The Elbert County tribune., 1919-08-29

is n scenic nhtlouui puih ""AHiJ VA 49,
name between Rocky Mountain ~ So'oi"uo "
Lafayette on the coast of Maine
So Indiana Illinois and Michigan want ma
tionaI park and they have picked out the dunes Us
the right place for it. ,u,
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 ut spec
ulative prices the chance OF a secohu u"'
being built at the head of Lake Michigan. EVen
at actual values 1t would cost about S2,ooooVo 10
buy the 1900 acres most desirable for park pur-
poses. The scenic parks of the West were takef
from the national forests and the puphc uo"aih
by congress. To date there is no precedent ior
the appropriation by congress OF funds TO purchase
a 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. IL uii'5
dallies with national parks 1t does with most
other things. 1t is now generous with appropria-
tions and again niggardly for Instance, 1t gave
Yellowstone $334OOO and Yosemite S255OOO In
1919 and kept Rocky Mountain. with twice as
many visitors both parks down TO $lo.OV.
Politics largely into all national park iegis-
ation. III the Sixtyfourth congress the Interior
department supported the bill to enlarge Yellow
stone and the bill to add to Sequoa and 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 squnrey up to con-
gress by bills introduced at this session. One
calls for the appropriation of million dollars or
so for the purchase of Mammoth cave, Kentucky.
and its environs for national park. The other
provides for the establishment of the Mississippi
VALLEY National park on both sides of the Mlssis-
sippi In southwestern Wisconsin and northeastern
Iowa. Here the two states own the land under
navigation. part of the proposed area is Wiscon-
sin state park. some of the land will he donated
and the land to be purchased by the government
has been appraised at very moderate price.
Can congress condemn private holdings for
tonal park purposes?
Nobody seems to know. Most lawyers would
say off-hand that the state of Indiana 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
dernnation. 1t is advised that the government can
condemn private holdings inside of national park
boundares-in fact, bill is pending to condemn
100 acres in General Grant National park which
the owner will not sell for 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. So. while other questions
are being thrashed out. the Indiana. Illinois and
Michigan declarations of the General Federation
of Women's Clubs engaged In n campaign to
raise sufficient money by subscription to purchase
the dunes and present them to the government for
a national park.