National park and monument lands administered by the National Park Service relation to the Federal lands1

1 Includes vacant public lands, unalienated national park and monument lands, and unalienated national forest lands, but does not include military and Indian reservations, reclamation and power-site withdrawals, etc.

2 July 1, 1924.

Unalienated national forest, park, and monument lands. The area of vacant public lands in Alaska is not obtainable. Vacant public lands and forest lands of the Territory of Hawaii are under the Territorial land depart. ment.

The CHAIRMAN. In how many States are there national parks? Mr. CAMMERER. We have only one national park in the East, and that is in Maine. We have one in Arkansas, one in Oklahoma, the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and Mesa Verde and Rocky Mountain Parks in Colorado, four in California, one in Oregon, one in Washington, one in Montana, one in South and in North Dakota, and then we have the Yellowstone, which is primarily in Wyoming, but which also runs over into Montana and Idaho, and one in Utah. There is one in Alaska and one in Hawaii.

The CHAIRMAN. Are these parks a source of money return to the Federal Government in any instance?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, Senator; the parks brought in a revenue this past year of $663,886.12 to the United States Government, which is turned directly into miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no division of that income with the States as provided for in the case of the forest reserve returns? Mr. CAMMERER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would there be any justification for a prorating of receipts with the States or the counties of the States wherein national parks have been reserved and withdrawn?

Mr. CAMMERER. My idea is that these are national parks, being appropriated for only by the Congress. They are national property and not State property, and as such all the revenues that come from each park, by whatever means, should be turned into the National Treasury. I believe the present system is sound.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it is true that they are national property, and yet they are withdrawn from the resources of the State, which must maintain a local government, and that local government is a benefit to that area. What I have in mind is whether there might not be a justification for a contribution from those receipts to the States in consideration of their maintaining the local govern

ment.

Mr. CAMMERER. That is a very difficult question, Senator. I only gave you my offhand opinion a moment ago.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that.

Mr. CAMMERER. I have never given that phase of it any thought. In the first place, there is manifest a strong desire on the part of the States to have national parks within them. For instance, in the State of Washington, where we have the Mount Rainier National Park as the exponent of the largest peak glacial system in the United States, there has been a considerable movement in the States and there have been bills introduced in Congress by Senators and Congressmen with reference to four or five other mountain peaks in that State to make make them national parks. We have turned them down, because we want no duplication of exhibits. We believe that every park should have its own individuality.

To the best of my knowledge that question has not arisen, except perhaps in one instance that comes to my mind. In a great many instances the States have offered to the United States complete jurisdiction over those parks, and the Congress has accepted it. That obtains in all the California parks with the exception of Lassen. We have not that jurisdiction in the Grand Canyon or in a number of the other national parks, but the time is coming when we will try to get that jurisdiction.

Senator SPENCER. In those States where you do not have the exclusive jurisdiction, as in the instance of the Grand Canyon, do the States or counties exercise any police protection or help in the maintenance or supervision of the national park?

Mr. CAMMERER. We have administration of that park under our own police powers, but we work with the State and Federal authori

ties.

Senator SPENCER. As to those States that have not yielded complete jurisdiction to you, do the States or the counties help in guarding, maintaining, or improving the park?

Mr. CAMMERER. No, sir; not in guarding. You are speaking from the police standpoint?

Senator SPENCER. Well, from any standpoint.

Mr. CAMMERER. Well, in the Grand Canyon National Park the county of Coconino owns one of the main trails.

Senator CAMERON. And they have a justice of the peace, and a constable, the same as the peace officers in any town or municipality.

Until the State, by legislative act, relinquishes its right to the park, they have the same jurisdiction in criminal matters as they would have in any other part of the State.

Senator SPENCER. Do they, for example, at State expense and by State forces, guard against fire or guard against trepass?

Senator CAMERON. They have nothing to do with the management of the park, other than protecting the citizens or the visitors in the park from people that might go in there and commit depredations. That protection is provided by the State just as it would be in the city of Phoenix, or Flagstaff, or Williams, until the legislature shall enact a law relinquishing control.

Senator SPENCER. In such instances I should think there would be merit in Senator Stanfield's suggestion that where the State incurs an expense in regard to keeping the peace or in regard to any other service from which the park derives a benefit there should be some distribution of the receipts between the Federal Government and the State.

Senator CAMERON. Twenty-five per cent of the receipts of the Forest Service on account of grazing fees and sales of timber goes to the States in which the forests are located, for roads and schools, and 10 per cent goes to the Forest Service for the construction of roads and trails within the forests.

Senator SPENCER. Does not any of it come to the Government? Senator CAMERON. The remaining 65 per cent of it goes to the Government. Twenty-five per cent of it is distributed pro rata to the counties in which the forest reserve is located.

The CHAIRMAN. Just for illustration, if a murder were committed within a national park, would the accused be prosecuted by the State in its courts, or would it be prosecuted by the Federal Government? Senator CAMERON. May I answer that? In the national parks where the States have not relinquished their jurisdiction over the parks the State would have the same power to prosecute that it would have in any other section of the State.

Senator SPENCER. Would it have exclusive authority?
Senator CAMERON. Absolutely.

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes; we recognize that. Furthermore, gentlemen, it depends upon the particular wording of the cession act on the part of the State. They reserve to themselves certain rights with respect to criminal procedure. Without those laws before me I can not answer your question with regard to specific places. In regard to the Grand Canyon, the reason they have a justice of the peace and a constable there is because the little town of Grand Canyon is on private property and it is a municipality. In the Mesa Verde National Park, where we have not jurisdiction either, the nearest constable and justice of the peace are 35 or 50 miles away. The town of Grand Canyon just happened to be right there. Any visitor violating the park regulations or Federal laws on Government lands in Grand Canyon National Park, however, is brought before the nearest United States commissioner, who, if the offense is sufficiently serious, holds the violator for the action of the United States court, and thus the United States, even in those parks where the State has not ceded jurisdiction, maintains police jurisdiction over offenses or violations of the park regulations or Federal laws on Government lands.

Now, in the California act, Senator Spencer, the State has reserved to itself certain rights. The people have the right to vote, and I think they pay, consequently, a capitation tax. The State also reserves to itself the right to fix and collect license fees for fishing in the parks. A scrutiny of the various park acts would doubtless present interesting details as to each one. There might be some similarity and there might be some variances. It depends upon the State. A State in the Southwest has different problems from a State in the Northwest, and has different ideas of what it should require of the United States Government.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not the policy of the park commission, in the main, to have any duplication of natural wonders in the parks? Mr. CAMMERER. That is right; sir. I might say in that connection that there have been many applications for the creation of national parks put through the committees of Congress at the request of local people, through their representatives in Congress, and they have been turned down because they did not represent in the highest degree the characteristics of the national park system. Duplication of exhibits is studiously avoided.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Senator Cameron asked you about fire protection, but I do not have it clearly in mind. Does the park service maintain fire protection in the parks?

Mr. CAMMERER. During the tourist season-I am speaking now of the northern parks, like the Yellowstone-the tourist season is on from a little after the middle of June until a day or two after the middle of September. During those times every care is taken to prevent and to control fires, both in the hotels and the places where people have to sleep, and in the forests. Every other duty is subordinate to the one of putting out fires.

In the case of forest fires our lookouts cooperate with those of the Forest Service that are nearby, and vice versa. Wherever necessary all cooperation is extended from one to the other.

Senator CAMERON. You have very strict regulations for campers in the parks as to fires?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir. The warning signs are well placed, and the regulations are called to their attention, and we have no compunction about hauling the campers in and fining them heavily if they leave fires burning.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the responsibility for that rest with the park service?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes, sir. I am particularly glad to go on record as to this, entirely aside from the forest fire problem, which is different from the problem in the hotels and camps and dormitories-every year we make our superintendents, with competent assistants, inspect the fire protection facilities. We want no fire holocaust to occur in the parks. Just this week my letters went out to the superintendents, asking them again to make a personal inspection and check up to the best of their ability.

The CHAIRMAN. As to concessions within the parks, are they granted on a competitive basis?

Mr. CAMMERER. With the exception of the Yellowstone Park, the park concessions have in general been gotten into the parks only by a great deal of personal effort over a good many years.

As to the Grand Canyon, the law requires us to advertise and select the best and most responsible bidder, which is done. In the Yosemite National Park up to this year, when a consolidation has gone into effect between the hotels and the camping companies, the record has been one of constant failure for the past 10 years. There was one failure that I know of, and I think there were two failures before Director Mather induced the people of the State of California to take action. He said, "You have here a national park, where you are asking visitors to come, but you have no accommodations." And he got the public-spirited men of California, primarily Los Angeles and San Francisco, to get together and put in $1,500,000. It has not been a paying thing up to the present time.

The same has been done in Crater Lake National Park and in Mount Rainier National Park. In Mount Rainier the cities of Seattle and Tacoma got together. They simply had to do something to take care of the visitors. The past year was the first year they have paid a dividend, but now the travel is larger and is growing to such an extent every year that we hope they will receive a return on their money. It is not only a question of making money on the present investment, but they have to keep on putting in more money to extend their hotels and camps.

Some

Take the situation in the Crater Lake National Park. years past, Mr. Chairman, the director was able to get an operator out there who had some backing to go in and take hold of that. But there were so many complaints about his service, even on the part of Senators and Congressmen who went out there and inspected the place, that he later on had to go to the city of Portland and tell the business men, "You have got to go in there and clean that up; you have got to put in up-to-date service." They did, and as a result the travel to Crater Lake, that is growing by leaps and bounds every year, is well taken care of now.

It has not been an easy thing to get the concessionaires into the parks. They were not willing to risk their money. They knew they would have to let their money work for a number of years without bringing any returns.

Of course the contracts we have with them are just as different as the laws creating the different parks. They all have to be based upon the particular situation. Some of the Yosemite contracts were, up to the time of this consolidation-I do not know what form the new consolidation contracts will take-based on a priority of 6 per cent on the operator's investment; they were assured that, and after that 6 per cent on their money was secured the United States would get a certain proportion of the profits and the operators a certain share. But up to last year they did not make their 6 per cent. It has been a hard thing to get this work started, but now that the tourist travel is increasing these park operators will probably be in better shape.

Senator CAMERON. You say that the concessions at the Grand Canyon have been let on competitive bidding?

Mr. CAMMERER. Yes; under the special provision in the organic act creating that part which prescribed it.

Senator CAMERON. But that is about the only place in the National Park Service where it has been done on competitive bidding?