Imagens das páginas

eliminated. On July 17, 1913, the Board of Education voted to concentrate all engineering instruction at Bozeman except that in mining engineering.

North Dakota.-There has been agitation looking toward concentration of engineering at our institution but a commission appointed two years ago reported in favor of maintaining engineering courses at both institutions.

Oklahoma.-There has been in the past some discussion of the necessity of consolidation of engineering work to avoid duplication but nothing has been done and the question is not now before the public. The boards of control are constitutional bodies.

Oregon.-There is a movement to consolidate the engineering work at one institution and present indications are that this will be accomplished.

This idea was strong enough four years ago to cause the enactment of a law creating a State Board of Higher Curricula. Two years later the board transferred all mechanical engineering to the agricultural college, and during the past summer called upon the university to show cause why the remaining engineering courses should not also be transferred. A final decision is expected in December.

The plan of consolidating both institutions at Corvallis has also been under consideration.

The Board of Higher Curricula does not have the functions of a board of control, each institution having its own board, but it does have the power of determining the field to be occupied by each of the higher institutions.

South Dakota.-The question of avoidance of duplication has been but is no longer, alive. On the contrary the establishment of engineering courses at the School of Mines is contemplated.

All institutions are under one board of control created by the legislature.

Michigan. The question of duplication of engineering instruction at the University and at the Agricultural College is frequently raised in various quarters. Governor Osborn went so far as to hold joint consultations with the presidents of the two institutions and of the College of Mines with the view of ascertaining the desirability of taking more active steps, but nothing was formulated. Certain papers of the state decry continually the fact that all the resources of the Agricultural College are not devoted to agricultural work, and there are always evidences of the same feeling in the legislature. No single legislature can compass a change in the status because the governing board of the college is a constitutional body with full power in the matter of curricula and fields of work to be occupied.

The University is similarly governed and both institutions believe in the statu quo.

The legislature last winter was unusually active in its opposition to engineering education at the Agricultural College and accompanied a very liberal increase in the mill tax for the support of the college with a rider providing that the benefits of the increase should not accrue to the college in case more than $35,000 annually from any source whatever, should be expended in the maintenance of the engineering departments.

This proviso if effective would be a body blow, because the cost of educating engineering students last year was nearly $100,000.

The governing board considered very carefully the situation thus created and decided after competent legal advice to ignore the provisions, so notified the state officials and made the usual appropria

tions to the engineering departments. The supreme court will doubtless be called upon to decide the issue but the college authorities feel that the position is technically as well as morally sound and have no fear of the outcome.

Evidently, the status of engineering in land grant colleges in some states is by no means well defined, and evidently, also, there are many different plans proposed or being tried for fixing its status.

In conclusion the writer holds at present:

1. That if institutional consolidation of the higher state educational interests is desired, the Montana plan is better than the Iowa plan where it is impracticable to consolidate all institutions at one place. 2. That geographic centralization is highly desirable and should be followed in those states where the plants of the several institutions are not yet so large as to cause serious embarrassment from abandonment of one or more.

3. That the isolation of higher agricultural education and experimentation at the land grant colleges entirely aside from the consequent necessity of sharing the federal funds with another institution would be a mistake from whatever angle such a situation may be viewed.

Narrow vision of students and instructors and limited usefulness of the institution adopting such a policy would inevitably result.

Dean Bissell's paper was discussed briefly by Dean A. Marston, of Iowa, and Dean A. W. Richter, of Montana, who amplified the statements made in the paper regarding their respective institutions. Dean Richter described the changes so far effected by the operation of the reorganization law in Montana.

CHAIRMAN BISSELL.-Further discussion of this topic will be postponed for a few minutes, because it is possible to realize a promise made to us this morning that we would have with us this afternoon the United States Commissioner of Corporations. It gives me great pleasure to present Hon. J. E. Davis, United States Commissioner of Corporations.

Mr. Davis said in part: It has occurred to me, and I think it has occurred to others, that there is an imperative need in our modern industrial society of some governmental agency, with a very substantial appropriation, the purpose of which should be to advance the industrial arts from the point of view of invention of machinery, utilization of fabrics and all of those things which go to effect the economies of the manufacturing industry; in other words, that the state should assist in doing those things for the common good which large aggregations of capital are now doing for their own profit.

In my judgment, there are no better agencies for such a work than our state universities. Some of our universities, and particularly great state universities have already conceived the idea that one of their most useful functions lies along such lines and are constituting themselves as state agencies for the study of new processes, new methods, and new ways of utilization of by-products; and the significant fact is that the results of this study and experimentation are turned over in common to all men for the benefit of society. The small and the large business men share alike in the benefits accruing, in sharp contrast to the experimental investigation of a single business organization carried on for the sole purpose of enlarging dividends. Some great economies have been already perfected and some great contributions made to the industrial and agricultural welfare of this country through our universities. From my knowledge of

what has been accomplished by the University of Wisconsin and my knowledge of the character, temper and ideals of the men who constitute its faculty, I am convinced that the state universities can be agencies for great good in this way. It is a splendid conception of service and is a development of the academic ideal along lines of practical helpfulness. This tendency is going to become more marked in my judgment as our modern industrial life becomes more complex. Men engaged in academic work will have the additional incentive of the knowledge that their work will have a great and immediate practical usefulness and service. You technical engineering men on the faculties of our great universities here today have in this field a wonderful opportunity before you just opening up,-an opportunity for service which is a constant and unlimited challenge to your brain and to your heart.

CHAIRMAN BISSELL.-I am sure I voice the sentiments of this body when I thank Mr. Davis for being with us and for the message that he has given us.

At 3 p. m. Dean Edward Orton, Jr., of Ohio, took the chair.

CHAIRMAN ORTON.-Gentlemen, the time has come to take up the next topic, but we have been favored with the presence of Hon. Louis F. Post, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor, and I am going to ask him at this time if he will kindly give us a few words. We recognize the close relationship between mechanic arts and labor and we hope that he also does.

Secretary Post delivered a very interesting address dealing with the functions of his department and its relations to other departments. He was thanked by the chairman.

CHAIRMAN ORTON.-I see we have with us our Vice-President, Hon. P. P. Claxton, United States Commissioner of Education, and I am sure we would be glad to hear a word from him.

Mr. Claxton then addressed the organization, giving the members a most cordial invitation to make use of and visit the Bureau of Education, closing with the remark that the motto of the bureau is, "I serve."

CHAIRMAN ORTON.-The topic which appears next on the program is "What Can Land Grant Colleges Do to Aid State Governments in Highway Experimentation Work; Industrial Safety, Including Mine Safety; Fire Preventions; Control of Public Utilities; Stream Conservation and Flood Control; Forestry; Industrial Efficiency," and my name is the first on the program.




There are hardly any limits to this question, either as to the amount of discussion that it may inspire, or to the actual work that the colleges can do for the state. The practical limit to the latter is really not for the college to set. It really is a question of how much the state wants done, for the college is largely the creature of the state which can assign to it practically any task.

Of course, it is perfectly apparent that under no ordinary circumstances would a state legislature impose upon a state owned and state supported college a duty which would be out of harmony with

its fundamental duty of teaching its students. Such a situation would be likely to be temporary in any case, for the people would not return a legislature to power which had made such a use of its authority. But, assuming that its teaching duty is held inviolate, the state may ask the college to do anything that it needs done and for which the equipment and personnel of the college seem suitable. As to what kind of duties a given state may ask its particular college to undertake, it is not possible to set limits. Each state has problems peculiar to itself. No two states would want assistance in just the same way. The question still recurs: What is the rational and reasonable means that the average state, if there be such a thing, can ask the average land grant college to do for it, besides to teach? I should like to say that the answer is: Whatever there is to be done which requires investigation, study, research, and invention, and for the doing of which there exists no specially equipped bureau or department of the state's machinery.

I view the state's highest school as a complex and wonderfully potential tool, to be made use of by its master for doing the things for which no other way has been provided. But it is an expensive tool as well as a sensitive one, and it cannot be kept busy very long on routine work, or in doing things which can be made routine without losing its edge. One cannot afford to keep an expensive milling machine on a shaper's job, especially if there is a lot of gear-cutting piled up and waiting.

Many of the states have, until recently, failed to get the vision of what their colleges can do for them in the way of expert advice, or study of the state's problems in every field of endeavor, or in the way of installing and putting into operation new methods of doing the state's business. But in the last ten years, and still more in the last five years, they have been increasingly realizing the usefulness of their schools and their faculties. They are now likely in their sudden access of enthusiasm to ask and expect the colleges to do things that are not profitable things for a college to do. In such cases, the college ought to have the courage of its convictions and like any other good servant, manifest by its behavior that it disapproves of the judgment of the master, though not to the point of refusal.

(1) Highway Work.-Taking up specifically the topics suggested in the list given by the secretary, I may say that I do not approve of using a state college for highway work, except as above indicated, viz., for doing what the state highway commission cannot do through its own laboratories and its own routine force of engineers, testers and clerks. In states where no highway commission exists, it is right and proper for the college to throw open its laboratories and do the work, in order to stimulate the interest of the public, and show them what good can come out of intelligent engineering supervision of road building. But when such pioneering shall have made the commission possible, the college ought to rejoice in letting go of the task, for the road building of a state is a big task, worthy of the best efforts of big men, and with plenty of money and help back of them, and no man whose mind is primarily occupied with pedagogic affairs can give adequate attention to the duties of a state highway engineer. In a well equipped highway laboratory, there is provision for executing thousands of tests per annum of stone, brick, or sand, or cement, or bitumen, or what not. These tests naturally must follow the lines of standard, commercially acceptable methods, since they deal with the rights and profits of the seller as well as the buyer. But, who makes the standard? Who adjusts the standard process of testing to fit the case, where new or unusual materials are brought

into consideration? The engineer in charge, presumably, is able to do such work, or lay it out to be done by his helpers, but he is apt to be a busy man, and if he does it, it is apt to be done with a view to getting something that is workable and with the minimum of time, and to stop at that point. It is better, in my opinion, that this problem should be sent out to the college laboratory, where routine is not so pressing and where the thoughtful, open-minded and more leisurely mode of attack will be applied and where there will be more effort to reach the best way, rather than one that will only answer the purpose.

Every highway commission is certain to have its own problems arising out of the character of the terrane over which it operates, the character of its rocks and soils, and the selection of the best material for the money. Some of these problems the commission can settle best for itself. Others, it can relegate to the college. No rule can be laid down, other than the rule that the college and the highway commission must know each other's organization, equipment, personnel and respective capacity for work and use each other accordingly. It goes without saying that such contact is of the utmost importance to a college, for the purpose of keeping its teachers alive and upto-date. If the laboratories of the commission are located at the university, it is likely to be a good arrangement, but the control should be separate.

(2) Industrial Safety.-This means the definition of and enforcement of industrial hygiene, as well as the prevention of such violent and accidental events as mine explosions, train wrecks, and the like. It is a large order for any engineering school to attempt to regulate or even to point out the way to regulate the practices of mankind on these matters. There are numerous bureaus in most states charged with the duty of handling these very topics, viz., the State Board of Health, the Mine Inspection Bureau, the State Labor Commission, the State Insurance Department, the State Employers' Liability or Workmen's Insurance Department, the State Railroad or Public Utility Commission, the State Boiler Inspection Department, the state boards which deal with the licensing of engineers and plumbers, and various others. In no state has public safety been fully considered and all the necessary divisions of the state service to administer it satisfactorily been provided for, in the beginning of things. The way these departments have grown up in the different states varies very greatly. Some states do little-others a great deal. Some states in their sudden zeal to protect life and health are passing laws which proprietors of factories indignantly denounce as confiscatory and impossible of execution. The pendulum is swinging, and as pendulums will, it is likely to swing past the point of rest. We are probably doing just now a good deal that is crude and hasty, but we ought to remember that for centuries past we have been cruelly indifferent to life and health among the working people. We must also remember that we are practically certain to encounter in various ways the opposition of the beneficiaries of all this protective legislation. The people object very strenuously to being saved, wherever the process interferes with what they are pleased to term their personal liberty, by which they mean their privilege to do anything they have been accustomed to do, without regard to its possible ill effects on others.

In this field of duty, the sociologist, the statistician, the actuary, the political economist, the biologist, the physician, and the clergyman have as much to give, or more perhaps than the engineer. The latter deals with the hazards of materials, of machines, of processes

« AnteriorContinuar »