In the course of the next few years the agricultural stations grew rapidly. Much of the research conducted by them was especially adapted to their particular States. The accomplishments proved of inestimable value to the farmers. It soon became apparent that the experiment stations were not only a tremendous asset to the agricultural industry in the States, themselves, but also to the Nation as a whole. But the work of the stations had been devoted largely to the experimentation connected with the verification of principles and truths already fairly well established. The time had arrived for original research into entirely new truths. To prosecute such work, the facilities of the stations were inadequate and the funds for the employment of trained specialists in the various fields of agriculture were lacking. The situation became so acute that an appeal was made to the Federal Government for increased support. Henry C. Adams, member of the House of Representatives from Wisconsin, undertook the task of securing the enactment of a law giving additional aid to the stations. He introduced a bill for this purpose in Congress in 1904, but it made no progress. In the following session, Mr. Adams again presented his measure, which was favorably reported by the House Committee on Agriculture in January, 1906. Within a short time it passed both the House and Senate unanimously and was signed by President Roosevelt in March, 1906.

The Adams Act provided for the appropriation of $5,000 in 1906 to each agricultural experiment station with an increase of $2,000 annually for five years until a maximum of $15,000 was reached. With the new subsidy under this act added to the $15,000 already received under the original Hatch Act, the support of the agricultural experiment stations by the Federal Government now amounted to $30,000 annually. The additional funds, however, were to be utilized exclusively for original researches, the act specifically stating that they were to be "applied only to paying the necessary expenses of conducting original researches or experiments bearing directly on the agricultural industry of the United States, having due regard to the varying conditions and needs of the respective States and Territories." 14 As in the case of the other acts, the grant was made conditional upon its acceptance by the legislatures of the States.

In the beginning of the twentieth century public interest became aroused to the advantage of establishing industrial, vocational, and agricultural instruction in the secondary and elementary schools. As a result manual arts, nature study, home gardening, and similar courses of practical studies were introduced into the public schools. It was necessary to train teachers for the work and the land-grant colleges were called upon to perform this function. In many of

14 Adams Act, 1906.

the institutions teacher-training courses in mechanic arts and agriculture had been inaugurated to meet this need and were being successfully conducted, but the growing activities of the colleges and their enlarged enrollments made it difficult to secure effective results with the insufficient funds available. It was therefore necessary to seek further assistance from the Federal Government. Through an amendment made to the appropriation bill of the Department of Agriculture in 1907 by Senator Knute Nelson of Minnesota, it was proposed that an additional $25,000 be appropriated annually by the Federal Government for the support of the colleges. The measure, known as the Nelson amendment, provided that $5,000 should be appropriated the first year and $5,000 additional for the ensuing four years until the total annual sum reached $25,000. Its terms were practically identical with the provisions of the second Morrill Act with the exception that the colleges were given the right to "use a portion of the money for providing courses for the special preparation of instructors for teaching the elements of agriculture and mechanic arts." 15 The amendment upon being presented by Senator Nelson met with approval in the Senate, but difficulty was encountered in the House of Representative where it was first rejected. Later after considerable debate, however, it was adopted by a substantial majority. President Roosevelt approved the act in May, 1907.

In the gradual evolution of the idea of the democratization of higher education, it soon developed that women had been entirely omitted from the scheme. With the modern movement for the full recognition of women on the same basis as men in the social, industrial, business, and governmental affairs of the Nation, a demand was made that they be included in the program of the land-grant colleges. Through the scientific research conducted by the institutions, it was soon found also that the results of these investigations were directly applicable to food and nutrition of the human being. The possibilities of offering courses of instruction on the scientific preparation of foods in the home developed. At the same time it was realized that through the introduction of practical instruction in other phases of domestic science and household economy, the land-grant colleges would be enabled to enlarge the scope of their work to include women in the great movement of democratized higher learning. As early as 1875 the Iowa State Agricultural College and the Kansas State Agricultural College were offering courses in cooking and sewing with some lectures on the chemistry of food and nutrition. Other landgrant institutions inaugurated similar courses. Later when the State

15 Nelson amendment, 1907.

legislatures began to make larger appropriations for the maintenance of the institutions and it became evident that they were to depend upon public taxation for their support a general demand was made that the colleges become coeducational, that women be admitted on the same status as men, and that instruction be provided to prepare them for home and domestic duties. Alfred Charles True describes the situation as follows:

In 1890 only four land-grant colleges had departments of home economics, namely, those in Kansas, Iowa, Oregon, and South Dakota. In the next 15 years such departments were organized in 18 of the land-grant colleges for white students. With the exception of the institutions in Connecticut and Tennessee these colleges were in North Central and Western States.1o

An important impetus to the development of home economics instruction for women in the land-grant institutions came in 1910 with the action of the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations in the appointment of a committee to prepare a 4-year course in home economics. This committee outlined a curriculum, which was later adopted by many of the institutions already offering courses for women and by additional land-grant colleges that had not previously included home economics in their programs. But the greatest stimulus that was to make home economics instruction a permanent part of the educational system of the land-grant colleges was to come later.

As is evident from the preceding review, the activities of the landgrant colleges had been confined chiefly to resident instruction and to agricultural research. During the first decade of the twentieth century a number of institutions adopted the policy of developing various forms of extension and adult education, such as lectures by their instructors to gatherings of farmers, speeches at county fairs and farmers' institutes. As a result of these irregular and desultory educational activities, the plan was conceived of an organized and systematic direct service to the great mass of rural people in connection with their immediate practical problems. The outgrowth was the third great epoch-making event in the history of the land-grant colleges, the enactment by Congress of the Smith-Lever Extension Act. It had already become evident that the institutions could not reach the mass of industrial classes and the rural populations through resident instruction. Only a limited number of young men and women could attend college. But the college could be sent to the people. Instruction could be given not by the routine processes of the classroom, but through practical teaching conducted by representatives of the institutions who would actually live in the local communities and 10 True, Alfred Charles. A History of Agricultural Education in the United States, p. 268.

whose business it would be to aid the farmers and their families in the problems of agriculture and homemaking confronting them. The plan presented the opportunity of providing education to great multitudes of people, of developing better agriculture, of advancing farming methods and finally of improving home and community life. Although it was contrary to the cherished academic tradition of higher education with its admission requirements, class attendance, and college credits for all students receiving instruction, the idea of democratization of higher education conceived in the original landgrant college movement would find fuller realization in this comprehensive plan of direct public service. A particular phase of the plan was that women were for the first time recognized and home economics instruction was to be furnished them.

Such an undertaking could only be accomplished through the expenditure of large annual sums. The creation and maintenance of a vast organization of representatives of the colleges in each of the counties in the different States would involve immense outlays. The Federal Government took the initiative by offering to appropriate half of the funds necessary for the support of the enterprise, while the other half was to be provided either by the States, counties, colleges, or through individual donations by residents of the State. By this acton the States were stimulated to cooperate in financing the plan. Representative Asbury F. Lever, of South Carolina, introduced a bill in the House of Representatives covering the proposed new type of extension education in 1912. At the same time Senator Hoke Smith, of Georgia, presented a similar measure in the United States Senate. Although opposition developed to the granting of further Federal subsidies and a number of amendments were made to the bill, it was finally passed by both houses of Congress and became a law in May, 1914, when President Wilson affixed his signature to it. The Smith-Lever Act, which was to have the profound effect of bringing millions of people into direct contact with the land-grant colleges, described specifically the cooperative extension that was to be performed by the institutions in the following

terms:

That cooperative agricultural extension work shall consist of the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture and home economics to persons not attending or resident in said colleges in the several communities, and imparting to such persons information on said subjects through field demonstrations, publications, and otherwise; and this work shall be carried on in such manner as may be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the State agricultural college or colleges receiving the benefits of this act.18

See Vol. II, Part VII, Extension Services, for further details of Smith-Lever extension. 15 Smith-Lever Act, 1914.

To meet the expense, the sum of $480,000 for each year was appropriated out of the Federal Treasury, $10,000 of which was to be paid annually to each State provided the legislature assented to the terms of the new law. The act further appropriated an additional sum of $600,000 for the fiscal year following, and for each year thereafter for seven years an additional sum of $500,000, and for each year thereafter there was permanently appropriated the sum of $4,100,000 in addition to the original sum of $480,000. The additional sums were to be paid to each State in the proportion which their rural population bears to the total rural population of all the States. The provision of the act which placed the payment of the cost upon a 50-50 per cent basis was as follows:

That no payment out of the additional appropriations made herein provided shall be made in any year to any State until an equal sum has been appropriated for that year by the legislature of such State, or provided by State. county, college, local authority, or individual contributions from within the State, for the maintenance of the cooperative agricultural extension work provided for in this act.18

The colleges were required not only to submit plans for the extension work to the Secretary of Agriculture for his approval before the Federal funds were available for expenditure, but they were also to arrange with the Secretary of Agriculture for a definite organization for carrying on the work. Within a short time after the enactment of the law, a memorandum of understanding was drawn up and signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the presidents of 46 land-grant institutions. The memorandum provided for the following plan of conducting the new cooperative extension service:

First. That the State shall organize and maintain a definite and distinct administrative division of the college for extension work.

Second. That the head of this division, commonly called extension director, shall administer all the extension work in the State as the joint representative of the college and the department.

Third. That all funds for extension work in agriculture and home economics shall be expended through such extension divisions.

Fourth. That the department shall cooperate with the extension divisions of the colleges in such work done by the department in the States.1o

All of the States accepted the provisions of the act through their legislatures. Within a short time the new type of cooperative extension was organized in the institutions. Agricultural and home. demonstration agents were appointed in many of the counties in the different States. Practical education in agriculture and home economics was carried from the colleges to the people.

18 Smith-Lever Act, 1914.

19 True, Alfred Charles. A History of Agricultural Education in the United States. P. 289.