|
NIAGARA FALLS: THE
REPORT OF |
|
NIAGARA
FALLS: THE REPORT OF [Including
a discussion and evaluation of the Gardner Report] by
P. M. Eckel In Governor Robinson's message to the
legislature in January, 1879 (Robinson, in Report of the Executive Committee
of the Niagara Falls Association, 1885), specific reference was made to the
protection of visitors, and, although New York and Ontario had civil
jurisdiction over the Falls of Niagara, yet "in one sense, the sublime
exhibition of natural power there witnessed is the property of the whole
world." That there was an agenda already in place is referred to by the
sentence: "There can be no doubt that many persons abstain from visiting
the Falls in consequence of the annoyances referred to, nor can there be any
reasonable doubt that the removal of these objections would largely increase
the number of visitors annually." As already discussed in the previous
section, there was competition between the Canadian and American cities by
the cataracts for the money visitors brought with them in their desire to see
the falls. There was extensive building and expansion of commercial
enterprises and the introduction of rival spectacles and entertainments to
lure increasing crowds to the tourist infrastructure in place in the prospect
areas of both countries. In one sense, Robinson's message was not only an
appeal to protect the ephemeral visitor population at the Falls, but an
appeal to devise a plan to "increase the number of visitors
annually." It appears that Robinson's message was protective of the
tourist industry in place at Niagara - and a plan should be devised for its
intelligent regulation. No reference is made to industrial development,
except perhaps for the criticism that the "most favorable points of
observation around the Falls are appropriated for purposes of private
profit," this as distinct from the shores which "swarm with
sharpers, hucksters and peddlers, who perpetually harass all visitors."
No reference is made either to a deteriorating environment and its
restoration. However, there are two published
versions of Robinson's 1879 message to the Legislature. The one quoted above
by the Niagara Falls Association, to be discussed below, and one, presumably
the official one, as it is a Senate document, contained in the first annual
report of the Commissioners of the Niagara Reservation published in 1885. In
this second version of the message, the remarks of Lord Dufferin,
Governor-General of Canada, with whom Robinson collaborated on introduction
of the Niagara issue to their respective legislatures, are included. Robinson
acknowledged that it was actually Dufferin's idea for an international park, "inclosing
a suitable space on each side of the river from which all the annoyances and
vexations referred to should be excluded." Furthermore, in this park
there should be "no attempt at landscape ornamenting in the vain hope of
adding anything to the natural attractions of the falls," and that such
areas are "to be kept sacred to the free use" of international
visitors. Dufferin could not envision why such a plan would cost much - it
would simply be an undeveloped area, requiring little capital investment by the
respective governments, "but with a mutual understanding as to the
general regulations to be enforced on either side." It is interesting
that Dufferin's reference to the environment was deleted from the executive
report of the Niagara Association, as was the fact that it was Dufferin who
made the suggestion to Robinson. Dufferin's proposal that there be an
international park with mutually agreed upon rules of operation was also
deleted. The reason for the deletion by the Niagara Association appears to have
been because the men who came together in New York City and formed the
Niagara Association to promote legislation to protect the falls in the New
York Legislature "decided to give up the international park idea because
of the difficulty of meshing New York's moves with Canada's and to appeal
instead for public backing of a plan to buy the land around the falls for a
state reservation" (Roper, 1973, according to correspondence between
Olmsted and Charles Elliot Norton in 1882). The Legislature did not hesitate to
respond "by a joint resolution of the Legislature of that year"
(1879) to direct the Commissioners of the New York State Survey "to
inquire, consider and report what, if any, measures it may be expedient for
the State to adopt for carrying out the suggestions contained in the annual
message of the Governor with respect to Niagara Falls" (Report of the
Executive Committee of the Niagara Falls Association, 1885). The
Commissioners were W. A. Wheeler, Robert S. Hale, William Dorsheimer, Francis
A. Stout, George Geddes (son of James Geddes, engineer of the Erie Canal -
the son being a specialist in law, engineering and farming,) and F.A.P.
Barnard, President of Columbia College (Roper, 1973). Director of the New York State Survey at
the time was James T. Gardner, who was directed "to make an examination
of the premises, and prepare for their consideration such a project ... and
they associated with him Mr. Frederick Law Olmsted" (Rep. of the Exec.
Comm, Nia. Falls Assn., 1885). Note that the spelling of Mr. Gardner's name
here follows that used in the final report submitted to the Legislature in
1880 - it is sometimes spelled Gardner or Gardener. The resolution laid out
an agenda that was a striking contrast to that presumably proposed by
Robinson, according to the Niagara Association. The response of the New York
State Legislature promoted an environmental, not a tourist, agenda, that is,
the entire point of all interest was the integrity of that area the tourists
were visiting. The intent of the legislation was not to provide for tourists,
but to protect the object of their interest and the freedom to enjoy that
object without distraction. The State Legislature appointed the
Commissioners and Gardner and Olmsted to determine "how far the private
holding of land about Niagara Falls has worked to public disadvantage through
defacements of the scenery; to determine the character of such defacements;
to estimate the tendency to greater injury, and, lastly to consider whether
the proposed action by the State is necessary to arrest the process of
destruction and restore to the scenery its original character" (Report
of the Executive Committee of the Niagara Falls Association, 1885). Note that
"scenery" here is essentially synonymous with "environment"
and is botanical in character, as will be seen below. In that same year, the Commissioners, Gardner
and Olmsted came to the area and contributed their findings, which, together
with the determinations of the Commissioners, were published in 1880 in the
Report of the New York State Survey for the year 1879 entitled "Special
Report of New York State survey on the Preservation of the Scenery of Niagara
Falls, and Fourth Annual Report on the Triangulation of the State for the
year 1879." The special report is 42 pages long. In it Governor
Robinson's full message to the Legislature is included, together with Lord
Dufferin's comments. The
Report The plan for the preservation of the
scenery at Niagara Falls is composed of the report of the Commissioners of the
New York State Survey, the report of Mr. Gardner, and that of Mr. Olmsted, in
addition to two illustrations, a series of heliotype prints, the signatories
of a petition in favor of the establishment of the reservation, Governor
Robinson's 1879 message and a facsimile reprint of Hennepin's description of
the falls at Niagara. The First Illustration To give it the most dramatic thrust, the
first product of the study is an illustration of the object of the plan, the
product of the study itself. It is a fold-out illustration drawn by Francis
Lathrop and engraved by a Mr. Marsh entitled "Ideal view of the American
Rapids, after the Village Shore and Bath Island are restored, according to
the proposed plan." Such a picture was to be shown in contrast with the
series of heliotype prints showing the disfigurements to be remedied - the
industrial presence on the river banks just above the American Falls and on
one of the developed islands in the Goat Island complex - Bath Island. Presumably this illustration would not
have been included or given such prominence had it not been an important part
of the intentions of the Commissioners, Mr. Gardner and Mr. Olmsted. In the drawing, the sight of the City of
Niagara Falls is completely masked from view excepting perhaps four church
steeples, a possible factory smoke-stack and a tall neo-classical building.
These, of course, given that the view drawn is at considerable elevation to
an observer on the ground, would be not seen by visitors to the area in
question. The shorelines support unbroken masses of vegetation. The mainland
shows a closed canopy of deciduous trees giving way to shrubs, smaller trees
as perhaps native willows may appear, and Arbor Vitae or Juniper trees on the
river margin. The model for this scenery was the intact vegetation of Goat
Island. The banks are not riprapped and show
irregular erosional effects, including the slumping slope with a many-stemmed
tree group inclining into the river, much as can be seen today on the wet,
sagging slopes of the north shore of Goat Island. The trees are of
considerable age and show no attempt at pruning: broken major branches are
conspicuous on some trees, stems distorted by natural processes are shown, a
tall old tree bole with its canopy blasted away by natural events is shown on
what is probably Luna Island in the lower right. No attempt at silviculture
is evident on the character of the restored forest. Dead trees are an
important component of the natural drama. Bath Island, the island upriver
shown as accessed by the bridges of the time, is illustrated with its
downriver acreage significantly reduced - all its "made land" has
been washed away and the island's supposed natural boundaries are restored.
Also, the original, primeval arboreal character of the islands and river
margins is depicted as dense with coniferous tree species. Note that in the heliotype print
constituting Plate III showing the aspect of Prospect Park in 1879 as seen as
looking north across the American Falls from Goat Island, and that the Park is
still extensively wooded for all the buildings and other improvements
reported to have been constructed on it. The city is completely masked from
view by the tree canopy. Gardner, in his accompanying report, praises the
cluster of trees there, but deplores the fact that shrub and herbaceous
layers, being "rich masses of woodbine," were destroyed in the
building of walls and structures. To resume, there are no roads or paths
or structures of any kind shown in the illustration, nor are any human beings
shown at all. Note that the shoreline of the mainland does not depict the
limestone flats that probably occurred there at the time of the drawing, but
perhaps were built over or appeared to the illustrator to represent human
degradation of a natural landscape feature but which were, in fact, created
by the dynamics of the river itself. Note that the caption said the depiction
is an ideal situation. To give the viewer today some idea what the view up
the American rapids would look like after restoration, one may stand on one
of the two farther bridges on the Three Sisters Islands where the vegetation
comes uninterrupted to the river bank, and where most of the developed
shoreline in the Canadian and on Goat Island is blocked from view. The helioprint of the Goat Island shore
(Plate IX) gives a poor impression of their grandeur, hence the drawing. In
the list of illustrations and maps at the beginning of the report, there is a
caption reading "Plates showing the part of the banks of the American
Rapids which still remain in natural condition," but it appears that
these plates were not included in the final edition printed for distribution
in the Legislature. Although the helioprint "photographs" were
apparently excellent for views showing degradation of the shoreline, their
artistry was completely inadequate to represent the value of the forest
beauty - these had to be drawn to be adequately represented. It is apparent from the illustration
that the primeval vegetation exhibited on Goat Island was to be used as a model
for the riverbanks and other areas interior to the river. It is within this
context that the "improvements" to be suggested by Olmsted and Vaux
years later were to be placed and within which tourists would find what they
had come miles to find. This was the object of State involvement. Note that,
outside of the bridges, there seems to be little requirement for State
revenue to maintain such an environment, or landscape. No pruning, no mowing,
no interference. This was in keeping with the plans to return the area to its
primitive aspect. The Report of the Commissioners The Commissioner's topics proceeded as
follows: 1. The duty of the Commissioners was
defined as investigation into the defacement of scenery, degradation of
landscape, necessity of government action to arrest further deterioration. No
reference was made to the duty of the Commissioners to investigate conditions
with respect to visitors, but their duty was entirely environmental. 2. Visitor dynamics. The Commissioners
discussed certain characteristics of tourist behavior but explicitly state
this is "a matter not directly comprehended in the instructions of the
Commissioners," which was to correct scenic disfigurements. They
addressed this subject due to an extensive "public concern." First they expressed surprise that the,
at that point, still healthy climate of the City of Niagara Falls, its high
quality inns, and related services and natural attractions should not be
"the temporary residence of great numbers of those who every summer migrate
from town to country, and one of the most popular places of vacation sojourn
in all the world." They observed that Niagara has no such
summer population, but all visits are short. This was not because of
harassment, so frequently touted as the cause, nor a failure on the part of
the respective municipalities to control the catch-penny tourist trade -
these harassments are also characteristic of some of the most famous tourist
attractions in the world, indeed, they experience more predation than at Niagara
Falls. Yet tourists at Niagara are
"ill-humored" after their visit for some additional reason, which
makes the beggars that appeal to them more intolerable than in tourist sites
elsewhere. The source of the quickness of the stay,
and the ease with which disappointment is stimulated was considered due to
the nature of the landscape itself. This observation is critical to an
understanding of the "best use" of Niagara Falls as a tourist
attraction and fully understood by the Commissioners, Gardner and Olmsted. It
is one that has been paid little if any attention at all by a century of
concerns interested in a tourist industry at Niagara Falls. It is a concern
that will be more fully addressed by the present writer in the section on
recommendations below. Flat, glaciated terrain of little note
extends right up to the crest of the Niagara Gorge. Only several city blocks
away from the falls and gorge there is no evidence for the existence of the
falls, except, today, for a sound that could be that the railroad yards, and
an atmospheric cloud that could be taken for vented steam from a factory
stack. This may account for the subsequent century-long attempts by various
proposers to build up the expectations of the visitor as they cross miles of
unremarkable terrain to prepare them for the spectacle they have come miles
to see. Unprepared, the visitor may be unable to easily assimilate the
extraordinary phenomenon presented and be "unimpressed," that is to
say, unable to shake the boredom associated with the monotony of the adjacent
and surrounding prairies and lake plain, or, upon leaving, be unable to
retain the excitement they did permit themselves - as was the experience of
Judge George Clinton when he saw the falls as a youth of eighteen.
Topographically uninteresting terrain leading up to the falls, in the present
day, for example, exacerbates this lack of interest by the urbanization on
all approaches, which intensifies the sameness of visitor experience and
deadens their immediate memory. Similar phenomena probably occur wherever the
significant natural feature is a canyon worn below the surrounding regional
land surface - even the Grand Canyon which also, at least along the south
rim, is invisible from the road paralleling it only a few feet away from the
lip of the precipice. Elevations, such as mountains, which can be viewed for
long distances before they are reached, can stimulate the visitor upon
approach and departure in a way that depressions, such as canyons, cannot. These sentiments were expressed over a
century ago by the famous English geologist Charles Lyell (1855): "In the region between Lake Erie and
the borders of Pennsylvania, as well as in that immediately south of Lake
Ontario, there is an entire want of fine scenery, as might have been anticipated
where all the strata are horizontal. The monotony of the endless forest is
sometimes relieved by a steep escarpment, a river with wooded islands, or a
lake; but the only striking features in the landscape are the water falls,
and the deep chasms hollowed out by them in the course of ages. As the
opposite banks of these ravines are on the same level, including that of the
Niagara itself, we come abruptly to their edges before we have any suspicion
of their existence, and we must travel out of our way to enjoy a sight of
them." As early as 1819, the educated Scotch
botanist John Goldie also noted the strange and, to him, unexpected, flatness
of the region approaching the falls. "On approaching them I found the ground
in their vicinity to exhibit a very different appearance from what I had
expected. Instead of high rocks & precipices above the Falls, and low
valleys & glens below them, all is perfectly level to appearance. ... At
the distance of 200 yds there is nothing to be seen in the banks of the River
that would lead you to expect any such thing as Falls at this place"
(Goldie, 1819). Goldie is a perfect example of the nature of the ill-humor,
or disappointment frequently remarked upon by proponents and developers of
the falls alike. Their expectations of Niagara embedded in a terrain of
monumentally deformed geology are shattered. If the wind and air pressure is
not exactly right at the moment a visitor gets to the falls, no enormous
plume of mist is evident, no thundering roar if the wind blows in the wrong
direction, no drenching spray. Every attempt by city, state and province to
make inaccessible the singular and concentrated natural charms of the
cataracts, for example by permitting helicopter rides whose noise obliterates
the sound of the falls, heightens the disappointment factor of the visitor. The Commissioners had a remedy for this
disappointment - to slow the pace of the visitor long enough for the beauties
of Niagara's concentrated natural beauty to express themselves. Otherwise,
the nearby cities were "well adapted to the bare satisfaction of
curiosity in the waterfall." According to the Commissioners,
"the value of Niagara to the world, and that which has obtained for it
the homage of so many men whom the world reveres, lies in its power of appeal
to the higher emotional and imaginative faculties, and this power is drawn
from qualities and conditions too subtle to be known through verbal
description." This value can only be appropriated by slowness, by
activities and environments promoting a "composed, receptive and
contemplative frame of mind." This concept would later be translated
into modes of transportation, and later still be abandoned by the
administration of the park eventually established at Niagara Falls in the
promotion of the automobile and its potential for supporting "the bare
satisfaction of curiosity in the waterfall." 3. The Commissioners resumed their
environmental conclusions and determined that the "scenery of Niagara
Falls has been greatly injured, that the process of injury is continuous and
accelerating, and that, if not arrested, it must in time be utterly
destructive of its value." The source of the injury was its then present
ownership and the decision by that ownership to "strive to make his
particular ground yield the largest possible private profit." The
Commissioners determined that since the area on which Niagara's charms are
concentrated is so small, that any one attack on it has a "fatal
[effect] upon its character." 4. The Commissioners recommended the
employment of eminent domain to condemn the private properties for the public
good, such as "when private ferries are supplanted by free public
bridges." This was to reserve such land "to give satisfactory
access to the Falls of Niagara and preserve their value." Based on determinations by Gardner and
Olmsted, they recommended that the islands in the river and a bit of land
along the riverbank on the mainland be taken for the public good. It is clear what the Commissioners
accepted were Gardner and Olmsted's intentions, that is, their
"design": a. the buildings in place were to be
removed. b. the immediate bank of the river
"shall be formed so as to have a natural aspect." c. Its shoreline was to be protected
from erosion by modifications of the slope and "by rough, loosely piled
local rock." d. "Trees and bushes are proposed
to be planted": 1. composed of the same species as were
native to the area and 2. are to be laid out to conform to the
ecosystem structure observable in the unaltered woodlands and riverbanks in
the Goat Island complex, that is to say "of such kinds and in such
dispositions as are natural to the locality." e. This ecosystem restoration was to be
carried back from the river margin "back to the boundary on the crest of
the terrace." f. The effect was to visually isolate
the lands in question completely from the buildings of the village of Niagara
Falls. It was to "secure their landscape disconnection with the
river." g. Inside of this "narrow woodland,"
and "along the rear" of it, about "one hundred feet distant
from the water's edge" was to be a road and a walk. From the walk would
be constructed "inconspicuous shaded seats commanding views of the
rapids" except at Prospect Park where there was to be a "more
extended platform overlooking the falls and chasm." The illustration preceding this
discourse appears to clearly express the visual objectives of Gardner and
Olmsted's recommendations. 5. The Commissioners made it clear that
they accepted Gardner and Olmsted's recommendations as to the limits of the
property required to protect the falls, and to the nature of the restoration
and preservation of the environment. They concurred with Olmsted, out of
"cordiality," as to the use of the reserved land, but "it is
not the duty of the Commissioners to advise how it shall be used." Olmsted urged that the land: a. not be used for "general
pleasuring," in today's terms, such as picnicking, playing tennis,
baseball, frisbee, concerts, helicopters, hot-air balloon rides, roller
skating b. not be used for ornamental displays,
such as gardens (the artificial laying out of exotic species in unnatural
arrangements) and monuments. c. whatever was to be built was not to
break the visual integrity of the natural landscape. Mr. Olmsted's reasons were based on the
understanding that greater numbers of people would eventually have the means
to visit the falls. If any one of the preceding three requirements were
neglected, such visitation would overwhelm and destroy the natural
environment. It was to negate the impact of great visitor numbers that
Olmsted made those recommendations. To protect the considerable value of the
native landscape and the landscape restored, the only service the government
would be required to provide would be to allow visitors, in comfort and
safety, to come, look, and go away. This may seem like an unnaturally
proscribed service to tourists, but the visual environment at Niagara is so
rich and awesome, and confined to such a small area, that this use was
adequate. Besides, that is what visitors were doing anyway, coming, looking,
and quickly departing. Olmsted merely wished to protect the integrity of the
object of their experience. This explains the other illustration
included in the special report on the preservation of the scenery at Niagara
Falls: "View in the primeval woods, on Goat Island," drawn by
Thomas Moran and en-graved by a Mr. Karst (plate X). This plate is not simply
a pretty decoration to the text, it illustrates the proper relationship
between visitor and scenery (environment) - the scenery to be protected and
restored. The walker is solitary and enclosed by a rich and complex forest
ecosystem. The visitor is walking, not riding, he is strolling with a cane to
assist him in his movements and is completely immersed. The path is a dirt
path. The forest was actually so dense at this time that a series of such
paths could be built into the forest and walkers would be hidden from one
another. The nearby commercial enterprises in the
village were adequate to attend to all other visitor needs, hence Olmsted saw
no need for "houses of refreshment, shops, booths, and places of
amusement and exhibition." Nor did he see any need for "extensive
shelters." Olmsted did, however, entertain the idea
of structures built to improve the ability of visitor-access to views.
Visitors came from around the world to do what they could do nowhere else in
the world: look on the Niagara River at this place. Olmsted suggested to the
Commissioners that "at one or two points something might be gained by
the erection of belvederes or prospect towers," perhaps reminiscent of
the world famous Terrapin Tower the Porters had taken down as part of the
bargain for selling Prospect Park to the Prospect Park Company (Porter,
1900). However, Olmsted was not optimistic about the ability to built
something inconspicuous nor commodious enough for the thousands of
anticipated visitors. 6. The next paragraph makes reference to
Schoellkopf's hydraulic canal. The Commissioners assure the Legislature that
it is fully operational. The Porters, who operated the mill on Bath Island,
informed the Commissioners that indeed, the hydraulic opportunities on the
canal, their "mechanical advantages," were superior to those on the
island or "any upon the ground of which it is proposed that the State
should take possession." "This would be equally true as to any
considerable industrial undertaking" - perhaps a reference to the small
scale of the mills already in operation on the riverbank, and the relative
insignificance of their displacement. "The provision thus secured can be
enlarged, should this ever be required, to any desired extent, and the water
power of the falls more economically utilized than if their immediate banks
were to be occupied by factories." I interpret this to mean that the
canal can be enlarged. Note how Schoellkopf's operations could benefit from
the State shutting down milling on the river bank by relocation of milling
operations to his hydraulic canal. The reason why these milling operations
occurred between Port Day and the brink of the American Falls was because
they were taking advantage, not of the 200-foot head accessible at the Canal
Basin, but the rapid 50-foot drop in elevation of the river associated with
the ridges (The Cascades) perpendicular to the river bed forming the western
boundary of the Chippewa-Grass Island Pool. The hydraulic canal of 1877 and
the one built later just upriver of it both diverted water from the pool,
above the cascades, exploiting the hydraulic potential of the drop in
elevation of the canal bed and the gorge rim, not that of the river. In a
sense, the canal and the discharge races at its lower end, were hydraulic
analogues of the natural river and falls. It could not be determined whether the
Porters ever actually did relocate their mill on Schoellkopf's canal, or the
fate of any of the other mill operations then operating on the riverbank. But
then, as will be discussed below, the Porters may have been more interested
in establishing a second, rival, canal east of Schoellkopf's. 7. The Commissioners determined that the
cost of the land recommended by Gardner and Olmsted would not be excessive
since the boundary lines "are so laid down as to leave out, not only the
principal water works, factories and shops for which the Falls have given
occasion" but also the hotels and other public accommodations. Furthermore, the State would, if
following Olmsted's suggestions, not need to anticipate "costly
constructions or elaborate arrangements for the entertainment of the
public." And as for the potential for corruption (by whom and from where
is not mentioned), there would be no licenses or leases "which might be
corruptly dealt with." 8. "Niagara Falls is not simply the
crowning glory of the great resources of the State of this class [of natural
objects], but the highest distinction of the nation and of the
continent." The continued operation of private
enterprise on the riverbanks at Niagara Falls was noted to reduce the overall
tourist revenue of the State, the restitution of which would outweigh the
depletion of the State treasury through the purchase of those lands. Future generations were expected to
deplore the failure of the State in protecting this distinguished resource.
"If we blame the men of a former day for not setting apart when it was
the property of the State and might easily have been done, the Falls of
Niagara as the Yo Semite and the Yellowstone have in our day ..., then how
much more culpable shall we be, who knowing their value and perceiving their
certain destruction, still refuse to take the necessary measures for their
preservation." It is significant here to understand
that Niagara Falls was ranked both physically and politically with the future
national parks of Yosemite and Yellowstone - not, for example, with urban
parks such as Central Park in New York City, nor the lovely urban parks
designed by Olmsted in nearly Buffalo. As a matter of fact, at a time when
the federal government was gaining strength and actively seeking
custodianship of areas of significant national landscape, such as Yosemite
and Yellowstone, it is curious that the federal government was not sought out
to intervene - especially when the political head of federal Canada, not the
provincial leader, who was Oliver Mowat, appeared to be interested in the
protection of Niagara. Roper (1973) appears to settle this
question: "In recommending the proposal,
Mowat advised that the governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the
United States should be regarded as the actual principals. While the rich
state of New York could well afford to represent the United State's interest,
Ontario had too limited revenues to assume a similar burden in connection
with what was a national responsibility. That the preservation of the falls
was such [i.e., a national responsibility] was surely clear from the fact
that the Niagara River was navigable water under dominion control and an
international boundary" (from a copy of a letter Oliver Mowat wrote to
[Lord Lorne], 9 December, Box 31). The Canadians understood that it was to be
the Dominion Government, rather than the Province of Ontario, which would
foot the bill for botanical restoration "since it" rather than the
Province "claimed jurisdiction over most of the lands involved"
(Way, 1946). Note that some in the State of New York did not think the State
could adequately represent the United States in this issue and opposed
passage of the 1885 bill in the Legislature establishing the Reservation in
law (Welch, no date). 9. The Commissioners held a conference
with the "members of the ministry of the Province of Ontario in
September last," with Oliver Mowat as Prime Minister of Ontario. They met on September 27 in company with
Gardner and Olmsted. "'The general outlines of a scheme which I
presented was fully approved by all,' Olmsted wrote [Charles Elliot] Norton.
Oliver Mowat ... and one of the commissioners, reported on it to Lord Lorne,
successor to Lord Dufferin. Only those arrangements were to be made that were
necessary to restore and preserve the natural character of the scenery; it
was not intended to make a park or artificial enclosures. The reservation
[for State and Province] was to include the islands above the falls and a
strip on either side of the river, wide enough for planting to screen out the
buildings behind it, from the head of the rapids downstream to the railroad
suspension bridge. A modest fee, to defray expenses, would probably be levied
on sightseers" (Roper, 1973, from a copy of a letter Oliver Mowat wrote
to [Lord Lorne], 9 December, Box 31). After the report of the Commissioners
was written, they received news that "the legislature of Ontario has
taken preliminary action for the purpose" and noted this in a footnote. Ontario, however, wanted the Dominion to
carry through with the Canadian part of the reservation "under the
limitations of their governmental system." A legal, rather than economic
reason is referred to (see discussion under number 8, above). On the New York side, "it is not
necessary to point out the respects which would make it unsuitable for New
York to appeal to the Federal government to relieve her from whatever expense
the matter may involve. It is sufficient to say that many considerations of
State pride as well as of constitutional difficulty, make it clear that if
the American part of this work is to be done at all, it must be done by New
York alone." This insistence on the exclusion of the
federal government from protection of Niagara Falls, even in the context of
federal protection of other national natural treasures such as Yosemite, has
been repeated for decades by the Niagara Reservation administration, but the
present writer has never found any other reason for it than some reference to
"State pride." The Commissioners reassure the
Legislature that the Canadians would cooperate in the legislation to make an
international park. In fact, an Act passed "by the Legislature of
Ontario in March, 1880, entitled 'An Act respecting Niagara Falls and the
adjacent territory'" (Statute of the Province of Ontario, 43 Vict., cap.
13) stated that Canada would, in cooperation with the State of New York,
"restore the scenery about the Falls to its natural condition and at the
same time afford travelers facilities for observing the points of interest in
the neighbourhood" (Way, 1946). 10. The Commission recommended that the
Legislature "take such action ... to acquire the lands" under
discussion, and to appoint a Commission to deal with the legal matters in so
doing. The Report of Mr. Gardner to the Gardner began by emphasizing Lord
Dufferin's role in initiating legislative action to protect the falls at
Niagara, being "first looked upon rather as an expression of
philanthropic sentiment than an earnest proposal of a practical
measure." That Dufferin may have been "unduly moved" by
witnessing visitors persecuted by the peddlers and beggars rife at the falls
was considered a motivation with which his critics had no sympathy. Obviously
to move to create a reservation required more profound motivation than that,
perhaps it being presumed that people could take care of themselves after
all. Governor Robinson's motives were environmental: he "appealed to the
pride of the people to protect this great and beautiful gift of nature from
being degraded into a show ... while the shores, once forest-clad, became
mill-sites and places of amusement." Gardner defined Niagara Falls: the
rapids (cascades), the islands in the river, the falls and the plunge pool.
He emphasized the quality of the remaining woods and the quality of the
experience still to be had, but threatened by the imposition of development:
the mill on Bath Island. Verbally Gardner contrasted the positive
and the negative: Positive: picturesque clusters of
evergreens, rich overhanging foliage, deep woods seclusion, surrounded by the
influences of nature, graceful woods, banks rich in verdure and overhung with
stately trees, pebbly shores, graceful ferns, trailing vines, a mighty torrent
writhing and foaming in fury. Negative: paper mill, started in an
"evil hour," unsightly sheds and buildings, disfigurations by
wing-dams and ice barriers, the mill an abomination, blank stone walls with
sewer-like openings through which tail-races discharge, timber crib work,
advertisements, ranks of buildings in all stages of preservation and decay,
hotels, mills, carpenter shops, stables, bazaars, ice-houses, laundries, bath
houses, rookeries, fences, patent medicine signs, ruin, confusion, solid ugliness. Later, the State would acquire the
"Tugby Bazaar building, the brick and stone shops, the pulp mill and
machinery, and the Rapids Hotel building," and sell at least six frame
buildings, a planing shop, flouring mill, boat house, bath house, stone foundry,
barn, shed, stone house, wing of a hotel building, ice house, store, shop
buildings, mill flumes, old fences and lumber. These were "three
dwellings, four mills, two hotel buildings, two stores, five stables, two ice
houses, one stone house, one pump house and one bath house, beside a number
of sheds, and many fences" (2 Ann Rep Comm, 1886). One of the mills was
the Witmer mill, and one of the sales, later in 1886, was an "Edison
electric light plant" (3 Ann Rep Comm, 1887). Gardner naively assumed the permanence
of the liquid landscape: "The Falls themselves man cannot touch."
This is because the hydraulic canal was barely operational and had not yet
tested its ability to divert water from the river. Perhaps its owners had not
yet computed to the square foot the amount of water it could rent to those
using water in their mill sites situated on the canal. Gardner confined his
discussion to the destruction of the "beautiful frame of foliage"
at the Falls. Loss of foliage creates "deep
feelings of regret and even of resentment" on intelligent visitors.
"The chasm below the Cataract depends for its impressiveness largely
upon the wooded character of the debris slopes and the maintaining of a
fringe of verdure along the very brink of the precipice." These elements
are "essential to the perfection of the landscape." Note that in
the heliotype print of the Canadian side as seen across the brink of the
Horseshoe Falls how destitute of vegetation is the bank of earth behind the
buildings in the foreground. Today, this embankment is heavily wooded with
trees of considerable age. Note, except for the canopies of scattered trees
down on the embankment, the complete lack of trees on the top of the
embankment. The only acreage left with its original
forest was Goat Island - if the State did not purchase it, even this would be
lost. The Porters had to and were in the very process of selling it
"owing to a partition suit now in progress." Gardner gave a list of
developments proposed for the island, no doubt prepared, according to
subsequent literature published by a member of that family (Porter, 1900), by
the family itself. Note at this juncture how helpful the
Porter family was being in assisting the Commissioners, Gardner and Olmsted
in preparing arguments in favor of the State buying their land, first in the
case of their milling operations on Bath Island, as discussed above (section
6), and now in the case of Goat Island itself. It appears as though the
Porters were leaving their water-front properties at the brink of the
American Falls - but perhaps not those upriver of the entrance to
Schoellkopf's hydraulic canal. Gardner again specified the
environmental nature of the State's role: "to restore to all the river
shores something of their original character." Gardner cited several examples of
government setting aside land for public protection: the Yosemite valley,
1865, the "great tract covering the region of the Yellowstone Geysers -
a National Park, the land occupied by the California Big Trees, and, in New York
State, the Islands of Lake George." Gardner chastised the State for selling
any of the five-mile strip of land along the Mile Strip embracing the falls
of the Niagara River. He urged that "the spot [be] restored by planting
to its former beauty," that the mainland strip be planted with trees so
that "the whole village may be shut out from view - 'planted out'"
and the banks restored to their present appearance on Goat Island. The utility of including both the
drawing described above, showing the restored view, and the heliotype prints
showing the developed condition of the riverbank was explained: "To
realize the total change that the carrying out of this plan would make in the
aspects of Niagara, those who are not familiar with the scene may compare the
accompanying photographs of the village shore with the picture of the same
ground as it will appear when restored according
to our plan [my emphasis]. These illustrations were not decorations
but served a definite purpose. Gardner recommended that the State also
purchase the debris slopes on the mainland section "for the purpose of
preserving and restoring the woods that border this part of the river." "We also recommend that the right
be secured to plant and maintain a narrow belt of trees with a walk at least
a mile in length along the edge of the cliff below the suspension bridge.
This planted belt need not be over twenty five or thirty feet broad. Its
trees will clothe the barren nakedness of the cliff edge and partially screen
out mills and unsightly structures from the river views, and at the same time
afford shade to visitors enjoying the profound impressions of this part of
the chasm." The State need not buy the land but only secure a right to
plant and preserve. The property belongs to the Hydraulic Power and Canal
Company and is to be used for Mills. The walls of these mills will be set
back from the cliff, their wheel pits only being sunk at the edge of the
precipice. There will be few of these pits, and they can be easily bridged
for the proposed walk. The President of the Company owning this property
[Jacob Schoellkopf, according to Adams, 1927] has assured us that he will
willingly cede the desired right to the State." Gardner urged that a board of
commissioners be set up to assess the value of lands slated for condemnation
under the right of eminent domain. Prior to the era of the railways, only
the rich enjoyed Niagara. Now everyone could. A total of 100,000 people
visited the falls in 1897. Ownership by the government would make the area
open to all citizens. Again, Gardner urged the illustration
showing the objective of his and Olmsted's design be examined: "Although
truthful in the general impression conveyed, such a view cannot, of course,
be accurate in detail." The Goat Island forest is a living
monument of history, and so facsimiles of Hennepin's description and
illustration are included in the report, "this first recorded visit of a
white man to the Falls." The ancient trees on Goat Island have witnessed
all the history of the past two hundred years, they are "the only living
witnesses" of the passage of history at the falls and must be preserved.
One cannot help but wonder if this interesting historical perspective was
provided by the Porters, who obviously consulted with both Commissioners, as
noted above, and Olmsted and Gardner. Albert Porter had written a short
pamphlet published sometime after 1875 detailing the history of the village
and the Porter fortunes there, and some of Gardner's historic sentiments
reappear in Peter A. Porter's history of Goat Island published for the
Legislature in 1900. Gardner ends with the declaration of the
value of the geologic environment of the Falls for study: "the
conclusions to be attained by accurate geological study of the region open
almost limitless views into far-reaching vistas of the continent's physical
history." The value of the scenery, associated
history and opportunity for scientific study may be preserved by the State
against the values of "money-getters," the "axe of the
mill-man," the "purveyor of public amusements," that is, the
present owners of the riverbank properties. The Report of Mr. Olmsted to the It was Mr. Olmsted's opinion that
"most of the people of Niagara [are those] to whom it appears that the
waterfall have so supreme an interest to the public that what happens to the
adjoining scenery is of trifling consequence." His opinion derives from
personal experience with local opinion. "Were all the trees cut away,
quarries opened in the ledges, the banks packed with hotels and factories,
and every chance-open space occupied by a circus tent, the falls would still,
these think, draw the world to them." This opinion, indicated Olmsted,
derived from profit alone as the sole value. Olmsted cautioned that because visitors
use the arrangements made for them, they must be considered a captive market.
Their use of the facilities should not be taken as their acceptance of their
approval. Over the course of forty-five years of
occasional visiting Niagara Falls, Olmsted recalled a gradual quickening of
pace throughout this time. Visitors originally alighted from their carriages
and made expeditions into the natural areas over the course of several days.
It was because they were hurried along by tourist-related
"services" that the duration of their stays decreased. Olmsted gave an extended quote from
"Alpine Flowers" by William Robinson (1875) who provided a lavish
description of the natural environment about the Falls. Olmsted identified
two of the world's most distinguished students of botanical science, Sir
Joseph Dalton Hooker of Kew Gardens, and Dr. Asa Gray of Harvard, as
expressing their appreciation of the exotic diversity of the vegetation in the
Goat Island complex, and Olmsted, referring to his extensive travels in the
American southwest throughout the rich forests of the Appalachian mountains,
has found no example of forest beauty to match that on Goat Island. He owed this extraordinary condition of
the flora to its extraordinary situation beside the cataracts of the Niagara
River and discussed various atmospheric reasons for the luxurious beauty of
the Goat Island forest. Olmsted ended his section by a quote
from the Duke of Argyle who became nearly prostrate with delight by standing
in one single vista up the rapids from the falls. Otherwise, he rested his
case on the statements made by the Commissioners and by Mr. Gardner, made,
where appropriate, at his recommendation. The "Memorial addressed to the
Governor of New York and the Governor-General of Canada" This is the result of a petition. Lord
Dufferin is given exclusive attribution for the political suggestion that
there be an international park at the falls of Niagara. The undersigned universally deplored the
de-foliation of Niagara's river banks and the development arising in their
place. There followed a list of the world's
luminaries in society and culture, including the Vice-President of the United
States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and perhaps all of the
Associate Justices, the Chief Justice Court of Appeals, Canada, the Judge of
the Queen's Bench, United States Senators, an Admiral, and so forth. Then follow English men of letters such
as Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, and famous Americans such as Ralph Waldo
Emerson, Henry W. Longfellow, and so forth. It is an extraordinary list of
contemporaries of the greatest prestige. Western New York's own Josiah
Letch-worth, George W. Clinton and William Dorsheimer appear, and so was the
manufacturer Pascal P. Pratt, who sat on the Board of Parks Commissioners and
was central to the plan to bring Olmsted to Buffalo to distinguish the city
with a series of urban parks under his design (Brown & Watson, 1982). The report concluded with a facsimile of
the pages of Hennepin's book with his description of the falls, and a
reprinting of Governor Robinson's message to the New York State Legislature
of January 9, 1879.
"Ideal view of the American Rapids
after the Village Shore and Bath Island are restored."
BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams,
Edward Dean. 1927. Niagara Power: History of the Niagara Falls Power Company
1886-1918. 2 Vols. Niagara Falls Power Company, Niagara Falls, New York. Goldie, John. 1819. Diary of a Journey
Through Upper Canada and Some of the New England States, 1819. Privately
published. In the copy seen from the Sidney B. Coulter Library, Onondaga
Community College, Syracuse, New York, 13215, penciled in the title page is
the notation "Toronto, Ontario, 1961." Mr. Willman Spawn of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has written an introduction and notes to the
latest published edition. Porter, P. A.
1900. Goat Island, in Sixteenth Annual Report of the Commission for the State
Reservation at Niagara for the Year 1899. Albany, pp. 75-129. Robinson, W.
1875. Alpine Flowers. John Murray, London, in Gardner, J. T., Director. 1880.
New York State Survey. Special report on the preservation of the scenery of
Niagara Falls, and fourth annual report on the triangulation of the state for
the year 1879. Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen and Sons, pp. 27-31. Roper, L. W.
1973. A biography of Fredrick Law Olmsted. Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore. Way, R. L.
1946. Ontario’s Niagara Parks, A History. The Niagara Parks Commission,
Niagara Falls, Ontario. Welch, Thomas V. (no date) How Niagara
was Made Free. The Passage of the Niagara Reservation Act in 1885.
Publication of the Buffalo Historical Society 5: 325-359. |
|
|
