680 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 622. 



science in the experiment stations and kin- 

 dred institutions. 



3. To seek to impress upon university- 

 authorities, and upon wealthy donors, the 

 claims of agricultural science to recogni- 

 tion as a most promising and attractive 

 field for the endowment of research. 



Is it not by setting before ourselves 

 ends like these, even though they may 

 seem somewhat Utopian, that we shall most 

 effectively promote agricultural science 

 under existing conditions, rather than by 

 simply meeting annually to read a few 

 technical papers, too often prepared from 

 a sense of duty or at the solicitation of the 

 secretary, and paying a tax of two or three 

 dollars to cover the cost of publishing them 

 to an unappreciative world? 



Finally, if the ideas which I have been 

 advancing be not entirely quixotic, they 

 suggest, to my mind at least, a radically 

 different basis of organization from that 

 which has prevailed hitherto. 



At the outset, membership in this society 

 was limited to forty, and the avowed pur- 

 pose was to include only those who had 

 already attained some degree of distinction 

 in agricultural science. The idea in the 

 minds of the founders, although nowhere 

 perhaps clearly expressed, seems to have 

 been to make membership in the society a 

 distinction to be coveted. It was to be an 

 American academy fo'r agriculture, a sort 

 of 'forty immortals.' Subsequently, the 

 limits of membership have been greatly en- 

 larged, yet in general the original concep- 

 tion has been adhered to, although not 

 without struggles and heart burnings. 



That conception was a high and worthy 

 one, and that it has contributed notably to 

 the promotion of agricultural science none 

 can doubt. All honor to the men who at 

 that early day embodied it in a concrete 

 form. 



But there is no impiety to their memory 



in asking whether the original form of 

 organization is that best adapted to the 

 changed conditions of the present day. 

 Personally, I do not hesitate to say that I 

 question this. The spirit of science is 

 democratic and not aristocratic. In up- 

 holding her interests we need the help of 

 everyone who has seen and loved her fair 

 face. The man who has devoted half a 

 lifetime to her service may be assumed to 

 know and prize the modest rewards she 

 offers. It is the young man, at the thresh- 

 old of his career, dazzled by the glittering 

 promises of business or commercial life, 

 that we need to reach. If the society's 

 influence is worth anything — if it affords 

 any stimulus to worthy endeavor in the 

 search after truth for its own sake— should 

 not he especially have the benefit of it ? 



Moreover, why should we despise the aid 

 of the man of affairs? If the promotion 

 of agricultural science is also the promo- 

 tion of the general weal, should we not 

 rather welcome him as a new and powerful 

 force through which to influence public 

 opinion ? 



In brief, if the society accepts a compre- 

 hensive view of its mission, should it not 

 make its basis of membership correspond- 

 ingly broad, imposing no test except that 

 of belief in the purposes of the organiza- 

 tion and willingness to aid in forwarding 

 them? It would still be possible to make 

 a distinction, which need not be invidious, 

 between those professionally engaged in 

 agricultural science and those merely inter- 

 ested in its promotion on broad grounds of 

 public policy, while the effectiveness of the 

 society as an agent of propaganda would 

 be immeasurably increased by such a 

 broadening of its membership. The ad- 

 vantages of mere numbers, too, are not al- 

 together to be despised. A larger member- 

 ship, and more ample means, would bring 

 within the range of possibility various 



