responsibility for the future welfare of the State stations. Careful not to violate the theme set by Henry White at the opening of the hearing, Jordan requested neither funds nor legislation; he asked only that the Committee not overlook the station cause in making decisions when at a later time there might appear specific bills or issues dealing with agricultural research. The Committee did not, however, miss the hard point of Jordan's skillful charge. If the station declined in utility and productivity because the Congress financially favored Departmental research at the expense of the State stations, then the coming generations of the American public, so Jordan reasoned, would rightly lay the blame on Capitol Hill. Jordan did not let slip by, however, an impromptu opportunity to confess a willingness to receive more Federal funds. So ably had he pleaded the station case that at one point a Congressman interrupted him with the query, "Don't you think a fair inference from these figures is that we should give you all the money we have got?" Replied Jordan, "No; you have a great big Department in Washington that needs all the money you can give it. But, on reflection, I would say we will take all the money we can get, and we can use it well" (28, pp. 14-15). Moreover, in his quiet conclusion, almost casual in tone, Jordan remarked that a shortage of resources did prevent many stations from investigating problems in original research where the "facts lying deeper down, whose demonstration requires long-continued and expensive effort, must be dug out" (28, p. 22). The intentness of Jordan's lawyer-like pleadings scored decisive points for the station team but it also produced overtones of discomfort for other participants in the hearing, the members of a Departmental delegation led by Secretary James Wilson. Quietly Wilson listened while White and Jordan appraised the assumption of the House Committee that the Secretary could exercise a directive, rather than solely an advisory, power over the stations' experimentation and expenditures. Most attentively Wilson noted the repeated insistence by the station spokesman that any further increase of Departmental control over the stations, regardless of the presumed value of such control, would not only violate the principles of the Hatch Act but also reduce the stations' effectiveness in research productivity. White and Jordan, acutely aware that necessity forced them into an awkward situation, strove to express no complaints about Wilson's administration of his Department. Nevertheless the House Committee pointedly asked the station men to reveal specific cases of conflict rather than to discuss only future policy; they probed the relationship between the Department and the stations. White and Jordan, apologizing to the Secretary for the unintended and unfortunate reflections on his admittedly competent leadership, declined to answer the Committee's questions. The innuendo reflected adversely on the Department, for it suggested that Wilson's successful efforts to build his Department into a scientific institution should be checked lest they further damage the station cause. Furthermore, the station pleadings intimated that the overly vigorous Wilson, too ready to ignore the stations, had violated the intent of the Hatch Act. Secretary Wilson waited patiently until the station spokesmen had completed their presentation. Then in self-defense he crossexamined Jordan and White; they readily conceded that the Secretary had not "been meddling with the stations or unduly indicating to them" (28, p. 27). Wilson scored small success, however, when he sought concessions on other points. The Secretary asked Director Bailey to agree that the Federal Government should not provide "money for local research within the States" and, accordingly, that all research not of that type should legitimately come within the Department's jurisdiction. Bailey neatly parried that thrust by maintaining that "large original problems," supported by Federal grants based on the Hatch principle, would properly lie within the scope of station activity. "So far as possible," Bailey further insisted, "the origination of the scientific work and the research work should lie with the experiment stations in those regions ." Thereupon Wilson turned to White and tried to induce him to concede that the stations, in those States where the Department had thus far conducted its work, could not have operated the program more efficiently. That effort failed. White flatly contradicted the Secretary's contention (28, pp. 32-33). Secretary Wilson, unable to win further concessions, then goodhumoredly explained the sincere purpose of his intensive efforts to apply science to American agriculture; the goal, already achieved, of building in his Department a corps of full-time specialists, "the greatest scientists in their respective lines today that the world knows of;" the spectacular successes in disease eradication, a duty which Congress had directed his Department to conduct. With complete candor and an infectious warmth Wilson ably defended his Department and gave ample evidence of the enthusiastic ability which had made him an outstanding administrator and his Department an impressive organization. Yet Wilson proved to be the station's most effective advocate. "We are doing a great deal of work which the stations cannot do," he observed, "because the stations have not the means at their disposal to do it. . . . They do not have . . . specialists enough." Forthrightly he then declared, "I believe that the independence of the State experiment stations should be maintained" (28, p. 35–36). No one could have mistaken his sincerity and earnestness in volunteering to cooperate in research with any station, nor have failed to sympathize with his justifiable pride in his corps of specialists. Yet his ready-tongued rebuttal revealed his conviction that his Department, professionally intent on "helping" to solve State problems to the limit of its expanding Federal budget, unquestionably should have the right to multiply the activities which already had prompted apprehensiveness among station men. CAUSE WAS PLEADED WELL That display of Wilsonian sincerity, coupled with the repeated affirmation of good will from the station spokesman, assuaged any rancor that the collision of station and Departmental interests could have generated. It also gave Henry White the opportunity to close the 2-hour hearing with a good-natured rejoinder which pointedly reaffirmed the station position. "In the very zeal of the Secretary, it may come to pass that in the minds of the members of Congress there may exist a suspicion that outside the Department of Agriculture nothing is being done. . . . I propose, if it be so, to make evident to that the experiment stations have done something, too, and they are not asking merely for appropriations of money to help them ... do more. That, of course, is in your discretion. But we do ask," White went on, "and I think we have a right to ask, that the experiment stations shall be understood; . . . and that you shall know that there are men elsewhere who are doing great work." With gentlemanly grace White bowed to the Committee and smilingly concluded as he praised the Hatch system, "And, as I say, the very zeal of the Secretary emphasizes what we have in mind, namely, that perhaps you gentlemen may not come to know that there are, indeed, others" (28, p. 37). How effectively had White, Jordan, and Bailey-not to mention Wilson-pleaded the station cause? Had the hearing convinced the House Committee that Congressional decisions and Federal policymaking would intimately affect the future course of the station movement? Had the hearing enabled the committeemen to understand the manifold meaning of the Adams bill, scarcely mentioned on that January day but undeniably a current concern of the attentive Adams and his colleagues on that committee? The proceedings of the hearing did not remain a secret; the committeemen sounded out their legislative brethren; and months slipped by. Congressman Adams, caught in the grip of an incurable illness and visibly weakening, put his last strength into bringing his bill to a vote in the House. He succeeded early in 1906. On February 15, he spoke simply for several minutes prior to the taking of the vote. "I believe that this House is in favor of this bill," he predicted with quiet confidence (3), "and I do not see how I could improve the situation by telling them why they are in favor of it." ACT PASSED IN 1906 Adams accurately gaged the Congressional sentiment. Promptly the House passed his bill; 3 weeks later the Senated concurred. President Theodore Roosevelt affixed his signature on March 16. Thus Henry Adams had the satisfaction, only 4 months before his death, of seeing the station measure written into Federal law; and station men, equally reassured, knew now that the Federal Government solidly approved the reinforcement of the Hatch system. Meanwhile the movement for the Adams Act prompted the Executive Committee, busily engaged in improving the efficiency of the twinsectioned Association, to recommend to the convention of 1905 the creation of a permanent committee on experiment station organization and policy (6, p. 19). The Association adopted the proposal, and veteran directors received appointments to the six committee seats. To this committee fell the task of surveying regularly the problems confronting the station enterprise; to it the Association assigned the role of recommending proposals for corrective action. This committee formally inherited the responsibility for appraisal and constructive criticism of the station movement, a function which from the earliest years individual spokesmen had voluntarily and unofficially exercised. Created 4 months before President Roosevelt signed the Adams Act into law, the new Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) began its first major appraisal three weeks after the passage of that act. The chairmanship of ESCOP went with nice propriety to Eugene Davenport, whose initia tive at the convention of 1902 had crystallized the determination to secure the Federal grant which now bore Adams' name. The passage of the Adams Act in 1906 firmly established the principle in American governmental policy that Federal aid shall join with State aid for the purpose of subsidizing scientific research in the State stations. It reaffirmed the public faith in the historic purpose of station statesmen to conduct research of the highest quality and to adhere in administrative policy to the principles of local initiative and Federal assistance. It supplied the opportunity to perform the "original research" for which scientists long had labored. In equal measure, however, it now held the nationwide network of State stations responsible for the conduct of that research. Thus the Federal decision of 1906 compelled station men henceforth to develop to a maximum the research capacity of their stations and to sharpen, in the finest Hatch-Adams spirit, the appraising powers of the Office of Experiment Stations. Finally it necessitated operational harmony between that Office and the new Committee on Organization and Policy, and it accelerated the introduction of new techniques in the administration of station research. LITERATURE CITED (1) ADAMS, H. C. (2) (3) 1904. DEBATE ON APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Cong. Rec. 58th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1689-1690. 1904. [DEBATE ON ADAMS BILL, H.R. 14098.] Cong. Rec. 58th Cong., 1906. REMARKS ON THE ADAMS BILL, H.R. 345. Cong. Rec., 59th Cong., (4) ALVORD, H. E. (5) (6) 1895. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. 1896. ANNUAL ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and 1906. STANDING COMMITTEE. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. (7) ATWATER, W. O. (8) 1890. [THE PRIMARY OBLIGATIONS OF COLLEGES AND STATIONS UNDER THE 1888. JOHNSON, S. W., AND COOK, G. H. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STATION WORK. Cols. and Expt. Stas. (1887), 32 pp. Washington. (9) COOKE, W. W. Assoc. Amer. Agr. 1889. HOW CAN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ASSIST THE STATIONS? (U.S. (10) DABNEY, C. W., Jr. 1891. REPORT OF THE PERMANENT COMMITTEE ON CHEMISTRY. Assoc. (U.S. 634244 O-6410 (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) DAVENPORT, E. 1903. INCREASED APPROPRIATION FOR EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. Proc. (1902) 16:55. (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 123.) HATCH, W. H. 1894. DISCUSSION ON APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Cong. Rec., 53d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 4787, 4891-92. HENRY, W. A. 1894. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. Proc. (1893) 7:38-45. (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 20.) 1902. 1903. 1907. INVESTIGATION AND INSTRUCTION BY STATION OFFICERS. Assoc. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Proc. (1902) 16: 44-45. MEMORIAL TO HENRY CULLEN ADAMS. Expt. Stas. Proc. (1906) 20:36–39. JOHNSON, S. W. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. (17) 1897. ANNUAL ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and (U.S. Dept. of Agr., Off. (18) JORDAN, W. H. REPORT OF THE SECTION ON AGRICULTURE AND CHEMISTRY. Assoc. AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Assoc. Amer. Agr. (U.S. Dept. Agr., COOPERATION BETWEEN THE STATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRI CULTURE. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. Proc. (1904) 18: 62-63. (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 153.) MORROW, G. E. 1895. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. Proc. (1894) 8:25-33. (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 24.) MORTON, J. S. 1895. ADDRESS. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. Proc. (1894) 8: 47-48. (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 24.) SECTION ON EXPERIMENT STATION WORK. 1906. HOW MUCH DEMONSTRATION WORK SHOULD THE STATION UNDERTAKE? Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. Proc. (1905) 19: 170-186. (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 164.) TRUE, A. C. (25) 1898. (26) 1900. (27) 1904. (28) SOME ELEMENTS OF PERMANENCY IN EXPERIMENT STATION WORK. Assoc. Amer. Agr. Cols. and Expt. Stas. Proc. (1895) 9: 42-46. (U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Bul. 30.) Assoc. Amer. ADVERTISING IN EXPERIMENT STATION PUBLICATIONS. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS FOR 1900. U.S. Dept. Agr. Annual Rpt. 1900, 170 pp. NEEDS OF THE STATIONS. U.S. Dept. Agr., Off. Expt. Stas. Ann. UNITED STATES CONGRESS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE. |