privileges shall be covered into the Treasury, to be expended by the director, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, in the administration, maintenance, and improvement of the parks, reservations, and monuments herein provided for. SEC. 5. That the director and other officers and employees of the service in Washington when traveling on duty in the field, and the experts, assistants, and other employees when away from their posts of duty in the field on official business shall be allowed a per diem in lieu of subsistence, to be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, exclusive of transportation or sleeping-car fares. SEC. 6. That the parks, monuments, and reservations herein provided for shall not at any time be used in any way contrary to the purpose thereof as agencies for promoting public recreation and public health through the use and enjoyment by the people of such parks, monuments, and reservations, under the natural scenery and objects of interest therein, or in any way detrimental to the value thereof for such purpose. SEC. 7. That the publications of the National Park Service shall be published in such editions as may be recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, but not to exceed ten thousand copies for the first edition. The report of the Department of the Interior on bill H. R. 22995 is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. JOSEPH T. ROBINSON, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of April 9, 1912, transmitting for report H. R. 22995, entitled "A bill to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes.' In response, I have to say that said bill is identical with S. 3463, except that it embodies the changes suggested in said Senate bill by this department on February 6, 1912, in a report to Senator Smoot, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands in the United States Senate. The bill meets with the approval of the department, and I earnestly recommend its enactment into law. Very respectfully, CARMI A. THOMPSON, The report of the Secretary of Agriculture upon the bill H. R. 22995 is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. JOSEPH T. ROBINSON, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. ROBINSON: I am in receipt of your letter of April 9, inclosing a copy of the bill (H. R. 22995) introduced by Mr. Raker, to establish a national park service, and for other purposes. On February 15, 1912, I had the honor to submit to you the views of this department on the bill (H. R. 16090) introduced by Mr. Davidson, which also had for its object the establishment of a bureau of national parks in the Department of the Interior. The bill now before me, down to section 6, is, with one or two exceptions not affecting its purport, similar to H. R. 16090. Section 6 seems to make it clear that no uses of the land or its resources will be permitted if such use will be inconsistent with the objects for which the park is established. In my letter of February 15 I have expressed my views on the definite policy concerning the establishment of national parks and the creation of the national park bureau. The bill before me contains nothing which would change my views expressed at that time. I therefore inclose a copy of that letter for consideration in this JAMES WILSON, Secretary. case. Very sincerely, yours, FEBRUARY 15, 1912. Hon. JOSEPH T. ROBINSON, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. ROBINSON: In response to your request of February 9, 1912, for a report on H. R. 16090, a bill to establish a bureau of national parks, and for other purposes, I have the honor to inform you that in general the establishment of a bureau of national parks meets with my approval. Heretofore there has been no definite policy in regard to what areas or what classes of land should be included within national parks or to the principles which should be applied in their management. It is my belief that there are many areas containing natural wonders or features of great scenic interest which should be included within national parks. Some of these areas are now within the boundaries of the national forests, and in transferring them to national parks the policy which will thereafter govern them should be well understood, in order that proper determination may be made of the boundaries of the areas to be transferred. It is my feeling that national forests should be managed with a view to their fullest possible development and use, in order that the industries dependent upon them may secure necessary supplies, and that the national parks should be managed with a view to preserving their scenic interest and furnishing a recreation ground for the people, only allowing such use of their resources as may be necessary to improve and protect them. If the parks are in a timber country, there should be included some timber, and these timberlands should be handled with reference to their scenic beauty. Very large bodies of heavy timber which are not needed for national park purposes should not be included, however, as there would ultimately be a pressure on the park bureau to cut it on a commercial basis. In this regard I believe the intent of the bill is clear, but in reference to other uses of the parks I fear that it gives the impression of authorizing a fuller use than should be allowed. Therefore I would suggest that the portion of section 4, beginning with the words "grant leases," in line 10, and ending with the words "twenty years," in line 14, be stricken out and that there be inserted in place thereof the following: "grant leases and permits for such use of the land and such development of its resources as may be necessary for the improvement and protection of such parks, monuments, and reservations, or for privileges for the accommodation of visitors to the various parks, monuments, and reservations herein provided for, for periods not exceeding twenty years." This will make it clear that the preservation of the scenic interest and the accomplishment of the purposes of the park is to govern the use and development of its resources. I would also suggest that, as the work of caring for the national parks is of a highly technical character, requiring the services of experts and well-trained technical men, the entire organization of the bureau of national parks should be subject to civilservice rules. Very sincerely, yours, JAMES WILSON, Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. I understand the Secretary of the Interior desires to be heard on this bill (H. R. 22995) to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes. We will be glad to hear from you Mr. Secretary concerning it. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER LOWRIE FISHER, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. Secretary FISHER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a bill which creates a National Park Service, so called, in the nature of an organization in the Department of the Interior to handle the national park business. It seems that our whole national park system has been more or less as an accident. We have established a national park in one place because of the fact that some particular piece of territory contains natural wonders or scenery that was particularly interesting to the public and we have attempted to make recreation grounds of it for the people. Then we have found somewhere else a similar piece of land that has been created into a national park and gradually we have accumulated quite a number of these parks. Local pressure or the interests of the general public, either expressed through individuals or through associations, has led to the selection of these different parks where they are now established. Perhaps one of the most remarkable and one of the most useful of them all is one with which you are especially familiar, at Hot Springs, Ark., where the medicinal waters have been the principal attraction. Now, there has been no coordination whatever between those parks. Congress each year makes appropriation for each particular park as it comes along. The local pressure, the pressure of the particular individuals or organizations, that are interested in it determines in each case what amount of money shall be appropriated. The appropriations can not be used for other parks. It is a specific appropriation for the particular park in each case, usually with considerable detail, and the result is that there is no coordination whatever between them. The experience that we gain in one park is of no practical use to us at all in another park, except as we can make it useful through the main circumstance that the administration with regard to matters connected with our parks is in charge of a man in the department here in Washington, in the Secretary's office. We have no engineer to study the engineering questions connected with the parks, which are of the greatest importance-not only those that relate to the construction of roads and bridges, but also the questions that relate to sanitation and sewerage, the construction of the hotels in the parks, the location of camps, and the development of such incidental power from the natural waterfalls as can appropriately be developed without interfering with the scenic values and yet can be used for lighting the hotels and lighting the roads, and that sort of thing. There is a constant pressure in that connection. As to the means of locomotion, changes from horse vehicles to automobiles, there is a constant pressure on the department to permit the automobiles to enter the park. That has been done in a few cases; but in the main the roads that are constructed are entirely unsuitable for automobiles, especially if they are to be combined in any way with horse travel. The roads are narrow, curves are all over the parks, and comparatively little progress has been made in the construction of roads that were originally made for a large, heavy, lumbering coach, drawn by two to six horses. That presents a question of considerable importance. We have, as I say, no engineer of the department who can study any of those questions. And then there is the landscape side of the parks. I do not mean in the sense of landscaping as applied to the city parks, but as should be applied to these large parks on a scale commensurate with their importance. That can not be given any attention at all. The question of the cutting of timber which has matured and in some parts has matured all at once in broad areas-that is to say, the timber in some of the parks is very large in certain sections and will mature and begin to decay at about the same time. Unless the timber is properly harvested, what is going to happen? We are going to have a large collection of dead trees, from which there will be no return on the timber and, besides, will be an eyesore on the scenic side. While we get such assistance as we can from the Forestry Service incidentally by communications between the departments and also by asking for the detail of a man to help us out—we have done that in the Glacier National Park during the last year; we had a man detailed or given a leave of absence and sent up there to look into those things; but whether or not he will be available when the question comes up in some other park, like the Yellowstone, depends on whether the Forestry Service can spare him-we have nobody in our department to look after those parks. The question of administration is one of constantly increasing and very great importance. For instance, we are about to have a very important exposition in San Francisco, which will bring a tremendous amount of travel to all of these parks. You have a park at Hot Springs, and we have the Yellowstone and Glacier Parks, and the people who come out West will incidentally stop at one or more of those parks, and we should try to make our people spend their money in this country instead of abroad, and certainly so far as spending it abroad for the scenic effect; because we do not have to ask any odds of any other country on earth in that respect. There are a number of people who are not thoroughly familiar (I am speaking of the people as a whole) with the parks. They have only a loose impression as to how to get to them, and what it costs to see them, and it takes some such thing as the San Francisco exposition to really bring them home to the people. Now, the traveling public going west is going to visit these parks, and we have not proper hotel accommodations for them. Take the Yosemite: It is perfectly apparent that unless you get the hotel accommodations there, the people who go to the Yosemite Park will come away with a feeling of disappointment and resentment against the National Government, because they have not been properly taken care of. There ought at least to be reasonable accommodations provided for all of them who come there. The lease for the hotel will expire soon. We have been continuing it from year to year, and I find the people who are interested in the park, including the railroads that lead to it, recognize the fact that something must be done. The railroad people have said to me that they do not want in any way to get involved in the hotel business at the Yosemite Park, but they must take care of their travel. They have built the line up there, and they must take care of it, and they would like to know what they can do, and what they can say to others whom they might get interested in the question; or the basis upon which they would be permitted to construct a hotel. Well, I have inquired in the department, and I find there has been no study of the fundamental question which should underlie hotel permits. The people who have had charge of these matters have incidentally considered, and have their views which are as well founded as is possible under the circumstances, but there is not a man in the Secretary's office who has given particular attention to those matters. The truth of the matter is that all of the details of the national parks are handled through the chief clerk's office because we have not any place else to handle them. There is no other way in which that can be done we have no other machinery, no other organization, and no money. The chief clerk, Mr. Ucker, is here. He was selected for his efficiency in handling the clerical organization and administrative business of the department here in Washington; and under our present system, he must be the chief official who passes, either directly or through assistants, on those park questions. Since I have been in office I have referred all these questions to the Assistant Secretary, simply because I had to refer them to somebody, and I have asked the Assistant Secretary to look into these questions and try to familiarize himself with them so that he would have some knowledge of the questions and be able to work out something in the way of a consistent policy. Last year we had the first conference at Yellowstone that has ever been held on the park question. We picked the very last of the season, and at that time we had come to Yellowstone the superintendents and others connected with all of these parks, and the men under them who were interested; we took the men in our own department who had had anything to do with those in the past, and had them there, and the railroads interested in the parks in any way, and got them there, and got the real men handling those questions in the railroads. For instance, the Great Northern had Mr. Louis Hill there, and then we had representatives from the Northern Pacific people, and the Oregon Short Line, and the men who are really interested in these questions. Then we had representatives of the outside organizations. The Chief Forester was there, and Mr. Macfarland, the president of the American Civic Association, and these different organizations that are interested from a public point of view, and then we had all the concessions represented either directly or indirectly-practically all of them were represented directly, and all the principals were there, at least, who had hotel concessions, transportation concessions, photograph concessions, camping outfits, guides, and things of that sort. We put in the greater portion of the week in a practical discussion of those problems relating to the parks, and it was the unanimous opinion of all there represented, the railroad representatives and all the others, that if we are going to handle our national park system on anything like a consistent basis, we must have something in the nature of a central organization that is going to take care of them; and everyone was unanimous in favoring the creation of a National Park Bureau, or a National Park Service, or something of that nature. Of course, the principal thing to be accomplished is that we will get some consistent and efficient administration. For instance, if we work out in the Yellowstone some problems of road or bridge construction, or some problems connected with the hotel, or stage or automobile management, that we will have somebody in the department who will know what our experience has been there, and have the same kind of data with reference to the Yosemite, the Glacier, or Mount Rainier, instead of being as we are now, absolutely unable to use any information except by mere accident, as it happens to come to the knowledge of the people here in Washington. An illustration of what the situation is are the provisions of the laws relating to the lease of hotels and other privileges. For instance, the acts of June 4, 1906, and March 2, 1907, provide for a 20-year lease. That is applicable, I believe, to the Yellowstone. The act of June 30, 1862, and the act of October 1, 1890, applicable to the Yosemite, provide for 10 years. The Sequoia and General Grant, under the act of September 25, 1890, 10 years. The Mount Rainier, act of March 2, 1899, contains no limit of time. The same is true for Crater Lake and Wind Cave. At Sullys Hill no provision is made for granting privileges at all. The Glacier Park act of 1910 provides for a 20-year limit. |