Febkuart 26, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



305 



equally true that it should not be too much 

 centralized in the states. I hear that per- 

 sons who object strongly to federal con- 

 centration may nevertheless decline to give 

 the counties and the communities in their 

 own states the benefit of any useful start- 

 ing-power and autonomy. In fact, I am 

 inclined to think that here at present lies 

 one of our greatest dangers. 



A strong centralization within the state 

 may be the most hurtful kind of concen- 

 tration, for it may more vitally affect the 

 people at home. Here the question, re- 

 member, is not the most efficient formal 

 administration, but the best results for the 

 people. The farm-bureau work, for ex- 

 ample, can never produce the background 

 results of which it is capable if it is a 

 strongly intrenched movement pushed out 

 from one center, as from the college of agri- 

 culture or other institution. The college 

 may be the guiding force, but it should not 

 remove responsibility from the people of 

 the localities, or offer them a kind of co- 

 operation that is only the privilege of par- 

 taking in the college enterprises. I fear 

 that some of our so-called cooperation in 

 public work of many kinds is little more 

 than to allow the cooperator to approve 

 what the official administration has done. 



There is no occasion for misunderstand- 

 ing here. It is exactly because I want the 

 college of agriculture to hold and to ex- 

 tend its leadership that I warn you against 

 its assuming any dictatorship. I think the 

 situation at this moment demands special 

 caution. The college comes into new con- 

 sciousness of power. Great forces are put 

 in its hands. There is at present more 

 promise of great results for the people on 

 the land than in any other movement or 

 situation within my recollection. It is 

 just the moment to give the people in the 

 neighborhoods all the freedom and all the 

 responsibility they ought to have for their 



own best development. The future will 

 care very little for the mechanism of ad- 

 ministration, but it will care very much 

 for the results in the training of the folk. 



There is a vast political significance to 

 all this. Sooner or later the people rebel 

 against intrenched or bureaucratic groups. 

 Many of you know how they resist even 

 strongly centralized departments of public 

 instruction, and how the effectiveness of 

 such departments may be jeopardized and 

 much lessened by the very perfectness of 

 their organization ; and if they were to en- 

 gage in a custom of extraneous forms of 

 news-giving in the public press, the resent- 

 ment would be the greater. In our rural 

 work, we are in danger of developing a 

 piece of machinery founded on our funda- 

 mental industry; and if this ever comes 

 about, we shall find the people organizing 

 to resist it. 



Of course, we want governments to be 

 efficient with funds and in the control of 

 affairs, but we must not overlook the 

 larger issues. In all this new rural effort, 

 we should maintain the spirit of team-work 

 and of co-action, and not make the mistake 

 of depending too much on the routine of 

 centralized control. 



In this country we are much criticized 

 for the cost of government and for the 

 supposed control of affairs by monopoly. 

 The cost is undoubtedly too great, but it is 

 the price we pay for the satisfaction of 

 using democratic forms. As to the other 

 disability, let us consider that society lies 

 between two dangers — the danger of 

 monopoly and the danger of bureaucracy. 

 On the one side is the control of the 

 necessities of life by commercial organiza- 

 tion. On the other side, is the control of 

 the necessities of life, and even of life 

 itself, by intrenched groups that ostensibly 

 represent the people and which it may be 

 impossible to dislodge. Here are the 



