| OCR Text |
Show 534 s0 how could San F r a n c i s c o be refused? How indeed? The Examiner spoke of "A c e r t a i n c l a s s of c i t i z e n s . . . who may be called chronic opponents. They never o r i g i n a t e ANYTHING and they always oppose EVERYTHING." So the b a t t l e was l o st and a precedent was s e t . The r i g h t s of the c i t i e s were more important than the r i g h t s of the w i l d e r n e s s or of the r u r al areas. If the Owens V a l l e y could be d r a i n e d , then Hetch Hetchy could be dammed. WHAT LESSONS? Much has been said about the compensatory good which would follow the defeat suffered when San Francisco gained the rights to Hetch Hetchy. Muir wrote to Henry Fairfield Osborn, "Fortunately wrong cannot last; soon or late it must fall back home to Hades, while some compensating good must surely follow." One might wish that it were true. But nothing is ever so simple, and the divine plan in which Muir believed continues to elude us. Certainly many of the very men who tried to discredit Muir over the Hetch Hetchy debate became active supporters of the Park Service bill which finally gave us a National Park Service in 1916. Raker and Kent in particular were instrumental in seeing the National Park Service formed, and were glad to accept help from the western rai•l •r•o adJs„. DniidH tntehyev do so because, as Muir believed in 1914, "the conscience of the whole country has been aroused from sleep?" Did they do so because they felt |
