150 Years Of Preservation: Yosemite And The
Constitutionality Of National Parks, by Alfred Runte,
6/29/14
The Yosemite Grant gave birth to the "national park" idea, not
Yellowstone/QT Luong, www.terragalleria.com/parks, used with permission.
James Hutchings/NPS - As much to the point, a first claimant was
not allowed to sell any part of the 160 acres before obtaining title. The whole
purpose of the homestead acts was to ensure that actual settlers received the
land. By that definition, Hutchings had purchased his claim from a speculator and
might well be a speculator posing as a settler
too.
Now 150 years ago, on June 30, 1864, President Abraham
Lincoln signed the act designating Yosemite Valley as the Yosemite Grant. In
addition to the valley and its surrounding cliffs, the act authorized the protection of up to four square miles of
government land embracing the Mariposa Big Tree Grove, situated approximately
20 miles to the south.
This is to explain why many historians
(myself included) consider Yosemite as the birthplace
of the national park idea. Certainly, Yosemite realized the idea in fact, if
not in name. Even Yellowstone
National Park,
established eight years later, was referred to as 'a public park' in its
enabling act.
Management, not intent, distinguishes
the Yosemite Grant from Yellowstone. Both originated as acts of Congress; both
withheld scenery on the public lands from private ownership. At the time,
Yellowstone was by far the larger park, but chiefly on the assertion that the
region needed to be fully explored. When in fact its ' wonders' had been properly
located supporters insisted its boundaries could be redrawn.
Because Yellowstone then straddled
Montana and Wyoming territories, Congress had little choice but to keep the
park. As a state, California was in a position to accept the Yosemite Grant.
The unresolved question was how to manage it; that is, appropriately observe
what Congress had in mind.
And so the intrigue began. James Mason
Hutchings, a claimant and hotelier in the valley, immediately challenged the
grant as illegal. Having purchased his hotel in 1863 he insisted the federal
government had no right to deny his claim.
The commissioners of the grant
disagreed, noting the fundamental stipulation set forth by Congress: 'that the
said State shall accept this grant upon the express conditions that the
premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be
inalienable for all time; but leases not exceeding ten years may be granted for
portions of said premises.' The commissioners accordingly offered Hutchings a
lease, formally denying that he 'owned' a thing.
As supporting evidence, the
commissioners took note of the legal requirements for settlement all across the
public lands. Simply put, the bulk of the Sierra Nevada, including Yosemite
Valley, had never been surveyed. Before any claimant could expect clear title,
the relevant township containing Yosemite (36 square miles) and all relevant subsections had to be surveyed. Each
square mile or section within a township further contained four quarter
sections of 160 acres each. Such was the allowable claim under the homestead
laws, but again, exactly where did Hutchings's quarter section lie?
Regardless, he insisted he had gotten to
Yosemite Valley ahead of the park and had every right to buy an existing hotel.
Yet another Yosemite resident, James C. Lamon, similarly argued that being
first in the valley gave him absolute rights. Ultimately, the Yosemite
commissioners had no authority, the men pronounced, and joined in appealing their
case to the legislature.
In February 1868, the California
Legislature in fact approved their claims, passing the bill over the governor's
veto. However, the Legislature itself was clear; Congress still had the final
say. Its 'express conditions' of acceptance did not allow California alone to
reverse any terms of the grant.
Now determined to obtain congressional
approval, Hutchings personally took his case to Washington, D.C. First in 1868,
and again in 1871, the House of Representatives passed the bill he wanted.
Sympathy for the settler prevailed in the House. Just as firmly, the Senate refused to
concur and did not bring either bill to a vote. Hutchings then filed suit against
the state of California' and lost again. Offering Hutchings a last glimmer of
hope, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case [Hutchings v. Low] on appeal.
Technically, Yellowstone Park,
established on March 1, 1872, was also in limbo pending the outcome of the
case. Did Congress have the right to establish public parks' or withhold any
public lands, for that matter? Finally, in December 1872 the Supreme Court
ruled. The rights of the American settler aside, Congress was perfectly within
its own rights to establish the Yosemite Grant. The park was both appropriate
and constitutional, and not, as Hutchings and Lamon had alleged, an illegal 'taking'
of their 'homesteads' in Yosemite Valley.
Consider if the ruling had gone the
other way. At least flirting with the possibility, the Supreme Court sided with
Hutchings and Lamon that each had applied for a legal homestead. Although there
had not been an official survey, the court accepted that each claimant
had been sincere. With that, Hutchings and Lamon were halfway to the ruling they
wanted. If Congress wished to make public parks, lands previously reserved for
another pursuit' any pursuit' could never be involved.
Instead, the Supreme Court upheld the
future by affirming the constitutionality of public parks. Congress had been right
the first time it had changed its mind. Having previously designated the West
for settlement in no way obligated Congress to sell off every acre. "It
seems to us a little less than absurd," the court remarked, "to say
that a settler. . . by acquiring a right to be preferred in the purchase of
property, provided a sale is made by the owner, thereby acquires a right to
compel the owner to sell."
Similarly, Congress legitimately might
insist on the terms of the transfer. "The act of Congress of June 30,
1864," the court ruled, underscoring the point, passed title of Yosemite
Valley and the Mariposa Grove to California "subject to the trust
specified therein." As a result, the "act of California, of February
1868," recognizing homestead claims in the valley, was
"inoperative" unless "ratified by Congress." But no
ratification had ever occurred, "and it is not believed," the court
concluded, "that Congress will ever sanction such a perversion of the trust
solemnly accepted by the State." (italics added)
We see again the wisdom of the Founding
Fathers in establishing three distinct branches of government. Congress itself
had come close to reneging on the Yosemite Act, at least, close enough for
Yosemite's supporters to breathe a sigh of relief. Thanks to the separation of
powers, Yosemite was protected long enough for the majority sentiment in the
country to take hold.
Would James Mason Hutchings have
protected Yosemite Valley? And James Lamon? That we will never know, because
our forebears decided not to take the risk of accepting promises as the basis
of preservation.
After all, that formula had miserably
failed. If indeed Yosemite marks the origins of the national park idea, then
its earliest catalyst was Niagara Falls. With every acre surrounding the falls
privately owned, no American could doubt for a moment the fate awaiting
Yosemite if Congress failed to act.
As the despoliation of Niagara proved, a
promise goes only so far. The decision in Hutchings v. Low then carried preservation
into the modern age by allowing the public lands to be used for parks. Recall
that practically every national park established over the coming century would
be carved from the public lands.
It all started with Yosemite Valley
exactly 150 years ago. Over the next eight years, the entire concept of public
parks would be tested by Congress, the state of California, and the U.S.
Supreme Court. To reemphasize, Yellowstone was the beneficiary and not the
originator of that most important test.
As for James Mason Hutchings, he
received generous compensation, if not the heart of Yosemite Valley he fought
to own. And certainly his combative spirit cleared the air. His motives
notwithstanding, he set in motion the process by which the national park idea
would reclaim the best of the American land for us all.
Comments
This article fails to
cover the fact that Lincoln violated the US Constitution by not having Congress
draft an Amendment and send it to the States for ratification. But it does
explain how this violation took place.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
