Funds alone would not have made it possible for the stations to prevent completely the retrogression that took place. There were needs and demands, especially after the United States entered the World War, that could not be met by money alone. Furthermore, the period under consideration was one of rapidly rising prices for both commodities and services. In addition to these factors it should be borne in mind that some of the Hatch funds were used for the dissemination of the results of the researches. Even when allowance has been made for these factors, however, it is still evident that the decline which took place in the efficiency of the experiment stations was in a large measure due to the enactment of Federal legislation that made it possible for the States to get an additional $1.00 of Federal funds for each one of their own that was spent under the Smith-Lever Act, whereas that was not the case with funds appropriated for the experiment stations.

These statements are not designed to discount the value of the work done under the provisions of the Smith-Lever Act. The merits of that program will be considered in a later chapter. It does serve, however, to describe a crucial period in the history of agricultural experiment stations and, perhaps even more significantly, to illustrate the fact that one program of activity cannot be adequately considered by itself, but must be studied as but one part of the broader scheme of land-grant college instruction.

Support of Research among Negroes

Funds are authorized by three Federal acts to defray for agricultural experiment stations the "necessary expenses of conducting investigations or making experiments" which seek "the establishment and maintenance of a permanent and efficient agricultural industry." Included in the scope of these studies are "such economic and sociological investigations as have for their purpose the development and improvement of the rural home and rural life, and for printing and disseminating the results of said researches." For the

year 1935-36, 17 Southern States received $1,565,000 under the provisions of these acts."1

41

Although none of these funds was allocated directly to the land-grant institutions for Negroes, this does not mean that Negroes are not benefited by the results of the work done with the funds. The published results are available for use by both white persons and Negroes. In many of the studies in States having a large percentage of Negroes it has been assumed that both races are integral parts of the community population and both races have been included in the studies. Two studies in progress at the Alabama Experiment Station are illustrative of this fact. One of these is a farm management study of the effects of erosion control measures and includes consideration of 272 Negro families and 362 white families, this being the ratio in which they occur in the area under study. The second, a study of farm planning for the future, includes the Negro population as it occurs in the various types of farming areas of the States. Similarly, the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station has recently reported the results of an inquiry in which the data for white persons and Negroes are separately reported on a number of points.42 These are illustrations only; additional instances could be cited. The attention to the Negro as an element in the rural population of the South has shown a commendable increase in recent years. There appears to be, however, two further possibilities of improvement:

1. Although most of the economic and sociological problems are common to both races, Negroes face many economic adjustment problems which are markedly different, in kind or degree, from those which confront white persons. There is need for a great deal of research with reference to them, and there is little evidence that such studies are in progress.

2. There is much to be said in favor of centralizing the responsibility within a State for the research in agriculture and home economics. It would seem to be practicable and

41 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Report on the Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1936, p. 182. Funds granted under the Adams, Purnell, and Bankhead-Jones Acts are included.

42 C. Horace Hamilton, Recent Changes in the Social and Economic Status of Farm Families in North Carolina, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 309 (Raleigh: 1937).

desirable without decentralization of administrative responsibility to work out cooperative relations between the land-grant institutions for whites and Negroes so that some of the Negroes who have the ability and preparation could be brought into the research activities. This would give them an opportunity, that is now lacking, to develop their capacities in this area.

CHAPTER IV

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK

The work of the Cooperative Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges has become firmly established as a phase of rural education. From the point of view of numbers reached, it is one of the largest programs of adult education, filling in a field that no other agency apparently could, or would, have filled. The work with children and youth, conducted on club basis, is also vast although perhaps not so distinctive as the work with adults.

The general purpose of cooperative extension work is to promote the educational welfare of rural people by supplementing the work of the public schools and other educational agencies. This is accomplished largely through extension instruction in agriculture and home economics, although cultural and civic activities may be included as related subjects.

Movements Leading to the Creation of

the Extension Service

Agricultural extension work has its roots in the early history of the country. Washington both advocated and practiced the systematic study of the science and art of agriculture; in his first annual message to Congress in 1790 he urged the establishment of a national university to bring the sciences and arts to the people. This university he believed should have a chair of agriculture and the responsibility "of diffusing information to farmers." Although Congress did not act apon his suggestion, Washington bequeathed a fund in his will toward the endowment of a

1 Benson Y. Landis and John D. Willard, Rural Adult Education (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. V.

national university. He was credited also with being the first person in America to propose agricultural societies and a bureau of agriculture in the Federal Government.3

The Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture was formed in 1785 to bring together practical farmers and men of science for the improvement of agricultural practices; both Washington and Franklin were members. Jefferson

organized such a society, and Madison later became its president. Agricultural societies were organized in South Carolina, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and other places for the purpose of applying science to the problems of agriculture and of extending agricultural information to farmers of the vicinity who were invited to their discussions or informed of the societies' discourses by letter or reports. Soon requests came from early farmers' clubs for the agricultural societies to send them speakers; this practice spread. Some of the agricultural societies sponsored fairs which evolved into county fairs. These fairs became numerous by the middle of the nineteenth century. About this same time State boards of agriculture were formed and these boards undertook the sponsorship of district and State fairs, published reports, and otherwise disseminated information to farmers.

As early as 1843 the New York Assembly authorized the State Agricultural Society "to employ a practical and scientific farmer to give public lectures throughout the State." This work proved so successful that other States followed the precedent of State sponsorship and support of such extension services. During this time physicians and teachers were assembling periodically for institutes at which they received instruction on new developments in their fields. Farmers' institutes, with similar purposes for farmers, were therefore a logical demand and the States responded;

? History of the George Washington Bicentennial Celebration (Washington: U. S. George Washington Bicentennial Celebration, 1932), vol. I, p. 555.

Charles W. Dabney, Washington, Educationist (Cincinnati: The Cincinnati Society of the George Washington Memorial Association, 1911), p. 12.

See Alfred C. True, A History of Agricultural Education in the United States...

pp. 7-18, for a more detailed account of early societies, fairs, and institutes.

Alfred C. True, A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States: 17851923, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 15 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1928), p. 4.