8 



designed by Congress to be " agricultural " merely. * * * 



This language certainly does not contemplate the teaching of " ag- 

 riculture " alone, but of all the natural sciences which underlie its 

 laws arid processes ; all the mathematical and physical sciences 

 which are the basis of the mechanic arts, and whatever else is 

 adapted to promote " the liberal and practical education of the 

 industrial classes," not even excluding classical studies. It is, in 

 short, the statement of a comprehensive scheme for promoting the 

 higher education of the people a thing which the Government has 

 been doing ever since it first had public lands to dispose of. The 

 institutions thus founded have come to be generally spoken of as 

 " agricultural colleges " simply for want of a more convenient des- 

 ignation, and probably, also, because " agriculture " happens to be 

 the first important word in that part of the law just quoted. In 

 case, however, of a large majority of the institutions, " agricul- 

 ture " or " agricultural'" forms only a part of the legal name ; and 

 in case of two, neither word appears. It may be freely admitted, 

 therefore, that the number of students of " agriculture " is small, 

 without for a moment implying that the agricultural colleges, so- 

 called and mis-called, have few students. Indeed, it is strictly 

 within the truth to say that the fact of there not being one student 

 of " agriculture " among the whole number of institutions would 

 not necessarily have the slightest bearing upon the question whether 

 they are fulfilling the end for which they were established. The 

 sole question is : Are the institutions established by. the Act of 

 1862 doing the work prescribed for them by that act ? There is 

 ample proof that they are ; and it is the weakest kind of fallacy to 

 apply an incorrect name to them, and then declare them a failure 

 if they do not meet with the requirements of that name. If the 

 law of 1862, instead of using the word " College," had simply said 

 that the fund thereby appropriated should be for the support in 

 each State of one " Scientific School," or one " School of Science 

 where the leading object should be," etc., precisely what is now 

 stated in the clauses above quoted, the institutions would without 

 doubt have come to be called " Scientific Schools," or, perhaps, 

 " National Schools of Science," or some similar name. Quite cer- 

 tainly they would not have been called " Agricultural Colleges," 

 and that would have precluded a vast amount of honest misconcep- 



