tions of public trust, was a leader of the vigilantes who suppressed outlawry in Montana, and was President of the Minnesota Historical Society. He was once appointed Governor of Montana, but was not confirmed.

In his wanderings among the mining camps Mr. Langford often met prospectors who had been in the Yellowstone country and heard their tales, at that time incredible, of the natural wonders of that region. When General Henry D. Washburn, Surveyor-General of Montana, proposed to organize an expedition to the land of wonders, Mr. Langford sought a place with the company and was accepted. Other members of the party were Samuel T. Hauser, afterward Governor of Montana, Judge Cornelius Hedges, two Federal officials and leading citizens, five members of the Second United States cavalry with Lieutenant Gustavus C. Doane in command, two helpers, and "two African boys," to look after the meals. The nine citizens and six soldiers took regular turns at guard duty every night for fear of surprise by the Indians.

The members of this party, which explored what is now Yellowstone National Park, were not the first white men in the region, and they were not even the first to describe its wonders, but the expedition made by far the most thorough exploration and their reports were the first to arouse an interest in the country. Among the most widely read were the articles by Mr. Langford published in Scribner's Magazine. Mr. Langford, with Mr. Hauser and others, took an active part in prevailing upon Congress to set aside the territory as a big National Park. In recognition of his services Mr. Langford was appointed the first superintendent of Yellowstone Park.

Hetch Hetchy Valley.

In our former Reports we have referred to the application of the Mayor and Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, Cal., for a grant in the Hetch Hetchy Valley in the Yosemite National Park, Cal., for the purpose of increasing the water supply of San Francisco. We have also given our reasons for objecting to this grant on the ground that other sources of water supply were available, that the Hetch Hetchy Valley is not a dernier ressort for a public necessity and that it is a National

Park and should not thus be encroached upon. On May 11, 1908, Secretary of the Interior Garfield granted the desired permit. In February, 1910, Secretary Ballinger issued a citation to the grantees to show cause why the Hetch Hetchy should not be eliminated from the grant made by his predecessor, and at the time of our last Report the decision had been postponed by Secretary Fisher until December 3, 1911, in order that more data might be gathered. Since then the time has further been extended until June 10, 1912. Meanwhile the City of San Francisco asked the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a Master in Chancery or Commissioner to take testimony in San Francisco on certain aspects of the situation not distinctly of an engineering nature. To this we interposed no objection, provided the Secretary of the Interior was of the opinion that any new information of genuine importance was to be elicited; but we suggested that the testimony be restricted to questions of fact as to which there might be a wide or substantial difference of opinion. To admit evidence on all the points mentioned in the letter of the City Attorney of San Francisco to the Secretary would, in our opinion, have enlarged unnecessarily the record and have prolonged unduly the controversy. It was finally decided not to hold the hearing requested, and the extension of time is being utilized by both sides to gather the fullest possible data.

With respect to this subject our Counsel, Henry E. Gregory, Esq., wrote to Secretary Fisher February 9, 1912, as follows:

"As I understand it, the Attorney of the City of San Francisco contends that the Secretary of the Interior has the power to permit the City to convert a marvelously beautiful valley within a National Park, into a reservoir to supply San Francisco with water; and that such power was conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior by the Act of February 15, 1901 (Chap. 372, 31 Statutes at large, 790). This Act, as I read it, authorizes and empowers the Secretary of the Interior to permit the use of rights of way through the public land. for water plants, dams and reservoirs,' etc., and at the end of the Act it is provided that any permission given by the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of this Act may be revoked by him or his successor in his discretion, and shall not be held to confer any right, or easement, or interest in, to, or over any public land, reservation or park.' The act was carelessly drawn and is not free from ambi

guity, but, in my opinion it merely empowers the Secretary to permit the use of rights of way for certain specified purposes through the public lands. To grant the request of San Francisco would be to grant very much more than the use of a right of way, or a right of way itself, or a mere easement; it would be practically to convey to the City the fee of the valley. The Secretary may grant revocable licenses; but the City wants no revocable license or permit; it seeks a grant in perpetuity, an irrevocable proprietary right to construct, to possess and to maintain a reservoir in the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Congress has the power to alienate the property of the United States; but the Secretary of the Interior has no such power under this Act. All that Congress delegates to the Secretary as guardian of the National Parks is the power to regulate, to manage, to grant revocable licenses, incorporeal rights temporary in their nature.

"Furthermore, Congress has accepted the Yosemite as a National Park for the public use, benefit and enjoyment. A National Park is dedicated to the use of the public forever. In all legislation creating public parks, if the dedication is not expressed, the implication of perpetuity is inherent. Once a National Park, always a National Park. For Congress to confer, or to attempt to confer upon an executive officer of the Government the right or power to nullify, in part at least, the act constituting this valley and its surrounding territory a great National Park would be extraordinary indeed. The property, real and personal, of the United States is dedicated by law to the uses and purposes of the United States, and nothing short of an Act of Congress can authorize its application to any other uses and purposes.' (Opinions of Attorneys General, vol. 20, p. 96.)

"Finally, may I ask you to read again in the records of the Interior Department the words of your predecessor, Secretary Hitchcock, in denying the application of San Francisco?"

Right of Way in Mono National Forest Sought.

In December, a somewhat similar proposition affecting the Mono National Forest in California arose in Congress upon a bill (H. R. 12572) to grant a right of way over lands within that forest to the Hydro-Electric Co., of California. This bill was opposed by the National Conservation Association, this Society, and other organizations. For over two years this company has been contesting the right of the Government to regulate, in the public interest, the use of lands within the National Forests, and the case is important not only in itself, but also as a precedent. The company located mining claims covering the land across which

it desired to lay a pipe line and contended that the land was thereby removed from the jurisdiction of the Government. A suit to enjoin the laying of the pipe was brought, and the Master in Chancery to whom the matter was referred by the court, in his report dated October 17, 1909, recommending a temporary injunction, expressed the opinion that the claims were mere paper claims made with a view of obtaining a right of way for their pipe line across the Forest Preserve. In my opinion the seven claims mentioned are not valid mining locations at all."* Following this opinion, the company applied to the Department of Agriculture for a permit to build its line. The Department prepared certain reasonable stipulations but the company would not accept them and is now trying to get from Congress that which it formerly failed to get, first by subterfuge and second through the Department of Agriculture. If the company accepted a permit, it would thereby acknowledge the right of the Government to exercise a moderate control of the use of public property. If the pending bill passes Congress, it will secure the grant outright without such control. The principle involved is important. ADVERTISING SIGNS IN THE UNITED STATES.

The New York Highway Sign Law of 1911.

The State and City authorities in the United States are far behind foreign countries in the regulation of signboards. In past. years we have called attention to the excellent measures taken in Belgium and France for the regulation of billboards by taxation, but repeated efforts in the State of New York have met with failure. It seems strange that when the State is anxious to find means for raising a public revenue, this legitimate source should be neglected. In our Report for 1905, under the heading "The Poster Nuisance," we set forth the fundamental principles which, we believe, warrant the regulation of glaring advertisements forced upon the public attention. On page 267 following, we quote from the London Times some forcible remarks upon the

This subterfuge recalls the one long attempted to be practiced in New York State, where water power interests would apply for the regulation of public streams for "public health and safety" in order to improve their water power.

same subject. In New York State, the most progressive action taken was the enactment, last year, of the law providing that

"A person who willfully or maliciously displaces, removes, injures, or destroys a mile-board, mile-stone, danger sign, or signal, or guide sign or post, or any inscription thereon, lawfully within a public highway, or who in any manner paints, puts, or affixes any business or commercial advertisement on or to any stone, tree, fence, stump, pole, building, or other structure, which is the property of another, without first obtaining the written consent of such owner thereof, or who in any manner paints, puts, or affixes such an advertisement on or to any stone, tree, fence, stump, pole, mileboard, mile-stone, danger sign, danger signal, guide sign, guide post, billboard, building, or other structure within the limits of a public highway is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any advertisement in or upon a public highway in violation of the provisions of this subdivision may be taken down, removed, or destroyed by any one. This act shall take effect Sept. 1, 1911."

This, however, does not touch the evil of offensive and dangerous signs in cities which mar the streets and the vicinity of public parks and sometimes threaten the lives of passers-by. To a certain extent this evil in cities may be controlled by ordinance, and has been established in cases heretofore cited by us.

The St. Louis Ordinance Sustained.

Last fall the Supreme Court of Missouri sustained this principle in a case in St. Louis. Six years ago St. Louis passed an ordinance defining how and of what materials billboards should be built, limiting their size and ordering the demolition of all not conforming to the regulations. The validity of the law having been questioned, the Supreme Court sustains it, holding that this form of advertising "may not only be regulated and controlled, but may be entirely suppressed for the public good under the police power of the State." Ordinarily billboards have been opposed because offensive to good taste, but they are also an element of danger in storms and fires and in many cases have helped to conceal practices that were offensive to decency and morals, and the Missouri decision adds one more to the long list showing that municipalities possess the power to regulate the "nuisance."