1. Recent scholarship has stressed the importance of personal networks and bureaucratic reputation in shaping American public policy during the early twentieth century. See Balogh, Brian, “Scientific Forestry and the Roots of the Modern American State,” Environmental History 7 (04 2002): 198–225Google Scholar, Carpenter, Daniel P., The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, 2001)Google Scholar, and Rodgers, Daniel, Atlantic Crossings (Cambridge, Mass., 1998)Google Scholar.

2. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy.

3. Worster, Donald, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New York, 1985)Google Scholar.

4. Wright, Gavin, “The Origins of American Industrial Success, 1879–1940,” American Economic Review 80 (09 1990): 651–668Google Scholar. In a Round Table on environmental history, Donald Worster, the preeminent environmental historian of the twentieth-century United States, argued that the development of the capitalist mode of production was the crucial watershed in environmental history, not only reorganizing society but reorganizing nature as well. But, as Worster's own research has shown, the growth of powerful states was a prerequisite for much of the massive reorganization of nature. See Worster, Donald, “Transformations of the Earth: Toward an Agroecological Perspective in History,” Journal of American History 76 (03 1990): 1087–1106Google Scholar.

5. On the enduring impact of environmental policy on the shape of the modern American state, see Phillips, Sarah T., This Land, This Nation (New York, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

6. For a review of the social explanation of the welfare state in a transnational context, see Baldwin, Peter, The Politics of Social Solidarity (New York, 1991), 5–9, 40–44, 289–99Google Scholar. Nearly all American versions of the social explanation derive indirectly from Charles A. Beard, and more directly from C. Vann Woodward. See, especially, Woodward's, Origins of the New South, 1877–1913 (Baton Rouge, 1951)Google Scholar. Prominent examples of the social explanation in the American context include Frances Piven, Fox and Cloward, Richard, Regulating the Poor (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Piven, and Cloward, , Poor People's Movements (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; Cohen, Lisabeth, Making a New Deal (New York, 1990)Google Scholar; and Dawley, Alan, Struggles for Justice (Cambridge, Mass., 1991)Google Scholar. The social explanation is criticized by Berkowitz, Edward D. in America's Welfare State (Baltimore, 1991), xii–xixGoogle Scholar, and Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, 4–11. For an analysis of American state development as an alternative to, rather than an immature version of Western European experience, see Schulman, Bruce J., From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt (New York, 1991), 135–139, 206–8Google Scholar.

7. Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Evans, Peter et al. , eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York, 1985), 9Google Scholar. See also Block, Fred, “Beyond Relative Autonomy: State Managers as Historical Subjects,” in Block, Revising State Theory (Philadelphia, 1987)Google Scholar; Baldwin, Politics of Social Solidarity, 290; Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State (New York, 1982), ixGoogle Scholar; Skocpol, Theda and Ikenberry, John, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State: In Historical and Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Social Research 6 (1983): 87–148Google Scholar; Skocpol, , Protecting Soldiers and Mothers (Cambridge, Mass., 1992)Google Scholar; Quadango, Jill S., “Welfare Capitalism and the Social Security Act of 1935,” American Sociological Review 49 (10 1984): 632–647Google Scholar; and Weir, Margaret et al. , “Introduction: Understanding American Social Politics,” in Weir, Margaret et al. , eds., The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton, 1988), 16–27Google Scholar. For a discussion of rival theories of the state, see Poggi, Gianfranco, The State: Its Nature, Development, and Prospects (Stanford, 1990)Google Scholar; Carnoy, Martin, The State and Political Theory (Princeton, 1984)Google Scholar; and Nordlinger, Eric A., On the Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge, Mass., 1981)Google Scholar.

8. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 2, 41–47. In another prominent, polity-centered approach, Elizabeth Sanders locates agrarian interests as the motive force behind early twentieth-century American state building. See Sanders, Elizabeth, Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917 (Chicago, 1999)Google Scholar. For a critique of this argument, see Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Authority, 359–60, and Wolfe, Alan, “The Mothers of Invention,” The New Republic, 4–1101 1993, 28–35Google Scholar.

9. Hacker, Jacob S., The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (New York, 2002)Google Scholar; Howard, Christopher, The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in the United States (Princeton, 1997)Google Scholar; Amenta, Edwin, Bold Relief: Institutional Politics and the Origins of Modern American Social Policy (Princeton, 1998)Google Scholar; Klein, Jennifer, For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America's Public-Private Welfare State (Princeton, 2003)Google Scholar.

10. John, Richard R., Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge, Mass., 1995)Google Scholar; Novak, William J., The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, 1996)Google Scholar; Balogh, Brian, “Scientific Forestry and the Roots of the Modern American State,” Environmental History 7 (04 2002): 198–225Google Scholar.

11. Gifford Pinchot, letter to Julie Jones, 9 December 1910, Gifford Pinchot Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Box 468 (hereafter cited as Pinchot Papers). See also Miller, Char, Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism (Washington, D.C., 2001)Google Scholar; McGeary, M. Nelson, Gifford Pinchot: Forester-Politician (Princeton, 1960)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (Cambridge, Mass., 1959)Google Scholar; Pinchot, , The Fight for Conservation (New York, 1910)Google Scholar; and Pinchot, , Breaking New Ground (New York, 1947)Google Scholar.

12. Frederic Haynes Newell, “The Engineer in the Public Service,” Address before the graduating Class of Case School, Cleveland, Ohio, 29 May 1912, in Frederic Haynes Newell Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Box 6 (hereafter cited as Newell Papers). Gifford Pinchot, letter to Alford W. Cooley, 17 August 1909, Pinchot Papers, Box 468. Newell, letter to Pinchot, 2 July 1903, Pinchot Papers, Box 602. Pinchot, memorandum regarding the firing of Newell, 29 June 1915, Pinchot Papers, Box 512. On Newell and the Reclamation Service, see also Worster, Rivers of Empire, 155, 173–77, and Hays, Conservation, 5–27, 91–121.

13. McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, 54; Miller, Pinchot and Modern Environmentalism, 147–76.

14. Newell, letter to Pinchot 12 December 1905, with Pinchot's reply of 13 December 1905, Pinchot Papers, Box 599. Poggi, The State, 124. See also Skowronek, Building a New American State; Skocpol and Ikenberry, “Political Formation of the American Welfare State”; Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In”; Nordlinger, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State; and Keller, Morton, Affairs of State (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar.

15. McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, 45–61. Pinchot, Draft Speech—Monopoly File, n.d., 22–23, Pinchot Papers, Box 632. Henry S. Graves, letter to Secretary of Agriculture, with appendices, 21 October 1911, Pinchot Papers, Box 511. Newell also fought a series of jurisdictional battles; he wanted to place authority over all water policy in one civilian bureau, stripping jurisdiction from the Army Corps of Engineers in the War Department. See “A National Water Law,” Draft Report of the Special Committee on ‘A National Water Law’ of the American Society of Engineers, various drafts 1915–16, Newell Papers, Box 7.

16. Charles H. Shinn, letter to Pinchot, 9 January 1910, with Shinn, letter to U.S. Forest Service Rangers, 9 January 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 465. Shinn, , “Life in a National Forest,” Out West Magazine (04 1910): 186, 189Google Scholar.

17. Ibid.

18. Pinchot, letter to Edward Breck, 7 January 1915, Pinchot Papers, Box 512.

19. Herbert A. Smith, “The National Forests in Danger,” draft article March 1912, Pinchot Papers, Box 511, 4. “The National Forests,” draft position paper, January 1913, Pinchot Papers, Box 511. Henry S. Graves, one of Pinchot's successors, supported these proposals, claiming that “the most urgent needs” of his agency were “liberal provision” for improving facilities, more manpower, and more scientific personnel. Henry S. Graves, “A Necessary New Step in Our National Forest Policy,” draft article, January 1915, Pinchot Papers, Box 511. Pinchot, “What About Forestry,” draft article, 8 April 1921, Pinchot Papers, Box 632. See also Worster, Rivers of Empire, 177.

20. Ibid. At the same time conservation chiefs tried to use their experience and capacity to strengthen their own agencies, they headed off efforts to establish new, potentially rival bureaus. Pinchot, for example, opposed a proposal by Frederick Law Olmstead and Stephen Mather to set up a separate, new agency to administer the national parks. “The creation of a separate Bureau of National Parks,” Pinchot wrote Olmstead in 1912, “would not, in my judgment, be wise. The National Parks, nearly all of them, lie within or partially surrounded by National Forests. By far the best part of the work of control and protection in very many of them has been done entirely by the men of the Forest Service.” And Pinchot believed the Parks should remain in his hands. His men had the expertise; the Park Service would represent a “needless duplication of effort.” See Frederick Law Olmstead, letter to Pinchot, 23 December 1912, with Horace W. McFarland, letter to Olmstead, 18 December 1912, and Pinchot, letter to Olmstead, 26 December 1912, Pinchot Papers, Box 473.

21. Henry A. Slattery, draft speech on “Common Sense Conservation,” prepared for Judson C. Welliver, August 1913. Memorandum to Overton Price, n.a., 15 January 1914. Both in Pinchot Papers, Box 511. Pinchot, letter to Joseph Robinson, 5 May 1912, Pinchot Papers, Box 474.

22. Ibid.

23. Pinchot, letter to Robinson, 5 May 1912.

24. James R. Garfield, address of 18 April 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 470. Pinchot, letter to Clarence Poe, 11 July 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 474. U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 23702, 61st Cong., 2d sess.

25. Newell complained that other branches of the Department of the Interior harassed his men in the field. He asserted that opponents of reclamation had overrun the Office of Irrigation Investigations and had actually diverted resources detailed for reclamation. Although their missions were necessarily intertwined, Newell's reclamation bureau saw the investigations office as its principal antagonist. In Newell's mind, this conflict highlighted the urgency of administrative reorganization: it illustrated “the necessity of an outlining of functions [so] that it should not be possible for one set of officials, actuated by a certain principle, to defeat or make difficult the work of a larger organization carrying on a definite and well-conceived plan.” Newell, letter to Pinchot, 2 July 1903. Newell, letter to Pinchot, 12 December 1905. Pinchot, reply to Newell, 13 December 1905. Both in Pinchot Papers, Box 599.

26. Roosevelt, Theodore, Autobiography (New York, 1919), 430Google Scholar. Eisenach, Eldon J., The Lost Promise of Progressivism (Lawrence, Kan., 1994), 106Google Scholar.

27. Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr., “The Path of the Law,” in Holmes, Collected Legal Papers (New York, 1920), 187Google Scholar. Holmes, , The Common Law (Boston, 1881)Google Scholar, quoted in White, Morton, Social Thought in America (New York, 1976), 68Google Scholar. Meanwhile, on the ground, in municipal courts, jails, and police stations, the legal system experienced a near-revolutionary transformation. As reformers came to view crime as part of wider problems of sanitation, education, housing, and labor relations, local courts became pivotal venues for working out in practice a more expansive role for the state. See Willrich, Michael, City of Courts (New York, 2003)Google Scholar.

28. Committee on Department Methods, “Cost Keeping in the Government Service,” 29 December 1906, Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

29. Ibid.

30. Commission on the Reorganization of the Scientific Work of the Government, letter to Theodore Roosevelt, 30 October 1908, Pinchot Papers, Box 602. On his ulterior motives, see Pinchot, Breaking New Ground, 246. For the deliberations and reports of the 1903 Commission on the Organization of Government Scientific Work, see Pinchot Papers, Box 599.

31. On the organization of the Department of the Interior, see below. For an analysis of Interior as an enigmatic failure, see Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, 3, 326–52. The professionalism of the Department of Agriculture has been well established by numerous scholars. See Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy; Skocpol, Theda and Finegold, Kenneth, “State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New Deal,” Political Science Quarterly 97 (1982): 255–278Google Scholar; Daniel, Pete, Breaking the Land (Urbana, 1985)Google Scholar; Kirby, Jack Temple, Rural Worlds Lost (Baton Rouge, 1987)Google Scholar; and Alston, Lee and Ferry, Joseph, “Labor Cost, Paternalism, and Loyalty in Southern Agriculture,” Journal of Economic History 45 (1985): 95–117Google Scholar.

Among the government agencies overseeing natural resources, the Agriculture Department's only rival in institutional power and bureaucratic efficiency was the Army Corps of Engineers. Nonetheless, the Corps resisted the Roosevelt administration's waterways policy, in which multipurpose development replaced improved navigation as the central objective. See Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, 108–9. The author wishes to thank an anonymous reader for the Journal for pointing out the institutional significance of the Corps in the early twentieth century.

32. McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, 92; Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, 125–26; Skowronek, Building a New American State, 182–86. For a general analysis of the Keep Commission, see Pinkett, Harold, “Keep Commission, 1905–1909: A Rooseveltian Effort for Administrative Reform,” Journal of American History 52 (09 1965): 297–312Google Scholar.

33. Theodore Roosevelt, letter to Pinchot, 2 June 1905, Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

34. Committee on Departmental Methods, memorandum, n.a., n.d. [1905], Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

35. Forbes-Lindsay, “The Keep Commission.” The Forbes-Lindsay evaluation further asserted that “whilst it is safe to say that a similar enquiry by the government of any one of the great European nations would reveal worse conditions,” the same report jingoistically declared, “the state of affairs discovered by the Keep Commission would be pronounced astoundingly bad by the head of one of our large corporations.” In “one of the offices where the system of bookkeeping recommended by the commission has been installed, a single ledger is now made to effectually serve the purpose for which four hundred were formally used.”

36. “The salaries now paid in the Departmental service in Washington are based upon a classification of the clerks made by acts of Congress of 1853 and 1854,” the Keep Commission reported in 1907. “Today there are individual bureaus with more employees than the whole service in 1853” and “the responsibilities of their chiefs are incalculably greater than were those of the men who held similar positions fifty years ago.” Still, the federal government had never reclassified the positions or adjusted salaries. See Forbes-Lindsay, “The Keep Commission.”

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Committee on Departmental Methods, “The Use of Committees in Department Work,” 6 December 1906, Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

41. At Garfield's urging, Roosevelt initiated the investigation. The president had learned of “serious defects in the administration and personnel of the department,” he wrote to the Keep Commission, “especially those bureaus dealing with the disposition of public lands, reclamation funds and projects, and surveying of lands and resources.” He instructed the commission to proceed as rapidly as possible. Roosevelt, letter to the Committee on Department Methods, 14 October 1905, Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

42. Committee on Departmental Methods, “The Principal Difficulties with the Present Organization of the Land Office,” n.d. [1905], Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Committee on Departmental Methods, Subcommittee on the Department of Interior, “Memoranda as to Present Defects in the Department of the Interior,” draft report no. 7, with handwritten notes by Gifford Pinchot, [1906], Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

47. Committee on Departmental Methods, letter to Roosevelt, transmitting the draft report upon the organization of the Department of the Interior, 22 October 1906, Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

48. Skowronek, Buiding a New American State, 183–86. Committee on Departmental Methods, Subcommittee on the Department of Interior, “Memoranda as to Present Defects in the Department of the Interior.” Committee on Departmental Methods, Subcommittee on the Department of Interior, “Suggestions as to the Administrative System in the Department of the Interior,” draft report no. 5, Autumn 1905. Committee on Departmental Methods, Subcommittee on the Department of Interior, “Suggestions with Reference to the Department of the Interior,” draft report, Autumn 1905. Committee on Departmental Methods, Subcommittee on the Department of Interior, “Suggestions as to Improvements in the Department of the Interior,” draft report no. 6, Autumn 1905. All in Pinchot Papers, Box 598.

49. Pinkett, “Keep Commission.” Skowronek, Building a New American State, 184–86.

50. William H. Taft, letter to William Kent, 29 June 1909, quoted in Mason, Alpheus T., Bureaucracy Convicts Itself (New York, 1941), 32Google Scholar.

51. William H. Taft, “The Federal Courts,” address at Hot Springs, Virginia, 6 August 1908, in Taft, , Political Issues and Outlooks (New York, 1909), 3–19Google Scholar. On the municipal courts movement in the Progressive Era, see Willrich, City of Courts. For the role of the courts in constructing the nineteenth-century state, see Novak, The People's Welfare.

52. Ibid. See also MacEvoy, Arthur, “Toward an Interactive Theory of Nature and Culture,” in Worster, Donald, ed., The Ends of the Earth (New York, 1988), 211–229Google Scholar; Eisenach, The Lost Promise of Progressivism, 106–27; McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, 135–42, passim; Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In”; and Weir et al., “Introduction: Understanding American Social Politics,” 16–27.

53. Committee on Departmental Methods, Subcommittee on the Department of Interior, “Suggestions with Reference to the Department of the Interior,” draft report, Autumn 1905. Forbes-Lindsay, “The Keep Commission.”

54. McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, 136–37. Skowronek, Building a New American State, 15, 24–31, 154, 161. Of course, state action in the United States has relied heavily, and distinctively, on legal rather than on administrative mechanisms—on adversarial procedures modeled on the court room rather than bureaucratic rule-making. Government action thus focused on the concerns of interested parties in specific cases. Government action seldom focuses on generalized policy objectives, on straightforward administration, on implementing and enforcing uniform guidelines. Gifford Pinchot and the conservationists fought this legalism in the 1910s, as have a number of reformers to the present day. In 1992, for example, the legal theorist Susan Rose-Ackerman called for “a new emphasis on agency rule-making rather than ajudication as the preferred method of setting policy. The administrative process,” Rose-Ackerman insisted, “should be streamlined so that agencies institute broad gauged policies rather than concentrating on a few squeaky wheels.” See Rose-Ackerman, , Rethinking the Progressive Agenda (New York, 1992), 190–192Google Scholar. See also Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers; Sklar, Martin, The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916 (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; and Friedman, Lawrence M., The Republic of Choice (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)Google Scholar.

55. James R. Garfield, letter to Phillip P. Wells, 10 December 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 470.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid. Newell also sought more discretion for the Reclamation Service. “The present control, as I understand, is narrowly limited by special acts of Congress and does not permit the exercise of judgment such as it is needed for the best growth of the country.” “A National Water Law,” draft report of the Special Committee on ‘A National Water Law’ of the American Society of Engineers, various drafts 1915–16, Frederic H. Newell Papers, Box 7.

Contemporary state theorists have emphasized this tension between legalism and administration in an international context. Bureaucratic knowledge and procedures focus on the production of effects—the implementation of rules and policies. Legal processes, on the other hand, revolve around the establishment of past behavior—the determination of facts in a given case and the assignment of responsibility for them. Furthermore, judicial and legislative bodies operate through debate; rival parties dispute face to face in a clear forum. The process is lengthy and allows consideration of only one case at a time. Therefore, control of the docket or agenda—deciding which cases will be heard—decisively shapes legislative and judicial proceedings. Bureaucracies, however, make rules without reference to specific cases; they can advance their interests on several cases at once without formal opposition from the affected parties. An administrative state, as Garfield explained, would shift government action from the concerns of interested parties in specific cases to what he called the common interest, which also meant the institutional interests of government departments. Administrative action should not be subject to judicial dispute by private litigants. See Poggi, The State, 124–29.

58. David Starr Jordan, letter to Pinchot, 19 October 1909, Pinchot Papers, Box 465.

59. Taft, “The Federal Courts,” 27.

60. Miller, Pinchot and Modern Environmentalism, 206–38; McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, 113–73; Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, 147–75; Mason, Bureaucracy Convicts Itself, passim.

61. Miller, Pinchot and Modern Environmentalism, 206–38; McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, 116–17, 121.

62. Miller, Pinchot and Modern Environmentalism, 206–38; McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, 116–17, 121. See also U.S. Senate, “Investigation of the Department of the Interior and of the Bureau of Forestry,” Senate Doc. 719, 61st Cong., 3d sess., and Mason, Bureaucracy Convicts Itself.

63. Pinchot, letter to Gilbert M. Hitchcock, 9 December 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 468. U.S. House of Representatives, HR Doc. No. 1080, 61st. Cong., 3d sess. Herbert Parsons, letter to Philip P. Wells, 7 April 1910, and Wells, reply to Parsons, 14 April 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 474. Pinchot, letter to Wells, 9 December 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 470.

64. McGeary, Gifford Pinchot, 91–102; Miller, Pinchot and Modern Environmentalism, 206–38.

65. P. S. Stahlnecker, memorandum to Pinchot, 4 November 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 467. U.S. Senate, Doc. No. 188, 58th Cong., 2d sess. On the importance of outreach and the reputations of different government bureaus, see Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy.

66. Garfield, address of 18 April 1910. Wells, letter to Pinchot, 12 December 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 470. In 1909, during the fight over the withdrawals, Pinchot's attorney, Henry Stimson, warned that “a good deal of your reclamation work” could be interpreted “as wholly unauthorized by statute.” See Stimson, letter to Pinchot, 20 August 1909, Pinchot Papers, Box 465.

67. George Woodruff, letter to Pinchot, Pinchot Papers, Box 468. Newell, “Revision of Van Hise's Conservation,” 16 June 1928, Newell Papers.

68. Pinchot, speech at Public Lands Convention, Denver, June 1907, Pinchot Papers, Box 695; Newell to Pinchot, 2 July 1903. Memo regarding firing of Newell.

69. The author wishes to thank Brian Balogh for this insight. See also Balogh, “‘Mirrors of Desires’: Interest Groups, Elections, and the Targeted Style in Twentieth-Century America,” in Jacobs, Meg, Novak, William J., and Zelizer, Julian E., eds., The Democratic Experiment (Princeton, 2003), 222–249Google Scholar; and Clemens, Elisabeth, The People's Lobby (Chicago, 1997)Google Scholar.

70. Pinchot, letter to Mrs. Amos Draper, 2 August 1909, Pinchot Papers, Box 465. Pinchot, speech at Public Lands Convention, Denver, June 1907, Pinchot Papers, Box 695. On Pinchot's precocious understanding of the “close relation between propaganda, management of public opinion, political lobbies, law-making, and appropriations,” see also Mason, Bureaucracy Convicts Itself, 24.

71. Graves, “A Necessary New Step in Our National Forest Policy”; Slattery, “Common Sense Conservation.”

72. Pinchot, , “What About Forestry?” draft article sent to Saturday Evening Post, 8 04 1921Google Scholar, Pinchot Papers, Box 632. Garfield, letter to Reed Smoot, Pinchot Papers, Box 470. Garfield, address of 18 April 1910.

73. H. A. Slattery, letter to Overton Price, 21 December 1912, Pinchot Papers, Box 470.

74. Henry S. Graves, letter to George H. Maxwell, 30 December 1912, Pinchot Papers, Box 473. Pinchot, letter to W. J. McGee, 24 November 1909, Pinchot Papers, Box 468. Pinchot, letter to E. T. Allen, 22 August 1910, Pinchot Papers, Box 466. Slattery, memo to Pinchot, 28 March 1912. Slattery, memo to Pinchot, 21 April 1913. Both in Pinchot Papers, Box 518. Overton Price, letter to Pinchot, 30 October 1912, Pinchot Papers, Box 470. This state-federal conflict also underlay the infamous Hetch-Hetchy fight, in which Pinchot and the conservationists opposed preservationists such as John Muir and moved to dam the Hetch Hetchy valley in Yosemite National Park. Pinchot considered the construction of the Hetch-Hetchy dam a victory not only for scientific conservation over nostalgic preservation but also for federal management over state's rights, since Hetch-Hetchy legislation allowed the federal government to retain authority over the land. See Amos Pinchot, statement on the Hetch-Hetchy Matter, May 1914, and Pinchot, memorandum on Hetch-Hetchy, n.d. [1914], Pinchot Papers, Box 512.