Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1919-09-04

there is not a scenic national PARK worthy Oh Ing
name between Rocky Mountain II Coiorauo anu
Lafalyette on the coast OF Maine.
So Indiana, Illinois and Michigan want a ma
ltional mark. and they have picked out the dunes as
the right place for 1t. 80,
How they are going to bring about It's eslapiSN
ment is a big question. The proposed park -
is all under private ownership and is heid> at spec-
ulative prices on the chance OF a second uaiy
being built at the head of Lake Michigan. even
mt actual values it would cost about $z'oooVVV ~
buy the 1900 acres most desirable for park pur-
poses. The scenic parks of the West were taken
from the national forests and the puplc DOMAIN
by congress-. To date there is no precedent TOT
the appropriation by congress of funds TO purchase
q national park area. Lafayette was presented 10
the government for national park purposes by the
owners of the property.
Congress has no national park policy. 1t oily
adallies with national parks as it does with most
other things. 1t is now generous with appropr1a'
tions and again niggardly for instance, it gave
lowst $334,000 and Yosemite $255,OO0 In
1919 and kept Rocky Mountain, with twice as
many visitors as both parks, down to $lO,OOO.
Politics enters largely into all national park legis-
.ation. In the Sixty-fourth congress the interior
department supported the bill to enlarge yellow
stone and the bill to add to Sequoia and change
dts name to Roosevelt. The agricultural depart
ment, because the proposed additions would be
taken from national forests, and therefore from its
control, opposed both bills, beating the former in
the senate and the latter in the house. So there
lis no telling what congress will or will not do In
the matter of national park legislation.
Can congress be induced to appropriate money
for the purchase of private holdings for national
park purposes?
This question has been put squarely up to con-
gress by two bills introduced at this session. One
calls for the appropriation of a million dollars or
so for the purchase of Mammoth cave, Kentucky,
and its environs for a national park. The other
provides for the establishment of the Mississippi
Valley National park on both sides of the Missis-
sippi in southwestern Wisconsin and northeastern
Iowa. Here the two states own the land under
the river, the federal government controls its
navigation, part Of the proposed area Is a Wiscon-
sin state park, some Of the land will be donated
and the land to be purchased by. the government
mas been appraised at q very moderate price.
Can congress condemn private holdings for ma
tional park purposes?
Nobody seems to know. Most lawyers would
say off-hand that the state of Indiana can con-
denim the dunes for state park purposes. And
presumably the state of Indiana could transfer the
land to the federal government. The national park
service has been looking into the question Of con-
domination. 1t is advised that the government can
condemn private holdings inside of national park
aoundaries-fn fact, Ia bill is pending to condemn
160 acres In General Grant National park which
the owner will not sell for a reasonable price. AS
to the condemnation Of patented land outside of
a national park the national park service is yet
undecided. Condemnation Of the dunes has been
advocated by private individuals and by the press.
The creation Of Lafayette National park has
established this precedent The federal govern
ment will accept suitable land presented to 1t for
national park purposes. 50, while other questions
are being thrashed out, the Indiana, Illinois and
Michigan declarations Of the General Federation
Of Women's Clubs are engaged in a campaign to
raise sufficient money by subscription to purchase
the dunes and present them to the government for
o national park