The Mellette County pioneer. [volume] (Wood, Mellette County, S.D.) 19??-1971, 1919-08-29

th.ro g nat . scenic national park worthy OF the
name between Rocky Mountain II oo'or"oo u
Lafalyette on the coast OF Maine.
So Indiana. Illinois and Michigan Naht " ~"
tional park, and they nave piChc" "a
the right place for it. s.a. -,,,,.h
How they are going to bring about IL est"oi'"
ment is q big question. The proposed p"iA
is all under private ownership ana Is he'u q e. g.,
ulative prices on the chance OF q secohu 80
being built at the head Of Lake Michigan. E'eh
at actual values 1t would cost about H"'oooo0o "
buy the 1900 acres most desirable for PARK pur-
poses. The scenic parks of the west were 'aheh
from the national forests and the puphc doHahh
by congress. To date there is 40 precedent LOT
the appropriation by congress of FUNDS 10 purchase
a national park area. Lafayette was presented 10
the government for national park purposes ny 'o
owners of the property.
Congress has no national park policy, IL olliS
dalies with national parks as it does WIN most
other things. 1t IS now generous win appropll"
tons and again %niggardly for instance, ~ s"'e
Yellowstone $334, 600 and Yosemite S-oo'oo~ III
1919 and kept Rocky Mountains, with twice as
many visitors as both parks, down to Slo'oVo.
Politics enters largely into all national park legls-
lation. In the Sixty-fourth congress the Interior
department supported the bill to enlarge Yellow
stone and the bill to add to Sequoia ana change
its name to Roosevelt. The agricultural depart
ment, because the proposed additions would De
taken from national forests, and therefore from It's
control, opposed DOtn DllS, DeatlHS liz olhci III
the senate and the latter in the house. SO there
is no telling what congress will or viii not do III
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 ut this session. one
calls for the appropriation of a million dollars or
so for the purchase Of Mammoth cave, Kentucky,
opd Ire onyiropS for q national mark. 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
has been appraised at a 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-
demnation. 1t is advised that the government can
condemn private holdings inside of national park
boundaries-in fact, a 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
q national park the national park service is yet
undecided. ondemnatio 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. 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 a campaign to
raise sufficient money by subscription to purchase
the dunes and present them to the government for
a national D?rk.