CABRILLO

Administrative History

NPS Logo

book cover

AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES
The Administrative History of Cabrillo National Monument

Susan Collins Lehmann

Cabrillo Historical Association

1987

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Administrative History

NPS Logo

Mission and Pueblo Lands
Point Loma—The City of San Diego vs. The United States
Point Loma and the Military

The Monument Movement
California-A Rediscovery of the Past
San Diego—1897-1915—Selling the Past
The Order of Panama-Promoting the Image
Carnaval Cabrillo—Great Promises and Grand Expectations

Cabrillo National Monument and the Native Sons of the Golden West
Saving the Lighthouse
Cabrillo Under the National Park Service—Planning a Transfer

The Reorganization of 1933
Cabrillo—Planning Under the Park Service
Obtaining Funding—The First Step
From Plans to Reality—Beginning the Project
In Commemoration of Cabrillo-The Monument Gets a Plaque
Extending the Boundaries—An Agreement With the Army
The Dedication of the Monument—1935

Forming an Administration for the Monument
Devising a Plan for Interpretation
The Coming of World War II
Military Use of the Monument During the War
The Return of the Monument to the Park Service

The Park Service Regains Cabrillo
A Statue for the Monument
Extension of the Monuments Boundaries

Initiating an Interpretive Plan for Cabrillo
Mission 66
Cabrillo and Mission 66
Administration of the Monument Under Donald Robinson
Increases in Personnel—Tom Tucker Becomes Chief Ranger

The Cabrillo Festival
Relations With the Community and Special Programs
The Mayor's Committee for the Statue That Never Was

The Development of Planning Within the Park Service
Master Planning for Cabrillo National Monument
The Monument's Relationship with the Navy—Keeping the Peace
Operations of the Monument in the 1970's
Cabrillo in the 1980's—Doris Omundson
A Look to the Future
In Conclusion

In the year and a half that it took to complete this project, I imposed heavily on the time and patience of the men and women of Cabrillo National Monument. For their knowledge willingly shared, friendship and unfailing good humor, I salute them.

Howard Overton deserves special thanks for his efforts in providing obscure documents, hunting down photographs, and never being too busy to discuss my questions and concerns. As chief ranger of Cabrillo National Monument, he served as staff liaison for the administrative history. Beyond this official capacity, however, he took a special interest in the project and provided insights and background information that proved invaluable.

Bureau Historian Barry Mackintosh carefully read and edited the manuscript, catching the details I had neglected in my haste to tell the story. Regional Historian Gordon Chappell, with his extensive knowledge of the Park Service history, provided many helpful suggestions and caught errors that might have slipped by without his vigilance.

Although I have never had the pleasure of meeting him, I owe a great debt to former Park Service historian, F. Ross Holland. His extensive collection of primary documents, keen observations and well-written narratives provided a firm groundwork on which to build this history. Superintendent Doris Omundson took the time in her hectic schedule to provide information and offer support. Superintendent Gary Cummins, in spite of the fact he had just arrived at his new post, graciously consented to a lengthy and valuable interview. Brett Jones made the monuments collection of maps, blueprints and artifacts available to me and provided "field trips" to the military bunkers and the lighthouse. These visits helped me discover the soul of the monument—something that can never be found in documents alone. Lorenza Fong, with her enormous energy, dedication and humor made my frequent trips to the monument especially enjoyable.

In addition to the forbearance of Park Service personnel, I received much needed assistance from Dr. Raymond Starr of San Diego State University. Through him, I was introduced to the resources of the San Diego Historical Society which provided essential material unavailable elsewhere.

Thanks also must be offered to Dr. Carroll Pursell of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who suggested I take the project and who served as my thesis adviser. Finally, very special thanks go to my husband, John Lehmann, who proof-read the entire manuscript and designed the book.

On October 14, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson issued proclamation establishing Cabrillo National Monument. This action came at the behest of a San Diego civic organization that wished to erect a "monumental statue" to Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. The Spanish explorer, who had visited the area in 1542, was considered by Californians to be the discoverer of the state.

The monument site, located on the tip of Point Loma, was chosen not only for its proximity to the supposed landing place of Cabrillo but primarily for its magnificent view of the ocean and surrounding area. The half-acre plot also contained a nineteenth century lighthouse. Long abandoned, the structure was scheduled to be demolished to make way for the memorial.

When a reluctant National Park Service was given jurisdiction over the area twenty years later, the lighthouse still stood and plans for the grandiose memorial had been forgotten. For the understaffed, under-budgeted bureaucracy struggling to categorize and manage its various properties, Cabrillo National Monument presented formidable problems. More than one administrator has pointed out that it is a unique place whose commemorative significance is obscured and overwhelmed by its surroundings. When inherited by the Park Service, the area memorialized an event that had not even take place within its borders. At the same time, it contained a historic structure that bore no relationship to the monument's reason for existence. To complicate matters even more, the chief attraction for the local populace was the spectacular view.

As the monument expanded, administrative problems intensified. Each extension brought something new to be managed and interpreted to the public. Eventually included within its boundaries were an extensive tidepool ecosystem, intact remnants of the coastal fortifications from two world wars, and acres of native plant and wildlife. In addition, the monument had become known as the best place in Southern California to observe the annual gray whale migration. While this embarrassment of riches caused no problems for Cabrillo's millions of visitors, high level Park Service officials had great difficulty fitting the monument into the system's overall management plans.

Problems of administration have not been limited to managing Cabrillo's many attractions. The monument's superintendents have had, by necessity, to deal with the military establishment as well as their own bureaucracy. Surrounded by land first controlled by the Army, then the Navy, the monument was closed during World War II, and after the War some question remained if the area would ever be opened to the public again.

Unlike many National Park Service properties, Cabrillo has the distinction of being one of the first to operate in an urban environment. It's proximity to downtown San Diego and the fact that it was established through local instigation has made the monument an integral part of the community. In many instances, this has worked to its advantage. Pressure applied through the general public and local officials has, on more than one occasion, saved the area from permanent closure and resulted in boundary extensions and continuing appropriations.

This close association has had, however, its disadvantages as well. Administrators often have been drawn into local controversies and development plans have been created by community interests that, if implemented, could have been detrimental to the monument's broader mission.

As part of a larger government bureaucracy, Cabrillo has been subject to the problems, varying agendas and changes in philosophies that have occurred within that system. It is in dealing with the monument's diverse attributes and its uniqueness among National Park Service properties, however, that administrators have found their greatest challenge.

In late September 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo sailed into the "very good enclosed port" that he called San Miguel. [1] The early Spanish explorers, however, were more concerned with discovering riches and establishing Spain's power on the seas than in founding colonies. Over 225 years would pass between Cabrillo's visit to the area, later renamed San Diego, and any serious attempt to begin a settlement in Southern California. Responding to the threat of Russian colonization along the northwest coast of America, Spain in 1768 began, for the first time, to give serious thought to protecting its interests in California. As a result, the Spanish king, Charles III, directed Jose de Galvez to organize both land and sea expeditions and establish settlements in Alta California in order to discourage encroachments by the Russians. Father Junipero Serra, head of the missions of Baja California, was chosen for one of the land expeditions accompanying Captain Gaspar de Portola. [2]

On July 16, 1769, Father Serra planted a cross and dedicated a small bushwood hut as the first Alta California mission, San Diego de Alcala. [3] The first in a chain of twenty-one, it was a continuation of the mission system already begun in Baja California. The missions were one of three institutions that determined the shape of the Spanish frontier in the New World. Under the Spanish system, settlements consisted of missions, self-sufficient stations where Indians were assembled to live and work under the direction of a missionary, presidios, garrisoned forts similar to the Army posts of the American West, and pueblos, agricultural towns established where royal policy dictated. In varying combinations these three agencies put their mark on what was later to become the state of California and influenced government and land policies for years to come. [4]

By the time of Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the Spanish-Mexican settlers, called Californios, were challenging the mission system that prevented them from owning property. [5] In their original status under Spain and Mexico, the missions had been granted no lands. However, the government had refrained from granting to anyone else such lands as were needed by the missions and the amount of acreage that they controlled was vast. [6] The demand for secularization of the missions resulted in the order of 1833 which returned mission ranches to the national government of Mexico. On September 20, 1834, Mission San Diego, the mother mission of California, with its holdings of 3,000 square miles was transferred from the church to a commissioner from the government. The pueblo of San Diego, a settlement of four hundred and thirty four people, was organized in 1835. [7] Ten years later a survey and map of the pueblo lands were made by Henry D. Fitch, approved by Governor Pio Pico and countersigned by officials of the Mexican Government Land Department, thus completing the title. [8]

Subsequently, the United States and Mexico went to war over the issue of the independence and admission of Texas to the Union. The war ended in 1847 and in February 1848, a peace treaty was negotiated at the village of Guadalupe Hildalgo near Mexico City. [9] By virtue of this treaty, Mexico's northern boundary was drawn at the Rio Grande and Gila rivers and just south of San Diego between Alta and Baja California. Most important for later land grant claims, the treaty also provided that the United States government would honor those titles to property previously recognized by Mexico. [10]

In 1848, a Joint Commission of Navy and Engineer Officers was formed by direction of President James K. Polk to examine the Pacific coast of the United States "with reference to points of defense, and occupation for the security and accommodation of trade and commerce, and for military and naval purposes." [11] The Commission arrived in San Diego in 1850 and reported that San Diego harbor was "remarkable" and a valuable acquisition to a coast where good harbors were rare. [12] Fortifications were recommended on Punta de Guijarros, also known as Ballast Point, which was seen as the best location for the defense of San Diego harbor. Of all the sites visited on the Pacific coast, only San Francisco, the Columbia River and San Diego received first class ratings indicating that the improvements should be built immediately. [13] Based on this report, the Secretary of War, made the following recommendation to President Millard Fillmore on February 24, 1852:

I have the honor to recommend that the following tracts of land in California and Oregon, which have been selected for military purposes by the Joint Commission for the examination of the Pacific Coast, be accordingly reserved from sale or grant, viz:

In California San Diego Harbor, to include that portion of the peninsula lying west to the entrance to the harbor, which shall be included between the southern-most end of the peninsula (Puent de Loma) [sic] and a line drawn across the peninsula from the harbor to the ocean at the distance of one and a half miles above Punta de Guiranos [sic]....

Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant
(Signed) C.M. Conrad
Secretary of War [14]

The recommendation was approved and the land set aside by Presidential Proclamation on February 26, 1852. Transfer of the land to the government was to not to be made automatically, however. When members of the City Council of San Diego received notification of the Proclamation, they declared it an illegal act claiming that the United States government could not seize the land as public domain. According to the Council's interpretation, all of Point Loma was part of the Pueblo lands as defined in the Fitch map of 1845. The land was so transferred, they argued, when San Diego became part of the United States and was further confirmed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. [15]

When California became a state on September 9, 1850, pressure had mounted to settle the Mexican claims as American squatters moved in and challenged titles to the land. [16] In an attempt to solve the problem, Congress set up a commission in 1851 to settle these claims. The city submitted its case to this commission and on February 14, 1853 the claim to the Pueblo of San Diego (No. 589) was filed. [17]

The claim was heard on Jan. 22, 1856, and judgement reached: "In the case of the President and trustees of the City of San Diego vs. the United States, the Board of Commissioners for the settlement of land titles in California decreed that the title to the lands of Point Loma was vested in the City of San Diego." [18] As was usually the case when land grant claims were decided against the government, the decision was appealed to Federal Court. On June 8, 1857, Judge Hoffman for the Southern District of California on the motion of the United States District Attorney, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the Commission thus making it final. [19] The following year the City Council ordered a survey and map made of the Pueblo Lands of San Diego which was accepted and registered by the United States Government Surveyor General. [20] According to law, then, the city had undisputed title to Point Loma.

Several years later, however, the Army renewed its interest in fortifying San Diego Harbor. In a report issued May 31, 1867, the Board of Engineers for the Pacific Coast once again recommended Ballast Point as the preferred site for fortifications. [21] And once again the Commissioner of the General Land Office reported that in his opinion the land in question "is private property belonging to the City of San Diego." [22] He suggested in a letter to General Barton Alexander, Chief of Engineers of the Military Division of the Pacific dated August 15, 1867, that Alexander apply to the City of San Diego for a grant of land to be used for defensive purposes. [23]

San Diego was by now moving from a sleepy pueblo into a place with serious hopes of becoming a western terminus for the transcontinental railroad—the Southern California equivalent of San Francisco. The first edition of the San Diego Union expressed the hopes of its citizens that:

We...may see the waters of our bay fretting beneath the burdens of heavy commerce—to hear the shrill whistle of the iron horse...to see our bay surrounded by mammoth manufacturing and mercantile houses, princely residences, domes and spires of churches and schools of learning—the streets teeming with prosperous and industrious people, and our lovely valleys lifting to our genial skies flowers and fruits, in tints as varied and gorgeous as our incomparable sunsets. [24]

As part of this scenario, the city officials also envisioned San Diego as an important military post. Therefore, when application was made to formally convey to the government the southern portion of Point Loma for the building of fortifications and to establish a naval depot and harbor, the City Trustees were now happy to comply. [25]

On August 10, 1868, the city deeded to the United States Government, Point Loma lots 1 to 26 inclusive but not including lots 12, 18, and 26 which had passed into private ownership. [26] The deeded land was approximately the same area originally set aside as a military reservation by the Presidential Proclamation of 1852 with the exception of the excluded lots. The matter might have ended there except for the fact that the Ballast Point, the land that the Army needed for its fortifications, was lot 12, one of those not included in the deed. [27]

Meanwhile, in the absence of military activity, whaling companies had begun their seasonal operations on Ballast Point. In January of 1870, General George H. Thomas, commanding the Pacific Military Division, wrote to the Secretary of War voicing his concerns about the "landgrabbers and others" [28] who were attempting to dispossess the government of its land and suggesting the Army take possession of Ballast Point. His plan was approved and on March 7 he ordered all persons not government employees to vacate the land. [29]

General Alexander, for his part, pressed forward with his claim that the land in question belonged to the government. In a letter to the Chief of Engineers on January 25, 1870, he stated his opinion that since there was once a fort at this location, the Mexican government had intended it to be a military reserve and should therefore be considered as such when the United States took possession. His interpretation neglected to the mention the fact that the fort had been abandoned since 1835. [30] Commissioner Joseph S. Wilson of the land office was requested by Alexander to reverse his previous opinion that Point Loma belonged to the City of San Diego thereby invalidating its right to subdivide and sell land to private parties. On August 8, 1870, Wilson, citing not legal evidence but "representation made by eminent military authorities," [31] reconsidered his position and stated that the title "is in the United States as successor to the Mexican Government." [32]

The new decision was affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior on January 31, 1872, and the Surveyor General altered his map to exclude all land south of a reservation line, one and one half miles north of Ballast Point. When a patent on its Pueblo lands was finally issued to the City of San Diego on April 10, 1874, these boundaries were used, thus excluding the southern end of Point Loma. [33] The hapless souls who held title to the disputed lots continued to be assessed and pay taxes on them as late as 1883. If a claimant to a lot undertook to improve it, however, he was warned by a government guard to desist. Should the claimant not heed the warning, the guard was under instruction to call on military authorities at the San Diego barracks for assistance. [34]

Lt. John H. Weeden, of the Board of Engineers, who was sent to San Diego to make preliminary preparations for the construction of the battery on Ballast Point, gave his opinion on the rightful ownership of Point Loma in a letter to Colonel R. S. Williamson of the Army Corps of Engineers. On August 20, 1874, he wrote:

The foregoing abstracts contain the salient points of all the documents, with their dates referring to the matter, which are in our possession. If you my dear Colonel, can tell whether the land belongs to the United States or to the City of San Diego, you are a better lawyer than I. Although I incline to the opinion that, whatever may be the law of the case, the government has not the shadow of a claim in equity. [35]

The legalities of the situation seemed not to have concerned the Army, however, which apparently considered the matter settled. Col. Williamson, in forwarding the information to the Chairman of the Lighthouse Board, summed up the situation of 1874 when he wrote: "Whether the title to the land in question is in the Government or not, the Government has military possession of it, and have commenced the erection of a fort there." [36] If possession is nine-tenths of the law, then the law was obviously on the side of the United States Army.

Interest in fortifying Point Loma did not originate with the United States Army. Cabrillo had noted in 1542 that the harbor of San Miguel, later renamed San Diego, was "a very good enclosed port." [37] Sebastian Viscaino, sent to explore the coast of California in 1602, was similarly impressed and reported in his log that San Diego Bay "must be the best to be found in all the South Sea, for besides being protected on all sides and giving good anchorage, it is in latitude 33 1/4°." [38]

Just as the Spanish gave little thought to colonizing Southern California until the 1700's, they also found no reason to fortify the port of San Diego until late in that century. At that time, British, Russian and American activity in the north called attention to the vulnerability of the Spanish claims to California. A dispute with Britain over fur trading activities resulted in a treaty between Britain and Spain in 1790. To oversee Spanish compliance with the treaty, the British sent Captain George Vancouver of the British Royal Navy to the Pacific. During the course of his travels he visited California three times, one of those visits being to San Diego in November of 1794. [39] In writing of the situation there, he observed:

The Presidio of San Diego seemed to be the least of the Spanish establishments.... With little difficulty it might be rendered a place of considerable strength, by establishing a small force at the entrance of the port; where at this time there are neither works, guns, houses or other habitation nearer than the Presidio, five miles from the port and where they have only three small pieces of brass cannon. [40]

Diego de Borica, appointed governor of California in 1794, became increasingly aware of the threat to California as British fur trading activity increased, despite the treaty, and rumors of an imminent British invasion spread. A state of war existed between Spain and France at the time and the Russians had also begun encroaching into Spanish territory. Responding to this combination of circumstances and acknowledging that the Spanish presidios had been set up to counter Indian attacks, not to repel any major invasions, the Spanish began to bring in reinforcement troops and to mount additional guns. As part of this effort, work was begun on a fort at Punta De Los Guijarros in 1797. [41] The Presidio provided brick and tile for construction while other materials and workmen were brought in from Monterey and Santa Barbara. [42] Little is known about the precise configuration of the fort. Historical descriptions differ and all that can be said from remaining archaeological evidence is that a formidable eighteenth century Spanish fortress once existed on that part of Point Loma now known as Ballast Point. [43]

In 1803, an incident occurred involving Ft. Guijarros and the Yankee brig Lelia Byrd. After engaging in some contraband dealings with the local inhabitants, the ship was seized and put under armed guard. Having overpowered the Spaniards, the crew raised anchor and attempted an escape at which point the the fort opened fire. [44] The brig returned the fire with her six three-pounders and continued the engagement for about an hour with no serious damage on either side. [45]

Except for this incident, knowledge of the the activities of the fort is limited and it is difficult to separate actual events from local legend. [46] By 1839 the fort had fallen into disrepair and in 1840 the remnants of the fort were sold to Juan Machado, a local landowner, for $40. [47]

American interest in fortifying San Diego harbor with Point Loma as a base had begun immediately after California statehood It was during this period that the dispute between the City of San Diego and the United States government over the ownership of Point Loma was played out through land grant hearings and in the Federal Courts. Though the military had argued for the building of fortifications in San Diego for over twenty years, the vagaries of politics prevented any appropriations for the project until 1874 when $50,000 was allocated by Congress for that purpose. [48] By that time, the land title question had been settled, at least to the satisfaction of the Army.

Work began in 1874 on earthen seacoast batteries for fifteen guns of the largest caliber to protect the harbor. [49] By the time the money ran out the following year, an 80-foot wharf, a stable, a stone house and carpenter shop had been constructed and the site for a battery had been cleared. From 1875 to 1890 Congress made no more appropriations for seacoast defense and the unfinished site sat unused with only a watchman hired to maintain the property. [50]

The turn of the century brought a change of political philosophy in the United States and, as the country became involved in expansionist foreign policy, more emphasis was placed on military preparedness. [51] Projects which had been postponed for decades became high priorities and providing proper defense for the West Coast achieved new significance. As a result, in January 1897, construction on what was to become Ft. Rosecrans began in earnest.

Emplacements for two 10-inch seacoast guns on disappearing carriages were built during the next several years and a third emplacement was completed in February 1898. [52] In April of that year, Capt. J. J. Meyler, engineer officer in charge of construction, received orders to organize a corps of 120 volunteer citizens to mine San Diego harbor. Approximately 80 men—carpenters, electricians, civil engineers, surveyors, boiler-makers, steam engineers, boatmen, mechanics and a few soldiers from the local Engineer battalion—responded to the call. They placed fifteen electrically controlled mines in the channel each weighing between 1,000 and 1,800 pounds. The minefield was protected by two smooth-bore muzzle loaders of Civil War vintage and was patrolled by the Revenue Cutter Corwin. [53]

Construction of fortifications continued through 1900 during which time Batteries Wilkinson, McGrath and Fetterman were completed. From 1901 to 1904 post buildings were erected of both frame construction and brick. The post was officially designated Fort Rosecrans by the Adjutant General's Office in 1899 in honor of Major General William S. Rosecrans, United States Army.

The first detachment of soldiers, Battery D, 3rd Artillery, arrived at the fort in early February 1898. From that time through World War I, the garrison was active in training soldiers, patrolling the Mexican border, housing and interning military prisoners and training the California National Guard. Fort Rosecrans was placed on caretaker status in 1922 because of manpower needs overseas and was reactivated in 1941 with the advent of World War II. As part of these wartime activities, Battery Ashburn, which consisted of two 16-inch guns in casemates, was built just north of the Old Lighthouse that had been designated as Cabrillo National Monument. The battery was completed on Aug. 26, 1943.

With the close of the war, Fort Rosecrans was once again placed on caretaker status and its armament stripped. Though headquarters for Army Reserve components in San Diego are still located there, the reservation was transferred to the Navy Department on July 1, 1959. [54]

¹Juan Paez, Cabrillo's Log, 1542-1543, trans. James R. Moriarity and Mary Keistman (San Diego: Cabrillo Historical Association, 1968), 6.

²John W. Caughey with Norris Hundley, Jr., California: History of a Remarkable State (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1982), 28-29.

³James R. Moriarity, III, The Cabrillo National Monument, A Physical and Cultural Overview (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1977), 164.

⁵Neil Morgan and Tom Blair, Yesterday's San Diego (Miami, Florida: Seemann Publishing, Inc., 1976), 14.

⁷Richard F. Pourade, The History of San Diego: The Silver Dons, (San Diego: Union-Tribune Publishing Co., 1964), 14.

⁸Edward J. P. Davis, The United States Navy and U.S. Marine Corps at San Diego (N.P., 1955), 20.

¹¹U. S. Serial Set No. 537, House Executive Document No. 1, 30th Cong. 2nd Sess., p. 151, cited by Paul Michael Callaghan, "Fort Rosecrans, California" (Masters thesis, University of San Diego, 1980), 1.

¹²Report of the Joint Commission of Navy and Engineer Officers for the Examination of the Coast of the United States on the Pacific, 1836-1866, Record Group 77, National Archives, cited by Callaghan, "Fort Rosecrans," 2.

¹⁴Secretary of War to President of United States, 24 February 1852, Record Group 26, National Archives (copy on file, Cabrillo National Monument).

¹⁸R. S. Williamson, Lt. Col. U.S.A., Light House Engineer, 12 District, "Relating to title to Land at Point Loma, California, Light House Reservation. Encloses a memorandum letter from Lt. J. H. Weeden, U.S. Engineers on Same Subject," 28 August 1874, RG 26, NA (Copy on File CNM).

²⁵Richard F. Pourade, The History of San Diego: The Glory Years (San Diego: Union-Tribune Publishing Co., 1964), 32.

²⁶Williamson, "Relating to the Title of Point Loma" and Davis, U.S. Navy, 25.

²⁸General Thomas to Secretary of War, RG 94, NA, cited by Callaghan, "Fort Rosecrans," 7.

³³Title to the Pueblo Lands of San Diego, Filed and Recorded 17 June 1874, Book No. 1 of United States Patents, p. 190-201. Re-recorded 28 January 1916, Records of San Diego County, California, Book No. 12, p. 433 (Copy on file CNM).

³⁵Lt. John H. Weeden to Col. R. S. Williamson, 20 August 1874, RG 26, NA (Copy on file, CNM).

³⁶R.S. Williamson to Prof. Joseph Henry, 28 August 1874, RG 26, NA, (Copy on file, CNM).

⁴⁰H. H. Bancroft, The History of California (San Francisco: The History Publishing Co. 1886): 649, cited by Moriarity, Cabrillo, 166.

⁴²George Ruhlen, "Fort Rosecrans, California," San Diego Historical Society Quarterly, 5 (October 1959), 60.

⁴³Ronald V. May, The Search for Fort Guijarros: An Archaeological Test of a Legendary 18th Century Spanish Fort in San Diego, (San Diego: Cabrillo Historical Association, 1982), 1.

⁵¹Robert Kelley, The Shaping of the American Past, 2 vols. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), 2: 449.

On Friday, September 26, 1913, San Diego's foremost citizens together with military officers, United States senators, a representative of the President of the United States, the Spanish ambassador, and the lieutenant governor of California all gathered at the site of an abandoned lighthouse on Point Loma to honor Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, the Spanish explorer credited with the discovery of California. In the colorful, if slightly inaccurate rhetoric of the day, the event was described in the San Diego Union:

The first great day of the Carnaval Cabrillo is over. The site on Point Loma on which a monument to the memory of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, founder of San Diego, will rise has been dedicated to its holy purpose by the lieutenant governor of the Golden State, in behalf of the governor, representing all the people. For the first time in generations the voice of the king of the Spaniards was heard again officially, when Senor Juan Riano y Gayangos, special envoy of his royal highness, expressed his thanks in behalf of his king and his nation for the honor paid to one of that nation's greatest sons. [1]

Though Cabrillo was virtually unknown in Spain [2], he may or may not have actually set foot on the soil of what was to become San Diego and would later be credited with having been the first white man to see the West coast of the United States rather than having discovered California, [3] the spirit of the times if not historical precision was captured for the celebration.

The event, as evidenced by the dignitaries who took part, was no minor local phenomenon. It occurred as part of several movements which were growing not only in San Diego and California but on a national level as well. The monument movement, which was gaining strength nationally, California's rediscovery of its Spanish heritage, and the effort of San Diego to capitalize on tourism all played a part in the gala event on September 26. [4]

Though it is relatively easy to trace a piece of legislation or the history of a presidential proclamation, it is more difficult to speak of the origin of a particular idea or movement. The "monument movement" was neither an isolated phenomenon nor an immensely popular idea but rather a manifestation of the growing awareness among some Americans of their natural and cultural heritage.

In a country as new as the United States with seemingly endless resources, the ideas of conservation and preservation did not interest a majority of people in the middle of the nineteenth century. Especially in the West, where development and expansion were the primary concern, the notion of the government setting aside vast tracts of land and closing them to private use was not particularly welcome. Yet it was at the instigation of a group from California, a state noted for its land speculation schemes, that the first important piece of legislation concerning conservation was initiated. [5]

A bill which set aside and protected a huge tract of land in the Sierras that included the Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Big Trees was successfully lobbied through Congress by a group of Californians led by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. On June 25, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed the bill into law thereby creating Yosemite State Park. No legislation on this scale had ever been passed by Congress and though it was the first official recognition of a developing interest in preservation of the nation's natural resources, it did not represent a groundswell of popular support. Ironically, it was Senator Cole of California who more accurately voiced the opinion of the majority when he opposed a later bill introduced by Congress in 1872 to set aside 2 million acres of land in the Yellowstone region of the Montana territory: "I do not see the reason or propriety of setting apart a large tract of land of that kind in the Territories of the United States for a public park." [6]

In spite of the opposition, the lobbying efforts of a small, dedicated and influential group of men were successful in getting the Yellowstone Act passed and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on March 1, 1872. [7]

At the same time the national parks were being established, another separate, though related movement was under way. [8] Appalled by the plunder of the Southwestern cliff dwelling and pueblo ruins, archaeologists and scientists began a concerted effort to acquire government protection of these artifacts from vandals and pot hunters. As a result of their efforts, the Antiquities Act was signed into law on June 8, 1906. [9] An important provision of the act stated:

That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.... [10]

The discretionary power which the Act gave to the President, as well as a liberal interpretation of the type of property which could be declared a monument, resulted over the years in a conglomeration of areas including "battlefields, forts, mountains, canyons, cliffs, glaciers, sand dunes, islands, caves, deserts, trees, cacti, birthplaces of famous men, church missions and homesteads..." all being named national monuments. [11]

This loose interpretation of the Antiquities Act would ultimately make it possible for a local San Diego organization to obtain permission from the government to erect a monument to Cabrillo on War Department property. That the local citizenry should choose to honor a Spanish explorer has a great deal to do not only with the city's past, but with a new emphasis that Californians were placing on their early heritage.

After the initial frenzy of the gold rush days of 1848 and 1849 was over, Californians began, in a conscious manner, to build a culture. Unlike the settlers of other Western regions whose survival needs superseded their ability to create the amenities of civilization, Californians were able to quickly create the type of culture that often takes generations to evolve in less fortunate places. This was largely due to the state's mild climate, immense natural resources and most important, the wealth brought from gold. San Francisco, which developed almost overnight from a village to a major metropolitan center, exhibited by the late 1850's all the accoutrements of an established city, including newspapers and publishing companies, opera houses, schools, churches and libraries. These institutions did not reflect the Spanish and Mexican cultures which had developed in California before the coming of the Americans. Rather they displayed the tastes, ideas and perceptions that the new settlers, primarily educated men and women from the east and midwest, brought with them. [12]

A small but vocal group of California thinkers and writers in the 1870's began to remind Californians of their Spanish roots. In 1871, Judge Elisha W. Mckinstry told the Society of California Pioneers that something simple and precious had been lost in the passing of old California while the new California was pretentious and vulgar by comparison. In the same vein, Elizabeth Hughes, writing in 1875, contrasted the ostentation of San Francisco's Nob Hill, an example of what she believed to be the vulgarity and materialism American architecture, with the simple dignity of mission buildings. [13]

The "cow counties" of Southern California, which had lagged behind San Francisco and central California in population and business growth until the 1870's, soon became the focus of this emphasis on the Spanish past. With the publishing of Helen Hunt Jackson's novel Ramona in 1884, the romanticizing of California's early history reached its peak. Mrs. Jackson, a native of Massachusetts, was smitten with the romance of the mission era after several visits to Southern California beginning in 1881. [14] Conceived as a kind of Uncle Tom's Cabin of Indian life, the book was most effective in creating the legend of an idyllic mission era, presided over by humble and beneficent Spanish friars. Ramona became one of the most widely read books of its time and inspired thousands of eastern tourists to make pilgrimages on newly established railroad lines to "Ramona's marriage place," "Ramona's school" and even the bed where Ramona slept. All were thoughtfully provided by entrepreneurs eager to attract the hordes of people traveling to Southern California in search of "Ramona's land." [15]

In spite of the fact that this interest in California's Spanish beginnings was based on a history that was spurious at best, the Ramona mania did have the effect of bringing the attention of the public to the disreputable state to which the California mission buildings had fallen. Spurred by the popular interest in this cause, the Association for the Preservation of the Missions (later to be known as the Landmarks Club) was organized in 1888 under the leadership of Charles Fletcher Lummis. [16]

Lummis, who disdained the sentimental image of California portrayed in Ramona, provided much of the impetus for promotion of what he believed was the true Spanish nature of California's past. Like many of Southern California's early boosters, Lummis was a transplanted Easterner. Harvard educated, with a flair for the dramatic as well as the historical, the self-styled "Don Carlos" ate Southwestern food, wore a green corduroy suit cut in the Spanish style, a frilled shirt, broad brimmed hat and Navajo jewelry. As editor of the publication Land of Sunshine (called Out West after 1902), [17] he turned his considerable energies toward making Americans in general and Californians in particular aware and appreciative of their Spanish heritage. Land of Sunshine, subsidized at first by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, published numerous articles by authorities on Old California and Southwest culture. Using the monthly editorial column, "The Lion's Den" as his pulpit, Lummis extolled the virtues of California's early landmarks, in particular the decaying missions, and solicited financial aid from his readers for his preservation efforts. [18]

He sought local support for his projects as well, as is evidenced by his letter to the editor of the San Diego Sun on Oct. 27, 1899:

Early in the summer the Landmarks Club inaugurated repairs to preserve the ruins of the San Diego Mission by sending $100 from its treasury. The San Diego committee (Geo. W. Marston, Chairman) raised $115 and this money has been very economically applied. Today I send another $100 and hope the San Diego people will again meet us half way. We will undertake to lead just as long as they will catch up with us. It would be a reproach to all California if the Mother Mission went to decay, as it will be very soon unless protected, and to San Diego, not only that, but a distinct loss in dollars and cents.

This sentiment was vigorously seconded by an editorial in the San Diego Union which pointed out the tourist value to Southern California of the structures. In addition: "...aside from the purely practical view, their preservation demanded a nobler sentiment. It will be a lasting disgrace to permit these historic structures to become unsightly ruins." [20]

The idea of capitalizing on its past for the benefit of tourists was not a new idea in San Diego. The city, like the rest of the state and the country and was subject to the economic booms and busts of the 1880's and 1890's. Having reached a population peak of 35,000 in 1888, the number was cut by more than half to only 16,000 in 1889. Caught in what seemed like an indefinite holding pattern, city fathers sought ways for San Diego to get its share of Southern California-bound tourists. [21]

In 1892, prompted by Walter G. Smith, newspaper editor of The Sun, local officials attempted to promote the area by sponsoring a celebration to commemorate Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo's discovery of San Diego Bay in 1542. Such an occasion, they believed, would enable San Diego to establish itself as the birthplace of Alta California. [22]

The three-day celebration beginning on September 28 was an elaborate one financed by businessmen and the city government, and it attracted thousands of spectators. Though marred by technical difficulties including the stranding of replicas of Cabrillo's caravels 300 yards from shore by the receding tide and the dousing of a group of spectators when a pier collapsed, [23] the event was good naturedly declared a success. In spite of the optimism of its promoters, the Cabrillo celebration did not, unfortunately, put San Diego on the map as a tourist mecca. Except for a repeat performance in 1894, [24] the idea of a Cabrillo celebration was not revived until 1913 when it became part of the advance promotion for the Panama-California Exposition of 1915. It was the planning, execution and promotion of this exposition that most firmly established San Diego's Spanish connection and made it a permanent part of the city's identification and heritage.

Still searching for the attention-getter that would help San Diego fulfill its destiny as a great city, local businessmen believed they had found a golden opportunity with the building of the Panama Canal, scheduled to be completed in 1915. In order to call attention to San Diego's potential as a principal port in the new Atlantic-Pacific sea trade, local banker G. Aubrey Davidson suggested at a Chamber of Commerce meeting on July 9, 1909, that the city sponsor an international exposition in City Park timed to coincide with the completion of the Canal. [25] The plans "started ambitiously," according to Julius Wangenheim, one of the promoters. "with the goal of a whole million dollars, the largest amount our minds could grasp at that time, and one that was almost synonymous with infinity." [26] On Sept 4, 1909, the Articles of Incorporation were filed to establish the Panama-California Exposition Company with the purpose of operating a world's fair in 1915. [27]

The plans were in danger of being short-circuited almost immediately when San Francisco announced on December 7, 1909, that it too planned to hold a Panama Pacific Exposition in 1915. Doubting San Diego's ability to challenge such formidable competition, a movement began to quash the exposition, but the Director General, Charles Collier, convinced the opposition that though a new strategy was called for, the exposition should proceed as planned. [28] The directors decided to modify their plans for a world's fair and instead aimed for a smaller regional exhibition which would complement rather than compete with the larger one in San Francisco. Collier envisioned an exposition in keeping with the history and culture of Southern California and wished to create a miniature city with buildings in the style of the missions in contrast to the neo-Roman beaux arts extravaganza planned for the North. The exhibits, rather than worldwide in scope, would feature the products and arts of the Southwest, Spain and Latin America. In endorsing this idea, San Diego joined the rest of Southern California in making the Spanish and Mexican occupation of the area something to be exploited as a tourist attraction rather than a connection to be concealed. [29]

The Panama-California directors had agreed that "Spanish Mission" architecture would be the style of the exposition and the San Diego Buildings and Grounds Committee had chosen a local architect, Irving Gill to design the buildings. However, New York City architect Bertram Goodhue, who had build a national reputation for his ornate "Spanish Colonial" style, became interested in the project. He lobbied the directors to become the "advisory and consulting architect" and eventually Gill was maneuvered out of his job. As a result, plans for a simple mission style were replaced by the more fanciful and elaborate Churrigueresque buildings for which Goodhue was known. The Spanish connection remained, however, though executed in a style that was a bit more grandiose than originally planned. [30]

Activities to promote the planned exposition began on July 19, 1911 with the groundbreaking ceremonies. Not content with leaving publicity for the proceedings to the Chamber of Commerce and other established civic groups, the exposition's number one booster, Charles Collier, began an organization called the Order of Panama whose chief purpose was to "...establish marks of recognition all over the city and the bay that will perpetuate the deeds of the Spanish." [31]

The organization, which held its first meeting in January 1912 with 115 members, claimed 500 by September of that year. [32] Somewhat of a cross between a civic booster group and a fraternal order, the organization set out immediately with lavish plans for projects which would call attention to the Spanish nature of the upcoming exposition. These projects included the erection of a cross near the site of the original San Diego Mission, a statue to Balboa in the newly renamed Balboa Park, and a 150 foot statue of Cabrillo on Point Loma. Only one of these projects, the Serra cross, was ever completed though preliminary work was done for all of them and all the sites were dedicated with a great deal of accompanying pomp and circumstance.

The organization's articles of incorporation, adopted on October 1, 1912, called for expansion into neighboring states as well as Latin American countries. However, there is no evidence that the Order of Panama ever extended beyond the borders of San Diego. [33] In an attempt to enlist the aid of the city's women, the Order "proclaimed equal suffrage as part of a booster program" with the promise of "a women's auxiliary in the near future"—another plan which apparently never came to fruition. [34]

Though not all the anticipated projects were completely successful, each was begun with a great amount of energy and enthusiasm and put in the charge of a committee headed by a prominent member. The committee that had "undertaken the work of building an Heroic Statue of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, the discoverer of California," [35] was chaired by Judge Ernest Riall. In a letter to the Secretary of War dated April 29, 1913, Riall explained the purpose of the project and the choice of location:

When Cabrillo sailed into San Diego Bay on the 28th of September, 1542; Point Loma was the first land sighted, and as the building of this Statue is a work of both National and Inter-National importance, we believe the most suitable place for it is on Point Loma; and as Point Loma, or that portion where it is proposed to erect the Statue is Government property and a Military Reservation, the first step necessary is to secure the consent of the War Department. [36]

Riall then proceeded to explain that permission to use the land would not conflict with the rights of the Light House Board since the lighthouse on the land requested "was long ago abandoned."

In the ensuing nine months, at the end of which time permission for the project was formalized by a presidential proclamation, the request was shifted from office to office within the government. By the time it reached the President on October 10, 1913, the file contained a sheaf of memos and twenty-four endorsements from various government agencies.

The trek through bureaucratic channels began with an endorsement of the request by the office of the Chief of Coast Artillery which registered "no military objection to erecting a statue on the site proposed." [37] Forwarded then to the the Judge Advocate General on May 8, he rendered an opinion that

The monument would be a permanent structure which would contemplate a permanent occupation of a portion of the reservation used and therefore, which in the absence of legislative authority from Congress, could not properly be authorized either by revocable license or lease under the Act of July 28, 1892. [38]

It is here that the Antiquities Act of 1906 came into play. Though it was not possible to legally grant a license or lease for the land requested, the Judge Advocate General said that: "In the opinion of this office the President may, under the broad authority conferred by this statute [Section 2 of the Act of Congress of June 8, 1906, (34 Stat. 225), set aside a sufficient area of this reservation, as a site for the proposed monument." [39] Though the erection of a 150-foot statue was perhaps far removed from the purpose of the legislation designed to protect cultural artifacts, a broad interpretation of the act worked to the ultimate benefit of the Order of Panama.

The proposal was then forwarded to the Major William C. Davis, Commanding Officer of Fort Rosecrans, for approval of the site selected. Davis voiced his concerns about the original spot chosen for the project, a point three hundred feet south of the old light house. This area, he believed, might "possibly be required as a site for...additional armament" at a later date. [40] After meeting with the some members of the committee, an alternate site was chosen: "... the site of the Old Lighthouse—and that the grounds in connection therewith be the plot included within the loop made by the Boulevard around the Lighthouse." A provision also agreed upon concerned the military's need for a radio signal station and a latrine at the site of the lighthouse:

Regarding this the Committee state that they would so design the pedestal of the monument (to be of re-enforced concrete) that there would be room for a gas engine, for attendants, wireless set, etc. in the base, and (above) room for a lookout and a tank for water storage—all included with the pedestal. This would also include a latrine for the operators, but it is thought that a latrine for the public use should be built in accordance with the Q.M. specifications. [41]

One can only imagine the lack of enthusiasm that must have greeted the sub-committee when it reported to the chairman that it had agreed to let the military install a radio tower and latrine in the Order's "towering monument to Cabrillo." [42] In any event, Chairman Riall composed a hasty letter explaining that "after due deliberation by the whole committee it was decided that it would be inappropriate to place a Radio Station or Latrine within the pedestal." [43] The reason given was that the committee planned "...to construct the base or pedestal of the State as a sepulcher for the bones of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo; expert search is now being made on the Island of San Miguel, with every assurance of success in finding his remains." Riall concluded: "the Committee objects to a Radio Station in the base of the monument for the reason, that in the event of war, the Statue would become a target for the enemy." [44] Apparently swayed by the committee's reasoning, Davis reported to the Commanding General, Western Department that after reviewing the site with the Secretary of War, he had reached the conclusion that since "...it is not practicable to provide in the pedestal accommodations for a radio party, these can and should be provided elsewhere." [45]

Minor wrangling continued between Davis and his superiors about the relative cost of retaining the lighthouse as a radio station and building a new structure. [46] Davis defended his position of allowing the committee to go forward with its plans to demolish the lighthouse and erect their statue on the site since:

(1) The Old Lighthouse is of little historical value (having been built in 1852-55 since the American occupation), and such historic interest as it possesses could well be represented by a bronze tablet or inscription on the monument. (2) For a sum not greatly in excess of the amount required to renovate the old building and fit it up as a wireless and signal station another more suitable building could be constructed in a position less exposed to hostile fire. (3) Of the sites which the Committee is willing to accept as satisfactory to them, the location at the Old Lighthouse is least objectionable from a military standpoint. [47]

This reasoning was finally accepted and approved by Davis' superiors in San Francisco and the proposal returned to the War Department on August 28, 1913. The question now arose as to "whether the area so set aside from the reservation would pass wholly from military control." [48] On September 5, 1913, the Judge Advocate General rendered the opinion that:

...it seems to have been clearly the intention of Congress that areas so set aside (by the Antiquities Act) should not only remain the property of the government but that they should not pass from the control of the respective departments within whose jurisdictions they are situated. [49]

...the organization of the Order of Panama be informed before any construction work is undertaken of the view taken by the Department in this matter, and also that any monument erected upon the proposed site will at once become the property of the United States. [50]

All obstacles having thus been cleared away, Lindley M. Garrison, Secretary of War, sent the following letter to President Woodrow Wilson on October 10, 1913:

I have the honor to enclose draft of a proclamation reserving a site for a monument of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, the discoverer of California, on Point Loma, which lies within the military reservation of Fort Rosecrans, California. The publication of this proclamation is is recommended.

Wilson signed the proclamation on October 14. [52] This final granting of permission proved to be somewhat of an anticlimax, however, since the Order of Panama had gone ahead with its plans to celebrate Carnaval Cabrillo on September 26 and "solemnly dedicate" the monument to "high uses." [53]

The groundbreaking for the Panama-California Exposition had taken place on July 19, 1911, with appropriate ceremonies and gestures. These included the pressing of a button by William Howard Taft in the White House which unfurled an American flag at the site of the ceremony. [54] As the opening of the exposition moved closer and San Francisco maneuvered its way toward greater national recognition for its own fair, San Diego promoters sought ways to keep the city in the public's eye. The Carnaval Cabrillo, a three day extravaganza planned for September of 1913 attempted to do just that. Designed to call attention to the Spanish connection which would be the theme of the exposition, the Carnaval Cabrillo combined "the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the discovery of the Pacific Ocean by Balboa and the 371st anniversary of the discovery of San Diego Bay by Cabrillo and the 144th anniversary of the establishment of civilization on the Pacific Coast by Junipero Serra". [55]

As part of the publicity campaign, the Order of Panama commissioned Charles Lummis to write an article commemorating Cabrillo's landing at San Diego in 1542. With Lummis' keen interest in California's Spanish heritage, he was, no doubt, happy to comply. Lummis testimonial read in part:

If there is any man to whom California should erect a statue...it is to Cabrillo, its Discoverer.

The Order of Panama—a patriotic organization to save and honor the Romance of the Pacific—will build that Monument.

An heroic statue, by a great sculptor, will be erected on that noble and commanding cape, Point Loma, which is the first land that Cabrillo sighted in the State of California—the first land ever seen by a civilized man on the Pacific verge of the United States.

A hundred and fifty feet tall from the ground, and full hundred and fifty feet above the Pacific tide, on the sightliest point of the lion-like head-land he steered from nearly three hundred sixty years ago and overlooking the best harbor he found in all his sailings, the statue of Cabrillo will stand, guardian of his greatest discovery. [56]

One hundred copies of the article were printed with editions in English, Spanish and Portuguese and illustrated with pen and ink drawings by Virginia Goodrich. The cover featured an embossed medallion of a sculpture of the head of Cabrillo by British sculptor Allen Hutchinson. Hutchinson obviously had hopes of a greater commission coming from the project. Found later among his papers was the photograph of a model statue showing Cabrillo with arm outstretched standing on a pedestal that featured a medallion portraying his ship. Like many plans connected to the project, the 150-foot statue never came to be. [57] Not until 1940 would San Diego citizens show serious interest in providing the monument with a suitable likeness of the explorer it commemorated.

Carnaval Cabrillo, which began on Wednesday evening, September 24, was not designed to celebrate things that had been accomplished but rather to call attention to great plans for the future. Opening night festivities commenced with the arrival of Representative Robert L. Henry of Texas, who appeared on behalf of President Wilson and the Spanish Ambassador to the United States, Don Juan Riano y Gayangos. The dignitaries were met by city officials at the railroad station as whistles and guns announced the start of the carnival. The party proceeded to Wonderland, an amusement park at the beach, where the officials were chided to forget their dignity and enjoy themselves. Dignity was definitely not the order of the day as judges, bankers and city officials that had been sentenced by a kangaroo court were displayed in a large monkey cage provided for that purpose. The mayor's attempt to speak was shouted down by:

...a most disgraceful rag party [that] started up right under his nose. The dancers for the most part, were two hundred pounders, men dressed up as women, wriggling and swaying shamelessly through the tango steps, locked in the arms of fellow revellers. [58]

The only serious casualty of the evening appeared to be "El General" Carl Heilbron of the Order of Panama who broke his ankle falling from a platform. [59]

Decorum had been restored by the next morning, however, "when the long line of official automobiles started from the headquarters of the carnival committee of the Order of Panama for the spot where the Cabrillo monument [would] stand, overlooking the deep blue of the Pacific." [60]

Though nothing more concrete than Charles Lummis' promotional booklet ever appeared by the date scheduled for the carnival, the dedication ceremony at the site made up in enthusiasm what it lacked in structural manifestations. Speakers at the dedication seemed to have no difficulty summoning up the promise of future grandeur as they stood on a platform in front of the ruined lighthouse. With much lofty rhetoric, monument committee chairman Ernest Riall, who replaced the injured Heilbron, spoke of the grandness of the statue described by Lummis and revealed plans for a crypt containing Cabrillo's bones which "would rest for the ages" in the base of the statue. [61]

A parade of speakers followed, including Representative Robert L. Henry, who lauded the efforts of the Order and predicted that the present era of the growth of San Diego was only the beginning. Don Juan Riano y Ganyangos, speaking as a representative of the king of Spain, thanked San Diego for associating his country with the celebration and "sent in return his warmest greetings and deepest assurance of interest in the historic work being done here." [62] The military took part in the ceremonies as well, as troops from Fort Rosecrans and marines from the warships in the bay were joined by "... Spanish soldiers dressed in costumes of red and yellow." [63]

The keynote speaker, Senator John D. Works, injected a different note in the proceedings by using the event as a platform for a purely political speech. Works, speaking of recent civil disturbances in Mexico, urged immediate direct intervention in that country to protect American interests. Accusing the Taft and Wilson administrations of being too lenient in the matter he said: "We must not stop at pressing claims for damages. We must enter the country, protect our imperiled citizens and save their property endangered by the riotous conditions that have been prevailing there." He also mirrored the growing popular concern with immigration laws when he spoke of the need to prevent "a horde of undesirable aliens from entering and settling in California after the Panama Canal is opened." [64] This strange mixture of past Spanish glory, present American chauvinism and dreams of a glorious future ended with a dedication of the monument site by Lt. Governor A. J. Wallace who "poured upon the spot water from the Pacific Ocean and earth taken from the spot at La Playa where Cabrillo first landed." [65]

The rest of the Carnaval Cabrillo continued in the same vein with a parade the following day headed by "Chief Iodine, last of the Iroquois tribe" and featuring a float depicting the Goddess of Liberty, Uncle Sam and Lieutenant Stockton. [66] The Spanish minister was once again called upon to make a dedication, this time of a monument to Balboa to be built on the site of the Exposition. This statue, like the one of Cabrillo, was never erected by the Order of Panama.

The closing day of the carnival featured the unveiling of the Father Junipero Serra Cross on Presidio hill near Old Town. The cross, built under the auspices of the Order, had been started the previous July and included fragments of tile removed from the remains of the old presidio. Charles Lummis provided the inscription for the base and once again the Spanish ambassador figured prominently in the proceedings as he presented the gold key to unlock the enclosure surrounding the cross. The festivities closed that night "with grand celebration and confetti battle at Wonderland park." [67] A masked ball, which ended at midnight, was followed by a ragtime ball in which "every kind of ragtime dance, from the original Texas Tommy and Turkey Trot to the latest innovations of New York and Paris, [were] welcomed and prizes [were] awarded the dancers with the most grotesque steps." [68]

Though not all the projects promised by the ambitious leaders of the Order of Panama were completed, the purpose of the Carnaval Cabrillo had been ably served. By involving officials of the federal and state levels and by having the Spanish ambassador play a central role, the events took on more than local significance. In addition to drawing attention to the upcoming exposition, the carnival firmly established a theme which came to dominate the image of San Diego and all of Southern California. Having previously ignored their history, the people of Southern California set about creating one. Built from selective elements of a re-discovered Spanish past, it combined sun-drenched romanticism with a grand optimism for the future. The Panama-California Exposition of 1915 would become the embodiment of this image, for in the words of Bertram Goodhue: "It endeavored to reflect the past of that great section of the country of which it [San Diego] formed the natural seaport, and to obtain, in so far as this was possible, something of the effect of the old Spanish and Mission days and thus to link the spirit of the old seekers of the fabled Eldorado with that of the twentieth century." [69]

The establishment of Cabrillo National Monument in 1913 was part of a larger scheme by the Order of Panama to draw attention to San Diego and its upcoming exposition. Though the Order did not intend that the project should be abandoned when the automobiles containing the Spanish ambassador and assorted dignitaries left the site on the morning of September 25, 1913, this is indeed what happened. Since attention of the organization was directed in the following years to the exposition, the ambitious plans for the statue and crypt of Cabrillo were presumably lost in the shuffle. When the Order of Panama disbanded after the closing of the exposition, nothing more had been done at the site.

Looking at it from the perspective of the present, we could say that the failure of the project was indeed fortunate. Had scheduled plans been carried out, the lighthouse would have been leveled, since it was deemed by the War Department to be without historic value and considered by the Order to be an obstruction of the view. Interest in the structure flared only intermittently in the next twenty years and the intervention of the National Park Service in 1933 was necessary to awaken the community's interest in restoring it. Plans for a suitable memorial to Cabrillo never completely died. However, it took a later exposition, this one in San Francisco, some rather outlandish behavior by a state senator, and a keen interest by the state's Portuguese community to provide, finally, the long-awaited statue.

A broad interpretation of the Antiquities Act by the government in 1913 had provided the means to give national significance to San Diego's desire to honor Cabrillo and to establish itself as the "Plymouth Rock of the West." [70] By presidential proclamation, federal land had been permanently set aside for this memorial. However, the limitations of the act were shown when local plans fell through, and the government, with no centralized department for the administration of national monuments and with no means of funding them, could only leave the site abandoned and forgotten for the next twenty years. [71]

²Joan M. Jensen, "Notes From a Western Explorer," The Western Explorer, 4 (March 1967), 1.

³W. Michael Mathes, "The Discoverer of Alta California: Joao Rodrigues Cabrillo or Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo," The Journal of San Diego History, 19 (Summer 1973), 2

⁵Kevin Starr, Americans and the California Dream (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 182.

⁶John Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), 16.

⁸Barry Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System (Washington D. C.: Division of Publications, National Park Service, 1985), 13.

⁹For a complete discussion of the Antiquities Act see: Ronald F. Lee, The Antiquities Act of 1906 (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1970).

¹⁰From text of H.R. 13349 and S. 4698, quoted in Lee, The Antiquities Act of 1906, 73.

¹²John W. Caughey with Norris Hundley, Jr. California: History of a Remarkable State, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982), 188-197.

¹⁴Carey McWilliams, Southern California: An Island on the Land (Santa Barbara, California: Peregrine Smith, 1973), 72.

¹⁸Kevin Starr, Inventing the Dream: California Through the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 35.

¹⁹San Diego Sun, 27 October 1899, quoted in Dudley Gordon, Charles F. Lummis: Crusader in Corduroy (Cultural Assets Press, 1972), 225.

²⁰San Diego Union, 27 October 1899, quoted in Gordon, Charles F. Lummis, 226.

²²Sally Bullard Thorton, "San Diego's First Cabrillo Celebration, 1892," The Journal of San Diego History, 30 (Winter 1982), 167.

²⁴F. Ross Holland, "A Short History of Cabrillo National Monument," Western Explorer, 2 (August 1962), 26.

²⁵Gregory Montes, "Balboa Park, 1909-1911: The Rise and Fall of the Olmsted Plan," The Journal of San Diego History, 28 (Winter 1982), 46.

²⁶Julius Wangenheim, "Julius Wangenheim: An Autobiography," California Historical Society Quarterly, 36 (June 1957), 66.

²⁹Richard F. Pourade, Gold in the Sun, (San Diego: Union-Tribune Publishing Company, 1965), 128.

³⁵Ernest Riall to Lindley M. Garrison, 29 April 1913, AGO 2037465, Record Group 94, National Archives, Washington, D.C. (copy on file, Cabrillo National Monument).

⁴⁰Major William C. Davis to Headquarters Western Department, 3 June 1913, RG 94, NA.

⁴⁶Headquarters Pacific Coast Artillery District to William C. Davis, 7 August 1913, RG 94, NA.

⁵¹Lindley M. Garrison to President Woodrow Wilson, 10 October 1913, RG 94, NA.

⁵⁶Charles Fletcher Lummis, In Memory of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo Who Gave the World California (Chula Vista, Calif.: Danrich Press, 1913).

⁵⁷Elizabeth MacPhail, "Allen Hutchinson. British Sculptor, 1855-1929," Journal of San Diego History, 19 (Spring 1973), 33.

⁶⁹Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, The Architecture and, Gardens of the San Diego Exposition (San Francisco: Paul Elder and Company, 1916), 6.

⁷¹Hal Rothman, "Protected by a Gold Fence with Diamond Tips: A Cultural History of the American National Monuments" (Ph. D. dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin, 1985), 1-3.

When the National Park Service was established on August 25, 1916 as a federal bureau within the Department of the Interior, thirty-five national monuments had already been named. Twenty-one of these came under the jurisdiction of the newly formed service while the rest remained under the departments of Agriculture and War. [1] While some attempts had been made to define the role of the monuments within the new system, their geographical and thematic diversity made the task a difficult one. Since a great deal of energy and most of the budget of the new bureau was spent on the national parks, the monuments were often left to fend for themselves, depending on volunteer custodians to protect and maintain them as best they could. The budget allotted to the monuments was miniscule. In 1917, the monuments under the Interior Department received only $3,500 to be divided among all the sites. [2] Those monuments under the Department of War fared even more poorly since the department did not consider itself in the the tourist business and in general let the sites suffer from a kind of benign neglect. [3]

With the demise of the Order of Panama after the 1915 Exposition, plans for the proposed monument on Point Loma appeared to die with it. In 1925, however, a flurry of interest was again generated in San Diego to honor Cabrillo with the erection of a statue. The monument was to be built this time by the Native Sons of the Golden West, a state-wide organization which had a chapter in San Diego. Among the members of the newly formed planning committee was Carl Heilbron, the former "El General" of the Order of Panama. The Native Sons had planned, according to Albert V. Mayrhofer, a member of the committee, "to place at the top of a shaft a life-size statue of Cabrillo, with a replica of his ship on one side." [4] However, the government would not agree to a shaft as high as the one planned—presumably deeming it inappropriate for a site on an Army base. As a result, an alternate suggestion for the statue to be placed in front of the lighthouse was proposed. In order for the plans to advance, the Native Sons had to secure a transfer of authority from the now defunct Order of Panama to their organization. This was done in the form of another presidential proclamation, this one issued by Calvin Coolidge on May 12, 1926. The proclamation stated that:

...Whereas, it appears that the said Order of Panamas has never exercised the privilege granted to it as aforesaid and is a defunct organization and has been so for a number of years; And whereas, an organization known as the Native Sons of the Golden West, a patriotic organization of the State of California, interested and engaged in identifying and marking with tablets and monuments those places situated within the State of historic interest to the State and Nation, has applied for permission to erect a suitable monument upon the site in question;

Now, therefore, I Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of America, do hereby authorize the said Native Sons of the Golden West to erect at Point Loma upon the site above described a suitable monument in commemoration of the discovery of California by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo... [5]

On the day that the proclamation was issued, the Grand Parlor of the Native Sons met in Santa Rosa and agreed to appropriate $10,000 for the building of the monument providing that $50,000 was raised by the San Diego parlor. The total cost of the project was estimated to be $150,000 the bulk of which was to come, its supporters hoped, from the government. [6] The money was never raised and the great plan, like that of the Order of Panama, died quietly. Edgar Hastings, leader of the Native Sons, later blamed the failure of the project on the nationwide business slump of the times. [7]

While community interest in the monument came and went, the War Department dealt with its stewardship of the property by generally ignoring it. Paul A. Ewing, a travel writer from Oakland, wrote to the National Park Service in 1926 requesting information about "the National Monument near San Diego in honor of the Spanish explorer Cabrillo":

On several occasions when in San Diego I have sought direction to Cabrillo Monument, but never succeeded in finding it. I want to make reference to it in a travel article I have in hand and will appreciate receipt of a description, printed or otherwise, which will enable me to identify the monument with some assurance. [8]

Another traveler, F.H. Tuthill, had the same problem in 1928. Having received no satisfaction from the Army after attempting to find the monument on three separate occasions, he wrote an irate letter to the Director of the National Park Service:

I regret to say that my efforts to find the Cabrillo National Monument were fruitless. I went to the officer in charge of Ft. Rosecrans who knew nothing about the monument. He referred me to the lighthouse keeper who also knew nothing about it but said that the spot where Cabrillo landed must be so and so.... [9]

He went on to suggest that perhaps the Park Service could call the monument to the attention of the War Department in the hope that "they will take sufficient interest in it to locate the spot and make a record of it...so that it may be at least pointed out to visitors who desire to see it." [10]

In his reply to Tuthill, A. E. Demaray, Acting Director of the Park Service, conveyed his regrets and said that Cabrillo was "...one of a number of military monuments administered by the War Department and over which we have no control." According to information obtained from the War Department, Demaray said that, "...the monument contains no marker of any kind to designate its location." Nor were there any plans to erect any type of monument in the near future. [11]

The army kept few, if any records, of Cabrillo National Monument during its jurisdiction. The location of the place as a separate entity seemed to be unknown to the regional command and ignored by the local one as well. The non-status of the monument is exemplified by a memo sent by the Office of the Ninth Corps Area Quartermaster to his Commanding General. The memo, dated July 24, 1930, concerned an inspection done of the area at that time:

Considerable difficulty was found in locating this National Monument and only by recourse to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce did I ascertain that this is a monument in project only and that the area encompassed by the circular roadway around the Old Spanish Lighthouse on the point of Ft. Rosecrans had been designated for this purpose. I found the information at Ft. Rosecrans relative to this subject most meager. [12]

Although Cabrillo National Monument was unmarked and virtually unknown under the War Department, the Point Loma site on which it was supposed to be located had been a popular attraction to tourists and local citizens for years. A visitor to the area in 1869 touted with great enthusiasm the view from the "airy lighthouse on Point Loma." [13] In a similar vein, travel writer George Wharton James in his 1914 book, California Romantic and Beautiful, said:

...the scene at the end of the Point is universally conceded to be one of the noted views of the world. Behind one, and to the right, seep away in endless expanse the perfect blue of the ocean. At one's feet are the varying colours of of the Bay, leading the eye over the Coronado peninsula, with its curving sandy beach, and at the head of which are the two "islands," one of them crowned with the striking pile of Hotel del Coronado. [14]

The lighthouse had been built in 1854 and abandoned in 1891 when replaced by another constructed at a lower elevation. [15] The location continued to be visited, however, as tourists climbed the decrepit structure for a better view and used its basement as an impromptu latrine. [16] When the proposed plans of the Order of Panama to demolish the lighthouse went awry, the Army was once again left with responsibility for it. In 1915, the Army spent $360 repairing the building and promised that further improvements were being contemplated. [17] In an attempt to discourage vandalism, the Army permitted soldiers and their families to live in the structure. Mrs. H. E. Cook, the wife of an army sergeant was caretaker from 1921 until 1935 and though apparently not paid a wage, she was allowed to sell postcards, refreshments and curios to visitors. [18] Photographs of the lighthouse from that period show the words "postcards, candies, soda, cigars" painted on the building's side.

The caretaker arrangement did little to arrest the structural deterioration of the building, however, and in 1930 Captain Fenton Jacobs, acting commanding officer at Ft. Rosecrans, notified the Chamber of Commerce that without financial support from the community, the structure was in danger of being razed. Though the military felt an obligation to maintain the structure, he said, "the war department [received] no appropriations for the maintenance of such relics." [19] On August 13, 1930, a group consisting of Philip Gilred, a local business man, Betty Bronson,"Savoy theatre star," and D.W. Campbell of the Chamber of Commerce visited that site. Pledging the financial support of "a few interested citizens," Gilred spoke of the value of the lighthouse to the people of San Diego:

The old lighthouse is something we San Diegans must preserve not only for its historic value but also because it affords the finest view of our city and environs. Thousands of visitors are coming to San Diego every month, or every week and the most impressive picture of San Diego that we can show them is from the old Spanish lighthouse lookout. It is a view unsurpassed anywhere in the world, a thing in which San Diego may justly take great pride. [20]

The idea of selling the view to tourists was looked upon with much the same enthusiasm as promoting Point Loma's Spanish heritage had in 1913. Raising the necessary funds, however, proved to be as elusive as in previous attempts.

On June 7, 1930, the Ninth Corps headquarters at the Presidio in San Francisco was given jurisdiction over both Cabrillo and Big Hole Battlefield in Montana by the War Department. This transfer of authority from Washington D.C. had been made because: "...the corps area commanders are in closer touch with local sentiments [therefore] it is believed that these activities can be administered in a more uniform and efficient manner if placed under [their] control." [21]

An officer from headquarters who inspected the monument at the time of the changeover made no mention of the lighthouse in his report. However, he did inform the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce that:

the scenic road on the heights of Rosecrans and called the "Topside Road" [the road around the lighthouse] had no military value at present; was only used by the civilian populace and tourists and the limited funds available to this headquarters did not warrant keeping this road in a condition which he seemed to think military authorities should maintain. [22]

For reasons not explained by available records, a statement was issued in April 1931 by Brig. Gen. Robert McCleave, the commanding officer of Ft. Rosecrans, that funds for the repair of the lighthouse had been made available by Ninth Corps Headquarters:

The light is being completely renovated, painted and repaired and the previous dilapidated appearance of this historic landmark is being transformed by the army's efforts to make it most attractive to visitors. The light and the ground on which it stands were set aside by President Wilson as a national monument and although not a part of the military reservation, they are kept clean and in repair by the army. Naturally the army takes pride in the appearance of this historic stricture, and it is a matter of much satisfaction to the local authorities that at last funds are available for the much needed work. [23]

Though the records do not indicate why the Army had a sudden change of heart regarding the upkeep of the area at that time, it should be noted that pressure was being applied from both within and outside the national park Service to transfer to the Service those National Monuments under the jurisdiction of other departments.