The Newark journal., 1919-09-11

there is not scenic national park worthy OF the
name between Rocky Mountain n Colorado ana
Lafalyette on the coast of Maine
So Indana Illinois and Michigan want a ma
tional park and they have picked out the dunes as
the right place for ii.
How they are going to bring about its establish
ment Is big question. The proposed park area
is all under private ownership and is held at spec
ulative prices the chance of second cary
being built at the head of Lake Michigan. Even
at actual values it would cost about $@aeooeo 10
buy the 1900 acres most desirable for park Puf-
poses. The scenic parks Of the West were taken
from the national forests and the public domain
by congress. To date there is no precedent for
the appropriation by congress of funds TO purchase
a national park area. Lafayette was presented to
the government for national park purposes by the
owners of the property
Congress has national park policy 1t dliy-
dallies with national parks as it does with most
other things. Il Is generous with appropra-
lions and again nggardly; for instance it gave
Yellowstone $4,000 and Yosemite $4,000 In
1919 and kept Rocky Mountain, with twice as
many visitors both parks. down to $4,000
Politics largely into all national park legis
lation. In the Sxty-fourth congress the interior
department supported the bill To enlarge \ elbow
stone and the bill to add to Sequoia and change
it's 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 ana the latter III the mousse 30 Ilefe
is telling what congress will or witt 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 sduarely up to CON
gress by bills introduced at this session. one
calls for the appropriation of million dollars
for the purchase OF Mammoth cave, Kentucky
and its enyirons for national park. The other
provides for the establishment OF the Mississippi
Valley National park on both sides of The Afissis
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 he donated
and the land TO be purchased by the government
has been appraised AT a very moderate price
Can congress condemn private holdings for ma
donal park purposes?
Nobody seems to know. Most lawyers would
say offhand 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. II 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 vet
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 it 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 engaged in campaign to
mise sutficien. money by subscription To purchase
the dunes and present them to the government for
q national park.