the institutions might be forced to curtail services, or even close, if voters 
rejected the district.?7 
Support for the district came from politicians as well, including 
County Supervisor Lawrence K. Roos, Senators Stuart Symington and 
Thomas Eagleton, and the mayors of the cities of Clayton, Kirkwood, 
Ferguson, and University City.?8 
With so much backing it appeared that the Zoo-Museum District 
was a certainty. And when the votes were counted in April, it became 
apparent that the issue had indeed won the overwhelming support of 
city voters. But it barely ‘‘squeaked through to victory’’ in St. Louis 
County. In fact, the Art Museum won with a county majority of fewer 
than 2,000 votes. Support for the Museum of Science and Natu 
County ere for the [Academy’s] museum because it is in the 
county and because it only asked for a tax limit of 1 cent per $100 valua- 
tion, compared to 4 cents each for the Zoo and Art Museum. 
iplishnmen 
th Meneame’ f Scienc 1 History’s income.*° However, the 
creation of the district also meant that the Academy had to give up the 
Museum, including staff, exhibits, and collections. Nevertheless, the 
ent Jules D. Campbell met with the 
and Natural History Subdistrict’s 
ar 
Academy’s Board, would operate as ‘‘Friends of Museum.’’?! | 
The 1960s was a time of many changes for the Academy. The most 
important was the establishment of the Museum of Science and Natural 
History, which was more ambitious than any of the Academy’s other 
three museums. The care and feeding of its museum became the 
organization’s primary concern and other activities, such as publishing 
and maintaining a library, faded in importance. The Museum s educa- 
tional goals were very much in keeping with national science educa- 
tion objectives. This was the decade after Sputnik, when science educa- 
tion at all levels became a priority in the United States. And within this 
63 
