The San Francisco call., 1905-01-20
:YOSEM pROBL- EN-
:: -,
"""> IN NEW LIGHT.
:ttIli0m h. NlI5 60uS Stale Does Not
Z. :. Possess Title to The V0fIey.
Federal Grant Is a Cold Brick

William H. Mills, one Of the original
:promoters OF the Yosemite National
Park, and for many years Yosemite
Valley Commissioner, throws new
light on the proposition to re-cede the
:. valley 10. the Federal Government. In
a letter to the manager of The Call
ME-: Mills points out that the sentimen-
tai objection to recession" is based
.Un. false premises, inasmuch as the
: valley was never ceded to the State of
California The Federal Government
.still retains the title to the land.
whereas the State is merely privileged
to pay the expense Of its maintenance
as a public recreation ground under
certain restriction. Mr.. Mills letter
" follows:
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. IS. 1905.
/ : Manager of The Call, San Francisco,
Cal.-Dear Sir: I see by Its editorial
columns that The Call is desirous OF
promoting the recession, as 1t is Called
of the Yosemite Valley to the Govern
Tnent of the United States. trust you
will pardon the intrusion of two con-
siderations touching this matter, Wnlcn
have not yet been availed of In the dls-
cussion. Please do me the justice to
believe that these suggestions are not
based on the assumption that L might
contribute anything of very great
Idlue to the discussion of the question;
nor would 1 be understood as presum-
ing to influence the course OF your pa
.. per in any particular; but L was for
nine years a member of the commission
to. manage the Yosemite, and was one
of the original promoters Of the Ma
De-, ,s,a1, e-Ylp@Y IL
d. ley. 1 was among the first, If not the
very first, to see that the control of
the territory lying around the valley
was necessary for the preservation or
the catchment areas in which originate
. the streams that feed the falls of that
natural wonder. The whole subject,
therefore, has a degree of maturity In
my mind, and the considerations I
have to offer are:
PROBLEM is STATED.
First-If the national premises, COM
prising the Yosemite National Park,
lying around the $4,000 acres which
comprise the so-called "cession to CAL
ifornia" were a unit, including all the
acreage within its limitS-had no seq
regation ever been made of the area
which was granted to the State of CAL
ifornia-would any man to-day think
it wise to segregate the valley itself
under the administrative jurisdiction
of California, thus producing divided
Jurisdiction in the Yosemite? l think
1t will be conceded that If the Yosemite
Valley were part of the National
Park no one would deem the sugges-
tion of its segregation from the park
wise or tenable, and if 1t would not be
wise to segregate 1t certainly is not
wise to maintain such segregation.
Second-The second consideration is
still more important. 1t is well to in
quire methodically into the question as
TO what we are re-ceding. Such inquiry
begins with the obvious question::
What was granted by the Govern
ment of the United States?" The text
of the granting act may be appealed to
for answer to this question. There was
no grant of land in fee-that is, the
title to the land was not granted.
There was no unrestricted grant.
There was, however, trust created in
the State of California, and the linlita-
tions of that trust were very narrow.
In their very nature these limitations
constituted an impeachment Of the
State. The grant was made forever in
alienable," which condition was made
in the interest of the grantor and pro-
tected it against the nlisappropriation,
maladministration and unwisdom of
the State. The restriction implied a
want of confidence on the part Of the
granter as to the uses and purposes to
which the grantee might devote the
valley. Presumptively the Govern
.ment was unwilling to trust the people
of California with the ultimate destiny
of the premises granted, and guaran-
teed itself against the conversion Of
the place into hog ranch by not only
making the grant itself inalienable, but