nually for 7 years and continue thereafter at a total of $4,100,000.16

4. That the additional amounts of prorated Federal funds must be matched by State or local funds raised or contributed within the State.17

5. That to benefit from this Act a State must assent to its provisions, and designate and certify a treasurer to receive and disburse the funds. 18

6. That each college receiving benefits must submit a statement annually to the Secretary of Agriculture covering the amount appropriated for the fiscal year.

19

A States Relation Service was set up in the United States Department of Agriculture to administer the program of the Smith-Lever Act and to coordinate the existing and new extension activities of the Department and of the States. In it was also included the Office of Experiment Stations.20 It was expected that approximately 75 percent of the SmithLever funds would be spent for field demonstrations and the practical instructions immediately connected therewith.21 Not more than 5 percent of the funds was to be expended for the printing and distribution of publications.22 The remainder, approximately 20 percent, might be spent for such enterprises as movable schools, study clubs, or boys' and girls' clubs.23 Farm demonstration work in the South and county advisory work in the North would be continued, although Department and Smith-Lever funds would be kept separate.24 Certain restrictions were also specified. SmithLever funds were not to be expended for college teaching, agricultural trains, and permanent model or demonstration farms.25

Because of the administrative control vested in the office of the Secretary of Agriculture and the policy-making

16 Sec. 3.

17 Sec. 3.

18 Sec. 4.

19 Sec. 4.

20 True, A History of Agricultural Extension Work, p. 117.

21 Ibid. Statement by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Galloway, March 5, 1914, quoted by True.

22 Smith-Lever Act, sec. 5.

23 See footnote 21 above.

24 Ibid.

25 Smith-Lever Act, sec. 5.

responsibility assigned that official by the Smith-Lever Act, the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations urged a memorandum of understanding between the United States Department of Agriculture and each State. Such memorandums, setting forth policies to be followed in administering the Act, were drawn up. The memorandums were signed by officials of 46 States, but all States followed the policies outlined in them.26

The Smith-Lever Act began a new type of governmental activity in which the Federal Government was given a larger measure of control over work in the States than had been contemplated in any of the preceding legislation affecting land-grant colleges. A new matching principle of sharing the support of the work with the State, county, and local people was also introduced for the first time in the legislation affecting the land-grant institutions.27

The Smith-Lever Act and the World War stimulated a rapid expansion of agricultural extension work. In 1914 about 30 percent of the agricultural counties had county agricultural agents and about 10 percent had home demonstration agents. By 1919 over 75 percent of the counties had county agricultural agents and 35 percent had county home demonstration agents. The number of farm men actively cooperating increased in the period from 1914 to 1919 from approximately 100,000 to more than 275,000; the number of farm women, from 6,000 to more than 125,000. Enrollment in boys' and girls' club work rose from about 250,000 to about 614,000 during the same interval. Funds spent for agricultural extension work rose from $3,600,000 in 1915 to $14,700,000 in 1919, although the maximum available from Federal Smith-Lever funds in 1919 amounted to only $2,580,000.28

The demands of the War placed added responsibilities and increased pressure on the extension agents to aid in the administration of the food-control and food-production acts,

26 True, History of Agricultural Extension Work, pp. 119-20. For a specimen of these memorandums see appendix C.

27 Smith and Wilson, op. cit., p. 42. See pp. 40-3, 63-4 of the present study for a discussion of the effects of this provision on this and other programs.

28 True. History of Agricultural Extension Work, pp. 151, 197-8.

and swelled the number of such workers to a total of approximately 5,000, of whom 1,600 were emergency demonstration agents paid out of emergency funds. Home production of food; emergency war gardens; clothing conservation; health work, involving home nursing, especially during the 1918 influenza epidemic; labor exchanges; promotional work with War loans; aid to selective service boards; fuel administration; and other extra War responsibilities were added to the regular responsibilities of extension workers.2

29

Similarly during periods of drought, depression, or other local or national adversity the Agricultural Extension Service has been called upon and has organized to render prompt and efficient service.

The Chamber of Commerce of Binghamton, New York, in 1910 organized the first farm bureau for the purpose of promoting better agriculture on the farms about the city. The idea spread rapidly, but since farmers preferred to direct and control the organization, most county farm bureaus were established independent of chambers of commerce. These bureaus helped secure the services of county agents, aided in their programs, and proved of inestimable value during the War. The farm bureau idea spread to a great number of counties. The early purpose of the farm bureau was entirely educational; but since its program was financed by paid memberships, it was selective and did not include all the farmers of the county, or even a majority in many instances. Farmers sensed their need of a centralized voice in economic and political matters; a federation of the county farm bureaus seemed to answer this need. Accordingly, farm bureau members organized State federations, and in 1919 the national federation of county farm bureaus-the American Farm Bureau Federation-materialized.

When the Federation was formed and began to realize its power and influence, demands arose within its membership to engage in economic and political activities. This threw the organization into conflict with other farmers' organizations then or subsequently organized to engage in similar activities. The county agent often served as secretary of

29 Ibid., pp. 138-40, 147–8.

the farm bureau, solicited and received membership dues, and acted as representative or spokesman of the organization. These activities were in conflict with his duties as an extension agent of the land-grant colleges and of the United States Department of Agriculture and so some readjustment was necessary. Accordingly, a memorandum of understanding was drawn up between the American Farm Bureau Federation and the United States Department of Agriculture in which it was agreed that the county agent would be reponsible only for educational activities.30 The "privilege of contributing to the support of the county extension service was retained for the Farm Bureau." In some States the Farm Bureau-Extension Service relationship is very close; in others, it is quite definitely separated.31

Capper-Ketcham Act.-The Smith-Lever funds reached their maximum in 1923, but even in 1927 there were 700 rural counties without county agents. At the same time it was assumed that every rural county should have both an agricultural agent and a home demonstration agent, and that the most populous counties should have club agents. This meant that the extension system was less than half completed. There was pressure to provide additional funds to permit expansion, especially of the club program and women's work.32 Congress apparently believed that the best plan was to increase funds for extension on the basis of the SmithLever Act, rather than to set up a new system.

On May 22, 1928, the Capper-Ketcham Act was approved. This Act provided $1,480,000 additional Federal funds for cooperative extension work along the lines of the earlier Smith-Lever Act. It authorized an annual appropriation of $20,000 to each State and Hawaii, amounting to $980,000, plus a sum of $500,000 each year to be prorated to the States on a basis of rural population and to be matched by State

30 For text of memorandum see Appendix D.

31 Orville M. Kile, The Farm Bureau Movement (New York: Macmillan, 1924); Austin F. MacDonald, Federal Aid (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1928), pp. 64-8; Landis and Willard, op. cit., pp. 129-31; True, A History of Agricultural Extension Work, pp. 163-71; Smith and Wilson, op. cit., pp. 42-4, 155.

32 Lloyd E. Blauch, Federal Cooperation in Agricultural Extension Work, Vocational Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation, U. S. Office of Education Bulletin, 1933, No. 15 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1935), p. 135.

and local funds, as were the additional funds in the SmithLever Act.33 With these funds available additional county extension workers were appointed, and the work in home economics and with boys and girls was greatly strengthened. Attention should be called to a section of the CapperKetcham Act which provided that "... at least 80 per centum of all appropriations under this Act shall be utilized for the payment of salaries of extension agents in counties of the several States. 1) 34 There was no similar provision in the Smith-Lever Act, and in some States a difference of opinion had developed between the State and Federal authorities as to the proportion of the funds which should be devoted to specialists stationed at the land-grant colleges in contrast with the expenditures for agents located in the counties. In States where these differences existed, State authorities favored the expenditure of a larger proportion of the funds for specialists than was favored by the representatives of the Department of Agriculture. The limitation set forth in the Capper-Ketcham Act developed as a result of these differences. In setting up the limitation, the marked difference between the demands for the two types of service in States presenting as widely different conditions as Rhode Island and Texas was not taken into consideration. This legislation serves as an illustration of the danger of attempting to define the details of administration of an educational act that must be carried out under as diverse conditions as obtain in the several States of the United States.

Bankhead-Jones Act.-Emergency agricultural activities, beginning with the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933, were undertaken during the recent depression. The President and the Secretary of Agriculture were of the opinion that the Extension Service should be the agency through which the rural people would be informed of the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the various crop control contracts which were being offered to farmers. By June of 1933, county agricultural agents were devoting a large part

33 Sec. 1. For text of Act see Appendix A,

34 Sec. 1.

127403-39--5