S 533 
 .S7 
 Copy 1 
 
 PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS 
 
 BY 
 
 WINTHROP E. STONE 
 
 President of Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 
 
 {From ProL-eediiigs of the Twenty-sixth Annual Convention of 
 
 the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and 
 
 Experiment Stations, Atlanta, Ga., 
 
 Nov. 13-15, 19 1 2). 
 
 BtTRLINGTON : 
 
 Free Press Printing Company, 
 1912. 
 
 
PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS 
 
 MY 
 
 WINTHROP FT STONE 
 
 President of Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 
 
 {j-'roin Proi(rdiii<;s of Ike 'J'zcenlx -st \t/i An una/ toiiventioH of 
 
 the Association of American A;^ricuhural Collci^cs ami 
 
 Experiment Stations, Atlanta, Ga., 
 
 Xov. r ;-!-,, 1012). 
 
 BUKt.IXGTOX: 
 
 Free Press Printing Co.mpany. 
 VM-1. 
 
"b 
 
 
PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS 
 By WixTiiKOi- E. Stone 
 
 Tlie first duty of one who has received a high appointmeut at the 
 hands of his fellows is to express grateful appreciation of the honor 
 conferred: the second is to discharge the duties and responsibilities 
 assigned to him, with the single purpose of serving to the best of his 
 ability those who have reposed confidence in him. With these mingled 
 desires I come to take up the office which has been made illustrious 
 by a long list of distinguished and able leaders, realizing as never 
 before the great significance of this association and the institutions 
 of which it is composed. To have some share in the work of the 
 American agricultural colleges and experiment stations is an honor 
 and a responsibility which should inspire any man to his best effort. 
 It is a gratifying thought that the great army of officers, teachers, 
 and investigators connected with these institutions are more than 
 ordinarily imbued with this altruistic spirit of service and responsi- 
 bility and enjoy an unusual pride in the cause In which they strive. 
 The very fact of the common origin and functions of our colleges 
 and stations is a connecting bond between the members of their 
 personnel. One cannot attend the meetings of this association year 
 after year without receiving a profound impression of the earnest- 
 ness, high mindedness and spirit of fine fellowship among its members. 
 This spirit arises perhaps from the very nature of their duties in a 
 cause which is necessarily unselfish and democratic. The agricul- 
 tural colleges and experiment stations of America are to be con- 
 gratulated upon their good works and their lofty aims. 
 
 In the years through which we now are passing almost every day 
 is a semi-centenary of some stirring event in the great civil conflict 
 which, a generation since, rent the Nation in twain. .-Vs time separates 
 us from those days, their immediate significance dwindles in the long 
 perspective of years and we estimate their true importance in the 
 development to which they gave impulse, rather than in the events 
 themselves at that time. Not the battles but the effects resulting from 
 them, interest us today. 
 
 Applying this same method of appraisal to another series of con- 
 temporaneous events, we are amazed by contrast to contemplate the 
 consequences of what was, fifty years ago, an act of little apparent 
 import-ance but which was potentially epoch-making in the history 
 of our country. 
 
 It was the very essence of incongruity that amid the din of 
 fierce battles, in an atmosphere surcharged with the war spirit, there 
 should have been inaugurated one of the greatest educational projects 
 which our country or any other has ever known. 
 
 Thus it is that coincident with the anniversaries of great battles, 
 we celebrate the birthday of a new educational and industrial force; 
 the fiftieth anniversary of the passage and approval of the famous 
 Morrill act and the foundation of the remarkable group of American 
 agricultural and mechanical colleges and experiment stations. 
 
 Contemporaneous with this event was the establishment of the 
 United States Department of Agriculture, and for fifty years these 
 two agencies have been exerting with increasing efficiency a tre- 
 mendous influence upon the agriculture of the country. 
 
 It is to be regretted that a more formal and appropriate ob- 
 servance of this significant anniversary was impracticable. The oc- 
 casion and the theme are worthy of general celebration by all who 
 have regard for genuine national progress. 
 
 But the program prepared for this convention is rich in an- 
 niversary subjects and it is for me only to touch briefly upon the 
 
topic, as indeed I cannot well refrain from doing. Since anniversaries 
 ai-e always retrospective in sentiment, it may not be out of place to 
 recall that our institutions have not always basked in the warmth 
 of popularity as they now seem to do. Not always were their coffers 
 overflowing, nor their farmer constituents eager to sit beneath the 
 droppings of the sanctuary. Echoes as to the futility of "book farm- 
 ing" have scarcely yet died away and it is well for us to remember 
 in days of prosperity the small beginnings, the hard struggles and 
 the discouraging experiences through which all of our institutions 
 have come. Our birthday and our development have been coincident 
 with the pain and the pi-ogress of the nation. 
 
 After fifty years of existence a reasonable family pride is ex- 
 cusable and we certainly have cause for gratification in the growth 
 and achievements of the group of institutions which were born out of 
 the confusion of 1SG2. Therefore, I deem it not inappropriate on this 
 occasion to refer to these facts. In 1911 there were 67 educational 
 institutions receiving the benefits of the Morrill act of 1802, operating 
 In all of the states and territories except Alaska. These institutions 
 possess property of the aggregate value of over one hundred and 
 twenty million dollars; their annual incomes amount to over twenty- 
 two million dollars; their permanent endowment and equipment was 
 increased during the year by over five million dollars; 7,342 persons 
 were engaged as teachers, investigators or extension workers; 54,000 
 students were in attendance and hundreds of thousands of other per- 
 sons received some degree of instruction; 7,577 students were gradu- 
 ated; while the total number of graduates since the institutions were 
 organized is 90,512. For the establishment and maintenance of these 
 colleges the Federal Government has made large donations. The 
 original land grants amounted to over eighteen million dollars and 
 under the "second" Morrill act and the Nelson act, the total dis- 
 bursements from the federal treasury uow amount to over twenty 
 million dollars. Fifty experiment stations, with one or two exceptions 
 organically connected with the land grant colleges, receive benefits 
 of the Hatch act of 1S.S7. These institutions enjoy an annual In- 
 come of over three and one-half millions of dollars, employ 1,5G7 
 persons in the work of administration and investigation, and pub- 
 lish annually 5CG reports, bulletins and circulars, which are dis- 
 tributed free to over one million addresses. 
 
 These statistics constitute the barest framework on which to base 
 an estimate of the institutions and are scarcely indicative of their 
 importance, their influence, and their achievements. One must know 
 their history to appreciate their vigor and strength; must come In 
 touch with the quality and character of their work; must grasp their 
 scope and their relation to the life of the people in order to compre- 
 hend their place in the educational world. 
 
 The establishment of these institutions lias brought the applica- 
 tion of scientific principles into the commonest occupations; em- 
 phasized the democracy of education; established the status of tax 
 supported institutions of higher learning; and more than any other 
 cause, contributed to the development of the new education in America. 
 Now at the end of fifty years, the land grant colleges with the ex- 
 periment stations and the departments of agricultural extension, con- 
 stitute the most unique, useful, appreciated, and popular group of edu- 
 cational institutions in the country. 
 
 Apologies are due for imposing upon your patience by this re- 
 cital of well-known facts and these trite observations, but it seemed 
 worth while to bring distinctly before the convention a realization 
 of the magnitude and importance of the institutions here represented. 
 We are all deeply absorbed in our local situations and it is doubt- 
 ful if we have taken occasion to obtain a proper conception of our 
 institutions as a class, as a group of closely related units. Do we 
 stop to consider in any given contingency that we should act not solely 
 with reference to our individual needs but to some extent with re- 
 gard to policies affecting all of our institutions as a group? We 
 
ought to be deeply concerned in establishing common policies for the 
 future bearing upon our many relations to the State and to each other 
 and to other educational agencies and aims, for the sake of imparting 
 permanency, character and individuality to our institutions as a class. 
 We should with common purpose and united energies seek to develop 
 the highest type of an institution in our field in the conviction that 
 the best interests of the single institutions will be promoted by 
 that which strengthens the group and raises the type. 
 
 Each college and station has its peculiar problems and difficulties 
 which it must meet and solve unaided, but on the other hand we have 
 problems, dangers, and enterprises in common, toward which we 
 should seek to present a united attitude and be guided by a common 
 policy. For instance, we sustain certain close relations to the Federal 
 Government, and to the Department of Agriculture. We are all in- 
 terested in proposed federal legislation and often times state legis- 
 lation relates to matters in which we are all concerned. Our edu- 
 cational and scientific efforts are brought sharply into contrast with 
 those of other institutions and we should have common concern 
 that they do not suffer by comparison. We are peculiarly exposed 
 to criticism, to popular favor or disfavor. If one institution makes 
 a mistake we all suffer in public confidence. If one is threatened, 
 all watch the outcome with deep interest. In all of these matters, 
 therefore, it behooves us to recognize certain guiding principles; cer- 
 tain standards and certain policies. The important thing is that our 
 ideas of community interest be strengthened, not alone for mutual 
 protection or advantage, but the bettor to meet the very gi-eat re- 
 sponsibilities increasingly impending. 
 
 The original purpose of this association was to be a forum for the 
 discussion of general questions of administration and to formulate gen- 
 eral policies for the guidance of its members. Beyond a doubt the suc- 
 cess of our institutions is largely due to the leadership and guidance of 
 this organization. Now with its larger membership and with their 
 greater diversity of interests, it becomes increasingly difficult to pursue 
 the unity of purpose which characterized our institutions in the early 
 days, while the same causes increase the dangers of individual inde- 
 pendence and isolation. 
 
 The land grant colleges are no longer inconspicuous and unin- 
 fluential. In most states they are not only the authority on agricul- 
 tural and related industrial matters, but they have large Influence 
 educationally. Their responsibilities are, therefore, very great and 
 their attitude or action of vast significance in their respective com- 
 munities. It is. therefore, of first importance that we take wise 
 counsel on matters of general interest for which there is as yet no 
 precedent or law. Every decision, every action taken by our in- 
 stitutions is of far-reaching importance either to the public or to 
 their own future. 
 
 It seems, therefore, appropriate on this occasion to refer to some 
 recent developments in the field which our institutions occupy, toward 
 which our attitude and general policy should be well defined. 
 
 First among these are questions concerning the relations be- 
 tween the land grant colleges and other educational Institutions and 
 agencies. 
 
 From the fact that the fundamental ideas underlying the land 
 grant colleges were new and radical they have been compelled from 
 the first to strive against the conservative attitude of the older and 
 well established institutions. This opposition has been expressed in 
 various forms, some of which have disappeared while others are just 
 now coming into evidence. Every agricultural college, except pos- 
 sibly some of those more recently established in the prosperous west- 
 ern states, experienced in its early history an attitude of indifference, 
 mistrust, and general lack of confidence. Farmers did not believe in 
 their principles. Educators regarded them as outside the sphere 
 of educational recognition, and these attitudes were reflected by the 
 general public. The experiment stations In their turn, although com- 
 
ing after the barriers of prejudice liad been in part broken down, were 
 for a time received with scant confidence by either the public or by 
 scientific men. 
 
 I well remember the social toboggan slide upon which I embarked 
 and which speedily set up a gnlf between myself and schoolday com 
 rades because I enrolled in the "Aggie" college and they in a more re- 
 putable classical institution. Professors in the agricultural colleges, I 
 can also imagine, winced under the same discrimination. Now one re- 
 calls that phase of the history of our colleges with good humored inter- 
 est in the great change which has followed. The agricultural colleges 
 have demonstrated their claim to an honorable place in the educational 
 field. The exponent of book farming has demonstrated to the farmer 
 conclusively that two and two make four. The question of recognition 
 has been settled on the only possible basis, viz., of merit. Our col- 
 leges are today receiving about what they deserve in the way of public 
 confidence and recognition and are not likely again to experience the 
 conditions which obtained during the forty years following their estab- 
 lishment. 
 
 As soon as the colleges began to emerge from the obscurity of 
 their early years and began to acquire prestige and public confidence: 
 when as a result the tide of students began to set toward them and 
 public treasuries yielded ever so slightly to their support, then a new 
 opposition developed on the part of the older educational institutions 
 who were possibly a little apprehensive concerning the vigor and 
 promise of their new competitors. Doubtless every agricultural col- 
 lege, especially in the older states, has felt earlier or later the un- 
 friendly attitude of other colleges. One grieves a little that the ex- 
 ponents of the higher intellectual life should ever lapse into such un- 
 ethical acts, but history cannot be effaced. In some of the states the 
 echoes of conflict between the so-called state and non-state schools 
 has scarcel.v yet died away. But this opposition has been overcome 
 and the question of the right or the expediency of the State to main- 
 tain the higher education will not again be seriously discussed. 
 
 That quarrels should occur between churches or between colleges 
 is a disagreeable but necessary admission. We might expect better 
 things, but quarrels do grow out of jealousies or ill-balanced ambitions 
 and some of the most regrettable occurrences of this kind have arisen 
 between tax supported institutions in the same State. As is wel! 
 known, in a number of states the land grant colleges and the state 
 university are organized as separate institutions. Almost invariably 
 under these conditions friction has arisen and the taxpayer has been 
 entertained as well as called upon to settle the bills for an attenuated 
 family row. The utter futility of this has been completely demon- 
 strated. There is no surer way to destroy public confidence, to de- 
 moralize the work of faculties and students, and to minimize their 
 usefulness to the community, than for sister state institutions to be 
 flying at each others' throats, importuning the legislature, dividing the 
 public into partisan camps, and expending their energies in destructive 
 rather than constructive effort. Some recent examples of this sort 
 are conspicuously unfortunate. In one or two states the harvest of 
 these indiscretions is now being garnered. In others the mills of the 
 .gods are still grinding. There can be but one outcome to such a 
 course and that is a positive loss to the institutions and a setback 
 to educational progress in the State. The remedy seems quite simple. 
 In the light of experience one would say now that it would probably 
 have been better to unite these tax supported institutions at the be- 
 ginning. This is now impossible. The next thing is. therefore, to 
 make the most of the situation. In states where the land grant col- 
 lege and state university are separated, no time should be lost by their 
 authorities in arriving at a mutual understanding as to the respective 
 fields they are to occupy, always with reference to public welfare. 
 Duplication of effort should be avoided for the sake of economy as 
 well as harmony, and then, good faith should be kept. The ideal 
 
adjustment between two such institutions is tliat which secures to the 
 State by co-ordination of both, the full range of instruction otherwise 
 given in a single state university without unnecessary duplication. 
 To the land grant college should go all teaching of technologj- and 
 applied science, to the state university, instruction in libei'al arts and 
 the professions of law and medicine. 
 
 Failure to mutually agree upon some such adjustment will bring 
 inevitably the interference of legislatures, than which, so far as 
 meddling with the curriculum goes, nothing could be more unfortu- 
 nate. The method of appointing one board of supervisors or regents 
 over separate institutions, particularly if given power to meddle with 
 the internal administration of the institution, is intolerable. It is 
 destructive of the spirit, the individuality, and the freedom so neces- 
 sary to the life and progress of an educational institution. No argu- 
 ment or warning in this matter can be more convincing than the 
 experiences of those states where the jealousies and bickerings of sister 
 institutions have persisted to their logical conclusion. 
 
 It is perhaps not necessary to attempt a definite enumeration 
 of the content of the curriculum of a land grant college. If this 
 could have been done with foresight and authority twenty-five years 
 ago, it would have averted a deal of trouble in some instances. More 
 than one attempt has been made by those unfriendly to our institu- 
 tions, to crystallize an interpretation of the Morrill act to the effect 
 that the land grant colleges were intended to be of secondary grade — 
 a Ivind of industrial and trade school: that agricultural instruction is 
 per sc of this order and that the term "mechanic arts" means trade 
 and vocational training rather than engineering. This suggestion is 
 usually made when it is desired to remove engineering departments 
 from the land grant college to the state university. I can find neither 
 in the law nor in the facts any warrant for this assumption. Engi- 
 neering instruction has found its greatest growth and development in 
 the land grant institutions. They represent at this time the pre- 
 ponderance of effort in this field. It is strained and artificial to claim 
 that our colleges are illegally occupying a field whicli they have 
 cultivated so successfully and acceptably. 
 
 It is significant that this fallaceous notion that our colleges are 
 intended to be of inferior grade or in some way of different scholastic 
 standards than other institutions of higher learning, is reflected in 
 the attitude of tlie Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 
 Teaching, which apparently clings to the view that there is some- 
 thing inherently crude and unintellectual in agriculture as a subject 
 of study or scientific investigation and continues to deny to the agri- 
 cultural colleges and agricultural departments of the state universities, 
 as a class, the benefits of the retiring allowance. 
 
 All of these difficulties, the struggle for recognition, the opjiosi- 
 tion of competing institutions, the attempts to segregate the colleges 
 in an inferior class, were but to be expected under the circumstances. 
 They constitute real obstacles and hindrances to progress in many 
 cases. They mignt have been to a large degree averted by concerted 
 and positive action of the institutions in formulating tlieir policies 
 with regard to those thin,gs and defining their positions in advance. 
 
 .lust now it is proposed to remove from the Iowa Agricultural 
 College to the Iowa State University, its course leading to a degree in 
 general science and its courses in home economics. The step is one of 
 most vital interest to every institution similarly situated. If this is ac- 
 cepted without protest, it is quite certain that similar movements 
 will be inaugurated in other states without delay. Again the whole 
 question of what is meant by "mechanic arts" and the right of our 
 institutions to maintain departments of engineering, which is still 
 being agitated, ought not to go begging for support from this as- 
 sociation. This is also true of the broad general question of the place 
 of the agricultural college in the educational world now brought to an 
 issue by the position of the Carnegie Foundation. 
 
From the address of your last president I take the liberty or 
 quoting on this point. Said he in his strong plea for a high and 
 well-rounded plan of educational effort in our colleges: 
 
 "There are those, doubtless, wno believe that these institutions, 
 supported by public funds should stand in especially close relation 
 to the people and that in order to do the work for which they were 
 organized they should establish a low grade of admission, occupy a 
 secondary place in our educational scheme, adhere closely to instruc- 
 tion of an ultra-vocational character and engage extensively in agri- 
 cultural propaganda, leaving to the older colleges and universities the 
 severer training that is required in preparing men and women for 
 the higher ranges of thought and activity. It is to be hoped that 
 if we have in any measure adopted this policy we shall move away 
 from it as rapidly as circumstances will permit." 
 
 Do we not in passively accepting the consequences of such a 
 classification commit ourselves in the public estimate to such a relative 
 position? These things to which I refer have been the occasion of 
 grave crises in the history of many of our colleges. Some are still 
 threatened by these contentions. I raise the question for the con- 
 sideration of the association, if it is not a proper function, not to 
 say a duty, on its part to speak some authoritative words' on the 
 general topic of the scope and standards of the agricultural colleges. 
 
 I pass now to the discussion of a second situation which closely 
 concerns our institutions. 
 
 Within a few years we have entered upon a new period of de- 
 velopment. The teachings of the colleges and stations have taken root 
 and now begin to bear fruit. Farmers now look confidently toward our 
 institutions for advice and guidance in small things as well as great 
 The mail bags and letter files testify to our popularity and in response 
 to this new evidence of public confidence we are entering upon a 
 policy of expansion and extension. To instruct students in residence 
 to investigate and publish are now only a part of the functions of col- 
 lege and station. Demonstration, extension, and propaganda are the 
 conspicuous activities of our institutions today. The movement is of 
 course self-propagating. The more it is done "the greater the popular 
 demand for it. 
 
 The extraordinary general interest in everything pertaining to 
 agriculture is remarkable. It would constitute an interesting psycho- 
 logical study. It almost amounts to a popular movement and the 
 significant thing about it is the unlimited confidence shown in "sci- 
 entific agriculture" so-called. In this is much of peculiar importance 
 to our institutions. To official boards and executives who have ex- 
 perienced the years of famine this change of public sentiment is a 
 great relief. In many other respects it is fraught with dangers One 
 ot these is the reflex effect upon the personnel of our institutions 
 Popularity is an intoxicating experience. It is not easy to deny the 
 appeals from one's constituents for multifarious service" The feeling 
 that one is useful to the public is gratifying. The result of this 
 upon our institutions is likely to be a weakening and letting down of 
 the qualify of its instruction and research. The enormous volume and 
 extent of the demands made upon the time, energy and resources 
 of the colleges and stations is sufficient to paralyze the forces for 
 teaching and investigation, quite apart from the subtle temptation to 
 neglect them for the more popular thing. Particularly is this a 
 ilangerous influence upon our young men, who are already inclined to 
 give too much weight to material prizes and popular recognition as 
 over against the hard discipline and austere rewards of application 
 in the laboratory and class room. 
 
 Another danger lies in the tendency to divert the support derived 
 troin public taxation to these popular enterprises to the neglect and 
 injury of the permanent and more valuable work of the institution 
 The danger of over-popular interest lies therefore not merely in its 
 own exaggeration which is sure to be. followed by a reaction "but also 
 in its demoralizing influence upon the morals and standards of our 
 
institutions and, I'urtlier, in the distortion of public appreciation and 
 public support of these permanent functions. I would not be mis- 
 understood as depreciating the value of extension work. The present 
 popular awakening is one of the most encouraging movements of the 
 day. It is of immense importance; so much so that it demands the 
 wisest guidance In order that it may be given true and not false 
 direction; that it may find its right place and relation in the or- 
 ganization of our institutions. It should have its own budget, staff, 
 and equipment, fully supplied to meet the demand in order that the 
 regular departments of instruction and investigation shall not be 
 diminished in efficiency. We should guard jealously our scientific 
 workers and teachers from the distractions of extension enterprises. 
 It is most certain that the future will demand more and more of our 
 institutions; that much of the present e.xtension work will prove only 
 ephemeral; that the demand will be for more thorough teaching, 
 serious investigations, and for a service which eventually can only 
 be supplied by those who labor in the laboratory and class room rather 
 than on the lecture platform. To prepare for this time we must in- 
 crease rather than diminish the substantial scientific work in our 
 stations and sound teaching in our colleges as the reserve from which 
 extension activities must always draw their inspiration and material. 
 
 Another important result of this great increase of popular in- 
 terest in agriculture bears upon the public relations of our institu- 
 tions. It finds expression in the eager desire of the politician, the 
 promoter, the man with the axe to grind, the man with something to 
 sell, and all of those various schemers and persons who are awaiting 
 the approach of the proverbial band wagon to enjoy its facilities of 
 transportation. Recognizing the prestige of anything which, in the 
 name of agriculture, appeals to the public under the guise of science 
 or education, these schemers clothe their projects in the semblance 
 of scientific or educational propaganda, offering themselves or their 
 wares in the interest of the "new agriculture." Scarcely a day passes 
 which does not bring to light some new scheme, legislative, commercial, 
 philanthropic, or otherwise, which seeks advancement by utilizing 
 popular interest. Some of these are beneficent, some are fraudu- 
 lent, some represent commendable motives but misguided plans, most 
 of them are likely because of selfish underlying motives to mislead 
 the public, to end in disappointment and eventually bring discredit 
 upon all efforts to promote permanent and rational progress. The 
 public has not learned to discriminate between the spurious and the 
 genuine; it does not yet understand that the one safe source of in- 
 struction in agricultural science is the college and station; that the 
 safe guides in these matters are those in the employ of public In- 
 stitutions who have nothing to exploit and no selfish interest to serve. 
 These schemes frequently win public support and when the station 
 or college are unable to cooperate or approve, a situation is created 
 which is embarrassing and sometimes threatening. The crop of pro- 
 posed legislation upon agricultural and vocational education submitted 
 to federal and state legislatures illustrates this situation. Much of 
 it ill considered, too radical, and of doubtful expediency, it finds ready 
 support from those who hope to mend their political fences with Its 
 manifold promises or whose experiences do not enable them to fathom 
 its fallacies. 
 
 As a matter of general policy there seems only one course for our 
 institutions to follow, viz., to seek constantly to educate our con- 
 stituents to an intelligent discrimination in these matters; to estab- 
 lish a degree of confidence In the colleges and stations which accept 
 their judgment as conclusive: to stand only for conservative legis- 
 lation on new and untried projects and to fearlessly oppose all that 
 is not genuine and which has not for its prime motive the real ad- 
 vancement of the art and science of agriculture. The exploitation 
 of the interest in agricultural science for private ends merits the 
 firm and open opposition of all the land grant institutions. 
 
1(1 
 
 I have already referred to the birth and growth of the United 
 States Department of Agriculture, oo-existent with the land grant col- 
 leges and. like them, achieving in its tifty years of existence an immense 
 prestige and usefulness. No one may deny to it and to its able corps 
 of officers and scientists, credit for a great and useful work. Charged 
 as it is under the law with police and administrative duties, its name 
 and authority are known and respected throughout the land. Its highly 
 developed and richly equipped scientific bureaus have accomplished 
 much for the advancement of knowledge. Its large resources and 
 active personnel, its strategic position at the ear of Congress have 
 enabled it to build up an organization for the administration of law, 
 the prosecution of research, the collection and dissemination of knowl- 
 edge, and the satisfaction of popular demands, the like of which is un- 
 known in any other country or any other time. Its annual income 
 increases rapidly and now closely approximates that of all the agri- 
 cultural colleges and experiment stations of the country. 
 
 An enterprise so vast, so varied in its elements, so broad in its 
 scope can scarcely fail to evoke criticism as well as praise. Under- 
 taking as it does many of the functions with which our institutions are 
 charged; dealing with the same constituents, and frequently occupying 
 the same field with its projects, it is not surprising that friction some- 
 times arises between it and the experiment stations. It would seem 
 that in the great field of agricultural education and research, there 
 were abundant room for the operations without clash of interests of 
 both the Department and the land grant colleges. Particularly ought 
 this to be the case since both are public institutions, children of the 
 same parent. There are doubtless legitimate boundaries to the field 
 of each and it is quite probable that these boundaries when established 
 do not overlap. And yet there is frequent complaint from the stations 
 of the tendency of the Department to encroach upon what they regard 
 as their exclusive territory. 
 
 The extension work of the Department has greatly increased during 
 the past year and with the popular demand for this service, it Is ap- 
 parently easy for it to increase its resources for this purpose to almost 
 any extent. Bearing in mind what has been said about the early 
 struggles of the colleges and stations to secure the interest and con- 
 fidence of their constituents and more recently the necessity of hold- 
 ing in check the tendency to exploit the farmers' interest in their work, 
 it is not to be wondered that the colleges and stations are jealous of 
 anything likely to disturb the normal relations between them and their 
 constituents. To me this attitude seems entirely justifiable. These 
 Institutions have their legitimate functions in their respective states. 
 To perform these functions most effectively, the sympathetic coopera- 
 tion and interest of the farmers are needed. These institutions exist 
 solely for public service, but they cannot render this service with the 
 best results to a divided or alienated constituency. The only excuse 
 for any other agency or organization to attempt a similar service would 
 be because of the incompetency of the college or station to do its part. 
 The only conditions consistent with public policy under which another 
 institution or organization could enter the field would be in cooperation 
 with the college or station. One cannot conceive of an outside agency 
 entering the field in any other way unless it were hostile or indif- 
 ferent to the welfare of the established institutions. For the Depart- 
 partment of Agriculture, a child of the same government, to do so is, 
 to say the least, a lamentable lack of coordination in public service. It 
 seems to be a fact that the Department of Agriculture undertakes in the 
 various states, enterprises which naturally belong to the stations; that 
 it sometimes duplicates work of the stations already in progress; that 
 it diverts the attention and interest of the farmer from his own institu- 
 tion; that it needlessly duplicates the work of the stations; that in 
 carrying out its own plans it gives little heed to the plans and purposes 
 of the established colleges and stations; and that its more recent de- 
 velopments in extension work promise to encroach still further upon 
 the work of the extension departments of the colleges. 
 
II 
 
 Over against this is the growing conviction among oar institutions 
 that the work of agricultural education, investigation, and extension in 
 the several states should he carried on through their respective state 
 agencies organized for that purpose. If the resources of these institu- 
 tions are inadequate, or if for any reason it seems best that federal aid 
 should further supplement their work, this should be accomplished 
 always through the agricultural college, the experiment station, ov the 
 extension department. If the people of the State are not yet able or 
 ready to provide the necessary means for undertaking all that is de- 
 sired, there is no surer way to stimulate their efforts and loyalty to 
 their State than by causing them to look to their own institution for 
 relief. On the other hand, for them to constantly receive offers of help 
 from the Department of Agriculture, working independently and with- 
 out reference to the state institutions, is an effective way of weaken- 
 ing the standing and resources of the latter. 
 
 There are boundless iields of effort which the Department of Agri- 
 culture cannot exhaust and which our institutions cannot enter. All 
 of the work of interstate policing and supervision is now done by the 
 Department. All general projects for investigations of national rather 
 than local significance; the function of a clearing house between the 
 state institutions; cooperation and collaboration with the state institu- 
 tions according to their respective needs; these are legitimate, useful 
 and proper functions for a federal Department of Agriculture. But all 
 questions and problems within the State of purely local significance and 
 application should be dealt with by the college or station exclusively. 
 If it is important for the Department to assist in this work, it should 
 invariably operate through and with the state institution. In short, 
 the contact with all local questions of agricultural education, investiga- 
 tion, or extension should be by the state institutions organized for that 
 purpose. The Department of Agriculture should not undertake to deal 
 with the individual farmer. That is the function of the local institution. 
 
 Having regard for the future usefulness of the Department and 
 our institutions, as well as for the best interests of agriculture as 
 depending ultimately on a wise system of education, I am convinced 
 that the relations between the Department and the institutions should 
 be speedily defined. It is unwise for the Department to continue its 
 present tendencies. It is unwise for individual institutions to be mak- 
 ing all sorts of temporary compromises in this matter. There should 
 he an early conference between the federal authorities and representa- 
 tives of the colleges and stations to determine a policy governing these 
 relations and I make bold to suggest that these relations should be in 
 the following lines. 
 
 The Department should concern itself with national questions. 
 The institutions should concern themselves with state and local matters. 
 Each should as desired cooperate with the other, subordinating itself 
 when entering the other's field. 
 
 As I survey the situation, I am impressed with the assurance that 
 with the changing order of things our institutions will always be con- 
 fronted by peculiar problems which will demand thoughtful foresight 
 and unity of action for their solution. This association has proven its 
 value in shaping policies and securing legislation and its gi-eatest 
 service to our institutions in the future must be along these lines, to 
 unify, crystallize, and put into effect the combined judgment of its 
 members on questions of common interest. 
 
 Permit me to conclude my remarks by an expression of my belief 
 that no other course will strengthen our institutions in all relations 
 or ultimately increase their usefulness to the nation to so great a 
 degree, as persistent effort to raise the quality of our teaching and 
 investigation. To accomplish this requires a constant resistance to 
 the encroachiuents of the popular demands for superficial service. 
 Let that be supplied in its own way, but let there always be cherished 
 a sound core of earnest scientific work and teaching. Let the standards 
 of our colleges be advanced as rapidly as the conditions of our environ- 
 ment will permit. We shall thus do a real public service and most 
 
speedily win mw liglittul place and recognition in the educational 
 world. 
 
 Our institutions should be the leaders in all that pertains to tech- 
 nical, industrial, and vocational education in their respective states, 
 not for the sake of leadership in itself but for the opportunity foi 
 larger service. Legislation on these matters, both federal and state, 
 should defer largely to our experience and knowledge of the field and 
 in the administration of new plans, large responsibility should be placed 
 upon our institutions as the logical source and center of all movements 
 for a broader application of education to the life of the people. 
 
 We should oppose all schemes for the exploitation of agriculture 
 in the name of science or education and we should insist on a definition 
 and observance of right relations with the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 These are large questions, but I have large faith in the plans and 
 purposes of the land grant institutions as they are now being fulfilled 
 and I doubt not they will continue to perform larger and larger service 
 to the Nation and enjoy to a larger degree the support and confidence 
 of the people. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 002 782 687 8