Skip to main content

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

See other formats

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 


1972 by The Regents of the University of California 

sity of California Bancroft Library/Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office 

Newton Bishop Drury 

With Introductions by 
Horace M. Albright and DeWitt Nelson 

An Interview Conducted by 
Amelia Roberts Pry and Susan Schrepfer 


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

Newton B. Drury 

Director of the National Park Service 

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 


INTRODUCTION 3y Horace M. Albright ii 

INTRODUCTION By DeWItt Nelson viii 






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 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^ 


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 


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 


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 


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 


"Tho Team" - Aubrey and. Newton 338 

Wife, Elizabeth Frances Schilling, and Family 343 




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 


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 


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^ ' 


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

Contracted 4-77 

Changes in Demands of Public? ^85 


Jaokson Hole 4-88 

Grazing 507 

Dams 511 

Bureau of Reclamation 511 

Ar pheplpfii oal Pre s ervati on 518 


The Rise of the Assistant r Secretaries 521 

Drury's Resignation and Secretary Chapman 522 



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



First World Conference on National Parks 536 

Trip Abroad 5^0 

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






Fund Raisins 569 

Acquisitions; General 572 

Prairie Creek ParkTdditions 577 




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 


Position of the National Park Service 593 

The Sierra Club and the League 595 

Alignment of Forces (Governmental and 
Conservation Groups) 


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"trTo r 9b'"for S 2515 September 11. 1968) 6l4 

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

Congressman Wayne Asplnall 6l8 


Economic Problem; Del Norte^ County 619 

Residential Opposition to Park Acquisitions 622 

Miller-Rellim Lumber Company 627 

Redwood Lumbermen; United or Divided 632 


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 


INDEX 750 



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 

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, 


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 


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 


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 



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 Ickes 1 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. 


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 

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


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 


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. 


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 


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. 



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 


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? 


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? 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 


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 

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. 



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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 

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, 


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 


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 


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 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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] 



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 


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 


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 


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 J 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 


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 

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. 


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, r ar. (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 


;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 


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 


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? 


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 

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


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 


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 


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. 


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? 


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 


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, 


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. 


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 

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 


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 

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". 


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 


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 


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 


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, 


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. 


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

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. 



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 

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 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 per 1 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 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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. 


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 

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? 


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 


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. 


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 


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 


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, 

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 


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 


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 


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 


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 

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 couldn 1 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 


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 shouldn 1 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 


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? 


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 can 1 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 



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. 


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] 


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 

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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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 


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. 


Fry : 

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. 


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. 



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

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 


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 wasn 1 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 


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 

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 

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. 


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 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 


o s; 

So 5 

a ic 

w cr 

hi ,< 

n3 aa 

CO Q/ 

u t- 

a >- co 


cr u o 

a a. u 

> as cu 

(-,- i-,- 

U U 83 

>-, IT 

U U. 

u> a CD 

00 O S 


IT CT 03 

co u> tn 


" to ^ 
u. ID 3 

TO C\3 O 


0<3 u 

oo t-, 
cr a u> 


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 

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 



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 


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 


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 

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- 

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 


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 couldn 1 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 


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 

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

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 


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. 


Insects and Disease 

What about protection against insects and plant diseases? 


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 couldn 1 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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 

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 


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 



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. 


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 

Ery: This was inside the parks? 


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. 


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 

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 


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 can 1 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. 



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 


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. 


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 
dawn 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 


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. 



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 


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 don 1 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? 


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 



Old Court House 

St. Louis, Mo. 

By The 

June 10, 1950. 

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


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 years 1 renewal, subject to apf 
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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 

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 

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 


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 


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- 


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 


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- 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 


royort on concession policy. Of course, to 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

486 a 

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 


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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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 

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 hadn 1 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 


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, 

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


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 

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 


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 
chuckle f 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 


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 

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 

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 


Drury: human, I guess, for them to prolong the agony. They 
hadn 1 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 


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 


Drury: expedient for several years. It hasn 1 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 

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 

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 


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 

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. 


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 

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


Drury: I remember very well one of the hearings on a typically 
hot Washington day and the hearing rooms in the capitol 
weren 1 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. 


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 don 1 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. 


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 

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. 


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 don 1 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 


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 


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 didn 1 t feel conscious of any great harm 
from the Barrett rider. There weren't many visitors at 


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 

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 


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- 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 wasn 1 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. 


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 


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 

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 

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


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 

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. 







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 


Could you give us an idea of what the National Park 

Service could do, if anything, with public sentiment 


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 


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 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. 


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 don 1 t believe tnat 


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, 


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 you 1 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 

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 


Drury: salvaging archaeological materials before they were 

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. 



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 


Drury: difficulties, particularly with assistant secretaries, 
was that they weren 1 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 

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 

Fry: Would you say that what John Ise relates about you and 

Secretary Chapman and your resignation is essentially 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 didn 1 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. 


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. 



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 shes 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. 


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 'unfortunately 1 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. 


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 

Ise, John: Our National Park Policy, A Critical 
History. Knopf, 1961. 


Drury: He gets the background and philosophy I think more 
profoundly than Ise does. Ise is more the detailed 

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, 


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 


Drury: appraisers would put a value on the property, and the 

government, out of an appropriation that required mathing, 
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 


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 


Drury: account of the genesis of the National Park Service 
and its policies. 

Pry: Do you think he has any personal biases that show 

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, 


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 


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. 


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 alng 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, 



June 3, 1963 



(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, 


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. 


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 hasn 1 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, 


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 

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 


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 

Fry: I guess a lot of this happened outside the conference 
rooms, too. 

Drury: Yes. 


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. 


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 


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, 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 


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. 


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." 


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 


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. 




March 1?, 1970 




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 

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 


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 

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 

* Correspondence of Charles P. Daly to Save the 
Redwoods League, 1938. Subject: Avenue of the 
Giants, Acquisition. 


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 


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. 


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 


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 

Schrepfer: Is this a reason why Governor Brown changed his 

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 


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. 


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, 



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. 


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. 








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 


I don f t 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, 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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- 




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 






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. 





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 $55000 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, 






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. 


Drury t 






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 

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 





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 

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 


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 

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, 







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 

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, 









It's a very wonderful stand of redwoods, uniform 


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 


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 


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 







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 




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. 





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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


Sohrepfer: not particularly overjoyed about the idea at that 

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 


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 


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 

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 

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 


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? 


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, 


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 

Drury: Yes, at that time. Later on they came around to this 

measure that Senator Kuchel and his committee proposed. 







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. 


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 Hartzog 1 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 

Drury: No, it was Just Director Hartzog conferring with 

this Senior Executive Committee of the National Park 


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 


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 


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 


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- 


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 


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 

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 








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 









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 





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 ) 


Schrepf ers 

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 


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. 







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? 







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 


[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 




Four Washington. DC. 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 





Drury : 

National Geographic Society, as I have already told. 

The Sierra Club also was Involved. 

Were the three meetings you did attend congressional 


No, they were hearings in the Department of Interior. 

December 15-17, 1965, Meeting with Foundation 




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 

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 f s 
project going through. 



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 f s 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. 




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 

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 


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. 


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 



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 





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 


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 

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 



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? 







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 

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. 


Congressman Wayne Aspinall 

Sohrepfer: Do you think Wayne Aspinall f s 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. 



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 


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? 


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 

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 


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 

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 









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 

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 

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. 










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. 


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 




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 



Miller-Rellim Lumber Company 

I Just found out the other day, when I was sitting 
in Ed Crafts 1 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. 




John B. 
Dewitt : 




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. 


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 


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, 



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 







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. 







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 







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 

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 





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. 



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? 


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 


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? 


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. 


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 

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. 





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 

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 




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 






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 

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 






unquestionably contributed a great deal to the cause 

of preserving the native landscape and beauty in 


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, 


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. 



Drury i 


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 


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 


From left to right: Evelyn Smith, Louise Hlrsch.Ruth Savage, R u th 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 


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 







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 

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. 


APPENDIX Newton B. Drury 


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. 



Memorandum by Wells Drury on his Services as Indian 

Interpreter (p. 7) 656 



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 


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 


Letter from N. Drury to Arthur Connick re 

AB 720. 6/12/1959 6?0 

Tideland Oil Royalties. 11/20/1952 675 


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 



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 


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 

Remarks by Hon. LeRoy Johnson, California re 
Newton Drury. 7/1 3/19 51 Congressional Record- 
Appendix (p. 440) 700 


Letter from S. Herbert Evison to Mrs. Chita Fry, 

3/11/1964 (p. 534) 706 


V ADDENDUM - March 17, 1970 


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 


Summary of Flood Damage to Redwood Parks 
2/1/1965 (PP. 562-564? 


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 



Redwood National Park, including Bills Introduced 
in Congress (special category covering all of 
Section VI) 722 

Map of Redwood Empire 733* 


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 



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 


Map and Information re Redwood National Park 
from Save-the-Redwoods League Brochure . 





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 

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. 


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. 




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 

CJi.l.i rii!.;n 

i.lOl;:,i C. l-AKDEL 
|\-rS * li.VRrD McKINl.LY 
I. I). ( HAM 

orcAr; si'Tuo 






1-. i . KOliSON 
:l'. UAR01.D E. RING, S. J. 


R. .1. DILLON- 





\V. 11. HAMMER 

I . \\ . WILSON 

joi-: (;. s\\'in 


J. B. BIAS. JR. 






Dear Friend: 

HO',7 the chain-college plan is before the 

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. 


Room 508 

114 Sansome Sued 

San Francisco. 



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. 





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. Bradley 1 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. 


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. 



"To furiikCT OM praMrratiuia, 

tote park rrttem, *l ttu o* 
curt tending iccaic tad racrw- 
limul imporunc* *nd plcr 
flu* tone aadKtfnufic iacar- 
wt. foe tb* eB/apntni. uupt- 
rCkun, *od fdttcitioa of th 




ROOM 800 CHAMBER OF G >M**tni j; DcaHiNG, Los ANC.IIUS 

Vote YES on 



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. 


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 

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. 


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^- * 



J*rf~ t "AtIt" *>. AJ-^ . [S<*, "C") 

Auoc*m ( Ccf flseeari 


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 
CaMT*ttiM AMflClltioa ( 


OoJjt" VtM 

(Lung B*r) MtFirlu^ Rinff-dt Cunir Tkeiwd 

Cmfrfvw* AljiM dt* 

U. A.l, 

R*e1vo*d Cn.ptr* A*Mci*tioei - lstei*i CeniMF 

TL^ AiTrfMi -*- <>- Sl " *"" c*- Twtatk 

^'rreLfcT/"" """" 

Lt An|tlt> Cilf TMkwi* 

Hnwrr CliH*l< Dituict 
S.. J..i 4 * Villrr Tw.ri* Clf(dil 

Hollr"-- 1 N~JI s..o!iil'!,.rin v ^"' i '' 

t*J Tfi-el AtHit(.M ro,rh,M.Vl AieJ 


L. A.ttlt. H.|k 5,-hW 

Hitiinfto kh. Fm. ^icrtirtnie -^ r it:itlt _ y. *"t'i Hc'lji iJ 

C*ltfar|ii| LnititW *"rm 

To;' r..' A., 

- _. . . - C*n<tJ 

['*-< s.. i ,,... 

V M ri 

Nicu.-r C.loo.-(So.Cj!i/fc4 

S erfs Cink Coroe-a 

OAU.d ,, , uln |.^ n , t . v.lo... 

( .',;. J c... tnl f .,.'. An 

Sm'Krf. Di.t., Ciliforoit 

Silt* Frkt AtsncUltoe) of Cr*:ltt-\ 'oa 

St. Ktmo. Vtlltf yj^ C*u(F 

Olifenit l-ii Armo.rili 
Ol.fero.* S,.,. !..'-.,,, of 

SMiktr. D..- . litrr* Clb 
I.f .f n.t Muo.c. 

<-,.,.. ).*-i k*-Rl*c^i rU IUW Milb 

I.f.rt *f 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! Clitb 

jr.J..d Firt Dtxnct Foanni 

Ltrluouf Pumol Vo.t V.ilrr 



-M F. [.L.. 

DVNCAM McDurra. Ci^rt. Ni VTM B. DUT, Sfftliry G. t HKNOLM 

T. H. (Uacun M. iXoutT HUNTII 

Low V. MtmM J. C $nr 

btAHT 5. P F*ITM 



j. D. GIANT 


Mru MAIT PicKrotto Gun S. TAFTAAN 




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 Forst 
(\^ri I, I9fei; 83M Aco 

^UKJ purchase am Fairhurst purchase. 
'.IWi -522ft *ces E ffi Canoe Cree* VWlashed' 
Cr; K vfcterahedl ?eo Acres 

ABOVE: Mop of Bull Creek Bastn sk owing ^^^ 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. 


'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 

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 



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, 



Save -the -Redwoods League, 

Ilk Sansome Street 

Jan Francisco, California 

April 27, 1953 




3 9 



r J'g-S &e 



! ^n s 


SSB .. |- 

*3 ^> * . 

* "-o e 


-..- j P ' 








*** > S-r*^ 3 

lyHlifA 1 


" K 

iB J5 

l c bl 


.2 o-?-?C 
S5-J'S35| H 


60 2 -5 
S>3 i 

r= O fi 

^ * T5 t= 
rl a ft f\ 




|fii Mil* M' 

l*1-ifi ^P a-ss-s 


54^8 a -8 
as-Ss 8-S 
iTJss?, S-3 


II 1 14 

ti 87 3 | 

I s i-I 
n- 25 Mil 

?2 8^5 c "2 

2 *3 '" ^ 

j,^ g& 


! 118 II 




Jlllj 3<i i '>S 
v ti ** * o _^ * 

l-.Il? Il 111 - - 

A 4 






i"g i S 


** -2 

\ E 

S 8 8 

2 oS _ b^liB-M .& 

*5 S e o e v fi. o. a '3 



v- - 

-a o 

Q e ** ** 

JH'S t^2,H <2 "S 2 
Lie** *s2* 

e oo->- ova- 


1 g - 2 -' 
I Js^' 

>.a ..h 3 



C to S 


o " \_ - t- r 


ii?SS- S '?'S 


'2 * rf 

li 8 

?= O. 3 V 


2 Billiii! ! 

* ii"* I >>*'* ii 




oZS^iE&zT B -E=go - -^g~-55>>o SC I i;g j: .'ce-" g ^ c 0-3 g-Q 

*l* ir ! !?l I Ji^ Jill nl S14S j H*;sHi 


r u 

X < 

(J UJ 





1 8 







z o 







G . 

Z w 

< a 



ir u 








w 9 

El 9a 


e C o 





S 3 

1 S J 
U| Hj* 




K ^ i Q 2 S 

sil ill 

m iia 



i 2 


" E 



Sis 'I 



ill IIS 


4-M H-1l 


i 3 





5 n tn "1 z 



2^3 ' j S 



3" SfS 



111 iii 



w 1-l 









o H o| 




tf> -J 




_ ki 



It PAR> 




C y 













J 1 





Z t 





n o Ik 




w S 


















iw ! 



1 J 
! I i 

i * 


X W 


c u 

<J * 

= <r <rt 
B w 




January .1., I960 


AJTU Wm. H. Standley 

A/mat rong Redivoods 


3. g BaoJn Redwoods 


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 


Ifelffer-lile Sur 

Irairlo Creek Redwoods 

Ilchardson Grove 

amuel P Taylor 

tandl sh-Hlckey 

Purchase Price 



and/or Gift 



Kendo cine 



$ 2, 




440 1 















S. Cruz 
















Del Norte 





465 . 






500 . 








000 . 


S. Cruz 











, 46y . 












00 - 

Del Nortr- 








';") 3 


242 .. 






647 . 






11 , 









, 665 . 




























050 . 





















71,680.28 $13,872.632 88 3,411,900 


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 


822 Menaocino Avenue 
Berkeley 7, California 

June 12, 1959 

. Arthur E. Connick, President 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. 


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 System 11 , 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 



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 

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 



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 


(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 


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. 

Division of Beaches and Parks 

November 20, 1952. 




H ti 

CO a) 


H O 
O +i 
W o 





a -^-P 
CD P n) 


P <T5 C 


0> -HE 


rH P <D 


O. T3 

E W) c 







o nto 

fc. (|J UN 
0) I 

K <J I 

8 S 8 8 88 

o -* o o o o 


\O TO O O -TrH 



3 CO 

O CflrH 

i-T t>T cT o 





4rV -W "^ * *^ 


0) tU CH 



C.O O 







o o 

















ir\ vo 




0) v 



ir\ *^\ 





















if\ VN 






\O vO 




-. ^ 





O- rH 

Lf *i 





(D >- 









U 0) 




(0 -* 


u> n 

f H S 

P P ft 
m fl) M 


i/i a) 
f- in 

rH rH O 




L. ( 

a a x 


o > 

D. CO 

00 3 



a. ro 


oo < 


i_ C 



o v 

to a> o 




10 "O O 
.* k-rl 
(H n) P 
O O O 

;z 03 rtj 

> >0 

2 .8. 

a CLO 
O, fXvO 




0) CJ 

< <* 


1 ^~ 





o -a T3 


n C 

Q) CD 





H C O 

g O -rl 

= -H -P 

co o 

o o o 

1 ! I 






<a LO 
a. i- 

o oo o o o o o o o oo 
o oo o o o o o q cj oo 


0) c 


UN vr\o O O O O O O O OO 





-3 P\O 

= (BUN 



3 OrH 

O t>-rH O OO OO OO O 

ErH 1 
< rH C^ 

* rH 

1 p 

P B 


t-t Q) *" * iX *^ 

O W) X <'-* 
jo>a> oM o X -P 


I* - 60 ho ' K cD- 



O "O -HO M O E-" O 


P -^ O Q*-^ -H co -4" t-* bi)-^ 

X 3 


Cj g 

Ji <J CM Z OP H f- C E-> fa. P O CO *J -rt 
OT3fcirHOXrH3Oir\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 


< rH UNrH 4) UN CO CN O UN K > UN CO 

f~) ^ *O^^ CO fd ^^^ "*^ ^^ +^^"**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 

















k B 


H O 








CO 4) 

I . 














CM T3 


o \O 





l^^* 1 ^ 

C *^ 




\O f^> 



H S* 


















C **" 









8 8 











3 0) 






















0) 0) 

-* -t 





P a 



ed X 

Or\ ff\ 










H P 

8 8 

8 8 








k'M C 



ir\ ir> 

8 8 








i\ r\ 


CM ' 





cc o ; 

-* -*^ 












OT3 ct 



Vi C > 

3 cd 






P bO 
C tfl 
O P 











O l>- 













C rH H 






t>- o 









-d- -* 





















(0 CD 



o> c 








P >> 



&* 3 




H *5 




. 4_i 







J J 





H 3 





8 X 


Knowland St 
and Park . 

Roadside Re 









Calaveras B 
(Also see T 





< 5 























Map is included with Property Ownership Report of January I, 1959, 
State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of 


(ooo orovioos p^ge). 



' iEl? 


s IB 5IISS SHI 8=Si53 i !sl 5 







, e -I? 51 ISS 
fff|J E*S' i 



siiisi ai 





? 3 


8 If 




V *Q <O -^ CO to N O tO O 

B 3s ell 82 s 

-"l?8RI2f ""SB's" 
















_ * 

~ o 



a , 

a c 



" 4) 


US! 2 
g *efs 

<Eo2 H 



" w 




1 [ 






1 Approtl- 
Federal land -^ 

1 lM7-June 
! 30, IMS 




s&s : . 

t~ * 
















222 g 
S3 | 














Arironft-Nevada. . 



r _ 










North Carolina. .. 














Rhode Island 

iVo/itmo^ reerfo/tono^ areai 

Coulee Dam 
Ijikc Mead 




Lake Tetoma 


jfrf rcoffaiui Jemonrtro/ior. artal 






1 l 


Pro/erf* > 

Independence National Historical Park 
DeSoto National Memorial 
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Re 
creational Area. 
Olympic Ocean Strip and Queets Cor 


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. 




Mclx>ughltn House 
Saint Paul's Church 
Ban Jose Mission .. 
Touro Svna*oeuo. . 





9 5 



I j 





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 
Brla* noted that the position coses under the Civil 

"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 

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 


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 


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 27tli t 
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 cojtructi7 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 





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 


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 


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 



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 



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. 


July 3; 1340, 


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 hve 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 

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 

Eon. Harold L. Zke* Page 2 7/3/40. 

to suoait "before losvn# 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 teoz 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 7o0sday v 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 






25, l>. 0. 

January 5, 1945 
for the fieortary. 

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 -~aorento aa follows* 

Sbaata Area, r'our anjor poeaibilities for adndniatration of the waters and 

"~of JJnat 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 

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 advied, 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 
i tate la oakSjjf; stufiifis looking to the aetal>liahwint, 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* 


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 
<urau 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 o f 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*uraa 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 

r ark v>ervic9 for corsnant nr.-j reooonendatioa* /a/ u , mahore 

Oommiasl orwr 

, . 
y of th Interior, 





InasjiT 25, IMS* 

IQOCIUNDUU for the Secretary* 

Cooeerning eoaadaaonsr 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 *attoal 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 oould t 
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 


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-opertiveiy 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 


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 aviavt 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 pralnj* 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- 

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 isa 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 developant 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 


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- 
ite 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* 


// Newton B. Druzy 

?eb 9, 1945 Director. 

Hot A: proved: 

/a/ Harold L. Ickoa 
Secretary of the Interior* 






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. 
Le LJuck would, I believa, ba helpful in dOing 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, 


' ! C 

< o 




February 6, 1945. 

M n^HA.:i>uw for the 

% reooisaendation is that you disapprove tha attached sSDrandUB of the 
Nit local Park be rice and forthe instruct, aa &Bprtsrrlil 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 gorernBnt 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 
Ubrty* 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 BLf-*ggrandixeunt to ant at' tha Hold with terrific confusion, 

6, Thire ia no reason to doubt the National Park 2rriee*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 trouble 11 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* 





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 

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 





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. 


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 

fewton B. Drnry, a Great Coat errationitt 





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. . 

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 
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>fr 
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 resu 1 - 
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 

"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 Apil 
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 

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. 



JULY 13 

OD completion of blr collage course ha 
lined the unlver.x't > ;*rultv * an Inncructor 

,,j rf. tnrii>lr . -~rta'y V > tui- prrM- 
iBt. Ii> " -J'"" v. * " " waa & llvnant 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 ./ td 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 
mplgi (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 >ueeas 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 ;vi ' "' uth- 
r If I M< forth 11, in ..' mure u: ^.n. . - 
Drury'e *thl. n nnts, 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 


"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- 
tiud 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 Naiou * x-rvlce has beta 
received .'<-i UHKM* and aiors* *>- T>T rnn- 

-mttonlsts. ovu " lauded. I'M. ;. 
jigcM at ".-* 'nss of u a< 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 Wti.> ,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 

"Whether Mr. Chapman expected his de 
cision on the Dinosaur National Monument 
to settle the matter we do not know. So 





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- 
(snlKUmi 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: 


"(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 

"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 

"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 

"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 

"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 

"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 




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 

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 

"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 

"The essential task of the 
Service Is to see to it that the American 





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 

"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 TnU about which any Intelligent 
vuDan being baa a natural and legitimate 

"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 
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 

"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- 




JULY 18 

comstanoes relating to Dr. Drury's retire 
ment, and adopted a resolution which was 
t one* dispatched to Drury b> wire: 

-Me*olvd. 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 

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 

"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 srer 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 

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 

"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 

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 




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 


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 

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 


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 'hard 1 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 itwhich 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 








f coiHftv. cm mmntt. 


April, 1962 

May, 1962-5,228 acres. 


January, 1963 13,558 acres. 
WBj Deeded to the State 




PR AIR re 


Save- tne-Recjwooct>- League Bulletin, 1963. 








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 


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. 

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. 


O J ROt-TES 101 AMI 







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 
; -- 


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 

nf gt i 





llh Sansome Street 

San Francisco, California IMMEDIATE RELEASE 


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. 


The Save-the-Redwoods League at 111* Sansome Street, San Francisco, 
has raised over $10,000,000 from contributors all over the country since 



: IIANI'V. 1'icnJent 

I.EONARI>. \'l< f I'rrititt'Ht 
Sl'HOIil . '\ri\iMtit-r 

OKI HV. \c, rc/./rv 
* J ITT. .lnn/./r .\Y< rcMry 







DAI v 

1-ARyl MAR 



Li ('ill I HKIM 

ill I K.AN 


hi I 1 liHOSVLNKK 

(im MM 





>KI S Ml M I K 


I. Ll ; ONARI> 



















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- 

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 


May 26, 1970 

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 


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 

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. 



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. 



114 Sansome Street 
San Francisco, California 

February 1, 1965 


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, 










u a 

ft i 

U r-l 



8 8 




O r 
















J= -C 

o o 

CM r~ 
C5 r^ 

O f 

<M vO 

CO r-4 
>A 00 

% 8 

00* O 











vO O 

n o 



















































I 00 


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 

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 



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 . r i4 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 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 






> 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 .vLat:<un 01 Hie oave-ine-iveawooas 







Approximate Sc,iii> .11 Miles 




BB SI. lie Pnrk L.inds 
' j Proposed Acquisitior 

Redwood National Par* 




Top Priority Acquisition Projects ItTO 
(North Coast Redwoods) 


I. Humboldt Redwoods State Park 
II. Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park 
III Del Norte Coasl Redwoods Stale Park 


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 













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 




State P,vh I -infj*. 

' Proposed Acqutvtu 


Save -the -Redwoods League 

Acquisition Program - May 1, 1966 
North Coast Redwoods 





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 
IV. Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park 
(combined area proposed as a 
national park) 

Total acquired to date 

15,892 Acres 

24,000 Acre . 

39,892 Ac , 

66,867 Acres 

Additional acquisition proposed 

45,500 Acres 


112,367 A C, 

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 



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 

Rockefeller Forest 

ildren's Foraat 

Program of 
Save-the-Redwoode League 

North Coast Redwoods 
August 3, 1965 
Map 2 of 3 


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.) 


Jedediah Smith 

Program of 
ave- the -Redwood s League 

North Coast Redwoods 
May 1, 1966 
(Map 1 of 3 ) 

and \V)|V 


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.) 





Jecember, 1904 


January 9, 1908 


March 29, 1912 
September, 1913 

August 1917 
June, 1918 





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. 


Chronology Page 2 

July i : :, 1919 

August 20, 1919 
October 11, 1919 




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. 


Chronology Page 3 



April 18, 1946 

March 31, 1947 

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 

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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 






















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 



Kenneth W. Dyal 


Frank Thompson, Jr. 


George P. Miller 

John D. Moss 

Jonathan B. Bingham 

Robert L. Leggett 

Arnold Olsen 

We s ton E. Vivian 

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 






























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 






Phillip Burton 

Calif #5 



Alex G. Olson 

Minn #6 



Don Clausen 

Calif #1 



Don Clausen 

Calif #1 



Henry Helstoski 

N. J. #9 



J. Irving Whalley 

Penna. #12 



Charles q. Farnsley 

Ky. #3 



Craig Hosmer 

Calif. #32 



Richard D. McCarthy 

N. Y. #39 


, Rees 


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 


H.R. 5036 

1 - Requests 90,000 acre park 

2 - requests 45,000 acre park 
* - provides in lieu taxes 


Party Senator 

R Thomas Kuchcl 

D Lee Me tea If 








S 2962 
S A 487 

2 * 

1 - 90,000 acre park 

2 - 45,000 acre park 

* - provides for in lieu taxes 




:K. it.. Witt Srtryiw u//w/.uv 

K. R V 2V, Cohaldn 1/10/67 (1) 

33 similar bill* H. R. 2850 through H. R. 2882 all 1/10/67 (1) 

H. R. 3052 


1/19/67 (1) 

H. R. 5036 


2/8/67 (1) 

H. R. 7742 


3/23/67 (3) 

H. R. 8380 


4/11/67 (3) 

H. R. 8776 


4/19/67 (3) 

H. R. 10951 
H.R. 11105 
H. R. 11185 

S. 514 


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) 


(1) Redwood Creek complex 

(2) Mill Creek Complex 

(3) Redwood Park and Seashore 



.us, i "Jt .-.-Ji" 


Nor them Gate 
to Redwood 'Empire 

Crescent City 
Del None Coast RedwoodJ'f 

KlamathY 1 .Red Mt. ! 

.3'-f- '/( Klamath 



Point Delgada *! V 




Adm-ral W01,am H. Standl 

Russian Gulch PHl>:' 

Southern Gateway 
to Redwood 'Empire 


COUNTY /' * 

_i- + 


/' Talle 


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: 





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.FCaandT.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. 


,1 PH w CHANEY. f 
!WTON B. DlUIY, St<r*l*rt 

HN B. DEWITT. Annum Stcrtttry 





























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 



TELEPHONE 362-23)2 


Assistant Secretary, 
Save-the-Redwoods League 
Redwood City, California 

March 26, 1970 

Hearing before the Board of Supervisors, 

San Mateo County 


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) 



- 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 



- 3 - 

3) opposes the flooding and destruction of the Hooper 

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. 




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. 


APRIL 9, 1965 


Save-the*Redwoods League 





f. CHANBY, PrttiJent 

A. STARR. Via PrtiiJcnl 
3. SPROUL, Treaturrr 

B. DRURY, Stcrettry 
DBWITT, Ailiitail StcrtUry 










* F. DALY 

























it A. STARR 



...t from destruction rtprunt- 
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 

fnrchiit Redwood (rant bf pri- 

' ro-optrate with th CtlifomU 
hwty Commiuion, Bad othir 
tl muring the prvMrTRUoo of 
tdotdiidt beauty along highwa f . 
' itpport reforttcattoa Bad 

*'ur forest area*. 


February 23, 1966 
Immediate Release 

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 




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. 




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 
Save-the-Redwoods League 


Oeceabail , 1966 
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 

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 


Map of the administration's proposed Redwood National Park. The separate Tallest Trees 
Unit on Redwood Creek is to the south. 



Proposed National 
Park Boundary 

Existing State 
Park Boundary 

Remaining Virgin 

Adapted from National 
Service Map Dated 1965 


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 : 

7 1*83 

B S 9 


^.ao^^- 1 ^^ 

a fx ^ '2 tT tta 


i a S33 s ^.a2 


to . 

rt c/j 

'T5 O 


^ S 


212 a 

^ TO 3 , i *^ ^" *3 -"" 


a S -3 rt ^ . 


l B - s .it!! 

S3 j!rn ^^ 
QQ .. R >e v 

si's ll^^l 

5 c^ E ^^| 

ts a| ^2.a J 

S o" -2 E , c = 
s> U o> </5 o v: -C 


^^ . _ * ^^ 

!U S -S JS 

5..-S E o o 

CTJ r^ ^^ 

in in 














||* S jg^i ^ |S 

111 E ^-B 1-tJ 
S c *>-i.y S 1 S^ b 


O T3 ^ 

a^ - JJ^ 

c !-*B 'S- 10 5 



1_ 1_ 
O Q- 


C U 
O l- 
cn ro 


I- c/l 

in "o 

. c 



> (0 

i- C 

O O 


w S i *-* _o c * i - 

is^i^ BT1* s 

Hlllii l^llli 

.a S s 


.2 o o 

II 4 


e & 

sx o 
J* *> -. 

t o-s 

a -'rt J^ *** ^13 'Q C 

.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 


'i^ & i 
^ % 



"if t> 

- . c 55 c 
2 | rt -2 a -^- 

I sill** 

^ fc T3 & 

S 45 "c3 

. -^- r *. 







lu S 




*j j -3 2^ u 

S > S' M X 

S^ ^^ -S 


na * 



* I - 

c - 


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 * 

* feSUfcll ? 

flw X3 uO*- rt 

'Cn < 

" ' ?s c >--i-c e 

c-5 ex 

V* C 3 -in rH O S 


= . = OK< s 

w *r *" j. './) r j 

S5.S S! 

%** %* ** 


- n> u P. O I- 

^ K x 


11 3 -2 

* 5 .22 c 4> 7i 

5^ ^ 11 ^ 

S ""^ 

JS v> 
f jg 

sj> ^^^ s i 


^33 c Ji = 9- 



C r- <" 



Tl c/: 

2"? oJ B.|l 

S|t-l^ E 

T 5 a . i< u 


i ^ ^ ^ .v 
fl) 4- ^J A r- C/ r- 

5 < 1.3* E *"2 C 

>roponents am 
by nationally 
t-term finding 

S <y &.== 6 tc c 

*"^ b 

U **- P ^ IX f" K * flj 

F--N .-C ^ 2 



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 


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 

5tfi1lr 8 Hi1JS' 8 

1 IlJeV'SJ Bl*! 1^^ 

j-sJ-s gs sat* bgil 

c o -w ^ US tsc2 B .a 5 9 tC-E u 

s, and t 
641 stat 
rizing s 
to acqu 


8 | 




g- a ts 

tC C 

C _. 

--H U "O 

s c 

fc " - 

C e3 c . "S 
.Jj C. *- , 
C/5 - C.-C 

ill it 



^ ?T3 




&4 ? <3 

0-3 S 




o- r 


4,-a -a 

II | 

u. E & 

4) t 4) 




t/5 *^ *^^ 


101 I 

4) C 
r S 

t: S P B 

t. b-3 H 


^J <U _. C 14- 

U Q2 ao 


S :S 

'o E 

4-- C/3 

^ ^ 



yg iibO 4)c8r-Tgg 

3<u rt 3Sa ^"K^oo 

_o ^g _o 

1 /-\ c 



* -a 






# rt 

4) O 

8 -a 


rt O 

O <! (U 

11 b 

4) 'O -C 

. 4) 


^o g 

^-5 4? 

a t 

S g 

'5 * 





-5 s 


. O 

$ > I 

s, * 

5 as 

2 c 



p & 

^^.2 ^ 

^rt ^c ^ 

c . t; 



(/l o 

s I 


* 4) 


VI [A 

4) u 

J= O 

o ~ 

S -2 

JS > 




S I 

vi S 
4) C 
B 4i 

^ bO 








4> C 

5 6b 





(L> ^P *^^ 

; c5 ^ ai c 
3 43 fr M A ^ ^ 


T3 ^3 <U 4) 

E i<-2-5 

.b 55 5< 2 5 1-1 

<u t: t rt -s *" 
S, o ? c 


3 " ^ ~ _, -^ O 

ffl i^?ig 

roj "oirt^X 1 ?; 

g 1*8 g bB^SI 

? -. .9 C <n 

_ , , cL 

1*1:8 "SI'S 



J2 4)^ g S 2 4> 
^^ ^^^ 
3 J3 ^ 4) O .S 13 
C4) 1) 0^3e3 

' rt ^-a i J-3 s ? 




O & o >>- rt > S " 
CJ 4, b"4^^3 >^ c*-" 








J3 a, 

*- 4- 
3 3 


v^5V4-i g.i C - 
.3 B *3 wi 



Sp _g 

f g'S 

5 B 
Q S3 

^ 3CC O 

4) d 


n 1*1 i CLA 

vl^u, H, 




t ' J 




n fc 

o a 


[ti M 


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 




In Mill Creek, Del Korte County, and Redwood 
Creek, Humboldt County, California 

San Francisco 
Portland, Oregon 

393 miles 
332 miles 


Legislation: H. R. 10951 (Aspinall) 

Sierra Club 

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 
Operation (after 5th year) 




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 


Legislation: H. R. 1311 (Saylor) 
H. R. 2849 (Cohelan) 
Numerous similar bills 


Additional virgin redwoods: 

Cost: Land acquisition 

90,000 acres 
32,000 acres 

Legislation: H. R. 7742 (Clausen) 

Area: . . 53,000 acres 

Additional virgin reJvocds: 1,500 acres 





3 ' 




' TJ 




i s 


From Save-the-Redwoods League Brochure, 1969 




27 MILES \P 










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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

Ecology pioneer 



INDEX -- Newton B. Drury 

Volume I, pp. 1-348 
Volume II, t>p. 34o_77o 


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 


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, 

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 


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 Employees 1 Association, 263 
California State Park Commission, 113, 115, 144-145, 

186-200, 243, 320, 527, 582, 605 


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, 


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, 


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 


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, 

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 


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, 


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, 


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, 


Field, Charles K. , 118 
Field experience, significance of, 359 
Fire-fighting, 446-448 
Fire protection, 223-227, 252, 390, 445-450, 5^8 


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, 



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, 

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 


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, 42, 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, 


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 


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, 


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 


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, 


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 


Local community interests, 372, 512, 515, 52?, 619-627, 


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 


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, 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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, 


Sports, 42, 44, 66, l6l, 496 
Spreckles, Glaus, 14 
Sproul, Robert G., 27, 85-86, 93, 107, 157, 175, 326-328, 


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 


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, 


State press, California, 178-182 
States rights, 185, 492, 497, 587-588 
State-wide Committee on Higher Education, California (1930's), 


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 


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 


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 


Young, Clement Calhoun, 163, 170, 188, 191-193, 195, 36l 
Yellowstone (NFS), 265, 364, 380, 401-402, 447, 457, 506, 


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 

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.