Upon passage of the act the _Helena Herald_ printed a laudatory editorial on “Our National Park,” while the Helena _Rocky Mountain Gazette_ considered the bill “as a great blow struck at the prosperity of the towns of Bozeman and Virginia City ... if it were thrown open to a curious but comfort-loving public.” Other local papers joined the _Herald’s_ side of the controversy.[152] A mild national reaction was generally favorable to the reservation idea. The bill even attracted attention abroad, as evidenced by an article in the _London Times_, April 10, 1873, under the caption, “A Very National Park.” Who should receive the credit for this eminent accomplishment? A careful examination of the facts warrants the conclusion that the idea of establishing Yellowstone as a public reservation had a dual birth. It was independently conceived in the minds of two men. This view is attested by the deliberate statement of N. P. Langford: It is true that Professor Hayden joined with Mr. Clagett and myself in working for the passage of the act of dedication, but no person can divide with Cornelius Hedges and David E. Folsom the honor of originating the idea of creating the Yellowstone Park.[153] [Illustration: W. S. Chapman President Ulysses S. Grant signing the Yellowstone National Park Bill.] In his _Westward America_, Howard R. Driggs states that the pioneer artist, George Catlin, made a similar observation about other parts of the Old West in the eighteen thirties. Surely it was Hedges’ suggestion at Madison Junction campfire that initiated the conception of a program which other men were well conditioned to execute. N. P. Langford was the enthusiast, the zealous crusader. William H. Clagett was the man at the helm, but he was ably supported by the sage advice of Henry L. Dawes, representative from Massachusetts, who probably formulated the general principles of the measure.[154] Dr. F. V. Hayden’s scientific reports and unstinted support must be weighed heavily in the scale. Senators Samuel C. Pomeroy and Lyman Trumbull gave strength to the movement. The good will of General Phil Sheridan was a constant factor. Beyond this spearhead of ability and integrity the number of contributors broadens. It was an altogether democratic effort, and little injustice results from the omission of other efforts toward the cause. Most of them would probably have had it so. It was a program for the benefit and enjoyment of all people, rather than the personal aggrandizement of a few.