such as will not be made elsewhere. These tests and these tables, so furnished, will give us, when reported and collated, as is provided for in this bill, a rational induction of principles upon which we may expect to establish a proper science." "Among such problems," he continued, "we need to test the natural capability of soils and the power of different fertilizers; the relative value of different grasses for flesh, fat, and milk giving purposes; the comparative value of grain, roots, and hay for wintering stock; the value of a bushel of corn, peas, carrots, potatoes, or turnips, in pounds of beef, pork, or mutton; deep plowing as well as draining; the vitality and deterioration of seeds; breeds of animals; remedies for the potato disease and for all tribes of insects destructive to cotton, wheat, and fruit crops." He referred to attempts made to meet the need of such institutions. "In our own country the general want of such places of instruction has been so manifest that state societies and individuals have attempted to supply it, though necessarily in stinted measure. The 'plentiful lack’ of funds has retarded their maturity and usefulness; but there are some examples like that of Michigan, liberally supported by the state, in the full tide of successful experiment." If the measure under discussion were passed, institutions would spring into life "where men do not decay. . . . It may be assumed that tuition would be free, and that the exercise of holding the plow or swinging the scythe-every whit as noble, artistic, and graceful as the posture of the gymnastic or military drill—would go far toward defraying all other expenses of the students. Muscles hardened by such training would not become soft in summer or torpid in winter; and the graduates would know how to sustain American institutions with American vigor." Such grants as he was recommending were merely a recognition of the importance of agriculture to the people and the government of the United States. “Mr. Speaker, when a money pressure overtakes the country, like that through which we are just passing, in searching for its causes no one thinks of charging it upon agriculturists. They are not only industrious but frugal. Thrift is their cardinal virtue. They do not produce, vend or consume luxuries. They hasten slowly, and go untouched of all epidemical speculations. But when the crisis comes-when commerce, manufactures, banks, and even Government itself, quail beneath the storm, all eyes turn to the hardy tillers of the soil for relief. They stand, as they always stand, with enough for themselves and something to spare. They furnish raw material, freight, means of liquidation or of supply; and yet when they might be even more useful, shall we pronounce them unworthy, and deny the opportunity?" European countries- Prussia, Russia, Saxony, Belgium, England, Ireland, Scotland, France, and Austria—were doing something for the development of scientific agricultural and mechanical education. If the importance of agriculture and foreign example warranted the passing of his measure, there was no constitutional objection to the bill, for Section 3 of Article 4 of the Constitution provided that "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." By virtue of this power "Congress has long asserted the right to dispose of the public lands to establish school funds and universities, and no one now questions the soundness of such a policy." This led to a review of the public land legislation since the foundation of the federal government and the absence of objection to such a disposition of a part of them as this measure contemplated. Finally, he quoted extracts from letters and messages of Washington, Jefferson, and others in favor of a national university, and pointed out that "Jackson was the steadfast friend of agriculture, and the first in 1887, to call into the Patent Office a practical farmer [Mr. Ellsworth] to collect statistics. . . . There can be no question that General Jackson and the men who coöperated with him would have approved of grants of land to all the states for the benefit of agricultural colleges." In conclusion Mr. Morrill made an appeal to the House to "Pass this bill and we shall have done Something to enable the farmer to raise two blades of grass instead of one; Something for all who desire to own land; Something for cheap scientific education; Something for every man who loves intelligence and not ignorance; Something to induce the father's sons and daughters to settle and cluster around the old homestead; Something to remove the last vestige of pauperism from our land; Something for peace, good order, and the better support of Christian churches and common schools; Something to enable sterile railroads to pay dividends; Something to enable the people to bear the enormous expenditure of the national government; Something to check the passion of individuals, and of the nation, for definite territorial expansion and ultimate decrepitude; Something to prevent the dispersion of our population, and to concentrate it around the best lands of our country-places hallowed by church spires, and mellowed by all the influences of time-where the consumer will be placed at the door of the producer and thereby Something to obtain higher prices for all sorts of agricultural productions; and Something to increase the loveliness of the American landscape." Mr. Morrill, having finished his speech, offered a substitute for the original bill which he had introduced on December 14, striking out all reference to the territories and providing for double computation in case of lands whose value was raised by railroad grants to double the minimum price. Two days later, on April 22, the "morning hour" again making its appearance on the House calendar, the House resumed consideration of Mr. Morrill's bill, the question pending being on seconding the demand for "the previous question." This parliamentary motion has the effect, if adopted, of cutting off all debate such as is specifically provided for by the rules, and is an order to the Speaker to put to the House immediately all motions that are before it in regard to the bill, and these motions being disposed of, to take a vote upon the question, "Shall the bill pass?" The Speaker reminded those who protested against the motion that a demand for "the previous question" was not a debatable motion, and that nothing was in order but a vote upon whether that demand should be agreed to. The "previous question" was ordered, and henceforth it was certain that a definite vote upon the bill would occur. Altho the rules of the House permitted it to order "the previous question" at any time and thereby close the general debate, it was ruled by the Speaker that the adoption of this motion did not deprive the member reporting the bill of his opportunity to be heard. Mr. Cobb of Alabama, who had reported the bill unfavorably from the Committee on Public Lands, was therefore entitled to the floor before the Speaker should begin to put the motions concerning Mr. Morrill's substitute to a vote. Mr. Cobb began by calling the attention of the House to "the strange course the bill had taken" since it was reported from the Committee on Public Lands. "I was under the impression," said Mr. Cobb, "that other gentlemen besides the gentleman from Vermont would have an opportunity to address the House upon the question; but motion after motion has been made, until the question has been unexpectedly forced upon us for a direct vote." Mr. Cobb then reminded the House that the Committee on Public Lands had determined "to husband the public lands and to economize their grants, in order to husband the means which the government is to receive from the sale of those lands," and had been opposed to the bill. The report of the committee, which he read, was an argument against the constitutionality of federal grants in aid of education in the states, and also, if the constitutionality of the measure was waived, an objection against the bill as being opposed to a wise policy of husbanding the public lands to safeguard the revenues. On these two subjects Mr. Cobb spoke at some length, contending in the first place that the bill was unconstitutional, and second, that the measure was unjust because the different states would benefit differently and unequally. The report did not discuss the educational aspects of the bill. Mr. Cobb having finished, the rules now required the Speaker to put to the House the pending motions. The first motion was Mr. Morrill's, to recommit the bill with his substitute to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. Morrill evidently concluded that this was bad parliamentary tactics, as the adoption of "the previous question" enabled him to get a vote immediately upon the passage of the bill, and he asked permission to withdraw the motion, but opponents of the bill, angered at the cutting off of debate, objected, and the motion had to be put. Mr. Morrill then appealed to the friends of the bill to vote down his own motion, and in such good discipline were the supporters of the measure that the motion to recommit was voted down 105 to 93. The substitute offered by Mr. Morrill, which had never been before a committee, was then adopted, and the Speaker informing the House that the question was upon the passage of the bill, the bill was passed by a vote of 105 to 100. In this way, thru Mr. Morrill's ability in handling parliamentary procedure, a bill which had been reported unfavorably by its committee was passed eight days later with practically no discussion of the real merits of the bill on either side. It will also be noticed that the bill as passed had never even been considered by a committee, and that the two speeches which the House was allowed to hear did not discuss the essential character of the measure. Mr. Cobb, in opposition, never alluded to the educational question involved, and Mr. Morrill, altho he spoke generally of the value of agricultural education, did not inform the House concerning the aspect which the education provided for in the bill was to take. His speech was a strong appeal, in the diction of an older generation, to do "something for the farmer." The bill was received in the Senate on the same day in which it was passed by the House of Representatives, and it was referred on the following day to the Committee on Public Lands. Its consideration was not unduly delayed by the committee, for on May 6 Senator Stuart of Michigan reported it back to the Senate. In doing this Senator Stuart made the unusual statement that "in view of the circumstances existing in the committee," he reported the bill without any recommendation either favorable or unfavorable. It transpired later in the course of debate that the "unusual circumstances" referred to were an even division of opinion among the senators voting in the committee. Senator Stuart, on May 19, asked the Senate to consider the bill. Senator Pugh of Ohio objected. He said that the bill carried "probably the largest proposition for the donation of public lands that has ever been here," and he recalled to the Senate that "it has never been favorably recommended by any committee of either house.” Senator Stuart insisted upon his motion, and by a vote of 28 to 24 the Senate agreed to take up the bill. But when this vote had been announced, the time had arrived for the consideration of another bill by special order, and Senator Stuart, in order that the agricultural bill might remain before the Senate, was compelled to make a new motion that all special orders be set aside. It was one thing, however, to occupy the "morning hour" with a measure, and quite another thing to displace the appropriation bills and other great legislative questions until this same measure was disposed of. Senator Clay held that the bill could not pass without debate, since it was a bill "which the Democratic party of the country has been committed against for thirty years." Senator Stuart told the Senate that the bill would not consume much time, as there would be almost no debate. Senator Mason of Virginia warned the Senate of the seriousness of taking up the bill. It would occasion debate, he said. The advocates of the bill could not hope to get the bill thru smoothly. The bill inaugurated a new policy, "being a direct appropriation from the Treasury for the encouragement of schools of agriculture." He intended to point this out and expose the character of the bill. It was absurd to say that the bill could pass without debate. The Senate then, by a vote of 29 to 26, declined to lay aside the regular order of business, and the bill, being laid aside for that day, did not reappear in the Senate during the remainder of the session. As soon as the House assembled for the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Congress, Senator Stuart announced on the floor that he would ask the Senate at an early day to consider the Agricultural College Grant Bill, which had been "reported back favorably" from the Committee on Public Lands. This was on December 6, 1858. On December 15 he fulfilled his promise and moved that the Senate take up the bill. Again he declared that he thought there would be little discussion. "What I desire is, on my part, and I think I may speak for the friends of this bill generally, not a discussion upon the question, but a vote upon it." It was pointed out by Senator Fitzpatrick to Senator Stuart that Senator Pugh of Ohio and Senator Johnston of Arkansas, both members of the Committee on Public Lands, and strongly opposed to the bill, were unavoidably absent from Washington, and he was asked to postpone his motion. He declined to do so, and the vote in the Senate stood a tie, 24 to 24. Vice-President Breckinridge thereupon exercised his constitutional right to vote, and casting a vote in the negative, the bill was not taken up. When, however, on the following day, December 16, Senator Stuart asked the Senate to fix a day for the consideration of the bill, there was little opposition, and it was made a special order for December 21, at one o'clock. It was not until December 23 that the Vice-President, pursuant to the special order, laid the bill before the Senate, but Senator Fitzpatrick of Alabama again moved that it be postponed. He referred to the continued absence from the capital of Senator Pugh and Senator Johnston, and denied the statement made early in the session by Senator Stuart, that the bill had been favorably reported from the Committee on Public Lands. Senator Stuart replied that it had received the sanction of the committee. It was true, he said, that at the formal vote on the report of the bill, the committee was a tie, but since then a senator on the committee who had not voted had given his adherence to the bill. The Senate, by a vote of 28 to 20, laid the bill aside. The measure did not again appear upon the records of the Senate until February 1, 1859. On that day Senator Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio asked the Senate to consider the bill, and appealed to the Senate to "do something for agriculture." Forgetting that the bill had passed the other chamber by a margin of only five votes, Senator Wade urged as a reason for favorable consideration that "it has received the sanction of the House of Representatives by a great majority." Voting 30 to 26, the Senate agreed to take up the bill, and Senator Pugh of Ohio addressed the Senate in opposition. Senator Pugh denied the constitutionality of such a grant as was proposed by this bill, and quoted President Pierce to the effect that there were but two precedents for such action: in 1819 Congress had granted a township of public land to Connecticut for an asylum for the education of the deaf and dumb, and in 1826 a similar grant had been made to Kentucky for an insane asylum. In the Thirty-third Congress it was true that both Houses had passed a bill making a grant similar to the one contained in the pending measure, only that the grant then was to the states for insane asylums instead of for agricultural colleges. The Houses had been unable to resist the |