218 Patterson Stepped In, Using the Occasion Not So Much to Contest The

218

Patterson stepped in, using the occasion not so much to contest the in- crease as to complain about the evils of federal interference in the lives and affairs of Colorado ' s pioneer class . "As I have said, " said Patterson,

"we believe in forest reserves ,

but those who are thrusting them upon us are the representatives of

states that have grown into mighty empires •••• If our mountain

states were like them , we would not complain. But, like the senators

from states whose limit has perhaps been reached, we might if we were

not too broad for such littleness, attempt to foist an unwelcome and

distasteful system upon weaker states ••• • I protest, in common

with the people of the state I represent, that under the so- called

forest reserve system we do not want more than a fifth of our state

taken from the people and turned into a federal preserve .48

Pinchot received his request for expanded appropriations . But even so, the westerners were not disappointed. Again they--Patterson and others- -had made their point. Now , sparring and probing aside, they a1::andoned Pinchot and went after Roosevelt himself. On February 23, Senator Charles 4ui ton of Oregon moved an amendment to the appropriation bill providing that

hereafter no forest reserve shall be created, nor shall any addition

be made , to one heretofore created, within the limits of the states

of Oregon, Washington, Idaho , Montana , Colorado, or Wyoming , except

by an act of Congress.49

It was a stunning move . If enacted into law it promised to virtually destroy the progress of the conservation movement in America. The insurgents were 219 jubilant; for his part, the bullish Patterson said that

that amendment we are heartily in favor of, for we do not want any

more forest reserves in Colorado • •• • So indignant tod3.y are the

people of the western portion of the state I represent about the

administration of forest reserves that they are in a state of rebellion.50

So, in a sense, was the Senate . After a bitter del:ate amidst loud western

threats to filibuster to reduce reserves already created, conservationist

senators capitulated to the insurgents1 the Senate passed the amendment and

the bill . The House concurred on March 4, 1907, and the Agricultural Approp-

riation Act went to the White House to await the President' s signature .

The insurgents savored their moment of victory .

While anti-conservation zealots throughout the West celebrated the

passage of the Appropriations Act, Roosevelt intently pondered his next

move . He wast ed little t i me ; no sooner had Congress passed the bill than

he and Pinchot "almost gleefully" devised a plan to outflank the insurgents and neutralize the crippling effects of the Fulton Amendment . 51 On March

4 and 5, while the insurgent West impatiently awaited his signature, Roose- velt and Pinchot plotted an eleventh- hour withdrawal {r seventeen million acres of timberland in the Rocky Mountain West. On the morning of March 5 ./ Roosevelt dramatically proclaimed the creation of twenty- one new national

forests in six western states (Colorado excluded) . Four days later he signed

the Appropriation Act. The "Midnight Reserves" left the Wes t mute. When the shock wore off, as Roosevelt later recorded in his autobiography, "the opponents of the For-

est Service turned handsprings in their wrath>"52 but for a fleeting moment 220 the West was too stunned to react , Both then and later, Colorado ' s response to the President ' s action was surprisingly mild--but only because none of the reserves had been created in Colorado (although large additions were made to t he Holy Cross , Uncompahgre , Park Range , Montezuma , Medicine

Bow , and San Juan reservations) . Nevertheless, Colorado insurgents display- ed their disgust--most of it aimed directly at the President himself . One

Col orado Republ ican wrote t o Governor Buchtel s "Now mind you , I am a strong

Roosevelt man , but he does get off on some things, and one of them is this fool forest reserve syst em . 11 53 Even the Denver Republ ican, which had supported Roosevelt through some of the most chaotic years in Colorado ' s history, ruefully admitted that 'the withdrawals • • • looked a little like disr egard of the congressional will." It was well and good to es tablish reserves , said the Republican, as it always had, but it added, resentfully, that "the people of the Ro cky Mountains are quite as well able as an official Wash- ington bureau to determine where a reserve is needed . 11 54 Characteristical ly, the abrasive Steamboat Pilot editorialized that

it is remarkable that with a boasted "Western man" for President the

land policy of the present administration has been the most burdensome

and restrictive in all the hist ory of the public lands . The whole

theory of the ( government] is that every settler is going to rob the

government •••• And then the precedent is set that the public lands

are to be disposed of ••• dependent on the whi m of the chief faddist

in the Agriculture Department (PinchotJ •••• Very few of the auto-

cratic monarchs of the world would so dare to set aside the will of the

people this way .55

So another crisis came . And passed. For the conservationists, for the 221 government, the moment--no matter how beclouded by protest--was one of victory. For the tired insurgents it was one of defeat . And it had .'a numbing effect. Wearily, in a half-humorous vein, the Denver Field and Farm _com- plained in March, 1907, that if the President continued to "nationalize" the land of the United States in the future as he had in the past, soon the only burial grounds left in the nation would be on the forest reserves.

Then the old cowboy song would have to be changed to

Bury me not on the range,

Where the taxed cattle are roaming,

And the mangy coyotes yelp and lark,

And the wind in the pines is moaning;

On the forest reserve please bury me not,

For I never would then be free;

A forest ranger would dig me up In order to collect his fee.56

Despair, though, did not mean retreat. Speaking for insurgent pioneers all over Colorado, the Denver Record-Stockman grimly vowed _that there would be no retreat. As long as federal authorities sat in Washington and v dictated "rules and regulations that set at naught the statutes of the states," it warned, the West would "fight to the end. 11 57

A condition of revolt. A state of rebellion. The conservation wars were not over. They had just begun. CHAPTER VIII WATERSHED

In the riotous spring of 1907, the Colorado state legislature stepped into the conservation maelstrom.

For too many years, throughout the entire course of the conservation movement in the West, the legislature had ignored the struggle. It had de- 1:a.ted and passed its own laws; it had attended to its own business; and it had sought no confrontations over the question of conservation. But throughout fifteen years of strife it became more and more difficult to look away; and by the early months of 1907 it was impossible. The fact was undeniable 1 the state of Colorado was engaged in a corrosive quasi-civil war with the government of the United States. And under such circumstances, the state was no longer operable. Deeply concerned by what it saw--the debilitating social and economic effects of the conservation 1:a.ttle, the rising militance of citizen groups, the inexorable drift toward anarchy--the legislature resolved to act. v:' On March 20, 1907, Colorado state Sena.tor Rodney Bardwell introduced into the legislature a resolution calling for a meeting of western states and federal officials in Denver to discuss the topic of conservation. Pre- dictably, the Bardwell resolution singled out the government and its reserves as the source of all the trouble. "Assuming all the rights of a private landowner," it asserted, the government had "undertaken the active administration of the lands composing the forest reserves," callously and illegally "utilizing them for the benefit of the government" at the expense v' of the people. After withdrawing from entry a quarter of the total area of 223 of Colorado for needless forest reserves, the government had disregarded its "implied obligations" to the state by

entering into active possession of these lands, with the expressed

determination of developing their resources for the benefit of the

general government, thus depriving the state and its citizens of the

benefits which would accrue from the use of these lands in the man-

ner established by custom and practice in the older states, and, in

addition, engaging in business in competition with our citizens.

With that indictment, the resolution concluded that

the action of the Federal Government in thus usurping the rights of

the states and its citizens to develop and acquire title to these

public lands and to utilize {their] resources •• • as part of the

assets of the state, we believe to be contrary to the spirit and the

letter of the act of Congress creating the state of Colorado.1

The Senate passed the resolution with only two dissenting votes.

While the Colorado House approved of the content of the Bardwell resolution, it recoiled at its tone; before it approved it, it greatly soft- ened its text. When the amended version was returned to the Senate, it was flatly rejected. The upper council, traditionally more militant than the House on conservation matters, apparently planned to settle for nothing less than a full-fledged condemnation of the government's conservation policies, On March 30, Representative John Lawrence of Saguache, a hotbed of in- surgency for a decade, introduced a substitute resolution calling--in ra- tional terms--for a meeting of western states and federal officials 224 for the purpose of discussing the relation of the states to the pub-

lic lands, and, if possible, agree upon some policy in regard to these lands to be urged upon the general government, that will look

toward a more rapid settlement by citizens ••••2

On the same day it was introduced, the resolution was unanimously adopted by both the House and Senate, and was signed on April 1 • On April 27 the call for a public lands ~ onvention was formally issued by Governor Buchtel, The place would be Denver and the time June.

The Official Call, coming as it did at a time of extreme ferment in Colorado and the rest of the West, clearly mirrored the thoughts of the insurgent picmeers . At issue, according to the Call, was every conservation program ever created, every rule, every tax, every ranger, every move toward leasing; but the pioneers' preoccupation, as it had been from the very beginning of the conservation conflict, was the forest reserve cardinal insurgent system itself. The complaint was, as it always had been, that widespread federal control of land within the boundaries o:f sovereign states was unjust and immoral, and that the spreading of any such system wbibh would

hinder the development and acquirement of title to these lands by citizens or the adoption of a policy contrary to that which has recognized the right of the state to encourage settlement and development under the

existing laws, might prove disastrous to the prosperity of this section of the country . 3

Hopefully, the legislature reasoned, the convention would provide redress for this and all the other conservation probl.ems. But others feared that a convention would o.nly provide an insurgent' catharsis. · After reading 225 the Call, conservationist-rancher J, B, Killian of Del ta deplored Governor Buchtel's "lack of knowledge on the subject," and expressed surprise that "a man of his intelligence would send an;ything like that (invitation] to the federal government, 114

The convention's "programme committee," cha.ired by Henry Teller (and composed ot two delegates--including, with Teller, Colorado insurgent Robert Bon;ynge--from each state), issued an Address of the Programme Committee Out- lining the Object of the Meeting on May 29 , The major questions the westerners wanted dealt with at the convention were poseds Did the federal government possess "the constitutional right to hold the public lands within v the borders of a new state in perpetual ownership and under municipal sovereignty without the consent of the state?" When the new states were admitted to the Union in the nineteenth century with all the rights and privileges of the older states, "did not the agreement include the right to acquire the public lands for its citizens under the laws of the United States?" Given the fact that the withdrawal of large tracts of western public lands had been ma.de as a "public necessity," did a "public necessity, " in fact, exist? Did the federal government possess the "constitutional capacity" to uenga.ge in merchandising timber and coal in competition with the citizens of the states?" If the general government did possess the constitutional power to

"embark on an extensive and monopolistic scale in the development and merchandising of the resources of the public lands," was such action in the interests of "the progress and development of the states?" Finally, would the leasing system, if enacted, "retard the settlement, development, and gradual absorption of the public lands into private ownership'? 11 5 The insurgents--and, indeed, many moderates--were determined that, once and for all, the government would issue answers to these questions, 226 As the convention's format slowly took shape, the problem of "pa.eking" confronted both the insurgents and their opponents. According to the orig- inal Call, each state was allowed ten official delegates; beyond that, each chamber of commerce, board of trade, real estate exchange, commercial group, or association of stockmen, lumbermen, foresters, horticulturists, or irrigationists was allowed five delegates apiece. Maintaining a b:l.lance between pro- and anti-conservation delegates was, at best, difficult; with seating arrangements largely in the hands of the convention's insurgent organizers, cries of "rigging" inevitably arose from the conservationists' camp. Throughout the spring the conservationists angrily charged that, instead of planning an open forum on conservation in Denver, the insurgents were plotting to turn the convention into a sounding board for their protest.

The theme was first sounded by the Denver Republican. "There will be a hot time in Denver when the public lands convention gets to work," it predicted; "information has reached Washington that the enemies of the government's public land policies have 'rigged' the convention preparatory to making a bitter attack on President Roosevelt. 11 6 Singled out for blame was Teller's program committee. Although it was composed from men from both conservationist and anti-conservationist factions, the Republican claimed that most of its (considerable) power had been purposely vested in the hands of Teller, Frank Mondell and Clarence Clark of Wyoming, and Charles Fulton of Oregon-- all powerful insurgent senators and all bitter foes of Roosevelt. Picking up the"rigging"theme, the Denver Post mused that an irresponsible b:l.nd of insurgent Colora.dans--led by a handful of cattlemen--seemed bent on turning the convention into a "sideshow" to emb:l.rra.ss the President.? And the pro- conservation Montrose Press agreed that the sole objective of the insurgents 227 was to "make the convention a point of attack on President Roosevelt's land policies.118 Teller brusquely denied all charges. Pointing out that the convention had been authorized by a Republican legislature, called by a Republican governor, and approved of by a number of other western governors, he hinted t hat t he administration's rigging charges were a smokescreen sent up to discredit

in advance the inevitable criticism of "the rather remarkable policy"--cie- - veloped by Roosevelt and his conservationist allies-~which would take place in Denver.9

Cries of packing, however, persisted up to convention time.

Real or imagined, the insurgents' activities worried the conservat ion- ists and pr esented the administration with a dilemma. Ideally, with little to gain and a great deal to lose, Roosevelt would have preferred to ignore the convention entirely~ but he well realized that such non- action would constitute,. in western eyes, tangible proof either that he westerners was callous about western problems--as many\nad cnarged all along--or that he was afraid to meet them face to face. On the other hand, the Pres- ident realized that if he did acknowledge the importance of the convention, if he dispatched his best men to defend his land policies at it, then if those policies were repudiated, the result would : cripple the prestige of the conservation program .forever. After long and earnest consultation with Forest Service agents and conservationist friends in Colorado and after carefully digesting and analyzing the comments of the western press in the weeks before the convention, Roosevelt came to a de- cision. The convention and its importance were acknowledged and a powerful federal task force was sent to defend the Roosevelt policies, to confront the insurgents on their own ground ;',~hiscredit them, and break the l:Rck of 228 10 their movement for good, Because the whole strategy depended on a massive, resolute show of strength, the conservationists immediately began maneuver-

ing "friends" of the administration into convention seats, Packing came to counter-packing; it was the insurgents' turn to cry foul,

Teller was the first to question the motives of the "small army of representatives" that Roosevelt sent to Denver to "plead his case before

the convention. 1111 But the anti-conservation press was more savage than

Teller in its charges, The intemperate Gunnison News-Champion cynically wrote that,

fearing that the coming convention will criticize the administration's Russian policy for the West, the administration supporters are strain-

ing every nerve t o control it. However, the sentiment among men of all parties is so overwhelmingly against a policy of landlordism, ex- ploitation, special privilege, arbitrary checking of agricultural and mining development, of considering every western man a thief, of car-

petl:ag government, that there is every indication the convention will administer a severe rebuke to the President's ill-advised policy any- way,12

The Glenwood Avalanche-Echo warned the insurgents that

Teddy and Pinchot are now packing this convention. Unless the stockmen stand solidly together, their wishes will never be aired and the purpose of this convention will be thwarted •••• In fact, the Wash- ington gang is going to try hard to turn the convention into a political meeting . They know their case is hopeless if they give the stockmen a square dea1,13 229 The skeptical Eagle County Blade worried that ''while the representatives

of the West will rent the hall and pay for it, it looks like the convention

will be dominated by federal officeholders who will dictate its expressions and make its records.1114 When an ex-forest reserve supervisor--a member

of the convention's credentials committee--was caught attempting to infil-

trate the vital resolutions committee with "government agents, 111 5 the insurgents' fears appeared at least partially founded.

Throughout the uproar, conservationist charges to the contrary, one

hard fact remained beyond dispute, Colorado's official delegation was not /

dominated by the insurgents. The delegation--four active conservationists,

three insurgents, and three "neutrals," all appointed by a Republican gov-

ernor--graphically reflected the ideological schism that had racked the

state for fifteen years. Conservationists included Jared 1 :' Brush from

Greeley, a lifelong Republican wheelhorse; Earl M. Cranston, Republican

United States District Attorney from Denver; and Republican politicos

Frank McDonough and William H. Dickson, both of Denver. Insurgent spokes-

men included Charles D. Hayt of Denver, a Republican judge; R. G. Brecken-

ridge of Monte Vista, Republican Speaker of the Colorado House of Represen- tatives; and D. C. Beaman of Denver, a Republican and chief attorney for the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation. The neutrals were Frank Goudy, a Rep-

ublican lawYer vehemently opposed to leasing, yet tolerant of forest

reserves (and destined to emerge in future years as one of the staunchest

champions of conservation that Colorado would ever see); John F. Vivian of

Golden, Republican Register of the State Land Board; and E. R. Harper,

Republican Lieutenant Governor of Colorado.16 The delegation, said Buchtel,

was representative and 1:Rlanced. Its activities, he added, would be com-

pletely apolitical as there was "too much at stake" for bickering.17 230 Pointing to the delegation with its preponderance of Republicans and

its tilt toward the conservationists, Colorado insurgents asked an intrig-

uing question of their critics1 if they could not control the official

delegation of their own state, how could it be charged that they control-

led the delegations from other states? The conservationists ma.de no reply, Colorado Not only did the official\delegation neutralize the power of Colorado

./ insurgents, but a substantial number of unofficial state _ groups stood

solidly against them too , From Pueblo and Colorado Springs; from the

Grand Junction-Montrose-Delta axis; from the northwest and the Great Plains,

a suprising number of cattlemen and settlers mustered to defend the Roose-

velt policies, In interviews with the Yampa Leader, a small l:and of stock-

men from Burns, Wolcott, and McCoy near the White River and Holy Cross Re-

serves vowed to stop insurgent cattlemen who had "indulged in a lot of fool-

ishness" by defying the administration,18 And the entire Colorado Springs

contingent sternly promised the insurgents a "clash" if they tried to"con-

trol the convention with an anti-Roosevelt policy , 111 9 Speaking the feelings

of the moderate conservationists, the Aspen Democrat warned the insurgents

that in their zeal to seek "radical changes" in federal land policy they

should beware to steer clear of radicalism themselves--for their own good,20

The convention, said the Denver Republican, should be "fair" in its deal-

ings with conservation, and

should not be unduly magnified into a scheme to bring the Washington

administration into disrepute over its land policy, • • • If the policy is wrong, it will be corrected; but. , , if it is shown to be wise,

it (should) be approved.21

obyiously; If the insurgents possessed any strength, it\ lay not in the control of 231 Colorado's official delegation, but in the mobilization of scores of unofficial delegations from throughout the state and the rest of the West,

If some Colorado delegations were pro-conservation, most were not; most And viewed the Denver meeting in terms of thrashing Roosevelt. i f the conservationists saw in their actions a vendetta., they were not far wrong, In the weeks before the convention, stockmen's organizations which had unleash- ed waves of protest and discord in the spring made no attempt to hide their hostility--or what they intended to do at Denver, In one newspaper interview, White River rancher Patrick Heron stated his determination to protest against local rangers who had forced him to pay his grazing fees at a time when his wife was ill and his child dying. Three other irate White River cattlemen--G, W, Beardslee, Patrick Sullivan, and Thomas Moran--prepared to protest that they had been forced into paying grazing taxes on the White

River whether they ran cattle on it or not, They claimed that rangers had threatened them with arrest if they went to Denver to protest--but that they would go under any circumstances, 22 William Eggleston and Dr. Edward Sirois, both of Denver, planned to convince the convention, as Sirois stated it in an interview, that

a trust under the Forester is no better than under a Rockefeller, All

the good friends of the West ought to take a stand against the present

system, which is radically wrong, opposed to the welfare of the western states, paralyzing all progress here, and causing so much evil and hardship,23

From all over western Colorado conventioneers shared the same feeling; as one insurgent newspaper grandly stated it, hundreds of men who had "the same blood surging through their veins that inspired their forefathers of '76 232 to stand up and fight for their rights" planned to stand up and fight for

their rights in the summer of 1907.24

At the Altany Hotel on the warm summer evening of June 17, twelve

hours before the convention was to begin, Colorado insurgents made their

move to galvanize all of the state's five hundred delegates (out of a con-

vention total of 861) into a single, cohesive, anti-administration body.

Predictably, they failed; their hope to present a solid front against fed-

V eral administrators was utterly unattainable in a state where factionalism

ran deep and conservation sentiment was splintered beyond consensus. The

night caucus produced only a brief, bitter power struggle during which the

insurgents were unable to drag other delegations into line. On convention

day the Coloradans were as divided as they had ever been before. If, as

their opponents charged, the insurgents had tried to pack the convention, they had f ailed dismally .

In a flurry of excitement and innuendo, the Denver Public Lands Con-

vention was gavelled to order at the Broadway Theater on the morning of

June 18, 1907. It was apparent from the first that the anti-conservation-

ists were in control, that they would dominate. As nearly a thousand dele-

gates massed in the June heat for the great detate, the Denver Republican

noted the strength of the insurgents--particularly those from Colorado--

and. predicted that "it is almost certain that politics will crop up early

in the proceedings •••• A certain element from the Western Slope (of Colo-

rado) seems determined to stir up trouble." But, the Republican warned,

administration spokesmen were prepared "to do hot "battle in defense of the

position of the administration.1125 The newspaper was right on both counts,

the insurgents stirred up trouble, and Roosevelt ' s men fought "back fiercely . 233 On the convention's opening day both the anti-conservationist and administration forces carefully and emphatically stated their cases. Follow- ing an introductory address by Colorado Governor Buchtel, suggesting that the limits of conservation needed to be reduced in the West, and that "an easy method of taking up lands" had to be initiated, 1126 serious sparring began. The insurgents took the podium first. In a stirring keynote address, Senator Thomas H. Carter of Montana. brought "yells of approval from the large crowd" in exhorting it to actions "If the people of this country are to be held in terror," cried the Senator, "now is the time to resent it.1127 The administration countered Carter with Secretary of Interior James A. Garfield. In a thoughtful, broad-ranging address deftly touching every point of the conservation controversy, Garfield outlined the government's position and virtually defied the insurgents to attack it. On that note the morning session ended. On the afternoon of June 18 Commissioner of the General Land Office

Richard A. Ballinger pursued the theme initiated by Garfield. As he began his address the insurgents listened in hopeful silence; as a western- er, Ballinger was one of them. As a historian has said,

like a good many other citizens he was a little scornful of the conservation zealots, and remained closer to the old school of thought

which was not yet ready to endorse the growing opinion that conser-

vation was almost a matter of life and death to the nation •••• As between the forces seeking to develop the West and those working for the preservation of the natural resources, his heart was with the

former.28

Because of this, his speech was a surprise, declaring to the stunned anti- 234 conservationists that, "as a Western man," he stood ready to "challenge at all times ••• any assertion that the President of the United States is not in hearty accord with the best interests of the citizens of the

Great West, 1129 he clearly emphasized his belief that the public lands had to be protected at any cost. "The clamor against government vigilance," he concluded,

comes not from the settler who wants to secure a home •••• It comes from those who are enflamed with a speculative lust for

the great natural resources of mountain, forest, and plain.JO

Except for a few scattered, muted cheers, the address was received in stony silence.

Pale and agitated, Henry Teller strode to the stage for the afternoon's major address;aWi.th it, the tide perceptibly began to turn in favor of the insurgents. In a long, sometimes eloquent, sometimes dema- gogic address, "frequently interrupted with vociferous cheers" from the crowd, the magnetic, silver-haired Coloradan set forth the insurgent case. On the main theme of western land and its settlement, Teller contended, as he had for three decades, that

the chief desire should always be to get the unoccupied land into the hands of men who want to live upon it •••• There is no glory in following the plow unless a man follows it on his own land. It is our duty to see that every man gets his land and that it is not tied

up by the government.

Ripping into forest reserves, he argued vehemently that no timberland had 235 ever been destroyed in Colorado but what "the timber did not go to the

benefit of the people." Pounding a fist savagely on the podium, Teller

shouted that

I am not vecy much in favor of forest reserves •••• We cannot re-

main l:arl:arians to save timber. I do not contend that the govern-

ment has the right to seize the land, but I do contend that we have

the right to put it to the use that Almighty God intended.

' The wealth of this state," he rasped, "belongs to the people here and not

the federal government. If we utilize all our opportunities and get all / the wealth there is in it, we are entitled to it. 11 31

Teller correctly gauged the mood of most of the delegates in speaking

as he did. The Denver Republican commented uneasily that the Senator had

"struck a popular chord, and was cheered and applauded ••• in his attack"

on conservation.32

On June 19 the convention braced for another stormy session. At dawn

the city awoke to l:anner headlines on Thomas Patterson's Rocky Mountain

News calling for the convention to "Oppose Uncle Sam As Landlord," and de-

manding a crushing "Stamp of Disapproval For Roosevelt Land Policy." In the News 32 bold type ~ trmitpeted Teller's famous ccy, "Are Men Not Better Than Trees?"

At the same time the Denver Post eloquently editorialized that the people

of Colorado

must have freedom. We must have our colossal lands and waters. We

must have room for many millions, but the room must not be closed up

and bricked up by National policy. The genius of growth must not be

buried alive, in a wall, by the federal government •••• We are not 236 a colony or a dependency or a reserve territory; we are a sovereign

state, and we want to people our lands and use our waters and open

our mineral fields .!!Q.!:!134

The insurgents also renewed their charges of packing. The News, for one, steadfastly maintained that "the entire army of land registers and clerks, forest outriders and all manner of government officials and local officeholders" was "in the game," as delegates, to subvert the "people's" cause.3.5

In an atmosphere of increasing bitterness the delegates were seated again.

Following a blistering anti-forest reserve speech by United States

Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana, the insurgents sent to the podium Robert

Bonynge, United States Representative from Denver, and Ethelbert Ward,

Denver lawyer and member of the executive committee of the powerful Colorado

Cattle and Horse Growers Association. In an unemotional, legalistic dis- section of the conservation problem, Ward conceded that the Congress did possess the power to pass conservation laws, but only if consented to by the states involved in them, only if state sovereignty was not impaired by them, only if they did not abridge state laws, and only if they did not result in the discouraganentaf homesteading.36 Bonynge followed with a brief lllQSt of address along the same line, but he saved\ his invective for another day. Administration forces quickly responded with General Irving Hale, a leader of the influential Colorado State Forestry Association. Four months before the convention Hale had published a major conservation article in a state magazine lamenting the fact that "Colorado's glory of the forest" was "fast becoming a glory that was past." But, he had written, the "havoc" could still be "checked and the forests partially restored by the Government forest reserve policy (another diadem in the Roosevelt crown) •11 37 To the 237 convention, Hale passionately repeated his contention that only Roosevelt

could save the West from itself.38 He may have been right . But he was

coldly received at the Broadway Theater.

Meanwhile, packing charges reached their peak. Administration sup-

porters, who for months had belabored the insurgents with vague charges of rigging the convention, now claimed, specifically, that the Teller coterie

had manipulated the crucial credentials committee . Angrily they accused the

committee of seating only delegates (mostly Colorado and Wyo- ming cattlemen) antagonistic to conservation. The charges were difficult for the insurgents to refute . By the convention's second day the committee had accredited 386 delegates from Colorado and 145 from Wyoming, while vir-

tually ignoring pro-conservation states (Nebraska, for ex.ample, had only two delegates admitted, and South Dakota and Washington had three apiece) . The

conservationists knew what the insurgents were about1 when time came to vote on resolutions, those opposing federal land policies would carry the day , They resolved that it could not be allowed to happen.

Throughout the hot afternoon of June 19, the conservationists angrily

challenged the insurgents in a series of confrontations on the convention floor . After a heated debate, punctuated by a brief, fist-swinging melee

on the convention floor, delegate totals were revised; Colorado ' s delegation was increased to 513 and Wyoming ' s to 178--but, at the same time, delegations from pro-conservation states were increased proportionately even more

(Nebraska ' s delegation, for ex.ample, was raised to thirty-three, South

Dakota's to twenty-six, and Washington's to fifteen) . 39 Arguments over ac-

creditation ceased, but open hostility lingered. The antagonists stood further apart than ever before. And neither side moved to repair the breach.

On June 20, when the delegates massed for the final day of the conven- 238 tion, the anti-conservationists still appeared in command of the proceed-

ingsJ despite the ugly clash over the seating of delegates, they them-

selves believed that their movement had crested, The Gunnison News-Champ-

ion happily wrote that, at that point, "men of all parties" seemed to be

"well-nigh unanimous in condemnation of the policies of Roosevelt and Pin-

chot--a surprising and gratifying fact,"40 The Saguache Crescent added

that the convention, which had been "conceived and planned on a square deal," and at which the West had had "no undue advantage," had gone exceed-

ingly well; conservation questions had been "fairly and freely discussed," and the westerners had won many converts to their cause,41 The Denver Re-

publican could only growl that federal representatives "had sat for two

days through a grilling, •• couched in, •• intemperate language" and totally lacking in decency,42

The convention's last major addres;; was given by Gifford Pinchot on the

morning of June 20, Url:ane, even elegant in his patrician way, confident and

unruffled by a smattering of catcalls which drifted::. across the convention

floor, the Forester strode to the stage and confronted the assembly, One historian has recorded the moment, Surveying the crowd, Pinchot quipped,

"If you fellows can stand me, I can stand you," and the anger of many

of his listeners seeped away in laughter •••• His speech was a plain-

ly worded explanation of the government's aims in public land policy, spiced with homely allus ions and studded with facts that revealed his intimate knowledge of Western problems.43

Pinchot's central theme was the forest reserves and their value to the

nation& "They don't retard development, " he said, "they prolong it." On

the explosive subject of the grazing tax, he explained, as he had before, 239 that "we are going to give the small man in the grazing proposition the best of it every time . " And in response to accusations of arrogance and

"power-grabbing" hurled at him then in the past, Pinchot replied, quietly, that he resented them "with every fiber of my being . " Paus i ng for a moment, he looked intently at the assembly. "Speak to your people, " he said, in a voice ta.rely audible, "that they may go forward."¼

The Forester left the stage, shaking hands with a few friends, and strode, unsmiltng, tack to his seat. The assembly sat, largely silent.

A f·ew mumurs . wer e heard. But, largely, the theater was silent. As it had in the past, Pinchot's quiet elegance had simply overwhelmed many of his insurgent detractors. As historian Elmo Richardson has written,

"his assurance had made a lasting impression. When he finished, his bold- ness, reasonableness , and good humor had effectively destroyed the black image which Westerners had of him. 1145 At least in some cases it had. In others it decidedly had not.

Within minutes a group of insurgent leaders, led by Robert Bonynge,

.was on the fl.oor attacking Pinchot and his speech. With almost startl i ng

passioh

from the rostrum and floor, states rights doctrines were proclaimed,

tales of oppression were told, and the worst possible motives were

attributed to the Roosevelt men . Every uncomplimentary reference to

Pinchot ••• was greeted with yells of delight .46

Bonynge led the way , picking Pinchot' s arguments apart ·piece by piece . For t he insurgents it was the convention' s single greatest moment . Looking tack on the incident from a few days later, the Basalt Journal, like others, savored the congressman's attacks on Pinchot, "whose popularity was lowered sev- 240 eral degrees when Bonynge was finished with him, 1147 The conservationists, on the other hand, were repelled, The Pueblo Chieftain, in a biting anti- insurgent editorial, scored Bonynge for falling in "with those who are seeking to eml:Rrrass or check the federal government,1148 Bonynge was followed to the_floor by tu,· final speakerss John.. Shafroth and Thomas Patterson.

Sha.froth was relatively gentle. "I recognize the work Mr, Pinchot has done for all of us," he said, "but I think the people who live here know better than he what needs to be done , " The choleric Patterson was not so kind,

He ended the morning's session with a searing attack on forest reserves (a problem which one newspaper reported "loomed before his eyes like the yel- low peril 11 ) and grazing fees, which he branded "a rank assumption of government power, 11 49 With two days of conflict behind it, the convention prepared, next, to do rattle over the resolutions, On the afternoon of June 20 the convention reached its most critical junctures the presentation of resolutions on the land policies of the fed- ·/ eral government, As reported by the resolutions committee (which was not and had not .been under the domination of Colorado insurgents), the resolutions included several crucial, highly controversial provisions, Section two stated that

the people of the West are unalterably opposed to any change in the wholesome and beneficient policy of treating the public lands of the nation as a trust to be disposed of in all cases to actual settlers for the cultivation and the making of homes,

Section three specified that forest reserves be created only when they did not "withdraw from actual settlement land suited to settlement," 241

Section six demanded that all non-timbered lands within federal reserves be withdrawn immediately. In reference to the grazing issue, section seven stated total and complete opposition to leasing. Section eight specified that all agricultural lands contained in forest reserves be opened to homesteading. And section twelve demanded that all withdrawn coal lands be restored to entry at the earliest possible moment.SO

The reaction of the convention--moderates, conservationists, and insurgents alike--to _. the,·.proposa.ls was 6ne of absolute disbelief.

After three days of wild insurgent threats and charges, of violent taJ.k and stinging denunciations of federal land policy, the official resolutions of the convention were astonishingly, almost incredibly, mild.

They were critical and blunt; and trey did demand radical changes in federal conservation theory. But the language behind the demands was what stunned the convention, It was not intemperate, not harsh, not charged with any of the passion that had marked two decades of insurgent rhetoric; it was, instead, moderate, thoughtful, conciliatory, almost totally devoid of bitterness, almost meek , in a day and time when meekness was the last quality on earth the conservationists looked for in the insurgents. The incredulous conservationists were jubilant; the resolutions were an incredible coup, a victory beyond their wildest dreams. Hard-core insurgents, thunderstruck and dejected, warned them not to be misled by the tone of the resolutions.

Wrote the defiant Steamboat Pilots

No , Mr . President, don't let this deceive you. The West is going to

fight your grazing policy, the absurd extent of your forest reserves,

and your coal land program •••• It is useless not to fancy that the

resolutions of the convention did mean all they said and with a strong- 242 er emphasis than was given them • .51

fact But now, somehow, such defiance had a hollow ring to it. The ,~s, and the fact remained, that in the vecy heart of the insurgent West , in the midst of a convention packed with the enemies of conservation, moderation had V prevailed. The insurgents could deny it all they wanted. But it was a fact, immutable and irrefutable.

As time approached for the convention to vote on the resolutions, small tands of disgusted settlers and stockmen drifted out of Denver, through the June heat, tack to the mountains. They left behind them a tare handful of irreconcilables--an insurgent rump of Heney Teller, Thomas Patterson,

John Shafroth, Elias Ammons, and a few others--to fight the resolutions.

They made a desperate effort to alter the proposals before the vote, to make their wording stronger and their demands more emphatic. But it was useless.

They were alone and impotent. The bulk of the delegates, anti-conservationists like them and deeply in sympathy with their aims, nevertheless realized that the Roosevelt administration might listen to moderate resolutions; it would never heed radical resolutions filled with insurgent invective. In the early evening of June 20 , by a voice vote, the Denver Public Lands Con- vention resoundingly passed the resolutions. The conservationists and their administration allies breathed a sigh of relief; the result of the convention was by no means good--but it could have been worse . If moral victories counted for anything in the conservation wars , they had just won one.

Without fanfare, the convention was gavelled to a close. The delegates departed, said a California newspaper, "roaring mildly as a sucking dove . 11 52

Predictably, controversy lingered in the wake of the great Denver detate .

The most striking post-convention reaction was one of statewide revulsion over the convention and its results. The Pueblo Chieftain indignantly declared that

of all the hot air and buncombe conventions in the histocy of the West ••• the Denver Land Convention was certainly entitled to preeminence •••• The convention devel oped into a protracted struggle 243 between qome . \,Democratic politicians seeking political capital and a few range 1:arons on one side, and a few Republican officeholders on the other

•••• So far as the real sentiments of the people of the West are

concerned, the convention was a complete failure.53

Further north, the Colorado Springs Gazette (owned by Clarence P. Dodge, a close persona.l friend of Pinchot), summed up its feelings about the Den- ver affairs

Net results a fizzle. Perhaps the most regrettable thing about it is

that the impression is sent broadcast that this convention r epresents

the real attitude of the West •••• As a matter of fact, there are

far more people in the West who support the administration policy than there are those who oppose it • .54

In Denver the Denver Republican was inundated with letters deploring the actions of the insurgents. In a letter appearing on June 22 one writer stormed that anti-administration Colorad.ans--a "little 1:and of political harpies continually feeding on the good na.ture of more honorable citizens for their political prestige"--had brought "mortification" and "discredit" to the state. "How long, " he wrote,

is every gathering for the public weal to be marred by the intrusion

of these marauders? Are their devious mechanizations to be permitted

to become a running sore on every public movement launched in this

state, making the commonwealth ridiculous in the eyes of the na.tion?

This, he concluded bitterly, "is the shame that rests on Colorado. 11 55 And his sentiment was shared by many. 244 The insurgents and their press ignored the derision and loudly pro-

claimed "victory" over the Roosevelt administration. The Denver Field and

Farm brazenly editorialized that "not since the Boston Tea Party have the people of the nation come out in such open revolt against the administration of our government" and won . Despite the intimidating presence of

"presidential thimbleriggers" and "political pikers" planted in the convention by the conservationists, the insurgents had "proceeded to flay the administration alive.'' The newspaper, it sai d, was "sorry for Baron Pin- chot--his face was so red. 11 56 The Basalt Journal agreed that despite an. invidious _ · federal -_ lobby,

the overwhelming sense of the convention was against. • • any form

of governmental control and extension of the forest reserves . • • • It was the sentiment of the West and not Colorado alone that there

be a halt called on the government setting aside the balance of the

public domain.57

The Meeker Herald, a bulwark of anti-conservation sentiment in northwest

Colorado for fifteen years, insisted that- -despite the tone of the resolutions-- the convention had achieved "much good. " Roosevelt, said the

Herald, had "followed the advise of the visionary Pinchot and selfishly interested schemers long enough;" the convention would certainly force him, now , to "modify his course. 11 58 In Denver the Denver Post gloated over what it called an "unqualified" insurgent victory,

The main thing accomplished was the refreshing evidence that the

divinity which doth hedge about Theodore Roosevelt can be torn away

and the truth exposed by his fellow citizens •• •• Coldly, calmly,

with determination, the majority of the convention proceeded to carry 245 out its purpose [ of discrediting conservation] •••• Roosevelt prac-

tically is dictator in these United States. But out West in Colorado --in Denver--we solemnly met and called him down.59

Whatever their claims, and no matter how frantically they made them, though, the insurgents had called no one down at Denver-at least not con- V vincingly, and prooo.bly not with any permanence. If they had won a victory, it was hollow. More realistically, they had won nothing. Though the anti-conservationists failed to realize it--or persistently refused to admit it--two critical factors had destroyed their cause. First, the packing controversy had undermined the credibility of all of the convention's actions> its attention drawn time and again to the insurgents by in- cessant conservationist cries of packing, the wary public ultimately dismis- sed the entire convention as an abortive western conspiracy. More import- antly, it discounted the convention's resolutions--which, however moderate,

~ anti-administration--as the inevitable byproduct of that conspiracy. Whether or not the insurgents had, in fact, packed the convention, or had tried to, became academic; the public consensus--fueled by the claims of the Roosevelt administration--was that they had.60 Worse , they had gone about their work clumsily, and the administration's men had ruthlessly ex- ploited the fact. It seemed to be true, in the final analysis, that

had Pinchot himself tried to introduce a note of discord into the proceedings, he could not have been more successful than the organizers, intent upon seeing that their views be publicized as the viewpoint of the whole West .61

Seeking a mandate, the insurgents, instead, had hastened their own destruction. 246 Beyond the "packing" crisis, the insurgents had been irreparably

damaged by the mild, moderate tone of the resolutions passed by the con-

vention. What the insurgents had sought at Denver was a defiant, emphatic

declaration of western "rights" and grievances. But what they had received

was substantially less than that. The convention's resolutions, plaintive arn conciliatory, strikingly devoid of rage and resolution--and yet all

passed by western men in the heart of one of the most rabidly anti-conser-

vation states in the Union--simply did not lend credence to the insurgents'

cries of oppression. The American nation, already skeptical of western radicalism in any form--whether Populism or anti-conservationism--was not to be convinced that the West, the entire West , was resolutely united against the

Roosevelt conservation program. On the l::asis of evidence presented to it

by the Denver convention, there was no possible way to conclude that, as the

Rocky Mountain News had stated it in the past, the West was in "a condition of revolt" against the federal government. Gifford Pinchot, writing to a friend a few days after the convention, happily reported that "We had a great time and we were by no means eaten up. The resolutions were absolutely harmless. 11 62 Because they were, they--and the convention itself--had no perceptible effect either on the Roosevelt administration or the American public.

One ~uestion which haunted Colorado insurgents long after the convention had ended was why the resolutions had turned out as they had. The ob- vious answer was that they had not dominated the critical resolutions committee as they had the rest of the convention. They had fought and planned

--and prol::ably schemed--to make the convention in every sense a reflection of their radical views; but in the end they had failed, for whatever reasons, to manipulate the convention's most important committee. The result was that 247 the committee, dominated by.. a fusion of "mild anti-conservationists" and conservationists (like chairman Frank Goudy of Denver), had put together a package of resolutions that reflected their views. There was no mistake about it1 the resolutions did reflect a dissatisfaction with the existing course of conservation and they~ critical of the administration. But they were too moderate for the irreconcilables. So, rather than vote for anything less than a catagorical denunciation of the United States government, many of them defected. Leaving the fate of their movement in the hands of a rump of outmanned militants only hastened its decline , Perhaps, in an ironic way, the Denver incident illustrated something about the anti- conservation movement that should have been apparent years before1 that for a decade and a half the insurgents' main weapon had been rhetoric, not action. And when the showdown came at the Broadway Theater in June of 1907, rhetoric no longer was weapon enough.

The Denver Public Lands Convention was a watershed in the history of the conservation conflict in the American West. On one side of it lay fifteen years of insurgent dreams; and on the other side of it the dreams lay shattered. The blistering Colorado June of 1907 marked the end of an era in the history of the state, Though the anti-conservation movement was not dead, it would never be as strong, as vibrant, ever again, as it had been before,

If the pendulum had ever swung in favor of the insurgents, it now swung away, They had had their day. It would never come again. CHAPTER I

MARCHING THROUGH GEORGIA

1Rocky Mountain News, March 5, 1891.

226 Stat.~., llOJ.

JThe best accounts of the early years of the conservation movement are

contained in Roy Robbins, Our Landed Heritage, The Public Domain, 1ZZ.2,-12J§,

(New York, 1950), and Elmo Richardson, The Politics of Conservation (Berk-

eley, 1962).

4A fuller discussion of the passage of the General Revision Act may

be found in Roy Robbins , Our Landed Heritage, JOJ-304.

5Marion Clawson, Uncle Sam 's Acres (New York, 1951) , 106.

~rion Clawson and Burnell Held, The Federal Landst Their Use and

Management (Baltimore, 1957), 28.

?Robert Sterling Yard, Our Federal Lands (New York, 1928), 109.

8stewart Udall, The Quiet Crisis (New York, 1963), 101.

9James H. Baker and LeRoy R. Hafen, History of Colorado (5 Vols.,

Denver, 1927), II, ?64.

lOsecond Annual Report of the Colorado State Forestry Commissioner,

1886 (Denver, 1886), 9 .

llThe conservationists scored their biggest triumph in 1876, forcing the

inclusion of a provision in the Colorado state constitution to enact laws

to "prevent the destruction of and to keep in good preservation the forest lands of the state, or upon lands of the public domain." Not until almost a decade later, however, wet'e they able to implement their gains . In 1885 249 the office of State Forest Commissioner was created, but again the conser-

vationists were doomed to disappointments the office was rendered virtually

impotent by the state legislature which vested little power in it,to begin

with, then slowly strangled it with meager appropriations. In the spring

of 1891 the office was abolished after having achieved substantially nothing

over the course of six years.

12semi-Annual Report of the Colorado State Board of Horticulture, .!§22

(Denver, 1898), 49. 1 ~oderick Nash , The American Environments Readings in the History of

Conservation (Reading, Massachusetts, 1968), 9.

1~ederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History ( New York,

1920) , 1 .

15Ibid, , 220-221, 16 David Potter, People of Plenty (Chicago, 1954), 93. 17 J. Leonard Bates, "Fulfilling American Democracy a The Conservation

Movement , 1907-1921," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIV (1957), 42.

1~llsworth Bethel, "The Conifers or Evergreens of Colorado," Colorado

Magazine , II (January, 1925), 1- 2.

1%dgar Ensign, "Forestry in Colorado," 1885, 2. Pamphlet in files of

Colorado State Historical Society, Denver.

20Nash , The American Environment, 71 , xi.

21Ibid., 38. 22M. Nelson McGeary , Gifford Pinchota Forester-Politician (Princeton,

1960), 82 . Throughout the book two terms will be used in reference to those opposed to federal resource policiesa "anti-conservationist" and "insurgent."

The opponents of conservation, in general , called themselves "insurgents," and the term has been widely used in subsequent conservation histories. 250 2Ji.ienry Nash Smith, Virgin Land (New York, 1950), 138.

24noderi~k Nas~, Wilderness and the American Mind ( New Haven, 1967) ,

40.

25Ibid., 41-42.

26smith, Virgin Land, 138. Although Smith 's thesis applies exclus-

ively to farmers, all other pioneers--miners, cattlemen, lumbermen and so forth--certainly considered themselves no less "noble," no less important to the advance of civili?.ation, no less a part of the nation's destiny than the homesteading farmer. The "Garden," they felt, was theirs too, and they acted accordingly,

27Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (New York, 1955), 23 . Like

Henry· Nash Smith, Hofstadter's thesis revolves around the farmer, But, like that ·of Smith, his thesis ney-1::B logically expanded to include all pioneers,

28Nash, The American Environment, 3-4.

29Theodore Saloutos, in "The Agricultural Problem and Nineteenth-Century

Industrialism,• Agricultural History, XXII (July, 1948), has exhaustively discussed the case of the far:rner in this context. But the farmer was no more threatened by economic metamorphosis than any other pioneer groups.

30rn time, the break-up of Colorado Cattlemen over the 4uestion of

"conservation" will become one of the more intriguing aspects of this study.

But in 1891 their ranks were solid and their hatred of conservation overwhelming. 31Hofstadter, Age of Reform, 23 . 32Between 1876 and 1891 the legislature passed not a single conservation law. Under considerable pressure it established the office of State Forest

Commissioner in 1865, but steadfastly refused to support its goals with legislation, and finally killed it entirely, CHAP'IER II

"THIS DAMNABLE OUTRAGE"

1~ Stat ••~., 993. 2United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, "Golden Anni- versary of the White River National Forest," 4. Pamphlet in files of Uni- ted States Forest Service, Denver. Lewis R. Rist, "Historical Sketch of White River National Forest." Typescript in files of Colorado State Histor- ical Society, Denver. 3Glenwood Avalanche , November 9, 1891.

4r.etter from Dr. Charles D. Enison, Royalton, Vermont, to John L. Routt, July 11, 1891. State Archives and Records Service. Records of the

Governors John L. Routt, 1891-1893. Routt Collection, 1891 • .5r,etter from Routt to Enison, July 23, 1891. Routt Collection.

6r1eeker Herald, September 10, 1891. ?Rifle Reveille, September 24, 1891. &;1enwood Avalanche, October 23 , 1891. 9Glenwood Echo , January 3, 1891. lOGlenwood Avalanche, October 15, 1891. llunited States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, "White River National Forest," 1. Pamphlet in files of United States Forest Service,

Denver. l2ery:stal River Current, November 4, 1891 .

13:Meeker Herald, October 17, 1891. 14Rocky Mountain News , November 11, 1891. 252 l5Ibid. 16 rbid. , November 8, 1891 . 17Denver Republican, December 17, 1891 . 18Aspen Iaily Chronicle, December 17, 1891 . 19Glenwood Avalanche, November 9, 1891.

20Meeker Herald, December 24, 1891 . 21united States Geological Survey, 20th Annual Report, 1898-1.§22. (7

Vols. , Washington, 1900), V, 143. 2255th Congress , 2nd Session (1898), Senate Document 189, 117. 23united States Department of Agriculture Forest Servi ce , "Golden An- niversary of White River National Forest," 12 . 24,g.z Stat. !:•, 1006 . 25united States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, "The National

Forests of Colorado," 1928 . Pamphlet in files of United States Forest Ser- vice, Denver . 26united States Geological Survey, 1898-1§22, V, 67 .

27Ibid., 73. 2~eport of the National Academy of Sciences, ]8~? (Washington, 1898),

29_g.z Stat. !:•, 1029 . JOunited States Geological Survey , 1898-1§22, V, 75- 76 . 31Alice s . Cook, "Kreutzer Mountain, " 1958, 2. Typescript in files of the Colorado State Historical Society, Denver . 32Rocky Mountain News , November 16, 1891 . 33Denver Republican, November 10, 1891 .

Jl."Meeker Herald, September 10, 1891 . 35,g.z Stat. !:•, 1044. 253 36united States Geological Survey, 1898-1.§22., V, 92 , 37senate Journal of the State of Colorado , ~ (Denver, 1893) , 1462 ,

38united States Geological Survey, 1898-1.§22., V, 93 , 104-107 , 39Denver Republican, June 17, 1892 , 40rbid,

41Rocky Mountain News , June 17, 1892 ,

42,gzstat. ~ ., 1053 , 43united States Geological Survey, 1898-1.§22, V, 243 ,

44rbid,, 238 , 4.5second Annual Report of the Colorado State Forest Commissioner , 1886 ,

102-103. ~iennial Report of the Colorado State Forest Commissioner, 1891 (Denver, 1891) , 107, 47Robert K, Winters, Fifty Years of Forestry in the U, S , A, (Washing- ton, 1950) , 4 . 48cifford Pinchot, Breaking New Ground (New York , 1947) , 85-86 , 49congressional Record, 54th Congress, 1st Session, Vol , XXVIII , Part 1 ,

1126 . 50senate Journal of the State of Colorado , ~ , 372 , 51Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, ~ (Washing- ton, 1893) , 79 • 52united States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, "Golden Anniv- ersary of White River National Forest," 4 , 53pinchot, Breaking~ Ground, 161-162 ,

54rbid,, 162-167 , .55Len Shoemaker, "The First Forest Ranger," The Westerners ' Brand Book,

122!:, (Denver, 19.52) , 99-100 , 2.54

57Rocky Mountain News , October 2, 1900.

58congressional Record, 53rd Congress, 3rd Session, Vol. XXVII, Part

3, 2751. 59Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 162-167 . 60 Glenwood Avalanche , October 19, 1891 .

6lone of the ironies, perhaps, of late nineteenth-century Colorado history is the fact that the Populists were , and remained, totally unin- volved in the conservation fight . In some western states one of their more important aims was the "deliverance" of the land out of the hands of both oligarchic business and the federal government and into the hands of the

"people. " But in Colorado they made no attempt either to foster conservation or to halt it.

62nenver Republican, August JO , 1901 .

633emi-Annual Report of the Colorado State Board of Horticulture, ~,

IX , 93 , CHAPTER III

DEFE NDERS OF THE WES T

1Teller was given the title by his biographer, Elmer Ellis. Elmer

Ellis, Henry Moore Teller, Defender of the West (Caldwell, Idaho, 1941).

2Press Biography, 99.

3congressional Record, 52nd Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. XXIV, Part 1,

618; 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. XXVI, Parts 5 and 6, 5126. ¼etween 1891 and 1907 only three Coloradans ignored, to any degree, the conservation question. In the Senat~ Edward O. Wolcott (1889-1901) made only occasional references to the problem; in those rare instances that he took a stand, it was generally on the side of the insurgents. In the

House , Republican Representative Hosea Townsend (1889-1893) and Populist

Representative Lafe Pence (1893-1895) played no role at all in the controversy.

5Report of the Department of Interior, 1§21 (Washington, 1894), 555.

6Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 93.

?Rocky Mountain News , July 11 , 1894.

8eastle Rock Record-Journal , May 11, 1894.

9congressional Record, 53rd Congress, 1st Session, Vol . XXV , Part 2,

2434-2435. lOibid., 53rd Congress, 3rd Session, Vol . XXVII , Part 1, 371 . No record exists of Pence ' s vote. 11John Ise, United States Forest Policy (New Haven, 1920), 12. 12congressional Record, 54th Congress, 1st Session, Vol . XXVIII, Part 7,

6410. 13James D. Richardson, ! Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 12.§2.-1§21 (10 Vols ., Washington, 1898), IX , 543 . 14r-t&eary, Gifford Pinchot : Forester-Politician, 40 . 15pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 109 .

llSrtichardson, The Politics of Conservation, 1 .

17Ibid., 7 .

18nenver Republican, February 25 , 1897 .

19congressional Record, 55th Congress , 1st Session, Vol . XXX , Part 1 ,

20Ibid., 901 , 982 .

21Ibid., 982- 984 .

22nenver Republican, February 23 , 1897 .

23congressional Re cord, 55th Congress , 1st Session, Vol . XXX , Part 1 ,

24Eocey Mountain News , May 12, 1897 . 25Ibid.

26J.Q_ Stat. ~ ., 3'+ . 27Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 116 .

28congressional Record, 55th Congress , 2nd Session, Vol. XXXI , Part 4,

3509- 3511 . 29Rocey Mountain News , July 2, 1897. 30pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 116 .

31Robbins, Our Landed Heritage, 324 .

32Shirley Allen, Conserving Natural Resources (New York, 1955) , 176.

33£ . Louise Peffer, The Closing of the Public Domain (Stanford, 1951) ,

74. It must be stressed that the vast majority of Colorado cattlemen shun- ned regulation under any circumstances; the pro- conservation stockmen were 257 an extr emely small minority .

34n . E. Salmon, Special Report£!! the History and Condition of the Sheep Industry in the United States (Washington, 1892) , 789 . 3.5Froceedings of the Second Annual National Livest ock Association, 1§22 (Denver, 1899) , 207 . 36Ibi d ., 202- 205 . 37nenver Republican, March 8, 1901 .

38Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Convention of the National Live- stock Association, 1901 (Denver, 1901) , 56- 58 . 39Proceedings of the Twelfth Convention of the Trans-Mississippi Com- mercial Congress , 1901 (Cripple Creek, 1901) , 266. 40Ibid. , 87 • 41 Hubert H. Bancroft, Works (39 Vols . ) , Vol . XXI , History of Nevada ,

Colorado, and Wyoming , ~ -1888 (San Francisco , 1890) , 545 . 42Baker and Hafen, History of Colorado , II, 683 . 43Rocky Mountain News , February 13, 1900 .

44r1iddle Park Times , February 23 , 1900 . 45Rocky Mountain News , January 26 , 1900 .

46proceedings of the National Stock Growers Convention, 1898 (Denver,

1898) , 208- 209 . 47Proceedings of the Second Annual Nat ional Livestock Association, 1§22, 143. 48Ibid., 82 . While the insurgents "won" the leasing 1:attle, they suf- fered a setoo.ck at the same convention when pro-forest reserve resolutions were passed handily. 49Ro cky Mountain News , January 16, 1900 . 50proceedings of the Third Annual National Livestock Association Con- vention (Ft, Worth , 1900), 263 • .51 Ibid., 276 .

52Ibid,, 303 ,

53Rocky Mountain News , February 13, 1900 ,

.54rbid,, February 18, 1900 ,

55Ibid.

56Ibid.

57Ibid,

58Ibid,, February 15, 1900,

59Ibid.

60Ibid., March 31, 1900 .

61Ibid,, April 8, 1900 .

62Ibid. It must be emphasized that this anti- leasing sentiment was not isolated, but was deceptively widespread throughout the state . Present at the meeting (and ultimately voting for the anti-leasing resolution) were the county commissioners of Arapaho , Chaffee, Delta, Eagle, Elbert, Garfield,

Kit Carson, La Plata, Logan, Larimer, Mesa , Otero, Pitkin, Pueblo, Rio

Blanco, San Miguel , Weld , Douglas , Kiowa , Montrose, and Mo rgan Counties; and delegates from livestock associations which included the North Fork Valley

Association, Delta County Stockgrowers, Edwards Stockgrowers Association,

McCoy Stockgrowers Association, Fremont County Stockgrowers , Roaring Fork and Eagle River Stockgrowers , Grand River Stockgrowers, Grand County Stock- growers , Gunnison County Stockgrowers, Southern Colorado Stockgrowers Assoc- iation, Rio Blanco County Stockgrowers, Craig Livestock Association, Routt

County Stockgrowers Ass ociation, Axial Basin Stockgrowers Association, Sag- uache County Stockgrowers, and others. , 63Ibid. 259 64 Ibid,

65rbid,, April 10, 1900 ,

66Ibid, , April 11, 1900.

67Ibid,

68nenver Republican, September 19, 1900. For state Republicans to go against the grain of the national Republican party was not as strange as it seemed , The position of some Republicans was l:ased on conviction; but for others it was a matter of necessity . Already placed at a distinct disad- vantage by the national party ' s stand on the gold standard and conservation, local Republican candidates had little choice but to oppose them both if·. they hoped to win their campaigns.

69Ibid, , March 8 , 1901. CHAPTER IV "THE GRASS THAT GOD HAS GIVEN"

1Denver Republican, October 19, 1901.

2Ibid., September 15, 1901.

~arold J. Barnett and Chandler Morse , Scarcity and Growths The Econ- omics of Natural Resource Availability (Baltimore, 1963), 72. 4 Ibid., 35-36. 5Michael Freme, Whose Woods These Are (Garden City, 1962), 35. 6uaa.11, The Q.uiet Crisis, 134.

?Paul R. Cutright, Theodore Roosevelt the Naturalist (New York, 1956),

170. 8Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 259. 9proceedings of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Congress, 1..22.§

(Denver, 1958), 2-3. lOUdall, The Quiet Crisis, 102, 106-108.

llDenver Republican, September 29, 1901 .

12Ibid., December 4, 1901.

13Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography (New York, 1927), 402.

l¼ernhard Feroow , History of Forestry (Toronto, 1907), 393-394. 15owen Wister, Roosevelts The Story of~ Friendship (New York, 1930), 175.

16Arthur Carhart, Timber in Your Life (Philadelphia, 1955), 66-67.

17Denver Republican, May 10, 1907.

18Ibid., June 2, 1907. 1~gle County Blade, May 1, 1907. 261 20 Ironically, however, most of the Colorado politicians who opposed conservation so ferociously~ Progressives. In the Congress, Henry

Teller, Thomas Patterson, John Shafroth, Robert Bonynge , Franklin Brooks ,

Herschel Hogg , and later, Edward Taylor, supported virtually every piece of progressive legislation ever proposed. Robert E. Smith, "Colorado's

Progressive Senators and Representatives," Colorado Magazine , XLV (Winter,

1968), 27-41. In addition, as later governors of the state, John Shafroth and Elias Ammons instituted some of the most progressive reforms in the

West .

21Martin Fausold, Gifford Pinchots Bull Moose Progressive (Syracuse,

1961), 15.

2257th Congress, 1st Session (1902), House Report 968, 1.

23congressional Re cord, 57th Congress, 1st Session, Vol . XX.XV, Part 6,

6202.

24Ibid., 6522-6523.

25nenver Republican, October 25, 1903.

26Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 258.

27McGeary, Gifford Pinchots Forester-Politician, 69.

28Georgianna Kettle and Roy Truman, "A Brief Historical Sketch of San

Isabel National Forest," 1935. Typescript in files of Colorado State Histor- ical Society, Denver. In past years the guiding force behind the anti-conservation movement had been miners and homesteaders . But, increasingly, be::. ginning in late 1901 and early 1902, leadership passed into the hands of the cattlemen. While miners, homesteaders, lumbermen, spoilsmen and others remained an integral part of the crusade against conservation, the cattlemen, almost exclusively, became its voice.

29saguache Crescent, May 1, 1902. 30salida Mail , April 8, 1904.

31saguache Crescent, May 4, 1904.

32r.ake City Times, October 15, 1902.

3Jnenver Republican, September 27, 1903.

34Letter from W. E. Weston to William A. Richards, Commissioner of the

Gene:ral Land Office, December 29 , 1903. Letter in files of United States

Forest Service, Denver .

35nenver Republican, February 27 , 1903. 6 3 Ibid., September 27, 1903. The dissidents had not disappeared, by any means; they still belonged to the Association and they were still influential. Their minds, though, at least in 1903, were not on the forest reserves. They were on leasing. It was at the same meeting--see page 113-- that the insurgents scored a major anti-leasing victory. They had little time or energy left to cope with anything else.

37congressional Record, 57th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. XXXV, Part 6,

38i,hillip O. Foss, Politics and Grass (Seattle, 1960), 41.

39peffer, The Closing of the Public Domain, 75.

40Denver Republican, March 6, 1902.

41Gunnison News-Champion, February 21 , 1902.

42Routt County Courier, February 15, 1902.

4'.:Gienwood Avalanche-Echo , March 6, 1902,

44Ibid,

4.5saguache Crescent, March 13, 1902,

46Glenwood Avalanche-Echo , April 10, 1902.

47Denver Republican, April 17, 1902,

48Ibid. 49Carbondale Item, May 3, 1902 ,

50Denver Republican, May 8, 1902 ,

51winters, Fifty Years of Forestry in the U, S , A,, 118,

52Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the National Livestock

Association, 12.Ql (Denver, 1903) , 133,

53Robbins, Our Landed Heritage, 343 ,

9-lsamuel Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (Cambridge ,

1959) , 62 , 55Gunnison News - Champion , January 22 , 1904,

56Proceedings of~ Conference Between Special Land Commission Appointed .BY. President Roosevelt and Prominent Stockmen of the West (Denver, 1904) , 280 , 57rbid,, 292 ,

58Ibid,, 258- 259 ,

59rbid., 334 . 60Ibid,, 336. 61Denver Republican, January 13, 1904,

62Ibid,, March 15, 1904,

63Baker and Hafen, History of Colorado , I , 684,

64Proceedings of Land Commission Conference, 299-301 ,

65Ibid, , 301-302,

66rbid, , 304, 67Glenwood Avalanche-Echo , August 11 , 1904,

68Lake City Times , August 11 , 1904, 69Denver Republican, March 21 , 1904.

?OGunnison News-Champion, March 28 , 1904, 71congressional Record, 58th Congress , 2nd Session, Vol , XX.XVIII , Part

6, 5560-5563. 264 72rbid.

73rbid. CHAPTER V ENCROACHMENT ON THE GARDEN

1 George Mowry, The Era of Theodore Roosevelt (New York, 1958), 197, 2Lake City Phonograph, March 21, 1903,

Y.3emi-Annual Report of the Colorado State Board of Horticulture, 12.Q]

(Denver, 1903), 64. 4session Laws of Colorado, 12.Ql, _541. 5cunnison News-Champion , February 26 , 1904, 6rbid,, March 4, 1904,

?Montrose Enterprise, March 10, 1904,

8Gunnison News-Champion , January JO, 1904, 9Ibid,, February 26 , 1904. lOrbid,-- , June 2, 1905. 11Ibid., June 9, 1905. l2Delta Indeperrlent, June 17, 1905.

l'..semi-Annual Report of the Colorado State Board o:f Horticulture, 1902

(Denver, 1902) , 116, 120 , llJsummit County Journal, June 17, 1905, 15Gilpin Observer, June 8, 1905. 16teadville Hemld-Democrat, November 28, 1905, 1756th Congress, 1st Session (1900), House Document 643, 7, 18w, J . Morrill, "Birth of Roosevelt National Forest," Colorado Magazine,

XX (January, 1943), 178-179, 19Report of the Colorado State Board of Horticulture, 1902, 209, 266 20 Morrill, "Birth of the Roosevelt National Forest," Colorado Magazine , 179. 21Ibid., 181. 22Ft. Collins Express, May 31, 1905. 23Ft. Collins Courier, May 3, 1905.

24san Juan Prospector, July 22 , 1905.

25nenyer Republican, August 18, 1905. 26Yampa Leader, August 26, 1905.

27Ibid., September 30, 1905. 28Routt County Courier, October 5, 1905. 29Ibid.

30Yampa Leader, October 21, 1905.

31Red Cliff Blade, October 30 , 1905 . 32Yampa Leader, October 21 , 1905.

33Denver Republican, November 17, 1905. 3456th Congress, 1st Session, House Document 643 , 4. 35Denver Republican, June 19, 1905.

36eanon City Leader, June 22 , 1905. 37House Document 643 , 5. 38Durango Herald, June 26 , 1905.

39saguache Crescent, September 24, 1903.

4<\ake City Phonograph , July 29 , 1905. 41 creede Candle, June 14, 1905. 42saguache Crescent, June 22 , 1905 .

4311 History of the Region of the Montezuma National Forest and Vicinity," 1923, 1. Typescript in files of United States Forest Service, Denver. 44rra s . Freeman,!!_ History of Montezuma County, Colorado (Boulder, 1958), 212.

4511 Land Conditions in the Montezuma National Forest," 1917, 1. Type- script in files of United States Forest Service, Denver. 46nurango HeraJ.d, June 26, 1905. 47House Document 643, 9.

48r,eonard C. Shoemaker, "History of the Holy Cross National Forest,"

1928, 1. Typescript in files of Colorado State Historical Society, Denver . 49Lake City Phonograph, September 2, 1905. 50Denver Republican, August 29, 1905.

51Ibid., June 26, 1905.

52Mancos Times, June 23, 1905. 53pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 269.

54Proceedings of the American Forest Congress, 12.Q.2, (Washington, 1905),

210,

55Roosevelt, Autobiography, 403,

56Glenwood Post, December 23, 1905, 57Bernard Frank, Our National Forests (Norman, 1955), 47,

58Proceedings of the American Forest Congress, 12.Q.2., 228-229, 59yampa Leader, December 23, 1905,

60Glenwood Avalanche-Echo, October 12, 1905,

61Arthur Carhart, The National Forests (New York, 1959), 18, 62Denver Record-Stockman, November 17, 1905, 63Denver Republican, December 19, 1905, 64Glenwood Avalanche-Echo , November 4, 1905, 65Routt County Courier, October 19, 1905. 66Meeker Herald, October 14, 1905.

67sugar City Gazette, December 13, 1905. 268

68 Delta Independent, lovember 10, 1905.

69Glenwood Avalanch~-Echo, October 12, 1905. 70ibid., November 2, 1905. 71rbid.

72Meeker Herald, September JO, 1905. 73Glenwood Avalanche-Echo , October 19, 1905 .

74r1ontrose Enterprise, October 20, 1905. 75Glenwood Avalanche-Echo, October 5, 1905. 76rbid., October 12, 1905.

77rbid,, December 7, 1905. 78rbid.

79Ibid, 80Ibid, 811.!&£ ,

82Ibid,, December 21, 1905. 83rbid,

~ontrose Enterprise, December 19, 1905.

85Grand Junction Dally Sentinel , December 19, 1905,

86Denver Republican, December 6, 1905. 87Glenwood Avalanche-Echo , December 14, 1905, CHAPTER VI THE PHARISEE SPIRIT

1Gunnison News -Champion, July 21, 1905.

2nenver Renublican, January 3, 1907. 3steamboat Pilot, January 3, 1906.

%agle County Blade, January 7, 1906. 5Glenwood Post, January 1, 1906.

6saguache Crescent, January 25, 1907. ?Glenwood Avalanche-Echo, January 11, 1906. 8Ibid. 9Denver Republican, January 24, 1906. lOnenver Record-Stockman, January 12, 1906.

11Rocky Mountain News , January JO, 1906. 12Ibid.

13nenver Republican, January 31, 1906. 14nelta Independent, February 2, 1906.

15walsenburg World , February 6, 1906. 16rampa Leader, February 10, 1906.

17Glenwood Avalanche-Echo, February 8, 1906. 18Gunnison News-Champion, March 20, 1906. 19Grand Junction News , January JO, 1906.

20Year book of the Department of Agriculture, 1906 ( Washington, 1906), 60-61. 21 congressional Record, 59th Congress, 1st Session, Vol . XX.XX , Part 6,

5394-5395. 270 22Routt County Courier, May 3, 1906. 23yampa Leader, February 10, 1906 .

24congressionaJ. Record, 59th Congress , 1st Session, Vol . XXXX , Part 8,

7355-7356 . 25rbid, , Part 2, 1684.

26nenver Republican, July 14, 1906 .

27Steamboat Pilot, August 22 , 1906 .

28Edward N. Wentworth, "Sheep Hars of the Nineties in Northwest Colo- rado , " The Westerners Brand Book, 1946 (Denver, 1946) , 126 . 29James Blackha.11 , "Survey of the Hayden National Forest, " 1923, 7, Typescript in files of United States Forest Service, Denver . 3°nenver Republican, October 28, 1907 .

31Ann Bassett Willis, "Queen Ann of Brown ' s Park, " Colorado Magazine,

XXX (January, 1953) , 70 , 32rbid., 72 . 33Routt County Courier, May 24, 1906 ,

34steamboa t Pilot, March 7, 1906 ,

35G1enwood Post, February 17, 1906 . 36rbid. , February 3, 1906 •

37c1enwood AvaJ.anche-Echo , February 28 , 1907 .

38rbid. , February 7, 1907 , 39cunnison Nevis- Champion, February 15, 1907 . 40Yampa Leader, February 23 , 1907 , 41nenver Record-Stockman , June 10, 1907 . 42Meeker Herald, February 16, 1907 ,

4:?cienwood Avalanche-Echo , June 12, 1907 , 44Routt County Courier, March 7, 1907 , 271 4 .5united States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, "Golden Anniversary of White River National Forest," 3.

46Herbert N. Wheeler, "Memoirs, 11 4 3. Typescript in Conservation Li- brary, Denver Public Library, Denver.

47rbid. , 52.

48steamboat Pilot, March 7, 1906. 49shoemaker, "History of Holy Cross National Forest," 44 •

.5°ten Shoemaker, Roaring Fork Valley (Denver, 1958), 228 . 5lc1enwood Post, March 10, 1906.

52congressionaJ. Record, 59th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. XXXXI, Part 4,

3539. 5Jnenver Republican, February 23, 1907. 54c1enwood Post, March 10, 1906. 55shoemaker, Roaring Fork Valley, 228 . 56Report from w. w. Hooper to Henry Michelson, Supervisor of South Platte Forest Reserve, October 12, 1902. Report in files of United States Forest Service, Denver.

571en Shoemaker, "The First Forest Ranger," The Westerners Brand Book,

1951, 95 . 58wheeler, "Memoirs," .55.

59cunnison News-Champion, June 7, 1907. 60Wheeler, "Memoirs," 26. 61 Ibid., 28. 62shoemaker, "The First Forest Ranger, The Westerners Brand Book, 116. 63cook, "Kreutzer Mountain," 3. 64Gunnison News-Champion, February 8, 1907. 65rbid. , January 4, 1907. 272 66Ibid,, Febrm.ry 8, 1907 • 6?Denver Republican, March 21 , 1907.

68Ea,gle County Blade , May 1 , 1907. 69Freeman, ! History of Montezuma County, Colorado , 220 . 70 11 History of the Montezuma Personnel , " 1923, 74. Typescript in files of United States Forest Service, Denver.

71carhart, Timber in Your Life, 78 .

72wheeler, "Memoirs , " 42 ,

73"survey of Montezuma National Forest, " 1915, 17-18. Typescript in files of United States Forest Service, Denver.

74:rbid,, 1- 2 .

7%etter from F. S . Clark to Philander C. Knox , July 30 , 1907 , Letter in files of United States Forest Service, Denver ,

?6tetter from Theodore Roosevelt to Philander C, Knox , August 15, 1907 ,

Letter in files of United States Forest Service, Denver,

77 11survey of the Montezuma Nationa.l Forest, " 2- 3.

78Ibid. , 10-11.

79Rico News , June 8, 1907 ,

80wheeler, "Memoirs , " 36 .

81san Juan Prospector, January 26 , 1907 .

82This was due , primarily, to the establishment of three new forest reserves in the vicinity in 1906 and 1907 . On January 25 , 1906 Roosevelt created the La Sal Forest Reserve (158, 462 acres) west of the Uncompahgre on the Utah border; on February 24, 1906 he proclaimed the Fruita Forest Re- serve (7,680 acres) near Grand Junction; and on February 2, ·1907 he created the Ouray Forest Reserve (273,175 acres) on the Cimarron River. Roosevelt ' s not only action precipitated defiance from those pioneers who had disliked reserves 273 to begin with,- but triggered grumbling among settlers previously "friendly" to ~he administration. Two reserves in the Grand Junction-Delta region had been tolerable; five reserves were not. 83Arthur W. Monroe , San Juan Silver (private printing, 1940), 220.

B4shoemaker, nThe First Forest Ranger," The Westerners Brand Book, 103.

85Ibid.

86Ibid., 105. 87Delta Independent, March 9, 1906.

88Glenwood Post, March 3, 1906. 89shoemaker, ''The First Forest Ranger," The Westerners Brand Book, 103.

90yearbook of the Department of Agriculture, 1906 .(Washington, 1906), 60.

91Annual Report of the Department 0f Agriculture, 1.2.Q.'.Z. (Washington,

1907) , 64-65. 92Denver Republican, December 5, 1906 .

9JG1enwood Pt>st,_ F.~~ry 17, 1906. 94steamboat Sentinel, March 2, 1906.

95proceed.ings of the First Annual American National Livestock Associa- tion Association, 1906 (Denver, 1906), 16. 96steamboat Pilot, March 3, 1906. 97Red Cliff Blade , November 22, 1905.

9~outt County Courier, February 1, 1906. CHAPTER VII

A CONDITION OF REVOLT

1peffer, The aJ.osing of the Public Domain, 70 ,

2Annual Report of the Department of Interior, 12.Q.2. (Washington, 1907) , 1530 . 3colorado conservationists had long sought the protection of Colorado's coal lands--both its ovm and those lying on the public domain within the borders of the state. As early as 1893 they attempted to pass a law through the state legislature withdrawing coal lands from entry; but they failed, both then and in every subsequent attempt throughout the next twenty five years. In January, 1907 , six months after Roosevelt had taken his action, the state leguslature voted down a bill introduced by John C. Hollenbeck of

Chaffee County "to withdraw all coal lands owned by the state of Colorado

(that were) for sale , " House Journal of the State of Colorado , 1.2.Q.2. (Denver, 1907) , 461. 4Annual Report 2f the Department of Interior, 1907 , 1466 . 5wu bur F. Stone, History of Colorado ( 4 Vols ., Chicago , 1918) , I , 449-454 , The counties included Jefferson, Boulder, Weld , Las Animas , Delta, El Paso, Huerfano , Garfield, Montezuna, Rio Blanco, Fremont, Routt, La Plata,

Mesa , and Archuleta . ~ugene Parsons, A- Guidebook -to Colorado (Boston, 1911) , 159-160 . Huerfano and Las Animas Counties were cases in point. The coal production of

Huerfano was 1,500 , 000 tons of coal a year; and the yearly output of Las Animas represented nearly half the total quantity produced in the state. Both coun- 275 ties depended heavily, even disproportionately, on coal production to sus- tain their economies . ?Yampa News , September 8, 1906 , 8steamboa t Pilot, August 8, 1906 .

9rbid., June 1 , 1907 .

lODenver Republican, February 15, 1907 .

11Ibid., December 7, 1906 . 12nenver Times , May 24, 1907 ,

13nenver Record-Stockman, October 17 , 1905 . 14nenver Republican, March 29 , 1906 . 15Routt County Courier, April 5, 1906 . 16nenver Republican, January JO , 1906 .

17Rocky Mountain News , February 22 , 1907 . 18nenver Republican, January 25 , 1907 , 19Telluride Journal, March 7, 1907 .

2~gle Valley Enterorise, February 15, 1907 , 21Montrose Enterprise , March 15, 1907. 22nenver Republican, January 22 , 1907 .

23rbid., January 23 , 1907 . 2J+nenver Times , January 23 , 1907 .

25nenver Republican, January 23 , 1907 , 26Glenwood Avalanche-Echo , January 24, 1907 . 27Proceedings of the Tenth Annual American National Livestock Association

Convention, 1.2.Q.Z. (Denver, 1907) , 14, 71 , 28Ibid., 78 ,

29Ibid. , 80-83. JOnenver Republican, January 24, 1907. 276 31Routt County Courier, March 14, 1907.

32colorado Sbrings Gazette, January 26 , 1907. 33nelta Independent, Fehruary 15, 1907. 34Gunnison News-Champion, February 8, 1907.

35Rifle Telegram, February 16, 1907.

36congressional Record, 59th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. XXXXI , Part 4,

3535. 37rbid., 3538.

38Glenwood Avalanche-Echo, February 28 , 1907. 39nenver Republican, February 20, 1907. 40co:ngressional Record, 59th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. XXXXI, Part 4,

3535. 41 Ibid.

42Ibid., 3534. 43rbid.

~ichardson, The Politics of Conservation, 33.

45congressional Record, 59th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol .XXXXI, Part 4,

3532. 46Ibid., 3538. 47peffer, The Closing of the Public Domain, 91.

48congressional Record, 59th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol . XXXXI, Part 4,

3534. 49.J!±Stat. ±:!.•, 1271 , 5°congressional Record, 59th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. XXXXI, Part 4,

3720, 3723. 51McGeary , Gifford Pinchot1 Forester-Politician, 79.

52Roosevelt, Autobiography, 404. 277 5\etter from J. A. Eddy to Henry Buchtel, May 29, 1907. State Ar- chives and Records Service. Records of the Governor: Henry Buchtel .

Buchtel Collection, 1907. 54nenver Republican, March 6, 1907. 5.5steamboat Pilot, June 5, 1907.

56nenver Field and Farm , March 7, 1907.

57penver Record-Stoc~.man, March 15, 1907. CHAPTER VIII

WATERSHED

1senate Journal of the State of Colorado , 12QZ (Denver, 1907) , 662~663 .

2House J ournal of the State of Colorado , 12.QZ , 1202 .

3official Call For ~ Public Lands Convention, April 27 , 1907 . Buchtel

Collection.

4Glenwood Avalanche-Echo , May 21 , 1907 .

5Address of the Programme Committee Outlining the Object of the Meeting,

May 29 , 1907 . Buchtel Collection.

6Denver Republican, May 29 , 1907 .

7Denver Post, June 2, 1907 .

8r.tontrose Press, June 14, 1907 .

9Rocky Mountain News , May 31 , 1907 .

lORichardson, The Politics of Conservation, 35 . 11 Rocky Mountain News , June 12, 1907 .

12cunnison News- Champion, June 14, 1907 .

13caenwood Avalanche-Echo , June 6, 1907 .

1¾:agle County Blade, June 6, 1907 .

15Boulder Camera , June 19, 1907 .

16undated list of delegates found in Buchtel Collection.

17Denver Republican, June 12, 1907 .

18yampa Leader, May 9 , 1907 .

19nenver Republican, June 15, 1907 . 20 Aspen Democrat, June 19, 1907 . 279 21Denver Republican, June 4, 1907 . 22Ibid., June 18, 1907 . 23Ibid., June 2, 1907 .

24Routt County Courier, June 6, 1907 . 25Denver Republican, June 18, 1907 .

26Denver Post, June 18, 1907 .

27Denver Republican, June 19, 1907 .

28r.io;eary, Gifford Pinchot: Forester-Politician, 119 . 29Richardson, The Politics of Conservation, 38 .

30Denver Republican, June 19, 1907 . 31rbid. 32rbid.

33Rocky Mountain News , June 19, 1907 .

34Denver Post, June 19, 1907 . 35Rocky Mountain News , June 19, 1907 .

J6Denver Post, June 20 , 1907 . Underlining supplied by the author. 37rrving Hale , "The Glories of Colorado, " Sons of Colorado , I (March ,

1907) ' 34-36 . 38nenver Republican, June 20, 1907. 39Harry Ad.ams, "A Study of the Denver Public Lands Convention of 1907"

(unpublished Master' s thesis , University of Denver, Denver, 1964), 124. 40Gunnison News-Champion, June 21, 1907 . 41Saguache Crescent, June 20 , 1907 . 42Denver Republican, June 20 , 1907 . 4~ichardson, The Politics of Conservation, 38 .

44nenver Republican, June 21, 1907. 45Richardson, The Politics of Conservation, 38. 280 46 nenver Republican, June 21 , 1907. 4 7Basalt Jourrn.l , June 29, 1907. 48 Richardson, The Politics of Conservation, 37.

49Ptieblo Chieftain, June 28 , 1907 .

5oDenver Republican, June 21 , 1907 .

51s teamboat Pilot, June 26 , 1907 .

52sacramento (California) Union, June 22 , 1907 ,

53Pueblo Chieftain, June 28, 1907 •

.54colorado Springs Gazette, June 22 , 1907 .

55nenver Republican, June 22 , 1907 .

56nenver Field and Farm , June 27 , 1907 .

57Basalt Jourml , June 29 , 1907 .

58Meeker_Herald, June 29 , 1907 .

59nenver Post, June 21 , 1907.

6~vidence, however fragmentary , existed that administration forces had lobbied and att empted t o pack the convention with the same vigor as their opponents , If this was true, their actions were subtle enough-- even clan- destine--that the public was unaware of them . In addition, administration efforts were not successful , Had the conservationists been as overt and as clumsy a s the insurgents, and had their efforts succeeded, the entire outcome of the convention might have been altered, Peffer, The Closing of the Public

Domain, 101 ,

61Ibid. 62 colorado Springs Gazette, June 22 , 1907 ,