The Meeker herald., 1892-08-13
Tina, White River pask. .

That White River Park.
The annexed letter and eommen
Is taken from the steamt-aai spring
Pilot, and explains itself As we'll as fur
ther Snlightsning the people on a mat
ter Of vital Importance:
The following letter. recently receives
BY citizen Of this vicinity, contains |
number Of facts and statements whiel
NAV b1 new 10 peopls Of this section
and |, is well worthy Of publication il
this county. While the recipient Of In,
letter is stron.i, in ...of Of boundarie'
for The forest reservation near us muei
more limited than those given in tn,
presidential proclamation. he believes
the writer has exaggerated ideas OF III.
amount OF local injury and annoy ane.
arising from the creation and manage
menl OF the reserve. Certain IL is tha
In general the laws OF the government
Tor the preservation. control and man
ag@m@nt Of its timber resources, sns
the regulations hereunder by the diff
iercnt departments which have beer
charged with the execution OF the,s
laws. have been exceedingly narrow
petty and impfae,icabic from the end OF
the last century 10 tho presani time. Or
the other hand. many Of the aims and
views of the forestry eIanks,r as the,
have al times been termed. are broader
more trnciiccIt and sla,rsinanllk- than
most of those We Sec displayed and held
on questions arising within the compass
OF PARTISAN politics:
DENVER. July ~, lso..
J. Z, k~nnssiy. .sl.. stramh-ai Springs
My DEAR Sig-lisplying TO your let.
ter OF the 10Th instant. forwarded To mr
here from Ax.al: To your iirs; qu-s.
iion, will answer that no act Of con.
grcss Is required TO legaiisc and make
permanent timber reservation with.
drawn by presidential proclamation.
such as tic White river plateau rcrr.
walton. and this Of course answers your
second inquiry as 10 whether tho pres.
cnt congress has taken any action In
the matter.
As al answer To yoar ,hiTi question.
l vii! say that tho government has
taken no action looking towards sur.
yey Of the boundaries Of the rcserva.
ton. and that probably II will take
none, as II would scem TO bc unncccs.
sa.y. government lines already cs,ab.
lished having been adopted.
In reply 10 your fourth question. I
eau enly ray that the reservation stands
rs first outlined by presidential procla-
nation. aud TINT the government thus
FAR has refused to tax. any action look.
Ing toward u reduction Of the bounda.
Tics. ain advised that petitions arc
being circulated among those most
.lsss.is- -is.iassasasi- as.sl -li>al another cf.
i'tsied relief. ,nuch.
I hay. labored very earn -
euro reduction IN thcsc boundaries.
not M you suggest In YOUR letter. "in
opposition to the erection of tho tract
into park as u representative OF the
people Of Rio Blanco county. aud
Slccker In particular"
Were II not for tho fact TINT this
whole matter has been and Is 80 much
In your locality and
tho eastern part OF Routt
my answer to your letter would
have been nj un end. but can
not forcgo this opportunity to try and
make the matter clear 10 you, and II
you see lit TO publish this letter. to clear
the minds OF others Of our citizens rs
well. It is not alone that my relations
to the affair have been very much mis-
but 1t is rather that the
surrounding the reservation.
and Its relation TO the people most in
terested and are SO gravely misunder-
stood, that ] am led TO continue this
letter. That 1 should be misrepre-
sented. is quite an immaterial matter.
II is OF no especial interest to the pub.
lie aud am accustomed to 1t. But II
is quite important that the people In in
terest should have clear understand.
Ing with regard to condition. that not
only affects them directly or indirectly
at the present time; and this includes
all the citizens Of our county as well as
those OF al least two other counties, but
which will as well affect the growth and
development in the future Of the north
western part of our State.
You err in your conclusion that
have been in opposition per sc to what
you are pleased to term 1.-THE park pro
ject." While have very grave doubts
as to the advisability or deslrability Of
these reservations. have in conjnnc'
ton with those who have agreed with
me, citizens Of Routt, Garfield and Rit
Blanco counties, endeavored only to Sc
cure what seemed to us n proper rednc
tion of its boundaries, rather than the
notification OF the entire reservation
Twill give you briefly the reasons fol
the course which have pursued: 1t !:
a misnomer and misleading to speak ol
this reservation as n park. There l!
nothing in the law which empowered
the president by proclamation to create
this reservation, that embodies the idei
or In the remotest degree looks towart
the creation of park. Further thar
this, have 1t as the judgment of n gen
tleman who is perhaps rs well Informed
as anyone in the United States upor
this and kindred subjects, that congress
will never appropriate dollar towart
establishing or maintaining q nationa