- DUPLICATE.

.CS96 B2
sopy 1

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
IN
NEW YORK STATE.

BEING A STATEMENT CONCERNING
CERTAIN CHARGES MADE AGAINST
CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

BY L} Hl BAILEY.

: By tranafer

APR 16 1816
o53'|

poeb@

STATEMENT CONCERNING CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS
RESPECTING AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
IN NEW YORK STATE.

There is a bill before the Legislature appropriating $250,000 for
buildings and equipment for the College of Agriculture at Cornell
University. At a hearing before the Finance Committee of the
Senate on February 23rd, opposition was made by several college
presidents. The principal address was made by Chancellor James R.
Day, of Syracuse University, who read a paper making grave charges
against Cornell University. Many of these statements were refuted
at the time, but they nevertheless have been published with the im-
print of ‘‘University Press, Syracuse, N. Y.,’’ ina pamphlet entitled
“A Protest and some Proposals concerning Agricultural Education.”
This pamphlet has been widely distributed; and subsequently
another set of charges has been published by Chancellor Day.
Many of these statements are so misleading and so inaccurate that
they cannot go unrefuted.

I have no desire to become a party to a controversy. I wish to
make no plea. But it is time now for someone to speak. I have no
intention of replying to all the astounding misrepresentations that are
now being made; but, since the University stands in close relation to
the farmers of the State through its College of Agriculture, it be-
comes my duty to put the farmers in pdssession of the essential facts.
This will lead necessarily to a consideration of some of the tendencies
of modern agricultural education, a subject that is wholly misappre-
hended by some of the current discussions.

I shall not engage in any contention between educational institu-
tions.’ I am proud of all the colleges and universities of the State.
They are doing excellent work for education, in many fields. It
should be the policy of such institutions to fight ignorance, not to
fight each other.

The College of Agriculture of Cornell University is supported by

* three classes of funds: (1) federal funds, part of which are held in
Bae trust by the State; (2) endowment funds of Cornell University. (3)
*." State funds. The federal funds are expended under certain restric-
tions as prescribed by law, and accounting is made to the proper pub-
lic officers. The State funds are all expended under the supervision
of the State Commissioner of Agriculture, who by signature approves

all vouchers.

te J

re)

I. CHARGES RESPECTING THE LAND GRANT AND
RELATED FUNDS

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 1:

Chancellor Day accuses Ezra Cornell, who has been dead thirty
years and who in his lifetime committed no offence but to found and
endow with his own legitimate earnings a university ‘‘where any
person can find instruction in any study,’’ of manipulating the con-
gressional land grant approved by President Lincoln, July 2, 1862.
Here are Chancellor Day’s words: ‘‘Ezra Cornell was a state senator.
Through his manipulations, which have passed into history, that
vast amount of land was secured to Cornell University «upon the
terms defined by Congress, except $25,000 grudgingly given to
Genesee College, then moribund but with sufficient life to see the
injustice of this act and to protest against it.”’

The Facts:

The benefit of the federal land grant was, by chapter 511 of the
laws of 1863, bestowed upon the People’s College of Havana. But
when that institution failed to comply with the conditions of the
grant, the Legislature, by chapter 585 of the laws of 1865, appro-
priated the proceeds of the sale of the public lands to Cornell Uni-
versity. The only ‘‘manipulation’”’ of Ezra Cornell was to satisfy the
legislative requirement of a gift of at least $500,000 to be made by
him to the new institution. There was indeed one other condition of
that act of 1865: it provided that Cornell University should receive
no portion of the proceeds of the land grant ‘‘unless within six
months from the passage of this act Ezra Cornell, of Ithaca, shall
pay over to the trustees of Genesee college, located at Lima, in
this State, the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars.’’ Chancellor
Day says that all the land grant was given to Cornell University
‘except $25,000 grudgingly given to Genesee College.’’ The fact is
that Ezra Cornell was required to pay Genesee College out of his own
pocket $25,000 for the privilege of being allowed to give $500,000 to
found a new University.

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 2:

Chancellor Day accuses Ezra Cornell and Cornell University of:
“‘the diversion of the original grant’’ of 1862. He says: ‘‘The land
grant was eagerly taken for the purposes declared by Congress. It
was manipulated so that more than four-fifths of the money that pro-
ceeded from it are used at Cornell to-day for ‘general purposes’.’’

The Facts:

The State of New York received from the sale of its scrip for
990,000 acres of public land, $688,576.12. The average receipts were
about the same in other states which received and sold the federal
scrip. The government price of public lands in 1862 was $1.25 per
acre. But states not having public lands within their own borders
and therefore receiving land scrip under the act of Congress of July
2, 1862, were required, by the second section of that act, to sell their
scrip (‘‘said scrip to be sold by said states’). These forced sales of
large amounts of land scrip caused a decline in the price of public
lands, which fell, below 50 cents an acre. New York did well to
make $688,000 out of its scrip for 990,000 acres; for the State was
compelled by the congressional act donating the scrip to sell it, and
the market was glutted in consequence of similar forced sales by
other states.

Any one was free to buy scrip from the state authorities of New
York. At the outset, scrip for 76,000 acres was sold to different par-
ties ata little over 80 cents an acre. But as other states were offer-
ing their scrip at a much lower rate, sales soon ceased. Anyone who
had foreknowledge of the future, faith in the development of his
country, capital to invest, skillin locating lands, and financial strength
and patience to wait for returns, could have purchased from the State
all the rest of the land scrip at 50 or 60 cents an acre and sold it
fifteen years later forfour times that amount, or twenty-five years
later fora good deallargersum. But no one embraced the opportunity
of making this future fortune. Now, what any one might have done,
Ezra Cornell and the Board of Trustees did for the benefit of Cornell
University. And because they succeeded in a venture which no one
_ else would touch, instead of congratulations Chancellor Day heaps
obloquy upon them. If Ezra Cornell and Henry W. Sage had used
their foresight and sagacity to make profits out of this scrip for
themselves—scrip bought in open market—scrip anyrone else might
buy—Chancellor Day would not have blamed them, for it is the
object of business men to make profits by their investments ; but
because they have permitted the profits created by their management
to inure to the benefit of Cornell University they have, in the eyes
of Chancellor Day, committed an offense.

Donors of endowments have the right to define the objects of
their gifts. Ezra Cornell stipulated that the profits to be made out
‘of the scrip he bought in the open market from the State, should
_ ‘be funded ‘‘as a donation from Ezra Cornell to Cornell University”’
and the income thereof used ‘‘for the general purposes of said
institution.’’ All this was in accordance with the act of April 10,
1866, and Mr. Cornell’s agreement with the State of August 4, 1866.
And this transaction, so highly meritorious from the point of view

a

of morals and philanthropy, has been judicially confirmed by the
decision of the New York State Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court of the United States in the matter of the estate of Jennie
McGraw-Fiske, 136 U. S., 152. Mrs. Fiske had bequeathed to Cor-
nell University from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 of property. At that
time the charter of the University set limits to the amount of
property it could hold, though the restriction has since been
removed. It was claimed that Cornell University was incapacitated
from receiving the legacy on the ground that its property, including
the profits made on the lands located by Mr. Cornell, already
exceeded the limits specified in the charter. The courts were asked
to rule that these profits on Mr. Cornell’s lands were a part of
the federal land grant and had they done so Cornell University
would have received Mrs. Fiske’s legacy. But the courts held that
those profits were the gift of Ezra Cornell and the absolute property
of the University, and the University accordingly lost the $1,000,000
to $2,000,000 left it by Mrs. Fiske. The decision of the highest court
of our State and the Supreme Court of the United States is final.

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 3:

‘“‘The enormous profits went to Cornell for ‘general purposes.’
That was the way the farmers failed to receive the generous gift of
our Government in the land grant to establish agricultural schools in
this state.”’

The Facts:

It has been shown that the money which Ezra Cornell gave to
Cornell University for general purposes was his own money. He
might have donated it for agriculture, but he did not. But the char-
acter of his donation did not lessen the amount or change the object
of the state land grant fund. Because Ezra Cornell did not, like
other buyers of land scrip in the United States, put his profits into
his own pocket, but chose instead philanthropically to donate them
to a University for its general purposes, must he be charged with pre-
venting farmers from ‘‘receiving the generous gift of our Govern-
ment in the land grant?’’ The value of the federal land grant was
what the scrip would bring when sold, as by the act of Congress it had
to besold, in the open market. And in New York there was realized
on it $688,000. The income of this fund is used by Cornell University
in accordance with the terms of the act of Congress donating the lands,
the fourth section of which provides that the interest on the fund
derived from the sale of the land scrip shall be inviolably appropri-
ated ‘‘to the endowment, support,and maintenance of at least one
college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other

6

scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach
such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the
mechanic arts.’’ Cornell University receives an annual interest of
$34,428.80 on the land grant fund of $688,576.12 and devotes this
income sacredly to the objects specified in the act of Congress.

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 4:

‘“‘Why did they [Ezra Cornell and Cornell University] exact from
the legislature the condition that all of the profits of the sale of the land
scrip, which amounted to over four million dollars, should be used at
Cornell ‘for general purposes’ and not for the purposes designated by
the Government? Simply because they did not wish to make Cornell
distinctively a great Agricultural and Mechanic Arts College but a
general College, a classical and literary University.”’

The Facts:

Any one else might have bought the land scrip of the State at the
current rates, as Ezra Cornell bought a portion of it, and have done
what he liked with his profits, if he ever made any, twenty or thirty
years later. Ezra Cornell chose to donate his hypothetical profits for
the general purposes of Cornell University. It was no injury to our
farmers or mechanics that Mr. Cornell’s gift embraced all members
of the community and all kinds of studies. He wanted a University
for teaching and investigation in agriculture, mechanic arts, engineer-
ing, science, humanities, and every other branch of knowledge. He
had come to formulate his conception in the memorable words: “I
would found an institution where any person can find instruction in
any study.”’ Byaunion of his own resources with the proceeds of
the land grant he saw a way tothe realization of his purpose. This
union was effected by the act of April 27, 1865, establishing Cornell
University, and appropriating to it the proceeds of the sale of the
public lands granted by Congress to the State of New York ; and the
founder’s broad conception of a university was reconciled with the
narrower purpose of the act of Congress donating public lands to the
states establishing colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the
mechanic arts, by providing in the charter that ‘‘such other branches
of science and knowledge may be embraced in the plan of instruction
and investigation pertaining to the university, as the trustees may
deem useful and proper.’’ In the same liberal spirit it was provided
in regard to the board of trustees, that ‘‘at no time shall a majority
of the board be of one religious sect, or of no religious sect’’; in re-
gard to professors and other officers, that ‘persons of every religious
denomination, or of no religious denomination shall be equally eligi-
ble to all offices and appointments’’; and in regard to students, that

7

the university should admit them ‘‘at the lowest rate of expense con-
sistent with its welfare and efficiency,’’ and more particularly that it
should ‘‘annually receive students, one from each assembly district
of the state, . . . and shall give them instruction in any or in all
the prescribed branches of study in any department of said institu-
tion, free of any tuitionfee .. . . in consideration of their super-
ior ability, and as a reward for superior scholarship in the academies
and public schools of this state.” ;

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 5:

“Since 1869, Cornell has received in interest, aside from the in-
come of the more than four millions of profit from the grant for
‘general purposes,’ $1,021,807 for agricultural, mechanic arts and
military instruction. Within ten years Cornell has received by special
legislation $360,000 for a Veterinary School. Within fourteen years
Cornell has received $363,000 by special acts of the legislature, for
agricultural purposes.’’

The Facts:

This paragraph mixes up University funds and state appropria-
tions. The ‘“‘four millions’ is the gift of Mr. Cornell, which the
University owns. The ‘$1,021,807 for agricultural, mechanic arts
and military instruction’’ which, ‘‘since 1869, Cornell has received in
interest,’’ is the aggregate interest for 37 years on the land grant fund
of $688,000 which, as already explained, is the gift of the United
States to the State of New York on certain conditions, one of which
was that the State should hold and invest the fund at 5 per cent
interest and appropriate this income to the state land grant college,
namely, Cornell University. The buildings of the State Veterin-
ary College, erected in 1896, cost $150,e00 ; for the maintenance of
the College the State has since appropriated $25,000 annually. In
agriculture, the State in 1893 erected and equipped a Dairy Building
at acost of $50,000; and there is now an annual appropriation to the
College of Agriculture of $35,000 for the promotion of agricultural
knowledge. The total grants of state money for all these fourteen
years for these several objects are scarcely, if at all, more than some
of the western states have spent on the mere buildings and grounds
of their agricultural colleges.

The item of $363,000 for ‘‘agricultural purposes’ is $28,000 too
great. This error is of itself of little consequence in this discussion,
only as it shows the inaccuracy of Chancellor Day’s information.
In his ‘‘More Reasons,’’ issued March 10, 1904, Dr. Day itemizes
by years these appropriations for ‘‘Agricultural College’; but he
apparently includes $18,000 that was appropriated for the weather

8

bureau and was no part of the agricultural college work, $8,000
appropriated to the State Experiment Station at Geneva, and $2,000
more not appropriated to College of Agriculture.

II. THE FEDERAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No.6:

‘* You [the Legislature] have designated Cornell as the sole ben-
eficiary of the act of the government establishing experimental sta-
tions in this State, thereby shutting out all other colleges present
and prospective from a share of that fund.”

The Facts:

The above statement implies (1) that it would be lawful for
other coileges to receive ashare of the federal experiment station
funds, and (2) that it would have been advantageous for such distri-
bution to have been made.

(1) The federal law specifically states that the funds are to be
used for the establishment of experiment stations in the different
states and territories, under the direction of the colleges founded
upon the land grant act of 1862; but in states having a separate agri-
cultural experiment station established by law, the funds may be
applied also to the work of such station. (‘‘Under direction of the
college or colleges, or agricultural departments of colleges * * *
established * * * in accordance with the provisions of ‘an act
approved July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two’’ ete. ‘‘Such
states shall be authorized to apply such benefits to experiments at
stations so established by such states.”’ The Legislature of New
York could not have designated as recipients of the federal experi-
ment station fund any institution except Cornell University and
the State Experiment Station at Geneva.

(2) No effective research work for agriculture could be accomp-
lished by the division of the fund of $15,000 among several insti-
tutions. Experience since 1887, when the stations were established,
has proved this. Agricultural research work is difficult and expensive.
The number of important questions is increasing daily. The con-
stituency is increasing. Some of the states are now aiding these
federal stations with state grants. The Iowa Station is now asking
the legislature for $65,000.

9
III. THE SCHOLARSHIPS

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 7:

‘The argument presented to you by Cornell in her annual de-
mand for money is that 600 scholarships are being given by Cornell
to the state. Gentlemen, that scholarship business was a bargain and
a transaction to which Cornell agreed cheerfully. If the trustees of
that institution find the contract burdensome, I will agree on behalf
of the trustees of Syracuse University to take them for half the
money that Cornell made on the profits of the land grant sales.”’

The Facts:

The ‘‘bargain’’ was for Cornell University to take one free
scholar from each assembly district. The plan was modeled after
that of West Point. It meant one free scholar at a time from each of
the 128 assembly districts. The State afterwards desired Cornell
University to take four free scholars atatime from each of the
assembly districts. The University willingly acquiesced. Then the
State asked Cornell University to take more than four free students
from certain assembly districts when other districts sent fewer than
four. Instead of 128, this made 512 free scholars. Then the consti-
tution increased the number of assembly districts to 150, and Cornell
University was asked by the State to receive 600 free students.
Chancellor Day says his university would take over these scholar-
ships for half the profits made on the lands Mr. Cornell bougbt in
the open market from the State. Mr. Cornell’s profits were over
$4,000,000, and half that sum at 5 per cent is $100,000. But the value
of the land grant fund, which was the consideration for which
Cornell granted the above free scholarships, was only $688,000, which
brings at 5 per cent, $34,000. On Chancellor Day’s own showing,
therefore, Cornell University presents the State with $66,000 a year.

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 8:

‘‘More than half of the scholarships are used for Liberal Arts.”’
‘‘But of the award of free scholarships, as I have shown you, less than
half of them have gone to agriculture and mechanic arts.”

The Facts:

It is not true that 50 per cent of the free state scholarships have
gone to the College of Liberal Arts. Not even 4o per cent arein it now.
But what hasthat to do with agriculture? All students in Cornell
University studying agriculture (except winter-course students from
outside the State) are given free tuition and always have been ;
these students this year number 276. The 600 free state scholarships,

ie)

four for each assembly district, are in addition to the free in-
struction in agriculture. Over one third of these scholarships are
today held by the students in mechanic arts and engineering.
For the rest, Cornell University has nothing to do with assigning
free state scholars to courses; they go where they choose. The law
simply directs that Cornell University ‘‘shall give them instruction
in any or in all the prescribed branches of study in any department
of said institution, free of any tuition fee.’’

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 9:

‘‘You [the Legislature] began in 1890 to appropriate $5,000 an-
nually ‘for examination certificates, etc., relating to state scholar-
ships.’ I use the exact language. In 1896 you increased that to
$8,000. In 1900 you made it $22,300 and changed the language to
‘for preparing, printing and awarding scholarships, teachers’ certifi-
cates, etc.’ Last year you had increased the amount to $26,400.”
‘‘We are conducting your examinations free of charge. We have given
you the occupancy of our buildings and the service of our professors
without a nickel of expense, for your state bar examinations and for
state teachers’ certificate examinations.”’

The Facts:

Cornell University stands ready so to conduct the state bar and
teachers’ examinations free of charge, and has done it in the past.
Cornell University has never asked the Legislature for an appropria-
tion to examine candidates for its 600 free scholarships. That matter
is entirely in the hands of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the Legislature; the University knows nothing of the methods
or the results until the successful candidates present to the President
scholarship certificates signed by the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction. A part of the above funds is used for awarding ‘‘teachers’
certificates,’’ which has nothing to do with Cornell scholarships.
Cornell University has nothing to do with the cost of holding com-
petitive scholarship examinations. It does not ask for or handle any
part of the appropriation. The matter is wholly in the hands of the
state authorities.

Iv. THE STATE VETERINARY COLLEGE

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 10:

“Tt [the State] pays $25,000 per year for veterinary maintenance
[of the State Veterinary College] and had'in 1903 one professor and

II

one assistant giving exclusive time. The other men employed are
from the other departments and their salaries are pieced out from the
$25,000.”’

The Facts:

The faculty of the State Veterinary College consists of six full
professors and their respective assistants. The names of the full
professors and the titles of their departments (see Register 1903-4)
are as follows :

James Law, F.R.C.V.S., Professor of Principles and Practice of Vet-
erinary Medicine, Veterinary Sanitary Science, and Parasitism.

Simon Henry Gage, B.S., Professor of Microscopy, Histology, and
Embryology.

Veranus Alva Moore, B.S., M.D., Professor of Comparative Path-
ology and Bacteriology, and of Meat Inspection.

Walter L. Williams, V.S., Professor of Principles and Practice of
Veterinary Surgery, Obstetrics, Zootechny, and Jurisprudence.

Pierre Augustine Fish, D.Sc., D.V.M., Professor of Comparative
Physiology, Pharmacology, and Therapeutics.

Grant Sherman Hopkins, D.Sc., D.V.M., Professor of Veterinary
Anatomy and Anatomical Methods.

Professors Law, Williams, Fish, and Hopkins give all their time
to the State Veterinary College and do no work outside that College.
(Dr. Law’s work in the State Veterinary College includes one hour
of lecturing a week in the winter to farmers’ sons who come to Cor-
nell University for instruction in agriculture, horticulture, veterinary
medicine, etc.). These four professors are paid wholly from the
funds of the State Veterinary College. But the departments of Pro-
fessors Gage and Moore, which teach both veterinary students and
medical students in substantially equal numbers for equal times, are
maintained jointly by Corfiell University and the State Veterinary
College. The University pays the salariesof Professor Gage and his
five assistants and all the expenses of his laboratory ; and the State
Veterinary College pays the salaries of Professor Moore and three of
of his assistants, while the University pays more than half of his
running laboratory expenses, pays the salaries of the remaining
assistants in his department, and has spent $1,700 in equipping
his laboratory. It is obvious, therefore, that in the co-operation of
these two departments, the State Veterinary College fund is con-
siderably the gainer. The assistants in all other departments
of the State Veterinary College give their entire time to the College.
Students in the State Veterinary College get instruction in chemis-
try, agriculture, and animal industry from Cornell University with-
out charge. Not a cent of the $25,000 appropriation is used to “‘piece

12

out” salaries of men in ‘‘other departments’’; it is all devoted to the
State Veterinary College.

Chancellor Day mentions 1903 as date. The facts just presented
are for the period from July, 1903, to the present time. For the
year beginning September, 1902, and ending June, 1903, the facts are
substantially the same, though one difference should be specified.
The Professor of Physiology in the Medical College being absent in
Europe, Cornell University appointed junior officers of instruction to
do his work—at a cost to the University of $1,710—under the super-
vision of Dr. Fish of the State Veterinary College. Dr. Fish did all
his regular work in the State Veterinary College and also this extra
work, for which Cornell University paid him an additional salary of

$500.

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 11:

“Kor ten years Cornell has received $25,000 annually for the
maintenance of a Veterinary School. ‘That amount of money would
pay the salary of ten full professors in either of these other colleges.’’

The Facts:

The State Veterinary College is an institution both for teach-
ing and investigation. Laboratories, equipments and supplies are
required. More is demanded of a technical college than that mere
salaries shall be paid.

The research work of the Veterinary College is large. Much of
this work is done for the State Department of Agriculture, notably
in bacteriological diagnosis, inspection of dangerous and insidious
outbreaks of disease, and the like.

Even if the period were ‘‘ten years’’ instead of eight, as it actu-
ally is, a single discovery made last year by the Faculty of the State
Veterinary College, as appears from a report just made to the Legis-
lature, returns all this money many times over to the State. The latest
discovery of the College is of incalculable value to the vast dairy
interests of this State. The owners of cattle know that the improve-
ment which in the past century has been effected in the capacity of
the milch cow has been offset by the increasing liability to milk
fever—a disease which attacks the best milkers only. Nearly all
the best milkers were attacked and the attacks ended fatally in
half or two thirds of all cases. The dairyman lost at once his most
valuable cows, his best milkers, and his highest breeds. Now
the New York State Veterinary College has recently made the dis-
covery that cows affected with this disease are promptly cured by the
distension of the udder through the injection into the teats of
filtered atmospheric air by means of a simple apparatus like the

13

Davidson syringe with an attachment of sterilized rubber tubes
containing a filter of sterile cotton. For the first time in the history
of the dairy industry it now becomes possible to increase indefinitely
the yield of milch cows without exposing them to destruction from
milk fever. There are in this State 1,500,000 milch cows; and if
their present annual yield be estimated at 2,000 quarts each, at a
selling price of a cent and a half per quart, the value of the yearly
return would be $45,000,000. Now the discovery made by the State
Veterinary College of a simple method of overcoming the terrible
bane of milk fever will make it possible to increase greatly the
yield from the same number of cows, perhaps even to the extent
of doubling the present returns.

V. THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 12:

“Tn agriculture there are two professors and one instructor. Six
professors credited to that faculty [of agriculture] are from other
departments or schools at Cornell. In an imposing list of other
officers of instruction in agriculture, there are two stenographers, one
clerk and one matron,—four are from other departments of the
University, and the others are assistants and occasional lecturers.’’
‘The faculties of our colleges, by only small increase in the scien-
tific side, could carry the work. That is the way it is now being
carried at Cornell.”

The Facts:

The above statement implies that there is really no separate
college or faculty of agriculture at Cornell; and that, therefore,
liberal arts colleges can carry agricultural work as well as Cornell can.

The above statements are said to be drawn from the Cornell cata-
logue of 1902-3. The facts are that inthe University Register of 1902-3
there are 5 professors and 14 assistants of various grades (not including
clerks and stenographers), who were exclusively engaged in the Col-
lege of Agriculture. Part of the duties of Professors Roberts and
Wing was to give in each week during one term two and three hours
instruction, respectively, on farm animals to students in veterinary
medicine. For this, no remuneration was made from the funds of the
Veterinary College, notwithstanding Chancellor Day’s allegation that
“other men employed [in the Veterinary College] are from other
departments and their salaries are pieced out from the $25,000 [given
to the Veterinary College].”’

14

The present status of the College of Agriculture is more to the
point, however. The College was reorganized nearly a year ago. In
an announcement of the College issued September, 1903, there are
9 professors who are members of no other faculty ; and there are 19
instructors and assistants (not including clerks and stenographers)
notinany otherfaculty. Since that announcement was issued, James
E. Rice has been added as Assistant Professor of Poultry Husbandry,
this being the second professorship of this kind in the United States.
Other appointments have also been made, so that at the present time
there are in the College of Agriculture 12 men of the rank of profes-
sor and 20 persons of other grades, who are members of no other
faculty. Aside from this agricultural staff, there are many teachers
in other faculties of the University who are giving instruction to.
agricultural students,—thus making one of the strongest instruct-
ing staffs inagriculture in the Union. The names of the persons
who give their time to the College of Agriculture, as teachers or
investigators or both, and are members of no other faculty, are as
follows :

Liberty Hyde Bailey, M.S., Director of the College of Agriculture,

Dean of the Faculty, and Professor of Rural Economy.

Isaac Phillips Roberts, M.Agr., Professor of Agriculture, Emeritus.
Henry Hiram Wing, M.S., Professor of Animal Husbandry.
John Craig, M.S., Professor of Horticulture.

Thomas Forsyth Hunt, M.S., D.Agr., Professor of Agronomy and
Manager of the University Farms.
Raymond Allan Pearson, M.S. in Agr., Professor of Dairy Industry.

Jay Allen Bonsteel, Ph.D., Professor of Soil Investigation (detailed
from Bureau of Soils, United States Department of Agriculture).

Mark Vernon Slingerland, B.S., M.Agr., Assistant Professor of Eco-
nomic Entomology.

George Walter Cavanaugh, B.S., Assistant Professor of Chemistry
in its relations with Agriculture.

John Lemuel Stone, B.Agr., Assistant Professor of Agronomy.

Stevenson Whitcomb Fletcher, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Exten-
sion Teaching in Agriculture.

James Edward Rice, M.S., Assistant Professor of Poultry Husbandry.

George Nieman Lauman, B.S.A., Instructor in Rural Economy and
Secretary to the College of Agriculture.

Samuel Fraser, Instructorin Agronomy and Superintendent of Farms.
Robert Starr Northrop, B.S., Instructor in Horticulture.

John Walter Spencer, Supervisor in the Extension Department.
Anna Botsford Comstock, B.S., Lecturer in Nature-Study.

15

Alice Gertrude McCloskey, Assistant in Extension Department.

Martha Van Rensselaer, Supervisor Farmers’ Wives’ Reading-Course.

James M Van Hook, A.M., Assistant in Plant Pathology in the Ex-
tension Department.

Herbert Hice Whetzel, A.B., Assistant in Plant Pathology in the
Extension Department.

John Washington Gilmore, B.S.A., Assistant Agronomist.

James Adrian Bizzell, Ph.D., Assistant Chemist to the Experiment
Station.

John Main Trueman, B.S.A., Assistant in Animal Husbandry and
Dairy Industry.

Hugh Charles Troy, B.S., M.Agr., Assistant in Dairy Laboratory.

Walter Wager Hall, Assistant in Cheese-Making Laboratory.

Webster Everett Griffith, Assistant in Butter-Making Laboratory.

G. Arthur Bell, Albert F. A. Schlotzhauer, W. F. Burlingame, Assis-
tants in Dairy Industry in Winter-Course.

ra

George Walter Tailby, Farm Foreman.
Charles Edward Hunn, Gardener.

In the face of the above facts, the contention that other colleges
can carry agriculture ‘‘by only a small increase in the scientific side’’
is absurd. Cornell has the ‘‘scientific side’’ to which she has added
the agricultural side. It is this method of ‘‘carrying agricultural
work’’ that has made agricultural instruction so inefficient in the
past.

The Agricultural College at Cornell University has other facili-
ties, than men. It has farms of about 250 acres, and rents nearly
100 acres besides for strictly farm purposes, and it has of livestock
the following :

Horses, £1 work horses, I colt; total number of horses, 12.

Cattle, 7 thoroughbred Holstein cows, 3 thoroughbred Holstein
heifers, 4 thoroughbred Holstein calves, 5 thoroughbred Jersey cows,
3 thoroughbred Jersey heifers, 2 thoroughbred Jersey calves, 2
thoroughbred Guernsey cows, 2 thoroughbred Ayrshire cows, 1
thoroughbred Ayrshire heifer, 7 grade Holstein cows, 2 grade Hol-
stein calves, 6 grade Jersey cows, 1 grade Guernsey cow, I cross-
bred cow, 4 cross-bred calves, 3 common cows, 3 grade Holstein
yearling steers, 5 grade Hereford steer calves, 5 grade Galloway
steer calves, 3 grade Short-horn steer calves, 3 grade Angus steer
calves, 2 grade Holstein steer calves, 1 grade Jersey steer calf, 2 Hol-

stein bulls, 1 Jersey bull, 1 Guernsey bull; total number of cattle, 79.
Sheep, 5 Rambouillet ewes, 5 Delaine ewes, 4 Dorset ewes, 2

Southdown ewes, 19 grade ewes, 1 Cheviot ram, 1 Southdown ram,
1 Dorset ram ; total number of sheep, 38.

16

Swine, 9 brood sows, I boar, 55 fattening pigs; total number
' of swine, 65.

Fowls, more than 450 (not including this year’s hatch), and
comprising eight breeds and 2 breeds of ducks.

The College of Agriculture also has a large equipment of farm
machinery, both for farming use and for instruction ; barns ; forcing-
houses; orchards; poultry houses; probably the best agricultural
college library in the country. These things cannot be procured in
a day or a year. They are matters of slow development. There is
an agricultural spirit, born with Cornell University, that cannot be
developed in one of the old classical colleges in years. There are
four agricultural societies among the students, one Greek letter
agricultural fraternity, one students’ agricultural journal.

If the funds were divided among the colleges of the State, there
would not be money enough in any one institution to develop, equip,
and carry properly any one of the following integral parts of a modern
collegeof agriculture: (1) a faculty; (2) a dairy department; (3)
an animal industry department ; (4) a horticultural department ;
(5) a farm machinery department ; (6) an agronomy department ;
and a number of other units that should bea part of any up-to-date
agricultural college.

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 13:

‘‘The time has passed for building upa great center, a caravansary
to which you are to bring the farmer boys of such a large state as this.
It may be done in some of the states but not in a state so immense as
New York. We want departments of agriculture in connection with
all of our well located and vigorous colleges.”’

The Facts:

Experience must be the only guide in a question of this kind.
Every state and territory has considered the question of agricultural
education and every oneof them has adopted the policy of providing
one agricultural institution. Moreover, it is the experience of every
state that is taking the lead in these questions that no mere attach-
ment to or department in a college can effectively handle the subject
of technical agricultural education. Of all education, that relating
to agriculture is most expensive to equip and maintain. Failure to
recognize this fact is the cause of such unsatisfactory results in the
past, and the leading agricultural states are now beginning to realize
this. When the land grant act was passed, it was a common
opinion that the object of the act could be promoted by distributing
the funds to many institutions, but that ‘‘time has passed,’’ and no one
who is abreast of the times in this respect now seriously advocates
such division. The opponents of Cornell University urged the divi-
sion of the land grant funds in the beginning, and the present oppo-

17

sition is a renewal of that old and outworn controversy. The
tendency in every state is to centralize and strengthen its agricultural
college work, not to divide and weaken it.

How extensive the preparations are in competing agricultural
states may be seen from the following figures of moneys given by the
states for buildings for their colleges of agriculture.

Relative rank of a few states in total agricultural wealth and the
amount that the state has given for buildings for agricultural college
(two or three have given more than the amount indicated):

Rank Buildings
IWiitesotale sso ye 12 $685,000
Massachusetts 25 i) 28 375,000
ev iichicait esecee Nie Sele es 14 365,000
WHS COTISi IIs ee es LE 10 317,000
oneal a ee Sees 2 300,000
Betmnsylivania see. 5 250,000
TUE COV ipa Bade SAIN ee pee eee I 200,000
MGSO Tele ee enom oie cl ne 6 137,000 é
ESkelo as apiece a a 13 135,000
Connecticut 22222 42> Sa 37 100,000
MOMtariou ser soe tT. ote 250,000)

The following figures show some of the provisions that some of
the above colleges make for running and other expenses :

Iowa, annual expenses, regular, $120,000; asking this year for
$536,600, of which $65,000 is for Experiment Station’; $75,000 for
dairy Building ; $25,000 for dairy farm land ; $25,000 for furnishing
and equipping dairy farm and poultry department.

Minnesota, annual running expenses, $113,000.

Illinois, expenses of College of Agriculture for two years from
direct state appropriation, $270,000. Of this, $25,000 is for beef,
pork, mutton, and horse interests ; $10,000 for corn growers ; $25,000
for soil investigations ; $10,000 for orchard investigations ; $15,000
for dairy investigations ; some for buildings.

The promotion of agriculture is peculiarly a work for the state to
maintain. Experience, both state and national, justifies and demands
such work by the government. Private funds are not given to agricul-
ture. Agriculture demands special attention because it is the funda-
mental industry, because it receives only indirect benefits from most of
thel aws that are designed to foster industry and trade, because farm-
ing interests are scattered and therefore incapable of being combined
and syndicated, and because the investment of the individual farmer
is small and he is in a disadvantageous position with respect to other
industries.

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 14:

“Taking a period of the best ten years, from 1893-1902, I find
that during that time there have been 735 students of New York

18

State in Agricultural Courses at Cornell, 492 of whom were in the
eleven weeks courses.”’

The Facts:

It is true that in all agricultural colleges students have been
comparatively fewinthe past. The past generation has been the era
of experiment in agricultural education. It has been along and
laborious process to put agriculture into pedagogic form. No one is
more conscious than the men in the agricultural colleges of the mis-
takesthat have been made. But it has been a great accomplishment
for these colleges to have put agriculture on an equal plane with
other academic subjects and to have aided in the development of
agricultural science and leadership. Now the new time is coming.
Students are coming to these colleges in greater numbers, to Cornell
as well as to the others. The agricultural colleges stand today, in
point of attendance, where the mechanical and engineering colleges
stood ten years ago. The next five years will see greater progress than
the past twenty-five have seen. A few institutions will now leap to
the fore. And this is the very burden of the present agitation,—
that New York State shall keep up with this progress, or, better,
lead it. New York was well ahead until the colleges of the middle
west began to receive generous state aid.

The following table gives the number of students in agriculture
enrolled at Cornell (not including postgraduates, for which the
College of Agriculture is well known) for the past five years:

Figures for the Past Five Years.

REGULAR SPECIAL WINTER TOTAL

1899 — 1900 41 47 83 171
IGO0O — I9OI 48 51 94 193
IQOL — 1902 49 43 96 188
1902 — 1903 60 54 [21 235
1903 — 1904 76 64 136 276

Total enrollment for past five years 1,063

Of the total number of winter-course students from 1893, when
the winter-course was established, 88 per cent are from New York State,
Is will be seen from the above figures that students are now increas-
ing with considerable rapidity.

This contention over mere numbers of students, seems to lose
sight of the fact that a modern agricultural college has many
interests aside from teaching students that come toit. It is alsoan
investigating and research enterprise, and stands ready at all times
to aid in solving the problems and difficulties that arise on the farms
of the State.

19

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 15:

“Gentlemen, the showing is conclusive that you cannot force or
attract farmer boys to an agricultural school at a distance from the
farm homes. Of the short winter course at Cornell, for 1902-03, the
most favorable to farm boys, only sixteen were from any distant
portions of the state,—three only from St. Lawrence County and
three from the western counties. Cornell draws state students from
practically her neighborhood. Farmers are not flush with cash.
They need schools near at hand.”

The Facts?

The following table shows the distribution of the New York
State students in the winter-course in agriculture for the years 1903
(Cornell Register, 1902-03, May) and 1904. This table shows forty-
one counties represented in 1903 and thirty-nine in 1904, and it
shows that the College does not ‘‘draw State students from practically
her neighborhood ’’:

DISTRIBUTION OF WINTER-COURSE STUDENTS FOR 1903 AND 1904

CouUNTY 1903 1904
PAU Ey eyrisyeye ecg tee eae ta ets See cate

EACLE AT Gypsies edema et, © eytee ete Ens ec
Broome

2

4
2

Cayuga, «22 tee a5 | SO ea eee ee
Chautauqua: 222s see ee
ITE T ATT Oe ee ee Mee eee ie hae
Clinton

NU PW BD

A TECTTES Se ae eae sec) Sa ene te as pene
JE SN eA Ee RIES OBE 2s in eg
EL SG Gta NOR haat So Sp eS

I
Welawanrers sae ae ae as ene 9
2
I

etiersontss aisle. ae eee Ue
Igivan esto mises o>. eee een
2 TEES ECG Tr eS Bt See Sa
IMOnrOe a2 a mes at) See aes eee
Monte omeny Soo. © ee -
iNews Morb 7 ose Pit Cee ee ee
INiagaral.. si08 ih ely ind eee BESS 2

OH AN W H
HNNMW HOF HN HDD H

20
Oneida’ isis so eee
Qnondaga) ..%5 2s eee
Ontanioyecis 2 ee ae i Sees
Oran geu 2 ee =e

H NNN

Oswegonis bes a ee
Otsego. 0 ks ae =
Rensselaer 2.222. eel ee
Stsilawrence 22. 4. as eee
Schenectady us-202 205 (aan eae
Schoharie(s 273 c20162 i) a eae
Schuyler yoo 2A een
DeHECa eo. ne A
Stem Dem |e ee eee

rT
NIH H HH NN WH ©

RHO rPN DN DAH N YW
aS

‘Tomplsitisy 2. See a
Ulster

Hone wf

eH Nee PON bd

Wates( 2 2022 ro Se
In 1903, 102 New York students; 19 from outside the State.
In 1904, 122 New York students, and three others not accounted
for by county, making 125 state students; 11 from outside the State.

VI. ALLEGED MISUSE OF EXTENSION FUNDS

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 16:

‘Thirty-five thousand dollars of it [state appropriation] is used
to advertise Cornell among the farmers under the name of ‘institute
work.’’’ ‘‘ ‘Institute lecturers,’ paid by Cornell out of the $35,000
appropriated by the Legislature to promote agricultural knowledge
in the state, have scoured the state for at least two years to secure
resolutions, petitions and letters to influence favorable action upon
this bill. The opposite side has been carefully concealed.’’—‘‘ More
Reasons,’ issued March ro.

The Facts:

Cornell University has nothing whatever to do with the manage-
ment of the farmers’ institutes. The institutes are a part of the
work of the State Department of Agriculture, for which a separate
specific appropriation is made to that Department.

PAM
The College is glad to send members of its staff to speak at
farmers’ institutes, but sends them only when requested to do so by
the Director of Farmers’ Institutes (who is an officer of the State
Department of Agriculture. )

VII. ATTITUDE OF FARMERS

Allegation of Chancellor Day, No. 17:

‘But it is argued that this billis urged by the farmers throughout
the state. That movement is not spontaneous, but has been worked
up during the past two years, adroitly. You know, gentlemen, how
petitions are managed. Give me ten hours and I can get a petition
to electrocute within the next thirty days every member of this
honorable committee.”’

The Facts:

The best refutation of this charge is contained in the remarks of
W. N. Giles, Secretary of the State Grange, at the hearing before the
Finance Committee of the Senate on the occasion when the charge
was made. Mr. Giles said:

“T had the honor two weeks ago to be present when the. resolu-
tion that was passed by the State Grange was under discussion, and it
is somewhere in your possession now. And we have published to the
world among other things that we are in favor of an appropriation
of $250,000, for an agricultural building at Cornell University. That
is the exact position of the State Grange.

“JT will say this, that that resolution [the resolution passed by
the New York State Grange recommending a legislative appropria-
tion of $250,000 for an agricultural hall for the College of Agriculture
of Cornell University] and the one that preceded it a year ago
were not the workof any ambassadors from any one college to
this grange, nor of the worthy Master Norris, who has been
called away, nor of the leaders of the Grange, but our organization
is composed of hundreds of bodies, and they have been working on
and investigating this matter, and it came up before the State Grange
a year ago at Syracuse, and at Cortland, and the Grange recom-
mended the establishment of this agricultural college at Cornell.

‘‘Now then, it may be cunning advertising, as has been said here,
but I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that aside from the arguments
which we believe to be in favor of its establishment there, why we
are in favor of it as an organization. First of all, its prime duty is
made by the act of its inception to teach agriculture. What we get
there is something practical that fits a man better for his work, somie-

22

thing that teaches in the right direction practically. We did not
know that we were doing that for advertising purposes. We felt
ourselves that it would be a great benefit to us, and incidentally, per-
haps, we were at the same time advertising Cornell University.

“Now, turning to the other institutions in the State there is no
other institution that we know that can furnish us that practical edu-
cation in agriculture that Cornell can.

“T want toset the worthy doctor [Chancellor Day] right in this
matter. The Grange did after full consideration of the long letter of
Professor Chapin pass this resolution: ‘Resolved, That the New
York State Grange regards it to be of prime importance to the wel-
fare of the Hmpire State that we keep abreast of the educational
movement of the times by building and. equipping a first-class college
of agriculture and that we hereby call on our representatives in the
Senate and the Assembly to pass the bill now before them appropri-
ating $250,000 for the College of Agriculture at Cornell University.’ ”’

The state and general societies that have signed a plea for this
bill, in the person of their presidents, are as follows :

State Dairymen’s Association.

State Agricultural Society.

New York State Grange.

State Breeders’ Association.

Western New York Horticultural Society.

State Fruit Growers’ Association.

State Sheep Breeders’ Association.

Shropshire Sheep Association.

State Association of Beekeepers’ Societies.

State Poultry Society.

State Association of Agricultural Societies.

Patrons of Industry.

The farmers do not care for any contention between colleges:
they want the best possible facilities for agricultural education, and
naturally they turn to the only college or universily in the state that
has done anything in the teaching of agriculture, and which must, by
the terms of its charter and its contract with the state, always teach
agriculture.

The movement is an agricultural movement, it is spontaneous,
and it is abiding. The new agricultural education must come ; noth-
ing can stop it, unless we stop the laws of evolution and of progress.

VIII. STUDENTS IN SEPARATE AGRICULTURAL
COLLEGES AS COMPARED WITH THOSE IN
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES CONNECTED
WITH UNIVERSITIES

In the hearing before the Finance Committee on March 15, 1904
in the interest of a proposed agricultural college at Cobleskill, state-

23

ments were furnished the Cobleskill representatives purporting to
show the great superiority in number of students of the separate
college over the agricultural college connected with a university.
Nothing can be more deceptive than the figures there presented.

Without explanation or correction, these figures seemed to show
conclusively that agriculture does not thrive in connection with uni-
versities, but they are wholly unreliable for such comparison. These
separate colleges are founded on the land grant act. They teach me-
chanic arts, and other subjects, as well as agriculture; yet in the
figures presented before the Finance Committee all the students at-
tending such colleges are treated as if they were agricultural students.
For example, the Michigan College is cited as having 504 students in
regular courses ; but only 190 of them are in agriculture, and yet the
whole number is set over against the specific agricultural students in
Cornell. If the total number of regular students in these Colleges is to
be compared with the number in Cornell, then the mechanic arts,
civil engineering and some other students in Cornell must also be in-
cluded. This would make the Cornell showing very different from
that given before the committee. The institutions with which the
Cornell College of Agriculture is compared are spoken of as ‘‘distine-
tive agricultural colleges,’’ but with one or two exceptions they are
not so. There is no ‘‘Ilowa State College of Agriculture’’ for exam-
ple: the institution is the ‘‘Iowa State College of Agriculture and
Mechanic Arts.’’ In the catalogue of this institution for Igo1-2,
there are 858 students in regular courses, of whom 193, or about 23
per cent., are agricultural. The departments of this institution in
which special degrees are given are agriculture, veterinary medicine,
mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, mining engineering,
civil engineering, technology, science, domestic science ; yet the reg-
ular student body of this college is set over against the specific College
of Agriculture at Cornell !

But these thriving colleges of the middle west all have liberal
state aid. They are also in regions in which agricultural sentiment
is at present more dominating than in the East.

Once it was thought that agricultural education could not thrive
in connection with a general university. That time has now passed.
Finally, agriculture has taken its place along with other educational
subjects. It is dignified by association in such institutions. The
separate colleges are themselves developing into what are practically
universities, with great breadth of courses.

ARY OF eit

NM

Laying aside all the foregoing considerations, the essen-
tial question would still remain, “What is to be done for ag-
ricultural education in New York State?” It is admitted by
nearly everyone that something must be done by the Legis-
lature. The farmers will not rest until the question is solved.
There are three ways: 1. To distribute state money to
several or many institutions. In this case no one institu-
tion would have funds enough to accomplish anything
wotth while. Every one of these institutions would be
impelled, if it did anything at all, to endeavor to build up a
full-equipped college of agriculture, and there would be end-
less conflict in asking for legislative aid. 2. To establish a
separate state agricultural college. A separate college would
cost the State an immense sum to equip and maintain, for
all the fundamental branches would have to be duplicated
there. It would be years before such a college could develop
its work and attain standing. And such a college would
also be a competitor of the other colleges of the State.
Such a college would inject one more element of conflict
and dispute, for the mutual obligations of the State and
Cornell University would remain the same as now. 3. To
aid the College of Agriculture of Cornell University. This
is the continuation of a policy on which the State has
already entered, and which the farmers of the State and
the state agricultural societies approve. Cornell University
opposes no educational program on which the State may
desire to enter. It will work in harmony with any and
every institution in the State. It believes that the aid
now asked of the Legislature is justly due it because of the
peculiar relations existing between the State and the Uni-
versity, that the request is in the interest of the agricultural
people of the State, and that the granting of it will not
prejudice any other interests.

24

L. H. BAILEY,

Director of the College of Agriculture
of Cornell University.

Ithaca, N. Y., March 18, 1904.

Hollinger Co
pH 8.5 ie