127 



T!ip sui>i)l(MiH>iit:il Morrill bill of ISiMt diroots that tlio funds rooeivod under 

 its provisions siiall " lio ainiliod o(//// to instruction in iitrricuituri'. the niccliMnic 

 arts, flic Kn^ilisli lanj,'u:i.i.'(\ and the various liranclios of niatlicniatical. physical, 

 natural, and ccononiif science, iritJi s/icciiil icfcroicr to tlirir applications in 

 the inilitxtrii s of life, and to the facilities for such instruction." 



'riiis act not only cuts out all lan.i;ua;re studies exce]it Kn},'lish, hut it also 

 emphasizes the iniiM)rtant fact that such niatlicniatical, physical, natural, and 

 economic science studies as are tauirht siiall l)e taught, not after the old tra- 

 ♦litional manner, hut in an entirely new way. with "special reference to their 

 apjtlications to the iiitliistrics." What industriesV 



The title of the hill indicates the " industries " intended to he included. It 

 declares the purpose to lu> " to apply a jKirtioii of the proceeds of the puhlic 

 lands to the more comi»lete endowment of the collejrcs for the hciiefil of HfiricuJ- 

 tiirc and tfir nuclitniic arts." It does not say "and for the other industries and 

 professions in life." hut stops with the two j^ri'at industries that were to he the 

 leading ol)jects of education, as indicated in the act of ISCli. 



This ;ict of ISiMt, coniinj: as it does twenty-eij;lit years after the founding of 

 the land-fjrant collcf^es, is in the nature of a detlnition or dechiration of piu'pose 

 of the act to which it is a supplement. Some of the colleges had used the 

 funds of the oriirin.il arrant to teach mathematics, physical, natural, and 

 economic science, together with lanirua.ire studies, in a way that directed men 

 into professional life, or at least that did not lead them into industrial pur- 

 suits. This act of ISIMI distinctly ]iroliiliits such use of its funds, and hy infer- 

 (>nce applies the same restriction to the orisrin.-il act, at least until the two 

 leadinj: industries — " asrieulture " and the "mechanic arts" — have heen fully 

 provided for. 



lint why refer to this that ou;iht to he, and doul>tless is. familiar to every 

 land-;;rant collei^e otticerV Simply hy way of reminder of the fact that a 

 "door," wide and open to a^i'ieulture, was ])rovided for hy both of these national 

 laws, and was directed to he swunj; in the front portal of every institution that 

 accept(Ml the ^^rants which these two acts of Congress bestowed. 



That there is need of such a reminder is evident from the practice of some 

 of the land-f^rant colle;,'es in their distrilmtion of the funds received under the 

 Morrill Act, as shown in their reports to the I'.ureau of Education of the I'nited 

 States. The re]iorts for the year ended June ;>(». litO."'., the last published, show 

 that the colleges that year varied in the amount which they assigned to atrricul- 

 ture out of the ,$2r>,(Ki() received under the Morrill Act from less than $.") in one 

 instance to over $14.(MI(» in another. The jieiieral avera.ice fiiven for ajiriculture 

 out of this fund liy all of the institutions was IC per cent and for mechanic arts 

 28 per cent. By omittin.ii four institutions jrivinj? the highest amount to agri- 

 culture, the percentage assigned to agricultiu-e by the remainder is reduced to 

 1."..:'..".. and if five of the next highest are likewise omitted the percentage will 

 be but ll.(». 



By taking twelve institutions appropriating the least to agriculture, represent- 

 ing an income that year from the Morrill fund of .$280,280. Tt!, the amount given 

 to agriculture is 3.7o i>er cent and 31.7.") per cent to luechaiiic arts. On the 

 other hand, taking the four highest in appropriation to agriculture that year, 

 we have, in a totiil of .$104,494.10 received under the Morrill Act, 44.0 per cent 

 appropriated to agriculture and 2(» per cent to mechanic arts. If, therefore, 

 the apiiortionment of this fund is at all indicative of the distribution of that of 

 the act of 1802. then we have exhiliited the varied interpretations which the 

 land-grant collegx^s })lace upon the language of the two acts of Congress so far 

 as making education in agriculture their leading object is concerned. In short, 

 we have their view of their obligations to open the door to agriculture as agri- 

 culture is now defined hy the Bureau of Education of the United States, which 

 includes agriculture, horticulture, forestry, agronomy, animal husbandry, dairy- 

 ing, veterinary science, poultry industry, and apiculture. 



We also have their view as to the relative importance of education in agri- 

 culture as compared with education in the mechanic arts. That there is wide 

 divergence of view in these respects among those whose duty it is to administer 

 this trust is thus manifest. As a consequence we find that the door of agricul- 

 ture in some of the land-grant institutions is out in front and is flung open wide, 

 while in others, as the figures show, it is found in rear and is set ajar just far 

 enough to provide for moderate ventilation without causing a draft. 



THE LAND-GRANT COLLEGE ITS OPPORTUNITY. 



The land-grant college of to-day stands at an "open door." It has been let 

 down in the midst of 28,000,000 of agricultural people. The educational needs of 



