Bornstein-Grove 1

The Formation of Mount Rainier National Park: An Affirmation of Utilitarian Conservationism

Matthew Bornstein-Grove

Professor Breitenbach

History 200

16 December 2004 Bornstein-Grove 2

The snow-capped peak of Mount Rainier has always been the defining feature of the Puget Sound region. The 14,410-foot-tall giant is visible for hundreds of miles in all directions, a singular, craggy tooth against the sky. The dormant volcano has meant many things to many people, from the Native tribes who inhabited the surrounding area, to the hordes of tourists who drive up the mountain each day. It has inspired artists, poets, and climbers, as well as scientists and conservationists. It also inspired a national park, the movement for which is the subject of this paper.

Relevant history begins in 1792, when British naval officer Captain George

Vancouver sighted the mountain off the coast and named it for his friend, Admiral Peter

Rainier. Over the next hundred years, as the west became increasingly populated, Mount

Rainier and the surrounding land grew in economic and scenic importance. By the time of the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, the environmental movement was growing, motivated by the closing of the frontier and the desire to save land for public use. In 1893, a 36 by 42 mile area including Mount Rainier was set aside by President

Harrison as the Pacific Forest Reserve. That same year, the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, the National Geographic Society, the Geographic Society of

America, the Sierra Club, and the Appalachian Mountain Club began the movement to secure national park status for Mount Rainier. Washington Representative William

Doolittle and Senator Watson Squire also introduced congressional bills for the park’s formation, and in 1895, the faculty of the University of Washington, in a published memorial, urged Congress to swift action.1 It was not until March of 1899, however, that

Congress passed the bill “to set aside a portion of certain lands in the state of Bornstein-Grove 3

Washington, now known as the Pacific Forest Reserve, as a public park, to be known as the Mount Rainier National Park.”2

It is tempting to view the formation of Mount Rainier National Park as an important victory for budding American environmentalism. It was, after all, the nation’s fifth national park, preceded only by Yellowstone in 1872 and Yosemite, Sequoia, and

Kings Canyon in 1890. Historian Theodore Catton accepts this view, maintaining that

“even more than the three California parks which preceded it, Mount Rainier National

Park served to differentiate the idealistic purposes of national parks from the more utilitarian functions of national forests.”3 Catton is right in pointing out that the national forests were closely associated with the conservation movement “whose central goal was to increase efficiency in the use and development of the nation's resources.”4 However, in saying that “Mount Rainier demonstrated that the emerging national park idea was not to be subsumed by the burgeoning conservation movement,” Catton is guilty of romanticizing the event.5 In general, the creation of Mount Rainier National Park did not represent a departure from utilitarian conservationism. At almost every level, the fight for park status was motivated and shaped by economic concerns: from the local demand to the policy makers in congress. The “idealism” that Catton evokes was only effective to the extent that it met these other requirements.

Public motivations

Even as he talks about the role of national groups like the Sierra Club, Catton recognizes that “the founding of Mount Rainier National Park was very much a local Bornstein-Grove 4 affair.”6 The local population played a pivotal role in fighting for the establishment of the park. If not for the “sustained interest” of “local mountaineering clubs, newspaper editors, [and] businessmen's associations,” Catton continues, “it is doubtful that

Washington state's senators and congressmen would have shown such perseverance in pushing the legislation through Congress.”7 To understand the motivations of these local actors, it is important to note that Mount Rainier was already a part of the Pacific Forest

Reserve established in 1893. Proponents of designating Rainier a national park obviously felt that the forest reserve was inadequate or that something else could be gained by securing national park status. Catton’s assessment that “publicity on the Pacific Forest

Reserve’s shortcomings fueled the campaign for a national park” is correct.8 Where he identifies the lack of “adequate protection” as a key issue, however, it is clear that local people had different concerns.9 The desire for public use, as it related to local pride and increased tourism, was far more important than the preservation of wild land in mobilizing support for national park status.

The fight to establish Mount Rainier National Park revolved around the issue of public use. Many people already considered the forest reserve an important distinction that would help “in preserving unimpaired the glories and beauties of natural scenery at the West.”10 Despite early hopes that the reserve would be turned toward “public uses,” however, it remained largely undeveloped and inaccessible.11 It soon became clear that the reserve was not “set apart for the public at all” or “intended in any manner for the use of the public.”12 Calls for national park status clearly highlight the desire for accessibility and development. A newspaper article from the time notes the increasing demand for national park status so that the reserve be “opened up to travel, its points of interest made Bornstein-Grove 5 accessible by roads and trails, hotels built, [and] guides, conveyances, and horses provided.”13 “What we want now,” wrote the Tacoma Academy of Science, “is an act of

Congress specially setting this apart as a park … for the benefit of the public.”14 This question of public use, then, represented “the sharpest distinction between a national park and a national forest.”15 Catton argues that the main motivation behind public use was the belief that the mountain’s scenery would improve humanity.16 While this would have signified a departure from conservationist thought, and although it is true that many people voiced this opinion, there were more compelling and effective reasons for public support. The region stood to gain much if Mount Rainier was opened and developed for public use.

Local, urban interests were prominent in the movement to establish Mount

Rainier National Park. The west was experiencing rapid growth and development at the end of the century, and the cities of Seattle and Tacoma were growing at an amazing rate.

Washington native and historian Arthur D. Martinson notes that Tacoma alone grew from a population of 1,000 in 1880 to 100,000 by 1910. 17 Close proximity to a new national park, outfitted and developed for public use and recreation, would greatly increase the prestige of the new urban centers, making them magnets for tourism and other economic benefits. That the public was aware of this is most obviously shown in the controversy over the mountain’s name. Local organizations throughout the city of Tacoma spent a great deal of time and effort lobbying not only to establish the national park but also to change the mountain’s name to Tacoma at the same time. The 1893 meeting of the

Tacoma Academy of Science went to great lengths to establish the legitimacy of this name change, evoking “honesty,” “history,” and “patriotism.”18 The Academy concluded Bornstein-Grove 6 that legitimacy rested in the original Indian name for the mountain, and that “Tacoma is a fair, honest Indian noun.”19 Interestingly enough, however, the Indians interviewed were never consistent; they called the mountain everything from “Tacobet” and “Tahoma,” to

“Tacoban” and “Tackob.” Despite the Academy’s conviction that naming the mountain after the city would be “preposterous,” they made the case for doing just that.20 It is clear that accuracy was far less important than associating the mountain with the city and, by extension, letting the mountain’s fame spread the city’s name. Tacoma Academy of

Science history secretary James Wickersham noted that the name would be immortalized in “song and story; in tradition and history”; that “the world will adopt it, and it will never change.”21 Changing the name of the mountain through the establishment of the park would put Tacoma on the map, eclipsing Seattle as the new destination of the west.

“‘Once in the government’s care and made accessible to the traveler,’” boasted one preservationist, “‘[the mountain’s] fame will widen with the years.’”22 National park status, public use, and local pride went hand in hand, creating a powerful incentive for local agitation which had little to do with concern for wilderness protection. There was much more at stake, however, than urban competition between Seattle and Tacoma.

National park designation and the development it would bring carried tangible economic benefits for the area. If the forest reserve could be transformed into a “new pleasure ground,” it would attract tourists from across the nation.23 Local citizens and business owners were certainly aware of this. Wickersham made this explicit by reminding the Academy that Tacoma was the city “to which all tourists will hereby come” before admiring “the stupendous glaciers of this most lordly of American mountains.”24 Indeed, the mountain was the central feature of Seattle and Tacoma’s Bornstein-Grove 7

“recreational domain.”25 Leading businessmen not only worked to increase transportation to and from the area but also contributed vast sums of money to the national park campaign in the form of advertising and promotion.26 A national park, open and attractive to the public, made good business sense.

It is clear that the local motivation for national park status sprang from perceived inadequacies of the forest reserve designation. Documents from the time suggest that what locals wanted most was development. As John Muir extolled the intrinsic virtues of the wilderness, local groups set their sights on the tangible economic benefits the national park would bring. In true conservationist form, locals fought to make the forest reserve more economically useful by opening it to public use. The only true departure here is that the resource at issue was not lumber, but the area’s tourist potential. While the desire for public use and the economic benefits it would bring does not preclude the belief that nature would improve humanity, we need to understand that economics came first. The glut of local involvement, when understood in terms of tourism and civic competition, clearly shows this. Similarly, the bill’s legislative journey shows the paramount importance of economic concerns.

Economics in Congress

The original bill calling for the establishment of Mount Rainier National Park was introduced to Congress in 1893. It took the next six Congressional sessions, however, before a much weaker version of the bill passed in 1899, creating the park. The final bill called for the designation of a much smaller piece of land than initially proposed, gave the Northern Pacific Railroad outrageous compensation, and allowed mining and Bornstein-Grove 8 prospecting in the park. These three provisions show that the land was still viewed through a conservationist lens which championed economic concerns.

Mount Rainier’s six year legislative journey was marked by opposition from law- makers who felt the proposed park was too big and expensive. Congressman Squire’s initial bill actually sought to enlarge the national park beyond the boundaries of the existing reserve because the reserve did not include the mountain’s western side.27

Although this had more to do with protecting local farmers’ water supply than with conservation, Congress resisted. In each successive bill, the proposed area shrank, until, in 1899, only the most scenic and mountainous areas remained. Less breathtaking but more environmentally fragile areas such as lowland meadows and watershed areas were excluded. These were precisely the areas which early environmentalists like John Muir

“singled out as … worthy of protection.”28 The boundaries, which protected only the most worthless and inaccessible land, were more utilitarian than idealistic. They had more to do with economic motivations which are showcased in the bill’s two other important provisions.

The most notable provision of the bill concerns the Northern Pacific Railroad and shows that congress’ primary concerns were economic in nature. Even before the creation of the forest reserve, the railroad had received a government land grant which included Mount Rainier. The Mountain had little to offer in the way of lumber, however, and the railroad needed a way to dump the land. The Mount Rainier National Park Act provided the perfect out. It allowed the Northern Pacific “to select an equal quantity of nonmineral public lands … lying within any state” in exchange for “the lands in the reservation hereby created.”29 This was, in effect, a coup for the railroad. Their lands Bornstein-Grove 9 within the park were less than productive, consisting of rocky, mineral poor tracts.30 The provision allowed the Northern Pacific to exchange these worthless lands for timber-rich lands in Oregon at no cost. In addition, the bill granted “rights of way … to any railway or tramway company” wishing to “operate a railway” through the reserve and into the park.31 These two provisions allowed the railroad to acquire valuable land for free, as well as cash in on the tourist business the park would bring. John P. Hartman, a Seattle man who lobbied for the bill’s passage, noted that the bill would not have passed without these provisions, “the influence of the Northern Pacific” being “sufficient to prevent

[it].”32 Congress was more swayed by the arguments and influence of the Northern

Pacific than by any less tangible benefits that the park would bring.

The bill’s final provision, which allowed mining in the park and reserve, drives home the fact that traditional conservationism was at the heart of the act. Congress had already shrunk the proposed park to a fraction of its original size in an effort to exclude any potentially valuable land. By continuing to allow mining, legislators showed how unwillingly they were to risk closing off even so small an area to economic development.

Clearly, the bill establishing Mount Rainier National Park was motivated and shaped primarily by economic concerns. The three provisions discussed here work toward making the resulting park a more efficient use of land.

Conclusion

The bill which created Mount Rainier National Park championed conservationist ideas of efficient and scientific use. It represented the culmination of a local campaign Bornstein-Grove 10 propelled by the tangible economic benefits of increased tourism and national recognition. Rather than differentiating national parks from the utilitarian forest reserves, the creation of Mount Rainier National Park represented a refinement of that utilitarianism. Resource poor lands were made productive by opening them to tourists, while potentially productive land remained open for future economic opportunities. In this way, the creation of the park did not represent a departure from utilitarian conservationism. 1 John Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press for

Resources for the Future, inc., 1961), 120.

2 “An Act To set aside a portion of certain lands in the State of Washington, now known as the Pacific Forest Reserve, as a public park, to be known as the Mount Rainier National Park,” U.S.

Congress, 55th, 3rd Session, 1899, U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 30, Chap. 377, 993, online, available from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/conservbib:@FIELD(NUMBER(v1010)).

3 Theodore Catton, Wonderland: An Administrative History of Mount Rainier National Park

[book online] (Seattle: National Park Service, 1996, accessed 15 Dec. 2004); available from http://www.nps.gov/mora/adhi/adhit.htm.

4 Catton, Wonderland.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Theodore Catton, “The Campaign to Establish Mount Rainier National Park, 1893-1899,”

Pacific Northwest Quarterly 88 (Spring 1997): 72.

9 Catton, “The Campaign to Establish,” 72.

10 “The New Forest Reserves,” New York Times, 27 February 1893, 4. ProQuest Historical

Newspapers, 1857-Current file.

11 Ibid., 4.

12 Tacoma Academy of Science, Proceedings of 6 Feb., 1893 meeting: “Is it Mount Tacoma, or Rainier?” (Tacoma: News Publishing Company, 1893), 24.

13 “Mount Rainier, or Tacoma,” New York Times, 21 January 1894, 19. ProQuest Historical

Newspapers, 1857-Current file. Originally published in the Washington Star.

14 Tacoma Academy of Science, 24.

15 Catton, “The Campaign to Establish,” 76.

16 Ibid., 73. 17 Arthur D. Martinson, Wilderness Above the Sound: The Story of Mount Rainier National

Park (Colorado: Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1994), 15.

18 Tacoma Academy of Science, 6.

19 Ibid., 24.

20 Ibid., 10.

21 Ibid., 5.

22 Quoted in Catton, “The Campaign to Establish,” 76.

23 “The New Forest Reserves,” 4.

24 Tacoma Academy of Science, 5.

25 Catton, “The Campaign to Establish,” 76.

26 Martinson, Wilderness Above the Sound, 24.

27 Catton, “Campaign to Establish,” 76.

28 Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience 3rd ed. (Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press, 1987), 66.

29 “An Act To set aside,” 994.

30 Ise, Our National Park Policy, 121.

31 “An Act To set aside,” 994.

32 John P. Hartman, “Address Upon the Creation of Mount Rainier National Park,” delivered at the Washington Good Roads Association, 37th Annual Convention, Olympia, WA., 27-28th Sept.

1935, 10. Annotated Works Consulted

Primary Sources

“An Act To set aside a portion of certain lands in the state of Washington, now known as

the Pacific Forest Reserve, as a public park, to be known as the Mount Rainier

National Park.” 55th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1899. US Statutes at Large. Vol. 30, Chap. 377,

993-995. Online. Available from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?

ammem/conservebib:@FIELD(NUMBER(v1010)). The bill which finally created the park

in 1899. The provision concerning the Northern Pacific Railroad is key, highlighting the

economic interest in Congress. This is one of the fundamental sources for the paper.

Hartman, John P. “Address Upon the Creation of Mount Rainier National Park.”

Delivered at the 37th Annual Convention of Washington Good Roads Association, Olympia,

WA., 27-28th Sept. 1935. Hartman talks about the congressional battle for the establishment of the park and his role in it. He praises the bill as a victory while at the same time

rationalizing the railroad provisions. Shows Congress’ economic motivations, as well as the

lack of environmental representation in the proceedings.

“Mount Rainier, or Tacoma.” New York Times, 21 January 1894, 19. ProQuest

Historical Newspapers, 1857-Current file. Short article talking about the demand for

national park status. Reveals recreational motivations.

“The New Forest Reserves.” New York Times, 27 February 1893, 4. ProQuest Historical

Newspapers, 1857-Current file. Short article talking about formation of reserves

in the western United States and how they will protect natural treasures and the

public water supply.

Tacoma Academy of Science. Proceedings of 6 th Feb., 1893 meeting: “Is it Mount

Tacoma or Rainier?” Tacoma: News Publishing Company 1893. Collection of

letters and speeches arguing that the mountain’s name should be Tacoma. Reveals that civic

pride was more important than environmental concerns as well as linking park status to

tourism and public use.

Secondary Sources

Catton, Theodore. “The Campaign to Establish Mount Rainier National Park, 1893-

1899.” The Pacific Northwest Quarterly 88 (Spring 1997): 70-81. Argues that a diverse

group of citizens united by environmental concerns were instrumental in forming the park,

and that its formation was a victory for the national park movement. Catton does not give

enough credit to local economic interests or the railroad lobby.

------. Wonderland: An Administrative History of Mount Rainier National Park.

Seattle: National Park Service, 1996. Early sections argue that the formation of the park

was an environmental triumph, differentiating national parks from the more conservation oriented national forests which focused on efficient use. This is the argument which I am

against. Also available online at http://www.nps.gov/mora/adhi/adhit.htm.

Cronon, William, Jay Gitlin, and George Miles, eds. Under an Open Sky: Rethinking

America’s Western Past. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1992. Compilation of

essays about the west and its history. Not useful for my project.

Cronon, William, ed. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New

York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1996. Not useful for my project.

Denman, A. H. The Name of Mount Tacoma. Tacoma: Rotary Club, 1924. Argues to

have the mountain’s name changed to Tacoma, showing the concern for civic pride and

local prestige. This is useful is showing that non-environmental arguments were important

in the park’s creation.

Dilsaver, Lary M., ed. America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents.

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994. Compilation of government documents relating to

the national parks. It lacks the Mount Rainier act and I never used any of the other

documents.

Fiege, Mark. Review of Sunrise to Paradise: The Story of Mount Rainier National Park,

by Ruth Kirk. New Mexico Historical Review 76 (2001): 111-12. Short topical review of

the book with no worthwhile analysis.

Greene, Jack P., ed. Encyclopedia of American Political History. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1984. Look at entry on “conservation, environment, and energy” by Nash.

Not useful for me.

Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive

Conservation Movement, 1890-1920. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1999. A look

at what conservation was and what we misperceive it as. Helpful with my second revision

but would have liked more time to read it.

Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1961. Contains a nice overview chapter about Mount

Rainier with good footnotes. Analyzes the act and establishment with criticism toward the

railroad and acknowledgment of economic forces.

Kirk, Ruth. Sunrise to Paradise: The Story of Mount Rainier National Park. Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 1999. More of a popular book with lots of pictures and not

much of a bibliography. Talks about the name controversy but contains little other value.

Kutler, Stanley I., ed. Dictionary of American History. 3rd ed. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 2003. Look at the entry on national parks by Karen Jones. An overview

with little pertinent information. The only real value is in the bibliography.

Martinson, Arthur D. Review of Sunrise to Paradise: The Story of Mount Rainier

National Park, by Ruth Kirk. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 91 (1999-2000): 49. A short and

topical review of the book. Not useful.

------. Wilderness Above the Sound: The Story of Mount Rainier National Park.

Colorado: Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1994. Useful sections on reasons for the formation

of the park and the groups involved.

Muir, John. Our National Parks. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1901. First and

last chapters were published before the formation of the park and talk about virtues of the

wilderness. Not very useful for my project however.

Nash, Roderick Frazier, ed. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation

History. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. Essays and excerpts about

environmentalism and the conservation movement broken down chronologically. Large

bibliography as well.

------. Wilderness and the American Mind. 4th ed. New Haven: Yale University Press,

2001. An intellectual history of ideas of wilderness and the movements for conservation.

Good bibliography but nothing specific about Mount Rainier.

Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience. 3rd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987. Interesting two page section about the motivations for Mount Rainier

National Park with some talk about the railroad. Index is more helpful than the contents

page.

------. Trains of Discovery: Western Railroads and the National Parks. Revised ed.

Niwot: Roberts Rinehart Inc., An Arpel Graphics Book, 1990. Optimistic and seemingly

nostalgic account of the railroad/national park alliance. Useful for overview and framework

but not much depth.

Sadin, Paul. Review of Sunrise to Paradise: The Story of Mount Rainier National Park,

by Ruth Kirk. Oregon Historical Quarterly 101 (1): 116-118. Short and useless.

Schmoe, Floyd W. Our Greatest Mountain: A Handbook for Mount Rainier National

Park. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Knickerbocker Press, 1925. Handbook of the park

from visitors by an early naturalist. Not useful.

Tolbert, Caroline Leona. History of Mount Rainier National Park. Seattle: Lowman &

Hantford co., 1933. Early history of the park with no real bibliography but does contain

reproductions of many government documents.