« PrejšnjaNaprej »
number of years later. In Table 1 are shown the dates when the colleges were organized in each State and the dates when they were opened to students.
Of the land-grant colleges that were established as new institutions by their State governments in complying with the terms of the first Morrill Act, five were opened to students within 1 year after the acceptance of the act by the State, five in 2 years, two in 3 years, three in 4 years, five in 5 years, two in 8 years, two in 9 years, one in 10 years, two in 14 years, and one in 17 years. A number of these colleges have developed into the great State universities and leading technical and engineering schools of the present day. The State of California within two years after the legislature had received the Federal land grant accepted the gift of a site and property of a private college at Berkeley and established the University of California. The State Legislature of Illinois in the same year that the act was accepted organized the Illinois Industrial University, and within a year it was opened to students. The name was changed in 1885 to the University of Illinois. In Indiana delay in the organization of the land-grant college was due to a fight in the State legislature over its location, which continued through two sessions of the legislature. Finally, in 1869 John Purdue offered to donate to the State 100 acres of land and $150,000 in cash, which was accepted together with other private gifts, and Purdue University, at present one of the prominent engineering schools in the country, was established.
In Massachusetts the State legislature, immediately upon accepting the land-grant endowment in 1863, divided the fund, conferring one-third of the income on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and two-thirds on the Massachusetts Agricultural College. Although both of these institutions had been previously chartered, they were not opened to students until several years later when they received the Federal land grants, so that they actually owe their establishment to the first Morrill Act.
The inception of Cornell University also dates back to the original land-grant college act. The State Legislature of New York accepted the grant in 1863, but a contest developed as to whether the endowment should be given to the State agricultural college at Ovid, which had failed, or the proposed People's College. Although People's College received the fund, it was never established, and in 1865 the State legislature altered its decision, conferring the entire endowment on Cornell University, a new institution organized by Ezra Cornell, which was opened to students in 1868.
The Ohio State University was likewise founded as a result of the first Morrill Act. After accepting the land scrip from the Federal Government in 1864, the State legislature wavered for six years between several plans for the division of the endowment. In 1870 the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College was definitely organized and located at Columbus receiving the entire land-grant endowment. This institution was reorganized by the State legislature in 1878 and became the Ohio State University.
In the case of the States which turned over the annual yield from the land-grant endowment to State-supported institutions of higher learning already in existence at the time of their acceptance of the act, State universities were the beneficiaries in 10 instances. Colleges or departments were added to their organization to provide the required agricultural and mechanic arts instruction. Six of these State universities were the first organized in the history of the United States, the University of Georgia being founded in 1785, University of Vermont in 1791, East Tennessee University in 1808, University of Missouri in 1839, University of Wisconsin in 1850, and the University of Minnesota in 1851. Although in active operation, the income from the land-grant endowment and the introduction of the practical type of education as provided under the first Morrill Act proved a genuine impetus to these struggling State universities. The four other State universities endowed by their State legislatures with the land-grant funds were organized at a later period, the States being Territories at the time of the original passage of the act. Six States conferred the endowment upon agricultural colleges already organized and operating, four of which were the Michigan State College established in 1855, Maryland Agricultural College in 1856, Iowa Agricultural College in 1858, and tne Pennsylvania Farmers' High School in 1855, its name being then changed to the Agricultural College of Pennsylvania. It has already been pointed out that these colleges were the forerunners of all the agricultural and mechanic arts colleges created under the first Morrill Act and were the first of their kind in America. The other States designating State-controlled agricultural and mechanic arts colleges to receive the benefit of the endowment were New Mexico and South Dakota. In both of these cases, the colleges were organized while these States were still Territories, South Dakota not receiving the Federal grant until 1889 when it assumed statehood and New Mexico in 1898.
The States that adopted the plan of making private universities and colleges the beneficiaries of the land-grant endowments created under the first Morrill Act were Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. In the case of
5 See Part IX, Agriculture, for more complete history of early agricultural colleges.
Connecticut the act was accepted in 1862 and in the following year the annual interest was conferred upon the Sheffield Scientific School at Yale University. The State, however, decided to organize its own land-grant institution in 1881 and established the Storrs Agricultural College, the name of which was later changed to the Connecticut Agricultural College. Income from the Federal grant was transferred from the Sheffield Scientific School to the new State college, but not without legal difficulties and until damages amounting to $154,000 had been paid by the State to Yale University. Through an arrangement made with Dartmouth College for the conduct of an agricultural and mechanical college, New Hampshire granted this private institution the annual yield from the land-grant endowment in 1866. No change was made until 1903 when a State university was organized at Durham and became the State's land-grant institution, the organization being removed from Dartmouth College and the income from the endowment withdrawn from it. Rutgers University, a private college, was made the recipient of the yield from the grant in 1864 by the State Legislature of New Jersey and has continued to receive it ever since. The State of Oregon accepted the first Morrill Act in 1868 and two years later the State legislature designated Corvallis College, a private institution, as a beneficiary. In the year 1885, the Senate assumed control of Corvallis College, reorganized it as the Oregon Agricultural College and made it the official land-grant college of the State. After receiving the land grant from the National Government in 1862, Rhode Island conferred the income on Brown University on the condition that it maintain a scientific department. This private institution continued as the beneficiary until 1888 when the Rhode Island College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts was established at Kingston by the State. Upon the withdrawal of the fund, Brown University protested, took the question into the court and received $40,000 for the surrender of its claim. At the time of the acceptance of the Federal grant by South Carolina in 1872, the State legislature was under the control of negroes and Claflin University, a private negro institution, was named to receive the income from the funds. Later when the whites resumed control of the State government, a State-controlled land-grant college was organized under the name of the Clemson Agricultural College in 1889 as a result of a trust left by Thomas G. Clemson.
It is evident from this brief review that notwithstanding the various plans put into effect by the State governments for the organ
• See Vol. II, Part X, Negro Land-Grant Colleges, for details of land-grant endowment conferred on Claflin University.
ization of the institutions, a State-controlled and State-supported land-grant college was finally established in every State in the Union. The first Morrill Act, therefore, was directly responsible for the creation of a nation-wide system of colleges maintained by public taxation and designed to democratize higher education and provide scientific and practical knowledge to the great mass of people.
The difficulties encountered by the States in selling the land and scrip, in creating the land-grant endowments, and in organizing the colleges were nothing in comparison with the problem of initiating and conducting them. Innumerable obstacles immediately developed in this untried venture in education. The educators placed in charge of the colleges disagreed as to the type of institution that was to be conducted. Some took the view that they were to be operated as mere trade schools with little or no attention given to higher education. It was also urged that much attention be given to blacksmithing, carpentry, and similar handicrafts. In agriculture it was proposed in some instances to devote the major part of the time of the students to actual farm work. Others insisted that their work should be devoted entirely to higher education of a new type. William H. Jordan, former director of the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, described the situation in the following language:
When the organization of the colleges was announced the public looked for the arrival of education as something new under the sun, an open sesame to greater prosperity, a pancea of industrial ills, and when it was announced that the courses of study in the Maine State College contained subjects previously taught in the classical institutions it was asked in public print: “ Why this new college, these things are already taught?” It was charged that agriculture had been betrayed in the house of its friends and that the faculty was not in sympathy with the purposes for which the new institution was established. In addition, the arguments favoring vocational education exalted the skilled hand as an essential element in its development, a doctrine sound enough in theory but badly misapplied in practice.
There was also much discussion of the meaning of the term mechanic arts, as incorporated in the first Morrill Act. A number of the leaders of the movement who favored the establishment of col... leges devoted exclusively to the teaching of agriculture, insisted that the proper interpretation of the term was “mechanic arts as applied to agriculture." Others took the position that “mechanic arts” meant engineering, and still others gave it the broad meaning of trade education. So great was the misunderstanding that an appeal was made to Mr. Morrill, himself, to explain his real intent in promoting the passage of the act. In 1867, Mr. Morrill was invited to the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University, which was receiving the income of the land-grant endowment in Connecticut, to confer with the faculty on his interpretation of the law. In the following summary is presented the results of the conference from notes taken by Professor Brewer, a member of the faculty.
7 See l'art X for early history of engineering in laud-grant colleges.
Mr. Morrill stated that he wished the bill to be broad enough so that the several States might use it to the best advantage. For this a wide latitude of use was necessary. The general wants and local conditions were very different in the different States and for the best use of this fund there must be much variety allowed to the details, although all the colleges should be the same in spirit and essentially of the same grade, that is, colleges in whicn science and not classics should be the leading idea.
He did not intend them to be agricultural schools. The title of the bill was not his, and was not a happy one. A clerk was responsible for the title. He expected the schools to be schools of science rather than classical colleges ; that the schools be, in fact, colleges and not institutions of lower grade, not mere academies or high schools. We asked upon this matter in considerable detail because there was much talk in some of the States of dividing the sum for lower-grade schools.
He said that the bill was purposely and carefully planned so that the old colleges might use this as an aid in expanding in the direction to give them more science teaching or that new colleges might be organized as the conditions and needs in the several States might demand. There were classical colleges enough. More science was needed in every State.
But in all he wished as a prominent feature the “ useful sciences " be taught and that where the natural influences of the studies might have less tendency to draw the students into purely literary and professional pursuits. He “thought at least one college in every State should teach military science.” 8
While the controversy over the interpretation of the land-grant act and the objectives of the colleges raged, the work of inaugurating and operating them was commenced by the various States. No sooner had the colleges been started than it was discovered that no experienced teachers could be found to give instruction in the proposed new type of agricultural and mechanic arts education. It was also found that practically no scientific and technical knowledge existed upon which to base the proposed courses of instruction. Then began a period of trials and tribulations that extended over several decades. The work of most of the colleges in the beginning was of secondary grade except for the classical instruction which was borrowed from the old institutions and included in the curricula. As there were few high schools existing in the different States, students were admitted from the elementary schools and given instruction in preparatory subjects in the colleges. Pioneering conditions existed in many of the States adding to the difficulties of the struggling institutions.
8 From A History of Agricultural Education in the United States, by Albert Charles True.