Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1919-09-02

+b.re l. NOT a scenic national park worthy of the
name between Rocky Mountain n Colorado ana
Lafayette on the coast of Maine
So Indiana Illinois and Mlchlgah want ~"
tiOna park, and they nave pIcheu Jul 'Ai0
the right place for it. 80.
How they are going to bring about us estaoi
ment is big question. The proposed pam 90
is all under private ownership and IS helu al Spoo
ulative prices the chance of secohu go
being built at the head of Lake Michigan. ENen
ut actual values it would cost about $25OO,Ooo 10
buy the 1900 acres most desirable for park pur-
poses. The scenic parks of the west were taAeh
from the national forests and the pubic DOMAIN
by congress. To date there is no precedent Ior
the appropriation by congress of funds to purchase
n national park area. Lafayette was presented To
the government for national park purposes by the
owners of the property.
Congress has no national park policy. IL uilly-
daes with national parks as it does WIN hoS'
other thOgs 1t is generous with approprla-
tons and again niggardly; for instance II gave
Yellowstone 1884! 900 and Yosemite S255,OOO In
1919 and kept Rocky Mountain. with twice as
many visitors as both parks down to $1OOOO.
Politics enters largely into all national park legs-
laion. In the Sixty-fourth congress the interior
department supported the bilf to enlarge Yellow
stone and the bill to add TO Sequola ana change
its 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
is 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 envirous for national park. The other
provides for the establishment of the Mississippi
Valley National park on both sides of the Missis-
sppi 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
has been appraised at very moderate price.
Can congress condemn private holdings for ma
tonal park purposes?
Nobody seems to know. Most lawyers would
say off-hand that the state of Indiana can
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-
demnation 1t is advised that the government can
condemn private holdings inside of national park
boundaries--in fact bill is pending to condemn
100 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 Ii for
national park PURPOSES So. while other questions
are being thrashed out. the Indiana, Illinois and
Michigan declarations of the General Federation
of women's Clubs are engaged in campaign to
mise sufficient money by subscription to purchase
the dunes and present them TO the government for
n national park