bequests. We anticipate over two million dollars

in pledges and bequests, most of which will materialize
in the next ten years. These people aren't getting
any younger. And there are a lot that we never know
about. We had one woman who died in Rome and left the
League $100,000, We had no record at all of ever
having any contact with her.

Pry: That's great, when they Just come in from outer
space.

Sohrepfer: Did Lauranoe Rockefeller have a position they made
known as to whether they favored Mill Creek, the
Redwood Creek, or the Bull Creek plan outlined by
Samuel Dana and sponsored and paid for by Rockefeller?

Drury: I have no knowledge that he ever took a specific

position, but in general he supported the Save-the-
Redwoods League. I think he was content to let the
National Park Service and those of us who knew some
thing about the subject determine the details.

Schrepfer: There were two things that Crafts said in his seminar
which Interested me in this connection. One was the
point he made that Laurance Rockefeller had his ear,
so to speak, on everything that was happening.

Drury: That he had the president's ear? There's no question.
I think it was greatly to the benefit of the whole
country.

612

Schrepfert Then Crafts said the administration was adamant that
it should be Mill Creek; and it was very hard to
get the president to compromise and allow some
acquisition in Redwood Creek, as ultimately emerged.

Drury: I don't know about that. I would somewhat doubt

that, but in any event everybody, including Lauranoe
Rockefeller and I guess the President, felt that it
was better to make a start than to go through all
this turmoil and have nothing result from it. That
was the position of our directors. I'll give you
the resolutions that they've passed. It's awfully
hard to take a position on anything that is changing
with such kaleidoscopic rapidity.

Drury:

Meeting of Sierra Club and League

I went back there on December 12, 1966 at the request
of Crafts and Hartzog, for a conference with Sd
Wayburn, and Michael McCloskey from the Sierra Club,
in the hope that we could reach a common ground.
They wouldn't give up the Redwood Creek project and
we wouldn't give up the Mill Creek project, but at
that time we thought that they were reconciled to
combining the two of them. Later on the Sierra Club
sort of cast aspersions on the Save-the-Redwoods

.

613

Drury: League ideas, as not being on a sufficiently

grandiose scale. It's debatable Just how much
you should contend for. We have never had any
quarrel with the Sierra Club or anybody else. We
Just plugged along. Meanwhile, since the thing
started, we've added over ten million dollars
worth of property to the state parks.

Pry: The art of the possible.

Schrepfer: Do you think that the division between the Sierra
Club and the league took a toll on the result?

Drury: Oh, I don't think there's any question about it.

I have no right to quote anybody, but you can talk
to Dick Leonard. He felt that the Sierra Club had
impaired very definitely the prospects of a
satisfactory national park solution.

Senate Committee Hearing, Subcommittee on Parks
and Recreation, April 17, 196?

Drury: The third meeting was the hearing of the Senate
committee on April l?f 196?. Albright and Wirth
and I all three testified in favor of the Senate
bill, which had not passed the Senate, but had been
recommended by the Senate committee. It never passed
the Senate. It went Into conference very irregularly.
It went into conference with the House committee

•rtT

.

•

'

•

Drury:

without having passed the Senate. I didn't even know
that you oould operate that way, but that's the way
they did It.

Bill In Conference Committee (Conference Report
H. Rept. 1890 for S 2515. September 11. 1968)

Pry: Ed Grafts mentions how they also added features to
the bill In conference committee too.

Drury: Oh, they totally changed the bill. It Is a moot

question and I wouldn't want to publicize it— I would
want to be sure of my ground — but as near as we can
make out the dominant influence in the conference
committee was the attorney for the Rellim Lumber
Company. That's one reason the thing turned out as
it did. The National Park Service was practically
ignored in the drawing of the boundary lines. We
knew that. I don't think Crafts was there. Crafts
spoke as if he were there, but I don't think he was,
from the reports we get.

Nor was anybody from the National Park Service.
I think they came in and gave testimony, but the
bill was written by the assistants to the two
committees, the Senate and the House committees, who
had the advantage of two or three days of observation
up there in the redwood country. Whereas the Sierra

615

Drury: Club, and. particularly the Redwoods League which

had been studying the thing for fifty years weren't
consulted. I don't think the Sierra Club was con
sulted.

The Sierra Club had made its influence felt,
because they elected, rightly or wrongly, to defy
the Internal Revenue Service and enter into con
troversial attempt to influence legislation. We
were assiduous in avoiding getting into that position,
because there was too much at stake for the Save-the-
Redwoods League. It wouldn't have been fair to
contributors like the Rockefellers, the Fords or the
Mellons or Mrs. William Stout or any of the others
for the league to have lost its tax deductibility.
So we were under wraps. It's a funny thing that in
the days when I was in government, both federal and
state, we could lobby with impunity. There was no
law or instruction against it. I used to go up on
the hill. I spent a good deal of my time lobbying
in Washington, D. C. as director of the National Park
Service and in Sacramento for the Save-the-Redwoods
League in the early days. In fact, in the 1928
Annual Report of the Save-the-Redwoods League every
other page had a heading "Vote for the State Park

.

616

Druryr Bond Issue" on It. We wouldn't dare do that today.
We'd lose our tax deductibllity.

Sohrepfer: Was there a change in the law?

Drury: Yes, the law was changed during the time when I was
In Washington. The members of Congress got tired
of getting so many letters from their constituents,
which were stimulated by not only the conservationists
but every other special interest group, so they got
the internal revenue act changed so that you'd lose
your tax deductibility if you Indulged In that kind
of activity. There's no question that the Save-the-
Redwoods League was handicapped by the fact that
they didn't engage in outright attempt to influence
legislation. The only time that we put in an
appearance was when we were invited, which we had
a right to do of course.

U.S. Forest Service; Redwood Exchange Unit

Pry: I Just wanted to ask you about this idea of the

exchange unit, if you agree with Ed Graft's version
that the whole idea for a park was imperiled when
the visiting congressional committee saw there
really wasn't any difference in management of the
Forest Service redwood unit and the privately owned
redwood production forests?

617

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Crafts knows a lot more about forest practices
than I do, but I would doubt whether that was
strictly so. Does he say that? I read his
testimony.

Yes. They have a sort of a showcase, experimental
area and Grafts tells about how the congressional
committee asked to see the rest of their forest,
where they had actually shortened the rotation and
were running their property exactly like the lumber
companies run theirs.

I have a very high opinion of the U.S. Forest Service
and I think it's too bad that they weren't allowed
to pursue their studies as completely as they should.

Reading Mr. Crafts' discussion, my impression
is that none of us has the whole picture.
That's right. [Laughter] That's right. He has the
sort of congressional and administrative viewpoint.
We all got in on it at different times. I went back
to three different conferences and hearings there
in Washington, D. C.

618

Congressman Wayne Aspinall

Sohrepfer: Do you think Wayne Aspinall fs rather desperate move
to get the bill through at the end, even though in
the eyes of many conservationists he sacrificed a
great deal, was the right thing to have done?

Drury: Oh, I suppose so. But I have no high opinion of
Congressman Aspinall, either his ability or his
public spirit. His career shows that it pays to
live a long time. When I was in Washington, he was
just a freshman congressman and nobody paid much
attention to him. Now he's the kingpin on this
committee, simply because he's gone back year after
year. I think he was obviously biased in favor of
the so-called vested interests.

Schrepfer: Then you don't think his cutting it down in

conference before he introduced it and then allowing
no discussion on the floor, was all because he thought
that there was no other way to get it through?

Drury: I think that was, from about every standpoint,

undoubtedly so. I think Mr. Aspinall is entitled
to credit, at least in getting the Land and Water
Conservation Fund released, which he made a condition
to any action at all.

619

LOCAL OPPOSITION

Economic Problem; Del Norte County

Schrepfer: What would the creation of the national park in
Mill Creek, as you advocated, have done to the
economy of Del Norte County?

Drury: Well, it would have been harmful to the economy of
Del Norte County. I'll give you a series of
resolutions that our directors passed at different
stages of the discussion of the redwood park. Prom
the very beginning we set down certain objectives
that we thought were desirable. One of these was
to provide, as we had done, for instance, in the
case of the Grand Teton National Park and the Jackson
Hole purchase, that on a diminishing basis in lieu
taxes should be paid by the government to the local
community and if that had been done I think it would
have allayed most of the opposition.

The League in its Spring, 1965 Bulletin first
set forth the various principles that we thought
should be followed, not the least of which was that
the local community should be compensated for the
loss of taxes, and if necessary, given government
relief — which at that time and I guess still, is

620

Drury: pretty widespread for every other purpose. It
would "be applied to Del Norte County. In other
words, we didn't want to see Del Norte County's
economic interests impaired by this project.

Schrepfer: Why wasn't it done?

Drury: Because Congress didn't want to do it. We had done
that while I was head of national parks; we finally
settled the Jackson Hole controversy in Just that
way, in lieu taxes to be paid on a diminishing
basis over a ten year period. Ten years now of
course is long past. I left there in 1951* I
understand that the citizens of Jackson Hole want
to have another ten years of taxes spent on them.
[Laughter] Congress was adamant on that.

But we advocated that economic aid be given to
Del Norte County perhaps in the form of in lieu taxes
paid for a reasonable period, at least until tourist
travel somewhat compensated for the loss of industrial
revenue .

Pry: Ed Crafts says they usually figure about five years
for an area to make the transition in its economy,
so that it's as prosperous as it was before a national
park took over. Do you think that's about right?
Is that what you have counted on for something like
Mill Creek, or would it be slower up there?

621

Drury: I never personally was as optimistic as the Arthur
D. Little Associates and other firms who have made
reports. I think that it's a grave question whether
they'd ever recoup entirely. There's a limit — and
there should be a limit — to the tourist travel in
an area of that sort. The National Park Service,
Just like the State park service, has a very sound
but somewhat restricted policy as to the extent to
which public recreational use is possible in that
type of a reservation.

Pry: I guess a lot of the economic recovery is based on
businesses that crop up Just outside the park
boundaries.

Drury: Yes, the outfit that makes the most money up there
is that "Trees of Mystery."

Sohrepfer: Yes, there are so many people in the parking lot
it's frustrating.

Drury: In my youth I had an opportunity to buy that 160
acres for $10,000 for the state. It was owned by
the De Martin family. I suppose at the market value
of the timber alone, it would be worth a quarter of
a million now. But it wasn't connected with either
the Prairie Creek or Del Norte Coast State Parks,
so It didn't have high priority. These people, by

622

Drury: using I guess legitimate enough methods, dramatize
the redwoods. The same kind of phenomena that you
can see free in the state parks, you have to pay a
dollar to see at the "Trees of Mystery." But
they've built up quite a tourist business.

Fry: They have all the gadgetry.

Drury: Have you ever been in there?

Pry: No. [Laughter] My friends have, and they told me
about the voice that booms out from the tree.

Drury: It's all surface stuff. Some of the boys think that
the state parks should have done the same thing.

Sohrepfer: Well, they could have made some money for the
system. [Laughter]

Residential Opposition to Park Acquisitions

Schrepfer: When you use eminent domain, you still have the trial
in Humboldt or Del Norte County?

Drury: Yes, and that's a great disadvantage too.

Schrepfer: The Jurors tend to be hostile to the league, do they
not?

Drury: They do now. In the early days the Juries used to
be made up of farmers, who were also taxpayers. We
condemned very little of the property. Most of it
we bought by agreement, but when we did get the state

623

Drury:

Fry:

Drury:

Schrepfen
Drury:

Pry:

Drurys

Pry:

to condemn, we usually bought it for a little less
than we'd offered the owners.

The farmers were usually behind the idea of creating
the land for a state park because they were
sympathetic?

Oh, in the beginning everybody up there in Humboldt
County, everybody was our friend, practically.
How long would you say that that feeling lasted?
Until about the fifties. We wouldn't have these
parks today if the lumber companies hadn't been
cooperative, particularly the Pacific Lumber
Company. They were more or less cooperative in
that they were willing to sell at their price, but
that's a lot better than not getting the property.
What changed the climate of opinion among local
residents?

Neither redwood nor Douglas fir sold very well in
the early days. The country was remote. Douglas fir
was worth practically nothing. We didn't even cruise
the Douglas fir when we bought a tract of timber.
I wondered if you had noticed more opposition on
the part of sort of the man in the street recently,
perhaps as a result of an addition over the years
to the population up there of people whose lives
are dependent on the redwood industry.

Drury: Oh, yes. No question about it. Now you asked before
whether or not the opposition was organized. It
was very skillfully organized by the lumber companies.

Schrepfer: Is it the lumber companies as opposed to the unions,
or in cooperation with the unions?

Drury: I have no knowledge of the unions themselves taking
any part at all in the opposition. It was the
chambers of commerce, the boards of trade and the
lumber companies plus two or three organizations,
such as the Redwood Region Conservation Conference,
the California Redwood Association and two or three
others, all of whom were very strong in their
opposition. "Don't park our jobs." That was the
popular local slogan.

Fry: Was the California Redwood Association in opposition?

Drury: Yes, the California Redwood Association was a part
of it. You're familiar with that report they got
out, showing what the industry was doing for
recreation and what they were willing to sell. The
fact is that we'd already bought many of those
properties listed and of course through the Nature
Conservancy, the Georgia-Pacific Company tendered
some wonderful groves on the Van Duzen River to
the state, though the state hasn't title yet.

.

.

625

Fry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Oh, I didn't know Nature Conservancy had
bought anything.

They haven't bought anything, but apparently skillful
tax lawyers worked it out so that the Georgia-Pacific
could get the credit for giving this property to the
state, as a deduction from income tax as a charitable
contribution. Whatever their motivation it was a
wonderful thing to do.

While we're talking about the opposition of the
timber owners maybe you can explain the role Don Cave
played, if any at all.

Don Cave was the local representative there of Dean
Witter and Company, the investment brokers. It was
he who made the classic statement that the difference
between them up there and the conservationists was
that the conservationists were thinking of posterity,
whereas they were thinking of the present.
[Laughter] Kraeger is the consulting industrial
economist from Seattle who prepared a detailed study
of the park proposals for Cave's committee. I guess
they had their own park.

Yes, Kraeger made a report showing that It would be
a catastrophe for the county, particularly for Del
Norte County, which is a very much smaller county.

626

Drury: The loss In the tax base in Humboldt County could
be absorbed, but there's no question that, without
In lieu taxes, the county of Del Norte would have
been very seriously affected. It's too bad that
Congress was unwilling to follow the precedent
that they'd set in Jackson Hole.

Schrepfer: The reason I asked about the unions as opposed to
the lumber company, was that when I talked to some
of the people up there and thought about it, I came
to the conclusion that really the lumber companies
have something to lose, but they can be compensated,
whereas the people whom the unions represent are
the people who lose something that Is very difficult
to replace. They would have to leave their homes.

Drury: No question about that, and it may be that the unions
did take a part in it, but I don't recollect it.
The Humboldt Board of Trade and the Eureka Chamber
of Commerce of course were very much opposed.

Schrepfer: The Eureka Chamber of Commerce is under Mr. Dick
Denbo isn't it?

Drury: Yes. He didn't see the whole picture.

Schrepfer: Of course chambers of commerce are always —

Drury: I can't say whether or not the companies have been
amply compensated because I don't know what the
federal appraisals are, but I'll bet they're being

.•1~

•

62?

Drury:

adequately compensated. Under this act the value
Is fixed as of the date of the passage of the law
by the federal government, but they are compensated
at the rate of six per cent per annum on any unpaid
balances, so that's going to run into a lot of
money.

Pry:

Drurys

Miller-Rellim Lumber Company

I Just found out the other day, when I was sitting
in Ed Crafts1 a seminar at Berkeley,* that Mr. Harold
Miller of the Miller-Helllm Lumber Company, which
owns so much of Mill Creek, lives in Oregon.
Oh yes. He has larger holdings in Oregon than he
does in Del Norte County. I guess he is sincere in
his concern about the people of Del Norte, but as far
as his operations are concerned, that's not nearly
as important to him as his holdings up there in
Oregon. But he's like everybody else. He didn't
want to have people interfere with his operations.
I don't think he was handled very well. It was I

*Ed Crafts, Seminar on the "Making of the National
Redwood Park," February 12, 1970, University of
California, Berkeley.

628

Drury:

Pry:
Drury:

John B.
Dewitt :

Drury:

Dewitt:

Drury:
Dry:

Dewitt :

think strategically very unwise for the enthusiasts

to get Senator Kuohel and the President to approve

the introduction of a bill that would have fined

or imprisoned officers of the Miller-Rellim Company

if they cut any more timber on lands that were being

considered for the national park. That isn't the

way things are done in America.

That's not a gentle persuasion technique is it?

No. I don't think it was wise to threaten to send

Miller and the Rellim Company to Jail if they didn't

stop cutting.

When the newspapers asked me about it, I said,

"We're not constitutional lawyers." We weren't

presuming to give an opinion on whether or not it

was legal.

It was done with the best of intentions, to help us

in our project.

The press questioned the constitutionality of this

law and we rendered no opinion it it, but I think

that the law would have been declared unconstitutional.

We had no doubt on that at all.

But in the meantime he would have stopped cutting,

I guess.

They never did stop cutting.

629

Drury: And Harold Miller, who is a very flinty character

anyhow, had his resolution to fight this thing to

the death enhanced by that particular action.
Schrepfer: Was it after "that he did the cutting or was that

before?

Drury: Both before and after.

Schrepfer: How extensive was his cutting in Mill Creek?
Drury: It was quite destructive and it was planned,

obviously, deliberately in order to scotch the whole

project. No question about that.
Sohrepfer: Is that cutting still going on?
Drury: The property belongs to the Rellim Lumber Company

and they have a right to utilize their own property.

Chances are that their operations have not started

yet, but they will shortly. They more or less cease

in the winter time of course.

Schrepfer: Who first approached Harold Miller about this?
Drury: That's a long and complicated story. Mr. Pred Smith,

who's on the staff of Laurance Rockefeller, had a

series of interviews, unknown to us, with Mr. Miller

back in about 1965.

Schrepfer: I've never seen any evidence of these interviews.
Drury: I have quite a body of correspondence, some of which

is, I guess, still confidential, with Pred Smith,

:

630

who brought us into the picture fairly early, but
a little too late to do any good. The essence of
his relations with Mr. Miller was that he was
trying to induce him to sell out lock, stock and
barrel, which is what of course we had advocated
over many years. The Save-the-Redwoods League,
you know, has had a program for the last fifteen
years that included all of the Mill Creek watershed.
So that it's always been known both in Del Norte
County and in the Relllm Lumber Company, that if and
when the money could be obtained from any source,
we wanted to buy the entire Mill Creek watershed.
But Mr. Fred Smith got nowhere with Mr. Miller.

We had some conferences with both Mr. Miller
and Mr. Barrel Shroeder, who's his local manager.
They were friendly, but were very firm in their
intention to continue operating. We felt at one
time, when they started cutting after the first
legislation had been introduced, that it was not
unreasonable to ask them temporarily to shift their
operations to timber that was outside of the proposed
boundaries, which they could have done at considerable
expense, but we advocated that that extra expense
be paid for as a part of the cost of establishing
the national park. The league in its Spring, 1965

.

631

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:
Drury:

bulletin, first set forth the conditions under which

the redwood national park should be established

in the Mill Creek area.

At that meeting of the Executive Committee of the

National Park Service in San Francisco was there

any discussion of how to approach Mr. Miller?

No. Mr. Miller had been pretty thoroughly alienated

before that. Of course what we advocated was that

the federal government buy him out lock, stock and

barrel and. pay for his factory, his roads, rolling

stock, his land and his timber.

When the bill came out of committee it carried
the proviso that the boundaries and price would be
worked out later but that the park was established
right then, which was unusual I believe.
What did you think about the way this was done?
It was unique. If they'd done that at Point Reyes,
they wouldn't have been in the fix they're in now.
I think that was a legitimate device.

632

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:
Pry:

Drury:

Redwood Lumbermen: United or Divided

One of the things we haven't talked about is which
companies fought hardest against Mill Creek proposal
and which ones fought hardest against the Redwood
Creek proposal.

Well, at one time I think they were willing to let
Rellim Lumber Company bear the brunt of the whole
thing. Prom our standpoint, that would have been
all right. We never have proposed anything in the
way of confiscation of anybody's property. We always
advocated that they be fully compensated. And I
think that's one reason we've done so well generally
in dealing with the lumber companies.
You have to consider your long range relationship
with them.

What were reactions to the proposed park land
owned in the Redwood Creek area? Did Miller, for
instance, come out and support that?
Well, Miller didn't own any land there.
I know, that's why I thought he might have supported
it as possible park land. [Laughter]
No, I think he was opposed to the whole program.
Of course, Georgia-Pacific, and Arcata, to some
extent, Simpson, were the main companies represented

633

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

there. The greatest damage, because of their limited
ownerships, was done to the Aroata Lumber Company.
If we had the money, there are some Intimations that
either the state or the federal government might buy
more land on Redwood Creek from Arcata. But the
other owners I think would fight It to the death.
I am trying to get a pattern of the behavior of the
men in the lumber companies because it's quite
possible that someday someone will be interviewing
them.

I think they should. I can give you a lot of names
of some very fine fellows in the lumber industry.
The president of Arcata, the presidency changed, but
when Howard Libby was in, I thought that he changed
his position in this, and that he actually testified
on behalf of Mill Creek once. Is my memory wrong?
Well, I don't think he testified, but I am sure that
in his heart he much preferred to have the government
select Mill Creek rather than Redwood Creek, because
that would have left them unscathed. Of course, my
reminiscence about Libby — we're about the same age,
he's a little younger than I am. I remember when
I first went up there in the twenties he was at
work in one of the lumber company offices, and like

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:

many underlings, he took a very dim view of the
management of his company. And when we twisted
the tall of the lumber barons, he'd always pat us
on the back. He was tickled to death when we had
our big meeting with the Pacific Lumber Company,
about which I've told you. When he became president
of a successful lumber company his position changed
a bit.

Well, he may have done more for conservation than
he ever planned to do by clear cutting his holdings
along Highway 101. [Laughter]

Of course, people's motives are mixed. The lumber
companies, and I think I've already told you this,
objected to his doing that, not so much because of
what he did, but because it was so conspicuous to
the public. There are only a few of us that are
beyond suspicion as to our motivation.
Yes. I'd hate to be put on trial today for mine.

635

AFTERMATH

Rounding Out the Watersheds

Schrepfer: Does the League plan to continue acquisitions to
round out the Redwood National Park watersheds or
do you feel this will be necessary?

Drury: We of course would like to see more funds go into
that, but anybody who knows the realities of the
situation knows it's going to be years before that
happens, and that of course is directly linked up
with the prospect of the remaining virgin stands of
redwoods persisting long enough so that money would
become available to acquire them.

Pry: Are you talking about on Mill Creek?

Drury: I'm talking about both Mill Greek and Redwood Creek.
We still feel that the total watershed of Mill
Creek should be acquired for the redwood park, even
though the bulk of what we purchase from now on
will be out over land.

Pry: In that 700 acres of Mill Creek that was acquired
for the park (I think my acreage is right), was
that the pretty part?

Drury: No, it wasn't the most important part. You have
all these different statements we've made?

636

Pry: Yes, I guess I got the 700 acres from your first
announcement to your membership of the Redwood
Park legislation.

So, in other words, there's still a lot to get
on Mill Creek?

Drury: Yes, and the prospects, to be very frank, are quite
dim, because the company has a limited amount of
stumpage. They want to keep operating and there's
a case where the local community surely had a great
deal at stake in keeping that kind of operation
going. It's a moot question as to whether the
Rellim Company, which operates in Mill Creek, has
enough virgin stumpage plus second growth that will
come into maturity in time to sustain a continuous
operation. Only time will tell about that. It'll
be another generation I think before we'll know. I
know that Lawrence Merriam, who's given it a lot of
thought, is of the opinion that they're Just on the
edge of not being able to operate continuously. They
have maybe twenty years of operation ahead of them
and what if anything will happen to the remainder
of that watershed is anybody's guess of course. But
it will be in the program of the Save-the-Redwoods
League, I hope, right along and it may materialize.
We're doing things today that we started forty years

637

Drury: ago. If you only persist long enough, you'll get
most of these things accompli shed.

Pry: Does Merriam's estimate include the grove of the
big virgin redwoods in Rellim land?

Drury: Oh yes, it includes their entire holding.

Schrepfer: As it is right now?

Drury: Yes. There are a lot of nuances to that situation.
It is very unfortunate because first, if there was
to be a redwood national park, and I think that
ultimately it will materialize, it is very unfortunate
that it wasn't done a generation ago. Then the
process of legislation at best is imperfect and it
was decidedly so in this case. There were so many
competing forces, not only lumbermen and local
interests, but the Sierra Club was obsessed with
the idea of the preservation of Redwood Creek, which
we surely didn't oppose, but we didn't give it as
high a priority as the Mill Creek watershed.

Schrepfer: When I talked to Charles Daly he said he thought

that the outlines of the park could be rounded out
and that it would be a satisfactory park ultimately,
but he had some very serious reservations about what
anybody could do about Emerald Mile. You, then,
are not as optimistic as he, is that correct?

638

Drury: No, I don't think that these companies will willingly
sell any more land to either the federal government
or the state. I don't think that the Congress would
authorize condemnation, so we're in the pitiful
position of having a pathetic fragment of a park
down on Redwood Creek. It's debatable whether or
not what we have on Mill Creek is adequate. For
many years we thought it was. In fact in September
of 1937 a report was made for the National Park
Service by John Mclaughlin and Lawrence Cook which
recommended 17,000 acres of which we later bought
about 10,000 acres for Jedediah Smith Redwoods
State Park.* And only the upper portion, a little
more than what's in the state park now, was proposed.
That was the conception of my good friends, McLaughlin
and Cook, when they made the report in 1937- But
as the years went on we learned a great deal and we
had a lot of sad experience with the inadequacy of
holdings that didn't contain complete ecological

*John S. McLaughlin and Lawrence P. Cook, "A Report
on Proposed Redwood National Park in California,11
September 30, 1937. McLaughlin was Acting Assistant
Regional Director, National Park Service and Lawrence
Cook, Deputy Chief Forester.

639

Drury: units. Whatever a viable park is, it isn't what we
have in Mill Creek now and particularly at Prairie
Creek State Park.

Cohelan has a bill in Congress to protect the
Emerald Mile in the park. There's no question that
it and the watershed that contributes toward it
should be included.* We would support that, but I
think that chances of getting it through Congress in
the next few years are almost nil. That answers
that question, in my humble opinion.

Schrepfer: Then Mill Creek is high on the league's list of
priorities?

Drury: Yes, but we have no illusions. First of all, the

Miller Company I don't think will sell. We couldn't
possibly acquire the timber short of condemnation,
which Isn't feasible unless we had the money in
hand, which we don't have. The prospects of either
state or federal appropriations in the next two or
three years are practically nil. It's almost
inevitable that the best that we can do at Mill Creek
and the best I think that they can do in Redwood

*San Francisco Examiner « August-September, 1969,
"Nixon Aid Sought on Redwoods," Sierra Club proposal
for adding to Redwood National Park.

640

Drury:

Fry:
Drury:

Fry:
Drury:

Creek, is gradually to buy up the cut over land,
allow It to reforest, do some planting, try to
restore the cover of the watershed, and pray for no
more floods. Of course they spoke of that flood
in '55 as being the hundred year flood and nine
years later they had another even worse.

There are some considerations (that I think
are a little premature to discuss very much) in the
planning of the National Park Service, which would
involve an attempt as is provided in the act of
Congress, for the government to make agreements with
the lumber companies as to the way in which they
shall log their timber that borders on the national
park holdings in the Redwood Creek region. This is
a report by Professor Stone (Edward C. Stone) and
Rudolph Gran and Paul Zinke on the proposal for
buffers. This hasn't been approved by the National
Park Service. It may not be.

But their report was funded by the National Park
Service?

Yes. They were engaged by the National Park Service
to make this report. Do you know Professor Stone?
Yes, I do. What's the date of that report?
The date is April 30, 1969. You might be able to

Drury:

Fry:

Drury:

get a copy from him.

Could we read the title into the record?
Certainly. It's called Redwood National Park.
California; An Analysis of the Buffers and the
Watershed Management Required to Preserve the
Redwood Forest, as Associated Streams in the Redwood
National Park, Stone and associates. It's 106 pages
and contains some very interesting, and I think
some rather impractical suggestions for ameliorating
the effects of erosion from run-off when they cut
the slopes above this corridor of National Park land
in Redwood Creek and around the tall trees area.

There are two committees, one appointed by the
Governor (They asked me to serve on it, and I begged
off and they appointed Lawrence Merriam. ) , and one
appointed by the National Park Service. They
apparently have my name on it, but I asked them to
put Merriam on that also. These two committees are
studying the whole problem of what to do about the
park holdings in both the national and state parks,
and are proceeding with the customary deliberation
that is exhibited by government agencies [Laughter]
since the beginning of the government.

You ought to talk to Lawrence Merriam sometime
about it. But the whole situation is still in a

Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Pry:
Drury:

Pry:
Drury:

state of flux, and I think we might waste a lot of
time speculating about what's going to happen next.
Well, does this reflect a concern about the preserva
tion of the redwoods along the creek in the corridor?
These two, the Stone report and...
Well, the Stone report is directed directly to that
problem.

the other one is all the parks?

Well, we haven't concealed the fact that we think
it's preposterous to have this narrow strip which
is only about half a mile wide along the stream.
Is Hartzog apprised of this?

Oh, yes. Hartzog realizes it, but they're at the
mercy of Congress, even more than we are, so that
if there were any prospect of money, we surely would
like to have the government appropriate more both
to Mill Creek and to Redwood Creek, and we would
support any program of that sort.

Now, you have the different bulletins of the
Redwoods League where we've tried to keep up-to-date
statements of our position in relation to the
Redwood National Park and the transfer ultimately
perhaps of the state parks to the federal government.
We've tried to maintain a somewhat neutral position
until we knew Just exactly what all the surrounding

Drury: oircvunstances are going to be. There's one of our
publications that came out right after the National
Park Act of 1968 that gives the essence of the
whole situation. It has a map in color showing the
state and. the federal areas and the watershed lands
that haven't been acquired.

Transfer of State Parks to Federal Government

Schrepfer: Can the state parks be transferred to the federal

government or is this in any way a violation of the
original contracts made by the state with the donors
of the memorial groves?

Drury: The act, as you unquestionably have read, provides
that those arrangements shall be honored in the
National Park. We haven't had a legal interpretation
as to whether that language means that the federal
government would establish additional groves in the
land for which federal money was paid. They've
already of course named an area for Lady Bird Johnson.

Schrepfer: Is that a dangerous precedent?

Drury: No, I don't think so.

Schrepfer: It's really a grove that was established without any
relation to a direct donation.

Drury: Yes, but it was in honor of Mrs. Johnson, who

Drury:

Fry:
Drury:

Pry:

Drury:

Schrepfer:

unquestionably contributed a great deal to the cause

of preserving the native landscape and beauty in

America.

Did she play an important role in this park?

Well, she was very much for it yes, unquestionably,

she is alleged at least to have had considerable

influence with the President. One of the dominant

characters was Laurance Rockefeller, who was Chairman

of the President's Advisory Council on Recreation

and Natural Beauty. They changed the name of that

committee so much I think the establishment by

President Nixon of this more formal Council on

Environment is all to the good. Gives us another

address to which to write him, you know.

In our previous interviews there was always some

question of the terms under which private money for

park land acquisition was given.

I don't know what would have to be done. It might

be conceivable they'd even have to have a vote of

the people.

[John B. Dewitt comes in.]
[Welcoming of Dewitt, conversation]

I was Just wondering about this transfer of the state
park land to the federal government and what it would
do to the lands acquired under the 1928 bond issue,

645

Schrepfer: by which six million dollars was voted by all the
people of California for the purchase of parks for
the state.

Dewitt: To give to the state, not to the federal government?

Schrepfer: Yes. And not to the federal government.

Drury: All I said was it might well be that a vote of the
people would be necessary, but I*m pretty sure that
the people would vote affirmatively on it.

Dewitt: I think so. Yes.

Drury: Dick Leonard feels that it's the same kind of use
that the donors and the voters in the bond issue
election approved and that the court would probably
sustain it.

Schrepfer: Do you believe the state parks should be transferred
to the federal government eventually?

Drury: Regardless of what I. believe, I think that ultimately
it will occur. I'll try to dig up a statement I
made to the Congress soon after the law was passed
in which I expressed my ideas as to the conditions
under which we should approve such transfer, if we
do approve it. Surely it should be that there
should be a quid pro quo, in that at least in
substantial degree it should contribute to the benefit
of the redwood parks. I don't think our directors

Drury: would willingly see these lands transferred from
the state to the federal government without some
kind of recognition of the need of further
acquisition of the redwood country. I think that's
one thing that will hold it up for some time.

Whatever action is taken in transferring these
present state park properties to the federal govern
ment must further the Save-the-Redwoods program.
It might be done through the medium of the Land and
Water Conservation fund of course, grants-in-ald to
the state. But anything that's favorable to our
oause I think is a little remote right at the present
minute. John Dewltt and I went up to Sacramento
yesterday. It's a pretty gloomy prospect, as far
as public funds for this kind of purpose are concerned.

Dewitt: I understand they can't even sell bonds.

Drury: The state now can't sell bonds, they don't have any
money even to pay escrow fees after the first of
July, and of course the staff is being reduced. I've
participated in this thing so long that I've seen
them come and go, you know. [Laughter]

Schrepfer: What is the official position of the Save-the-Redwoods
League as to the transfer of the state parks to the
federal government?

Drury: As I mentioned previously, in the past Dr. John C.
Merriam, after the state had made its huge invest
ment, was very doubtful whether the state parks
should be transferred to the federal government.

Right now our directors haven't taken a specific
position on it. I'll give you a copy of a statement
I made to the Council of the League last year, in
which I've tried to outline the conditions which
might warrant the transfer of the state parks to
the federal government.

There are arguments pro and con. I think one
of the principal arguments in favor of the Redwood
National Park is that Uncle Sam is the only one who
has limitless funds, or thinks he has, to accomplish
these things. Our trip up to Sacramento yesterday
convinced us that it's going to be pretty slim
pickings for the redwoods as far as the state is
concerned for the next few years. Of course I've
lived so long I've seen those things wax and wane.

Schrepfer: Do you feel that the administration of the parks
would be better If it was under the National Park
Service as opposed to the state of California which
from my experience administers the redwood parks
very well.

648

Drury:

Pry:
Drury i

Pry:

I'm in a difficult position to answer that. It's
even-steven with me; I know intimately the
principles and personnel of both organizations.
I think they're both very high class and I think
there's very little choice to be made. The only
thing is that the federal government already has
allocated more money for staff to care for this very
fragmentary holding than the state has been able to
build up over the last forty years.
What about permanency of policy on management and
pre s ervat i on ?

I think that probably the National Park Service is
a little more consistent than the state would be.
There's always the possibility of a state administra
tion coming in that would exploit the parks and
perhaps not treat them quite as well. On the other
hand, there is a good deal of criticism of the
national park system. But the basic principle of
the national parks is pretty firmly established and
so far the policy that has guided them in their
planning for the future of the Redwood National Park,
with or without the state acquisitions, is very
satisfactory to the conservationists.
No one seems to be particularly anxious now about

6^9

Fry: the question of whether the state parks would be
transferred or not. Is there any pressure
particularly to get this accomplished right away?
I'm not aware of any.

Drury: Personally I can't see what the hurry is. They have
several years ahead of them in planning and
organizing and the state parks are being very well
administered at the present time. There's no
question that the personnel that are in charge from
Director William Perm Mott down are fully as
competent to handle the affairs as anybody that
they could muster in the national parks. But it
would seem that — just as the Yosemite Valley, being
the great area it was, ultimately was ceded by the
state back to the federal government or returned
to them — some of the state park area up there ought
to be included in the Redwood National Park. I
discussed that a little bit while I was back in
Washington, in the *K)'s, when the Douglas bill came
up.

STAFF OF THE-SAVE-THE REDWOODS LEAGUE JANUARY 19, 1965

From left to right: Evelyn Smith, Louise Hlrsch.Ruth Savage, Ruth Doty, Barbara Carpenter , John B. Dewitt^Meredith Harris
Dorothy Farrell, Hewton B. Drury, Lawrence C. Merriam, Ida Geary, Ivah Faye. 1 • 1 I I

Amelia Fry Interviewing Newton Drury, 1961

650

Future: Save -the -Redwoods League

Schrefper: Has the existence of the national park decreased
the popularity of the league?

Drury: I don't think that it has and of course we try to
rationalize the present situation in our continued
program of money raising and land acquisition.
Since the act as passed, we've bought eight or ten
parcels of property up at Jed Smith and Prairie
Creek, all of which should have been in the national
park but they're not authorized to be included. I
think if Prairie Creek and Jed Smith are transferred
to the federal government they will pass an act
accepting them. That's practically all been done
with Redwoods League money. The big purchase we
made up there two years ago was Pepperwood Plat on
the Avenue of the Giants.

,

Conclusion: Was the National Park Worthwhile?

Schrepfer: Do you think the park was worthwhile?

Drury: I think it undoubtedly was. However it is regrettable
that this is one of the few cases where because of
the conflicting interest the technical Judgement of
the National Park Service was not accepted by the

651

Drury:

Fry:

Drury:

Fry:

Drury:

Congress. The boundary lines were mainly drawn by
the underlings in the committees who had Just a
bowing acquaintance with the terrain. Most of them
had spent only a few days there and I am afraid
that they were swayed pretty largely by the arguments
of the lobbyists and attorneys of the lumber barons.
Does that reflect some kind of abdication by the
higher-ups?

Oh, no. It's been going on right along.
Why was it different this time?

Mainly because of the amount of money involved. It
was the large interests of these lumber companies.
They had a side to it, too. They have their stock
holders to whom they're responsible. They made
these large investments in stumpage, mills, roads,
and equipment and they predicated these investments
on having a certain amount of timber they can extract.
That's why we have never advocated anything short of
complete compensation to them, including amortization
of plant.

652

APPENDIX — Newton B. Drury

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page numbers in parentheses indicate corresponding material
in Oral History. If no page number, material corresponds to
entire indicated section. All documents relevant to this Oral
History not included in the Appendix are on file in the Bancroft
Library, University of California, Berkeley. If only part of a
document is included, the remainder can also be found in the
Bancroft Library.

I BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION

FOREBEARS

Memorandum by Wells Drury on his Services as Indian

Interpreter (p. 7) 656

II SAVE-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE AND THE STATE PARK SYSTEM

DRURY ADVERTISING COMPANY AND THE SAVE-THE-REDWOODS
LEAGUE

Sample of Drury Advertising Agency (p. 103) 658

Excerpt from Steve Mather of the National Parks

(pp. 105-110) 659

Letter to Professor Merriam from Stephen S. Mather

(p. 139) 660

DEVELOPMENT OP CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM

1928 Note from N. Drury to MoDuffle on California

State Parks Council Stationery (pp. 174-78) 662
1962 Map of Bull Creek Basin, 19*61. Watershed Location

Map, California (pp. 225-227) 663

April 27 • 1953* Bulletin from Arthur Connick,

President . Save-the-Redwoods League (p. 222) 664
Program of Land Acquisition in the California State

Park System, 1940 666

Organization Chart , Calif ornia Division of Beaches

and Parks. 19*54" 667

Organization. California Division of Beaches and

Parks . May 1959 668

California State Park System Coast and Sierra

Redwoods, January 1, I960 669

653

Letter from N. Drury to Arthur Connick re

AB 720. 6/12/1959 6?0

Tideland Oil Royalties. 11/20/1952 675

DIRECTOR OP CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS

Project Status Report, California Division

of Beaches and Parks. 10/1/1958 6?6

Property Ownership Report, California Division

of Beaches and Parks, 1/1/1959*" 677

Map of California State Park System. 1959 6?8

III NATIONAL PARKS

DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Excerpts from Annual Report of the Director,
National Park Service to the Secretary of
the Interior. 1949 (PP. 332-336) 6?9

1940 Communioati on T between N. Drury and Harold

L. Ickes (p. 351) " 682

Harold. L. I ekes, Newton Drury, Michael W. Strauss,
H.W. Bashore Correspondence . January-February
1945 (PP. 393-94) 692

APPROPRIATIONS

Amounts Appropriated to National Park Service,

1941-1951 (PP. 401-444) 699

Hearings "before Senate Subcommittee on

Appropriations for the Interior Department,
1951 (P. 428) The hearings for the National
Park Service appear on pp. 317-366. Because
of length this item is not included in the
Appendix but has been deposited in the Bancroft
Library.

Remarks by Hon. LeRoy Johnson, California re
Newton Drury. 7/1 3/19 51 « Congressional Record-
Appendix (p. 440) 700

OTHER NATIONAL PARK WRITING

Letter from S. Herbert Evison to Mrs. Chita Fry,

3/11/1964 (p. 534) 706

654

V ADDENDUM - March 17, 1970

FREEWAY THREAT TO PRAIRIE CREEK PARK

Bull Creek and Prairie Creek maps. Save-the^

Redwoods League Bulletin, 1963 (?• 552) 707

Program and map,!, Save-the-Redwoods League

Bulletin, 1965 (p. 552) 708

Route Location in Del Norte County « 1970

(P. 555) 709

Save-the-RedwQpds League Bulletin re Fern

Canyon, Gold Bluff Beach, 5/10/1965

(PP. 556-57) . .. 710

Memorandum re Prairie Creek Freeway. 5/26/1970 711

BULL CHEEK (HUMS OLD!? REDWOODS STATE PARK) FLOOD
DAMAGE AND CONTROL

Summary of Flood Damage to Redwood Parks »
2/1/1965 (PP. 562-564?

RECENT FUND RAISING AND ACQUISITIONS

Summary of California Acquisitions, January

1963 -October 1967" 715

Fall 1970 Bulletin, Save-the-Redwoods League,

1960*3 a Decade of Accomplishments. Future

Program of League, plus State Redwood Park Maps 716
Save-the-Redwoods League Acquisition Program^

5/1/1966. Maps of Humboldt. Prairie Creek.

Del Norte Coast and Jedediah Smith Redwoods 718

VI REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK

CHRONOLOGY

Redwood National Park, including Bills Introduced
in Congress (special category covering all of
Section VI) 722

Map of Redwood Empire 733*

REDWOOD CREEK VS. MILL CREEK

Statement re Proposed Pesoadero Creek Project,

John B. Dewitt, 3/26/1970 (p. 603) 73^

Positions of Save-the-Redwood League on Redwood
National Park Location. 4/9/1965. 2/23/1966
(pp. 604-607) 737

Position of Save-the-Redwood League on Redwood

National Park. 12/1/1966 (pp. 604-07) 741

Map of Proposed National Park, Fall 1966 742

655

LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES

Excerpt from DeWltt Nelson, Pressures on a

Changing Resource Base. 1960 (p. 614)
National Park Service Advisory Board Field
Trip to Redwoods 6/19-21/68. Map and Summary
of Redwood National Park Bills 7^7

AFTERMATH

Map and Information re Redwood National Park
from Save-the-Redwoods League Brochure .
1969

656

MEMORANDUM BY WELLS DRURY: ON HIS SERVICE AS

INDIAN INTERPRETER, UNDER ADMINISTRATION OF

PRESIDENT LINCOLN

Rev. Alfred R. Elder, who was my foster father, had been a friend of
Abraham Lincoln from boyhood. They were born on adjoining farms in Hardin
County, Kentucky, and their families migrated to Indiana and then to Illinois
at about the same dates. In Sangamon County they did politics together, both
having homes in Springfield. About 1846 Elder moved to Oregon Territory and
tried to get Lincoln appointed Governor of the Territory, invoking the aid of
their mutual friend, Thomas H. Benton. But Lincoln declined.

Before Lincoln was inaugurated he wrote to Elder asking him if there was
anything he wanted. I was about 9 years old and remember the letters that
passed, as I was always taken into the confidences of the family. Elder was
devoutly religious and replied that if appointed Indian agent he would like to
devote his life to helping the Indians. One of Lincoln's first appointments
was that of Elder as Indian agent with headquarters at Olympia, under the pro
visions of the Medicine Creek treaty. I think we reached Olympia in the winter
of 1861.

Soon after we arrived the interpreter resigned. Several aspirants appeared.
Although the salary was only $500 a year the office was desirable, as it was almost
a sinecure. Elder knew Chinook from early association with the Indians of the
Willetnatte and Columbia valleys.

When he spoke of appointing me as interpreter Henry Hale and other men
who sought the place objected on the ground that I was too young -- 10 years of
age.

They held a meeting and agreed to leave it to Lincoln.

Just think of a President having to settle an insignificant thing like that"

So Elder wrote to Lincoln, placing before him the following particulars:

1. I wish to appoint the boy, Wells Drury, who is a little more than
10 years old.

2. He is my foster-son, being adopted by me when he arrived in Oregon.
His parents died of cholera while crossing the plains in 1852.

3. This boy can speak the Chinook jargon fairly well, having learned it from
the Indians with whom he came in contact from his earliest childhood.

4. Objection is made by other aspirants on account of his extreme youth.
Elder closed by asking Lincoln's approval of the appointment.

Lincoln replied in a long letter in which he expressed interest in the fate
of an orphan boy, and said he would like to give unqualified approval of Elder's
request, but felt that he should not do so. However, he thought that it would be
fair to have a competitive examination, and let the winner get the place.

657

Three young men entered their names, and 5 judges were appointed. Seattle,
Toke and another Indian whose name I do not remember represented the Indians;
former Indian Superintendent Hale and a former Hudson's Bay employee were the
other members of the jury.

It was a hard trial for me, and I remember with what trembling I faced the
ordeal. But from my earliest recollection the frontier life had schooled me to
self-reliance and I soon became cool under the rapid fire of the questioners.

The judges stood 4 to 1 in my favor, Seattle grunting out that I was
entirely too young, but old Toke strongly championed my cause. Seattle didn't
like to speak Chinook and took little part in the examination, but Toke was
exceedingly talkative and laughed heartily at his own jokes.

After a year's practice I placated Seattle by talking to him in his own
dialect. Then I pleased him greatly by interpreting for him that part of
Winthorp's "Canim pe Laselle" (The Canoe and the Saddle) which told of the
Indians of Puget Sound.

My reservations were Chehelis, Squauxon, Nisqually, Puyellup and Tulalip.
I also went to Skagit Head for conferences on several occasions. I held the
office for 5 years. When Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson appointed C.S. King
as Indian Agent, and he discharged me.

658

SAMPLE OF DRURY ADVERTISING AGENCY

STATEWIDE COMMITTEE on HIGHER EDUCATION

Su;-.;o:t:n^ the Report of the State Council on Educational Planning and Co-ordination,
ami Opr os:ng Creation of Four-Year Regional Colleges in California

JOHN I.. M-.XAH
CJi.l.i rii!.;n

1 V, . WENTWORTH
i.lOl;:,i C. l-AKDEL
|\-rS * li.VRrD McKINl.LY
I. I). ( HAM

orcAr; si'Tuo

Rt'PLKV ilUtiHES
REDEKICK J. K.OSTHR

AVAKT EDXXARD voinr

IRS. MABEL D. AllART

I-RANCIS MOULTON

AKNilAV P. GRIFFITHS

1-. i . KOliSON
\MI I F. MORRISH
KANCIS P. 1 AKQUHAR
US. ADA 1ORDAN I-UAV
)R. GI.FN F. CARLSON
•<! I.AII CHAMBERLAIN
l.EON BOCQUF.RAZ
GEORGE \V. COlltN
FRED A. FI.I.ENWOOD
:l'. UAR01.D E. RING, S. J.
CLINTON E. Mil I.ER

ASA C. DIMON
GEORGE F. McNODI-I-
VINCI NT BUTLHR
tV. WILLMF. M. MARTIN
. RANCES WOOLSEY ROBSON

R. .1. DILLON-
JOHN F. ANDREWS
DR. NX'. H. 'WALKER

C. S. WATSON
SANNETTE ABBOTT ADAMS
I1URTON A. S>X'ARTZ
DWARDS II. MliTCALF

\V. E. GOODSPEFD

RICHARD R. WEE1X)N

E. \V. MURPHY

\V. 11. HAMMER

I . \\ . WILSON

joi-: (;. s\\'in
i c. HK;KINC;HOTIIAM

HARRY I.. MASSER

PAl'I. K. YOST
KS. WILLIS C. HltKMAN
C. R. PERRIER
C. E. HAWLEY
B. E. PATCHETT
MRS. L. WINKENHOFER
J. B. BIAS. JR.
LEO V. KORBEL
W. E. BASHAM
^ S. H. JOSEPHINE SHUTE

RALPH T. FISHER
RMERSON B. DERRICK
15. DUNCAN S. ROBINSON

HARRY L. DUNN
MRS. IIARKY GEBALLE
FRANK C. MORTIMFK
FRED MOVER JORDAN

C. S. McBRIDE
CLAUDE A. WAYNE

A. G. ANDERSON
RS. JAMES C. MF.KRITT
I JOHN HOMER WOOF SHY
ARTHUR G] 'COONS
L. E. WRAITH
J. H. COIFIN

AUBREY DRURY
Sccreiary

Dear Friend:

HO',7 the chain-college plan is before the
STATE SENATE.

While the so-called regional college bill
(A. 3. 833) was decisively defeated 46 to 30,
nevertheless the threat of the establishment of
such a chain is still present and very real.

Another bill, A. B. 174, has been so amended
that in effect it would, if passed by the Senate,
create a chain of seven four-yer.r regional colleges
It changes the names of the State Teachers Col
leges to "State Colleges", inviting constant en
deavor to expand these institutions. The bill also
reduces the required teacher-training to only six
units — or an average of less than one unit per
semester, thus virtually eliminating the pedagogi
cal requirements.

It will be valuable aid in this crisis if
you will communicate with members of the State
Senate, and urge others to do likewise, pointing
out the menace to higher education involved in
A. B. 174.

Write or wire your State Senator TODAY, giv
ing reasons for opposing this ill-considered bill:

— Present facilities are adequate ;

--Regional colleges involve needless dupli
cation ;

— The cost in the long run would be prohibi
tive ;

— Experience in other States shows such a
plan a failure ;

— Every survey by experts has declared
against it ;

— Changing the names to "State Colleges" is
unwise ;

— The bill is unfair to Junior Colleges ;

— Except for a few local boosters, there is
no public demand for the change.

A. B. 174 in effect would saddle California
with the burden of seven four-year regional col
leges, costly and unnecessary.

Urge your State Senator to oppose it.

STATEWIDE COMMITTEE on
HIGHER EDUCATION

Room 508

114 Sansome Sued

San Francisco.

California

659

In 1917, prospects for the redwoods north of Muir Woods
—in Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties, where
they reach their top form— were dim. Broad-scale lumbering
was going ahead unhampered by anyone's fears for appear
ances or even long-range economics; and since the redwood belt
consisted almost wholly of private property, the only possible
deterrent to the slaughter seemed to be great handfuls of
money. Mather kept his eye on the situation; he was too busy
and too far committed those first couple of years with other,
even more pressing matters to do more. He and Kent talked
the redwood problem over from time to time. Kent introduced
a bill in Congress for the public purchase of a redwood tract
of ungrudging dimensions; but calling for a stiff appropria
tion, it was more or less neglected In the welter of park leg
islation then being nursed along. Thus when Henry Fairfield
Osborn, John C. Merriam, and Madison Grant rushed down
from Humboldt County afire with zeal to save the redwoods,
Mather embraced them as able and needed allies.

The redwoods work was the first he did after his breakdown;
he occupied himself with that months before he tackled any
other park business. Osborn, Merriam, and Grant decided in
the winter of 1917-18 to start up a save-the-redwoods league.
In March of 1918 Mather wrote to Merriam:

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Madison Grant the other day
and hearing his point of view on the redwood situation. He is cer
tainly enthusiastic on the proposition of preserving a section of these
fine redwoods, and I brought him in touch with Mr. E. C. Bradley,
Assistant to the Secretary here. It seemed to be the opinion that
we should make available some funds for you in your capacity as
secretary of the proposed organization, and Mr. Grant and I thought
it would be advisable to have Mr. Bradley act as temporary chair
man. We plan to put $100 in your hands to get the organization
started, and towards this amount I am sending you my own check
for $40, which represents a contribution of $20 each from Mr.
Grant and myself. Mr. Bradley 's check for $20 is also herewith, and
we aim to secure the balance from Professor Osborn and Mr. Kent.

Here was planted the germ of the national Save-the-Red-
woods League, one of the most phenomenally successful con
servation organizations in history.

660

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

WASHINGTON

.TICEOPTHE DIRECTOR

March 11, 1918

Cear Professor uterriam:

I trust this letter will find you still at Berkeley,
although I understand you are going to be back here in
Washington before long.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Kadi eon Grant the
other day and hear his point of view on the redwood sit
uation. He IB certainly enthusiastic on the proposition
of preserving a section of these fine redwoods, and I
brought him in touch with Mr. E. C. Bradley, Assistant to
the Secretary here. It seemed to be the opinion that we
should make available some funds for you in your capacity
as secretary of the proposed organization, and Ur. Grant
and I thought it would be advisable to have Mr. Bradley
act as temporary chairman. We plan to put $100 in your
hands, and towards this amount I an. sending you my own
check for i40, which represents a contribution from Mr.
Grant and myself of 420 each. Mr. Bradley1 s check for $20
is also herewith, and .ve aim to secure the balance from
Professor Osborn and Mr. Kent.

We looked up the location of the Eull Creek Flat stand
on the Land Office maps and thought it would be advisable to
secure a detailed map of this location. It has never been
mapped by the Geological Survey, but v/e may be able to work
up nomething froti the Lund Office records. In the ceantime
you n.ay be able to secure a map of this plot through the
o.vners. Mr. Grant wants to bring this whole proposition to
the attention of Llrs. Harriman, whom he thinks could be in
terested, and if you could secure any data as to valuations,
etc., this would undoubtedly be valuable to him.

Mr. Bradley said that Theodore N. Vail, President of
the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, had seen the
redwoods in this section of California and was deeply im
pressed with the importance of preserving them, and Mr.
Bradley felt that ilr. Vail could be interested in doing some
thing very pubetantial when it came to raising funds.

661

I took occasion *vhen in Chicago last week to speak to
l!r. Edward F. Ayer about this proposed redwood reservation
at* he was leaving for a trip through California I urged
him to see you in Berkeley, if possible, and discuss the
pubject •-ith you. He bus been keenly interested in these
redwoods f.ince his trip last spring and plans to visit them
again this year while motoring on his way to Portland to at
tend the meeting of the Board of Indian Commissioners. I
hope Hr • Ayer can get in touch v;ith you as you could tell him
just how to reach the Bull Creek Flat property, and I am sure
he would be glad to see it for hicsulf.

Mr. Bradley, Mr. Grant and I also discussed the possi
bility of getting a few prominent raen to visit the property
this summer. It may be possible to carry this out later.

Very sincerely yours,

/

Prof. John C. Jerriam,

University of California,
Berkeley, California.

Incs.

662

"To furiikCT OM praMrratiuia,

tote park rrttem, *l »ttu o*
curt tending iccaic tad racrw-
•limul imporunc* *nd pl«cr»
•flu* tone aadKtfnufic iacar-
wt. foe tb* eB/apntni. uupt-
r»Ckun, *od fdttcitioa of th«

v; VORNIA

STATE PA^IKS COUNCIL

1H SANSOMK&'MTLT, IAN FRANCISCO

ROOM 800 CHAMBER OF G >M**tni j; DcaHiNG, Los ANC.IIUS

Vote YES on

NUMHEH

4

November 6
State Park Bonds
"For All of California"

San franc Is oo
27, 1928.

lote to Hr. KcBuffle.

My estimated budget for the California State Paries Council
(San Tranoisoo and los Angele*) to August 1, 1928, was $9,882,00.

I)

ttr. John* give* me the figure, to August 1, 1928, of $10,482.44
expenditure which involve* a fairly, accurate estimate of the charge* for
the last half of July. An analysis of the expenditure* of the Council,
however, ha* disclosed iteia* chargeable to the Hospitality Fund, occasioned jj
by th» holding of the .rational Conference on State Park*, amounting to
$490.80 (see "A" I. ji

I
If we exolude. therefore, the items nece«*ltatad by the Conference,

there Is e. difference of only $109.64 between the total expenditure* of
$9,991.64 and the estimate of $9,882.00,,

I have had detail sheets made of the items of misoellaneous ex-
pen**, printing and »t*tlonery and fora letters for the period up to July
17th, to show the character and extent of these expenditure* (*ee "B").-*

I aa having Kr. John* make out a revised budget showing the total
estimate for the campaign, the expenditure up to August 1st, and the balance
under each heading, such a* direction, stenographic, printing, eto.

II

Total oaah received to July 31st is $12,655.00. including $2,000.00 i!
from the Save-the-Bedvoods League. Total expenditure*, approximately $10,482,41
leaving *, balance of $2,172.66 in bank a* of August 1st, plus $1,000.00 pledged
by Krc. Bryant, or a total of $2,172.56 available. Mrs. Could of Santa Barbara,

ha* also signified her Intention of making a donation.

j^- *

-c*

^^

J*rf~ t£ "At—It" •*>. AJ-^ . [S<*, "C")

Auoc*«m •( Ccf flseeari

Organtzationl

C-or,..,,,. »H w.ld Lilt

Supporting the California State

Nit. and Coaftreex* M Chamber* uf

Park Bonds Legislation;

FrttBO Conatr ' i*«fnort Qn.ftcr C*»J Cl«» ^.trri W.Jr.

Glrnd.t. •.<>• Aoff t« R»*«ot»... i Huaua|>ae.*kk.
CrranoiC* MtcJorrl KnlomJo BCBC* Svrtn(*ill*

A.iur, ,,, '. CUb «f ^«then

w«!th CluL uf Ctlifor.il
Ca«MT*ttiM AMflClltioa •(

N*l.**D*u(h:«n.(L.M

OoJjt" VtM At.m«d.

(Lung B«*r») MtFirlu^ Rinff-dt C«unir Tkeiwd

Cmfrfvw* AljiM dt*

U. A.»l«,

R*e1vo*d Cn.ptr* A*Mci*tioei - lstei*i CeniMF

TL^ AiTrfMi « -*- <>- Sl" *••"" c*- Twtatk

^'rreLfcT/"" •""""

L«t An|tlt> Cilf TM«kwi*

Hnwrr C«liH*l< Dituict
S.. J..i4«* Villrr Tw.ri* Cl«f(dil«

Hollr"-- 1 N~JI» s..o!iil'!,.rin v^"'i''

t*J Tfi-»el At«Hit(.M ro,rh,M.V»l AieJ

Ait-.,,- •

L. A.ttlt. H.|k 5,-hW

Hit«iinfto« kh. Fm. ^icrtirtnie -^ rit:itlt_ y. *"t'i Hc'lji — iJ

C*ltfar|ii| LnititW *"«rm

To;' r..' A.«,

- _. . . - C*n<»tJ

[•«'•*-< s.. i— »«,«,..«.

VM«ri

Nicu.-r C.loo.-(So.Cj!i/«fc4

S erfs Cink Coroe-a

OAU.d ,,„ ,uln |.^n,t. v.lo...

( .',;.Jc... tnl f .,.'. A«n

Sm'Krf. Di.t., Ciliforoit

Silt* F«rkt AtsncUltoe) of Cr*:l«tt-\ «'o»a

St. Ktmo. Vtlltf yj^ C*u«(F

Olifenit l-ii« A»r»mo.rili
Ol.fero.* S,.,. !..'-.,,«, of

SMiktr. D..- . litrr* Cl»b
I.«f— .f Ctl.ro. n.t Muo.c.

»<-,.,.. ).*»-i k*-R«l*«c^i r«U IUW Milb

I.f.r»t *f H-imSvt.lt Coaa-rr Flortnc*

L.,.«' »"»k F.'r.,. V>lkr jl».t I.rku. i.ttrn.rf U
L..W.I. »,,.bw. S..,,C,« ,t~'lL"^.4
1 • jollt FlMtnl.. Stntt Kan

N.HOOJ! AMIo.nob.lt Clitb

» jr.J..d« Firt Dtxnct Foanni

Ltrluouf Pum«ol Vo.t V.ilrr

MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE

PARKS COUNCIL

«-M F. [.L..

DVNCAM McDurra. Ci^r»t. Ni VT«M B. D«U»T, Sfftliry G. t HKNOLM
ALIIN LCmcK»ma GIO.CI T. MAJUTOM K. F. ScminMcn

T««. H. (Uacun M«». iXoutT HUNTII

Low V. MtmM J. C $n»r

btAHT 5. P F*ITM»

H Ma*. HAAAIBT TEST JAC&IOM TDU.IAU R OVRJC & IU>«r«r G Snout

MW.-OU.CKAI>

j. D. GIANT

A. C LOVVAJM

Mru MAIT PicKrotto Gun S. TAFTAAN

NATIONAL

CONiVEKENCE ON STATE PARKS • SAN FRANCISCO,

JUNE 26-29 • LOS ANGELES, JVT-V 2-3

Map of Bull Creek Basin from Save-the-Redwoods
League Bulletin, 1962. Watershed location map
from State of California, Department of Natural
Resources Division of Soil Conservation Report

on Protection of the Bull Creek Flats Humboldt
Redwoods State Park Cat J fornia, June 1961 .

Bull Creek

i State lands
J RoeKefeWer For«st
(\^ri» I, I9fei; 83M Ac«o

^UKJ purchase am Fairhurst purchase.
'°.IWi -522ft *c»es E ffi Canoe Cree* VWlashed'
Cr»;K vfcterahedl ?eo Acres

ABOVE: Mop of Bull Creek Bastn skowing ^^^ acquired, by the Save-
the-Redwoods League to further the state's program of erosion control
and reforestation for the protectton 0} t^e Rockefeller forest.

664

'o Friends of Saving the Redwoods:

Here are the facts about the bills before the State Legislature to allow
utting of Redwoods in the State Parks in order to widen the Redwood Highway:

A.B. 2570 (Belotti) in its original form was defeated but now has passed
he Assembly in amended form which takes from the State Park Commission any control
ver trees on the highway right of way up to a width of 25 to 32 feet and makes the
ighway engineers the sole judges as to which trees should be cut.

While less drastic than the original, this amended bill is a dangerous
ntering wedge toward unnecessary destruction of the Redwoods. The State Park
omission, of which for several years I was a member, have always agreed that
angerous trees should be cut, and in the past to my knowledge, the Commission have
oncurred in the removal of many hundreds of such trees. They will do so in the
uture. However, they contend rightly that the question is a technical one, involv-
ng both landscape and highway considerations, and that the determination should
.ot be left solely to the Highway authorities. The Department of Public Works have
ecognized this point of view, which represents their practice in the past. They
.id not initiate and are not advocating the Belotti 'bill, in its original or amended
orm.

The Belotti bill (A.B. 2570) now goes before the Senate. It should b£
efeated unless it is_ amended to provide that removal of trees for highway widening
purposes is_ with the concurrence of the State Park Commission.

S.B. 69 (Abshire) is still before the Senate Committee on Natural
Resources (Sen. Burt W. Busch, Chairman) and provides, as did the original Belotti
ill, that the Highway authorities shall have unrestricted authority, regardless
£ previous agreements, to cut trees in order to widen the present highway, when
n their judgment this is necessary.

This bill is a great danger to the Redwood Parks, and even opens the way
o the construction, within the limits of existing easements, of a four-lane free-
ay, which the highway engineers report they must ultimately build, and which would
e ruinous if built on the present line of U. S. 101 through the Parks.

S.B. 69 should be defeated. In any event it surely should be amended to
irovide for joint determination by the Highway and Park authorities as to which
rees are to be cut, if necessary to provide proper safety of the Redwood Highway,
"here should also be eliminated the provision that this cutting should be "without
•egard to previous agreements," as this would be a breach of trust by the State
oward those who have contributed millions of dollars to match State funds in
stablishing the Redwood Parks.

Advocates of these bills assert that "not more than a dozen trees would
e removed." This is good news, if correct; but the bills as they now stand do not
ssure this. They open the way to wholesale destruction of Redwoods solely on the
etermination of the highway construction forces.

The Save -the -Redwoods League and many conservation authorities support
he stand of the California State Park Commission that while there is no objection
o removing by mutual consent such trees as are a hazard, U.S. Highway 101 on its
resent route through the Parks should not be converted into a speedway for either
>assenger vehicles or commercial trucks. They recognize that increasing traffic
emands a much wider highway -- possibly in the near future a divided four-lane
reeway -- but contend that this new highway would destroy much of the beauty of

-

665

he Redwood Parks if it plowed through them with a width of 60 to 100 feet. This
s true whether the four lanes adjoin each other, or two double lane highways are
onotructed through the Parks. The destruction of many trees would be involved,
n any event.

Advocates of A.B. 2570 and 8.6. 69 now disclaim any desire to see this
.appen. But the Senate bill, unless amended, would authorize this, and the Assembly
ill would authorize what would turn out to have been the needless cutting of many
iant Redwoods -- many of them close to 2000 years old — if, as is logical, the
Itimate improved highway were built on another location outside the Parks.

It is our belief, therefore, that both bills should be defeated, and that
,he Legislature should pass a Resolution insisting that both Highway and Park
.uthorities get together and plan for the ultimate U.S. 101 as it affects the Parks,
1th the aim of finding a feasible route nearby but outside the Redwood groves;
leanwhile Jointly attaining proper standards of safety on the existing highway,
'hich when the new freeway is "built, should become a parkway primarily for recreat-
onal travel. If its present spectacular beauty is not destroyed, this Redwood
•arkway is destined to become one of the greatest tourist attractions in the United
tates .

Arthur E. Connick,

President, SAVE-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE

.

Save -the -Redwoods League,

Ilk Sansome Street

Jan Francisco, California

April 27, 1953

666

iiHi

i«

3 9

!i

ui

r J'g-S &e

Hfivl

• •-•

!^ns

J.S&.8T

SSB.. |-

*3 ^> ••* .—

* "-o e

111!

• —•-..- «j P '

IJiiBI

Sr*

iS«.s3&3*8

:-£2"v=v>gS-
i^'sitejj.S-.

-2*»c«.-*'-r|C.

t-^JS

Nlil^Hl

*** > S-r*^ 3 £•

lyHlifA1

:5-s.s

•

"° K

« 5
iB J5

«l c bl

cJttJ

.2 o-?-?C
S5-J'S35|H

iHI&Jii

60 « 2 -«5
S>3 «i

r= O fi

^ *•• T5 — t=
•rl a ft f\ • —

I!

^5-55

jihiii

|»fii Mil* M'

l*1-«ifi ^P a-ss-s

1j5xi

54^8 a -8
•as-Ss 8-S
iTJss?, S-3

ll*;il

II § 1 14

ti 87 3 „ |

•I « « s i-I
n-25 Mil

•?2 8^5 c"2

2 *3 '" ^

£j,^ g&

^llffS

! ••118 II

SJS-S^B.S*

§ -33&ia

.

Jlllj «3<»ii'>S
v ti ** * o _^ •*

l-.Il? Il 111 - -

« A 4

-B^S

«^

iiiil

fjfa'si

iliJ

i"g i S

:^l.i

** -2

\£ »E

S 8 8

2 oS _ b^liB-M « .&

*5 S e o e v fi. o. a '3

|ii1l|il«f
•"*«««*

14.1

v-£ -

•«-a o

Q e ** *»*»

JH'S t^2,H<2"S 2
Lie** *s2°*

e oo->- ova-

Ulllll

1 •g-2-'
I Js^'

«>.a ..h «3

«"S

s--?

C to S

-4w«t«**uy

o •" \_ •- « t- — r

sail**

ii?SS-S'?'S

111

'2 * » rf

•§ li8

?= O. 3 V

III
fKii^YiJi

2Billiii!!

* ii"* I >>•*'* ii

if«J!ii

."

i-

oZS^iE&zT B-E=go--^g~-55>>o0S«»CIi;gj:.«'ce-" g— ^ c 0-3 „ g-Q

*l* ir ! !?l I Ji^ Jill nl S14S j H*;sHi

667

r u

X <

(J UJ

I

z

i

o

1 8

G

2

K

R

"|

u

0

0

z o

23

>

K
Ul

w

i

|

G .
35

Z w

< a

u

<

ir u

>

5

1

-.55

IMINISTR

DMINISTR

BUDGET

ris'S
• • w 9

El 9a

iSii

e C o •

LI

<

O

«(

S 3

•1 SJ
U| Hj*

|

«

i

i

K ^ i Q 2 S

sil ill

•m iia

o

•I

i 2
ail

i

0 " E

I

i

Sis •'I

S

I

ill IIS

1

4-M H-1«l

3

i 3

g

^

u

;£

5 n tn "1 z

V)

Q

2^3 ' j S

1

S!

3" SfS

•j

I

111 iii

8

<

w 1-«l

BEAC
ATION
MAIN
AREA
COOP
AND

EAS ADMINISTERED

PARK PERSONNEL- JUL

STATE OPERATED
UDCALLY OPERATED
TOTAL AREAS

BEACHES 13 PARKS
HISTORICAL
MILES OF R. an. TRAILS

8

1

rH

oHo|

^

m

n

tf> -J

INISTERED

-13NNOSIJ

a

_ ki
° K

iia

III

It PAR>
kL
RBH.TRA

X

UJ

§ <

Cy

«

«

4

X

ill

S§e

• Ml

IT

4

1

"11*1

•11^

pi

o

J 1

I

i

DP

SB

Z t

a

I

x?i

M

n o Ik

9

LU

s*

w S

a

I

ifi

•a*

.iii

.

W

^°t

z «

II

jo

sl

ss?

8£S

• »
1

|M

Hi

iw !

El

|i

1 J
! I i

i «*

I?

X W

ui «

c u

<J *

= <r <rt
• B w

ill

CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM
COAST and SIERRA REDWOODS

669

January .1., I960

COAST REDWOODS

AJTU Wm. H. Standley

A/mat rong Redivoods

B'nbow

3. g BaoJn Redwoods

atano

Dl Norte Coast Redwoods

S-lzzly Creek Redwoods

tendy Woods

:-?nry Cowell Redwoods

\unbo lut Redwoods

Tidian Creek

•Medlah Smith Redwoods

fall Hard Redwoods

funt gome py Wood?

Kiul M. r/immick Mem. Grove

Jortola

Ifelffer-lile Sur

Irairlo Creek Redwoods

Ilchardson Grove

•amuel P Taylor

tandl sh-Hlckey

•

Purchase Price

County

Acreage

and/or Gift
Valuation

Attendance

1959

Kendo cine

45

22

$ 2,

847.,

00

Sonoma

440 1

00

85,

825-

00

223,

999

Humboldt

216.

60

223,

500.

00

19,

785

S. Cruz

11

,033-

38

535,

138.

56

692,

422

S..Mateo

1

,955.

21

958,

826.,

00

Del Norte

5

,852,

02

473,

465 .

3'-

Humboldt

149,,

50

14,

500 .

00

33,,

147

Mendocino

586.

84

600,

000 .

00

S. Cruz

1

,736.

79

500,

000.

00

230,

900

Humboldt

23

, 46y .

20

6,774,

525-

63

609,

249

Mendocino

15,

10

12,

000.

00 -

Del Nortr-

9

,539.

49

619,

867.

91

122,

';••") 3

Mendocino

242 ..

00

36,

100

00

Mendocino

647 .

11

76,

592-

00

Mendocino

11 ,

81

2,

000.

00

3,

980

S.Mateo

l

, 665 .

26

225,

500.

00

136,

383

Monterey

795-

49

259,

885.

43

414,

369

Humboldt

9

,568.

13

2,274,

954,

01

240,

151

Humboldt

750.

50

70,

050 .

00

415,

230

Marin

2

,332,

40

79,

456,

00

222,

430

Mendocino

635.

23

47,

550

00

47,

102

71,680.28 $13,872.632 88 3,411,900

SIERRA REDWOODS

f, Dig Tree?
(North Grove)

'alaveras Bjg Trees
f South Grove)

Calaveras 2,68l,50

Tuolumne 2,755-00

463,6^0.00 237,475

2,975,000 00

5,436,50 $ 3,438,630,00 237.47-5

6?0

NEWTON B. DRURY
822 Menaocino Avenue
Berkeley 7, California

June 12, 1959

». Arthur E. Connick, President

S.ve the Redwoods League

35 Montgomery St., San Francisco

Dar Arthuri A.B. 720

Pursuant to our discussion this latter sunaaarices the effect of
ftsaafcly Bill #720 (Davis ot al) upon the functions and authority of the California
Sabs Park Coamisaion. This bill has passed both houses of the Legislature and is
r>w beforo the Governor for stature or veto. It is to be hoped that the Governor
vlll heed the request in your personal letter to him of June 10th, which presents
tie unanimous opinion of the conservation organizations of the State and of
ractically all of the leading newspapers, and will withhold his signature.

Ob June 9th the San Francisco News editorially urged that the
ovemor veto A.B* 720. The San Francisco Chronicle on June 2nd took a similar
osition. All four of the He-rat newspapers in California have opposed A.B. 720
litorially. The principal papers in Oakland, San Rafael, Santa Barbara, Monterey,
an Diego, San Bernardino, Sacramento, Fresno, Modesto, Riverside, Bakersfield
nd elsewhere opposed the measure and favored S.B. 363, which clarified the Public
esources Code so as to differentiate between the policy-making functions of the
tale Park Commission and the administrative functions of the Department of Natural
esources, and was based upon a joint study by the Commission and the Director of
atural Resources. S.B. 363 unfortunately was sidetracked by a political maneuver,
scribed by some to political reprisal.

671

Except for a somewhat vague proviso that the State Park Commission
•shall establish general policies for the guidance of the Director of Natural
{•sources, and the Chief of the Division of Beaches and Parka in the administration,
protection, and development of the State Park System11, A.B. 720 recites that
ixcept as provided above "the Department of Natural Resources, acting through
the Division of Beaches and Parks, succeeds to and is vested with all the powers,
iuties, purposes, responsibilities and jurisdiction vested in the State Park

3oramission."

,

A.B. 720 specifically provides through amendment of the present code
for transfer from the Commission to the Director of Natural Resources the
following functions performed for the past 32 years by the Commission!

Power to adopt or alter any state master plan of shoreline
development.

Establish rules and regulations.

Enter into contracts for care and maintenance of parks.

Hake concession contracts.

Accept ,;ifts or conveyances.

.

Acquire park properties by purchase or condei oration.

Determine public necessity for such acquisition. A.B* 720 makes
further change in the law, in that such determination shall be
priaa facie rather than conclusive evidence of public necessity.

Grant permits and easements across park lands for highways, power
lines and other utilities and for small craft harbors and recreational
areas, to a public agency. Hie present law is further changed to
eliminate the provision that such grant shall be made when there is
"no substantial interference with, or impairment of, state park uses
and values."

These are the main changes under A.B. 720, involving policy. It may
s contended that the provision that the Commission shall establish general policies
or the guidance of the Director and the chief will give them authority over
hose functions that are specifically transferred from the Commission to the

I

6?2

Department, but le^al interpretation obtained to date leaves this in
•onfusion and doubt. One official opinion has been rendered to the effect
.hat the Director, and not the Commission, would have authority to determine
,he acquisition of park lands. To clear up this uncertainty, Senator MeAteer
>roposed amendments to A.B. 720 which would provide that the actions by the
)irector as listed above should be "subject to policies established by the
Jonroission.11 These amendments were voted down, there was no roll call on
iheae amendments, and observers indicated that the voice vote was very close.

For some time it has been recognised by all concerned that the
Law should be amended to provide that administrative functions should be trans*
Terred to the Department, but that policy making as to the character, extent and
ise of the state park system should be a function of the Commission. Particularly
dth regard to pressures, of which there are many* for the Improper or destructive
ise of park lands and properties, it has been the belief that the parks are safer
Lf the questions involved are adjudicated, in open meeting, after hearing by a
representative tribunal such as the seven members of the Commission. They are
ippointed by the Governor and ratified by the State Senate, for staggered terms.
Jecause of the responsibility placed upon them for the Integrity of the state park
qrstem, persons of high caliber have accepted appointment.

As a former member of the California State Park Commission you are
if course familiar with all these considerations, but it is unfortunate that neither
Ln the Legislature nor among the public are they adequately realized. It is to be
toped that, as you and others have suggested to the Governor, much wider impartial
itudy be given this question before stripping the California State Park Commission
>f the authority that they have exercised so well.

Sincerely yours,

Newton B. Drury

673

TIDELAND OIL ROYALTIES
(from "News & Views")

November 20, 1952

Both In Marin County and In Los Angeles County, we were asked
about the prospects for the restoration to California of Its
rights In the offshore tldelands and the revenues from oil
drilling thereon. We were also asked as to the programs that
the California State Park Commission had in mind to utilize
these funds (if and when they are restored) in so far as the
Legislature has earmarked them for the benefit of beaches and
parks. As is generally known, the California State Legislature
in 19^3 established the park fund and the beach fund, which con
tained revenues derived from various sources, but mainly from
the royalties paid the State for the drilling for oil on State-
owned tidelands. Of the total of these royalties, after cer
tain expenses of the State Lands Commission are deducted, 70
percent of the balance is placed in the fund for the benefit of
beaches and parks. Of this amount, 1/3 goes to the beach fund
and 2/3 to the park fund. Since the Supreme Court decision in
1947, to the effect that the Federal Government had a paramount
interest in these tidelands, the revenues have been Impounded
and not made available for State use of any sort. Now with the
evidences through the daily press that the coming Congress will,
in all probability, restore California's rights in these reve
nues, it is interesting to note that a considerable sum has
accrued in these impounded funds. Meanwhile, approrplatlons
for the general operations of the Division of Beaches and Parks
have been met from the General Fund, with a provision In the
budget, that if and when the oil royalties are restored, the
General Fund will be reimbursed.

If the fates are kind, and these revenues are restored to the
State, the comptroller informs us that after meeting all of this
indebtedness to the General Fund, there will be a considerable
balance remaining which, subject to appropriation by the Legis
lature, is earmarked for beaches and parks. As of July 1, 1953*
the amount thus accrued will be something over 27 million dol
lars. Out of this fund, the current expenditures for beaches
and parks will be met, Including both operations and capital
outlay. More adequate development of campgrounds, picnic areas,
and other recreational facilities, now overtaxed, will be made
possible. Also out of these funds, provision may be made for
special projects in which the Legislature has interested itself,
such as the proposal for highway waysides and the preservation
of the remaining privately-owned groves of Sierra Redwoods
(Sequoia gigantea) . Upon both which subjects the Legislature
has Instructed us to render reports. These and other programs,
which have had legislative approval, such as the Riding and
Hiking Trails, will be rendered possible of completion, if the
tideland funds are restored, and if the Legislature chooses to
appropriate the money for these projects. At the same time,

Tldeland Oil Royalties - Page 2

the comprehensive plan for the acquisition of ocean beaches,
before It Is too late, as embodied In County Master Plans ap
proved by County Boards of Supervisors and by the California
State Park Commission, will be possible of ultimate fulfillment.
The Legislature of the State of California has been generous in
appropriations, both for parks and for beaches, particularly on
the score of land acquisition. It is interesting, however, to
note that our activities in connection with the Master Plan for
beach acquisition in California have reached the point where of
the ten million dollars appropriated for beaches in 19^5, only
a relatively small amount remains unallocated. And yet, in ac
cordance with the approved Master Plans, there still remains
approximately two-thirds of the program to be carried out. The
tremendous use of the recreational beaches established by the
State of California, as well as those administered by County
authorities, particularly in the southern part of the State,
and the growing demand for further lands and facilities, will,
we hope, convince the Legislature that the application of a
portion of these funds, as they were originally Intended, to
the rounding out of our system of beach parks is a particularly
vital and necessary thing at this time.

The encroachment of private developments on the shoreline of
California throughout Its length^ makes It more and more diffi
cult to purchase for public use, either ocean beach or upland.
This is a resource of which there never will be anymore and the
best of it is rapidly going beyond our reach either through de
velopment or enhancement of prices. The Shoreline Planning
Association and the County governments of the State, as well as
conservationists, generally, have urged that as soon as possible,
the beach program, both as to acquisition and development, be
carried out. The California State Chamber of Commerce has Join
ed in this plea.

It is not only the beaches, but the Redwood Parks, the important
recreational areas in the great Central Valley and on the Colo
rado and on the Sacramento, San Joaquin and other rivers that
will be made possible of realization, if these oil royalty funds
are returned to the State and are appropriated to the park and
beach program by the Legislature. There are Important projects
on Lake Tahoe. There are sites and buildings of historic im
portance to be acquired and restored. There are many other pro
jects that the citizens of California again and again have shown
that they approved.

This is a sketchy summary of the situation and more detailed
outlines of the Commission's program will be made available to
the staff of the Division of Beaches and Parks. It is felt,
however, that at this time, this general information will be

675

Tideland Oil Royalties - Page 3

welcomed, as we all have a stake In this prospective fund. One
important thing to remember is that the programs that I have
sketched are not something new, thought up in order to absorb
the oil royalty funds if they should be made available, but
represent long-range plans that matured years ago and have been
embodied In programs approved not only by the California State
Park Commission, but by local communities and conservation
groups. They are essential to a fuller and richer life in Cal
ifornia. When asked about this, we surely should be free to
give the information.

NEWTON B. DRURY, Chief
Division of Beaches and Parks

November 20, 1952.

6?6

o

0,10

H ti

CO a)

J3

H O
O +i
W o
-SO
O

4

• •

c

CO

C-H

•a -^-P
CD P n)

cd

P <T5 C

I

0> -HE

Q>

rH P <D

ee

O. 0 T3

E W) c
0 0) 0

t-

L

O SO

r")

'U

•o

o nto

fc. (|J UN
0) I

K <J I

°8 S 8 8 88

o -* o o o o

CM ON O O O«}

\O TO O O -TrH

CL
S

0

(D

3 CO

O CflrH

i-T t>T cT o

D

L

^

CrH

4rV -W "^ ••* *^

0

I

0) tU CH

LO

CL

C.O O

0

^_

E3

cr

4-

J

O

o o

(D

CL

*-

o

O

Q)

o

-C

c

co

0)

0 0

0 0

CL

01

(D
CO

•o

.0

ir\ vo

0

A »

A

C

0) v

3

P

ir\ *^\

(D

fc.

CJ

ir\

.4—

C

<*>

C

W

>,

C

0

+-

—

L

T3

Q)

§o
c^

ro

0

CL

0

0)
_a

T3

if\ VN

0

L

(0

C

V

CNI 0

\O vO

CL

~~

a

-. ^

o

n>

ra

X

O- rH

Lf *i

> •

«

*O

tD

c^

(D >-

<^

-H

—

0)

m

<D —

•o

t-

^

U 0)

rH

•o-o «

</)

—

(0 -*

« « N

u> n

•f H S

P P ft
m fl) M

in

£

i/i a)
f- in

rH rH O

-j^

n

i.

L. («

a a x

—

3

o •>

D.4J
D. CO

00 3

•

C.

HI

a. ro

CD —

oo «<

— i

i_ C

o

c

•o v

to a> o

L

0

— 0

-H
rH
.0

S.

10 "O O
.* k-rl
(H n) P
O O O

;z 03 rtj

> >0

2 .8°.

a CLO
O, fXvO

(D
"0

y

0

3 —

(D
0) CJ

<« <*»

o

0

-C
1 — ^~

in

c

O

1

•o -a T3

O

n C

Q) CD

_C

• ^"-

•1

c

H C O

g O -rl

= -H -P

0 co o
J CD

o o o

1 ! I

0

(D

0
u

(D

a.

D) —

<a LO
a. i-
0)

o oo o o o o o o o oo
o oo o o o o o q cj oo

0

'±

X —
0) c

•O

UN vr\o O O O O O O O OO

CJ

S

C ID

1

-3 P\O

= (BUN

-^ CMCNIO OO OO OUN o*r\

CNI vONO O O O O O O rH OrH

3 OrH

O t>-rH O OO OO OO O

•

ErH 1
< rH C^

«* rH

1 p

•P B

V

t-t Q) *•" * iX *^

£

O — • W) 0 X <»'-*
jo>a> «oM o X ®-P

C

I* «— - 60 ho— ' K •— cD«-»

3

O
CJT3

O "O -HO M O E-" O
CBOO r*O C OMO

C

P -^ O Q*-^ -H co -4" t-* bi)-^

X 3

HPE'Mr-" EHC rHESCDE*5

PTJ
Cj g

Ji <J CM Z OP H f- C— E-> fa. P O CO *J -rt
OT3fcirHO»XrH3Oir\2 M CtJMU)

0) CO

O C n! O O ^v 3 U CO IH
00 Du sO 0) O f-4>O O C O O <D\O **• 0) \O JZ

o

< rH UNrH 4) UN CO CN O £ UN K > UN CO

f~) ^ *O^^ CO fd ^^^ 0— "*^ «^^ +^^"**v CjQ cfl^^*» CO
W O C rH CO S OrH O T3 CN W rt rH > rH rH O
SjCCO rHl4 QC E->d) «SCfl

< < 3 03 0

67?

n
f

<d
in

(U

ca

CM
O

C
O
•H

n

•H

n
<D
o

t,
3
O

n

CO

«8
•H

E

0

t.

•

0

k B

n

«H O

^-|

Li

.

i

•

4>

p-*

<M 0

CO 4)

I .

e-«co

•P

P

£

•o
o

3

•rt
60

*-v.

r-

CNtO

•H
M

P

CVvO

•o

CM T3

^*v^^

»o \O

cu

CM VN

C

CM C

l^^*1^

C *^

rHrH

3

33

\O f^>
OCM

JS>

rH
CD

•H S*

ON

to

px»

rH

UN

•P «

,^-

UN

.^

*/\

•H CU

Q\

O

cS

ON

ON

c

C **"»

rH

rH

r-l

H

o

M

•H
•H

to

8 8

0 0

8

8

o

0

O
O

o
o

O
O

CO

•H

cr

c-o

3 0)

<MT3

0 CD

*

o

0
CM

o
o

CM

ir\

CM

CM
C-

CD*

8

O

8

u

C

•» M

••

(M

*

•>

eg

0) 0)

-* -t

o

O

WN

u^

•P a

w\

•o

ed X

Or\ ff\

rH

r-l

c

P CU

,3

CO

**

•

^

O

•H P

8 8

8 8

O

o

8

O
lf\

O

8

8

k'M C

CX-H O

tu-H

0 C3
ir\ ir>

8 8

8

8

l>

J*

CD

o*

CU P

i»\ r\

CM

CM '

CT\

r^

0

o

CO (H CC

cc o ;

-* -*^

O

O

r\

«•>

ON

ON

CM CM

NO

NO

rH

i-H

OT3 ct

-*

-J-

Vi C >

3 cd

4%

£

bj

h.

H

0)

P bO
C tfl
O P

1

O

8

£ o

P^

£0

CH

CD

*

**

CM CM

O l>-

to

CM

to

O

O

ITl

s

NO

CO

• •

• • •

•

•

•

.

•

*

0)

0 0

C rH H

0

o

<H

pvf

r>-

c**-

t>- o

o

cv

CM

to

to

r'N

(*\

O

-d- -*

SS

<v

CM

a.

E

* £

CO

P

S.3

*

4>

• 4) •
(H

CU

CO O

o

*

•rl

0 •

• • •

»

CO

•

n

»

,O

(0 CD

• SH •

• • •

•

IH

•

o> c

*

O

n

^J

Hj

•P

1

P >>

• •

...

•

PQ

•

&•* 3

g

c

«1

H *5

CD

rH

0

*> •

. • 4_i

*

rH

>H

bOO

.

E

•J J

ed

CO

rH

C_4

•H 3

en

(

O

4

•8 X
U.O

AMEDA COUNTY

Knowland St
and Park .

,PINE COUNTY.
[ADOR COUNTY.
Roadside Re

E-<

3
O
O

E-

EH

Curry-Bidwe

o
o

CO

<

Calaveras B
(Also see T

g
I

CO

Colusa-Sacr

3

< 5

g

o

o
o

0)
T3

ID

a.
x

a>

n

•o

CO

o

vO
O

•to

O
•H
•P

cfl

O
>r\

.

-*

co
<o

o
CO

P
O

678

Map is included with Property Ownership Report of January I, 1959,
State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of

!

(ooo orovioos p^ge).
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

State

6?9

' iEl?

883

§s§ IB 5IISS SHI 8=Si53 i !sl 5

'

"*£*

c

R
o

•o

QJ

, e -I? §51 ISS
fff|J E*S' i

s§

58

siiisi §§§ ai

Bs«g §

QJ
JJ
C

0)

f->

»?• «3

1-3

8 If
•5

PL,

QJ

JC

V *Q <O -^ CO to N O tO «O

B 3s ell 82 s»

-"£l?8£RI2«f ""SB's"

681

K

g
I

0,

UN
O

A
H

a
H

o

H

O
a.

S

_i

3
Z

vO
CO
CO

II

_» *

~ o

fci

i °

a «,

a c

S-S

« ?

— " 4)

•pi>*SS

US!2
g*efs

<Eo2H

R8X2S

I'^'l

— " w

c^

<*

££

i

1 [

|

|

l!

S
f

CO

1 Approtl-
Federal land -^

1 lM7-June
! 30, IMS

i

g|^9

a%*

s&s :.

§KS
t~ *

"fgrfi

g

hi

N

8
S

CJ

~~S8

°6n

mm

««

s

i

<c

8

-

S

222 g
S3 |

-

'*

*

•o
o

i

C;

•f.

i
i

s

-

-

i

•

j

Washington
Arironft-Nevada. .

|
|

"a

r_

Texas-Oklahoma..

-c

1

I

1

2

•

1

s

0.

Pennsylvania
Florida
North Carolina. ..

c
t:

i

I
i

i
>

•i

C

t

>

1

'£

1

c

(-

Rhode Island

iVo/itmo^ reerfo/tono^ areai

Coulee Dam
Ijikc Mead

1

i

i

Lake Tetoma

1

jfrf rcoffaiui Jemonrtro/ior. artal
Cutnotln

0

1

1

o

»

1

1

1 l

ll

Pro/erf* >

Independence National Historical Park
DeSoto National Memorial
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Re
creational Area.
Olympic Ocean Strip and Queets Cor
ridor.

Total...

Qrand total, National Park Sys
tem; other areas under Jurisdic
tion of National Park Service:
San Juan National Hbtorlc
Site, under basic jurisdiction of
the Department of the Army;
and projects.

a
?

i

ia
1

Jameatown
Mclx>ughltn House
Saint Paul's Church
Ban Jose Mission ..
Touro Svna*oeuo. .

(2

$

I

11

•9 5

13

3

I j

I!

1

25

683

Hon. Harold L. Xckos - 2 - 6/17/40,

Ms dutioa could best ba determined at that tiae. Hean-
if you approra, I should bo williag to ccnaunioate
hia by long distance telephone in an endeavor to
pave tha ITS? tor disposing of this matter in a wannr
that is fair and reasonably agreeable to ft^t concerned,

"2. Approval by none interests,"

Both tha State |>ark Cotsaisaion and the Saye-
the-Redaroods League appreciate the Jb^ortance of this
opportxmi-Sy, and are -willing that I take leave from xny
duties here for a sufficient period to make some contri
bution in tho directorship,

"3. Political neutrality,"

Your broad-minded attitude on this matter was
appreciated. I an registered aa a Hejrublican, but as
you remarlced, political partisanship does not enter into
the administration of National Parka* Both you and
B£rla* noted that the position coses under the Civil
Service.

"4* Concentration on main task,"

?i.o concerns of the national Park System are so
ertensivo that I was gratified to have you indicate that
tha director would not be called ttoon to depart from them
to engage In activity respecting natters such as the
Reorganization of Federal departments or similar issues
not directly related to HatL onal Parks. Hy first concern,
however, would of course be loyalty to my own departeent,

.'•',.

"5. Freedom to obtain best thougrt«"

This is jE^iortant to naf, as I look upon a posi
tion such as the direct orsnip as an avsmte throu^x -which
to bring to bear upon the problems of the National Park
Service the no at expert loiowledss and best judgBent that
can ba obtainsd»

• ' • • '

"6, Assurance that recojaaendatlons will be
sought r and considered on their, nerits, before action on
najor natters of policy and organization,"
. ( .

Your ccnnent was that this rais the rule; and that
all proposals affecting the Hational Parks presented from
outside tha service would be referred to the director for
reccsanendation.

Hen- Harold L. Ickea - 3 - 6/17/40<

"7. Defined line of authority.1*

Ton rada clear that this Una of authority -BUS
established froa you to tha bureau chiaf a through the As
sistant Secretaries and that all natters pertaining to
Saticnal Parks would bo routed through the director and
those to ^hon. 2s had delegated various phases of tho ^oric

"8. Power to delegate."

My understanding was that it was your opinion
that -uha director should delegate routine duties insofar
c.3 practicable, so as to devote himself to study of condi
tions, particularity in the field; and tha forratlation of
policy aad goaeral prococfcuro* Service on various boards
conaisaioas was one of the functions that it vaa fait
-Hall be

"9. Discretion as to apportionment of ties be
tween Tidd and office; as to location of activities j end
as to enpiiasig en various phasea of tha prograa»n

Such discretion -srould of course be subject to
general approral cy the Secretary cf the Interior* Ky
•jndarstandLig was that you approved the director's spend
ing a ccnsidsrablo portion of Ms tine in tha fiold, par-
ticxilarly in the Wast; the Ealntalni^g of tenaorery heed-
qiiarters frcaa tir» to tiaae at the varioua regional offices;
and- the i'ocuaaing of study perticularly at this ttee upca
the outstanding prineval areas » You mentioned particularly
the ability cf the Associate Director to handle the Wash
ington and as to general procedure; it being understood,
ho-^evsr, tliat for soiae'iaattergj, such a 3 caking tip and carry-
izg through the budget > the director should ba available in

"10, ilastoum conpenaatica allowed in classifica

ion."

Thia raa understood to be ^9,CCO per anntaa, to-
TTith such cthar allowances (traval eipenas, etc.) as

You aalcsd ne T^en I could asauae aotiTe duty, and
I told you that it ufould be difficult for ne to adjust ny

affairs in California satiafaotorily before Augtst 15th.
If feasible i I should lika to have until Se^tsaber 1st. At
any tine, howrer,. I could ga to Washingtcn" to be

685

Hon. Harold L. Ickas - 4 - 6/17/40.

If, 33 I undorstood Mr. Btrlaw, this could be done prior
to aasuning active duty. Taio question is one that I oa
sure tha* TTO can adjust ^hen I so to f/aaiUngtoa, as I
you would rant rss to do teuDorarily in the near
. Tliare Is a meeting of tae'Cilifornla State P^rk

tJiat I sa duty boyad to attaad caa. Jtoafl 27tlit
g to J-aaa SOtlx, trut asids fi-caa tliat I can go to
at &ny ttae you designate.

As you Lao*, I -aould not lesvo Aafe I consider
iatoreata ia. California, except with th» expect-'
atiou of acscroli sains scsaething coj»tructi7« on behalf of
tlie HatLonal Park Service, particularly in tne natter of
defining fmotiona and standardai tmd making taaa offact-
iva. 7/Mle I emsct to do ny tety by all phaaes of the
projrsoa, I ea particularly interested in the prjbaaral
Katicnal Parks aa a cultural institution vith great aduea-
tional and inspirational values for the American people.

With your support , I shall hope to inaka wy con
tribution toward saf egoarcling these values.

Appreciating deeply your confidence in me, I sso.

Sincerely yours,

3. Brnry

686

oO-

AIRMAIL

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON

June 25, 1940.

My dear Mr. Drury:

I an glad that you have found it possible to accept the appoint
ment that I offered you to become Director of the National Park
Service. It happens that "before your final wire came Mr. Camnerer
presented to me a letter in which he said that his physicians had recom
mended that he seek another less arduous assignment. I assured him that
I wanted him to continue in the Service and that his request would "ba
acted upon favorably. I at once had a press release given out cover
ing both Caminerer's resignation and your appointment. I knew that the
news would leak and I did not want the politicians beseiging me for
the place for some favorite.

Unfortunately, Cammerer already knew that I had discussed this
appointment with you. According to him, you confided in Dr. John C.

Merriam, and Merriam told tha news to a friend who relayed it to

.
Caseaerer. I would have thought that a. man of Dr. Merrian's standing

i
]

and experience would have had more discretion than to divulge a matter
of importance that you confided to him in strict confidence. I can
understand why you wanted to discuss the matter with Dr. Merriam but
he should not have passed it on to a third party. Yet that is the
sore of thing that happens constantly here in Washington.

•

Accordingly, it will not be necessary for you to come to Washington

68?

to discuss the matter in advance with Mr. Cammerer as you propose.
He has gone away on his vacation and will not return for at least a
month. No assignment of Mr. Cammerer will be made without consulting
you. For your information, I may say that he has expressed a desire
to be given the position of Regional Director, which takes in this
eastern territory.

I am somewhat disappointed at the length of time which must elapse
before you enter on duty. I had hoped that you could cone much earlier
than September 1. The question of your taking the oath of office is not
important. That can be done at the time that you enter on duty or
even thereafter. In the meantime, appointment papers are being pre
pared and they will be forwarded to you in due course.

Some comment is necessary on the fact that, apparently, your ac
ceptance of the position of Director of the National Park Service is
subject to "certain conditions".

When you were last in my office, you had with you a list of sub
jects that you wanted to discuss with me. I discussed these frankly
and informally. Hone of your questions presented any difficulty to me
becaupa they merely called for an elucidation of my administrative
practices during the past seven years, especially with reference to
the national Park Service. In your letter of June 17, you state with
substantial accuracy the position that I then disclosed to you. But

HP^'"'

688

while I reaffirm what I said to you on that occasion, I cannot agree
that these are conditions covering your appointment. The reason for
this is simple.

The principles that I stated to you have controlled my actions as
Secretary of the Interior, as I have already said, and I expect them to
continue to control so long as I occupy this office. But I am, myself,
only an employee and, as such, I am not a free agent. The future may
require changes in policies and methods that I do not now anticipate.
I am working under the direction of the President of the United States
who properly influences or even changes policy at various times. I
cannot bind him by any representations that I may make. The Bureau of
the Budget and the Congress likewise may vary my actions involuntarily.
Finally, I am powerless to bind my successor in office by any conditions
to which I might agree with any employee.

There are no contracts of employment, which is another expression
for conditions of employment in the Government service. All of us must
necessarily undertake our duties here with whatever disadvantages that
may result, both from changing conditions and changing personnel. I
am no freer from these conditions than any member of my staff. But on
the other hand, after policies are once established, they are not
likely to be varied, at least in important matters, and a new man
coining into the Department, as in this instance, can come with every
assurance that policies that have been well established and faithfully

3

689

to for uov^n years will not rxrbitrRrlly b" clmn^od.

I like to think, too, that n.s between me as Secretary of the
Interior and my principal officials, the relationship is one of mutual
trust and confidence, with the opportunity at all tines for a man to
nan discussion of any problem and the settlement of any difference.
If you do not feel that you have sufficient knowledge of my methods of
ad-mini strati on to give you the assurance that you desire, that, as
Director of the national Park Service, the relationship between you
and me would be such as I indicated at our interview, you have my full
consent freely to discuss the matter with any of my Department heads.
My relationship with them, except when necessarily varied on account
of dissimilarity of problems, during the time that I have been here,
has been as I indicated in my conversation with you.

The only risk that you would be running, so far as my personal
disposition and actions are concerned, would be that I might not act
in good faith.

Sincerely yours,

Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. llewton 3. Drury,
322 Mendocino Avenue,
Berkeley, California.

•

690

July 3; 1340,

AI3

Harold L« Ickss,
Secretary of th*» Interior,
D» C*

Uly dear Secretary Idbwu

On ay retain front th* Bedmjod region I
scat you the enclosed telegram acloiowledging your
letter of Jrn» 25th, Aa X utrod yo«, X tbocroogixly
eppreeiata t3ta poiata that yoa h«ve med» In re
sponse to ray letter o? Juna I7th«

X em looking fomuxl to tb« opportunity,
coon after ny arriral in Vaahiagton, of discuseing
sttch zcatters as yoa feel jalgbt raqtilre fnrthair
discttssion^ particularly with raopaet to interpre
tation of ny appzoach* X vant to aasore yoa, hov-
erver, in all sincerity, tint ao far ea X am con
cerned, no further diaeosaloB is necessary and tkat
X look forverd isith. anticipation to the relation-
shirj of sxtttuaX trnat «n^ confideooe I*IT*E yon. roc^xire-
as essential between tlta Secretary and on* of Ms
officials*

la eneloaad a aawajpaper clipping
the "Hta&oldt Zines", indicating one of the
s T2dcb X seem in doty boond to dispose of be
fore entering Ttpon ay dntie« as Director of Sational
» X regret tae eonatderable lapam of tiae be-
the armonneeMeat of say appdntsievt and ay
tiag for duty, altacw^i l" imderataad JSom your
latter •shy tae snaotE&cemmt had to be aad» anaa it
ras, and there are acoe- phaaea of that satter
X hope to uiscoss Tdtik 700*

the long-range acquisition pro-
State Park Ccefelaalca inatmeted n

691
Eon. Harold L. Z«ke* Page 2» 7/3/40.

to suoait "before losv±n# California, thore ore la-
Euaorehle transactions wiich I an more or lees obll-
_•;!•; ad to carry at least to a point Tihwr* they can "be
hrmed ovor to otters* The hearlag with raepeet to
';>o Asza Desert State ParJc project, Tshieh is to be
held on August 15th in San Diego, is one of than,
and in connection sith the preservation of Bedwood
grovea thsre are erraagsmeata waiea I aa' obligated
to carry through te£oz« 10avJbjg» I have, Iwsvar,
arras^d to laava from Saa Diega ozt the l&tJx of
August, and if this aeete -Bfitat jour approiwil, to
arrlT* In Wasiiisgtoa aa2 raporfc for aetiv» duty tho
rx>rni3g of 7o0sdayv August 20th* $7 flytog, Z could
arrire there by Hoaday soacaisg, Angiurt, 13th, if you
consider this prefaxabla. At that tiatt I caa, after
conf arense® vith acme of oy asaodatea is tha national
park Sarvlce, outliaa for yoor approrai ay program
for the greater part of the Pall sooth*, which I asson*
in the light of car previous diseuasicus should ±x>-
TolTB coafiiierablB travel^ particularly through the
Treat Parks* Before this la undertaken, however, I
assume that I should spend quite en toterral izt ffash-
izgton, and hope to get orioated fairly rapidly*

Plaaae geaaxt a» any eoaneofc upon ny proposed

TJaleaa Z hear front yon to thft contrary Z
sball ssstaaa that it is satisfactory for r» to report
in iXashlngtoB on August 2Gt3i»

As Z have said la ay teiegroa, Z look fbrwrd
to the opportunity of aerriag the cause of National
Paries reader* your Ifiadership, sad Z an grateful to TOU
Tor the coafiSe^tce you haw shcnm in a»» At the appro-
priata tiase Z should consider it « privilsg» to be able
to erprses to Prasideat Houcorelt agy appreciation of
approval of your reecoaeBdatioB*

Sincerely yours,

B» Brury

2nea»

692

a

STATUS

OT THK IKTRKIOR
HURXAO OF REDIAMAT10JI

25, l>. 0.

January 5, 1945
for the fieor«tary.

Subjects Administration of Reservoir Areas for Recreational
Use - Shaeta and Kriant Dane - -Jentral Valley
Project, siifonaia,

fhe ooapletion of Shasta Jan and ftrUixt .:aa on the Central Valley Project,
with storage of water in their respective reservoirs* pr-aeata problems of
adadnietration for recreational uses at theao point* for the Regional irector
at -~aore»»nto aa follows*

Sbaata Area, r'our anjor poeaibilities for adndniatration of the waters and

"~of JJna»t» Iteeervoir appeart (1) U. 8* Foreet Service (impertinent of
;>grioulture)| (2) National Park Service (Dopftrtaent of the Interior)] (3) State
park or foreet (titat* of Calif6rnia)| and (4) Bureau of Reolamtion (Departaent
of the Interior)*

A reoonnendaUon for extension of thw Sbaata National Foreet to include the
watera and nhorelinna of r>hssta Reeerroir w»» nade by the GotMdttee on Problen 23
of the entral Valler Project Studies. I have withheld action on t hi* reoomenda-
tion pending a review of the entire pro bios ant) the eubadaaion to you of ty
oonoloaiona*

The national J*rk c-ervioe ia now adainlatorl nr the Boulder iiaa National
Recreational Area on er a Mnaorandtua of agreement with the bureau of Reclamation
approved by you* There ia now under oonai deration on the reoowaendation of the
Director of the National i*ark Service) a aoaewhat siodlar •ewrandiai of agreersent
relating to the ndwiniatration of the Oraad Oouloe nan Heeervoir Area* The
National Park Service, however, I aa advi«ed, la oppoaed to taking over any aore
artificially otreated attractions, and the regional of floe of the National >Park
:'iervloo at San Francisco hme advised the Regional Director of the Bureau of
'leclanatlon at "/ncraaento to that effect*

The ->tot« Division of Beaohee and Karka, in coneon with the 'National >*ark
;arvic0, followa the policy of administering areaa featured by natural rat. her
than artificial phenoaena and, in addition, feels that land uses other than
recreation, which are of oowiHerable Bignifioonce around : haeta -:< r.onmlr, are
.•jutnJ.^0 th-- y^opp of ita vctivitlee* The itate /I vision of Foraatry ia «*ae<m»
tially a fire protection organisation and not a land-odaiaiatering n^oncy, ?ha
«itate la oakSjjf; stufiifis looking to the aetal>liahwi»nt, of ?'>tate for^oto, but t.Hr
lands around Jwat* ^aenroir are not the beat available tiaber pro^ucinc
lands and therefore ere not likely to be delected for iitste ibreat purpoees*

693

Certain advantages from adntf nistration by the Bureau of Reclamation appear*
i)»ese Include tlw foot that the recreational and other land usss around the rnaar-
voir could be effectively integrated with the discharge of the Bureau* a respon
sibility for other phases of project management* Alao since a guide service at
ijhtsta ban and the vista houee overlooking the dam and forebay of the reservoir
will remain under inu'oau supervision, other recreational aervicoa could, in the
interest of unification of administr&tdon end economy be administered by the
<ur«»au of Roolamation. The Bureau of Reclamation, having oonatruoted Hhasta Ian
and created the reservoir, of oourse baa a primary responsibility for the effective
administration of all features connected with throe facilities*

yriact }Jam (Killer-ton Late) Area* Millarton lake in some quarters is con
sidered of rolitive^'minor importance from a national stsjndpoint compared with
th« Shasta Dam area, but the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation for the
operation of Priant Imm is extensive and X am concerned that the reoreational
uses of tfillerton T-a''.» aleo shall be developed to the best advantage of the public.

The Bureau of tfeclamation has been studying the reoreational problems related
to Shasta Daa and "riant Lam with a view to the development of a permanent pro
gram either under the Regional ittr eater at Sacrament* or through the national Park
.trvice as the agency of the Departaent of the Interior which has responsibility
for rftoraational develcpme its of national significance* Raoeeaandations with
retipwct to the Bureau plans are being held in abeyance until a Departmental policy
in thia respect is promulgated*

I am opposed to the administration of the recreational uses of any Bureau
of Acclamation facility by any agency outside of the Department of the Interior.
The /or sat Servico and the State agencies in California consequently are elioimttd
from consideration by ma in connection with this subject.

iiy information ia that the indicated policy of the Rational ''ark Service
against assisting responsibility for the administration of recreational uses of
artificially created lakars such aa those at fthasta Dam and friant Dam has not
been officially submitted for your approval* In order t hat my reooanendations
with respect to the problem presented may be in ac.x>rd with uvpartmental policy,
i request that the Director of the mitional fark &errioe be requested to submit
his comment* and recommendation for your review and the promulgation of an
appropriate policy for the gui anco of the Bureau of Reclamation, r.hile the
inmediate problem relates particularly to the administration of the recreational
uses of Shasta Dam and Priant Dan reservoirs, a Departmental policy is desirable
aa a basis for the formation of J*ur«aa of Reclamation procedures in connection
with the recreational facilities at other reservoirs now in operation or which
may be cstablishnd in the future.

January 12,
Deferred to the Director of the National

rark v>ervic9 for corsnant nr.-j reooonendatioa* /a/ u» », mahore

Oommiasl orwr «

, . «
y of th«» Interior,

UNITED STATES 0

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PT

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

ADDRESS:
THE DIRECTOR. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CHZG&QO,

InasjiT 25, IMS*

IQOCIUNDUU for the Secretary*

Cooeerning eoaadaa£onsr BaabaaVa aaai tisj of January 5» 1945* on tha

subject af administration af recreational activities at Shasta Dan and ftriant
Dan, referred to me by you on Jaaaary 18 tor oosmmat and » •onmBmwmntl 11% Z
eonour wholeheartedly in ttr. Bashore** suggestion that Tumi Urn- rtil oolley
is desirable aa a basis for tho formation of Bureau af naaliaailim aiMiduru
in oonnootion with the recreation fas&lifclee at othar reservoirs now im onara-
tlon or which may ba established in tha

Tho dwtaralBaUoB of auoh a poliajr 'mm an iaportant boartng 00 %ha fatora
oaaratioaa of tho *atto«al Park aarviaa*

I alao agree w
reading aa follswat

with Mr* Baatara'a aoaamt in bla

"Certain advantage* from adainlataration bqr tha
tion appear. Thtaa include tht fact that tha i •uraatlaaal and othar
land «aoa around tha rsaanroir oould ba affaatlraljr intafratod with
tht diaahana of tha Burean'a raapoaalDilitgr for othar phaaaa of
projatt aanagaaanl. Alao aiaoa a faUa aarvioo at Shasta Dam and
the Tiata houao owrlooking tho daa and foreby of tho raaawoir will
raaain under Bureau mrperriolon, other recreational aerrleea oouldt
in the interoat of anifiaation of adaiolatvation and eoonoay ba
adatUdatarod b/ tho Hureau of »«rtaaatliaii Tha Bmaaa of TTaolaaatia%
baring oonatmotod Shuata Dan and ur ailed tha •••• f ali^ of cooreo

reaponaibllitar far tha off ootlva ad^aiatvation of all

with

Fro. the atandpoint of tha Dariaa of Seolanation, it would appear that unity
of adnUdatvatloa of tha laada in tht Shaata Ham and Prlant Dan araaa,
aotiTitiaa that are incidental to, and « by |»adaat of,
would involYO the aispleat and aaat effeatlTe orgmHaatian. wMla ^
Park Servlcf? oould work noat ao-oper«tiveiy with tha Bureau of Bvolaaatioay aa
wo do at Boulder Daw* Z a» oonviaoad aflov oartonai^e atiatJiatlaii and study of
this question that an •nw.aaiejint undar wMoh adjdniatraUina foiyaaslsnttr at
Shasta and Priant Dana would ba diTidad bofcaean tha two Bareaaa la not ths boat
for then or far us.

Pran the atandpoint of tha •rtiiiaart Park flonrlea, suoh an arraassjaaat would
not ba desirable

1. It would tend to dissipate our energies and divert than from tha
pert oraanos of our priamry functions as outlined by law and distatad by
tha national interest. These function* involve protection and interpreta
tion of a system of great natural arena and important historic sites, of

695

nation*! eignifioanoe, and tb/»ir developaent and aaaagajaant "for tb*» enjoyment
of th« (MUM in *uch Montr and by auoh sjaana •• will iMWa the* ualapaired for
the eajoysftnt of future genera ti one". Thlo of itoelf la a task that "reovlree
all that ono baa of fortitude and of delicacy", for tt wo ara now inadequately
financed and Banned, with little proapaot of eaaentlal support for years to
I am convinced that oar highest service lies la perfecting our teehnlqueo to
perfoni the exacting iaoiu we MOT hare in hand*

2, Standards and polioiae built up orar the years will inevitably be
broken down and diluted, end the Service sade awe vulnerable if tha national
Park Sjstea is expanded aa it will be if tha pattam aat a> Bouldar Daa and
auggeatad at Shaata Daa and Prlant Bum la followed* Sa taliova tha National
Park Senrioa policjr of inviolate praaarmtion la Bound, and can via public
aupport, but only if oar nrograa ia clear-cut and aodaorata* Even BOW wa are
being eritiolaed aa "land grabbera", and although wa ooneider tha charge unjust,
we have had to defend oconaelvea a«viavt It*

Policies now under attack, as to grazing, wining, lunberlng and other
adverse uaea, will be weakened beoauoe of the impossibility of flanking a clear
distinction in the public (and Congressional) Mind batwasn "aultiple use" areas,
and the true national park areae, If both of tha are adtainistored by the Ra
tional Park Service* At RouUw Qa% proporly enough In view of the nature of
the area, we have had to depart fwm our traditional wildlife policy as to
predators because of pra«lnj* ooMsdtsjanta that are accepted there, but not
accepted in the national parka* Repeated instances of this sort would tend
to break down our traditional policies in all areas under our jurisdiction.
Our Service will be stronger If it can low? clear of such equivocal arrange-
senta*

3. The specific areas in question — Shasta Dan and Priaat Dam — • are
well known to MB, Mod I have visited both of thaw, recently to observe the
results of development by the Bureau of Eocla nation. In both cases there
have been created recreational opportunities that will be beneficial to the
public* These should be taken advantage of* But ntdttaV area la aosirtfEllj
or otharwiae of such national IBJKH •iima or •* grl ********** ao to warrant its
adwiniatration by the National Park 3snrlos* X doubt that any artificial lake
should, In the abaaenoa of special i lnnaaitHniiHS sash as won* present in tha
Jackson Sol* National Ifcnmant, bo adatfjdstored by this Service. Surely auoh
a case atonlti be the exception rathe? than the role.

4* Uonagenent of local or i»sa recroation, except insofar aa it la
provided incidentally to th* snln function of the National Park Service, la
not, and X believe ahovld not be, the concern of tha national Park Service*
fie are not "ozperte" to that Held, nor do X bellave wo should aspire to be
overlords of all recreation*

Thero is no black angle about the administration of recreational
activities, such as caaqaing, boating, hiking, or about developa»nt of roads
-nd trails, docks, hotel and other aecoanodationB for visitors* The Bureau
of RaelasBtion la an efficient organiJiatioB and can handle this type of

* 2 •

696

activity aa a part of it* overall adalnlatratioa. At pruasut, It IB in effect
doing BO through personnel detailed fro* the national Park Service* X as
fajdltar with the agthodu in guiding visitors at Boulder Dea and elsewhere
and in interpretit* the engineering works to the public. All thl» ia excel
lently handled by the Bureau of tecloaation. Coaadaaioner Bashere indicates
that they intend to continue their organisation to provide this service, and
I can readily understand why this ia »o, since it 1* the "big show*. Bather
than have the National Purk Service playing aeoond fiddle in respect to lower
activities, it would appear that the organisation of the Bureau of Reclamation
could alao be expanded to include the*,

5. Specific projects of planning or oonetroction oould be undertaken by
the National Park Service under co-operative agreement, an now. This la quite
different from year-in and year-out

There has been general recognition of the fast that all resources of the
Federal Government, or of any subdivision of the United States, should be put
to those uses which they can best serve* Additional recreational opportunities
are needed in Many sections of the country, an- every available facility should
be planned for appropriate use. Recreational opportunities, existing or potential,
in the vicinity of any of the dans being planned and constructed by the Bureau of
leclaaatlon should be studied fro* the standpoint of determining whether their
shorelines, all or in part, can or should be used for recreational purpuaee and

In this detemimtlon, the National Park Service can be of considerable
assistance. The Park, Parkway, and Recreational Area Study Act of 1936 au»
thoriiea the National Park Service to work with other Federal bureau* aid with
i-tate agencies, upon request, in drawing up and preparing general recreational
plane. A preliminary study for ths united States waa published in 1941* In
volving many of the bureaus of the Federal Government and 46 of the States* Some
37 independent State reports were completed* These dealt with area standards,
administration, financing, and relative recreational responsibilities within
the various lev Is of government* Through all of this work, I ma aura the Na
tional Park Service haa contributed toward aastlnc the recreational needs of
ths United states, and I anticipate that the Service will continue to render
assistance to the Federal agencies aad to the States, in the form of advice an :
enoourageBsnt, to promote proper novation at proper locations, sad under aoe-
i»te planning and adainistrjrtive guidance.

The issue raised by Comaittaloner Bashore'e question is, in my opinion, of
the utmost importance, as trends that are established by your decision aa to
policy will be far-reaching in their effect upon ths integrity of the National .
Park System and upon the quality of the achievements of ths National Park Service.

I strongly recoonend against placing ths management of recreational activities
at Shasta Daa, ; riant .-aa, or any similar project, in ths hands of ths National
Park Service*

i

/•/ Newton B. Druzy

?eb 9, 1945 Director.

Hot A: proved:

/a/ Harold L. Ickoa
Secretary of the Interior*

697

c
o
UNITED STATES P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

MtOMGMi
MltCTOR. NATIONAL PAHK SERVICt CtflCAQO J}^, ILLINOE>

January 25, 1945

MEtf iRANDUtf tor Assistant Secretary Chupmn.

I reoogniac that ay aeaorantiun to the secretary of January 25
on the subject of management of recreational activities at Shasta Da»
and Friant Da* involves an important decision as to policy. Whan I
a« in uaahington January 31 and Febmuoy 1» I ahould like to discuss
it with you, and alto with Mr* Straus and Coaudaelonar Bashore. Mr.
L«e LJuck would, I believa, ba helpful in d«Oing with this qiuMtion,
aa I know he has pivon it naoh thought*

If you feel the aatter baa reaohed the point where I should
discuss it with the -'ieoretary, I should appreciate an appointnmt
for this purpoae.

I plan to be in New Yorv on the 28th, 29th, and 30th and will
be at the Hotel Pennsylvania* I have Just learned that Mr. Chorley
will be in Washington <m the 29th and 30th. If oattera are oondng
up in relation to Jackson Hole, I could leave New York on the night
of the 29th so as to be in i). C. on the 30th,

/a/ Newton B. uruijr,
rjjlreotor*

698

' ! C

< o

p

T

UWTTMD ST^TfiS
DSHUiTUKtt v# TJIK INTERIOR
BUREAU OF fUttlAMMTIOJI
•UKNMON

February 6, 1945.

M n^HA.:i>uw for the

% reooisaendation is that you disapprove tha attached s»SDrandUB of the
Nit local Park be rice and forthe instruct, aa &Bp»rts»rrlil policy, that tha
Park asrvioe and the Nur**u of 'ieclaaation auteit for your approval a
of agreement under which the Park :*»rviee will hare the p.1 aiming and •anagoaant
of the recreational developer nts pertaining to nhasta and frlant dans, »lifornia,
Tha baaia of up roeoMimnrtntion follows*

1. The *«tional Park Serrloe, by lav and ov*to% ia tha
equipped agency to undertake* thia task*

2* Unlaps the Park Sendee fill* thia funotloMl field,
overlapp ng and duplication, not only through tha Ljepartoent's
bureaus but through other gorern«Bnt aganoiea, are iaaritabla—
in fact, theae twin evils are already apparent.

3. Refusal of tha National Park Service to fill tha recrea
tional function and field vitiatea our Dapartaantal assertion of
qualification to enbrao* the roaouroe developncnt field or oooxqpj
toe key valley authority position*

4» The proclamatione of tha Park iiervio- aa to parity and
restriction of jurisdiction to natural phenonena are contrary to
fact aa witnasa the juriediction with tha Hstioaal Capital Parke,
Jackson Hol«, bouldar Dan, Qnuut Coulee Ua% DanadLa Daa, statue of
Ub«»rty* Independence Hall, and countless other locales defiled by
the hand of nan.

5* Adoption of tha policy set forth in tha national Park Sarriaa
aemorandua ia an open abdication of aa important field, which inevitably
will result in a staxpede by countless agencies of a grasdfr nature with
interest in B«Lf-*ggrandixeu»«nt to ant at' tha Hold with terrific confusion,

6, Thire ia no reason to doubt the National Park 2«rriee*s ability
to operate in fielda other than uadafilad natural phaimsjaui without
derogating standards againat undaeirablu developsBnts, roadside stands,
advertising and unwarranted onsiaernUT exploitation,

7. I WE in full diaagreeMant with the basic philosophy of restrict
ing the field or a narrtNMviaioned approach to the Junction for the purpose
of "keeping out of trouble11 with Congress or the public. The fact that
there undeniably will be areas of public debate as to proper utilisation

of resources having to do with park or recreational work, as there have been
about public education, transportation, power, swineing pools, tennis courts,
golf courses, etc., is no justification for retirasjsnt to air 'ivory tower*

/a/ sUohael '.. Straus
I concurt /eb, 9, 1945

Abe Kortan Assistant Jeoretary*

699

UNITED SMSES

DKPfiRTMKMT OF THE DRBUOB

MaTIOHlL PiHK 8HRVICB

VftSHINQTON 25, D. 0.

Mr. Newton B. Drury served as Director of the national
Park Service from August 20, 19*0 to March 31, 1951, covering a
span of nine full fiscal years and the major portion of two others.

The amounts appropriated annually to the National Park
Service for operating and capital program* for the eleven fiscal
years are as follows:

Fiscal Year Net Appropriation

* 9,370.030
1*,609,775

19*3 IW&&2

19** *,563.56o

19*5 *,7*0,810

19*6 5,*8?,375

19*7 26.027.955

19*8 10,628,055

19*9 1*,0*7,6*9

1950 30,10*,850

1951 33.975.700

The above amount a are reflected graphically in the attachment.
The iapact of World War II and the post war surge to catch up on
deferred work are reflected in the graph for fiscal years 19*3 through
19*6.

•

700

951

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX

A4573

rt avnilable to producers for the 1951
rop. This Is a clear illustration of the
lanner In which celling prices at the
rocessor level may be used to depress
le price or destroy the market for ai;rl-
jltural producers.

Third. Processors of seasonally pro-
uced commodities such as poultry and
;gs are not permitted under the general
sillng price regulation to increase their
ase period celling prices to reflect the
osts of storage. The provision not per-
ittting the addition of storage costs will
iscourage processors from placing poul-
ry and eggs in storage during the heavy
eriod of production which in turn will
;'sult In a shortage of these commodities
uring the light-production season.

CONCLUSION

I believe further illustrations are un •
ecessary. The amendment rests on the
asic principle of the profit system,
"here must be an opportunity to make
. profit on every item of production or
he unprofitable items simply will not
« produced. I believe the American
people want and have a right to demand
induction.

fewton B. Drnry, a Great Coat errationitt

EXTENSION OP REMARKS
or

HON. LEROY JOHNSON

OP CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, July 13, 1951

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, under
leave to extend my remarks, I Include a
statement by myself concerning Newton
B. Drury, and comments by others. I
wish every nature lover and conserva
tionist in our country could read these
remarks, so they would know how fortu
nate we were in having this great con
servationist as our National Park Direc
tor for 10 years. •.
NtwroN B. DRUHT. A GIEAT CONSERVATIONIST

A few weeks ago, Newton B. Drury. the Di
rector of the NtitlonM Park Service In the
Department of the Interior since August
1040, resigned and returned to his home In
California. Oov. Earl Warren promptly
appointed Mr. Drury chief of the division
of beaches and parks, an Important bureau
of California's Department of Natural Re
sources. What was a serious losa to the Na
tional Government has been a great gain
to my State of California.

Conservationists In all parts of the Na
tion have been disturbed by Director Drury's
withdrawal from the Federal Service, and
there has been much discussion of It In many
councils, conferences, and association board
meetings. Protests have been filed with the
President and with the Secretary of the In
terior. There has been a general under
standing that Director Drury was maneu
vered into, a situation where he had to re
sign from the position be had held so long
and filled so creditably.

Conservationists were disturbed because If
Director Drury did not leave bis post volun
tarily, pressure of some kind might have been
exercised contrary to the Intent of the or
ganic act of Congress establishing the Na-
•lonal Park Service which provided for ap
pointments of Its executive officers under
the laws, and under rules, and regulations of

the United States Clvl) Service Commlnsl'-n
which meant that when once qualified and
appointed within the clnmlflpri clvll-serv-
Icr official* were to be Imitpu • to removal
except on preferment of chargex and Judg
ment thereon after KUbmtsnlon of ample pm f
of Incompetence or Inefficiency.

No charge* were preferred against Mr.
Drury. and apparently none were ever under
consideration or even thought of . Apparent
ly, the Secretary of the Interior. Oscar L.
Chapman, who as a career man himself hoi!
known and worked with Director Drury Inr
over 10 years held him In high esteem.

It seems that Secretary Chapman indicated
his desire, yes, his determination, to ap
point Director Drury to a position In his
own office with tbe title of Specln! Assistant
to the Secretary, to engage In certain Im
portant liaison activities dealing with in-
terbureau plans and policies where con
flicts had appeared, and In other direction-*
tc aid the Department head. Director Drury
preferred to keep the position he had and
which he had held for over 10 years. The
Director realized, however, that under »
recent statute making effective one of the
recommendations of the Hoover Commis
sion, the Secretary had the power to move
agencies or men at will within his Depart
ment, and that he probably had no choice
but to accept the new Job, which. Inciden
tally, carried compensation lower than that
of a bureau chief, or resign.

It seems also ihat In assigning Mr. Drury
to hi* own office as Special Assistant the
Secretary had stated his desire to appoint
a» Director of the National Park Service
Associate Director Arthur B. Demaray lit
order that he might enjoy the prectlge c r
heading the Bureau until his retirement In
the early future, after nearly M years of
service In tbe Federal Government. The
Secretary also frankly staled he expected to
appoint Assistant Director Courad L. Wirth
UK Director when Mr. Drmarny should retire.

Director JDrury concluded that he wou.il
submit his resignation rather than take the
place offered by the Secretary, which he felt
was likely to be temporary and which he
did not think presented opportunities for
the use of his talents and experience in the
field of conservation In which he was espe
cially Interested.

Tbe resignation was submitted, and ac
cepted by the Secretary with ample time
granted In which the Director could com
plete work on which he was engaged.

Conservationists In their protests charged
that the reasons for proposing to tiunt>f«r
Mr. Drury were not convincing and that
there were others having to do perhaps with
projects for exploiting national park re
sources, particularly their waters m.d resu1-
volr MIC.-., or that other political ci usldera-
tiont governed the proposal. They pointed
to Secretary Chapman's approval of the dams
proposed to be built In the Dinosaur Na
tional Monument, Utah, which would, if con
structed, flood large areas In the watersheds
of both the Green and Yarnpa Canyons. I
have Inserted in the RECORD much it-tful
material showing that these dams are not
necessary to the conservation of the waters
of those streams.

Both the Secretary nnd Director Drury
have had little to! say. Director Drury sub
mitted bis resignation and Secretary Chap
man accepted it with the following Icllciious
statement:

"During your 10 yean as Director, you
have been -devoted to the cause of the na
tional parks. Tbe National Park Service is
a fine organization and I think you can well
be proud of Its accomplishments. Since you
nave readied the decision that you should
resign from the Department I must, of
course, accede to your wishes. In doing so I
wish to express my appreciation of our long
and pleasant association and to extend to
you every good wish for the future."

The Secretary has also explained his offer
of a transfer pas being In furtherance of a
plan he made after he thought he had been
told by Director Drury that he (Druiyi had
an opportunity outside tbe Federal Govern
ment service, and that on this plan he had
made commitments regarding appointments
of Associate Director Demaray and Assistant
Director Wlrth.

The Washington Evening Star of Ap»il
3. 1851, In reporting the Installation of Direc
tor Demaray under the following headline:

"Chapman denies Drury ouster as Demaray
takes top park post," said this about an Inter
view with Secretary Chapman regarding Mr.
Drury's retirement:

"Mr. Chapman explained what he called
n misunderstanding In the Drury case.

"Last June, he said. Mr. Drury came to him
to nay be bad received a very good offer of a
job and was thinking of resigning.

" "That was the first I heard about It,' Mr.
Chapman added. He said he had urged tho
park director to stay on."

Tbe Secretary has ulso pointed out that
he has adhered strictly to long-established
policy In advancing Messrs. Demaray and
Wlrth to Director and Associate Director, re
spectively, and In appointing Dr. Ronald F.
Ixse as Assistant Director succeeding Mr.
Wlrth. Furthermore, tbe Secretary bas made
no new commitments regarding the Dinosaur
Monument dams, and we will continue to
)i(.pi: triut h" ha/i been convinced thai they
will not be nei^H.sary i:i the orderly develop
ment of tbe Colorado River watershed. He
bas been In the Department of the Interior
for 18 yean as Assistant Secretary, Under
secretary, and Secretary, and In thm time
has had the National Park Service under his
general Jurisdiction almost coiu'.antly. It
peems reasonable to believe that he will not
want to take any permanent, Irrevocable
position that will affect adversely hU long
record as a protector of national parks «nd
as a faithful supporter of the policies that
have been followed for 35 years in compli
ance with the National Park Service Act
of August 35, 1918 which says that "The
service thus established shall promote and
regulate the use of the Federal areas known
»• national parks, monuments, and reser
vations hereinafter specified by such means
and measures as conform to the fundamental
purpose of the said porks, monuments, and
reservations, which purpose is to conserve
the scenery and the natural and historic
objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in
sucb manner and by such means as will
ir.r. r them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations."

So much for Director Drury's withdrawal.
His place bere has been, filled by Ms chief
associate and he has been appointed to head
the California State Park and Beach System.
The National Park Service is in good hands
nnd so Is the California State Park Service.

My object In ranking this statement to
the Congress is to emphasize the fnct that
Newton B. Drury Is a great conservationist
and a great public servant, and that his stat
ure Is Increased by the strength of char
acter and nobility with which he met n
Etrance situation, perhaps Just as difficult
for his chief, the Secretary, as it was for
himself.

I have known Mr. Drury since 1912. when
be and I found ourselves fellow graduate
students In the Law School of the University
of California at Berkeley. In undergraduate
days he bad been prominent In extracurricu
lar affairs. He had won tbe Carnot Medal,
highest debating award, for which the de
baters oi Stanford University and the Uni
versity of California competed. He had been
elected president of the Associated Students,
highest office within the girt of tbe student
body, and served In this position during U.s
senior year.

M*

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX

701
JULY 13

OD completion of blr collage course ha
lined the unlver.x't >• ;*rultv »* an Inncructor

,,j rf. tnr»»ii>lr» ». -~r»ta'y V > tui- prrM-
i«Bt. Ii> " -J'"" v. * " • " waa & ll»v»»nant in
at a. I' atrv.^ .if the Arm/, «n observer In
it* BalloSB Curt*
Back In enuun life with hl» bt <v-r he

|1 "'rciMWIUiij .»/•• t»d a pul)..v
and «d*«i..' T htiMnmu .1 "in
rnu>clsco. Aboiii «h(s time UK • •.• r-iiie-
iedwnnd* Lmcue was aifaAleed to <.-. ...iw t
•»mp»lgi»» (or lun*s tn acquire outat«<"inif
irove* of th» Cruut Redwood (••quota Beni-
xrvlreBs) wnlch Kan threatened w •: *•-
itructlon Mr Drury became u.» »nrcutive
locretary of this ooaeervetlon association n-.'i
managed Its affair* with gr*-.t >u«eeas it*
aver 20 year*.

AJ funds became available from private
nurcea the State matched them with appro
priations by the legislature. A Slat* park
•ommlMion was authorized, and It engaged
Mr Drurjr to direct Us purchasing programs.
which covered, tn addition to redwood groves
along the coast, the Calaveras North Grove
at giant sequoia trees, beaches, and scenlo
&nd historic areas In all parts of California.
When a State park survey was authorized
to develop a comprehensive plan for a sys
tem of beach, desert, mountain, and his
toric parks, Mr. Drury was the liaison officer
with the famous landscape architect, Fred-
trick Law Olmsted, who waa engaged to make
the survey and prepare the report.

As a result of the activities of the State
park commission and the Save-the-Redwooda
League. California haa one of the finest park
•ystema In the Nation. Mr. Drury's direction
of affairs as the responsible executive
throughout the formative period of thin de
velopment brought him national rf cognition
as an outstanding conservationist and leader
In park establishment.

In July 1933. when Director Horace M. Al
bright, of the National Park Service, advised
Secretary Harold L. Ickes that he wished to
resign, the Secretary asked Albright and the
Advisory Committee of the Service, headed
by the late Dr. H. C. Bumpus, and a few other
men prominent In national park affairs. In
cluding Frederick A. Delano, Chairman of
the National Capital Park and Planning
Commission. Dr. J. C. Merrlam, president of
the Carnegie Institution, and J. Horace
IfeParland, long the president of the Amer
ican Civic Association, to recommend a suc
cessor to the retiring director. These men
recommended Newton B. Drury, and the ap
pointment was offered to him by Secretary
Ickes with President Roosevelt's approval.
Drury, however, felt that he could not at
that time withdraw from State activities and
so declined the Invitation to come to Wash
ington. Arno B. Cammerer. the Associate
Director, was then recommended and ap
pointed. serving with distinction until bU
health broke In 1940. Then Secretary IcKss
again offered Drury the directorship a. d
this time he accepted It. He took office Au
gust so, 1940. In announcing the appoint
ment Secretary Ickes on August IB said:

"The Park Service Is fortunate In having
secured the acceptance of Newton B. Drury
lor the post of Director. Mr. Drury Is out
standing In the fleld of conservation occu
pied by the National Park Service and Is a
nationally recognized authority on park af
fairs. He has been Intimate with the work
of tht National Park Service and In his post
M executive head of the Save-the-Redwcods
League of California, has already been of
great assistance to the Park Service."

Mr. Drury's years as Director (1940-51)

rere the years of the war and Its aftermath.

Killed to Chicago for 4 years the National

Park Service with other agencies of the De

partment carried on Its activities as best

It could with small appropriations and Its

mlnistratlve, protective, and technical

staffs badly broken up by men departing

to serve In the Armed Forces. Tmere were

t -n^rous Insistent proposals for utilization
< • lie resources of the national parks by
pnviue enterprises on the pretext that these
resources — timber, minerals, pasturage, etc. —
were required In the war effort. With the
unfailing support of Secretary Ickes, Drury
resumed these proposals. At the same time.
th* service and the concessioners In many
parks rendered great aid to the Armed Force*
i>ji niking facilities In the parks available
' • ri-n mid rehabilitate it < 1 soldiers and
•miu . . rmrned fr,.n »'.<• hattlei.

u would be rrivrntlnn ;v«i» • '» "' uth-
«r» If I M< forth 11, in .„.' mure u: ^.n. . -
Drury'e *thl. n »n»nts, I prcfei w * '• -'triers
" '• them as IMU, • -w Hatomeuts
on ivu. !>?••••.•• retlrenivu.

Th» oldest sap**. ••*. •' the National
6etvk» •md the orgttii.^u. • • ' "Mluen-
tlal In sec-r. >( '•• •'tabllsnu.t. U>e

Bervli* '•! 1918. U ..« A; ... •••>•! Planuiita,

and Cl Axsivlarlnn, now b«...-. Ual.

Gen r R Oi*r.t *u •"-'.? assisted oj **»
execute* »«Te*»ry. MU.J. Hai ir« ?-~>es. In
the April-June j>M Issue of U*.- ».«•••-.*•
tlon's quai'.vily Planulug nnd Civic Con.-
ment. there appears t'.i» followi;.* «nmmeut
on Director Drury's service.

"THIC axavici or NZWTON •. DBUK« ru

CONSERVATION

"When Newton B. Drury graduated from
the University of California In 1912 he was
already recognized as a young man of prom
ise, for he became successively In the next
6 years, instructor of English, assistant pro
fessor of forenslcs, and secretary to the
president. In later years this facility In the
persuasive use of the English language was
to stand him In good stead.

"After his war service In the Air Force he
entered upon his career In conservation. It
was tn 1910 that he became secretary to the
Save-the-Redwoods League, which has been
one of the moat succeasful conservation
organizations In the history of the United
States. In 1940, when he was appointed Di
rector of the National Park Service, his
brother Aubrey succeeded him as the Secre
tary of the Save-the-Redwoods League. The
State of California and the Nation at large
have reason to be grateful to the Drury
brothers for bringing Into protected owner
ship the groves of coast redwoods along the
now famous Redwood Highway extending
from the Bay Region to the Oregon line — a
heritage of priceless value which once lost
could never be replaced. If Newton Drury
had accomplished nothing more than saving
the coast redwoods from destruction his name
would go down In history aa a revered bene
factor of the State and Nation.

"But In 1929, following the pioneer, epoch-
making report of Frederick Law Olmsted.
which recommended an extensive State park
system, It was Newton Drury who was ap
pointed by the Governor of California to
take charge of the acquisition program aa
the executive of the State Park Commission.
Thus the redwood groves and the State parka
of California are living tributes to the Ideals,
Industry, and devotion of Newton B. Drury.
"There was to be another chapter. In
1940. Newton B. Drury was appointed Direc
tor of the National Park Service to follow two
other Callfornlana — Stephen T. Mather and
Horace M. Albright, and Arno Cammerer who
had grown up In the Mather tradition.
From 1940 to 1951. under the directorship of
Mr. Drury, the National Park Service has a
fine record of achievement In the growth of
the system, the maintenance of conservation
standards, the protection of the parks and
monuments from unrelated encroachments
end In the fine working relationships with
other Federal agencies.

"And now Newton Drury has returned to
California where he IB now the director of
the State parks and again, with his brother,
serving the Save-the-Redwoods League. He
has already been honored by the conserva
tion award of the Trustees of Public Reserva

tions In Boston: by the Hutchlnson medal of
the Garden Club of America, and by two
Pugsley medals of the American Scenic and
Historic Preservation Society; but the red
wood groves and State parka of California
will survive as perpetual monuments to New
ton B. Drury. And when the record Is ex
amined, hli constructive leadership In na
tional park policies during his decade tn
Wiii-hli.i-toii will be clearly demonstrated.

"The American Planning and Civic Associ
ation unlntra Newton Drury, valued member
end effective friend of conservation."

The American Nature Aiwocl-itlon hns nl-

• ••' -Mpportcd the National Park Service.
It hnit a .«rjf "nernbershlp and publl*hr , im
e*ti n»'.t monthly juumaJ Nature Magazine.
1" Its Apu. IJ*' tatue. this magazine cun-
t«iu«d Uv following •• • -lol by ftlcbud W.
West war a, yi -MI Hso t «nd ediiut.

"OONTOll* MfcrtST

"Resigun Wiwtin B. Brurj •• Dl-

r.r't» •* the Nai»ou« *»•• x-rvlce has beta
received ».'<-i UHKM* and aiors* *>- •»T>T rnn-

• -mttonlsts. ovu •»•••»"• lauded. I'M. ;. ••
jigcM at ".-* 'nss of u a<» j.»»«lr servant
wta» fnr icarlv 11 yMrs h«* been (Ipvuie*
to IV-P Integrity at ir» •r**» Utet it naa btrn
hie res[>oi.«iNi'ty to admlia-JWsi tVn* la
alarm 'x-.-atise Mi. nrury's resigns ik* • -
not volntary, mid torause **•*• '« Increasing
evidence that the current policy of MM De
partment ut the Interior Is weigto'rd on the
side of exploitation and ... ••'ipmem. 9m
are certain, *f course, that A^'.i.or • De-
maray, his sueeneer, Is devoted to W»ti.> ,»i
Park Ideals, and that he and bla staff will
defend theae Ideals We offer any aid with
in our power In the face of A departmental
trend that we regard as dangerous and Bhort-
alghted, however, politically expedient It may
seem on the surface.

"It waa In 1034 that we first met Newton
Druary. He was then the fighting executive
secretary of the Save-the-Redwoods League,
working to preserve representative and sub
stantial stands of the Incomparable Cali
fornia redwoods from the ax and saw. We
roamed the redwoods of Bull Creek Flat and
points north with him. and have always
treasured that experience. When Horace
Albright resigned aa Director of the National
Park Serlvce to enter private business, the
then Secretary of the Interior, Harold L.
Ickes. asked the National Parks Advisory
Board to recommend the man In Its opinion
most competent to head the Service. The
unanimous choice was Newton B. Drury. He
declined because of the challenge then fac
ing him In the redwood problem and the
California-parks program. Later, when the
office of director again became vacant Mr.
Drury was once more urged by Mr. Ickes to
accept the appointment. This time Mr.
Drury accepted, after being convinced by the
persuasive Mr. Ickes that it was a public duty.

"Since August 1040. Newton Drury has
served the American people well as chief
trustee of Incomparable parts of the Amer
ican outdoors that are the people's property.
He saw the parks through the war period
with wisdom, enjoying Mr. Ickes' cordial
collaboration In so doing, and these areas
emerged from this trying time virtually un
impaired. He successfully led the fight
against subsequent attempts to encroach
upon the parks. Most recently he was called
upon to present, at a hearing called by Oscar
L. Chapman. Secretary of the Interior, the
case against the proposed Invasion of Di
nosaur National Monument by the construc-
xion of Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams.
It was a strong case, ably presented, but waa
opposed by an Impressive parade of western
Members of the Congress. Later Mr. Chap
man decided against the National Park
Service and In favor of the Bureau of Rec
lamation.

"Whether Mr. Chapman expected his de
cision on the Dinosaur National Monument
to settle the matter we do not know. So

702

1951

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX

A4575

far as conservationists are concerned. It cer-
Ulnly did not. 80 tar ai the National Park
Srrvlre It concerned, It did. The decision
of the Secretary established departmental
policy, tud «e run testify personally thnt
Mr Drury and his start were most punc-
tllloiui lu this regard. Bui conservation or-
(snlK«Umi» were not affected by any such
bureaucratic gag rule, and puhii.-nv iitrairiM
the dlnmnur dams increased. Whether Mr.
CliapmHii laid this at Mr. Drury's door we do
not knuw. hut we would like to mnke thu
record clear

"It Is to us significant that the official
release announcing Mr. Drury's resigna
tion was Innocent of the usual repression of
appreciation by his superior for distinguished
service. Mr. Chapman Is apparently not a
hypocrite, but the absence of any such sen
timent is ample substantiation — If any were
needed — of the Involuntary character of the
resignation. The Director of the National
Park Service had been offered a nebulous and
Ill-defined position as special assistant to the
Secretary, at a leaser salary. Decision was
asked Immediately, otherwise his resignation
would be accepted as of January 15. More
often than not these "special assistant" posts
are equivalent to moving the official's desk
right next to the front door so that he can
be eased out quickly when the time conjes.
We have heard this device described as "Po-
tomac fever." and at least It Is an Insidious
and debilitating malady. Nobody seems to
attain an Immunity to It. and Mr. Drury
did not elect to expose himself to the unfll-
terable virus that causes the nines*

'While we are keeping the record clear,
and In view of national publicity, we must
also say that Mr Drury had no knowledge
of the fact that conservationist* hnd carried
the rase to the President. The Director had
gone In California for the Christmas holidays
when thin Initiative was taken, and he wan
dismayed when he returned to find out what
had been done. In taking this step It was
realised that'll would not alter matters so
far as the Secretary of the Interior was con
cerned. It was. however, felt that Mr. Drury
was entitled to conclude his terra of office
with somewhat more leisure than apparently
had been the desire on high. This, at least,
'appears to have been accomplished. Mr.
Drury, of course, has distinct distaste for
being placed In the position of a martyr,
and we hope that championship of him per
sonally will not be so regarded. Quite likely
be will enjoy release from bureaucratic re
sponsibilities, and welcome an opportunity
to return to his beloved California. We will
miss him, and we with him well.

"R. W. W."

The most comprehensive review of Direc
tor Drury's official career wms made by Dr.
Waldo Q. Leland who for many years was
a member, and for 4 years, chairman of the
Advisory Board on National Parks, Historical
Sites, Buildings, and Monuments of the De
partment of the Interior. This was printed
In the April-June 1961 Issue of the National
Parks magartne. published by the National
Parks Association, of which Dr. Leland 1* «
trustee and Mr. William P. Wharton is presi
dent and Pred M Packard li secretary. The
article follows:

"NEWTON BISHOP DHUKT

"(By Waldo Olflord Leland, member, board of
trustees, National Parks Association)

"The members of the National Parks As
sociation, and Indeed all friends of the na
tional parks, have been surprised to learn
that Newtun B. Drury has presented his
resignation as Director of the National Park
Service. They have been profoundly shocked
as they have learned the circumstance*
which brought about this unanticipated ac
tion.

"The termination of Mr. Drury's 10 years
of service Is not a pleasant story, and nature
conservationists throughout the country

have every reason to be perplexed and In
dignant and anxtou .

"Without any Intimation of dlssntlsf action
with his admlnlstnitlon. but. on the con
trary, after repented expresMons of millshic-
tlou and upproMil. .Secretary of Interior
Oscar L. Chupmitn offered to Mr l)rm v rarly
lit December, it po*lt|on of MibMani lally
lower grftflr MH n|M-clal mwtlniHtit i.o the secre
tary of the Interior, with only nrtvlnory func
tions, the triKk of which would be to " r-
relate. at an early stage, the plans and proj
ects of the Department's various Henries.
This proposal wus followed, within hours,
by i preemptory ultimatum that Mr Drury
accept the position, or resign as of January
15. 1981. It was only too clear thnt the pro
posed asslstanchlp was nothing more than
the usual device for disposing of officials
whose dismissal Is difficult to justify.

"A member of the National Park Service
Advisory Board. Charles O. Woodbury. acting
on his personal Initiative. h«;d long Inter
views with Assistant Secretary Doty and Sec
retary Chapman, and elicited the assertion
that the only reason for removing Mr. Drury
was the desire, which the Secretary acknowl
edged to be founded on sentiment, to re
ward Ascoclate Director Arthur E Dcmaray.
whose long and distinguished services are
gratefully recognized by all, by promotion
for a short period to the position of Director.
The haste to make this promotion was de
clared to be due to Mr. Demaray's request,
of June 26. 1950. to be retired as of Novem
ber 30. 1950. Assistant Director Conrad L.
Wlrth would be moved up to nil the position
of Associate Director. It was reported else
where, nnd not denied, that upon the retire
ment nf Mr. Demaray the post of director
wmild be fllird by Mr. Wlrth The compe
tence of Mr. Dcmurnv nnd Mr Wlrth ure not
In question, but Him* officluls Imvr been
placed In an uncomfortable position by this
procedure.

"On January 10. 1951. Mr. Drury formally
declined the position which had been pro
posed to him and. on offering to state his rea
sons was told that that was unnecessary.
On January 16. he presented his resignation,
•with regret,' to take effect on April 1.

"These are the bald facts of the dismissal
of a public servant of the finest type, In the
prune of physical and mental vigor, at a
time when President Truman complains of
the difficulty of Inducing first-class men to
accept positions of responsibility in the Fed
eral Government, and at a tune, furthermore,
when an Increasing emergency Is threatening
the national parks with the same dangers
which Mr. Drury so successfully overcame In
1941-45.

"In mid-January, as soon as the matter
became known, such organizations as the
Committee on Regional Development and
Conservation of the CIO. the Izaak Walton
League, the Wilderness Society, the Ameri
can Nature Association, and the National
Parks Association, addressed letters of pro
test to the President. It Is understood that
these letters have been referred. to the Sec
retary of the Interior with Instructions to
reply to the writers.

"The Advisory Board, whose predecessor,
upon being consulted by Secretary Ickes, had
recommended Newton B. Drury as the best
man In the United States for the post of
Director, was not consulted by Secretary
Chapman, although the latter met with the
Board In November, at which time he had
undoubtedly decided upon the course he was
about to follow, and talked with apparent
frankness about various problems and espe
cially about the great danger confronting the
parks, resulting from pressures by commer
cial Interests. In a matter of such vital im
portance to the fundamental policies of the
National Park Service as a change In the
directorship. It would have been appropriate,
at least, for the Secretary to consult with the
body which bad been created by law to advise

him. If the present writer, after lorg asso
ciation with the members of the Advisory
Bourcl. can Judge the reactions of the latter,
he believes It probable that their collective
views will find suitable expression In due
time.

"Mr. Drury WHS appointed Director of the
Turk Kcrvl'-e In 1040.

"In Mny 1931 Secretary of the Interior
Hnrold L. Icken convened the Advisory-Com
mit tee mi Education of the National Turk
Serilce In his i/lBce for special consultation.
There were present, as the writer recalls, the
chairman, Herman C. Bumpus. former Di
rector of the American Museum of Natural
History and former president of Tufts Uni
versity, long devoted to the developni"nt of
a program of education and Interrelation
for the national parks; W. W. Campbell,
president emeritus of the University of Cal
ifornia; Isaiah Bowman, director of the
American Geographical Society, later to be
come president of the Johns Hopkins Uni
versity; Wallace W. Atwood. president of
Clark University; Clark Wlssler of the Amer
ican Museum ol Natural History; Dr. Frank
Oastler. of New York, noted nature lover and
friend of the national parks, and the writer,
who Is now the sole survivor of the group.
There was also present the late John C. Mer-
rlam, then president of the Carnegie Insti
tution of Washington, who had been the
first chairman of the Advisory Committee.

"Secretary Ickes, with the then Director
of the National Park Service. Horace M Al
bright present, Informed the committee
that, to his great regret, the post of Director
ol the National Park Service would shortly
become vacant because of Mr. Albright's
resignation to accept an Important and at
tractive position lii private business Ac
cordingly, he called upon the Advisory Com
mittee to recommend for the poit the person
best qualified to nil It. The Secretary In
sisted that the committee make Its recom
mendation without regard to any other con-
ttderatlon than the outstanding qualifica
tions of the candidate.

"The committee withdrew and after a
canvass of numerous possibilities, unani
mously and with enthusiasm agreed to
recommend Newton B. Drury, of California,
a recommendation which the Secretary
accepted.

"Who was Newton B. Drury? Since 1918,
he had been the executive secretary of the/
Save-the-Redwoods League and, since 1929,
he had also served as executive officer of the
California State Park Commission. He was
born In San Francisco In 1889, the older son
of the pioneer editor. Wells Drury. whose
book, An editor on the Comstock Lode, Is a
revealing picture of life In Virginia City and
other bonanza towns of the seventies and
eighties. Newton graduated from the Uni
versity of California In 1912, and spent the
next 6 years, except for war service In the
Balloon Corps, at the University, where he
was Instructor In English, assistant to pro
fessor of forenslcs. and assistant to the presi
dent. Later, In 1947, his alma mater was to
confer on him the honorary degree of doctor
of laws as a 'leader In the preservation
and development of valuable recreational
area* • • • a conservationist who has
applied rational Imagination and boundless
Industry to the public service of his State
and Nation.'

"In 1933, Mr. Drury had already achieved
a national reputation by his success In pre
serving thousands of acres of giant redwoods
along the California coast, a task which In
cluded not only the administration of State
funds, but also the raising of matching funds
from private sources for the acquisition of
forest lands. He was known as a forceful
and eloquent writer r.nd speaker, a man of
the highest Ideals, combined with sound
practical sense, and an executive of solid
accomplishments.

703

A4576

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX

JULY 13

To UM disappointment of Secretary Ickes
and the Advisory Committee, however. Mr.
Drury did not feel at that time that he
could ask to be released from his duties in
California, and thui. after further consulta
tion with the committee, the Secretary pro
moted Associate Director Arno B. Oammerer
to the post of director.

"TbU arrangement did not work out a*
well as had been .hoped. There was some
Incompatibility of personalities, and there
was also a serious decline In Camraerer's
health, with the result that he was more
and more bypassed by the Secretary's of
fice In Its relations with the National Park
Service. The Inevitable consequence of this
situation was a lowering of the n- orate of
the service, especially at headquarters, and
a growing sense of frustration, because of
uncertain leadership and remote control.

"In 1940, Mr. Cammerer requested to be
transferred to a position of less responsi
bility and so, in May of that year. Secretary
Ickes again Invited Mr. Drury to accept ap
pointment as Director. In his correspond
ence with the Secretary Mr. Drury discussed
the considerations which would Influence
hu decision. Among these he put first the
concurrence of the present Director, Mr.
Cammerer. He was confident that he could
secure release by his present employers, the
Bave-the-Eedwoods League and the State of
California, at least for a period long enough.
for him to make such contribution as he
could to the national task. Be asked tot
assurance that he would be left free to con
centrate upon the concerns of the National
Park Service without being drawn off on
departmental tasks only remotely related to
the former. Be also asked for assurance of
freedom to bring to bear upon the problems
of the National Park Service the most com
petent knowledge and the best Judgment
that could be obtained. Finally he indi
cated his expectation that the Department
would eeek and consider, on their merits,
the recommendations of the National Park
Service on major matters of policy and or
ganisation.

TBven with assurance on these points, the
decision was not an easy one. Other posi
tions were offered to Mr. Drury, and he had
to consider them. One of these was a. high
administrative pott In a great university:
another was an Important position la a lead-
Ing Institution of scientific research. Be
felt, however, that his experience and hi*
personal aptitude* should make it possible
tor him to contribute, at the national level.
to the realization of hi* dearest Ideal* and
purposes. Be therefor* accepted appoint
ment to directorship of the National Park
Service. This he did, not as a Job, but a*
an opportunity for service; and he entered
vpon his duties on August 30, 1040.

"Between 1983 and 1840, Secretary Icke*
had brought about a great enlargement of the
scope of the National Park Service, by the
transfer of 48 area* from the War Depart
ment to the Department of the Interior; by
ths passage of the Historic Bite* Act of 1036;
by the passage of the act of 1988. for the
study of creatlonal area programs: and by
the transfer of all the projects of the Re
settlement Administration to the National
Park Service, not to mention the passage of
the act of 1940, 'to encourage travel in the
United State* ' Thus Mr. Drury became the
head of a multiple-service agency, with
duties as Its Director which went far beyond
those contemplated In the act of 1910, creat
ing the National Park Service.

"Furthermore, the National Park Service
was entering upon the most critical period
of Its history. The Second World War had
already begun to Involve the United States,
and for the next 6 years, the chief task of
the Service was to defend the area* under
Its Jurisdiction and. at the tame time, to
assure their maximum appropriate contri
bution to the military and moral strength

of the Nation. This task had to be per
formed under adverse circumstances: the
personnel of the Service was rapidly and-
drastically reduced: the great parks had
to be administered on a bare custodial basis;
the demands of numerous war agencies,
which were frequently supported with In
sistence by private Interests for nonwar pur
poses, had to be resisted, unless they ful
filled unmistakable war needs not obtainable
elsewhere, and which would not cause Ir
reparable damage to the areas. The situation
was made the more difficult because of the
ill-advised and unnecessary removal of the
Service's headquarters staff from Washing
ton to Chicago. This seriously hindered
the Service by making administration diffi
cult, and liaison with other branches of
Government Impossible. Yet, contact with
the Army, Navy and Congress became more
than ever Imperative because of the demands
being made upon the Service in connection
with the war effort.

"The wartime uses of the various areas
were exceedingly diversified. Some of them
were essentially military and included the
occupation of building* and land for head
quarters. Installations and training: but
such uses as would have done irreparable
damage were, In almost all cases, avoided.
Beneficent, or at least less harmful use*
were for hoepltallzatlon, rest and recreation
camps, care of convalescents, and so forth,
and were numerous and widely distributed.
They enabled hundred of thousands of
American soldiers and airmen to visit for
the first tlms the great scenic and historic
monuments of their country, and contrib
uted greatly to their morale and welfare.

"Dangerous and persistent were the de
mands for exploitation of the natural mate
rial resources of the parks by logging, mining,
grazing, and agriculture. These were resisted
with almost complete success by the firm
positions taken by Director Drury and hi*
staff, and supported by Secretary Ickes. la
the case, for example, of the demands of the
War Production Board for the cutting of
Sltka spruce In Olympic National Park and
Its Queets Corridor and Ocean Strip, the Di
rector formulated the position of the Serv
ice In his memorandum of November 18,

1941, addressed to the Pint Assistant Secre
tary of the Interior, to the effect that se
lected cutting might be authorised a* a last
resort, if Immediate public necessity I*
shown, but that thU would be a distinct
sacrifice of park values in the Interest of
national defence and would largely destroy
the qualities for which the lands were being
acquired. Re Insisted that any legislation
that might be Introduced to permit cutting
In Olympic National Park itself should be
resisted, and he further insisted that all pos
sible supplies of the needed timber elsewhere
ahould be exhausted before using that In
the park. He had already started a compre
hensive survey by the forestry branch of
the National Park Service of all available
spruce In the Northwest, and this speedily
demonstrated that there were Important
supplies In Alaska. Oregon, western Wash
ington, and British Columbia. The pressure
became such, however, that In December

1942, on the basis of a special report by an
assistant In the office of the Secretary, the
latter secured the authorization of the Pres
ident for the sale of spruce in the Queet*
Corridor and the Ocean Strip, although Mr.
Drury was not convinced that this move was
absolutely necessary . The cutting was not
of large extent, and although there was fur
ther pressure for cutting, the forest In the
park Itself was saved. By September 1943,
estimates of need* were revised, and there
were no further requests from the War Pro
duction Board for cutting spruce.

"The story of the National Parks In War
time was presented by Mr. Drury In the
August 1943 issue of American Forests. In
the concluding paragraph Mr. Drury ex
presses hi* philosophy!

" 'The wisdom of the Nation In preserving
areas of the type represented by the national
parks and monuments Is clearly evidenced
on the American Continent today as In
creased demands upon our natural resources
are Invading and forever changing the native
landscape. As long as the basic law that
created them endures, we are assured of at
least these few places In the world where for
ests continue to evolve normally, where ani
mal life remains in harmonious relationship
to Its environment, and where the ways of
nature and Its works may still be studied In
the original design.'

"The greatest and most persistent danger
to which the national parks are subjected
results from the plans of other agencies of
the Government, such as the Bureau of Rec
lamation of the Department of the Interior,
for the construction of an infinite number
of multiple-purpose dams for the control
and utilization of water resources. In view
of the relatively small aggregate area of the
holdings of ^he National Park Service, It
seems extraordinary that so many of these
plans should impinge upon these areas. The
projects are too well known to nature con
servationists and especially to the readers of
the National Parks magazine to require
enumeration and description In this article.
The case of the proposed dams In Dinosaur
National Monument is at this moment very
much In the minds of all friends of the na
tional parka, and their disappointment and
concern at the decision of Secretary Chap
man to recommend the construction of the
dams, over the opposition of Mr. Drury and
the entire staff of the National Park Service,
and the protests of nature conservationists
Is not relieved by the assurance of the Secre
tary In hi* Annual Report. 1950 (p. XXI),
that 'If the projects are authorized as rec
ommended, extraordinary efforts and dili
gence will be exercised so that the pristine
beauty [sic) of this area will be preserved.'

"The essential thing to be noted in this
connection I* that Director Drury and hi*
staff and the advisory board have consist
ently and unceasingly opposed public works
which -vould violate the mandate of the
Congress, expressed In 1U act of 1910. 'to
conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife— of the
park* and monument* — and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same In such manner
and by such mean* as will leave them unim
paired for the enjoyment of future genera
tions.'

"The Advisory Board, In the course of It*
meeting of April I960, communicated Its
view* to the Secretary In these words:

"'The Advisory Board believe* that the
Congress expressed unequivocally and cate
gorically a permanent policy of complete
preservation and protection of the areas
under consideration, for all time. • • •
The advisory board believe* that In all cases
where departure from this policy is urged
In the name of the general welfare it will
be found either that the welfare Is not in
fact general, that It is not national, or that
it could be assured through the adoption of
some alternate plan. The Advisory Board Is
convinced that undevlatlng adherence to
this policy as established by the Congress
and maintained through the year* by the
Department of the Interior 1* the only way
to protect the national park system.'

"An Important aspect at Newton Drury'*
administration has had to do with recrea
tion. This 1* a very broad term, ordinarily
associated with sports, games, camping and
playgrounds. For the National Park Service,
however, It means much more, and It* chief
functions are deemed to be educational and
inspirational. In his annual report, 1949
(pp. 307-313). Mr. Drury ha* expounded hi*
philosophy under the heading- The educa
tional function of the Rational Park Serv
ice':

"The essential task • • • of the
Service Is to see to it that the American

704

L951

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX

A4577

stall have the opportunity to obtain
he'mailmuni beneficial use and enjoyment
if the kinds which dartre from the cbnracter
>f the park area themselves; enjoyment
.-hlch at the mate time Involve* tea mlnt-
num of change in the natural or historic
cene which the Service Is required to
oni-Tve.

"To meet that responsibility • • •
nvolve* more than satisfaction to the phys-
*1 semes • • • It places on the Service
he obligation to eoutrlbuto to a deeper un-
erstandtiig of natural processes and his-
orleal «T«nU about which any Intelligent
vuDan being baa a natural and legitimate
urlostty.'

"Within the limits Imposed by very !n-
dequate appropriation*, the National Park
ervlce has developed recreation of this sort
D a remarkable extent. The Ideals and
erotlrm of tbe naturalists, historians, and
uiger* of the staff have sought realization
i their endeavor* to make the visits of
Ulllons of Americana opportuultlen for
reater understanding and appreciation of
belr land and of the history of their country.
"However, the act of 1936 greatly enlarged
tig role of the National Park Service, with
:spect to recreation, and made It the chief
gency of the Government for planning and
dvlslng on recreational use* of all kinds of
reas, notably on areas created by Impound-
jg water, on behalf of other Federal agencies
nd of the States and their subdivisions. In
tie opinion of the Advisory Board this re-
pondblllty ha* been well carried.
Tne problem a* to what extent the Service
lould exercise this responsibility for areas
rer which It does not have Jurisdiction, and
•ttlch we used chiefly a* regional play-
round* 1* under oonjldertlon. A carefully
nought-out report by the Advisory Board
as been approved by the Secretary of the
aterlor and may be supposed to represent
He present policy of the Service. It would
ndoubtciily be tbe opinion of nature cou-
irfatlanlsu that thU function U secondary
I compared with the primary function of
rotectlng and Interpreting, at the national
>vel, our unique and most notable place*.
Tbe decade of Mr. Drury's directorship
m been one of many other major services.
I* has reestablished friendly cooperation
nth the Forest Service of the Department
( Agriculture with which. In earlier year*,
here bad been a not-too-frlendly rivalry.
to has, in this last year, with the aid and
dTlce of a special committee, worked out
revieioa of tbe policies and practice* of
he lerrtee with respect to concession* and
oncesslonera, which promises to be bene-
idal to all concerned, including the mll-
lon* of visitor* who must, depend on the
ooceesloner* for food and shelter and
ranaportatton. He has had to deal with
he delicate problem of maintaining the
rudllfe of the great parka in reasonable
cologlc '"•'-"T*. and while expert*) often
isagree with each other as to the method*
mpioyed. his approach to the problem baa
«en scientific and he has endeavored to
ecure the most competent advice.

"Mr. Drury's greatest service bae been the
omplete dedication of himself to bis task,
le ha* expressed hie Ideal* tn Inspiring
rord* In hi* reports, and in public utter-
noes and writings, and he ha* Justified
its faith by his work*. He ha* identified
ilmself with his staff so that together they
uve seemed to have one voice. He ha*
>een a leader among equals, but he has
lot been their bos*. He ha* Inspired the
oyarty of the staff to the ideal* that they
tare held In common, but he has never
lemanded a personal loyalty to himself. He
ias been eager to obtain tbe beat poaaible
udgment on all problem*, and his decl-
Jon* have been reached after conscientious
onsultation and mature deliberation. He
ias not dramatized himself or his position;
je hu not been spectacular and be ho*

avoided personal publicity. He has had to
say "No" far more often than "Yes," and he
has said It quietly, but as many times as
were necessary to make it stick. He has not
pounded the desk or made the rafters ring
or broadcast epithets to the front pages of
the noi'.edltlons.

"This 1* tbe sort of public servant that
Newton B. Drury has neon.

"The dismissal of Newton B. Drury, In tlie
nannner described and lor the reason alleged.
raises many questions which nature conserva
tionists and their organizations are bound
to ask. They have bad confidence In Mr.
Drury, even on the infrequent occuElon*
when not all of them have agreed with him.
They have looked upon him as a stalwart de
fender, within the Government, of the Integ.
rlty of the national parks. They have rec
ognized his honesty, his singleness of pur
pose, his reasonableness, nnd his devotion to
the Ideals wblch they themselves hold. They
ask whether his successor or succrtoi s. who
ever he or they may be. will be equally
strong to defend and to resist, or will they be
more compliant In the face of what may seem
to be considerations of expediency? Will
they be able to defend the Service from un
due Interference, already manifesting itself,
from "upstairs"? Will they have the vital
spark or leadership that will reinforce tbe de
votion of the Service to the great purposes
which It has so well served since Its creation
and that will maintain the morale for which
It 1* Justly renowned? Will they be able to
command the moral support of the nature
conservationists and their organizations
across the country, which they will so greatly
nnd sometimes so desperately need? No mis
take could be more unfortunate than to
underestimate the value of such support or
it* Influence upon public opinion.

"Nature conservationists will realize that
now, and in the immediate future, they
must be more than ever nn the alert. They
have not forgotten Hetch-Hetchy; if the
destruction of Dinosaur, which ha* been con
clusively shown to be unnecessary, Is con
summated, and If Mr. Drury is succeeded by
dlrecton lea* determined to defend, without
exception, the great heritage of counties*
generation* of Americans, the friends of the
national park* will resort to all means In
their power to create such defenses In public
opinion a* cannot be broken down."

Dr. Leland ha* made this special comment
on his article:

"It was my intention. In writing my article
on Newton Bishop Drury, for the National
Parks magazine, to present a factual state
ment constructive In tone and character,
which would. In Itself, be the most effective
refutation of so-colled charges that Mr.
Drury had not been aggressive In the de
fence of the national Park* during the last
war, specifically In the matter of cutting
Bltka spruce, that he had acquiesced in the
construction of dams In Dinosaur National
Monument, and that he had opposed the
recreational activities of the National Park
Service on behalf of areas not Included In
the National Parks system. These charges
have never been made by any responsible
official of tbe Department of the Interior,
and nothing that Secretary Chapman baa
said, to my knowledge, has indicated rtla-
sa.tRfactlon with Mr. Drury's administra
tion. Furthermore, my own study of the
pertinent documents as well as my personal
knowledge of these matters, which were fully
and frequently considered by the advisory
board In Its meetings, demonstrated that the
charges were completely contrary to the
facts. It did not *eem worth while to deal
with such charges In any formal way. It wa*
clear that they bad not affected confidence
In Mr. Drury on the part of conservation Ista
for these were too well acquainted with hie
character and Integrity, as a man and as a
public official, and with hi* whole career aa
a defender of our great endowments by na
ture, to give any credence to them."

Before Director Drury's resignation be
came effective, representatives of 19 na
tional conservation organisations tendered a
cocktail party to the Director and Mr*. Drury
at the Cosmos Club here In Washington. At
this affair many tributes were paid to the
quests c.f honor. A press release dated M,uch
28. 10M, describe* a testimonial presented
to the retiring Director and part of It I*
quoted here:

" 'You have deserved well of the Republic,'
declared representative* of 19 national con
servation organization* In a testimonial pre
sented to Newton B. Drury. rrtlrlui; Direc
tor of the National Park Service, at a cock-
tall party In his honor at the Cosmos Club
to Iny.

"In nlgnlng the testimonial, representa
tives of these groups recorded their appre
ciation of Mr. Drury's •distinguished serv
ices' us Park Service Director lor more than
18 year*, and expressed 'sincere regret that
those services should now come to on eucl.'
The statement asserted: 'We feel ihnt our
confidence in you. when you entered upon
your duties, and our high hopes for your
administration have been Justified, com
pletely nnd abundantly.'

" 'You have been,' the testimonial con-
.tinuw, 'the chief custodian of our country'*
greatest treasures, unique and Irrr.place-
able. the superlative works of nature upon
our land and the monuments of the history
of our people. You have guarded these
treasures with devotion and with courage aa
a sacred trust on behalf of counties gener
ations to come, and you have known how
to draw from them inspiration anci enjoy
ment for the generations of the present.
You have held high the Ideals of a branch of
the public service which hu been notable
for Its ideal* and Its loyalty to them, and
you have maintained and enhanced It* great
tradition.'

"Signers of the testimonial did *o 'on he-
half of tliose millions of our fellow clttzene
whose lives are enriched and whope love of
country Is stirred by the experiences which
you and your associates of the National
Park Service make possible for them.'

"Organizations represented at the gath
ering and signing the scroll were American
Scenic and Historic Preservation Society.
American Forestry Association, American
Museum of Natural History, American Na
ture Association, American Planning and
Civic Association, Boone and Crockett Club,
General Federation of Women's Clubs, Irnak
Walton League of America, National Audu-
bon Society, National Parks Association. Na
tional Wildlife Federation, Save-thc-Red-
woods League, Smithsonian Institution. So
ciety of American Foresters, Conservation
Foundation, Nature Conservancy, Sierra
Club, Wilderness Society, Wildlife Manage
ment Institute."

The Advisory Board en National Parks,
Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments Is
now composed of the following men: Mr.
Charles O. Sauers (chairman), 53S North
Harlem Avenue, River Forest, III.; Dr. Theo
dore C. Blegen (vice chairman), University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.: Dr. Frank
M. Setzler (secretary). National Museum,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington. D. C.;
Dr. Harold E. Anthony. American Museum
of Natural History, New York, N. T.; Dr.
Herbert E. Bolton, University of California,
Berkeley, Calif.: Dr. Ralph W. Cbaney, Uni
versity of California, Berkeley, Calif.; Mr.
Bernard DeVoto, 8 Berkeley Street. Cam
bridge, Mass.; Dr. Flake Klmball, Philadel
phia Museum of Art, Falrmount, Philadel
phia. Pa.: Mr. Tom Wallace, Louisville Times,
Louisville. Ky.; Mr. Alfred A. Knopf. 501
Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y.; Mr. Charles
O. Woodbury, 1801 Hoban Road NW.. Wash
ington, D. C.

On April 38, 1961, after Director Drury
had returned to California the Advisory
Board met in Washington, D. C. All mem
bers were present except Dr. Bolton and Dr.
Klmball. The Board reviewed all the cir-

705

A4578

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX

JULY 18

comstanoes relating to Dr. Drury's retire
ment, and adopted a resolution which was
»t one* dispatched to Drury b> wire:

-Me*olv«d. That the AdTUory Board record
its profound regret that the National Park
Service abould low the services of Us Direc
tor. Kewton B. Drury. who, for more than
to years. hM directed the activities of the
Service and guided Its policies with the great
est competence and distinction, maintain
ing 1O high standards and defending the
Nation's parks and monuments against en
croachments and the impairment of their
Talues. and. that the Advisory Board ad
dress to former Director Newton B. Drury
the expression of Its gratitude and appre
ciation."

CHA>LX> Q. BATHOS,
Chairman, Advitory Board on Na
tional Parka, Historic Sites, Build-
in;*, and Monument*.

The Izaak Walton League Is a powerful or
ganization of conservationists, for the most
part fishermen, but men who ever keep
watchful eyes on the National Park Service.
Its executive director. William Volgt. Jr.. bad
this statement to make to Director Drury on
bearing of bis resignation:

"He told me of your Intention to leave the
Berne* — at your chosen time and In your
chosen manner, and I will not attempt to
dissuade you If you are committed to that
course. I will simply express my deep regret
that you could not continue until retire
ment or the close of your active career. My
dealings with the Service do not extend back
beyond your Incumbency and I cannot com
pare your administration with that of others,
nor do I desire to do so. I simply wish to
say. from the heart, that I have enjoyed
working with you. You bave been coopera
tive and understanding of our views; you
bare been In sympathy with the majority of
the things we have proposed In what we
considered the public Interest, and I am con
vinced yours has been a constructive admin
istration, devoted to tbe Ideals and the spirit
of the Park Service.

"When you leave we wilt Join lots of others
in saying Godspeed. When you go off the
Federal stair, you actually may be In a posi
tion to be more vigorous and outspoken In
defense of the resources of the park system
(and similar or related areas) than Is now
tbe case. I bope that as you cast about you
to choose the vehicles for spare time utiliza
tion of your energies, you will think of the
league and consult with the league's leader
ship. We need and want men of your experi
ence and caliber to counsel and advise us.
and I hope you will give this expression from
me your consideration when this time comes
for you to make such decisions."

On the day Mr. Drury's resignation was
announced, the only living former Director
of the National Park Service. Horace M. Al-
bright, who was at the head of tbe Bureau
from January 1039 to August 1033, was Inter-
rlewed at Carlsbad. N. Mex., by a reporter of
tbe Carlsbad Current-Argus and made this
statement on February 8, 1961:

"I have heard with keenest regret that
Newton B. Drury has resigned as Director of
the National Park Service. Be has served
as tbe bead of this Important Government
bureau since August 1940, and has been an
efficient and successful administrator in a
very critical period of national park his
tory.

"Mr. Drury Is one of .the outstanding con
servationist* of the country. A* the execu
tive director of the Save-the-Redwoods
League, be deservedly received tbe major
share of the credit for tbe success of that
organisation's campaign to purchase and pre-
asrve s«rer 60.000 acres of the beat stands
of California coast redwoods.

"He was also the leader of the group re-
sponslble for tbe establishment of Califor
nia's Stats park system, one of the best

In the Nation. It was on the basis of this
record that Mr. Drury was offered the post
of Director of the National Park Service.
In wartime It was his duty to oppose all ef
forts to Invade national parks and move
ments for exploitation of their resources.
This he did, yielding only in one of two
cases where It was clearly proven thut the
war effort would hove suffered hud he not
permitted certain limited operations within
park reservation boundaries.

"The National Park system was expanded
during bis administration. Big Bend In Texas
and Everglades National Park In Florida be
ing added. Several national parks were en
larged In area and many new national monu
ments and historic sites were given the pro
tection of his bureau. All In all, Director
Drury's many achievements were of great
Importance and of lasting benefits to the
Nation."

As I related In the early part of this
statement, Oov. Earl Warren appointed New
ton Drury, chief of the division of beaches
and parks of California. This appointment
was a most popular one, and already Drury
is at work on the unfinished business of the
State park commission which Includes such
projects as the preservation of the South
Calaveras Grove of Big Trees and adjacent
tracts of sugar-pine forests.

Space does not permit quotation of Cali
fornia tributes to Newton Drury but the
views of two Influential conservation organi
zations deserve quotation. The Sierra Club
which has 7,100 members expresses Itself
throuph Its board of directors and on Febru
ary 17 the board unanimously adopted the
following resolutions:

"Rennlvi'd. That the board of directors of
the Sierra Club desires to express to New
ton B. Drury Its appreciation of the dis
tinguished nervier he has rendered as Direc
tor of the National Park Service during the
past 10 years, and that It welcomes his con
tinued participation in the counsels of the
club in his capacity as honorary vice presi
dent.

"Resolved, That the board of directors of
the Sierra Club congratulates Arthur E.
Demaray upon his appointment to the posi
tion of Director of the National Park Service
following his many years of devoted service
In other capacities In that Service, and
pledges to him Its cooperation and support."

And in April 1951, the Tamalpala Consera-
tlon CfXib In Its magazine said:

"Newton B. Drury Is the new chief of the
California Division of Parks and Beaches.
Mr. Drury recently stepped out as Director
of the National Park Service, a post he had
held for more than 10 years.

"Newton Drury has a long and distin
guished record as conservationist and ad
ministrator. Graduate of the University of
California in 1912 he was given honorary
degree LL. D. In 1047. He was an executive
of California State Park Commission 1929-
40; secretary, Save tbe Redwoods League.
1919-40, and has received many honors and
awards from various organizations and in
stitutions as a conservationist.

• • • • •

"We congratulate Governor Warren in his
prompt appointment of such an able ad
ministrator and distinguished conserva
tionist as Newton B. Drury to head our
California State park system.

"To Mr. Drury the TCC extends a welcom
ing hand, with our pledge of cooperation
and best wishes for a long and successful
career."

So Newton Drury la at home In his native
bill* and forests and among old friends, but
wherever conservationists gather, whether
their Interests be In parks, forests, historic
sites, wildlife soils, or' waters, his achieve
ments as Director of the National Park
Service will be recalled with appreciation
smd great respect.

Major Probtani and Dangers of Inade
quate Manpower Mobilisation

EXTENSION OP REMARKS
or

HON. PAUL J.KILDAY

or TEXAS
IN THE HOOSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, July 13, 1951
Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Speaker, under
leave to extend my remarks. I include
a statement filed by Francis V. Keesllng.
Jr.. formerly chief liaison and legis
lative officer, national headquarters.
Selective Service System, with Senate
House Committee on Armed Services and
Senate and House Committees on Ex
penditures In Executive Departments
and House Committee on Education and
Labor:

Boxi or THE MAJOR PROBLEMS AND DANOBB
or INADEQUATE MANPOWER MOBILISATION

From personal experiences at Washington
during World War n, I have good reason
to be greatly alarmed over the serious con
sequences which could result from failure to
provide a completely adequate manpower
program for use during the next major mo
bilization.

Failure to put into effect a completely
adequate manpower program during World
War II was one of the major causes of the
postwar inflation which since then has been
fissioning and reflsslonlng

Such failure also Impeded our war effort
and jeopardized our national economy and
security. Unless preventive measures are
taken now, even greater mistakes may be
made next time which could cause the entire
mobilization structure to collapse, both the
military and war production.

Let me tell you how and why manpower
mobilization could collapse In whole or in
part and cause great and possibly Irreparable
Injury to our war effort and our economy.

First of all, If during full-scale mobiliza
tion, the Selective Service System ever be
came suspected of granting deferments on
a political or any other unfair basts, It
would not be long before registrants and
their families might not abide by Its deci
sions. Also, the morale of those already
in the fighting forces would be disrupted.
Therefore, It Is Imperative to avoid even the
slightest suspicion of political or other bias.
Experience has disclosed that to avoid such
suspicion the Selective Service System must
be an Independent agency at the Washington
. level and mast not be under the domination
of any department having either a special
Interest In inductions or in deferments.
Consequently, various proposals during past
years to have selective service transferred to
the Department of Defense, or to the Depart
ment of Labor, or elsewhere, have been
turned down as potentially dangerous. Also,
every suggestion to place the local selective
service boards under the control of any
agency such as the United States Employ
ment Service at the local levels, have like
wise-been properly set aside and defeated.
Such proposals must continue to be de
feated, as history has proven that there is
no better substitute for an Independent Se
lective Service System operating with un-
compensated local board members. No sub
stitute can assure the same effectiveness and
the same Impartiality, or be assured of the
same wholehearted acceptance by millions of
registrants, their families, and employers.

During World War n it became necessary
for me to prevent other agencies from taking
over some or all of the selective-service func
tions. I mention this as an Illustration of

706

702 Woodland Drive
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15238
March 11, 1964

Dear Mrs. Fry:

This is just to express wa ^appreciation to you and the Univer
sity for the handsomely put-together transcripts of those three
sessions|bf tape recording that reached me this morning. I am
delighted to have it, and I am deeply appreciative of the nice
things you had to say in the Introduction about me and about the
experience of making a tape recording with me, - very flattering,
bat very warming, too, and a reminder of what was for me a most
pleasant experience.

I have on the typewriter table as I write, your letter of Febru
ary 3 » in which you said that "upon seeing the really 'hard1 na
ture of the ideas you present, I am eager to see the whole book."
During the past six or seven weeks I have gone over every word of
what I had written, partly to shorten it—which I did to the ex
tent of about 35tOOO words— but also to scrutinize especially
carefully everything I had written which was critical of the Serv
ice, or any other agency, or of any person, to satisfy myself
in each case that inclusion of it would help to give the picture
of the Service and its activities that I wanted to give. One re
sult, I shall have to admit, has been the exclusion of some of the
•hard" ideas, including the rather detailed discussion of the pro
cess followed in placing a value on the recreational potential of
reclamation reservoirs. As I had written it, it rather pilloried
Ben Thompson; while I think that the nature of that task imposed
on the Park Service is proper subject matter for the book, I con
cluded that I should present it somewhat differently and perhaps
a little less caustically. Anyway, that is what I did; and I also
eliminated some, but by no means all, of the other criticisms that
I had written.

All that is somewhat aside from the purposes of a "Thank you"
letter, but I thought you would be interested. Again - I am very
grateful for the transcripts and the very well written introduction.

With warm regards, I am

Sincerely yours.

S. Herbert Evlson

SAVE-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE

114 SANSOME STREET, SAN FRANCISCO 4, CALIFORNIA

1963

70?

N

N

N

f coiHftv. cm mmntt.

BULL CREEK WATERSHED

April, 1962

May, 1962-5,228 acres.

BULL CREEK WATERSHED

January, 1963 — 13,558 acres.
WBj Deeded to the State

\\PRAIRIE CREEK REDWOODS
FREEWAY ROUTES
BEING CONSIDERED

PARK BOUNMKC
NEW ACQUISITION!
PRESENT ROAC

FEBN CAHVON
BtlNft ACOUIRIO

PR AIR re

REDWOODS, STATE PARK I

Save- tne-Recjwooct>- League Bulletin, 1963.

708

IICS FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO:
HUMBOLOT REDWOODS 250

PRAIRIE CHEEK 360

DEL MORTE COAST 3»0

JEDCDIAH SMITH 400

STATE PARK LANDS
SAVE -THE -REDWOODS-LEAGUE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION BOUNDARIES
KEY WATERSHED AREA

SAVK-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE
Program

Save-the-Redwoods League lias raised over $10,000,000 since 1918 which,
together with matching state funds, has purchased over 1 ()(),()()() acres of
unique Coast Redwoods ( Serf HUM stmpvrvirens) now in 28 state Redwood
parks. Fifty thousand acres are virgin Redwoods.

The League's current goal is to purchase with matching state funds
additions to existing state Redwood parks. These enlargements are neces
sary in order to round out natural watershed boundaries ami protect
already purchased groves of Redwoods. The present estimate is tiiat the
program is about 50 per cent completed.

Our key projects of highest priority are:

• Mill Creek-Smith River Redwoods in Mill Creek watershed. One
of the great forests of the world, it embraces Del Norte Coast and
Jedediah Smith State Redwoods parks. The immediate objective is
the acquisition of 817 acres on U.S. 199 now privately owned, along
Smith River near Hiouchi Bridge.

• (iolcl Bluffs Seashore and Fern Canyon, privately owned, on the
west boundary of Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. A four-lane
lieeway threatens this park.

• Avenue of the Giants extension north of Hurnboldr Redwoods
State Hark, including incomparable Fepperwood Grove. Six miles of
virgin Redwoods along this world-famous highway are still privately
owned.

WE NEED YOUR HELP

Time is running out on the mighty Redwoods and the League's work
grows more difficult as the forest shrinks and land and timber prices climb.

Less than 300,000 acres of virgin Redwood forest remain and these are
being cut at an estimated rate of 10,000 acres per year.

Your membership helps save the Redwoods.

SAVE-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE
114 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California

Officers and Directors

Ralph W. Chancy, President Francis P. Farquhar

Walter A. Starr, Vice President Waker A Haas
Robert G. Sproul, Treasurer

Newton B. Drury, Secretary Gerald H Ha«ar

John B. Dewitt, Assistant Secretary Richard M. Leonard

Annual memberships are $3, Contributing $10, Sustaining $50; Life
membership $100, Patron $500. Contributions may also be made in the
form of donations, bequests, memorial groves and charitable trusts.

All contributions to Save-the-Redwoods League
are allowable deductions in computing income tax.

709

l KI.K IILXKIV; FOR
OJ» ROt-TES 101 AMI
IN DEI NORTECOl VTY

ELK V \l.m CROSS-ROM)

AM)
13 MJLES » EFT OF V> KTIJ: CREEK

CKESCCifT
CITY

IITVEIN ILK VULPT C*OSS ROAD

AM9
}J IHUS WEST Of MYRTLE CKBK

ENP5TUPY

I 1 {MM* fl

taum at tfae Del None Couaty F;
The project to be aVrawd a • <ke
J J nles *at of Mjrrde Creei. The project is pnyoitd as a
of ike beamg & » aca.

I to obtan the* *iews »Kfc rebecs ta
; •--

OBveeUar*-

office at 1656 Um Street • Eweta.Catfonn

•• - .
: . , . .•

: :: :

>c> S-JTe Part i

14 19^0. x '30 vm. « *e
fro* Ok Vaflev Cn

i of fOO a
ILC LAltSEN.

nf »gt —i—

rxn

-:•:•:

710

SAVE THE REDWOCTS LEAGUE May 10 1965

llh Sansome Street

San Francisco, California IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FERN CANYON, K)LD BLUFFS BEACH
ACQUIRED FOR 3TATE PARK 3Y3TEM

Save -the -Redwoods League reached a longtime objective today
with the purchase from the Pacific Lumber Company of the celebrated
Fern Canyon and 2000 acres of Coast Redwood forest in Humboldt
County, The acquisition includes the spectacular 3old Bluffs beach
along four miles of the shore of the Pacific at the west boundary of
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park.

The announcement was made by President Ralph W.Chaney of the
Save-the-Redwoods League, President Jtanwood A. Murphy of the Pacific
Lumber Company, and by the State Department of Parks and Recreation.
All three agencies took part in the negotiations.

Under the agjteement reached, 30 acres including Fern Canyon are
a gift from the lumber company to the State, which is taking title to
500 acres at this time. The League is acquiring 1000 acres and contracting
to purchase an additional 500 acres within the next two years. Save-the-
Redwoods League will raise half the cost.

The entire area of 2000 acres, which will become part of Prairie
Creek Redwoods State Park, is one of the high priorities in the state
park program recommended by CJovernor Edmund 3. Brown in his 1965-66 Budget
now before the California State Legislature. An item of $5,000,000
to match the League in acquiring the Fern Canyon and other properties,
is necessary to assure completion of this project.

•^k.

The Save-the-Redwoods League at 111* Sansome Street, San Francisco,
has raised over $10,000,000 from contributors all over the country since

(more)

•

711

: IIANI'V. 1'icnJent

I.EONARI>. \'l< f I'rrititt'Ht
Sl'HOIil . '\ri\iMtit-r

OKI HV. \c, rc/./rv
*JITT. .lnn/./»r .\Y< rcMry

)UNC1L

I. ALBRIGHT
. ATWOOD

AKER

«ON C. BELL
BENBOVP
RMINGHAM
\MBERLA1N, JR
CHANTY
ISE

JIICKERING. JR
A. OIRISTENSEN

[IIR H. CONNICK

DAI v

1-ARyl MAR
.HAL H I IMU X
h'RIT/

ilAY GARI AND

RW'K.K. IK

Li ('ill I HKIM

ill I K.AN

(i

hi I 1 liHOSVLNKK

(im MM
HAAS

! II AIM S

kM3C>N

lASKINS

MCKII'I K
lOWAKI)
HoWAKIl

>KI S Ml M I K
•il

KNOI'I

I. Ll;ONARI>

LYON

MAM i IARII. |R.

:CLOY

', MCCREERY

. MclAI'GHI IN

•N/.IES

CK

C MERRIAM
MILLER

THY LlEBES MORIN

BETH J. MORRISON

E MOSELEY
3UHAUS

HELVENY

IANIEL A. Ott'lNGS
HI.EGER

ROOSEVELT
IN E SAWIN
Snout
STARR

IAM W STOUT
WAGNER

AI.DNER
KEN

:. WASTE
TWER

'EJECTS

iff from destruction rcpresent-
our primeval forests.
pcrate with the California State
>ion. the National Park Service,
ncics. in cltablishinR Redwood
er parks and reservations.
i hate Redwood proves by pri-
lon.

nprrjie with the California
C C.ommissuni. and other agen-
inR the preservation of trees
beauty along highways
'on reforestation and tonwrva-

ave -the -Redwoods League

T»EASUIE«: DR. ROBERT G. SPROUL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
SMKITARY • 1 U SANSOMK STREET. SAN fRANCISCO 94104
TXIBPHONII • »

May 26, 1970

MEMORANDUM TO MRS. CHITA FRY
SUBJECT: Prairie Creek Freeway

You and Miss Schrepfer asked about the part of the
Ford Foundation in determining the location of the proposed
freeway that at one time threatened either to bisect Prairie
Creek Redwoods State Park or to mutilate irrevocably the Gold
Bluffs Beach and Fern Canyon.

In my opinion their part was very important. As you
know, after investigation the Ford Foundation in 1966 made an
outright grant to the League, which was applied toward purchase
of Fern Canyon and the portion of Gold Bluffs Beach owned by
the Pacific Lumber Company. They also pledged $1,000,000 on
the condition that we raise $2,000,000. This we were able to
do, and the Ford grant was used toward the purchase of the
Pepperwood and Chadd Creek properties (also owned by the Pacific
Lumber Company) on the Avenue of the Giants, and properties at
Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park.

Mr. John J. McCloy, former U. S. High Commissioner
in Germany, was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ford
Foundation as well as Chairman of the Board of the Chase Man
hattan National Bank. His interest in the Redwoods was aroused
primarily by our Council member, Mr. Herman Phleger of San
Francisco, a copy of whose letter of December 9, 1964, to Mr.
McCloy is appended herewith.

There is a voluminous file of correspondence with
Mr. McCloy, and a memorandum addressed to him and to Mr. Gordon
Harrison of the Ford Foundation staff outlining our request for
a grant, which finally materialized. Mr. Tom Greig and I toured
the Redwoods with Mr. Harrison, and Dr. Chaney and I covered
the area with Mr. and Mrs. John J. McCloy. I also called on
them in New York.

In August of 1965, we were in the midst of our dispute
with the State highway authorities over the route of the pro
posed freeway at Prairie Creek, our contention being that it
should be located on the East Ridge outside of the Park. One

712

MEMORANDUM TO MRS. CHITA FRY
Page 2

May 26, 1970

day Mr. McCloy telephoned me from New York, saying that he had been
reading a magazine article about the Prairie Creek freeway dispute. He
asked me: "Does this affect any of the lands toward which the Ford Foun
dation is contributing?" I told him that it certainly did, and that the
highway plans would be ruinous to Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park par
ticularly. I told him that the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads contributed
more than 50% of the cost of State highways of this type, and our only
hope would be to persuade them that they should not be a party to the
existing plans.

Mr. McCloy said: "I am going to see the President next week
and will speak to him about this matter, which I consider very important.
Please send me full information and a memorandum that can be presented to
the President." This, of course, we did at once. Attached is a copy of
my letter of August 30, 1965, to Mr. McCloy, enclosing a suggested draft
of a letter to the President. That Mr. McCloy carried out hi* intention
is evidenced by the enclosed copy of a dispatch from Washington in the
San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle of October 17, 1965. The effective
ness of Mr. McCloy 's interview with the President is also attested by the
fact that shortly thereafter, we received a call from Mr. William Duddleson
of the office of Secretary of the Interior Udall, asking that we send at
once all available information on the freeway issue. This, of course, we
did. You have most of our publications on this subject, but I enclose a
visualization of the Gold Bluffs Beach route, dated December 1, 1963, and
a summary of the arguments against this route that I made about the same
time.

Perhaps as significant as anything else in turning the tide was
the fact that shortly after Mr. McCloy 's intervention, Governor of California
Edmund G. Brown was in Washington, D. C. He learned that the President's
Council on Environment (whatever it was then called) as well as the U. S.
Bureau of Public Roads was going to take up the Prairie Creek freeway issue.
He said: "You don't need to go to that trouble, gentlemen. I'll settle
the issue when I get back to California."

Which he did. He instructed the Highway Commission to find an
alternate route outside the Park. Today, with concern for environment a
popular cause and a sympathetic highway engineer in Eureka, we feel certain
that we have won the fight at Prairie Creek. We are also assured that a
route for U. S. 199 will be selected which will eliminate or at least mini
mize damage to the Park, at Jedediah Smith Redwoods.

The enclosed article in our Spring 1965 Bulletin pretty well
outlines the freeway issue.

713

MEMORANDUM TO MRS. CHITA FRY May 26, 1970

Page 3

This is an overly- long account of the Prairie Creek incident,
but it was thought worthwhile to go into some detail, since it is typical
of the defensive efforts in which the League and others have to engage,
even after the Parks have been established.

NBDibmp
Enclosures

SAVE-THE-REEWOODS LEAGUE

114 Sansome Street
San Francisco, California

February 1, 1965

SUMMARY OF FLOOD DAMAGE TO REDWOOD PARKS

Damage to the California State Redwood park forests from the recent
three weeks of terrible floods in Northern California is found to be considerably
less than in the 1955 flood. The major damage took place in Humboldt Redwoods
State Park and was largely confined to man-made facilities rather than the groves
themselves. On Bull Creek there was considerable loss of trees but not nearly as
much as 10 years ago.

District Superintendent Philbrook of Humboldt Park reported that on
Creek 296 trees were down, 198 of them, however, four feet in diameter or less.
Seventy-six were four to six feet, sixteen were six to eight feet, and six trees
were eight to ten feet in diameter. He also reported six large log jams, over half
of which have already been removed by the State, and that Cuneo Creek was a river
Df gravel several feet deep.

At Humboldt Park, flood control improvements constructed on Bull Creek
watershed after the 1955 flood were partially destroyed but they succeeded in
preventing destruction of trees in Rockefeller Forest. In the parks north of Eureka
rhere were some windfalls, such as occur in almost every winter storm, and the flats
/ere flooded, but Prairie Creek, Del Norte Coast and Jedediah Smith State Parks were
relatively undamaged.

State Director Charles DeTurk said at least $1.5 million in damage was
lealt to the 30 Northern California park areas, with more than $600,000 in Humboldt
'ark alone. Carl Anderson there reported he'd never seen such destruction in his
.ife. Camping and picnic facilities were washed away or buried in silt up to three
:eet deep and the Founder's Tree had a high-water mark of 31 feet, compared to 16
reet in 1955. The silt deposit will impair the appearance of undergrowth for several
'ears as in 1955, but this is a temporary loss. The old highway bridge at Dyerville
ras swept away, but the new freeway bridge still stands.

At Pepperwood Flat near Humboldt Park the trees are still standing and no
lermanent damage appears to have been done. The town of Pepperwood, however, I am
orry to say, was virtually wiped out and great masses of debris are piled up on the
dge of the forest. Loss in lives and property in the Redwood region was ragic,
1th 42 deaths reported as of January 2, over 20,000 families receiving Red Cross
isaster aid, and property damage estimated at over $500 million. More than half
he 70 lumber mills closed down and some may not reopen.

During the storms practically every major stream in the area hit the
aximum flood stage and flood damage to bridges and highways alone, is estimated at
80 million. Road traffic was a chaotic tangle where it moved at all. Nearly all
ransportation for three weeks was by air and there was little opportunity to
bserve conditions in the parks because of continuous rain. This was followed, by
envoys of emergency goods only but now it is expected most roads will be open for
ummer visitors.

Newton B. Drury,
Secretary

o

g

8

I

§

•

o

0

o

*

0

o

IT)

u a

ft i

U r-l

M

S

•
0

8 8

o

0

CM
O
IA

<M

O r«

-a

u

wx

g

O

o

CM

o

O

00

O

g

00

•A

*M
ON

J= -C

o o

CM r~
C5 r^»

O f»

<M vO

CO r-4
>A 00

% 8

00* O

\*j

3

00

•fr

co

8
8

(M

8
8

CM
00

O
0

vO O
IA O

•n o

CM
«A

OO

r*

8
O

8

IA"

r*.

IA

CM

IA
iA

CO
CM

lA
W

8

d

(M

CM

•

O4

st
<o

00

•&

M
4)

ON

<t

•

co

CM

oo

O*
CM

8
8

ON

CM
CM

CM
CM

•o

r-4
O

"B

*

M
fi

«j

j

U

w

1

•a
v
•a

CO
<*4

M

M

to

M

M

g

M

I 00

•O «

•a •> *J

W f-4 O

4J Cti M U

0) -r-l U

1-1 U O O

a. o "-i

«> o

O TJ JS V-i

u c u a
•»

*J JC «*4 C

c o o

A) C v

0 v4 4» w

<U 3 C

<u j; c v

V< «l 4) *J

60 c» > X

< O < UJ

; page and the next. are from the Fall 1970 Bulletin of the Save- the-Redwoc
/should be compared.

1 The 1960's: A Decade of Accomplishments

League

716

ie past ten years have been marked by a period of progress un-
clcnted in any similar period of the League's fifty-two year history
lid there were .ri4 T-4 acres of Redwood forest preserved in the
, rnia Coast Redwood Slate Parks; at present there are 120,000 acres
i^li the generosity of its members, Ihe Save-the -Redwoods League
• Til able In i.ii'.e SM.'iiiii.niMi ilnrnu; this period This uioiiey. matched
fnds of the Stale ol California and the Federal C.overnment. has made
iiiihle to pun base thousands of acres of prime, old-growth Redwoods,
\\\\ as watershed lands of inestimable value for protection of some of

lest Redwoods left in existence. The comparative, maps on these
>r graphically show the progress lhal'has been made.

umboldt Redwoods State Park: Perhaps one of the most dramatic
usilion programs carried out by Ihe League in the past decade has;
•rlhat in the Hull Creek Watershed. After the devastating floods of
.find 1904 which caused heavy damage and the loss of more than 500
:i<it Redwoods on the lower flats of the park, it was realized to be
acativtt that the entire Hull Creek Watershed be placed under public
itil if Rockefeller Forest,- which is the heart of Humboldt Redwoods
itiPark, was to be fully protected. The League undertook an intensive
ij;im to acquire Ihe watershed. This project is now almost completed;
sito 18.000 acres were acquired at a cost of over $2,000,000.

he northern extension of Ihe Avenue of Ihe Giants, a part of Hum-
dRedwoods State Park, was added in three units: High Rock in 15)00;
•is from Englewood to Stafford, which included exquisite Pepperwood
t.n 15)011; and the Chadd Creek Area in 15105). thus preserving a 27-mile
•k'ay beneath a spectacular colonnade of giant Redwoods along old
i lighway 101, known as the Avenue of the Cianls.

rairie Creek Redwoods State Park: The most significant addition to
lie Creek Redwoods State Park by Ihe League and the Slate (luring
s eriod was the acquisition ol lour miles of wide sandy beach at Cold
if Beach and l.MH) acres of first-growth Redwood forest with unique
rCanyon. bringing the total acreage to I2,;t18 acres now in the park.

edwood National Park: For fifty years the Save-lhe-Ked woods League,
lavored a Redwood National Park. In 1968 a milestone was reached
c Ihe President signed Ihe Redwood National Park Act giving the
lioods the national recognition they deserve. Although Ihe park was

il that conservationists had hoped for, il did place in public keeping
living additions of virgin forest, notably on Lost Man Creek, Little
•iM.in. and. to a lesser extent, on Mill Creek. It also preserved the Tall
•(. discovered in 1W4 on Redwood Creek, and assured protection for
ftinuous scenic coastline along the Pacific Ocean.

i Ptpptrwood

HUMBOLDT REDWOODS

STATE PARK

1060

Cresc.nl JEDEDIAH SMITH \\

Clly REDWOODS

-o STATE PARK

> 1960 .

DEL NORTE COAST

REDWOODS

STATE PARK

1960

PRAIRIE CREEK

REDWOODS

STATE PARK

1960

Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park: The League pur
chased in cooperation with the State 470 acres of private!
•owned Redwood timber land, thus acquiring the last importan
inholding at Uel Norte Coast Redwoods State Park.

]edediah Smith Redwoods State Park: A total of 1.019-plu
acres was added to this park. The most important single acqui
sition was 815 acres of first-growth Redwoods located alon
Redwood Highway U.S. 199 and the Smith River near Crescen
City. The other 204-plus acres were small private holdings o
important aesthetic value to the park.

.1 .vL«»at:<un 01 Hie oave-ine-iveawooas

JEDEDIAH SMITH

REDWOODS

STATE PARK

1970

L NORTH COAST
REDWOODS
STATE PARK
1970

MILL CREEK
WATERSHED

Approximate Sc,iii> .11 Miles

PRAIRIE CREEK
REDWOODS
STATE PARK

1970

'\ MAY CREEK
\ WATERSHED

BB SI. lie Pnrk L.inds
' j Proposed Acquisitior

Redwood National Par*
1970

SKUNK CABBAGE

CREEK

WATERSHED

Top Priority Acquisition Projects ItTO
(North Coast Redwoods)

Projects

I. Humboldt Redwoods State Park
II. Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park
III Del Norte Coasl Redwoods Stale Park

iind

IV. Jedediah Smith Rt-dwoods Stale Park
(combined area proposed as a unit
of the National Park)

Total acres acquired to date
Additional acquisition proposed
Total acreage

Acquired
Acres

45,141
12,318

15,400

72.859

Proposed
Acres

Tola
Acre

9,500
9,000

17,000

54.IJ4
21,31

32.4C

35,500

108,35

Several million dollars need to be contributed if the above top-prior
program is to succeed. The League is steadily raising funds for this p
pose, and it is hoped that, as in the past, these contributions will
matched by the State and Federal Governments.

But time is of the essence. Soon it will be too late. Of the origi
Coast Redwood forest of 2,000,000 acres, only 260,000 acres of virgin timl
remain — 00,000 acres in State and National Parks, and about 200,000 ac
in private hands which are being cut over at the rate of 10,000 acres a ye

At Humboldt Redwoods State Park, which is not affected by the R
wood National Park legislation, the League is striving to preserve seve
hundred acres of private inholdings of remaining virgin forest, as well
several thousand acres of second growth on the eastern boundary of
park, as shown on the map below.

A i Prairie Creek. Del Norte Coast, and Jedediah Smith Redwoods St
Parks, as shown un ;.>• map to tlie left, there iin> thousands of acres nee
sary to round out these areas within logical watershed boundaries. T
necessity exists whether these areas are transferred to the Redwc
National Park or remain as State Parks.

While hoping for a continuation of matching funds by the State i
Federal Governments, the League will continue, as in the past, throi
private gifts to acquire Redwood forest lands that are critically needed
complete the parks.

The Save-the-Redwoods program Is far from finished, and time
running out.

he rare, highest quality natural ,n.iets should he made
'?./)' more secure . . . to continue to serve their highest
''Intel— inspiration, recreation, and education."

Dr. Caryl P. Haskins, President, Carnegie Institution

HUMBOLDT REDWOODS

STATE PARK

1970

State P,vh I -infj*.

'•• Proposed Acqutvtu

718

Save -the -Redwoods League

Acquisition Program - May 1, 1966
North Coast Redwoods

Project

Acquired

Proposed

Total

I. Humboldt Redwoods State Park
(Including the Rockefeller Forest
and Avenue of the Giants)

38,433 Acres

14,000 Acres

52,433 Aci

II. Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park

12,542 Acres

7,500 Acres

20,042 Aci

III. Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park
and
IV. Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park
(combined area proposed as a
national park)

Total acquired to date

15,892 Acres

24,000Acre.

39,892 Ac,

66,867 Acres

Additional acquisition proposed

45,500 Acres

Total

112,367 AC,

The above program has been approved by the Board of Directors
of the Save -the -Redwoods League as representing its priorities in Humboldt and
Del Norte Counties, California.

As opportunity offers the League assists in preserving other
areas. It hopes ultimately to aid in the rounding out of Big Basin Redwoods
State Park in Santa Cruz County, as well as other state Redwood parks.

Save- the- Redwoods League

114 Sansome Street

San Francisco, California

719

PROJECT I. HUHBOLDT UDWOODS May 1, 1966

•••••• Stata Zone of Interest) ....

State Acquisition Una) '"
Lands Acquired for Stata Park

Lands proposed for acquisition in
tha Save -the -Redwood B League program.

-.. Area acquired to data 38,433 Acres
J Additional acquisition proposed 14,000 Acres
Total ultimata 52,433 Aero

ona mile (approx.)

Program of
Sav«- the -Redwood* Laaxua

North Coaat Radwoods

August 3, 1965

Map 3 of 3

Avenue of tha Giants Project
(Redcrast to_Stafford)

Avenue of tha Giants
Parkway

Rockefeller Forest

ildren's Foraat

Program of
Save-the-Redwoode League

North Coast Redwoods
August 3, 1965
Map 2 of 3

PROJECT II. PRAIRIE CREEK REDWOODS May 1, 1966

T 11 Nj

•••••• State Zone of Interest).--.

State Acquisition line)'*"6
Lands acquired for State Park
Land* proposed for acquisition in the
Save- the- Redwoods League program.

Area acquired to date 12,524 Acres

Additional acquisition proposed 7,500 Acres

Total ultimate 20,042 Acres
one mile (approx.)

721

Jedediah » Smith
Redwoods

Program of
ave- the -Redwood s League

North Coast Redwoods
May 1, 1966
(Map 1 of 3 )

SECT III. DEL NORTE COAST REDWOODS vxw
and \V)|V

JECT IV. JEDEDIAH SMITH REDWOODS

State Zone of Interest)
State Acquisition line; 4/65
Lands Acquired to State Park 13
Lands proposed for acquisition in
the Save -the -Redwood s League program.

a acquired to date 15,892 Acres

Jtional acquisition proposed 24,000 Acres

p. ultimate 39,892 Acres
M one mile (approx.)

722

852

879
900

901

Jecember, 1904

.907

January 9, 1908

L908
L911

March 29, 1912
September, 1913

August 1917
June, 1918

SAVE-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE

11 A SANSOME STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

CHRONOLOGY
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK

Henry A. Crabb proposed in the California Legislature that
a Redwood National Park be established.

Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz proposed a Redwood
National Park.

Bohemian Club of San Francisco purchased 160 acres near
Russian River. (The Bohemian Club held encampments from
1878 in Marin County and various locations in Sonoma County.)

California Redwood Park (now Big Basin Redwoods State Park)
preserved by the Sempervirens Club and the State of California.

President Theodore Roosevelt in his address before Congress
expressed his approval of a plan to set aside redwoods in
California for a public park.

William Kent donated Muir Woods to the Federal Government.

President Theodore Roosevelt accepted it under the Antiquities
Act and designated it a National Monument.

Eight high school students of Humboldt County petitioned
Congress in favor of preservation of the Redwoods.

Congressman John E. Raker of California introduced a joint
resolution which provided for a committee to investigate the
"advisability and necessity" of establishing a Coast Redwood
National Park.. The resolution died in the House.

John E. Raker introduced House Resolution 284 to name a
committee to select a site for a Redwood Park. Resolution

died in committee.

•

Humboldt County Federation of Women's Clubs was organized.

A committee was set up to preserve Carson's Woods near Fortune

by the Humboldt County Federation of Women's Clubs.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, Dr. John C. Merriam and Madison Grant
took a trip to the Redwoods and first conceived the idea of a
National Save-the-Redwoods League. Formal organization took
place in 1918.

Article in The Timberman urging a Redwood National Park, as
suggested by the American Association of Park Superintendents.

723

Chronology Page 2

July i::, 1919

August 20, 1919
October 11, 1919
1919

1920

1928

1935

September 30, 1937

Congressman Clarence F. Lea of California introduced House
Resolution 159 directing the Secretary of the Interior to
investigate and report to the House of Representatives on
the "suitability, location, cost, if any, and advisability
of securing a tract of land in the State of California
containing a stand of typical redwood trees of the species
Sequoia aempervirens with a view that such land be set
apart and dedicated as a national park...".

The Save-the-Redwoods League appointed a committee on a
Redwood National Park, Dr. Gilbert Grosvenor, Chairman.

The Saturday Evening Post presented an editorial on the
Redwoods suggesting a national Park.

Women's Save-the-Redwoods League of Humboldt County formally
organized and composed primarily of the Committee of the
Humboldt County Federation of Women's Clubs. Later joined
the national organization. Local women proposed Redwood
National Park as early as 1908.

National Park Service Annual Report, by Director Stephen T. Mather
discussed a Redwood National Park.

Redington Report - In accordance with resolution 159, the
House Resolution directing a National Park Study, this was
the first survey of the Coast Redwoods. Urged a national
park, containing not less than 20,000 acres. Areas examined:

1) Lower Klamath River

2) South Fork of the Eel

3) Prairie Creek

4) Redwood Creek

5) Big Lagoon

Recommended: First priority - 64,000 acres on the Lower
Klamath, plus 1,800 acres on the South Fork of the Eel River.

Also discussed:

1) Prairie Creek - 30,000 acres

2) Redwood Creek - 40,000 acres

3) Big Lagoon-Maple Creek - 34,000 acres

State of California voters approved $6 million bond issue to
help acquire parka, including the Redwoods.

Redwood National Forest proposal.

National Park Service - McLaughlin-Cook report on a proposed
Redwood National Park.

Recommended: Mill Creek Redwoods - 17,000 acres, 14,000 acres
of which were virgin Redwoods. Only lower part of watershed.

724

Chronology Page 3

1943

1945
1946

April 18, 1946

March 31, 1947
1961

July 20, 1961

*

April 19, 1963
May 8, 1963
June, 1964

December, 1963
June 25, 1964

September 23, 1964

February 16, 1965

Save-the-Redwoods League allocated funds for a study toward
drawing up a Master Plan for Redwoods preservation. (By
1945, an estimated 675,000 acres of virgin forest had been
cut; remaining virgin forest was estimated at about 925,000
acres.)

A proposed Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial National Forest.
The "Douglas bill".

Suggestion of "Forest units" and "Park units" by Director
of the National Park Service, Newton B. Drury. Park units
to round out existing state parks within complete watersheds.

H. R. 6201 introduced in Congress by Mrs. Helen Gahagan Douglas
for a Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial National Forest.

H. R. 2876, a revised Douglas bill, introduced.

"Sierra Club and others are endeavoring to revive the idea
of a Redwood National Park."

Del Norte County Chamber of Commerce's Public Parks and Lands
Committee urged a limited Mill Creek-Del Norte Coast national
park of Redwoods.

i

Secretary of the Interior, Stewart L. Udall, announced his
plan to propose • Redwood National Park.

National Geographic Society announced its $64,000 grant to
the National Park Service for a Coast Redwoods survey.

National Park Service survey completed. (Estimated remaining -
virgin Redwoods: 300,000, with 50,000 acres in state parks.
Estimated original forest of Redwoods: close to 2 million acres.

The Last Redwoods . published by the Sierra Club. Secretary
Udall, in foreward, proposed a national Park.

President Lyndon B. Johnson announced his support of a
Redwood National Park. California's Governor Edmund G. Brown
also approved of the idea.

National Park Service report, "The Redwoods", made public.
Three plans suggested - Plan I most ambitious, includes Prairie
Creek Redwoods State Park and part of Redwood Creek Drainage,
plus Lost Man Creek and May Creek watershed - 53,000 acres.
Also proposed Federal grants-in-aid to State for acquisitions
on Avenue of the Giants, near Van Duzen River and Jedediah
Smith and Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Parks.

California State Master Plan released. Plan recommends
acquisition of 45,000 acres to complete existing Parks
and identifies State's "Zone of Interest" in addition to
acquisitions.

725

Chronology Page 4

March 1, 1965
March 9, 1965

April 2, 1965
April 9, 1965

April, 1965

May, 1965

October 7, 1965

October 16, 1965

October 21, 1965

November 15, 1966

Citizens for a Redwood National Park organized. Composed
primarily o£ residents of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.

Senator Farr introduced legislation in State Senate for
adoption of a resolution favoring Redwood National Park.
Resolution passed in Senate and defeated in the House.

Mr. Hugo Fisher, Administrator, to Secretary Udall - Letter
proposing a Redwood National Parkway in lieu of a Redwood
National Park, or a National Park in the Mill Creek region.

Save-the-Redwoods League's Board of Directors passed a
resolution favoring Mill Creek watershed in addition to
Del Norte Coast and Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Parks
as a Redwood National Park.

Redwood Park and Recreation Plan of the Redwood industry made
public, proposing approximately 8,000 acres of virgin forest
to be added to State Parks, plus over 230,000 acres of
private forest lands opened to the public under multiple
use concept.

American Forestry Association published their proposal for
a Redwood National Park in American Forests magazine.
Recommended Humboldt Redwoods State Park plus additional
acreage adjacent to it, as Redwood National Park.

Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings,
and Monument* (Melville B. Grosvenor, Chairman) memorandum
to Secretary Udall. Recommended Redwood National Park
consisting of two units - Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Coast '
Redwoods State Parks plus Mill Creek Basin as the north unit,
and Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park plus acreage "now
privately owned to complete an ecologic unit, comprising the
Lost Man Creek drainage and portions of the Redwood Creek
drainage... including the World's Tallest Trees" as the
southern unit, linked by a scenic corridor.

Secretary Udall announced that the National Park Service
recommendations would be made public approximately January 1, 1966,

Bills introduced in Congress by Representatives Cohelan,
Burton, Reuss and Saylor asking 90,000 acre Redwood National
Park. The Park would include Redwood Creek, Bridge Creek,
Devil's Creek and Skunk Cabbage Creek with part of the
watershed. (See attached list for Sponsors, date, and Bill
numbers of legislation introduced.)

Conservation Associates presents plan for Redwood National
Park including Humboldt Redwoods State Park, Avenue of the
Giants Extension, and land encircled by Mattole River including
the King Range.

726

Chronology Page

November 22, 1965

December 17, 1965

December 17, 1965

January 10, 1966
January 12, 1966

January 12, 1966

January 17, 1966
January 17, 1966
January 20, 1966
January 25, 1966

January 27, 1966

February 1, 1966

February 2, 1966

February 7, 1966

February 9, 1966

February 23, 1966

Conference in Washington, D. C. held by U. S. Department
of the Interior. Representatives of all interested parties
presented plans.

Save-the-Redwoods League representatives, National Park
Service representatives and representatives from several
large Foundations met in Washington, D. C. Transfer of
Jurisdiction (from State to Federal) and private financing
discussed.

Full page ad "An Open Letter to President Johnson on the
last chance Really to save the Redwoods" placed by the
Sierra Club in San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee,
Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post.
Outlines proposal for 90,000 acre Park.

J. R. 11920 (Roydab) and H. R. 11923 (Scheuer) introduced.

H.R. 11966 (Dingell), H. R. 11969 (Farnum), H. R. 11993
(King, Utah) H. R. 11998 (Udall) introduced.

Citizens Committee on Natural Resources endorses all
variant plans for a Redwood National Park and revives
"Douglas Bill" proposal of 1946 which would put entire
northern Redwood belt in a national forest.

H. R. 12096 (Moorhead) and H. R. 12102 (Yates) introduced.

H. R. 12125 (Dow);and H. R. 12134 (Race) introduced.

H. R. 12208 (Hawkins) and H. R. 12217 (O'Hara) introduced.

President Johnson's budget message to Congress included
proposal for Redwood National Park without details. Asked
Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund monies.

H. R. 12344 (Anderson) introduced.

H. R. 12421 (Dyal) introduced.

H. R. 12490 (Resnick) introduced.

H. R. 12619 (Thompson, N.J.) Introduced.

H. R. 12711 (Edwards), H. R. 12717 (Miller), H. R. 13719 (Moss)
H. R. 12728 (Bingham), H. R. 12731 (Leggett), H. R. 12733 (Olsen)
H. R. 12737 (VivianJ introduced.

President Johnson's Conservation Message to Congress
recommends 45,000 acres at an estimated cost of $45-56 million
including Jvdediah Smith and Del Norte Coast Redwoods State
Parks and Mill Creek watershed as one unit, and 1,400 acres
on Redwood Creek in area of Tallest Trees as second unit of
Redwood National Park.

72?

Chronology Page 6

February 23, 1966

February 23, 1966

February 23, 1966

February 23, 1966

February 24, 1966
March 2, 1966

March 10, 1966
March 22, 1966
March 23, 1966
March 31, 1966
March, 1966

April 20, 1966

May 18, 1966

June 17-18, 1966

Congress Clausen introduced Administration bill in House,
H. R. 13011.

Senator Kuchel introduces Administration bill S. R. 2962.
Sponsors include Javits (N. Y.), Anderson (N.M.), Cooper (Ky.),
Scott (Penna.), Long (Mo.), Church (Idaho), Kennedy (Mass.),
and Moss (Utah). -,•/ ,-^.

Burton introduces H. R. 13009; Olson, H. R. 13010.

Senator Metcalf (Montana) introduced S. A. 487. Other
sponsors are Clark (Penna.), Douglas (Illinois), Gruening
(Alaska), Kennedy (N.Y.), Kennedy (Mass.), Inonye (Hawaii),
McCarthy (Minn.), McGee (Wyo.), Muskie (Maine), Nelson (Wise.),
Neuberger (Oregon), Ribicoff (Conn.), Tydings (Md.), Young
(Ohio), and McGpvern (S. D.),

H. R. 13042 (Clausen) introduced.

Wayne Aspinall of Insular Affairs Committee announced that
no action would be taken on proposed Redwood National Park
this year because of other pending matters.

H. R. 13469 (Helstoski) and H. R. 13589 (Whalley) introduced.

H. R. 13859 (Farnsley) introduced.

H. R. 13929 (Hosmer) introduced.

H. R. 14199 (McCarthy) introduced.

Daughters of the American Revolution, California State
Society, passed a resolution commending President Johnson
and Congress for Redwood National Park proposal, and urging
all members of Qongress to vote for it.

Interior Department announces completion of Economic Study
of Proposed Redwood National Park by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
"The study concluded that in the short run, by 1973, there
will be approximately 250 more jobs in Del Norte County if
there is not park — about a 37. difference. However, in the
long run, by 1983, there would be about 1,670 more jobs if
the park is established...."

California State Division of the Izaak Walton League endorsed
President Johnson's proposal for Redwood National Park at
Meeting in Santa Rosa, California.

The Parks and Recreation Sub- committee of the Senate Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs conducted hearings in
Washington, D. C.

728

CnronoLogy Page 7

September 1, 1966

September 8, 1966

January 10, 1967
January 18, 1967.

January 18, 1967
January, 1967

February 8, 1967
March 11, 1967

March 23, 1967
March 23, 1967

April 13, 1967
October 10, 1967

October 16, 1967
November 1, 1967

Senate Joint Resolution 192 introduced by Senator Kuchel
(for himself, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Case, Mr. Clark, Mr. Cooper,
Mr. Javits, Mr. Kennedy of New York, Mr. Long of Missouri,
Mr. Moss, Mr. Muskie, Mr. Proxmire, Mr. Scott and Mr. Yarborough)
and House Joint Resolution 1293 introduced by Mr. O'Brien
requests the Congress to resolve that the United States take
"a right, privilege, and easement on all lands or interest
in lands .within the boundaries of the proposed Redwood
National Park as identified in Senate Bill 2962...." /,-•'

Five lumber companies (Rellim Redwood Company, Arcata Redwood
Company, Simpson Timber Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation
and Pacific Lumber Company) voluntarily agreed to stop cutting
Redwood in the areas (both Mill Creek and Redwood Creek)
proposed for a Redwood National Park.

i

Bill H. R. 1311 introduced by Congressman Saylor.

Bill S-514 was introduced by Senators Metcalf, Mansfield,
Burdick, Clark, Dodd, Gruening, Inouye, Kennedy (N. Y.),
Kennedy (Mass.), Lausche, McCarthy, McGee, Mondale, Nelson,
Pell, Ribicoff, Tydings, Williams, Yarborough and Young.

Bill H. R. 2849 was Introduced by Congressman Cohelan calling
for inclusion of a portion of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.'

Mr. Aspinall announced that at the request of Governor Reagan,
he was postponing hearings of the House Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs until April.

H. R. 5036 introduced by Philip Burton.

Secretary Udall requests enactment of a bill to authorize a
Redwood National Park of 41,834 acres in Del Norte County
and 1,600 acres in Humboldt County.

Bill H. R. 7742 was introduced by Congressman Clausen.

Bill S-1370 was introduced by Senators Kuchel, Anderson,
Cooper, Javits, Kennedy (Mass.), Percy and Scott.

Bill S-1526 was introduced by Senators Murphy and Fannin.

S-2515 Bill introduced by Senators Jackson and Kuchel. Would
establish two park units (north and south). North Unit would
include Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Redwoods State Parks and
part of Upper Mill Creek. South Unit would include the Tall
Trees area on Redwood Creek.

Bill H. R. 13508 was introduced by Congressman Hosmer.

S-2515 (Jackson-Kuchel bill) providing for a Redwood National
Park passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 6.

729

Chronology Page 8

April 16-18, 1968

May 20, 1968

June 25, 1968

September 11, 1968

September 19, 1968

October 2, 1968
October 3, 1968
October 3, 1968
November 21, 1968
November 25, 1968
August 27, 1969

Congressional Field Hearings by the House Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee held in Eureka to debate the
proposed Redwood National Park. The Senate cut the bill
financing the Park, and stripped from the bill authority
to earmark off-shore oil receipts.

Congressman Aspinall's House Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee on the Redwood National Park held hearings in
Washington D. C. Park was cut down to approximately
26,888 acres.

Legislation to authorize establishment of a 25,286-acre
Redwood National Park at a cost of $45 million was approved
by a House Interior subcommittee. It differs from a Senate
approved bill (S-2515) which called for a 64,000-acre Park
at a cost of $100 million.

Redwood National Park Compromise Bill S-2515 passed by the
House .

Appropriation: $92 million

Acreage: 58,000

Will include Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Coast State Parks,
with a coastal strip joining with Prairie Creek State Park
and private lands in the drainage of Redwood Creek.

Redwood National Park Compromise Bull S-2515 passed by the
Senate .

Appropriation: $92 million

Acreage : 58 , 000

Will include Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Coast State Parks,
with a coastal strip joining with Prairie Creek State Park
and private lands in the drainage of Redwood Creek.

President Johnson signed into Law the act authorizing the
58,000-acre Redwood National Park. (Public Law 90-545)

Nelson Murdock was appointed as the Superintendent of the
Redwood National Park.

Crescent City was announced as the temporary Redwood National
Park Headquarters.

A National Park Service "Master Plan Team" is being organized
to help in the planning of the Redwood National Park.

Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson dedicates the Redwood National Park on
the Bald Hills Road near Orick in Humboldt County.

President Nixon dedicates the Ladybird Johnson Grove in the
Redwood National Park. Those present included President and
Mrs. Richard Nixon, Mr. and Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, Secretary
of the Interior Walter A. Hickel, Governor Ronald Reagan of
California, Congressman Don Clausen, Mr. and Mrs. David
Eisenhower, Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Nugent, Mr. and Mrs. Charles
Robb, Senator George Murphy, Congressman and Mrs. Hale Boggs ,
Reverend Billy Graham.

'

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE

Part)

R

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D
D
D

D
D
D
D
D
D

Representative

John P. Say lor

Phillip Burton

Jeffery Cohelan

Henry S. Reuss

Edward R. Roybal

James H. Scheuer

John D. Dingell

Billie S. Farnum

David S. King

Morris K. Udall

William S. Moorhead

Sidney R. YaCes

John G. Dow

John A. Race

Augustus F. Hawkins

O'Hara

Anderson

Kenneth W. Dyal

Resnick

Frank Thompson, Jr.

Edwards

George P. Miller

John D. Moss

Jonathan B. Bingham

Robert L. Leggett

Arnold Olsen

We s ton E. Vivian

District
Penna #22
Calif #5
Calif #7
Wise. #5
Calif #30
N.Y. #21
Mich. #16
Mich. #19
Utah #2
Ariz #2
Penna #14
111 #9
N. Y. #27
Wise. #6
CaLif #21

Calif #33
N.Y. #28
N. J. #4

•

Calif #8
Calif #3
N. Y. #23
Calif.- #4
Mont. #1
Mich #2

Date

10/21/65

10/21/65

10/21/65

10/21/65

1/10/66

1/10/66

1/12/66

1/12/66

1/12/66

1/12/66

1/17/66

1/17/66

1/18/66

1/18/66

1/20/66

1/20/66

1/27/66

2/1/66

2/2/66

2/7/66

2/9/66

2/9/66

2/9/66

2/9/66

2/9/66

2/9/66

2/9/66

730

Bill Plan

H.R. 11705 1 *

H.R. 11722 1

H.R. 11723 1

H.R. U726 1

H.R. 11920 1

H.R. 11923 1

H.R. 11966 1

H.R. 11969 1

H.R. 11993 1

H.R. 11998 1

H.R. 12096 1

H.R. 12102 1

H.R. 12125 1

H.R. 12134 1

H.R. 12208 1

H.R. 12217 1

H. R. 12344 1

H.R. 12421 1

H.R. 12490 1

H.R. 12619 1

H.R. 12711 1

»

H.R. 12717 1

H.R. 12719 1

H.R. 12728 1

H.R. 12731 1

H.R. 12733 1

H.R. 12737 1

Page 2 731

Redwood National Park
Bills introduced in the House

Party

Representative

District

Date

D

Phillip Burton

Calif #5

2/23/66

D

Alex G. Olson

Minn #6

2/23/66

R

Don Clausen

Calif #1

2/23/66

R

Don Clausen

Calif #1

2/24/66

D

Henry Helstoski

N. J. #9

3/10/66

R

J. Irving Whalley

Penna. #12

3/10/66

D

Charles q. Farnsley

Ky. #3

3/22/66

R

Craig Hosmer

Calif. #32

3/23/66

D

Richard D. McCarthy

N. Y. #39

3/31/66

, Rees

8/2/66

Bill Plan

H.R. 13009 1

H.R. 13010 1

H.R. 13011 2 *
H.R. 13042

H.R. 13469 1

H.R. 13589 1

H.R. 13859 1

H.R. 13929 2 *
H.R. 14199

H.R. 16767 1*

Philip Burton

Calif. #5

2/8/67

H.R. 5036

1 - Requests 90,000 acre park

2 - requests 45,000 acre park
* - provides in lieu taxes

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
BILLS INTRODUCED IN SENATE

Party Senator

R Thomas Kuchcl

D Lee Me tea If

State

California

Montana

Date

2/23/66

2/23/66

732

Bill
S 2962
S A 487

Plan
2 *
1

1 - 90,000 acre park

2 - 45,000 acre park

* - provides for in lieu taxes

733

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK BILLS
INTRODUCED IN 1967

Senate

:K. it.. Witt Srtryiw u//w/.uv

K. RV2V,» Cohaldn 1/10/67 (1)

33 similar bill* H. R. 2850 through H. R. 2882 all 1/10/67 (1)

H. R. 3052

Ford

1/19/67 (1)

H. R. 5036

Burton

2/8/67 (1)

H. R. 7742

Clausen

3/23/67 (3)

H. R. 8380

Hunt

4/11/67 (3)

H. R. 8776

Eilbcrg

4/19/67 (3)

H. R. 10951
H.R. 11105
H. R. 11185

S. 514

Aspinall
Boland
Philbin

6/19/67 (2)
? (1)
? (1)

1/18/67 (

Me teal f, Mansfield, Burdick, Clark, Dodd, Gruening, Inoye,
Kennedy %(N.Y.), McCarthy, KcGee,' Mondale, Nelson, Pell,
Ribicoff, Tydings, Yarborough, and Young (Ohio).

S. 1370 3/22/67 (2)

Kuchel, Anderson, Cooper, Javits, Kennedy (Mass. ), Moss,
Percy and Scott

S. 1526
Senator Murphy

4/13/67 (3)

J.

(1) Redwood Creek complex

(2) Mill Creek Complex

(3) Redwood Park and Seashore

REDWOOD $
EMPIRE

0 20

•.us—, i "Jt .-.-Ji"

STATUTE MILES

Nor them Gate
to Redwood 'Empire

Crescent City
Del None Coast RedwoodJ'f

DEL NORTE
. COUNTY
KlamathY 1 .Red Mt. !

.3»'-f- •'/( Klamath

REDWO

Whittemor*

Point Delgada *! V

Rjchardson

O

Rockpo

Westport
Adm-ral W01,am H. Standl

Russian Gulch P«Hl>:'

Southern Gateway
to Redwood 'Empire

HUMB.OLDT /£

COUNTY /' * ...so

_i- +•

REDWOOD GROVE,,
• VSCONTAININC THE

. DISCOVERED TALLEfPTREESj
/' Talle

WORLD'S TALLEST KNOWN TREES

ONLY California and a pocket in southern
Oregon produce earth's tallest living things
— the coast redwoods, Sequoia sempermrens.
Trees grow in a belt 500 miles long and hardly
more than 30 miles wide. Largest untouched
stands flourish in northern California's Hum
boldt and Del Norte Counties.

In order of height, the top six trees are:

HEIGHT IN FKKT
367.8

367.4
364.3
3S6.5

352.6
352.3

LOCATION

Reel wood Creek (trove
Humboldt County. Calif.

Redwood Creek crove
Redwood Creek crove

Rockefeller Tree. Humboldt
Redwoods State Park, Calif.

Founders Tree. Humboldt
Redwoods State Park, Calif.

Redwood Creek crove

Ma?$byC.FCa«andT.DachKra Golden C(Ltf

O N«,onal C.og,aph,c Soc,.ty

Korest monarchs of three other species crow in Pa
cific coast states and in Tasmania and Australia. They
include a 324-foot Douclas fir (Psrudolfitnti laxifolia)
at Kyderwoocl, Washington; a 322-foot Eucalyptus rtf,-
nans in the Styx River Valley of Tasmania: a 305-foot
tree of the same s|>ecics in Victoria. Australia: and two
Sequoia niK'Uilea in California— the 291-foot McKintcy
Tree and the 272-foot General Sherman, both in Se.-
qUoia National P,ark.

From National Geographic,
16 July, 1964.

73*

OFFICERS
,1 PH w CHANEY. f
CHARD M LEONARD. Vut
IBBET G. SPROUL. TriMjuTfr
!WTON B. DlUIY, St<r*l*rt

HN B. DEWITT. Annum Stcrtttry

COUNCIL

ioiACE M ALBRIGHT
i BERT W ATWOOD
3HN H BAKER
[RS HARMON C BELL
t'RTis W BENBOW
ARL B BIRMINGHAM
BLAH CHAMBERLAIN. JR.
ALPH W CHANEY
EARL CHASE

LLEN L. CHICKERING. JR.
[ORMAN M. CHRISTENSEN
IRS. ARTHUR E CONNICK
HARLES F DALY
RANCIS P FARQUHAR
[RS. MARSHAL H FISHER
MANUEL FRITZ
WILLIAM MAY GARLAND
EN C. GERVICK. JR.
IRS. GUY G GILCHRIST

tMES P GlLLlGAN

. A. GREIG

IBLVILLE BELL GROSVENOR

DWARD H. GRUBB

/ALTER A HAAS

HARLES C HAINES

ARL P HANSON

ARYI P HASKINS

RTHIIR W. HOOPER

RUCE S HOWARD

HARLES P HOWARD

HELPS STOKES HUNTER

DGER KENT

LFRED A KNOPF

ICHARD M LEONARD

IARVEY B LYON

[RS. J. W. MAILLIARD. JR.

>HN J MCCLOY

IRS SELBY MCCREERY

ONALD H MCLAUGHLIN

A I. MENZIES

W MERCK

\WRENCE C MERRIAM
OBERT C MILLER
IRS DOROTHY LIEBES MORIN
[RS ELIZABETH J MORRISON
its ALYCE MOSELEY
OBERT NEUHAUS
ruART O'MELVENY
[RS NATHANIEL A. OWINGS
ERMAN PHLEGER
IK HOI AS ROOSEVELT
[RS. MELVIN E. SAWIN
OBERT G. SPROUL
[RS. WILLIAM W. STOUT
HARLES C WAGNER
EORGE WALDNER
(UU. WARREN
WILLIAM E. WASTE

ROY WITTWER

OBJECTS

t . To rgjitif from destruction represent

re areas of our primeval forests.

2 . To co op*r*it with the California State

•k Coounissiop. the National Park Service,

I other agencies, in establishing Redwood

ks and other parks and reservations

5 To p*rcb*u Redwood groves by pri-

e subscription.

4. To to of>tr*t* with the California

te Highway Conunission. and other ageo-

i in assuring the preservation of trees

1 roadside beauty along highway*.

5 To mppon reforestation and cooserva-

Save- the -Redwoods League

TIE AM, in; DR. ROBERT G. SPROUL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

OFFICE or THE SECRETARY • 114 SANSOME STREET. SAN FRANCISCO 94 104

TELEPHONE • 362-23)2

THE PROPOSED PESCADERO CREEK PROJECT

STATEMENT BY: JOHN B. DEWITT,
Assistant Secretary,
Save-the-Redwoods League
Redwood City, California

March 26, 1970

Hearing before the Board of Supervisors,

San Mateo County

Gentlemen,

I am appearing at this hearing representing the Save-the-
Redwoods League of California. The Save-the-Redwoods League,
in cooperation with the State of California, has helped to
preserve 112,000 acres of Redwoods now protected in 28 California
Redwood State Parks. 45,000 members of the Save-the-Redwoods
League have a vital stake in the preservation of the Redwood
Parks, and have contributed over 16 million dollars to preserve
the Redwood forests in California.

Portola Redwoods State Park is one of the Parks preserved
through the efforts of the Save-the-Redwoods League membership.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing, and
to oppose the Corps of Engineers' economically based project
for flood control and water retention measures at Worley Flat
in San Mateo County, which would destroy for all time ancient
Redwoods now preserved in Portola Redwoods State Park. It would
fatally impair the integrity of this park.

(cont inued)

'

735

- 2 -

The construction of the high Worley Flat reservoir would
cause the inundation and destruction of 60 acres of irreplaceable
first growth Redwood forest land within Portola Redwoods State
Park. The fluctuating reservoir impounded behind the dam would
irrevocably alter the natural ecology of Pescadero Creek, thus
producing the destruction of the beauty and tranquility of Portola
Redwoods State Park for all time.

In 195A, the John A. Hooper Memorial Grove was established
by the State of California's State Park Commission in consideration
of a gift from Arthur W. Hooper with the explicit understanding
that it would be maintained in its natural primeval beauty for
future generations. This grove would be destroyed by the high
Worley Flat reservoir, and the pledge of the State would be broken.
Portola Redwoods State Park is held in trust by the State as a
natural preserve. By law, it cannot be alienated to a local
government body, whose purpose is to destroy its park value by
flooding it. The great California State Park system must not
be dominated by local economic interests.

On December 11, 1968, the Board of Directors of the Save-
the-Redwoods League passed the following resolution:
The Save-the-Redwoods League:

1) Opposes any proposals to flood portions of Portola
Redwoods State Park

2) opposes any cutting of Redwoods in Portola Redwoods
State Park

(continued)

736

- 3 -

3) opposes the flooding and destruction of the Hooper
grove

4) opposes any effort to transfer title for Portola
Redwoods State Park to the County of San Mateo.

Gentlemen, we must not be a party to sacrificing our State
Park system for a style of exploitation veiled under the guise of
flood control. As representatives of the public, you must not
permit the destruction of one of the very few areas the public has
set aside for preservation of the ancient Redwoods. It would be
tragic if exactly 200 years after the discovery of San Francisco
Bay by Don Caspar de Portola, one of the last great groves of
Redwoods, named for the famed explorer, would be destroyed for
all time.

The President of the United States has established a Council
on Environmental Quality. Under the National Environmental Policy
Act, all Federal agencies are required to study alternates in
evaluating environmental impact of a Federal project. Following
this directive, the U. S. Corps of Engineers has commendably
studied alternates which would not flood Portola Redwoods State
Park. Studies, however, are not enough. The basic issue before
us today is: Shall we destroy for all time an irreplaceable forest
of ancient Redwoods for the transient economic benefit of a few?

It is the League's view that the burden of proof as to the
destruction of Portola Redwoods State Park for the convenience of
developers under the guise of flood control should rest upon the
exploiters, and not upon those who have helped to preserve the
beautiful natural areas of California for posterity.

3/25/70
JBDrvp

737

RESOLUTION #1
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK

WHEREAS, since its inception in 1918 the Save-the-Redwoods League has

always advocated the establishment of a Redwood National Park;
now be it therefore

RESOLVED: that in the opinion of the Save- the-R;>dwoods League the Mill
Creek watershed and surrounding lands, including the present
Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Coast State Parks, present the best
opportunity to establish a Redwood National Park, because:

This area represents one of the best examples of virgin
Redwood forest in all its majesty, and adds spectacular seacoast,
river and mountain scenery. While there are cut-over areas,
these are well-established and not so extensive as to disrupt
the forest pattern if logging could be arrested in the near future;
and there would be approximately 20,000 acres of undisturbed
first-growth forest, containing some of the largest, tallest and
oldest trees, largely in large continuous blocks, out of a total
area of 41,000 acres.

It would involve a complete watershed, which is considered
essential in park planning, not only because it would minimize the
consequences of erosion, of which we had a disastrous example on
Bull Creek, but also because of administrative, protective,
ecological and aesthetic considerations. The cathedral -like stands
in the flats are noble gems that deserve an appropriate setting.

It presents a wide range of ecological types, from the
ocean to near the east side of the Redwood belt.

It adjoins on the east an area that is under management
for the public benefit in the Six Rivers National Forest.

The relatively compact area, 41,000 acres including present
state parks, the simpler ownership pattern, the relatively lower
cost, and the greater possibility of meeting the legitimate require
ments for amortization of investment and relief to Del Norte County
for losses to their tax base and their economy, are all factors
contributing to the greater feasibility of this project from the
standpoint of Federal appropriation*.

Last but not least, it would be a magnificent contribution
by the nation toward saving a large area of virgin Redwoods that
otherwise will soon be reduced to second-growth.

It would be a Redwood National Park worthy of the name.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS - SAVE-THE-REDWOODS LEAGUE
APRIL 9, 1965

73«

Save-the*Redwoods League

TREASURER: DR. ROBERT G. SPROUL

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

OFFICERS

f. CHANBY, PrttiJent

A. STARR. Via PrtiiJcnl
3. SPROUL, Treaturrr

B. DRURY, Stcrettry
DBWITT, Ailiitail StcrtUry

COUNCIL

M. ALBHIGHT
W. ATWOOD
. BAKER

AIMON C. BELL

BlIMJNGHAM
C BRYANT
>1AMBERLAIM, J»-

V. CHANEY

•Ml

i. GMICKERINO, J*.

1 M. CHRirrBNSBN

m*uR E. CONNICK
CHARD Y. DAUN

* F. DALY
7. ELLIOTT

P. FARQUHAR

AE3HAL H. Fl«HBB
IL FRITZ

l»rrr GARLAND
ioBTHB

RBIO

GROSVBNOR
•ON GRUBB
, A HAAJ
H. HAOAR

• C HAINHB
1 HAUUNB

HoHPBLD

W. HOOPER

. HOWARD
P. HOWARD
STOKES HuKTKR
CENT

R. KNOWLAND
> M. LEONARD

LITTON

ORMAN B. LlVBRMORB

B. LYON

W. MAILLIARD, JR.

ILBY McCRBHRY
H. MCLAUGHLIN
MENZIBS

MERCK

ICE C. MERRIAH

C. MILLER

OROTHY LlBBBS MORIN
LYCE MOSBLBY
O'MBLVBNT
LD OKBORM

ATHAKIBL A. OwINGl
ITERIEN

M PHLBOBR

At ROOMVBI.T

BNRY PoTTE" RUUBLL

BLVIN E. SAWIN

G. SPROUL
it A. STARR
l_E. STONER
• WALDNER

OWlTTWER

OBJECTS

...t from destruction rtpru«nt-
of our primtril fortsts.
mo-opirttf with the CalifomtR
t Comraiuion, th« National PRrk
Jld othtr <gcnci«, ill otablilh-
d'od pull ind othtr ptrkj ind
ii.

fnrchiit Redwood (rant bf pri-
ilription.

' ro-optrate with th« CtlifomU
•hwty Commiuion, Bad othir
t«l muring the prvMrTRUoo of
tdotdiidt beauty along highwaf«.
' itpport reforttcattoa Bad

*'ur forest area*.

Oma or™« SECRETARY . 1 14 SANSOMB STREET. SAN FRANCISCO M104

February 23, 1966
Immediate Release

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK PLAN OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SAN FRANC ISCO~The Save-the-Redwoods League is much interested in
the recommendation of the President and the National Park Service
for a Redwood National Park, and supports it.

Since its organization in 1918 the League has advocated
such a Redwood National Park. The Coast Redwoods (Sequoia
sempervirens ) are of significance to all of the United States,
just as are the Sequoias of the Sierra.

The inclusion of the entire Mill Creek Watershed, and of
Jedediah Smith and Del Norte Coast Redwood State parks in the
National Park Service proposal is gratifying to the League.
Our program of top priorities for saving the best representative
examples of the Redwood forest, within logical watershed
boundaries, includes these two State parks which have been under
process of acquisition for over UO years, through matching by
the State of contributions by the League.

Besides the announced Federal program, there still remains
a large task ahead of the State and the League in rounding out the
State parks as ecological units.

It is recognized that there will be need to work out a fair
cooperative arrangement between the State of California and the
Federal Government as to those lands now owned by the State.

/It is also recognized that there should be equitable
provision for fair compensation to private owners of land, timber

(more)

.

739

Save -the -Redwoods League -2.

and operating plant, and for in lieu taxes to Del Norte County and aid
to their economy.

The League is favorable to the proposal for inclusion of the
Tallest Trees area on Redwood Creek, including the world's Tallest known
tree, 367.8 feet, recently discovered by the task force of the National
Park Service and National Geographic Society. The late president of that
society, Dr. Gilbert M. Grosvenor, was one of the founders of the
Save-the-Redwoods League.

It should be noted that besides the Mill Creek complex, there have
been two other principal proposals for a Redwood National Park. Each has
its merits and its advocates. They are (1) Redwood Creek, with the
addition of Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, established by joint
efforts of the League and the State, and now practically complete with
the recent purchase of Gold Bluffs Beach and Fern Canyon; and (2) Humboldt
Redwoods State Park, including the Rockefeller Forest and the Avenue of
the Giants, the extension of which is a top priority of the League. There
will undoubtedly be discussion of these proposals, as well as the Mill
Creek area.

The Save-the-Redwoods League, by action of its Board of Directors,
has recommended the Del Norte County project for various reasons:

(1) The Mill Creek area represents One of the best examples of
virgin Redwood forest in all its majesty. The National Park
Service Report of 1937 recommended Mill Creek.

(2) It would involve a complete watershed. This is necessary for
administrative reasons, and esthetic, and for protection from
erosion and floods.

(3) It presents a wide range of ecological types.

(more)

-

•,'.<*

74-0
Save-the -Redwoods League - 3.

(U) It adjoins on the east an area that is under management
for the public benefit in the Six Rivers National Forest.

(5) The relatively compact area, hi, 000 acres including present
State parks, the simpler ownership pattern, the relatively
lower cost, and the greater possibility of meeting the
legitimate requirements for amortization of investment and
relief to Del Norte County for losses to their tax base and
their economy, are all factors contributing to the greater
feasibility of this project from the standpoint of Federal
appropriations .

The efforts of the State and Save-the-Redwoods League to complete
the rounding out of the Prairie Creek and Humboldt Redwoods State parks
will continue through appropriations and private contributions.

Newton B. Drury
Secretary
Save-the-Redwoods League

741

Oeceabail , 1966
A KZPWOOD NATIONAL PARK
Position of the Save-the-Redwoods League

A question having been raised as to a possible "compromise" we wish to
outline the position of the Save- the-Reduoods League:

1. We still believe chat the Mill Creek project should have top priority
for the reasons stated in previous resolutions of the Board, attached herewith. We
would not recommend the elimination of any part of the Mill Creek watershed.

.

2. As to the logging in the Mill Creek area, now subject to moratorium,
we still maintain the position stated by Dr. Ralph W. Chaney, President of the Save-
the-Redwoods League, as follows:

"As to the Mill Creek watershed, our dream has been to preserve tt intact in
its primeval state. We have waited too long. It Is now too late to accompliah
our ideal completely. More in sorrow than in anger (although that might be
Justified) we have to note that since the national park program on the Mill
Creek watershed has crystallized, serious inroads have been made by lumbering
operations within important segments of the virgin forest, particularly on the
south boundary of the present Jedediah Smith State Park, and along Mill Creek.
This is deplorable but, in our opinion, is not yet fatal. If it goes much
further it may well be so. This means that definitive action needs to be taken
at the earliest possible moment, If the most satisfactory project is to be assured."

"Tha cut-over lands within the watershed, whose existence we deplore and regret,
will we recognize, reforest in a century or so if properly protected, thus
tending to maintain intact the fabric of the forest in this great watershed."

3. We have never opposed projects proposed by others, as on Redwood Creek
and Humboldt Redwoods. Each has its merits. But we feel that on the basis of almost
50 years of study and experience the League la entitled to express an opinion as to
priorities.

tt. We recognize the superlative quality of Prairie Creek Redwoods State
Park, and would gladly join in supporting a proposal for its addition to the Redwood
National Park project, together with the watersheds of several tributaries of Prairie
Creek proposed in "Plan B" of the National Park Service dated November 22, 1965, and
Including a coastal parkway corridor as outlined therein.

Moved by Director Bruce S. Howard and seconded by Director Francis P. Farquhar.

Resolution approving the above statement was unanimously passed by the Board
of Directors of the Save-the-Redwoods League, meeting Th. San Francisco, December I, 1.966.

Richard Mriieonard, Vice President, Presiding ' Robert A. L. Menzies

Francis P. Farqunar/

The following Directors who were not present have indicated their approval
by mail vote:

Ralph W. Chaney, ' President

Robert G. Sproul, Treasurer

Walter A. Haas

Newtfon B. 'Drury, Secretary

From Save-the-Redwoods League Bulletin, Fall 1966

7^4-2

Map of the administration's proposed Redwood National Park. The separate Tallest Trees
Unit on Redwood Creek is to the south.

Watershed
'•ft*

LEGEND

Proposed National
Park Boundary

Existing State
Park Boundary

Remaining Virgin
Redwood

Adapted from National
Service Map Dated 1965

Park

i *< . — . e s i v i- c . JL 4)

.•tt « t» -a « « -o o .a z: .£

Eliil * Big 1^

u « •-' s '55 a £ z co * *

rt .i

S £.

_2 * z& * ~**
* 15 ? "I o ^ £

2 ^ o £3 w 43 -
, « « Sts^^rS-g

| -a 5 5-2 S !1^

u :
oj «»

7 1*83

B S 9

«— rt">.2o5?w

^.ao^^-1^^

a fx ^ '2 tT « tta

4HI1II3

i a S33s^.a«2
•s^1^sl£-c3

isi^.i.^

to .

rt c/j

'T5 O

O

^ « S

o

212 a ••§
« i'S-l

^ TO 3 ,— i *^ ^" *3 -""

UllllfllS

a S -3 rt ^ « . „

'S-gjljf^

lB-s.it!!

§ S3 «j!rn ^^
QQ .. R >e v

si's ll^^l

«5 £c^ E^^| £

ts a| «^2.a J

p-coTixoo^
S ° o" -2 E «, c •=
•s> U o> </5 — o v: -C

M«;J

•^^ . _» «* ^^

!U S -S JS

5..-S E o o

CTJ r^ ^^

in in

0)
>

0)

+-
m
+-

CO

c

o

CD

<D

JZ

U

O

•-r.

O

||* S jg^i ^ |S £

111 E «^-B 1-tJ
S c §*>-i.y S 1 S^ b

Illiillii^f

O T3 ^ «

•a^ - JJ^

c !§-*B 'S-10 5

o «
« qS

O

1_ 1_
O Q-

.

C U
O l-
cn ro

0 <D

I- c/l

in "o

.— c

— (D

(D —

> (0

i- C

O O

o —

w S i •*-* _o c * i -

£ is^i^ § BT1* s

Hlllii l^llli

.a S s

o

.2 o o

II4

a. «

e &

sx o •
•J* *> -.

t o-s

a-'rt J^ *** «„ ^13 0 'Q C
•SC.avjSrtajjDO-

§ .2 Cls^ §-£ —
o *; S3 ^s tn .2

'•§ | ^ a^ 13 rS

8 « jj f i • « I

2 J= S &-2 * -

ilSlS'8J

»- o ^3 *3 -

M G E ^ .^

C53 5

-i: u "-1

«s ,c n

» j<-e SS ^-5

tell § i°^c

o^= S« fi .S •« *

^ 8-g S

sIsJ
1*13

'i^ &i
"Sal
^ %

V

ft

"if t>

- .« — c 55 c«
2£ § | rt-2 a-^-

I ••sill**

^ fc T3 £ &

S 45 "c3

.« -^- r*.

rt

4«

CA

if

c

C-

lu S

8

•s

Pu,

*j «j « -3 2^« u

S « >S'« M X

•S^ ^^ «-S

i

na •*

s

O

* I -

c -

-a

H ** 5 5 •"£ £' ™

« O O O C J-; w.

ex o3 c/5 ex z "S c

? « £^1,0 g^

i «iT3

»— • (/i C

**£§.!£*«

C B *

~3='£Brtg&cL
* feSUfcll ?

— °fOd)^.Q.E>-
flw « — X3 uO*- rt

« 'Cn <«
•p-g
1^ «

•£ " ' ?s c >--i-c e

c-5 ex

V* C 3 -in rH O S

o

= .£ = OK<» s £

w *r • *" j. './) r j

S5.S S!

%•** %£* **

^

- n> u P. O I-

•^ K x

se^.sl.o^^

11 3 -2

£ * 5 .22 c 4> 7i °

5^ £^ 11 £^

S ""^

JS v> °
« f jg

sj> ^^^ £ s i

=d^

^33 c « Ji =« 9- «

liliiiij

SffllS!^

(D
C r- <"

ii*

&Jg

Tl c/:

2"? o«J B.|l

S^i^S-C^v-rt
S|t-l^E

»» T 5 a . i< u

l^l^SSS-s

•— i •— ^ ^ ^ .v
fl) 4-» ^J A r- C/ r-

5 <« 1.3* E *"2 C

problem.
>roponents am
by nationally
t-term finding

S <y &.== 6 tc c «

*"^ b«

U *•*- P ^ IX f" K *£ flj

F--N .-C ^ 2

SS

«

£^

7 ^ -*- '•/)

a resull
one to trade
icket National
al forest lands to
sota. The Senate
ommittee of lan
t be construed as
changing National
rks." From my ex
ce little confidence
e action would be

as

ing. Alrea
under w
the Big
off nation
in Minne
n by this c
should no
t for exch
tional park
can place
s exchange

be far reaching.
g moves are u
s to establish t
other to trade o
ational Park i
"The adoption
an exchange s
g a precedent
ands for na
nistration, I
ment. Thi

^sJl^l-liMgll
•5tfi1lr8Hi««1JS'8

1 IlJeV'SJ Bl*! 1^^

j-sJ-s gs sat* bgil §

c o -w ^ US tsc2 B .a 5 9 tC-E u

ede
tw
ores
s, and t
oyageu
641 stat
rizing s
establis
to acqu
public
utionar

iiSl^iBilHiHL

8 |

•B «

« (D

.

g- a ts

° tC C

C « _.

--H U "O

s •£ c

fc " £ •-

C e3 c . "S
.Jj C. 0 *- ,
C/5 •- C.-C

ill it

Nlli

-

^ ?T3

^*

ilt!

|J.s

&4 ? <3

S TJ
0-3 S

^J°

IsJ

ill

o- «r

Ita

4,-a -a

II |

^.S*
u. E &

4) t 4)

|8§

U

£• U

t/5 *^ *^^

i

101 I

4) C
rS

•t: £ S»PB

t. b-3 H

41

^J <U _. C 14-

U Q2 ao

4)

•S :S

'o E

4-- C/3

§S
^ ^

•S

rt

yg iibO 4)c8r-Tgg

•3<urt3Sa ^"K^oo

_o ^g _o

1 /-\ c

Vj

.S4S-1

«* -a

4;

o

2J

1
.a

11

# rt
^^

4) O

8 -a

«*

rt O

O <! (U «

11 b

4) 'O -C

§ ^S °
0 . 4)

• •

4)

^•o § g

^§-5 4?

•
a t

S g

'5 *

Ill

lit

•

f

4,

-5 s

fi

0 . O

$ > I

s, « *•

•5 as

2 £ c

c

U °

p&£§

^^.2 ^

^rt ^c ^

c .« t;

MUM

SI

(/l o

s I

il

* 4)

o-S
•iS

VI [A

4) u

J= O

o ~

S -2

JS >

— *•+*

H

Sj

SI

vi S
4) C
B 4i

•^ bO

B «

•S

11

n

~*I

§ 8

sii

4> C

•5 6b

.s

fA

ill*

iii:«

(L> ^P *^^

; c5 ^ ai c«
3 43 fr M A ^ ^

^Illl-f

T3 ^3 <U £ 4)

E i<-£2-5

.b 55 5< 2 5 1-1

<u t: t rt -s *"
S, o „•? c

x|^«g

3 •" ^ ~ _, -^ O

ffl §i^?ig

roj "oirt^X1?;

g 1*8 g bB^SI

? -. .9 C <n §

_ , — , cL

1*1:8 "SI'S

lilpi'i

S^.eils-

J2 4)^ g S §2 4>
£ ^^ « «^^^
3 J3 « ^ 4) O .S 13
C4)1)0^3e«3

'rt ^-a i J-3 s ?
.S-fil^-SaS-S

cr
§

io

I*

O & o >>-£ rt > S "
CJ 4, b"4^^3 >^° c*-"

3

"O

s

o

o

^:
c/:

3

J3 a, 0

0 *- 4-
3 « 3

Ijelf^nJ

«™ v^5V4-i g.i C •-£
.3 B *3 wi

|»l

?SJ

•Sp _g

•f g'S

5 B £
Q S3

^ 3CC O

4) d

•£ ^

n 1*1 i CLA

vl^u, H,

• p

••••

y

U-

t ' J

'O

• M

SB

n » fc

o a
Sgc,

i?

[ti M

jR,T\ VJ^KVJ'CO

Adi \jisorcj "Board Field Trip r6

*"D \ \ * \ a / &

noA(jJoooS vJjuLKju 1*1. <3o «2),ITw*

* *7

r y^l ^t f/ ' f /f\ ) I
,X ' / f> /* <~s rTr*. J

SUMMARY
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK BILLS

1 «

Location:

In Mill Creek, Del Korte County, and Redwood
Creek, Humboldt County, California

San Francisco
Portland, Oregon

393 miles
332 miles

Administration
Plan:

Legislation: H. R. 10951 (Aspinall)

Sierra Club
Plan:

Clausen Plan:

Area: Land

Submerged land

Principal Unit (land)
Tall Trees Unit (land)

Additional virgin redwoods

40,864 acres
2,570 ecves

39,764 acres
1,600 acres

9,190 acres

Cost: Land acquisition
Development
Operation (after 5th year)

$60,000,000

20,868,400

835,000

Senate Plan; Legislation: S. 2515 (Jackson, Kuchcl, c-.r.d Bible)

Area: Land

Submerged land

North Unit land
South Unit land

Additional virgin redwoods:
Cost: Land acquisition

61,654 acres
4 ,734 acres

25,970 acres
35,684 acres

12,090 acres

$100,000,000

Legislation: H. R. 1311 (Saylor)
H. R. 2849 (Cohelan)
Numerous similar bills

Area:

Additional virgin redwoods:

Cost: Land acquisition

90,000 acres
32,000 acres
$150-$200,000,000

Legislation: H. R. 7742 (Clausen)

Area: . . 53,000 acres

Additional virgin reJvocds: 1,500 acres

VA T

M

\n

.'1 ••
M

3 '

§1

in

'

' TJ

31

01

,8

is

J

From Save-the-Redwoods League Brochure, 1969

HUMBOLDT
REDWOODS
STATE |
PARK

_QRE60N

CALIFORNIA"

EUREKA v
27 MILES \P

COOS BAY *

90MILES

JEDED1AH SMITH
REDWOODS
STATE PARK

DEL NORTE COAST
REDWOODS STATE PARK

CALIFORNIA
STATE PARKS

I — I NATIONAL PARK
I — I PROPERTY

SUPPORTING WATER
SHED NOT INCLUDED IN
NATIONAL PARK ACT

PRAIRIE CREEK
REDWOODS
STATE PARK

TALL TREES

SAN FRANCISCO,
300 MILES *

The Save-the-Redwoods League, which has contended for a Redwood
National Park since 1918, is gratified that in October, 1968, the President
signed Public Law 90-545 authorizing such a park. This is a milestone
in the history of the Leaguo and at last gives national recognition to the
Redwoods.

The act as passed authorized a Redwood National Park of 58,000 acres.
The Federal Government has now taken title to 30,530 acres of Redwood;
forest and coastal lands. The authorized park boundary also
encompasses 27,468 acres of Redwood forests already preserved through.'
the efforts of the League in three State Parks. These are the core of the
national park project. Negotiations between the Federal Government
and the State regarding their transfer have begun and are apt to be
prolonged. Meanwhile the State Parks are being well protected and
administered.

The peripheral lands now in possession of the Federal Government are
being surveyed and their price is being negotiated.

The diagrammatic map to the left shows the State Parks, the Redwood
National Park, and in cross-hatched red the areas in the long-range
program of the League that it is hoped may ultimately be acquired in
order to fill the gaps in the ideal program as conceived by qualified park
planners. How far this may be accomplished over the years may well
depend largely on future contributions to the League. Meanwhile it is
hoped the State and Federal Governments, as well as the League, will
steadily move toward the goals that have been in the Redwood
preservation program for many years. Rounding out the parks within
logical watershed boundaries is a primary objective.

Humboldt Redwoods State Park (inset map), thought by many to be the
finest of the Redwood State Parks, is not affected by the National Park
Act. There are eight remaining parcels to be acquired in order to put the
entire Bull Creek Watershed in park protection. These involve an
estimated cost of $100,000.

In addition, there remains a vital 1,200-acre inholding in the center of the
present Humboldt Redwoods State Park for which the League is now
raising funds. The cost is estimated to be approximately $700,000. There
are other desirable areas to be acquired.

So you can see that the work of the League is far from complete, and
that private contributions are needed to complete the Redwood National
Park and Humboldt Redwoods State Park in accordance with sound
park planning. Will you join us in our continuing efforts to complete the
preservation of these magnificent Redwood Forests?

Oakland Tribune
March, 1973

rury U.C. 'Alumnus of Year'

BERKELEY — Conserva
tionist Newton Drury is the
University of California's
"Alumnus of the Year."

Drury, 83, will receive the
award at U.C.'s Charter Day
banquet March 29 in San Fran
cisco and speak at ceremonies
that afternoon in the campus
Greek Theater.

He's been working 50 years
to save the redwoods and is
still at it. Since retiring in 1959
as head of the California Divi
sion of Beaches and Parks,
he's become president of the
Save-the-Redwoods League
and guided the collection of $10
million to buy and preserve
25,000 acres of the trees.

Drury, a one time Tribune
reporter, helped write the leg
islation creating the State
Parks Commission and was its
chief executive for 11 years
until 1940, then head of the
National Park Service. In 1951
he was appointed to oversee
California's beaches by a
former Berkeley classmate,
Gov. Earl Warren.

The conservationist's impact
In those jobs was immense.
During his tenure, the state
created 56 parks, including
Point- Lobos and the Hearst
estate at San Simeon. As head
of federal parks, he became
responsible for some 20 million
acres of public land attracting
30 million visitors annually.

His honors include the U.S.
Interior Department's Conser
vation Service Award. A 1947
honorary U.C. dicotorate cited
his "rational imagination and
boundless industry to the pub-
M rvice of his state."

('.-Berkeley Bancroft

,ibrary ha,s just completed a

•vo-volume conservation histo-
based on interviews with

Drury from 1959 to 1971. The
volumes, illustrated with many
photographs, can be seen at
the library and other research
centers.

Drury's father was Wells
Drury, an early state editor
and columnist whose peers in
cluded Mafk Twain and Am
brose Bierce. The young New
ton started on the same path,
reporting for several Bay Area
papers.

At Berkeley, Drury was stu
dent president, edited the
yearbook and won debating
prig's, receiving a bachelor's

degree in 1912.

He stayed at Berkeley six
years, teaching English and
public speaking and serving as
President Benjamin Ide
Wheeler's secretary. After
World War I service as a bal
loon-borne Army observer,
Drury and his brother Aubrey
started an advertising agency.
Drury became personally in
volved with one early client,
the Save-the-Redwoods
League, becoming its first ex
ecutive secretary, thus start
ing his conservationist career.

Drury met his "wife of 54

years, Elizabeth Frances
Schilling Drury, at Berkeley in
1915, on campus. The couple
lives in Berkeley. They have
three children.

It's been 100 years since the
U.C. campus moved to Berke
ley from Oakland, and a two
day observance will mark the
centennial. On March" 28, Dru
ry will be among 10 wel
known alumni giving free pub
lie lectures. He'll speak at 1]
a.m. in Room 145, Dwinelk
Hall. His topic: "Conserva
tion's Debt to the University o
California."

NEWTON DRURY
Ecology pioneer

-

750

INDEX -- Newton B. Drury

Volume I, pp. 1-348
Volume II, t>p. 34o_77o

KEY

GSP California State Parks

DAG Drury Advertising Company

NFS National Park Service

S-R-L Save -the -Redwoods League

UC University of California

Academic Senate (UC), 78

Acadia National Park (NPS), 445-446

Adams, Ansel, 322-323

Adams Mansion, Mass. (NPS), 385

Admission fees to parks, 4l4, 467-468

Advertising accounts (DAC), 103-105

Advertising media (DAC), 104

Africa, 537-540

Agricultural interests, 622-623

Alameda, California, 50

Alaska, 362-363, 503-504

Albright, Horace M. , 74, 105, 112, 116, 183-185, 311,

349, 358, 440, 496, 497-498, 503, 523, 525, 533,

534-535, 538, 540, 593, 599, 613
Aldrich, Elmer, 250, 268
Allan, A.M., 305
Allen, James, 80

All Souls Church, Berkeley, California, 37
American Genealogical Society, 7
American Museum of Natural History, 362
Anderson, Dewey, 584
Angel Island (CSP), 321-322
Anglin, Margaret, 79
Animal population control, 363-365
Antiquities Act of 1908, 488, 491

Anza-Borrega Desert State Park (CSP), 296, 335, 531
Apache Trail, 75
Appomattox (NPS), 382
Appraisal of land, 147, 150-152, 531
Aroata Lumber Company, 632-633
Archeological studies, 436, 454-455, 518-520
Armes, William Dallam, 79-84
Armstrong, Eleanor, 249
Army Engineers, US Corps of, 165, 394-395, 511, 516, 519

751

Artificial feeding of animals, 363

Artificial lakes, 393-396, 501, 515

Aspinall, Wayne, 6l8

Attendance in parks, 375-376, 456-457

Atwood, Albert W. , 118, 135, 140, 329

Audubon Society, 503

Avenue of the Giants, 222, 232, 548, 551, 554n, 575-576,

650
Ayer, Edward E. , 129, 329

Bachelor of Arts degree (UC), 77-78

Bade, Frederick, 116, 135, 330

Baer, Jean G. , 539, 541

Bailey, Dana, 453

Balance in park system, 203

Balloon Corps, 98-100, 492

Bancroft Library (UC), 178, 183

Barrett, Prank A., 488-489, 492, 495, 504, 505-506

Barrett, Lou, 297

Barrows, David P., 330

Barry, James H.. 16-17

Barry, John, 14-15

Battlefield sites (NFS), 382

Beach parks (CSP), 165, 204

Beery, Wallace, 496, 501

Belotti, Mr. & Mrs. Prank, 232, 292

Berkeley, California, 29, 32, 50, 53, 82, l6l, 216,

328, 376

Berkeley Daily Gazette, 179
Berkeley Independent , 15
Berkeley Musical Society, 82-83
Bidwell, John, 215
Bierce, Ambrose, 15, 16

Big Basin Redwoods (CSP), 110, 112, 250, 253, 257, 265
Big Bend National Park (NPS), 478, 480
Big Sur (CSP), 208, 213, 233-234, 292
Biggar, George M. , 170, 291-292
Biltmore Forest (CSP), 210
Black, James, 71-72

Blanchard, Frederick Thomas, 64-65, 66
Bliss family, 325
Blue Ridge Parkway (NPS), 387, 411
Blythe, Samuel G. , 118, 329
Boiling Memorial Grove (CSP), 130
Book collecting, Aubrey Drury, 1 60-162
Borglum, Gutzon, 423
Boulder Dam, 381
Breed, Arthur H. , Sr. & Jr., 170, 288

•

752

Brew, Joe, 518

Brltton, Fred, 154

Brown, Colonel "K.B.", 12

Brown, Edmund G. , 559-560, 605

Bruce, Donald, 4l?

Bryan, William Jennings, 26, 47-48

Bryant, Harold, 350, 4-5 8, 460

Buck, Paul Herman, 476-477

Bull Creek (Humboldt State Park, California), 139-143,

225-22?, 244, 331, 33^, 390, 399, 5^7-5^8, 550, 562-568,

572, 589, 597, 611
Burbank, Luther, 153, 177

Bureau of the Budget, 407, 412, 421, 442-444, 468, 600, 605
Bureau of Plant Pathology, 452
Bureau of Public Roads, 388
Bureau of Reclamation^ 394-395, 412, 454-455, 502, 511-518,

519, 523

Bureaucracy, 372

Burnham, Frederick Russell, 193, 330
Burt, Struthers, 502
Butano Redwoods (CSP), 300-302, 493
Byrd, Harry Flood, 430, 470

Cabinet, US Government, 521-522

Cahalance, Victor, 362, 452, 539

Calaveras Grove Association, 312

Calaveras Groves (CSP), 109, 116, 213, 227-228, 307-317,

Calhoun, Patrick, 47

California; An Intimate Guide* 76, 526

California Board of Control, 170

California Department of Finance, 246-248, 273

California, dividing the state, 54-56

California Division of Beaches & Parks, 163-337, 399,

417, ^67, 578-579 (legal action), see also State Parks
California Division of Forestry, 113-114, 140, 144, 187,

223, 225, 243, 252, 266

California Division of Highways, 232-233, 284
California Emergency Relief Agency, 255

California Highway Commission, 146, 221-222, 294-295, 555, 560-561
California Historical Society, 162, 175, 331, 33^,
California legislature, 9^, 237, 277-279, 288-291,
California Press Association, 181
California Redwood Association, 624
California, state capital, 53-5^
California State Employees1 Association, 263
California State Park Commission, 113, 115, 144-145,

186-200, 243, 320, 527, 582, 605

753

California State Parks (CSP) See California Division of

Beaches and Parks; also, State Parks
California State Park Survey, see Olms ted survey
California Tomorrow group, 229, 2 79
Calkins, John N. , 164
Cammerer, Arnold, 350, 469
Campaign techniques, CSP Council, 176-178
Campbell, William Wallace, 15?

Campgrounds, 265-266. 294, 317, 391, 453, 46?, 4-86, 517
Carlsbad Caverns (NFS), 4l4, 468, 529
Carmel, California, 228, 305
Carnegie Institution, 234-235
Carrillo, Leo, 281-282
Carter, Albert E. , 406, 441
Caruso , Enri co , 30

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (NPS), 438
Castle Crags (CSP), 296
Cattlemen, 488-492, 495. 505, 507, 509
Cayucos, San Simeon (CSP), 275
Chambers of Commerce, 426, 624, 626
Chandler, Harry, 132, 172, 173, 179, 181-182, 318
Chandler, William P., 193
Chaney, Ralph W. , 518
Chapman, Oscar, 482, 513, 522-523, 532
Chase, Pearl, 183
Chenoweth, John Edgar, 488, 504
Chicago Tribune . 437
Chinook Indians, 8
"Cinch bills", 504, 510
City parks, 169, 214-215, 386
Civil Service, 256, 261-264, 287
Civilian Conservation Corps, 255-260, 370-371, 403-404,

451

Clapp, Earl, 584
Clark, Robert H. , 62
Coffman, John, 445

Cohelan, Jeffery, 593, 605, 607, 639
Colby, William E. , 117, 175, 193, 196, 368
College of Letters & Science (UC), 77-79
Collins, Clem, 472
Collins, George, 536
Commercial pressures, 216-220, 239, 264, 272, 281, 307-311,

410, 430, 473-^74, 476-477, 489, 536-537
Commercial value of parks, 239-241, 410, 476, 481
Commissioners (CSP), 194-200
Committee on Music & Drama (UC), 79-85
Comstock, California, 11-13, 15
Concessions, in or near parks, 265, 267, 373-375, ^32-433,

466, 470, 472-487

Concessions, contracts, 477-484

Concessions, location, 265, 267, 373-375

Concessions, plants, 477-484

Concessions, public vs. private, 264-268

Confer, Frederick B., 53

Congress, 408, 412-413, 421-422, 438-442, 488-489, 602-603,

620, 638-639, 640, 645, 651
Congress on Trial, 430
Congressional Committees & Hearings, 421-437, 606-607,

613-618

Connick, Arthur E. , 119, 13^, 1^2, 148, 193, 242, 253, 330
Connick, Robert E. , 253
Conscientious objectors, 404-405
Conservation Associates, Inc., 536, 584
Conservation failure, 166

Conservation interests, international, 536-5^0, 541-547
Conservation interests, US, 110-112, 116, 173, 187, 213,

220, 228, 270, 275, 288, 292, 317, 333, 3^5, 352,

360-369, 374, 431, 437, 450-455, ^56, 503. 510, 533, 5^0
Conservation support groups, 132, 136, 175, 604-607
Considlne, Robert, 18

Constitutional Amendments, California, 168
Cooley, Victor, 73
Cornwall, George, 117, 41?
Corridor land, Calaveras (CSP), 313-317
Counties of California, 140, 165, 216, 221, 244, 273, 289,

293, 527

Cowell, Henry, 302-303

Cowell, Samuel, Redwood State Park (CSP), 112
Crafts, Edward C. , 590, 594, 610, 611-612, 6l4, 616-617,

627, 627n

Crocker, Mortimer W. , 155
Crocker, William H. , 126-127, 141-142, 236
Cronewald, George, 310, 313
Cruising, 148-151, 310
Cudahy, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph P., 123
Cummings, Elizabeth, 461
Curry family, 477, ^79

Daly, Charles, 55^ » 55^ n, 637

Dams, 507, 511-518, 603

Dana, Samuel, 5 62 n, 611

Davies, Mary Carolyn, 65

Davis, Pauline, 286

Davis, Sam, 16

Death Valley National Monument (NFS), 429

Debating, 48-49, 58, 59-60, 421

Delmas, D.M. , 111

755

Del Norte Coast State Park (CSP), 221, 399, 418, 621

Del Norte County, California, 619-622, 625, 626, 627-631

Del Norte Lumber Co., 236-23?, 299, 589-590

Demaray, Arthur, 357, 386, 424, 4?9-480

DeQuill, Dan, 15, 20, 21-22

DeTurk, Charles, 251, 266, 286, 323

DeVoto, Bernard, 513

DeWitt, John, 555, 6W~646

De Young, Mike, 14

Dimond, Anthony J. , 488, 503

Dinosaur National Monument (NFS), 498, 513-514, 531

District of Columbia, 386

Dodd, Sam, 443

Dorton, Randall, 443

Dot en, Alf, 15

Douglas bill, 397-399, 583-586, 588, 649

Douglas, Helen Gahagan, 397-399, 583-584

Drury Advertising Co., 1, 102-105, 10?, 119, 152-158, 3^2

Drury, childhood, 27-44

Drury, evaluation of his NP service, 523-525

Drury family, 1-26, 31-33, 60-66, 338-3^8

Drury, Aubrey, 1, 7, 2?-28, 60, 63, 65-66, 74-7?. 100,
102, 122, 141-143, 152-l62a, 182, 237, 300, 304,
331, 33^, 338-3^3, 526, 610

Drury, Celinda, 5

Drury, Ellzabor Prances Schilling, 343-348

Drury, Ella Lorraine Bishop, 1, 3-4, 6, 30, 32

Drury, Emily Prances, 5

Drury, Hugh Wells, 345, 34?, 452

Drury, Lorraine, 1, 28

Drury, Mellisa, 5

Drury, Muriel, 1, 28

Drury, Newton (author's uncle), 5

Drury, Newton B. , Jr. 3^5, 3^7, ^52

Drury, Squire Thompson, 4

Drury, Wells, 1, 4-26, 31-33, 51-5^, 76-77, 98, 179,
215-216

Drury, William, 4-5
(Drury family)

Apperson, Elsie Helen, 2

Apperson, Francis, 2

Bishop, Charles, 3, 429

Bishop, Clara, 3

Bishop, Prank, 3

Bishop, Fred, 3

Bishop, Minnie, 3

Bishop, Simeon, 2

Edwards, Mrs. Austin E. (Betty), 3^5, 3^7

Elder, Elf red Ridgely, 5

Hearst, Phoebe Apperson, 2

756

Drury, "Great Conservationist", 523

Drury, personal views, 358-359, 365, 371, 498-499, 517,

525, 533

Drury, resignation (NFS), 522-525, 532
Drury, retirement years, 536-551
Drury, schooling, 37-44, 56-6?

Drury, secretary to UC president, 79, 80, 82, 86-97
Drury, trip abroad, 540-547
Dunn & Dimmick property, 133-134
Dyervllle, California, 222, 232, 329, 56l, 562

Sari, Guy C., 96

Edison, Thomas A., 153, 176

Editor on the Gomstock Lode. (Wells Drury), 1, 5, 6, 12

Educational advertising (DAC), 103, 156-158

Elk, ^96, 546

Elliot, Amos, 74

Ellsworth, Lincoln, 131-132

Emerald Bay (CSP), 230-233, 32^-326, 346

"Emerald Mile," California, 637-639

Eminent domain right to land, 143-147, 378, 508, 622-623,

638

Emmert, John H. , 143
Employees* conference (CSP), 263-264
England, 5^1-5^2, 544. 547
Engle, Clair, 441, 504, 510
Environment, Council on (president's), 644
Episcopalians, 36
Everglades, Florida (NFS), 4l4, 438, 478, 480, 505,

529-530

Svison, Herbert, 434, 495, 528, 533, 534
Eureka Chapter, Save-the-Redwoods League, 139

Fairfield, Henry, 106

Farr, Fred, 292

Faust, Frederick Schiller, 64

Federal controls, 488-507

Federal Hall, Philadelphia (NFS), 385

Federal projects, recreational by-products, 395-396, 517

Feininger, Andreas, 571, 571 n.

Felton, California, 111

Fern Canyon, Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park (CSP), 557,

577-581

Field, Charles K. , 118
Field experience, significance of, 359
Fire-fighting, 446-448
Fire protection, 223-227, 252, 390, 445-450, 5^8

757

Five-year Master Plan (CSP), 204, 273-276
Flaherty, Martin C. , 57, 66

Floods, damage & control, 165, 226, 512, 563-568
Folsom Dam, 280

Food & Agriculture Organization, 536
Ford Foundation, 557-558, 580-581, 609, 615
Forest Reservation Commission, US, 586
Forest Service, US, 297, 31^-316, 379, 398, 409, ,
445, 443, 488, 491, 492-494, 508, 584-586, 616-617
Forestry concepts, 113-114, 542
Fort Cronkhite, California (CSP), 322
Fort Laramie, Wyoming (NPS), 385
Founders' Grove (S-R-L), 106
Fox, Chris, 74
France , 544
Fraser, James, 134
Freeways. See Highway Interests
Fremstad, Olive, 30

French, Enoch Percy, 148-149, 564, 565-566
Fritz, Emmanuel, 150, 259, 564

Garden Clubs of America, 123, 220, 503, 606

Garland, John J. , 132, 182

Garland, Jonathan May, 182

Catlinburg, Tennessee, 240

Gayley, Charles Mills, 56, 66-67, 77, 191

Gayley- Jones-Stephens triumvirate (UC), 96-97

General fund vs. special fund (CSP), 271-272

George, Henry, 17

George Junior Republic, 43

Georgia-Pacific Co., 624-625, 632

Germany, 542-544, 546

Gettysburg (NPS), 382

Gibbs, George, 202

Gidney, Ray, 73

Gifts to National Parks, 4l4

Glacier National Park (NPS), 397, ^5, ^76

Goen, Alice, 249

Goethe, Mr. & Mrs. C. M. , 458-459

Gold Bluffs Beach, Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park (CSP),

553, 557, 577-581
Gold Hill News, 23
Golden Gate Headlands, 322
Goodspeed, Harper, 107
Gould Grove (CSP), 134
Government agencies, conflict & arbitration, 230-234, 512,

515-516

758

Government by commission, 199-200

Government ownership, 477-484

Graff, John, 519

Gran, Rudolph, 640

Grand Canyon (NFS), 380, -4-66, 477

Grand Coulee Dam, 393

Grand Teton National Park (NFS), 364, 409, 438, 488,

504-506, 619

Grand View Dam, 393-394
Grant, Deforest, 331
Grant, J. D. , 119, 126, 141-142, 331
Grant, Madison, 106, 108, 131, 331, 388, 4l8, 598
Grant, Ulysses S., 9
Graves, Henry S. , 116, 331
Grazing interests, 221, 226, 464, 489, 491-492, 505,

507-511
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NFS), 240, 354-355,

374, 414, 418, 432, 450, 587
Greek Theater (UC), 79-82
Greeley, William, 315
Green, Maude, 40
Gregory, Laura E. , 196
Greig, Tom, 580
Grew, Joseph C. , 339
Grosvenor, Gilbert H., 118, 591
Grosvenor, Melville, 5^9, 591
Gun Club, 68
Gustafson, Carl, 540
Gutsch, Herman,

Hamlin, Chaunoey J. , 184

Hammarskjold, Dag, 338, 549

Hammett, Richard, 417

Hammond Lumber Co., 137-138

Hanson, Earl, 249, 253

Harkness, Edw. S. , 123, 126-127, 236

Hartzog, George B. , Jr., 591, 593-595, 599, 604, 612, 642

Harvey, Fred, 477, 479

Hayden, Carl, 422, 428-429, ^39, 504

Hearings, Bureau of Budget, 442-444

Hearst Castle (CSP), 282, 319-321

Hearst newspapers, 132, 172, 179

Hearst, William R. , 17, 179, 320-321, 323, 466

Hearst, William R. , Jr., 18

Helwer, Sam, 552

Heney, Francis J. , 46

Henning, A. E. , 197

Herbert, Albert, 154-155

759

Here Stand the Giants. 250

Hergesheimer, Joseph, 118, 329

Heron, Alex M. , 164, 189, 198

Herri ck, Kate, 40

Hetch Hetchy Dam, 49-50

Hickey, H. B., 137

Highway interests, 221-222, 229-233, 294-295, 326, 511,

5^7, 552-553, 555-556, 559-561, 581
Hildebrand, Joel, 350
Hill, Andrew P., Ill
Historic Sites. 179, 182, 282, 318-321, 323, 382, 384-385,

436, 442, 444, 4§2, 496
Historical records, 101
History of Parks & Recreation. 209
Hodghead, Beverly, 118
Hodgkin, Rev. W. R. H. , 37
Holme, Garnet, 80
Homans, G. M. , 114, 118
Homer, Louise, 30
Hoover, Herbert, 301, 493
Hopkins, Timothy, 301
Howard, Sidney Goe, 63-64
House Committee on Public Lands, 421
House Appropriation Committee, 406
Hull, Daniel R. , 202, 259
Human erosion, 227, 317, 376, 456-457, 533
Humboldt County, California, 239, 241-243, 552-561, 622-623,

626

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, 139-143
Humboldt Redwood State Park (CSP), 114, 133-135, 137, 139,

232, 257, 321, 390, 417, 5^, 562-568, 572
Humboldt Standard & Times, 140
Hume, Samuel J. , 84
Hummel, Edward, 593, 595
Hunt, Loren, 491, 504
Hunter, Mrs. Robert, 159, 304, 331
Hunting in parks, 362-365, 489, %5-496, 505
Hyde Park (NPS), 385, 444

Ickes, Harold L. , 173, 197, 350, 354, 394-395, 398, 427,
434, 470, 479, 482, 488, 490, 492, 494, 497, 499-500,
509, 51^, 517-518, 521, 530

Impey, John, 296-298

Indian relations, 7-9, 418, 432

Inholdings, 465-466, 489, 501

Insects & Disease, 450-455

Interior, us'oept. of, 377, 379, ^06, 409, 412, 421-422,
434, 488-490, 507

760

Interior, US Dept. of, hearings, 608-611

International Union for Conservation of Nature, 536

Intolerance, 91-93, 469-471

Inverness, California, 347

Irvine, James, 159

Ise, John, 268a, 501, 509, 513, 522, 528-533

Isle Royale, Michigan (NPS), 480

Italy, 544

"Ivory Tower-Black Magic" correspondence, 394-395, 516

Izaak Walton League, 503, 510, 605

Jacks, Margaret, 323, 324

Jackson, Helen, 312

Jackson Hole (NPS), 364, 438, 488-507, 508, 529, 550,

619-620

Jackson Hole, primary issues, 505

Jackson Hole National Monument, support for, 502-505
James, Harlean, 184
Jedediah Smith Park (CSP), see Smith
Jenkins, Elmer, 472
Jenkins, Hubert, 278 458
Jensen, Benton Franklin, 437
Jepson, W. L. , 118, 252-253. 331-332, 4l6
Johnson, Claudia ("Lady Bird"), 643
Johnson, Hiram, 46, 60, 314, 441
Johnson, Jed, 424, 467
Johnson, LeRoy, 439-440, 523

Johnson, Lyndon B., 594, 599, 605, 611-612, 628, 644
Jones, Fred, 610
Jones, Herbert C. , 111
Jones, Jesse, 479
Jones, Marshall, 483
Journalism, 11-23, 39, 42
Journet, Marcel, 30

Kahler, Herbert, 518

Kahn, Julius, 98

Kellogg, Vernon, 118

Kendrick, JohnB., 497

Kent, William and family, 106, 112, 127-129, 13^, 135,

136, 329, 332-333, ^20
Kings Canyon (NPS), 420, 465
Kitchen cabinet idea, 521-522
Klamath River, 4l8, 549
Knight, Emerson, 202
Knight, Laura J. , 131, 325
Knowland Arboretum, 289

761

Knowland, Joseph P., 20, 44-46, 175, 179, 218, 281,

288-289, 323, 330-331
Knowland, William, 430, 511
Kraeger, H. Dewayne, 625
Krug, Julius, 474, 481, 521
Kuchel, Thomas, 592, 593, 604, 628

Labor interest, 624-, 626

LaPollette, Robert Marion, Sr. , 430, 511

Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NFS), 4-28

Lake Tahoe (CSP). 295-296, 326

Lake Texoma (NFS), 393

Land acquisition, appropriations, 293-294, 407, 410,

511-512, 526
Land acquisition (GPS), 295-325, 335, 410, 417, 573-574,

624, 637-638, 641

Land acquisition, eminent domain ( see eminent domain)
Land acquisition (NPS), 394-400, 4^7, 410, 4l4, 488-507,

510, 511, 530-531, 600, 637-639, 640-642, 646
Land acquisition, policy, 292-295, 317, 488-507, 619-622,

644

Land acquisition, purchase, 237-238, 239-243, 298-300
Land acquisition (S-R-L), 133-135, 137-143, 526-527, 547,

566-567, 572-581, 589, 613, 635-637, 639-640, 642
Land and Water Conservation Fund, 599, 618, 646
Land marginal to dams, 394-396, 511-518, 603
Lane, Franklin K. , 107, 131, 329
Larson, Hal, 552, 555
Law school (UC), 56
Lea, Clarence P., 4, 16, 419
League to Enforce Peace, 91
Leavy, Charles Henry, 423
LeConte, Joseph, 253
Ledwich, Tom, 75
Lee , Clarence F. , 398
Lee, Ronald F. , 518
Legislators in California, 288-291
Leland, Waldo, 351, 523
Lemke, William, 383
Leonard, Doris N. , 536
Leonard, Richard, 606, 609, 613, 645
Leonard, Mr. & Mrs. Richard M. , 333
Libby, Howard, 633-634
Lieber, Richard, 183
Lincoln, Abraham, 5, 7
Lineage Record Book, 1
Living Past. The. 107
Lobbying, 86, 430, 488-507, 6l5-6l6, 651

762

Local community interests, 372, 512, 515, 52?, 619-627,

636-637

Lodging practices, 110
London, Wide World. Ill
Lorimer, George Horace, 118, 128, 329
Los Angeles, Times. 132, 172, 179
Lowdermilk, Walter C. , 567, 567 n.
Lumbering Interests, 137-143, 149, 151-152, 302, 307-311*

511, 542, 553, 616-617, 623-634, 637-640, 651
Lutgens, Harry, 181

MacLaren, John, 417

Maintenance budgeting (NFS). 402-403, 405

Mammoth Cave, Kentucky (NFS), 4l4, 480

Maps for park planning, 391, 417

Marin Water District, California, 128

Marine, Gene, 563

Markham, Edwin, 16

Mason, David T. , 150-152

Master Plans for parks, 204, 214-217, 229, 273, 306-307,

33^, 389-393
Matching funds, principles & practice, 164-169, 205-206,

219, 236-237, 245-246, 265, 289, 293, 295, 300, 304,

306, 309, 531, 5^8, 550-551, 573
Mather, Steven T. , 105-106, 108, 112, 127, 131, 132, 134,

179, 183, 185, 358, 418, 458, 525, 532, 53^, 5^9
McCarran, Patrick, 428-429, 488, 508-510
McClatchy family, Sacramento, 28-29
McCloskey, Michael, 606, 612
McCloy, John J. , 557-558, 581
McDuffie, Duncan, 54, 117, 163, 170, 175, 191, 192, 194,

211, 312, 330
McGee, Ralph, 74
McKellar, Kenneth, 423-424, 48 6a
Medicine Creek Treaty, 7
Meinecke, E. P., 453
"Meineckeization" 454
Memorial Groves, 130-133, 138, 300, 312, 338, 569-570,

610, 643

Mendocino Woodlands, 266
Merriam, Prank, 195, 196
Merriam, John C. , 106, 107-108, 114, 117, 132, 175, 196, 234-235,

333, 350, 358, 418, 583, 647
Merriam, Lawrence C. , 539, 636-637, 641
Merrill, William P., 78
Merritt, Ralph, 85, 96
Metric system campaign, 102, 153-155
Meyer, Fred, 251, 313

763

Mldwesterners, 436-437

Miol, Rev. C. L. , 36

Mill Greek, Del Norte County, California, 584-, 588-590, 593-

607, 608, 610, 611-612, 619-620, 627-631, 632-633, 635-639,

64-2

Miller, Harold, 591, 627-631, 632
Miller, Joaquin, 15-16
Miller, Leslie, 494
Miller-Rellim Limber Co., 589, 591, 600, 6l4, 627-631, 632,

636-637, 639
Millerton Lake, 517
Mills College, California, 3
Mining interests, 491-4-92, 530
Mission «66, 392-393, 407
Monau, M. , 544
Monmouth Messenger < 10
Monterey historical buildings, 323-324
Monterey Peninsula, California, 367
Moore, James H. , 131

Morton Arboretum, California, 123-124
Morton, J. Sterling, 123
Morton, Molly, 39
Morton, Sterling, 124
Moses, Robert, 352-353
Mosky, George, 490

Mother Lode country, California, 129
Mott, William Penn, 327-328, 573, 649
Mount Diablo (CSP), 299, 309
Mt. McKinley National Park (NPS), 362-363
Mt. Rushmore Memorial (NPS), 423
Mount San Jacinto (CSP), 296-297
Mount Tamalpias State Park (CSP), 333
Muir, John, 117, 193, 330, 417, 420
Muir Woods (CSP), 106, 112, 183, 333, 338-339, 420
Mulford, Walter, 333
Murie, Adolph, 362
Murphy, A. Stanwood, 575-577
Murphy, Stanwood A. , 575-577
Music, 35-36, 43, 79, 80-82

Natchez Trace Parkway (NPS). 387, 411

National Capital Parks (NPS), 386

National cemetery parks (NPS), 370, 384

National Conference on State Parks, 182-186, 587, 605

National Council of State Garden Clubs, 503

National Geographic Society, 118, 549, 590-592, 595, 605,

607, 609
National Memorial Park (NPS), see Roosevelt

764

National monument, definition, 378-38!

National park, definition, 378-38!, 494, 536-537

National Park Act, 127, 188, 375

National Park Association, 460-461, 501-502, 503, 510

National Park concessions, Inc., 479-480

National Park Service, 112, 223, 265, 310, 349-524,

538, 549, 585, 591, 631
NPS, Administration, 377-388, 505
NPS, advisory board, 351, 363, 473
NPS, appointment of director, 349-354
NPS, appropriations, 401-444, 505, 518-519, 587, 596,

599-601, 607

NPS, area classification, 377
NPS, budget, 381, 401-403, 405, 412, 4l3-4l6, 442-444,

449, 452, 467, 505
NPS, Chicago offices, 356-357
NPS, conservation policy, 367-369, 455-456
NPS, historic sites, 384-385
NPS, land acquisition, see land
NPS, objectives, 185, 211, 217, 265, 360, 365, 372,

373-376, 390, 4ll, 510
NPS, organization of, 377-388
NPS, parkways, 386-389, 410-411, 456

NPS, policy, 358-376, 390, 432, 445-457, 472-474, 499, 517
NPS, program planning, 389-393, 415
NPS, recreation area, 381, 383, 470, 621
NPS, Redwood park proposals, 416-420, 549-550, 591-592,

593-595, 604-607, 6l4, 638, 650
NPS, regional administration, 383, 445
NPS, trust fund, 413-414
NPS, War Work, 405, 411

National Parks, scientific, economic & cultural values, 536-537
National Parks, What They Mean to You and Me, 528
National Tribute Grove (NPS), 300, 339
National Trust for Historical Preservation, 108
Native Sons & Native Daughters of the Golden West, 175, 179
Native trees of California, 166
Natural resource fund, 277

Natural Resources, Calif. Department of, 198-199
Naturalist programs, 249-250, 252-253, 457-463
Nature Conservancy, 605, 624-625
Negroes, 470
Neilson, Keith, 428

Nevada House of Representatives, 12, 24
New Deal, 24, 411
Newlin, Clyde, 213
New York landscaping, 388-389
New York Times, 437

Newspaper ethics & policy, 18, 21, 22-23, 90, 554
Nixon, Richard, 583, 644

765

Oakland, California, 328

Oakland Tribune . 14, 15, 44, 195

O'Donnell, Mrs. Mayo, 323, 324-

Oil interests, California, 219-221, 2?0

Oil royalty money, 2 70-2? 7

Older, Fremont, 16

Olmsted, Frederick Law, Jr., 166, 178, 190, 201-202,

209-213, 251, 306, 333, 418
Olmsted, Frederick Law, ST. , 210, 372
Olmsted state park survey, 190, 194, 201-209
Olmsted survey team, 202
Olson, Culbert L. , 193, 195
Olvera Street, Los Angeles, 318
Olympic Games, 132, 280

O'Mahoney, Joseph C. , 492, 503, 504, 506
O'Melveny, Henry W. , 193
Oregon, 6

Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 334
Ousings, Nathaniel & Margaret, 208

Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of, see Crafts, Edwards, Director.
Outdoor recreational development, 267-269

Outdoor Recreational Resources Review Commission Report, 346
Out land, George, 504

Pacific Lumber Co., 138-143. 14-9, 151-152, 302, 548,

575-577, 579-581, 623, 634

Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco, 2?4-275
Pardee, George C. , 187
Park concepts, 113-114, 265, 316-317, 324, 358, 360-361,

365, 495, 539, 5^6

Park, Parkway & Recreation Area Study Act, 258, 371
Parkways, 4-10-411, 413
Perkins , Kenneth T. , 64
Pershing, John J. , 153
Personnel in parks, 2%-264
Peterson, J. Hardln, 408, 4-38-440, 504
Pettitt, George, 156
Phelan, James D. , 46-48
Philadelphia Post, 18
Phillips, John C. , 130

Phleger, Herman, 4-1-4-2, 4?, 67, 69-71, **40, 557
Pickering Lumber Co., 310, 313-314
Pickford, Mary, 177
Pico, Pio, 319
Pierce, John, 247
Pines, 310-311, 315
Planning Fund distribution, 272
Plant conservation, 366-367, 450-455, 456, 463

766

Plantlife diseases, 366, 450-455

Point Lobos (GSP), 212, 228, 235, 304-307, 36?, 453

Point Lobos League, 152, 159

Police & information service in parks, 252, 455, 457

Political interests, 186, 195, 199, 260, 358, 360, 408,

431, 441-442, 481, 492, 494, 506, 511, 532
Pork barrels, 410-413, 513
Portola State Park (CSP), 603
Pough, Richard H. , 537
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, 126, 399, 41?, 552-561,

584, 598, 604, 621, 639, 650
Pratt, Merritt B. , 114, 187, 41?
Presidential proclamation, 488-490
Printing trade & union, 9-11
Private enterprise interests, 171-172, 188, 194, 199-200,

208, 216-221, 227, 239, 266-269, 281, 373, W-475, 481-

482, 489, 505, 511-513, 515, 621-622
Progressivism, 24-26, 46, 60, 69, 70, 75
Propaganda, parks, 427, 435, 454, 462, 495-496, 501
Protection of parks, 217-228, 317, 445-471, 496, 546
Public information, 462, 464
Public interest, 208, 216-222, 227, 229-234, 265-266, 324,

373, ^55-^57, 462, 474, 4?6-477, 485-487, 496, 538, 5^6
Public relations, 119-133, 136, 147, 156, 159, 176-182,

213, 324, 462, 495, 514-515, 5^2
Public relations (UC), 85-86, 103
Pueblo de Los Angeles, 182, 318-319
Putnam, Thomas, 6l

Railroad lands, 396-397, 47 6

Rainbow Bridge National Monument (NFS), 513

Rangers, 252-254, 447-448, 457-463, 496

Rassenfoss, George, 310-311

Raymond, Francis, 227

Reagan, Ronald, 605

Real Estate interests, 194, 410, 422, 489

Recreation and Natural Beauty, Committee-Council (president's),

558, 644

Recreation Demonstration Areas (National), 266, 381-382
Recreation facilities, urban, 52, 328
Recreation development in parks, 294, 314, 317, 322, 326,

372-375, 381, 383, 395-396, 470, 516-518, 533, 621
Reddington (Paul) Report, 417-419

Redwood appropriations, California, 114, 126, 135-137
Redwood Creek, Humboldt County, California, 584, 592, 593-607,

608, 611-612, 632-633, 635, 637-642
Redwood Highway, 129, 133, 222, 232
Redwood National Park, established, 631, 643

76?

Redwood national park, possibility, 399, 416-420, 549-550,

562-563, 572, 575, 577, 582-634
Redwood National Park, watersheds, 635-644
Redwood Region Conservation Conference, 624
Redwoods, 398, 540, 549, 582-651
Redwoods Park Commission, 112
Redwoods, "tall trees", 590, 604-605, 641
Reforestation, 109, 151
Regents, Board of (UC), 96-97
Regional Oral History Project (UC), 319
Regional Park system, 327-328
Reorganization act of 1933, 379-380, 382
Republican party, 24-26, 45-46, 60, 128
Reynolds, Elmer, 178, 312
Rhodes, Cecil, 330

Richardson, Friend, 114-115, 163, 179-181, 186, 188
Riparian land owners, 205, 207
River bank parks, 165, 207
Roads in parks, 317, 337, 456, 465
Roadside beauty, 109, 450, 547
Roadside rests, 283-288
Roberts, Kenneth, 128
Robertson, Edward V., 488, 508-510
Rockefeller Forest, 143, 227, 232, 390, 563, 569
Rockefeller Foundation, 609, 615
Rockefeller, John D. , Jr., 123, 1^1 » 1^3 » 236, 311-312,

414, 488, 492, 494, 496, 5^0, 548, 550, 569
Rockefeller, Laurance, 346, 414, 558 n, 562 n, 605, 611, 612,

629, 644

Rocky Mountain National Monument (NFS), 424
Rogers, Will, property, 206, 466
Roosevelt, Franklin D. , 352, 354, 393, 443-444, 488-491,

493, ^97

Roosevelt Lake, Franklin D. (NPS), 393
Roosevelt National Memorial Park, 383, 393, 397
Roosevelt, Nicholas, 208, 560. 560 n
Roosevelt, Theodore, 24, 26, 46, 48, 60, 91, 498
Rosenshine, Al, 143-144
Rowell, Chester & Elmer, 119, 191
Royalties & 1955 California legislature, 272-277
Ruef, Abe, 46-47
Ruhle, George, 539
Russell, Carl, 458, 460
Ryder, William, 187

768

Sachs e, Richard, 263

Sacramento Bee. 28, 458

Sacramento, California, 28

Sacramento News . 28

Sacramento River, 166, 206, 290

Sacramento Union. 11, 29, 42

Saguaro National Monument, Arizona (NFS), 453

St. Augustine National Monument (NFS), 438

Sanborn, Beulah, 480

San Francisco Call , 14, 15

San Francisco Chronicle. 14, 15, 153

San Francisco, early days, 2?, 29-31, 33, 46-4?

San Francisco earthquake, 29-31

San Francisco Examiner. 12-13, 15, ^0, 43

San Francisco Star. 1?, 18

San Joaquin River, 166

Santa Cruz County, California, 110-111, 302-303

Santa Fe Railroad, 53, 296

Santa Monica Beach State Park (CSP), 205-206

Sarber, Herbert, 2?8

Saturday Evening Post. 118, 140, 320, 329, 495

Sauers", Charles G. , 183

Save- the -Redwoods League, 1, 102, 105-162, 165, 175, 182,

186, 190, 193, 21?, 222, 235, 243, 245, 253, 257,

295-296, 304, 309-311, 325, 329-33^, 398-400, 417-419,

526-527, 5^0, 5^7-551, 552, 605, 622, 632
Save-the-Redwoods League, funds, 119-133, 159-160, 526-527,

548, 550-551, 557, 567, 569-572, 580-581, 610-611
Save-the-Redwoods League, history, 105-110
Save-the-Redwoods League, land acquisition, see Land

acquisition, (S-R-L)

Save-the Redwoods League, purposes, 109-110, 601-603
Save-the-Redwoods League, Redwood National Park, 399, 417-419,

550, 562-563, 582-583, 585-587, 591, 608-616, 619-620,

630-631, 632, 635-637, 639-640, 642, 645-647, 650
Save-the-Redwoods League, structure, 112, 115-116, 120
Save-the-San Francisco Bay Association, 215
Schenk, Carl, 210
Schilling, Hugo K. , 343-344, 347
Schmitz, Eugene, 46-47
Schooloraft, John L. , 64
Scotti, Antonio, 30
Scoyen, Eivind, 593, 595
Scrugham, James G., 408, 441
Secretary of Agriculture, 31^
Seeger, Louis, 81
Sempervirens Club, 110, 11 6, 175

Senate Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, 421
Senate Interim Committee on Recreation, 278, 291

769

Sequoia gigantea, 109, 307-31?, 420, 543-544, 545

Sequoia sempervirens, 109. 5*1-3, 544. 5*4.5

Sequoia National Park (NFS), fob, 4/4-6, 451, 456, 507, 602

Settler, Frank, 519

Shasta State Park (CSP), 296, 393, 517

Sheepmen, 507

Shenandoah National Park (NPS), 449-450, 470

Shepherd, Harry, 202, 328

Shortridge, Charles, 14

Sias, Richard, 202

Sibley, Robert, 75

Sierra Club, 115, 170, 193, 275, 33^, 503, 510, 539, 563,

566, 575, 582, 590, 59**-, 595-604, '606-607, 609, 612-613,

615, 637, 639 n
Sierra range, 420, 446
Silva of California. 118
Simpson Lumber Co, , 632
Simpson, Wilward L. , %4
Single tax theory, 17
Smith, Fred, 591, 629-630
Smith, George, 473
Smith, Howard, 432-434
Smith, Jedediah, Redwood State Park, 236-237, 299, 339,

399, 418, 555, 588-590, 638, 650
Smith & Mains property, 133-134
Smithson, George A. , 65
Smithsonian Institute, 519
Snake River Land Co., 488, 494
Solinsky, Frank, 309-310
Sonoma Coast State Park (CSP), 295
Sonoma Mission, 323
Southern California, 133
Southern Pacific Railroad, 75-76, 296-298
Sperry, J. C. , 117, 127, 129, 135, 141-142, 175, 307-308,

334

Sports, 42, 44, 66, l6l, 496
Spreckles, Glaus, 14
Sproul, Robert G., 27, 85-86, 93, 107, 157, 175, 326-328,

336

Squaw Valley, 132, 280

Staggered terms, park commissioners, 188-190
Starr, Walter, 162, 312, 334, 338, 341
State park concept, 185, 214, 217, 227-228, 265, 361
State park systems (except Calif.), 176
State Parks, California. See also Calif. Division Beaches

and Parks

State parks, council (CSP), 152, 174-186
State parks, director (CSP), 269-337
State parks, director, duties (CSP), 279

770

State parks, finance board (GSP), 248-249

State parks, forester (GSP), 251

State parks, funds (CSP), 16*4-169, 172, 174, 205, 209,

217, 234-238, 245-249, 269-288, 468
State parks, history of (CSP), 112-115, 163-268
State parks, legislation (CSP), 163, 166-174, 190, 198,

220, 237, 335

State parks, operations of (CSP), 249-268
State parks, transfer to federal government, 583, 642-649,

650

State press, California, 178-182
States rights, 185, 492, 497, 587-588
State-wide Committee on Higher Education, California (1930's),

156-157

Statue of Liberty National Monument (NPS), 424
Steffens, Lincoln, 16
Steindorff, Paul, 91-92
Stephens, William D. , 106, 114, 136-137
Sterling, Mrs. Christine, 318
Sterling, Matt, 519
Stevens , Prank , 88
Stockton, California, 228
Stockton Re cord , 178, 312
Stone, Edward C. , 640-642

Stout, Palm Cowden (Mrs. William), 580, 589, 615
Straus, Michael W. , 39^-395, 512-513, 516-518
Stricklen, Edward, 81
Student politics (UC), 60-62, 72-73
Stumpage values, 151-152

Subsidy by government, 244-245, 582, 586-588, 589
Sunset magazine, 118
Sutton, James, 6l
Sutton, Louis G. , 2?8, 290-291
Swedes' Church, Philadelphia, 385
Sweet, Joe, 74
Swingle, John, 160
Switzerland, 541, 544, 545-546

Taber, John, 434-436

Talbot, Martha Haines, 461

Tate, Darwin, 197

Tate, Prank, 4l

Taxation problems, 238-245, 409-410, 488-489, 505, 550,

615-616, 626

Taxes, in-lieu, 243-245, 409, 500, 619-620, 626
Taylor, Edward Thomas, 408
Taylor, Oliver G., 483
Taylor, Ralph, 320

771

Teaching, 56-58, 101

Telephone, history, 158

Teller, Edward, 155

Territorial Enterprise. 19, 21

Teton. See Grand Teton

Theatre, 34-35, 43, 79-85

Theodore Roosevelt Park. See Roosevelt

Thomas, Elmer, 436

Thomas, Norman. 26

Thompson (Lord), owner of Humboldt Times. Eureka, Calif.,

Tidelands, 204, 217, 270-277

Tilden, Freeman, 411, 4-92, 528-529

Tilt on, Deming L. , 202

Timberman magazine, 117

Tinning, Archibald, 74

Toll House, 71

Tolson, Hillory, 357, 377, 424, 428

Tompkins, Perry, 191

Torrey, Clare M. , 86-87

Toulmin, Mrs. Harry, 323, 324

Tourism, 173, 264-268, 373, ^10, ^55-^63, 481, 485-487,

506, 546, 620-622

Touro Synagogue, New England, 385
"Trading" (in legislation), 275
Trail system (CSP), 282-283, 317

"Trees of Mystery," Del Norte County, California, 579, 621-622
Tresidder, Mary, 477
Trespass & poaching, 464
Twain, Mark, 15, 20, 21-22
Types of parks, 203

Udall, Stewart, 315-316, 558-559, 587, 609
UNESCO, 536
United Nations, 338-339

University of California, 40, 55, 56-58, 60-74, 77-97,
156-157, 163, 342, 416, also see individual subject

UC, Class of 1912, 67-74

United States government departments & agencies. See
individual entries

Vance Bottom, 133-134

Vandalism in parks, 285, 463-464

Vaughn, George, 212, 307

772

Wagner, Willis, 367, 452

Wallace, Tom, 363

War, US Department of, 382

Ward, Beatrice, 184

War dwell, Steven, 259

Warne, William, 230

Warren, Earl, 67-69, 189, 267, 271, 277, 282, 311, 440,

Warren, Lindsay, 379

Washington, D.C., 386

Water, 511, 547-548

Waterman, Phoebe, Foundation, 609

Watts, Lyle, 223, 493

Wayburn, Edgar, 612

Weaver, Harriet, 250

Weinstock, Harris, 42

Welch Grove, 111

Wentworth, Prank W. , 175, 334

West, Harvey, 325

Wheeler, Benjamin Ide, 55, 61, 72, 78-79, 83, 86-97,

98, 119, 157, 3^
Wheeler, C.S., Jr., 74
Wheeler Hall (UC), 88
Wheeler inscriptions (UC), 89
Wherry, Kenneth, 436
Whitmore, Alexander, 519
Wilbur, Ray Lyman, 193, 301, 306, 335
Wild, animals, 360-365, 538
Wilderness Society, 605-606
Wildlife preservation, 532, 537-538, 54?
Williams, Solon, 187
William & Vashti College, 5
Wing, Charles B. Ill, 194, 196, 264, 336
Wirth, Conrad L. , 258, 357, ^07, ^95, 504, 539, 5^9, 591,

593-59^, 599, 613
Wolle, J. Frederick, 81
Woman suffrage, 48
Wood, Samuel E. , 278-279
Woodbury, Charles G., 473
Work, Hubert, 549

World Conference on National Parks, 536-540
World War I, 75. 86-87, 91-92, 97-101, 131, 3^3
World War II, 355, 401-407, 507-508
Wright, Frank Lloyd, 466
Wright, William, 21

773

Young, Clement Calhoun, 163, 170, 188, 191-193, 195, 36l
Yellowstone (NFS), 265, 364, 380, 401-402, 447, 457, 506,

542

York town, 382
Yosemite (NFS), 368, 380, 420, 445, 446, 451, 456, 458, 477,

479, 508, 515, 542, 588, 649

Zinke, Paul, 640
Zoning principles, 208

Amelia R. Fry

Graduated from the University of Oklahoma in 1947
with a B.A. in psychology, wrote for campus magazine;
Master of Arts in educational psychology from the
University of Illinois in 1952, with heavy minors in
English for both degrees.

Taught freshman English at the University of Illinois

1947-48, and Hiram College (Ohio) 1954-55. Also

taught English as a foreign language in Chicago 1950-53.

Writes feature articles for various newspapers, was
reporter for a suburban daily 1966-67. Writes pro
fessional articles for journals and historical
magazines.

Joined the staff of Regional Oral History Office in
February, 1959.

Conducted interview series on the history of conser
vation and forestry history; then public administration
and politics.

Director - Earl Warren Oral History Project
Secretary - Oral History Association

Susan R. Schrepfer

Graduated from University of California, Santa Barbara,
with an A.B. in history, 1963. U.C. Riverside, M.A.
in history; 1964-1965 teaching assistant in Western
Civilization. 1965-1966 instructor in U.S. History,
Mount San Antonio College, Walnut, California. 1967-
1969, U.C. Riverside, teaching assistant.

1969, researcher for the Save-the-Redwoods League in
San Francisco; employed by the Regional Oral History
Office to work on the Newton Drury interview. 1970 to
present, researcher and interviewer with the Forest
History Society, Santa Cruz, California. Her special
projects are multiple use of forest lands and the U.S.
Forest Service's forest and range experiment stations.
Also a historical consultant to the Sierra Club Founda
tion since 1970.

In 1971 received doctorate in American history from
the University of California, Riverside. Dissertation
entitled, "A Conservative Reform: Saving the Redwoods,
1917 to 1940." Has also published in Forest History.