82 



expressed a profound interest. There was no effort to set iVp a standard for 

 these colleges and demand of the public that they should meet that standard. 

 The truth is the colleges were to meet a condition. This makes it all the more 

 imperative that the question should always be a local one. In some States 

 where rural education and village education has reached a high degree of effi- 

 ciency the colleges might well take a stand and be jdstified in it, that would be 

 thoroughly unjustifiable in less favored States, or where the elementary educa- 

 tion is not so well organized. 



(4) In conclusion I may say that the only rule by which we can be guiiled 

 in such cases would l)e an honest effort to meet the conditions of the State in 

 which the college is located. I believe it to be the duty of these colleges to use 

 their influ(>nce to imin-ove these conditions as rapidly as possible. Such improve- 

 ment would relieve the college of some work now necessary and give it oppor- 

 tunity to become more efficient in the designated fields of agriculture and 

 mechanic arts. This condition forms a solid argument on the i)art of these 

 colleges in appealing to their several States for maintenan'-e and development 

 of a system of rural education v.-hich will make the colleges more efficient. 

 Already a movement in the interest of agriculture in the rural schools has made 

 some progress. This is rejiresentative of what may be done when an interest 

 has been aroused among the people which shall result in sucli ])i-ei>aration as 

 will make them better able to take full advantage of their colleges of agriculture 

 and mechanic arts. 



R. W. Stimson, of Connecticut. Let me emphasize one or two points which 

 have been raised in the paper to which we have just listened. 



What did Congress intend the agricultural colleges to be? The second 

 Morrill Act was passed for the further endowment and supiwrt of the land- 

 grant colleges. I have read very carefully all of the debates and discussions 

 in connection with the passage of the act, and I can not find a serious attack 

 upon the land-grant colleges as they then e.visted. In case of some of the 

 colleges and departments connected with other institutions there was serious 

 debate and some criticism on the ground that land-grant money was being used 

 for teaching subjects which were not obviously and immediately for the benefit 

 of agriculture and the mechanic arts. There was no good reason why the 

 Federal Government should give more money, therefore, for duplicating means 

 of education which could be had in other institutions as well as in the land- 

 grant colleges. There was no criticism of the grade of instructiou, iwv of the 

 curriculum of the land-grant colleges. 



Now, the land-grant colleges in 1890 had no uniform standard of entrance 

 requirements. Some were requiring a part of a high-school course for admis- 

 sion. The vast majority of them, however, were admitting their students 

 directly from the common schools to the college course. If that is true, and if 

 the act says that the act of 1800 was passed for the further endowment and 

 support of the land-grant colleges, is it not clear we may teach anything we 

 please so far as grade of instruction is concerned, and provided' only we keep 

 the specified subjects? It seems to me that the affirmative is true on that 

 point. 



It seems to me that the history of the land-grant colleges since 1890 has been 

 largely a repetitiou of the history of those institutions between 1S02 and 1890; 

 that is, that we have practically the same sort of institutions to-day as then 

 existed. That would seem to indicate that Congress was right in not criticising 

 these institutions and in spending money for the further endowment and sup- 

 port of this style and grade of education. In the discussions and debates of 

 Congress on these measures, I think you would find that the term " school " 

 and the term " institution " were used quite as often as the term " cnllegc" On 

 the whole, then, I am forced to the conclusion that Congress intended that we 

 should teach what the land-grant colleges had been teaching prior to 1890, and 

 that therefore we have a free hand in doing so. 



