The Yellowstone National Park Part 25

In the long and fruitless struggle to secure rights-of-way for railroads, the promoters of these projects have resorted to various indirect methods the most noteworthy of which is a proposal to change the boundary line of the Park. We have elsewhere explained how this boundary was originally determined. For a random line, which of necessity it largely was, it was a most excellent one. No one would have been dissatisfied with it were it not that it was subsequently found to stand in the way of certain private enterprises.

When it became apparent that the government would never consent to the construction of a railroad within the Park, it was sought to compa.s.s the same end by cutting off all that portion of the Reservation lying outside of, and including, the proposed right-of-way.

In accordance with the proverbial policy of indirection which characterizes schemes of this sort, the real purpose of this proposition is always veiled under a beneficent guise, intended to make its promoters appear as zealous guardians of the Park, rather than what they really are--conspirators for its destruction. The proposed change of boundary is ostensibly based upon the alleged necessity of having a natural boundary--that is, a boundary along the courses of streams. The present line, it is urged, is unmarked and no one knows where it is. A stream is a definite, visible line, seen and known by every one.[BV]

[BV] It is of course unnecessary to point out that an artificial line can easily be marked so that there shall be no uncertainty about its location. The hollowness of purpose on the part of those who propose this argument is disclosed by the fact that, of the 280 miles, more or less, in the proposed boundary, they provide a natural line for only about 50 miles--or along that precise portion where they want to build a railroad. All the rest of the way an artificial line is good enough!

The pernicious fallacy that lurks in this argument is plainly visible if we look a little beneath the surface. _Never permit the boundaries of the Yellowstone Park to be brought down into the valleys._ Nature has indeed built the proper boundaries; but they are mountain ranges, not valleys. A thousand Chinese walls heaped together would not form a barrier like the Absarokas on the east, the Snowy Range on the north, the Gallatin Range on the west, and the Tetons and the Big Game Ridge on the south. Along the present boundary line there are very few places where it is possible to build human habitations. No poacher or law breaker can there fix his stealthy abode ready at a favorable opportunity to dash across it. But if it were in the bottom of the valleys, a whole colony of these dangerous individuals would soon infest every border of the Park. Police surveillance, in any case extremely difficult, would then be well-nigh impossible. No! Whatever changes may be made in the boundary of the Park, let it always be kept among the mountain tops.

What the success of any of these projects to cut off, or segregate, portions of the Park would mean, may be judged from a single instance--that, namely, of the north-east corner of the Park. In this strip of territory are some of the finest scenery and most interesting scientific curiosities to be found upon the Reservation.

It is the great winter grazing ground for the elk, and by estimate based upon actual count no fewer than 20,000 of these n.o.ble animals find their winter subsistence here. That all of this game would be almost instantly annihilated by the segregation of this strip goes without saying. More than this, the admission to the very heart of the Park of that cla.s.s of reckless characters, who even now are its greatest source of danger, would vastly enhance the difficulty of protecting the remaining portions.

It is well to emphasize by repet.i.tion the few important facts pertaining to this question:

(1.) There are no private interests on the borders of the Park whose development is jeopardized by the refusal of the government to give access to them by a railroad across the Reservation. They can all be reached from the outside without encountering greater obstacles than have been overcome in scores of other places throughout the West.

(2.) There is no need of a railroad in the Park so far as the comfort or advantage of the tourists is concerned. A line along the southern border would answer quite as well, and would serve the surrounding country better.

(3.) There is no occasion to construct an electric line in the Park.

Nearly all of those who visit that region oppose it.

(4.) There is no necessity for changing the present boundaries of the Reservation.

CHAPTER III.

CONCLUSION.

It is in respect of the foregoing matters that the Yellowstone National Park has most to fear. The general public, although always in favor of its preservation, knows nothing of the merit of these various projects. A bill is introduced in Congress in the interest of some private enterprise. It is supported by representations and statistics gotten up for the occasion. There may be no one at hand to refute them, and they are the only information upon which Congress can act.

More than once these bills have been reported favorably from committee, when every essential statement in the committee's report was contrary to fact. Unless some friend of the Park is present, ready and willing to devote time, and perhaps money, to its defense, there is only too much danger that these measures will eventually prove successful.

Thus far, the Park has never been lacking in such friends; and there is no more encouraging fact in its history than this, that some one has always been on guard against any thing which might work to its injury. Men like Senator Vest in official position, or William Hallett Phillips in private life, and journals like _Forest and Stream_, have stood for years, in a purely public-spirited manner, without remunerative inducement of any sort, and often in face of the bitterest vituperation and abuse, against the designs of selfish and unscrupulous schemers. In like manner, government officials connected with the Park have always, with one or two exceptions, earnestly opposed these dangerous projects. It is plain to any one who is familiar with its inside history, that, but for the agencies just mentioned, there would not be to-day any Yellowstone Park at all. It is equally plain, that so long as friends like these are forthcoming, the Park has little to fear from its enemies.

In still another respect, the Park has been unfortunate where it had a right to expect better things. Prior to the admission of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho into the Union of States, its interests were looked after in Congress, particularly in the Senate, by a few members who took great pride in promoting its welfare. But when the above territories were admitted to the Union, these gentlemen very naturally turned over the charge, which they had voluntarily a.s.sumed, to the members from the new States, as being thereafter its proper guardians.

It was, of course, believed that in them, if in any one, the Park would find needed championship and protection. It is a matter of great regret that these very reasonable expectations have not been realized.

A glance at the list of bills pertaining to the Yellowstone National Park, which have been presented to Congress in the past six years, will show that nearly every objectionable measure has been fathered by the very men whose first duty would seem to have been to oppose them.

In a speech opposing the Segregation Project, delivered in the Senate in the winter of 1892-3, Senator Vest referred to this subject with justifiable indignation. He said:

"When those States [Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho] were territories, and not represented in the Senate, I considered it the duty of every Senator, as this Park belonged to all the people of the United States, ... to defend its integrity, and to keep it for the purposes for which it was originally designed. Since Senators have come from those States, who, of course, must be supposed to know more about that Park than those of us who live at a distance, and since they have manifested a disposition to mutilate it, I must confess that my interest in it has rather flagged, and I feel very much disposed, in plain language, to wash my hands of the whole business. If the const.i.tuencies, who are more benefited than any others can possibly be in the Park, are willing to see it cut off, the best disposition of the matter would be to turn it open to the public, let the full greed and avarice of the country have their scope, let the geysers be divided out and taken for the purpose of washing clothes, ... let the water of that splendid water-fall in the Yellowstone River be used to turn machinery, let the timber be cut off; in other words, destroy the Park, and make it a sacrifice to the greed of this advanced age in which we live."

It is only fair to say that generally these members do not personally favor the measures to which they lend official countenance and comfort. One can find a practical, if not a morally justifiable, excuse for their course in the exigencies of political life which too often constrain men to official action not in accordance with their private judgment. Unquestionably, a majority of the people of these young and enterprising states are immovably opposed to any thing which may tend to mutilate or destroy this important reservation; and it is not believed that their broader patriotism will ever be overridden by the narrow and perverted wishes of a few straggling const.i.tuencies.[BW]

[BW] The almost prophetic warning of Captain Harris in his last report as Superintendent of the Park has a peculiar force in this connection:

"In my experience in connection with this National Park, I have been very forcibly impressed with the danger to which it is subjected by the greed of private enterprise. All local influence centers in schemes whereby the Park can be used for pecuniary advantage. In the unsurpa.s.sed grandeur of its natural condition, it is the pride and glory of the nation; but if, under the guise of improvement, selfish interests are permitted to make merchandise of its wonders and beauties, it will inevitably become a by-word and a reproach."

Finally, the effect of a single evil precedent upon the future of the Park must be kept constantly in mind. The door once opened, though by never so small a degree, can not again be closed; but will sooner or later be thrown wide open. A privilege granted to one can not be denied to another. If one corner of the Park is cut off, other portions will share the same fate. If one railroad is granted a right of way across the reservation, another can not be refused. The only way to avoid these dangers is to keep the door entirely closed.

There is now but little real need of further positive legislation.

Some provision should of course be made for an adequate police force, and ample means should be provided to perfect the system of roads.

Happily this duty involves no appreciable burden. It requires no continuing outlay to "beautify and adorn." And when it is done, the further policy of the government toward the Park should be strictly negative, designed solely to preserve it unimpaired, as its founders intended, for the "benefit and enjoyment" of succeeding generations.

APPENDIX A.

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES IN THE YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK.

I.

INTRODUCTORY.

In common experience, the importance of geographical names lies in their use as a means of identification. To describe an object there must be a name, and for this purpose one name is as good as another.

But if the reason be sought why a particular name happened to be selected, it will generally be found to arise, not from this practical necessity, but from some primary fact or tradition, or from some distinguished character, in the annals of the community where it occurs. In its mountains and valleys, its lakes and streams, and in its civil divisions, the cradle history of a country may always be found recorded.

In newly-discovered countries, the naming of geographical features is the dearest prerogative of the explorer, as it is also the one most liable to abuse from personal vanity or egotism. The desire to attach his name, or those of his personal friends, to the prominent landmarks of the globe, where the eye of posterity may never escape them, is a weakness from which no discoverer has yet shown himself free.

In a region like the Yellowstone National Park, destined for all time to be a resort for the lovers of science and pleasure, this temptation was quite irresistible; so much so, that, when the expeditions of 1870 and 1871 left the field, they left little worth naming behind them.

And yet the honor thus gained has not, we venture to say, been all that its votaries desired. Small is the number of tourists who stop to inquire for whom Mary Lake, DeLacy Creek, or Stevenson Island was named. Fewer still are aware that Mt. Everts was _not_ christened in honor of a distinguished American statesman of similar name, but in commemoration of one of the most thrilling individual experiences in American history. So with all these personal names. The lively satisfaction with which they were given finds no counterpart in the languid indifference with which the modern visitor mechanically repeats them.

In as much as it fell to the lot of the United States Geological Survey to originate a great many of the names in our western geography, it is interesting to know from official sources the principles which governed in this important work. Writing upon this point, Dr. Hayden says:[BX]

"In attaching names to the many mountain peaks, new streams, and other geographical localities, the discovery of which falls to the pleasant lot of the explorer in the untrodden wilds of the West, I have followed the rigid law of priority, and given the one by which they have been generally known among the people of the country, whether whites or Indians; but if, as is often the case, no suitable descriptive name can be secured from the surroundings, a personal one may then be attached, and the names of eminent men who have identified themselves with the great cause, either in the fields of science or legislation, naturally rise first in the mind."

[BX] Page 8, Fifth Annual Report of Dr. Hayden.

In the more recent and thorough survey of the Park by the United States Geological Survey, it became necessary to provide names for those subordinate features which, in a less restricted field, the early explorers had thought unworthy of notice. Professor Arnold Hague, upon whom this work has princ.i.p.ally fallen, thus states the rule which he has followed:[BY]

"In consultation with Mr. Henry Gannett, geologist in charge of geography, it was agreed that the necessary new names to designate the unnamed mountains, valleys, and streams should be mainly selected from the beasts, birds, fishes, trees, flowers, and minerals found within the Park or the adjacent country."

[BY] Page 152, Part I, Annual Report United States Geological Survey for year ending June 30, 1887.

The christening of the hot springs and geysers of the Park has been singularly fortunate. The names are in all cases characteristic. They are not studied efforts, but are simply the spontaneous utterances from first impressions by those who had never seen, and had heard but little of, similar phenomena. It is doubtful if the most careful study could improve them, and tourists will agree with General Poe who referred as follows to this subject when he visited the Park in 1877:[BZ]

"The region of these geysers has been rightly named Fire Hole, and one almost wonders that in this country, where the tendency is to name natural objects after men who have a temporary prominence, this interesting place and its a.s.semblage of wonders should have so completely escaped, and in general and in particular received names so very appropriate."

[BZ] Page 79, "Inspection made in the Summer of 1877, etc." See Appendix E.

In the race for the geographical honors of the Park, the prize fell neither to the United States Geological Survey nor even to Colonel Norris, though each was a close compet.i.tor. It was won by that mythical potentate of whose sulphurous empire this region is thought by some to be simply an outlying province. Starting with "Colter's h.e.l.l," the list grew until it contained "h.e.l.l Roaring Creek," "h.e.l.l Broth Springs," "h.e.l.l's Half Acre," "Satan's Arbor," and the Devil's "Den," "Workshop," "Kitchen," "Stairway," "Slide," "Caldron," "Punch Bowl," "Frying Pan," "Well," "Elbow," "Thumb," "Inkstand," etc., etc.

It is some satisfaction to know that this rude and fiery nomenclature is gradually falling into disuse.

In a measure from sympathy with the purpose of the early name-givers, and to help those who take an interest in such matters to know when, by whom, and why the geographical names of the Park were given, a complete list of these names, with a few from adjacent territory, has been prepared. The letters and numbers immediately after the names (except those in parentheses) give marginal references on the map to facilitate identification. The date of christening and the name of the christening party next follow. When these can not now be determined with precision, the work is credited to the authors of the map upon which they first appear. Next comes whatever account is discoverable of the origin of the names, authority being quoted, as far as possible, from the writings of whoever bestowed them. Wherever an object was named from some natural characteristic, as its form, color, composition, or other peculiarity, or from the birds, beasts, fishes, insects, trees, flowers, shrubs or minerals of the Park, the single word "characteristic" denotes the fact. The abbreviation "U. S. G. S."

is for "United States Geological Survey."