U.S. senator from Hampton, representative from Hampton, and first assistant secretary of the interior, date unknown. Courtesy of the University of Hampton, Missoula; Hampton and Mike Mansfield Library/Archivas and Special Collections.
-
- The Best of the British Isles map
-
- Stony Brook University, New York | Maps & Directions
-
- Hampton Court Palace
-
- Every UK County’s Top Rated Tourist Attraction
The argument of the possibility of minerals and agriculture development was still in play. This was struck down by Carter’s counterargument that the lands were worthless for commerce. The matter of future railroad construction that seemed to favor the Great Northern was also a concern. The bill was amended to negate that possibility.
Then the persistent argument of new appropriations to pay for a new park was cited. This was countered by the argument made by Frederick Olmsted in 1865 that a well-maintained park would turn the heads of Americans who annually vacationed in the mountains of Switzerland to the more readily accessible mountains and lakes of northwestern Montana. A figure of $2,000,000 was thrown out. That, coupled with the Great Northern’s “See America First” national campaign, seemed to touch the pockettravel blogs and patriotism of the senators and representatives. figure 5., Thomas Henry Carter, territorial delegate and U.S. senator and representative from Montana, December 12,1^07.
Courtesy of the University of Montana, Missoula; Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library/Archives and Special Collections.
From that point on, minor squabbles and amendments were debated. A favorable committee vote was cast on February 9, 1910. The bill was headed for the House, to be handled by Congressman Pray—and apparently without the opposition of Speaker Cannon. Why?
