CONVENTION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES. 311 



mittee in order that mechanic arts should he provided for as fully as 

 agriculture in the colleges. The report was adopted by a vote of 18 

 toll. 



M. A. Scovell, of Kentucky, presented a memorial asking the Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture to accept, keep on file, and if possible compile the 

 records of the committee appointed in 1803 to assist in conducting test 

 of dairy breeds at the World's Fair. These records, he explained, 

 were still in the possession of the chairman of that committee, and 

 though efforts had been made to get them printed, the cost (estimated 

 by the Public Printer to be 870,000) stood in the way. The question 

 of printing, however, was not raised in the memorial, which simply 

 requested that the records be kept on file and available. 



S. M. Emery, of Montana, called attention to the existence of a feel- 

 ing of antagonism between the agricultural papers and the experiment 

 stations and urged the importance of disarming such feeling. 



W. R. Lazenby, of Ohio, presented the report of a committee on 

 uniform methods of seed testing, which embodies specific rules and 

 recommendations for this work adopted by the committee at Washing- 

 ton, D. C, January 20, 1897.' 



A paper on advertising in station publications was read by A. C. 

 True. In this paper it was held that the general rule of management 

 which governs public institutions applies to the experiment stations, 

 i. e.j " that they are to be conducted impartially for the public good and 

 in such manner as not to intentionally favor particular private parties 

 or enterprises.*' The functions of these stations are limited also by the 

 provisions of the Hatch Act, which was not intended "to establish 

 general bureaus of information on agriculture but institutions devoted 

 to experimentation." It was admitted that the stations have been 

 compelled to do a great deal of work of this kind, but it was considered 

 a great mistake to favor or maintain such work indefinitely, and the 

 stations should strive to have their business restricted to its legitimate 

 channel. Of course exceptions must be made in case of those stations 

 supported in part by State funds which are charged with certain police 

 duties, such as the inspection of fertilizers, dairy products, nursery 

 stock, etc. 



'■Such work necessarily brings a number of private commercial establishments 

 under public control and limits the liberty of such establishments iu definite direc- 

 tions. . . . The establishments deprived of perfect liberty iu tbeir action arc entitled 

 to the compensatory advantage of public guaranty of their business if satisfactorily 

 conducted. This removes the published statements of analyses of commercial fer- 

 tilizers and otheii iuspected agricultural materials from the ordinary category of 

 advertisements." 



The publication of the results of formal tests of different farm imple- 

 ments and apparatus is also removed from this category, but it was 

 held that these tests should be so conducted as to thoroughly remove 

 all suspicion of unfairness or incompleteness. 



1 See-U. S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experiment Stations Circular 34. 



