Robin Winks on the Evolution and Meaning of the Organic Act With an Afterword by Denis P. Galvin Editor’s note: The historian Robin W. Winks (1930–2003) distinguished himself in many areas of scholarship during a tenure of more than 45 years at Yale University. One of his pas- sions was America’s national parks. Few people, if any, were more knowledgeable about the parks—he “saw the historical importance of the national parks concept more clearly than almost anyone,” according to one Yale colleague—and his knowledge did not come solely from books: he was one of only a handful of people to have visited every one of the units of the nation- al park system. Aside from writing extensively about the national parks, Winks also served as chair of the National Park System Advisory Board. The National Parks Conservation Associa- tion’s award for contributions to public education on behalf of America’s national parks is named in his honor. This Centennial Essay has been abridged from Winks’ seminal analysis of the meaning of the Organic Act, “The National Park Service Act of 1916: ‘A Contradictory Mandate’?”, published in 1997 in the Denver University Law Review and reproduced here with permission. The essay published here represents less than one-quarter of Winks’ original article. Much rich detail has been omitted from the discussion remaining, as well as entire discussions of historic objects in parks, the relationship of the Hetch Hetchy controversy to the Organic Act, the effects of other environmental legislation, water rights, implications for activities outside of parks, and most of the discussion of later laws affecting the interpretation of the act. Selections are focused on retaining Winks’ principal arguments and information pertaining to the intent of Congress in 1916. The extractions were made by Abigail Miller. To minimize the editorial apparatus, we have not marked those points where whole sentences or paragraphs have been excluded, and have extensively reformatted and renumbered the endnotes without editorial indications. However, in the main text ellipses are used wherever the internal structure of a sentence has been changed; square brackets, where an editorial emendation or addition has been made. The complete article in its original format may be viewed at www. nature.nps.gov/ Winks/. 6 The George Wright Forum NPS Centennial Essay Introduction HISTORIANS CONCERNED WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, managers in the Park Service, and critics and defenders of the Service frequently state that the Organic Act which brought the National Park Service into existence in 1916 contains a “contradictory mandate.” That “contradictory mandate” is said to draw the Park Service in two quite opposite directions with respect to its primary mission; the contradiction is reflected in management policies; the inability to resolve the apparent contradiction is blamed for inconsistencies in those poli- cies. The apparent contradiction is con- intense lobbying by a variety of interest tained in a single sentence of the preamble groups, and growing public concern. The to the act. That sentence reads, in address- leaders of the campaign to establish a Park ing the question of the intent of the Service Service were, in the House, Congressmen to be established by the act, that the Service William Kent and John Raker, both of Cali- is fornia, and in the Senate, Reed Smoot of Utah. Congressman Kent had the close to conserve the scenery and the natural advice of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., son of and historic objects and the wild life the founder of American landscape archi- therein [within the national parks] and tecture and creator of Central Park. Stephen to provide for the enjoyment of the T. Mather, a wealthy borax industry execu- same in such manner and by such tive (who later would become the first full- means as will leave them unimpaired time director of the new National Park Ser- for the enjoyment of future genera- vice created by the act) was heavily tions.1 involved, as were a number of recreational, This paper is an attempt to determine the outdoor, tourist, and automobile associa- intent of Congress with respect to the Act of tions, of which the American Civic Associa- 1916. It is the work of an historian, not a tion was the most important. legal scholar. The historian recognizes that These advocates spoke of most of the the intent of the whole of Congress in pass- thirty-seven parks that then existed, as well ing an act, and the intent of the individuals as the wide range of park proposals pending who framed that act, do not perfectly coin- before Congress, in terms of scenic re- cide; that intent must nonetheless be inter- serves, often invoking a comparison with preted as individual; that intent changes; Switzerland, which it was invariably argued and that the law of unintended conse- had capitalized on its natural scenery more quences looms large in any legislation. effectively than any other nation. Both rail- road and automobile interests advocated Creating a National Park Service: more consistent administration of the exist- The Act of 1916 ing parks in order to protect them more The National Park Service was created effectively, and also to make certain that by act of Congress in August 1916, and accommodations and campgrounds were President Woodrow Wilson signed the Or- held to a consistent standard for the pub- ganic Act on August 25. The act was the lic’s pleasure. While the railroads wished to result of some six years of discussion, bring spur lines to the borders of the parks, Volume 24 • Number 3 (2007) 7 NPS Centennial Essay they seldom argued for actual entry. Auto- broad questions of the language of the bill. mobilists wished to see roads to and within The preamble, or “statement of fundamen- the parks upgraded so that visitors could tal purpose” for the act of 1916, was drafted tour the parks in greater comfort. All spoke by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., at the of “scenery” with respect to the principal request of Congressman Kent. Thus Olm- natural parks, though with a variety of qual- sted’s views ... are also important to under- ifiers, and all referred to the need for preser- standing Kent’s intent. Fortunately, his vation of that scenery while also making the papers survive at the Library of Congress scenery accessible for the “enjoyment” of (and, to a lesser extent, at the former the public. Thus, any discussion of con- Olmsted offices and studios in Brookline, gressional intent in 1916 involves some Massachusetts). understanding of what was meant at the The governing sentences of the time by “scenery,” as well as the specific ref- National Park Service Act of 1916 read as erences to it in hearings, debate, legislation, follows: and the correspondence of the key legisla- The service thus established shall pro- tors. mote and regulate the use of the Debate, and the [House Committee on Federal areas known as national parks, Public Lands] members’ papers, make it monuments, and reservations here- abundantly clear that the key members in inafter specified by such means and the House, with respect both to the Organic measures as conform to the fundamen- Act and to specific national park bills dur- tal purpose of the said parks, monu- ing this time, were Congressmen Kent and ments, and reservations, which pur- Raker, Congressman Irvine Lenroot of Wis- pose is to conserve the scenery and the consin, who was a watchdog preoccupied natural and historic objects and the with scrutinizing all bills for their financial wild life therein and to provide for the impact on government spending, and enjoyment of the same in such manner Congressman Edward T. Taylor of Colo- and by such means as will leave them rado, who was an advocate of the bill that unimpaired for the enjoyment of future created Rocky Mountain National Park in generations.2 1915 and who saw the two acts as closely related.... [A]lmost never did any It is this language which requires explica- Congressman other than these four speak to tion, and it is the path to this language, general principles of preservation and pro- beginning with the first suggestion that tection or to matters concerning water. there should be a national park service or Thus, in the House one best focuses on bureau, that requires tracing if we are to Congressman Kent, whose bill, H.R. 8668, understand congressional intent. was ultimately enacted (with slight modifi- cations) as H.R. 15522, and whose papers Taft and Ballinger recommend a are voluminous. bureau The story is similar in the Senate. Beginning early in 1910 the American While several Senators spoke with respect Civic Association had declared the need for to their final bill, S.9969, which was offered a special bureau, most likely within the by Senator Smoot, almost no one took up Department of the Interior, to administer 8 The George Wright Forum NPS Centennial Essay the nation’s national parks.... In his annu- tial to spend the money needed to “bring all al report for 1910, the secretary of the inte- these natural wonders within easy reach of rior, Richard Ballinger, recommended that our people.”5 A bureau would improve the Congress should create a “bureau of nation- parks’ “accessibility and usefulness,” he al parks and resorts” in order to assure concluded.6 These were common themes at future generations competent administra- the time, for parks were likened to “nature’s tion of the parks.3 This statement was cathedrals” through which the United immediately taken up by the American States, a raw young country, matched in Civic Association, though never again was splendor the great human-built cathedrals there reference to “and resorts” in relation of Europe (a commonplace comparison, to a bureau’s prospective title.