« AnteriorContinuar »
agitated to have such a school established, and such a one was established about 1889, an agricultural school, so-called. Brown University had the funds, however, from the United States government, and immediately contention arose as to whether the state institution would be allowed to avail itself of that money. Litigation went on for several years. The up-shot of the matter was that the legislature had to really buy back its rights to the Morrill fund, and gave Brown University, as I remember, $40,000 for that right.
DEAN TALIAFERRO.—$40,000 a year?
DEAN WALES.—No; $40,000 completed the bargain. That returned the rights to the Morrill fund to the state college for both agricultural and engineering purposes.
DEAN TALIFERRO.—Is there any institution in which the entire land grant fund, having been given to it for agriculture, a portion of it has been taken from it later and given for the purpose of engineering, to some other institution?
SECRETARY BISSELL.—I do not think of any. I do not believe there is a final judicial decision on the question. I have not heard of a United States Supreme Court decision on the transfer of funds.
DEAN TALIAFERRO.—In the beginning, of course, I think there was some separation of the funds in Massachusetts, was there not-originally?
DR. H. W. TYLER (of Massachusetts).—There was a separation there originally, which still obtains. In partial answer to your previous question, it will perhaps be of interest to mention that when the Hatch act was passed, the agricultural college sought to secure the entire appropriation. That was held in litigation for two or three years, but ultimately it was decided on the same basis with the original grant: two-thirds for the agricultural institution and onethird for the engineering institution.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-All these points are valuable, and should be put in printed form, so that they will be available in any state where the question comes up. I ask you all to help Dean Covell. I presume the report of President Kerr to which he refers is too lengthy to be printed in our proceedings. Is it, or not?
DEAN COVELL.-President Kerr's brief is a very lengthy document, and goes into the statuts of the land grant college very thoroughly, making quotations from speeches of prominent men and of members of Congress while the acts were pending. It quotes a number of letters from Senator Morrill himself, and, altogether, is very comprehensive. If it could be incorporated in the minutes of this society, I am sure it would be a valuable addition. As to whether it is too long or not, I am not able to decide.
PRESIDENT THACH.—What is the size of that report or brief?
DEAN COVELL.-It is a brief submitted to this Board of Higher Curricula that I spoke of, during the controversy between the agricultural college and the university.
PRESIDENT THACH.—The argument?
DEAN COVELL.—Yes, the argument that President Kerr presented to the Board of Higher Curricula.
DEAN TALIAFERRO.—Is it in such shape that it can be gotten?
DEAN COVELL.—It is in typewritten form. There are quite a number of different copies. I have one for my own use and about the college are quite a number of others.
PRESIDENT THACH.—I would like to call attention to the address of President Kerr, which he delivered about four years ago, covering very nearly the same ground, one of the most admirable expositions
of the land grant college I know of, when he was president of the A. A. A. C. E. S.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-We have a summary of that in our last proceedings.
DEAN COVELL. —This brief has been written since, and goes into the matter more comprehensively even than President Kerr's former paper.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-I suggest that we pass a resolution requesting our secretary or the people who have charge of the publication of the proceedings for the next year, to investigate the question of the feasibility of obtaining and publishing President Kerr's brief.
DEAN L. S. RANDOLPH (Virginia).-I think that is very important and I move the resolution suggested be adopted.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.—We have a motion by Dean Randolph that we refer the feasibility of obtaining and publishing President Kerr's brief to the secretary.
DR. TYLER.—1 second that motion.
DEAN HEWITT.—I think most of the institutions would be very glad to have their assessments raised a little, if necessary, for the sake of having this brief published in the next proceedings.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-I believe it would be extremely valuable material for us to have.
Some one has told me that Dean Votey was personally acquainted with Senator Morrill and has discussed this subject with him, man to man. I would like to ask Dean Votey to tell us whether my information is correct or not, and what his impressions were.
DEAN VOTEY.—Your information is incorrect, Mr. President, so far as discussing this matter with Senator Morrill is concerned, because at the time when I knew Senator Morrill the matter was really not up for consideration discussion. We had not reached a point where we needed to discuss, as we do now, exactly what is meant by “mechanic arts." At the time when I knew him the matter was centering more on the development of agriculture, as engineering had pushed ahead of agriculture. It was more the question of what was to be done under this bill with agriculture, as agriculture then consisted very largely, in the United States, of botany and agricultural chemistry, as has been mentioned. Therefore the exact meaning of “mechanic arts” was not up for consideration.
Later, however, I think that was brought more and more to his attention, as the field of engineering began to widen and the importance of the work to be realized, and the matter came up, I think, in some respects as something of a new subject to the senator himself, because I do not think that the senator or, in fact, any of the members of Congress at the time really understood exactly what they were passing on at that time. Fortunately, however, they chose a word that has been broad enough to enable others to read into it a good many things that they would have approved of, but they did not themselves foresee at the time. I can say, in regard to the senator, that up to the time of his death he retained an intense interest in the work, in watching its development in the different states. He himself, as you perhaps know, was brought up a poor boy in the country, on the farm, and living in a farming community, he realized the disadvantages that the farmers' boys had under the old systems of education, with practically only the purely classical institutions available, and it was to open out a wider field for the farmer's boy along the agricultural and industrial lines that he was directing his efforts. I think he perhaps would have made use of
the word "industrial,” if he had not used the term "mechanic arts" as conveying what he had in his mind at the time.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-Dean Votey's remarks bring out one point which I think should be emphasized, and that is, that the use of the term "mechanic arts" was very fortunate. I believe that if the law were to be written anew now that would be the term used rather than any more limited term, such as "engineering," for example. I believe that in the future development of mechanic arts subjects will be taught whose names are not known to us at the present time. If we were to suggest courses in aeronautical engineering at the present time, it would certainly seem perfectly reasonable to most of us, in view of the recent developments in that line. It would have seemed just a foolish fancy if it had been suggested at the time Sena. tor Morrill introduced his act.
As has been stated here today, the use of the word “agronomy" in connection with agriculture was absolutely unknown at the time the act was passed. It was wise to use the broad terms, such as "agriculture” and “mechanic arts,” and to use the term “college" for the nature of the institution. The meaning of the term “college” differs from generation to generation. Fifty years from now "college” may mean something quite different from what it does at the present time.
In this connection I wish to call attention to one published document bearing on this subject, which has not been mentioned; that is, a report by a board in North Dakota. I would like to ask Dean Keene if he cannot tell us something about it. I have among my papers at home a report made by the board in North Dakota which conducted an investigation along these lines.
DEAN KEENE.—I cannot give you exactly the words of that report. It is to the effect, I believe, that engineering may be taught in both institutions but I have looked on the arrangement as a temporary condition. I am very much interested in all this discussion, because it is understood that this question is to come up in North Dakota, and in some way the matter of engineering will be decided between the university and the agricultural college.
The lines of engineering are maintained in the two institutions practically equally, with the exception of civil engineering.
It happens in the state organic law that in defining the curriculum in the agricultural college it states specifically that civil engineering should be taught, and mentions no other line of engineering. This board has made no definite report, advocated no definite law, and the policy to be pursued in North Dakota is yet to be developed. It is pretty well understood that the question will come up probably in the legislature that will assemble this winter.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-I was under the impression that there is a printed report. It is stated in the proceedings of our last meeting that a commission appointed two years ago reported in favor of maintaining engineering courses at both institutions, which is in accordance with my recollection of the printed report at home.
DEAN KEENE.—That was for the time being, but it seems to be pretty thoroughly understood that that question will come up again.
DEAN WALKER.—I may speak of one thing, which I presume will be found fully covered in the brief which Dean Covell has mentioned. In connection with the discussions in Congress preceding the adoption of the second Morrill act it is very clearly pointed out that the intention of those who took part in the discussion was to put no limitation whatsoever, at the time the second Morrill act was passed, on the expansion, if it could be termed an expansion, of the use of the federal funds to develop engineering and related sciences.
The report of the committee which reported the Morrill act out for consideration by Congress, has appended to it reports from the presidents of several of the land grant colleges, stating the value of the work that was being done by the use of federal funds in engineering, mathematics and various of the natural sciences, and further in the discussion an amendment was introduced providing for the accounting of the use of the funds, showing explicitly what departments were benefiting or would be benefited by the expenditure of the funds of the second Morrill act.
There was considerable objection on the part of many of the senators to any limitation whatsoever.
Senator Morrill introduced an amendment to the bill as reported out of the committee providing, as nearly as I can quote the words— and I want to be understood that I am speaking from memory entirely—that the funds might be used for the benefit of instruction in physics, chemistry, natural sciences, mathematics, economics and English.
I think all of these were specifically mentioned in the amendment that Senator Morrill proposed. There was considerable objection on the part of senators to what appeared to them to be a limitation of the expenditure of these funds for these specific departments, in addition to the general mention of agriculture and mechanic arts, which was referred to in nearly the same language as in the original act. In the course of the discussion it developed that the limitation calling for an accounting was added to the bill while it was in committee; was not in the original bill as framed by Senator Morrill, and this amendment which Senator Morrill introduced on the floor of the Senate was intended, as developed in the discussion, to remove any misunderstanding that might be brought about in the minds of some, that the money could be used only for mechanic arts and agriculture.
He wished to bring out the fact that it could be used for any of the sciences or other subjects that were of benefit in the education of the young man of the country in these land grant institutions. Some of the speakers went so far as to state that there should be no limitation on the part of the federal government of the discretion of the local state authorities as to the way the federal funds should be expended; that new branches of science were going to develop from time to time; that this money ought to be available for instruction in new branches, branches that were not even considered at that time, and that the greatest freedom of discretion should be allowed the state authorities in expending the federal funds.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-In connection with Dean Walker's discussion I want to call the attention of the members of the society to the fact that on pages 24 and 25 of the proceedings of last year are three original letters from Senator Morrill, which were written, two of them in the same year and one of them in the following year after this discussion and action by Congress, which really set the seal of the approval of Congress at that time upon his interpretation of the meaning of “mechanic arts.” So that, although this was nineteen years after the passage of the original act, yet by a former act of Congress, passed in 1890, the approval of Congress was given to the interpretation of "mechanic arts" which has been named.
There does not seem to be any desire for further discussion at this time. A motion to adjourn is in order.
Whereupon an adjournment was taken until 9 o'clock on Thursday, November 12.
9:00 A. M.
Thursday, November 12, 1914. PRESIDENT MARSTON.—The topic this morning is Engineering Extension Work. The first paper is by Professor Moyer of the Pennsylvania State College.
ORGANIZATION FOR ENGINEERING EXTENSION WORK.
PROF. J. A. MOYER, STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA.
I accepted the invitation of your Secretary to speak on the subject of “Organization for Engineering Extension Work" with the idea of telling you of the methods used in Pennsylvania.
In a number of respects the methods differ from those adopted in other states, and many of these differences are probably due to local conditions.
In the first place, the extension work conducted by the Pennsylvania State College is not in charge of a general director. On the other hand, the organization resembles the "commission form of government,” with each “commissioner" devoting himself to his specialty. The "commission" or committee on extension work consists of the Director of Agricultural Extension as chairman, the Director of Engineering Extension, the Dean of the School of Mines and the Director of the Summer Session for Teachers. This form of organization was decided on by the Committee of the Board of Trustees of the College on Extension Work. I believe the reason for adopting this sort of organization, which, by the way, is similar to the Harvard system of departmental organization, wasthat it could operate more economically when only relatively small appropriations were available, than an extension organization, more or less distinct from the present faculty and in charge of a general director. It should be stated also that many men in our college and elsewhere who are much interested in extension work are strongly of the opinion that a special extension staff in charge of a general director is undesirable. Doubtless local conditions will often have a great deal to do with the decision between a centralized organization and the "commission” or committee method. I am not arguing for either method, but merely explaining how extension work is conducted in Pennsylvania. As the extension activities of the Pennsylvania State College are, therefore, organized, the extension work in engineering is officially in charge of the Division of Engineering Extension, without a special staff, except the teachers employed in the local districts or centers where classes have been organized. Nearly all the instructors giving engineering extension courses in Pennsylvania are graduates of first class engineering schools. Of those teaching in night schools in industrial centers a large number are designers or draftsmen who have had several years of experience in practical work. We are very careful in selecting these teachers and they are then put on practically the same basis as regards the conduct of their work and the giving of examinations to their students as resident instructors in the college. In fact, the names of some of them who devote practically all their time to engineering extension classes appear in the regular faculty lists. There is this difference, however, in that the courses given to extension classes are very much more completely outlined than they would be for a resident in