The Tomahawk., 1919-09-04

"%Er&S0S Now 1t Is asking: WHY uoI " A"-
6SSae228 tional park right here Instead OF
6ka0 half way across the continent? For
,n.ro ,s not n scenic national park worthy OF the
name between Rocky Mountain m Co'oraoo anu
LafaI yette on the coast of Maine.
So. Indiana. Illinois and Michigan want a M
tiona park and they have picKed out '''0 u"AeS ..
the right place for It, .hush
How thew are going to bring about Its estaDlsnr
ment is a big question. The proposed p"rk u.s"
is all under private ownership and IS he'u a. E 49,
ulative prices on the chance OF O seconu .,''. us
being built at the head of Lake M,ch'gan: ~ n'en GU
ut actual values 1t would cost about %ooVVoV ~
buy the 1900 acres most desirable FOR PARK pu..
poses The scenic parks of the West were taken
frorr, the national forests and the puphc uol".'n
by congress. TO date there Is no precedent 1oE
the appropriation by congress OF funds 10
a national park area. Lafayette was presented 20
the government for national park purposes ny 'ne
owners of the property.
Congress has no national park policy. II oli'y.
daliies with national parks as 1t does "itn 'nos'
other things. 1t Is now generous with appioplla'
tions and again niggardy; for instance gave
Yellowstone 1900 and Yosemite $2ooNVo IN
1910 and kept Rocky Mountain. with twice as
many visitors as both parks down to $lO.OoV
Politics enters largely into all national PARK egis
lation In the Sixty-fourth congress the interior
department supported the bill to enlarge Ae''o"'
stone and the bill to add to SeQuOia and change
Its name to Roosevelt. The agricultural depart
no.
taken from national forests, and therefore from It's
control. opposed both bills beating the former In
the senate and the latter In the house. So there
IA no telling what congress will or will not do In
tho matter Of natiosal park legislation
(:un congress be induced to appropriate money
for the purchase OF prlVate hoiulSS Aol ""'lo1"'
park purposes3
This question has been put sQuarey up to con-
yress by two bills introduced ut this session. One
calls for the appropriation of million dollars or
so for the purchase of Mammoth cave, Kentucky,
and its environs for q national park. The other
provides for the establishment Of the Mississippi
Valley National park on both sides OF the Missts-
spni 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 Wiscon'
sin state park, some of the land will he donated
and the land to be purchased by the government
rms been appraised Mt very moderate price.
Cah congress condemn private holdings for na-
tional park purposes7 .... ..-
Nobody seems to know. Most lawyers would
sNy 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
16O 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 it for
national park purposes. So, while other questions
are being thrashed out the Indiana, Illinois and
michigan tederations of the Geaeral Federation
Of Women's Clubs are engaged In CAMPAIGN to
..,se .nficient money by subscription to purchase
tie dunes and present them to the government for
. lational park 4.