rather more definite lines by means of selection, these selections to be made from the crops grown under field conditions, the poorer groups being eliminated rather than the superior individuals selected; (3) systematic breeding and selection, starting from the individual, according to the method used by Professor Hays at the Minnesota Station; (4) breeding or selection for resistance to disease, insect attacks, hardiness, etc., in which individuals are selected here and there and the attempt made to perpetuate the desirable traits and at the same time to keep up the general quality by crossing with approved varieties; (5) improvement through crossing and hybridizing, to be followed by systematic and rigorous selection; and (6) breeding experiments undertaken primarily to test the application of recognized theories, to study correlations of vegetative parts with certain qualities, and to secure a basis for generalizations on the principles of breeding.

These different classes manifestly differ widely in their character and their value, from a scientific standpoint. What classes of this work should be properly regarded as investigation, and where should the line be drawn between the work of the plant breeder as an expert on the one hand and that of the seedsman and nurseryman on the other? The stations have shown the possibility of improvement along lines which were not thought feasible, have produced a considerable number of valuable strains of varieties, and have contributed toward the methods in this line of work. The question arises, Should they go on improving and adapting our common field crops to local conditions and special purposes, and regard this as scientic investigation; or should these specific improvements be left to the commercial man and the more intelligent farmer, while the station devotes itself to some of the more difficult phases of breeding, and to trying to develop some of the principles and fundamentals which will be of broad application and will tend to make our breeding more sure and less hit-and-miss than at present?

In feeding we find (1) experiments proposed which in themselves amount merely to the ordinary comparison of different foods and rations, in shortperiod experiments, and upon that indefinite thing designated the management and handling of feeding stock; (2) isolated digestion experiments made merely to add to our fund of data; (3) experiments to study the effect on digestibility and the utilization of food, of certain specific feeding stuffs, and the combinations of different classes of feeds; (4) experiments made in connection with analytical studies and digestion experiments, to study the nutritive values of various feeds, the animal being the measure in such cases; (5) studies of the specific effects of different kinds of feeds, as certain grains and by-products, upon the qualities of milk and dairy products, the limit of cotton-seed-meal feeding to pigs; and (6) studies of the effects and functions of particular constituents, as the ash and the protein, the protein requirement, metabolism of nutrients, and the theory of animal nutrition in general.

Instances might be multiplied and extended to all branches of agriculture which show a great difference of opinion as to what constitutes research, and mark every gradation from isolated experiments of purely practical import to investigations of the most abstract character. They indicate that the subject needs careful and detailed study and can not be disposed of offhand. One difficulty lies in the complex character of our agricultural problems. They have not been subdivided and classified as in the case of the pure sciences, and in many cases our work is inconclusive and does not bring our knowledge up to a definite point or stage. In a sense it has been unsystematic, leaving our knowledge so fragmentary that there is often difficulty in determining whether a given topic is an original one or not.

At the present time your committee finds it impracticable to lay down specific lines along which the Adams fund may be properly expended, and limits its recommendations to those of a general nature, leaving the more detailed statements to a later time.

Perhaps the following statement, adopted at the Chicago meeting, sets forth the ideas of the committee as tersely and clearly as is at present possible:

It is evidently the intention of the Adams Act to provide the means for carrying on investigations of a relatively high order with a view to the discovering of principles and the solution of the more difficult and fundamental problems of agriculture. To this end it is very desirable that careful attention shall be given to the choice of definite problems to be studied and the methods by which the solution of these problems is to be sought. Investigations in connection with which there is good reason to expect the establishment of principles of

broad application should be preferred to those which have only local or temporary importance or from which only superficial results are to be obtained.

The ideal college should be symmetrical, in that it is equally developed in all lines. A station need not be symmetrical. One or two strong departments are better than many weak departments. In selecting the lines of work due reference should be given to the special needs of the State in which the station is located, but the lines of work adopted should be only such as have a reasonable expectation of leading to the establishment of principles of broad application. These lines of work need not be new lines. Indeed, strengthening lines of investigations now in progress may be fully as important as the establishment of new lines.

At the present time we must confine ourselves to general principles in selecting the line of research to be taken up under the Adams Act.

To be sure that these lines are in the scope of the Adams Act, it will be necessary for the station administration to clearly understand what constitutes research.

Only a few lines can be advantageously undertaken at a time. What these lines of investigation shall be must be determined chiefly by the equipment of the station in men and facilities.

The man is the most important factor.

If the station already has the man,

the line of investigation must be one to which he is adapted by mental aptitude, education, and training.

If the station is to employ a new man, a wider range in choice of subjects might be possible. But in any case the man and his line of work must be suitable to each other. In the search for men it may not always be possible to find men among the graduates of the land-grant colleges of broad enough training to make ideal investigations. It is more important that a man be thoroughly educated in the fundamentals of science than that he be trained in some of its applications. For example, if a station is to investigate problems in soil physics it is more important that the man be well educated in the fundamentals of physics than that he should have had a course in agricultural physics such as is usually taught in agricultural colleges. This follows from the fact that the thoroughly trained physicist can speedily acquire the known facts in soil physics, while the man merely trained in soil physics hopelessly lacks the basal knowledge of the science.

After suitable lines of work are decided upon, all payments for salary and labor and purchase of apparatus, tools, books, and other material necessary to carry out this problem are allowable.

II. ORGANIZATION.

In view of experiences not unknown in the past and likely to be repeated from time to time in the future, your committee feels it not unwise to call attention to certain fundamentals in organization that seem sometimes to be forgotten or ovelooked, but that bear with irresistible force upon the efficiency of experiment stations as agencies for research.

(1) Regarding the relation between boards of trustees and station officers: The function of boards of trustees is legislative, while that of station officers is executive. Boards adopt plans and station officers carry them out. These two functions are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. If proper distinctions are kept in mind as to the fundamental difference between ordering a thing done at public expense, which is a legislative act, and the carrying out of that order, which is an executive act-if this distinction be kept in mind, there need be no confusion as to mutual responsibilities and duties on the part of station officers and boards of trustees.

Manifestly the determination of a new policy of wide and general application or the fixing of a new principle of procedure is a deliberative act which nobody but a board of trustees is competent to undertake. On the other hand, to carry out a plan or policy to a successful issue-to meet and handle all details and to use them to that end-these are executive acts for which only executive officers are competent.

The committee is of the opinion that failure to observe this fundamental distinction is the frequent occasion for station officers proceeding with insufficient authority on the one hand, and upon the other of attempts on the part of the boards of trustees or of their members to become involved in administrative details that belong only to station officers. The first is certain to lead to

censure if not ultimately to sudden and sweeping removals; the second makes the position of station officers intolerable. Your committee is clear upon this point, viz, that any confusion as to mutual responsibilities and duties as between boards of trustees and their employees is fatal, not only to efficiency of service, but ultimately to the organization itself.

(2) Regarding the source of authority: The authority of an officer, whether legislative or executive, arises out of the nature of his responsibilities, and the imposing of that responsibility by any competent body carries with it sufficient authority for all acts necessary to its discharge. But no officer is competent to act except within regularly constituted channels. For example, a director has no right to assume the duties of a subordinate. In the discharge of his duties he must act as a director, not as another officer. Similarly, an individual who is a member of a board of trustees is competent to discharge his functions only in regular session. The authority of the board resides in the body as a whole, and not in its individual members, unless they have been directed to act for that body in a special matter. All this is aside from the fact that it is not only important but necessary to intelligent performance of their duties that members of boards of trustees familiarize themselves with the details of station work and needs.

(3) Propriety in relation between employer and employed: It is manifestly inconsistent for the same individual to hold an administrative position in a station and at the same time be a member of the board of trustees. It not only establishes the absurd situation of a man enacting the laws under which he himself shall afterwards serve in a public capacity, but it undermines that feeling of confidence and personal security on the part of his associates that is known to be necessary to good and efficient service.

(4) Tenure of office: Reasonable security of position, at least among men who have now a fair right to honorable standing among their fellows-all this is so manifestly essential to even fair efficiency that your committee ventures to express the conviction that to subject faithful station officers to the ordeal of annual reappointment is not only unnecessary to the securing of efficient service, but it is disturbing to individuals, tends to prevent the formation of plans and policies looking to the highest stability, and is positively dangerous to the integrity of the organization.

The committee is in possession of a mass of material bearing upon a variety of questions of more or less personal interest and which it reserves for future report, mentioning at this time only the matters that seem of most importance at the moment.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

E.

DAVENPORT,

C. D. WOODS,
W. A. HENRY,

H. J. WATERS,
M. A. SCOVELL,
C. E. THORNE,
Committee.

ADDRESS OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

Assistant Secretary W. M. Hays, of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, was called upon and spoke as follows:

men.

Mr. PRESIDENT: I am glad to be here, even though I am late. I am glad to be here in particular because of the inspiration that comes from such a body of This is one of our mighty organizations. This great movement, which had its beginning but a few decades ago, has gained impetus so rapidly that I fear we hardly realize what is coming. The amount of expenditures in agricultural research to date and the amount promised to be spent in the near future are significant. Approximately $25,000,000 have been spent in America in the last twenty years for agricultural research, and presumably a like amount in other countries. Even larger amounts are being expended for teaching agriculture and other industrial work. The amounts which are now being appropriated for agricultural research, agricultural school work, and agricultural extension work make it look as if in twenty-five years at least a quarter of a billion dollars will have been spent in agricultural research and a much larger amount in industrial education.

The body of knowledge that has come to agriculture from research work is coming to be so stupendous, so intricate, and so valuable that it is bound to

make for itself a very large place in our educational system. The members of institutions represented by this association should take a larger part in framing up the plans for education in the respective States. We are inclined too much to leave this work to the so-called professional educator, whether he be in an official position as a State superintendent or at the head of a school of pedagogy. The experiences of the teachers of industrial work in our agricultural and mechanical colleges have placed them in position better to see how to reorganize our school system on a more practical basis for the workers, whether they be farmers, toilers in the city industries, or home makers.

Some of the things developed from necessity in the Department of Agriculture, which is much the largest organization sending delegates to this association, ought to be of interest to those interested in the administration of agricultural colleges and experiment stations. I wish at this time to mention one thing as illustrating the fact that some of the details of the larger organization may be more generally used.

As the business of the colleges and experiment stations grows in volume the presidents and directors need to find ways of lessening the detail work to which they must attend. The system developed at Washington of initialing letters which should be signed by the head of the institution, but need not be written by him, is worthy of investigation. A great many of the letters signed by the Secretary of a Federal Department are prepared by bureau heads or by other bureau officials or division officers. Some of these are initialed by the bureau heads and some are not. Some of them have on them the initials of a division head as well as the initials of a bureau head. Still others have only the initials of a division head, as each bureau may arrange. This plan makes it practicable for the man who is in most intimate touch with the subject-matter of a given subject to write the letter, thus giving the chief who must sign the letter the advantage of the technical information of the one who writes it. This plan is an advantage to the person who writes the letter, because it enables him to be conversant with and to aid in guiding the project at every point. It gives the executive officer a chance to direct, check, or change statements in line with the general policy without taking much of his time. It gives to the writer of the letter a chance to have his work constantly authorized by signatures. The fact that recipients of these letters know from the initials who really write them is in practically all cases a decided advantage. Under this scheme trusted clerks can distribute much mail upon its receipt directly to the persons who are to prepare replies, thus greatly facilitating business.

GENERAL RESOLUTIONS.

After adopting resolutions of thanks for courtesies and favors received the convention adjourned sine die.

26140-No. 184-07 м- -6