Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
ram superintendent Robert Jacobsen announced on July 3 that the Park was abandoning plans for the exchange but emphasized that the action was being taken in response to public opposition, not because the exchange was illegal.
In support of Jacobsen’s contention, the Office of the Soliciter of the U. S. Department of the Interior released a legal opinion that held land exchanges like the deal proposed in Rappahannock County were legal under both federal and Virginia law. Acting Associate Solicitor for Conservation and Wildlife David A. Watts cited the passage of the state reversion clause on March 28, 1936—three months after the Commonwealth conveyed the Park property involved in the proposed exchange to the United States. “Whatever impact the 1936 Virginia statute has on conveyances of land to the United States, it applies only to these transfers made after its enactment," he contended.
Attorney General Coleman’s ruling agrees with Watts on this point. However, Watts (an employee of the Department of the Interior which oversees administration of the National Park system) went further in his contentions than does Coleman.
Park Lands Exempted
From 1936 Law According to Watts, the 1936 statute that grants rights of reversion to the state ‘has no effect on conveyances of land by Virginia lo the United States for
78.9%