To summarize, the Yellowstone was the first national park, and the system of parks and monuments-including Hot Springs of which it was the beginning was the direct result of the conception of the National Park Idea.

Distinction between Parks and Monuments. The act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 225), entitled "An act for the preservation of American antiquities," gave the President discretionary power to set aside by proclamation any lands owned or controlled by the United States containing "historic landmarks, historic or prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest" as "national monuments." Provision was made also for the punishment by fine or imprisonment of persons injuring the monuments, and jurisdiction over the monuments was given to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Secretary of War, depending upon which department had jurisdiction over the areas in which the monuments were severally located.

Section 4 of the act provides that the secretaries of the three departments-Interior, Agriculture, and War-shall make uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out its provisions. Secretaries Hitchcock, Wilson, and Taft promptly complied by promulgating-Dec. 28, 1906—an appropriate set of rules which are still in effect without change.

The passage of this act was the culmination of an organized movement by a group of archæologists, scientists, and others, to put such safeguards about the unique archæological treasures which the country possesses in the ancient pueblos and cliff dwellings of the Southwest as would prevent their spoliation and ultimate destruction. Their protection by the creation of additional park areas had been found impracticable because a special congressional enactment was necessary in each case, and because Congress was unwilling to create a great number of parks, many of which would be, necessarily, of very limited area. The original idea had been to protect ancient ruins only, but the act was broadened so as to include

within its scope other objects of historic or scientific value, natural as well as artificial. The first monument created, as a matter-of-fact, was the Devils Tower, in Wyoming, a natural formation.

Some confusion has arisen as to the difference between parks and monuments. It has been asked, for example, why, of two reserved areas, the basic reasons for the reservation in each case being the preservation of a natural wonder, one should be a park and the other a monument.

The simplest way to answer this question is to say what has been said above in speaking of the setting-aside of Hot Springs. The object of a monument is the preservation from destruction or spoliation of some object of historic, scientific, or other interest. The object of a park is that and something more; namely, the development of the area reserved for its more complete and perfect enjoyment by the people. It might be said that a monument is park raw material, because many of the existing monuments, in all probability, will receive park status when their development as parks is practicable. Several of the present parks of the system originally had monument status, notably Grand Canyon, Lafayette, and Zion Parks.

The Parks and Monuments Prior to 1916. From the setting-aside of the Yellowstone Park in 1872 until 1890 no new parks were added to the park system. Sequoia, Yosemite, and General Grant parks were added in 1890, and by the time the National Park Service was created in August, 1916, the system totalled sixteen parks and eighteen monuments. This includes the Hot Springs Reservation, and one park, Casa Grande, which was given monument status in 1918.

The history of the parks and monuments during this period is almost altogether a history of individual rather than group development. New parks and monuments were created from time to time and became, thereupon, so many new individual problems rather than parts of a general problem. No noteworthy legislation of a general nature applying to the park

system in common was enacted during this period except the act for the preservation of American antiquities. There was, moreover, no such thing within the Department of the Interior as a section or division charged with the administration of the park system to the exclusion of everything else. The Patents and Miscellaneous Division, in the office of the Secretary, already occupied with an abundance of other duties, gave such attention to the parks as time could be found for. It cannot be said that such a thing as a park system existed, if the word system be used in the sense of a disciplined, coördinated unit. Every park was in a very real sense a law unto itself, and the parks were more of a conglomeration at this time than a system. When the Secretary's office was reorganized in 1907, the miscellaneous duties of this division were given to the Miscellaneous Section in the Secretary's office, and the former chief of division was placed in charge of the section as Assistant Attorney. The work of this section embraced, besides the management of the parks and monuments, the administration of Alaska and Hawaii, the care of several eleemosynary institutions, etc.

A series of national park conferences held in 1911, 1912, and 1915 at the Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Berkeley, California, respectively, and participated in by all the park superintendents and many of the department officers concerned in park administration, had much to do with bringing about an improved system of park control in the department. 3

The first step in this direction was made in 1913, when Secretary Lane placed the Assistant to the Secretary in general charge of park administration. This was followed, June 5, 1914, by the appointment of a General Superintendent and Landscape Engineer of the national parks, to reside at San Francisco and have general supervision over all the park superintendents. Thereafter a still further advance was made when

3 A fourth conference, held in Washington, January 2-6, 1917, was in the nature of a celebration of the success of the movement for a national park service.

the urgent deficiency appropriation act of February 28, 1916 (39 Stat. L., 23) conferred authority upon the Secretary to employ a General Superintendent in the District of Columbia and in the field, the salary of the new officer and other necessary expenses of administration to be taken from the appropriations and revenues of the several parks on a pro rata basis. Under this authority the office of the General Superintendent was moved to Washington. In the sundry civil appropriation act of July 1, 1916, (39 Stat. L., 309) authorization was given for the employment of a General Superintendent, together with such clerical or other assistants, not exceeding four persons, as the Secretary might determine.

In December 1913, a piece of legislation was enacted which, while it directly affected but one park, the Yosemite, was of indirect effect upon the entire system by reason of the precedent which it established. This was the law (Act of December 19, 1913; 38 Stat. L., 242) giving to the City of San Francisco the right to use certain lands in the Yosemite Park, specifically the Hetch Hetchy Valley, for the construction of a reservoir to supply the city with water and to generate electric power.

This legislation was only enacted after a struggle extending over the better part of a decade. It was fought by many civic organizations of standing and was strongly opposed by naturalists of note like John Muir and by many citizens, who believed that that part of the national park idea which called for the preservation of the parks in their original state should be rigidly lived up to.

The city, on the other hand, claimed that the water to be obtained from the project was essential to the city's life in the years to come, and that it was impracticable to obtain it from any other source. Its point of view finally triumphed. As to whether this triumph was a rightful one; and as to whether it will be a precedent for commercial raiding of the parks, or an example constituting a warning against that danger are questions for the future to answer.

The Movement for the Establishment of the National Park Service. A number of years before Secretary Lane introduced the reforms in park administration which have been described in the preceding section, a feeling had been growing up among friends of the parks that they should be administered by a special bureau devoting its time to park affairs and nothing else. Secretary Lane's innovations were hailed as strides in the right direction, but it was felt that they did not go far enough.

Secretary Ballinger had recommended the creation of a "bureau of national parks and resorts under the supervision of a competent commissioner" in his annual report for 1910. The American Civic Association, a society which has always been active in any movement for park betterment, took up the cause of a park bureau at about the same time. It is not too. much to say that the untiring zeal of this organization in keeping up interest in the project, both in and out of Congress, by meetings, publications, and influence brought to bear through the most powerful press organs, had more to do with the final successful issue of the movement than any other one factor. Sentiment in general was in favor of the creation of the bureau, but it was not organized and was largely passive. But for the life the American Civic Association put into the movement it is to be doubted if Congress could have been induced to create a new bureau to do work that had been getting done somehow for so long a time without it.

Another important factor in this movement was the series of national park conferences already referred to. At these meetings of practical park men, with a practical understanding of park problems, the park bureau project found many champions.

What may be termed the "Canadian Argument" was much used by proponents of the bureau idea throughout the movement. It was pointed out that Canada had already established a bureau of parks which was functioning with brilliant success. Secretaries Fisher and Lane were both in favor of the