72 



the mere sake of extending the honii(lni"ies of knowledge is pure soienee. Scien- 

 tific experiment coiuUicteii witli the immediate end in view of utilizing the re- 

 sults in an eciinomic ]in)i)lem is applied science. The factor of utility marks a 

 fundamental dilt'erence between them. 



A third limitatii)n placed u|»on the discussion recpiires that it apply to the 

 institutions i-epresented in this association. This jihase of the (piestion neces- 

 sitates an iiKjuiry into the field and function of the land-grant colleges. Did 

 Congress intend to dui)licate the work of institutions then existing and equippedV 

 Or did it propose to found a system of colleges to supplement some deficiency 

 in the American educational system and duplicating, in part, established insti- 

 tutions of higher learning? Or was the aim to create an entirely new kind of 

 college? Is the field of the land-grant colleges definite, special, and limited? 

 In 1862 colleges and universities of diversified characteristics afforded American 

 students varied opjtortunities for education. A few had been founded and 

 endowed by iihilanthi'opists and were representative of the views of their 

 individual promoters. Many were maintained by churches and were working 

 out the ideals of their respective denominations. Some were State institutions 

 and corresponded to the peculiar notions of particular States. What, then, 

 caused the Congress to found a system of colleges distributed throughout the 

 entire number of States and Territories, governed by a counnon law, and sup- 

 l>orted in part l)y national resources? Prior to this time the nmintenauce and 

 control (f public educati(Hi had lieen considered the exclusive prerogative of 

 the States. Evidently to the nunds of the representatives of the people some- 

 thing was lacking in the work (if existing institutions. In some respects none 

 of them met the full, rounded, complete educational ideal of the nation. This 

 was no freak measure, railroaded through Congress without due consideration. 

 Several years of agitation, a nundter of defeats, including one Presidential 

 veto, preceded the passage of the first ^Morrill Act. It was no sporadic effort, 

 but an intelligent, persistent, national movement; was not representative of 

 a.ny individual cult or religion. Fortunately, the purposes and functions of 

 the jtroposed institutions were concisely and definitely set down in the law, 

 and there is small need for mistaking them. 



It is only fair to assume that the lawmakers meant what they said; that they 

 expected the usual rules of interpretation to be api>lied to the language of the 

 law. The familiar and oft-quoted passage of the first Morrill Act contains 

 some remarkable propositions. Five things stand out prominently in this dec- 

 laration of educational principles: (1) Land-grant colleges were to be colleges, 

 not elementary schools, not universities. The term " college '" at that time had 

 a well-known and definite meaning. Whatever the name attached to any par- 

 ticular institution, the work should reach college rank and grade. (2) 

 "The leading ob.iect should be to teach such branches of learning as are 

 related to the agriculture and the mechanic arts." "Other scientific and clas- 

 sical studies," while not excluded, were made secondary. (3) These subjects 

 were to furnish both " a liberal and a practical education." It would not be 

 necessary to pad the curriculum with the so-called " culture studies " to pro- 

 \ide the liberal element. Agriculture, mechanic arts, and related subjects 

 should do this. (4) These institutions were established especially for the 

 industrial classes — not the poor alone, for the rich labor etiually, and frequently 

 more assiduously than the poor; nor the manual laborer only, but all whose 

 labor bears directly upon the industrial development of the nation. (5) The 

 training provided by these colleges should not only prei)are for a pursuit, a 

 A-Qcation, but should rise to the dignity and the proportions of a profession. 



The disiiosition of these colleges should i>e in such manner as the legislatiu-es 

 of the States should respectively prescribe. A land-grant college might consti- 

 tute a unit in some great State university like Minnesota and California ; or it 

 might be united with a private foundation as at Cornell and Purdue; or it 

 might be a part of a standai'd i-ollege, where the State jirovides for instruction 

 in " other scientific and classical studies," as at Pennsylvania State College ; or 

 it might be an institution where chiefly subjects relating to agriculture and the 

 mechanic arts are taught, as at the Michigan and Kansas agricultural colleges. 



Twenty-eight years after the jjassage of the first INIorrill Act and after these 

 land-grant colleges had jtassed the exi)erimental stage, the representatives of 

 the people in Congress, in response to a poi)ular demand, further endowed these 

 colleges by an annual, direct approi)riation out of the National Treasury. 

 This second Morrill Act specifies the purposes for which this money may be ex- 

 pended, and this may consistently be considered a reiteration and an iuterpre- 



