PaaBRtiABT 8, 1918] 



SCIENCE 



133 



vestigators which is now so keen. These in- 

 stitutions must have funds, but they should 

 be provided under regulations which do 

 not constitute a barrier to the accomplish- 

 ment of the ends for which they are estab- 

 lished. 



The relation of the federal government 

 to the agricultural colleges and experiment 

 stations which it is subsidizing has been 

 the subject of much discussion and the oc- 

 casion of more or less anxiety on the part 

 of state officials. The congressional acts 

 making possible the establishment of the 

 land grant colleges, whether the first Jlor- 

 rill Act donating public lands to the sev- 

 eral states or later acts making appropria- 

 tions of money, placed few restrictions 

 upon the several states accepting the terms 

 of these acts. Each state has been allowed 

 to organize and develop its college of agri- 

 culture without outside interference and 

 while mistakes have been made and the ex- 

 penditure of funds has been more or less 

 wasteful, the result has been that these in- 

 stitutions have been developed and adjusted 

 in accordance with the needs and conditions 

 of the states in which they were located. It 

 is probable that had the federal govern- 

 ment attempted a centralized direction of 

 this new enterprise the results would not 

 have been as satisfactory as those which 

 have been reached. 



The original legislation establishing agri- 

 cultural experiment stations and the acts 

 subsequent thereto materially increased 

 federal super\'ision. This is especially 

 true of the terms under which the appro- 

 priations made by the Adams Act are ap- 

 plied to agricultural investigation. The 

 Department of Agriculture requires not 

 only that the various projects which the 

 institutions propose to undertake shall be 

 filed with the department for its approval, 

 but it inspects the work and accounts of the 

 several experiment stations to determine 



whether the funds have been expended in 

 accordance with the enabling act and solely 

 for the study of the projects which have 

 been filed. No fault can be reasonably 

 found with the attitude of the federal gov- 

 ernment in ascertaining whether or not the 

 money it appropriates is properly and leg- 

 allj'^ expended, and there appears to be no 

 disposition to chafe at the supervision now 

 exercised by the national Department of 

 Agriculture over the use of what are 

 known as the Hatch and Adams Funds. 



Later legislation, known as the Smith- 

 Lever and the Smith-Hughes Acts, pro- 

 viding respectively for the extension of 

 agricultural knowledge in a popular way 

 among the people and for industrial edu- 

 cation in our secondarj^ schools, requires 

 still closer supervision of the use of federal 

 funds and of the plans proposed by the 

 several states for the carrying out of these 

 efforts. It is in these latter acts that fed- 

 eral super%asion is regarded by many as 

 having approached the danger point. This 

 anxiety has been caused not so much by 

 what is now the federal policy as by the fu- 

 ture possibilities under the provisions of 

 the acts named. It is felt that the direc- 

 tion of these educational efforts should 

 have been confided more fully to the sev- 

 eral states, other than a proper auditing of 

 the expenditure of funds, and that too 

 much leeway is given to the individual 

 judgment of federal officials. There is 

 certainlj' danger from more or less loosely 

 defined directive authority that a govern- 

 mental department or bureau may exercise, 

 whether state or national, over education 

 and research because our political system 

 makes possible frequent changes in admin- 

 istrative staffs, and the maintenance of a 

 consistent and uniform policy is thus en- 

 dangered. 



It is not intended in what is being said 

 to criticize individuals, but to call atten- 



