OCR Text |
Show 514. the Valley i t s e l f . This was the most serious kind of confusion and brought into question the very i n t e g r i t y of the Club. Of course the members who favored State control would have argued that the question was State versus federal control, but that, Muir knew, was a red h e r r i n g . The State had demonstrated i t s i n a b i l i t y to care for the Park, and at the same time, the federal government had shown that i t could care for the watershed surrounding i t . When the Club finally did take open ground in 1905, i t s reasons for advocating the recession of the Valley to the federal government were couched in purely practical terms, suggested not the real issue of concern for the Yosemite i t s e l f , but instead argued that improved accommodations, s e r v i c e s , and j u r i s d i c t i o n would provide growing revenues for the S t a t e . It may be that the Club's position was a r t i c u l a t e d toward the expected opposition of the State's c i t i z e n s , but nevertheless, i t s public statements were not based on the deep reasons for changing the administration of the Valley. In the meantime, Muir and Colby had e n l i s t e d the aid of Harriman and his paid-off men in Sacramento. And i t is likely that the nine v i s i t s Muir and Colby made to the Legislature during the debate were l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t than one c a l l made by William Herrin, who was Harriman's chief counsel in California. Thus the real force which lobbied effectively for Yosemite in 1905 was not the Club, but the Southern Pacific Railroad. This was a bad omen. When i t came to the question of Hetch Hetchy, Muir and Colby would not be able to use Harriman, |