94 
ministered to by the material advances of the world. We shall look to these men 
to hand the world to succeeding generations as a precions heritage rather than a 
wasted and worn-out patrimony. 
At the very outset of the first Morrill bill important emphasis was laid upon the 
necessity of preserving the fertility and fruitfulness of the soil. It was recognized 
that this could be done o ly by the faithful application of scientific methods to agri- 
culture. There are people now who do not appreciate the importance of doing this, 
but every year makes increasing demands, and we must recognize it as a wise policy 
for a country of such breadth to be able to maintain its own existence. Further, the 
debate revealed the desire to provide such an education as would make men efficient 
in the industries. No doubt the emphasis there was upon men as producers. I 
desire to put the emphasis to-day quite as strongly upon men as preservers. Igno- 
rance is a synonym for waste; intelligence is a synonym for economy. The loco- 
motive with its splendid achievements has for years been a very expensive necessity. 
Transportation will not long endure the wastefulness of these years past. More eco- 
nomic methods are in demand. This only leads to a scientific problem that must be 
solved. There are hundreds of these problems to which educated men and women 
must address themselves if the permanent prosperity of the world is to be preserved. 
1 believe, therefore, that these land-grant colleges should be regarded as institutions 
for national preservation. More directly, perhaps, than any others there is a national 
patriotism in them. We believe in education not only for the sake of the individual, 
but for the sake of the Nation. Asa group they now comprise the strongest and 
most efficient agency for applied science in the Nation. They are in the freshness 
of their youth, but will in future years render a service of increasing importance with 
increasing appreciation. 
The subject of short courses was informally but quite fully discussed by E. R. 
Nichols, of Kansas; C. E. Coates, jr., of Louisiana; G. E. Fellows, of Maine; H. H. 
Goodell, of Massachusetts; G. A. Harter, of Delaware; E. A. Bryan, of Washington; 
C. Northrop, of Minnesota; R. W. Stimson, of Connecticut, and J. C. Hardy, of 
Mississippi. 
Nearly all were agreed that the short course should not be taken by young students 
who might profitably pursue agricultural high school or college courses, and that no 
credits for degrees should be given for short-course work. H. H. Goodell stated that 
at the Massachusetts Agricultural College short-course students have taken agricul- 
ture, horticulture, bee culture, etc., in the regular college classes. This plan was 
criticised by several, President Northrop laying especial emphasis on the desirability 
of keeping the short-course w r ork outside of the circle of regular college work. 
He considered the short courses as "charitable or benevolent appendages" on the 
college, allowable only when they will not detract from the efficiency of the regular 
college work. R. W. Stimson considered short courses as pioneer work, more or 
less temporary expedients, for the purpose of extending the influence of the college 
and of drawing students to the long courses. 
In the subsequent informal discussion the idea was advanced that young students 
should go to agricultural high schools or colleges, and older students should get their 
instruction in farmers' institutes and like organizations. In opposition to this plan 
J. C. Hardy contended that there is a wide gap between the farmers' institute and 
the agricultural high school, and the technical instruction of all grades should be 
provided for, either in the agricultural colleges or in special schools organized for 
the purpose. 
In accordance with the amended constitution this section reorganized under the 
name of the Section on College AVork and Administration. (For officers elected see 
p. 87.) 
