Matching Items (10)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

41335-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMather, Stephen T. (Author)
Created1923-08-11
Description

Letter from the Director of the National Park Service, Stephen T. Mather, to Jesse L. Boyce informing him that immediate action is being taken to remove the TNT from the Grand Canyon.

41079-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMather, Stephen T. (Author)
Created1926-01-20
Description

Letter from Stephen Mather to Carl Hayden regarding the sale of Bass properties to the Santa Fe Railroad Company.

41081-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMather, Stephen T. (Author)
Created1924-11-28
Description

Letter from Stephen Mather, National Park Service to Carl Hayden on payment to W. W. Bass.

41085-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsHayden, Carl T. (Author) / Mather, Stephen T. (Contributor)
Created1924-07-09
Description

Letter from Carl Hayden to Stephen Mather requesting that congress pay W. W. Bass the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars for his properties.

41086-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsHayden, Carl T. (Author) / Mather, Stephen T. (Contributor)
Created1923-09-28
Description

Letter from Carl Hayden to Stephen Mather regarding the sale of Bass properties.

41149-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMather, Stephen T. (Author)
Created1925-05-20
Description

Letter from Stephen T. Mather to Carl T. Hayden regarding a negative newspaper article about the National Park Service and Stephen Mather.

41154-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMather, Stephen T. (Author)
Created1926-03-08
Description

Letter from Stephen T. Mather to Carl T. Hayden advocating for a reduction in automobile fees for the South Rim entrance.

41156-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMather, Stephen T. (Author)
Created1926-04-01
Description

Letter from Stephen Mather to Carl T. Hayden regarding automobile regulations within Grand Canyon National Park.

41170-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMather, Stephen T. (Author)
Created1924-04-21
Description

Letter from Stephen T. Mather to Carl T. Hayden thanking Hayden for his advice about visiting Arizona.

42699-Thumbnail Image.jpg
Created1999
Description
When we talk about Constitutional issues in relation to the Act, we are really asking is there a likelihood that it is unconstitutional in part or as applied to particular situations? The first risk is that some parts of it will be held to have been beyond the power of

When we talk about Constitutional issues in relation to the Act, we are really asking is there a likelihood that it is unconstitutional in part or as applied to particular situations? The first risk is that some parts of it will be held to have been beyond the power of Congress to enact because they are not permissible exercises of the Interstate Commerce power. The second issue is the application of the Act to certain tracts of private property in a manner that would deprive that property of all beneficial use and constitute a taking of property. The third is that the mitigation demanded by the government as a condition for being allowed to take endangered species will exceed the power of government to demand because of a lack of a nexus in rough proportionality-- two tests that the Supreme Court has come up with in recent years.