IIIIIIIIIIIII

[I 3 1293 00998

6716

WWII

”5/557
\\ “1‘: @912 (2"
#323? «14%?

( A ‘I l-i

.. ‘ If} vxn

  '5’, {9" Imndlsw
m7—«7flfl

 

 

ABSTRACT
A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE FORCES

THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE FORMATION OF THE
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

BY
Charles Louis Lang

The purpose of this study was to explore the develop-
ment of the C00perative Extension Service, a nation-wide
agency of non-formal education, up to its establishment as
a federal system with the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of
1914. Specifically, the study examined the contextual
setting--the economic, social, political, educational, and
agricultural conditions at the turn of the century, and
the vested interests which contributed to the formation
of a national policy on extension.

Historiography was the method used. The first
procedure was to review previous research pertaining to
the formation of the COOperative Extension Service, which
primarily focused on the agricultural sector of the country.
The second step was to examine the forces in the larger
contextual setting as they related to the development of a
national extension policy.

The findings were:

1. The dominant force in the development of the
United States during 1880 to 1910 was its economic growth
and power, and its subsequent impact on social, cultural,
and educational development.

2. Near the end of the 19th century, the business

sector alone could no longer control the unwieldy and

9‘

In

I.

N‘

am
VI

 

in

 

(I.

(1'
‘ja

 

5U

Charles Louis Lang
unstable nature of unrestricted capitalism, and sought
federal protective legislation. By 1900 the administrative
side of government had become involved in defining a
national policy which contributed to economic stability
and predictability.

3. Supporters and investors of foreign trade were
collectively a major force that advocated increase in agri-
cultural production, in order to increase agricultural
exports on the world market. Such an increase would assist
in directing the balance of payments in favor of the U.S.,
which during business recessions suffered losses from a
decline of nonagricultural exports.

4. Many of the early and some of the current
educational methods used by the Cooperative Extension Service
were originated by general university extension programs of
the late 1880's to 1900.

5. Voluntary organizations, even those whose
influence did not generally extend beyond the state level,
comprised a major force contributing to the deve10pment of
extension education programs at the college and community
level at the turn of the century.

6. During the last two decades before 1900 the
land-grant colleges were experiencing financial stress, and
in part resolved this by establishing research and extension
education which served as a basis for sucCessfully requesting

federal funding.

Charles Louis Lang

7. Home economics became a part of extension legis-
lation in 1909 largely because of the strong support by the
Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment
Stations.

8. The major forces prompting the establishment of
a national extension policy were: a) the economic sector,

b) the land-grant colleges via AAACES, and c) the various
farmer-oriented programs of the United States Department of
Agriculture.

9. Vocational education, as such, was eliminated
from extension legislation for two reasons. Primarily it
was considered incompatible with the objectives of many of
those who backed extension legislation. Additionally,
inclusion of the complex vocational education proposal in the
extension legislation would produce a bill which would either
fail to pass or fail to function effectively after enactment.

10. Cooperative funding became a part of extension
legislation in order to assure the continued autonomous
nature and the continued supportive funding to already
established programs favored by various special interest
groups.

Based on these findings several conclusions are
drawn relevant to the forces involved in developing federal
legislation which established the Cooperative Extension
Service as a national system of non-formal education.

Extension was enacted during the golden age of

agriculture, 1910-1914, a time of general agricultural

Charles Louis Lang
prosperity. Many extension programs at the growing land-
grant colleges were already established. In effect exten-
sion was compromised into existence not just as a giant
education program for farmers and their families, but as
an agency that would guarantee programs that were desired
by the backers of Farmers COOperative Demonstration Work,
the Office of Farm Management, industrial leaders, and
supporters of foreign trade who favored big production and
low costs, and eventually the backing by the Association of
American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations,and
several national agricultural organizations.

These backers saw to it that vocational education
legislation was compromised out of extension bills. Some of
the same Congressmen a few years later, convinced that the
vested interests in C00perative Extension were accounted for,
renewed their efforts to support other educational legisla-
tion such as the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.

The Cooperative Extension Service was but one of
several measures of educational legislation at the federal,
state, and county levels of government. With all due respect
to the many dedicated men and women of this agency of non-
formal education it is not the summit of federally supported
education, but one of several products (and a good one, too)
of the emerging forces that were shaping a national policy

on education.

A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE FORCES
THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE FORMATION OF THE

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

BY

Charles Louis Lang

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

College of Education
Department of Administration and Higher Education

1975

© Copyright by

CHARLES LOUI S LANG

1975

DEDICATION

To a family of extension workers:
Dad R. W. "Bob" Lang
Uncle C. C. "Cha" Lang
Uncle C. P. "Chaunce" Lang
My wife Grace Lang
Her Grandfather Henry Paul Miller
who collectively served with the Cooperative Extension

Service for over 113 years.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is deeply indebted to the chairman of his
Doctoral Committee, Dr. Floyd G. Parker. The careful and
wise guidance he provided as well as his generosity with
his precious time and patience are particularly appreciated.

Grateful acknowledgment is also due the members of
the Doctoral Committee: Professor Russell J. Kleis who
patiently and thoroughly assisted with the formation of
the research topic, and Drs. Fred J. Peabody and Margaret J.
Bubulz for their advice and encouragement.

He wishes to express appreciation to Doctor
Madison Kuhn, Professor of History, Michigan State
University, and Ms. Velma Bruno, Documents Librarian,
National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, Maryland, for
their valuable assistance and services.

Most importantly, the writer wishes to express
gratitude to his wife Grace for her support, encouragement,
and sacrifice. He also wishes to thank John, Bill, and

Sue for their patience while Daddy "went to school."

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
I THE SUBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY.............. 1
Definition of the Cooperative Extension Service.... 1
The Rationale for the Study........................ 3
The Problem........................................ 5
The Historical Approach............................ 7
Overview of the Study.............................. 12
II THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE........................... 14
Limitations of the Literature...................... 23
The Formation of Educational Policy................ 25
Basic Forces.................................. 27
Antecedent Movements.......................... 28
Political Action.............................. 28
Formal Enactment.............................. 29
The Legislative Process............................ 30

III THE SETTING: DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES FROM 1800 To 1880.00.00...O'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 36

Early Land Use Monetary Policies................... 36
Settlement Policies................................ 39
Industrial and Capital Growth...................... 41
Educational DevelOpment............................ 42
Change in Higher Education......................... 45

Iv THE FORMATIVE YEARS: 1880 - 1910.................. 51
Economic Development; 1880 to l9lO................. 51
International Trade........................... 60

Agricultural Related Industries............... 65

iv

CHAPTER Page

capital and credit.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 70

Western Expansion; 1880 to 1910 ......... ........ 72
Development of an Oil Industry ........ ..... 73
State and Local Law.......... ..... ......... 76

The Consuming Middle Class................. 77
The Labor Movement....... ......... ......... 79
The Populists....... ................. ...... 82
Development of Extension Programs: 1880 to 1910 86
Extension Education........................ 87
Development of the Land-Grant Colleges..... 95
The Hatch Act..............................102

Association of American Agricultural
Colleges and Experiment Stations...........104

The General Education Board................106
Commission on Country Life.................103
Home Economics.............................110
Formation of Agricultural Policy; 1880 to 1910..118
Agricultural Expansion in General..........118
DevelOpment of Special Interest Groups.....ll9
The Farm Bureau............................l42

The Growth of Youth Work...................144

V FORMAI‘ ENACTMENT.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....0149

VI

The setting.............. 0000000000000 .OOOOOOOOC149
Extension Legislation ............ ...............155
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................170

Conclusions.....................................178

V

CHAPTER Page
Implications for Further Study...................181

BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000....183

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page
1 A Flow Chart on Policy Formation in
EducationOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO 26
2 Index of Total Farm Production and Farm
Prices, Crop Years, l869-l937............... 121

vii

CHAPTER I
THE SUBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

The subject of this study is the Cooperative Extension
Service, an educational agency formally established with
the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. Throughout its
history it has multiplied knowledge, knowledge that has
contributed richly to the development and, in some cases,
the survival of this nation. Its structure is the product
of the many stresses and aspirations that were woven into a
public policy that contributed to its establishment over

sixty years ago.

Definition of the Cooperative Extension Service

The Cooperative Extension Service can be defined briefly
by further examination of the three words in its name.
Structurally it is based on the "cooperative" funding agree-
ments among three levels of governments: federal, state,
and county. Most of the federal and state appropriations
are allocated for staffing, while most of the county funds
support the operational costs of their respective county
offices. The agency is primarily an "extension" of the
land-grant university of each state; extending university

staff called extension agents into each county of the state

2
via county offices. The "service" provided is continuing,
non-formal education, intended to meet the needs of the
people in the county.

The educational programs of this agency vary slightly
from state to state. For the purpose of illustration,
Michigan programs will be described because the writer is
more familiar with them, having been employed by the
Michigan Cooperative Extension Service for over 15 years.

There are currently four program areas within the
Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. These program areas
intentionally and frequently overlap, depending on the aud-
ience to be reached and the results to be desired. Agricul-
tural Production provides much of the information related to
the techniques and management of all types of agricultural
production and marketing. Family Living encompasses the
skills and knowledge needed for today's family growth. 4-H
and Youth, through the media of the project, provides many
of the develOpmental skills for the young. Resource DevelOp-
ment is concerned with the planning, policies, and utiliza-
tion of land and related material and human resources.

The first extension programs were developed primarily
in rural farming areas. Yet Extension is not limited to any
specific audience. In Michigan the Extension Service esti- ”’w
mated that in one year, 1973-74, 2,9333,693 contacts were
made with people, and provided information via personal

contacts, meetings, mass media and other means. Of this

3

number, only 759,259 were estimated as contacts with

farmers.1

The Rationale for the Study

 

The function of this study is to assess in depth the
evolutionary process of the extension educational model in
order to assist agencies or programs that are attempting to
meet certain critical needs here in the United States and
throughout the rest of the world. Historically, Extension
has had viable roles in numerous programs affecting the
cultural and economic development of this country. Some
of its more dramatic involvements occurred during World Wars
I and II when its programs contributed to the increase in
agricultural production to meet wartime needs. Extension
also has been credited with programs that contributed to
the big crop productions of the 1950's and 1960's.

The successes of Extension are not limited to its
agricultural programs. Youth development and family living
programs had been a major part of extension programs for
over a decade before the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. Through
the years these programs have encompassed such areas as
value formation, domestic skills, problem solving, vocational
skills, management, and other subjects utilizing experiential
learning in the affective domain. The successes are there,
but perhaps not as easily illustrated in mass media as crop

production.

 

1Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State
University, "Staff Time Use Profile 1973-1974." East Lansing,
1974 (Mimeographed).

4

A significant number of developing countries are
establishing extension-type programs in an attempt to
resolve domestic problems usually related to the world food
crisis. Although these countries in general have a large
percentage of their population in the agrarian farming
sectors, there are not enough resources and knowledge about
supplies, labor, capital, markets, processors, political
support, and trained personnel to implement major agricultural
increases. Therefore these countries believe that an
extension-type agency could help them c0pe with these
deficiencies.

The food crisis is only one example of a critical and
immediate need. Many leaders of these same countries are
equally concerned and committed to improve the general
quality of life of their populations as well.

If the extension model is to be duplicated then it is
essential to examine not only its current structure and
programs, but how and why it was established as it was.
Specifically what forces and processes contributed to its
evolution into a federally established and federally
assisted agency of non-formal education.

Beyond the academic, there is a much more personal
reason for this study. As an experienced extensioner,
with family members who were similarly employed, I have a
nagging curiosity to see how this agency came about. It
has been my good fortune to work with and to meet former

extension workers who had developed a missionary zeal and

allegiance to their work. I have often admired this

quality and wondered what kind of agency attracts this kind
of a person. Additionally, what kind of agency receives such
strong, spontaneous support from the people it serves,
especially when the establishment of the agency in each

state is not required or delegated by federal law?

The Problem

 

The purpose of this study, stated in very broad terms,
is to find out how the Cooperative Extension Service came
about as established by the passage of the Smith-Lever Act
of 1914. To achieve this broad purpose, there are several
specific areas of concern which should be considered.

1. What kinds of economic, social, political,
educational and agricultural conditions existed at the turn
of the century which might have prompted the formation of
extension-type programs? For example why was the Cooperative
Extension Service established during a period (1910-1914)
that some historians have referred to as the golden age of
agriculture?

2. What kinds of political processes were generated
or encouraged by these conditions to initiate a national
policy from which the numerous extension programs and sub-
sequent legislation could emerge?

3. What role did the various voluntary organizations
contribute to the formation of extension programs and the

passage of extension-type legislation?

6

4. Who advanced, supported, and opposed the various
extension legislative proposals? What did the prOponents
of extension expect it to do? What were the objectives of
the prOposed extension legislation?

5. What compromises, modifications, and/or coalitions
occurred as Congress dealt with the 32 proposed pieces of
extension legislation during the period between 1909 and
1914? Since extension was advocated as agricultural educa-
tion, why were the areas of home economics and club work
included in the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, and why was the
teaching of vocational agriculture in the schools excluded?

6. Why was cooperative rather than straight federal
funding advocated in the proposed extension legislation.
What did this mean to those involved?

7. What was the time frame and sequence of events of
the emerging forces? What was the nature of the relation-
ship of these events to each other, if any?

These questions focus on the evolutionary process of
Extension in context with other develOpments occurring during
this time. This information could be helpful to those who
intend to design and implement extension type programs.

Such information would not be a plan of action for a duplica-
tion of Extension, but rather an explanation of the kinds

of forces and components that had to be recognized and
resolved during Extension's formative years.

The GI Bill is an example of the formulation of
national policy and the different reasons for supporting it.

While the Veterans' Readjustment Act provided educational

7
assistance to many returning veterans after World War II,
it served more than an educational function. It was also
an effort to deal with thousands of returning veterans who
would have flooded the labor market and contributed to the
numerous problems associated with mass unemployment in a

nation whose postwar economy was still in readjustment.1

The Historical Approach

 

Historical research as employed in this study uses
empirical principles: namely, the selection of the subject,
the review of related literature, the definition of the
problem, the gathering of data and its interpretation, as
described by Barzun and Graff.2

The key to historical research is to deve10p a plan
that defines specifically the information to be sought.
Without such a plan the researcher risks Spending too much
time floundering in a sea of historical data which is
unrelated to the subject.

The next step is the task of researching and recording
the facts. Previous research in related subjects can help
provide data about the contextual setting and its chronology
and identify possible primary and secondary sources that

could be helpful in the new research.

 

1Carl T. Pacacha, "Floyd Wesley Reeves: Pioneer in
Shaping Legislation in Support of Adult Education".
(Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1970), PP. 154, 156.

2Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff, The Modern
Researcher (Revised; New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World,
Inc., 1970).

 

8

The researcher then reviews and records the data and
begins to apply several tests for verification. These
include the collation of other sources, labeling data as to
the probable and false, identifying the source, explication
or detailed accounts of primary sources for more data, dis-
entanglement of the assembled data, clarification of facts
and legends, and ascertaining the value of each datum to
the study.

The recorded and verified data are assembled and
reviewed. The researcher then attempts to establish
generalizations and tests for any doubtfulness about what is
found. If there is question as to credibility of a source,
additional research must be undertaken before the doubt can
be resolved.

The writing of the material is generally done in
chronological order. If the material is extensive the writer
may elect to describe the development of each component in
chronological order. Barzun and Graff are also reluctant to
encourage frequent use of direct quotes when writing
because it may make the reading stilted and difficult to
comprehend. More importantly they believe that the use of
too many quotes indicates that the writer may have overlooked
and neglected more generalized issues. To these researchers
the interpretation of the data is the author's contribution
to historical research and direct quotes should primarily

be used to clarify the data.1

 

lIbid., p. 317.

9

There are some necessary limitations in any kind of

historical research as Wilcox suggests:

Studying a particular fragment of

it (history) out of context falsifies

the nature of the fragment, and study-

ing the entire context is impossible.

Between the two extremes the researcher

must find his own mean, by setting such

limits as his interests and sense of

feasibility suggest; but these limits

are his own. They are not determined by

any logic inherent in his problem, and

they are likely to change as his investi-

gation progresses and grows toward an

end that he may never have anticipated.
This implies a certain flexibility. Although the subject
(to find out what caused Extension to be established) has
been defined, the Specific problems to be researched may
need to be redefined occasionally as more data is obtained
via the research process. This flexibility can be attributed
to three characteristics of historical research. First,
the problem cannot be fully perceived in advance; secondly
the problem is never tidily solved; and finally, the subject
has no inherent limits.2

The researcher can expect to search for more informa-

tion than will be used and perhaps build on previous verified

research. In this study an attempt will be made to add to

what already has been researched about Extension.

 

1William B. Willcox, "The Psychiatrist, the Historian,
and General Clinton: The Excitement of Historical Research,"
Michigan Quarterly Review, VI (Spring, 1967), 123-30.
Reprinted with permission in The Historian as Detective,
Robin W. Winks, ed. (New York, Harper and Row, 1968),
pp. 500-501.

 

 

21bid., p. 500.

below.

10

In most cases it (historical research)

leaves the accepted views intact, but
suggests their inadequacy by introducing
alongside them some ingredient that they

do not cover. Any subsequent interpreta-
tion of the events in question, if it is

to include this new ingredient, must be a
more complex synthesis than its predecessors,
and hence may be expected to approximate more
nearly the infinite complexity of the events
themselves. The aim of historical research
is not to upset the scholarly applecart, in
short, but to go on adding to the number

of apples in it, unti someone is forced to
design a bigger cart.

The methodology used in this research is outlined

1. Establish a basis for the research by reading
several other research articles about the
COOperative Extension Service.

a. The data from these readings was recorded
on five by eight file cards with the
name of the author, subject, page number,
year of event, and recorded notes on the
subject.

b. These cards were filed chronologically
under temporary headings.

2. Define and outline the purpose of the study,

and information to be sought. The data collected

thus far was reviewed in order to define those

forces that had been accounted for and to

 

11bid., p. 502.

11

suggest those forces that had been overlooked

or lightly treated, all of which are outlined

as follows:

a. The specific economic forces of major
industries, agriculturally related
industries, and marketing.

b. The emergence of social and cultural forces
associated with this country's growth such
as labor, development of agriculture in
the midwest, west and southwest, community
develOpment, and rural reform movements.

c. The development of, and influence by, the
non-agricultural sections of higher education.

d. The resultant forces caused by the inter-
action of the above forces as the development
of extension was launched into the legisla-
tive process.

Research and record information about the above

areas. Because the study is a more generalized

study covering thirty-five years it was important
to incorporate many secondary sources that offered
the more macro account of historical events.

Primary sources like hearings, proceedings, and

personal articles were used in conjunction with

some of the secondary sources.

Make a viable outline of the recorded data. The

outline was transferred to file dividers, and

the data cards were filed correspondingly.

12

5. A summary outline of the data was made
attempting to establish cause and effect
relationships and to account for the forces
involved.

6. Missing information had to be researched again
and accounted for by recording it on new data
cards.

7. The data was assembled and from this was
develOped an outline for its presentation.

Then the writing began.

While this was the general plan used in this study, it was

not followed as concisely as indicated. Throughout the entire
research new information was found and added to the base

data. The filing system of recording data on cards made

it possible to constantly collect data from many different
sources as well as make decision on what data should or

should not be used.

Overview of the Study

 

Chapter II is the review of literature which examines
the major research that has been made about the formation of
the Cooperative Extension Service. This chapter will also
suggest a model that explains the formation of educational
policy.

Chapter III examines the contextual setting from
which emerged the social, cultural, and economic forces
that influenced the development of this country during the

period 1800 to 1880.

13

Chapter IV assesses the antecedent movements and
political action between 1880 and 1910 which helped to
formulate extension education prior to its actual legislation.
Specifically this chapter examines national economic develop-
ment, western expansion, educational development, and the
formation of agricultural policy.

Chapter V discusses the process of legislative
enactment which occurred during the five year period of
1909 to 1914.

Chapter VI presents the summary and conclusions of

this study.

CHAPTER II

THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE

While there are several excellent studies that
have contributed to the understanding of the formation
of the Cooperative Extension Service, one of the inherent
problems confronting the researcher is the sheer multiplicity
of sources offered. Here is an educational agency whose
beginnings can be traced to the land-grant colleges, the ‘V//
United States Department of Agriculture (hereafter referred
to as the U.S.D.A.), the rural organizations, the business
interests, and to numerous legislative processes of state
and federal governments. Each of these sources covers years
of development, and it becomes difficult to offer a total
historical account of Extension's growth.

The material used in the review of literature serves
two purposes. To begin with, it was the first step in the
methodology from.which the design of the study was launched.
Secondly it provides the reader with a condensed general
view of previous accounts of the development of the
Cooperative Extension Service.

There are numerous other valuable studies that are
incorporated in later chapters. But the writings of Baker,

Brunner and Yang, Martin, Morgan, Shannon and Schoenfeld,

l4

15

and Scott form the background for the study, and they are
reviewed in this chapter.1

Material later in the chapter will focus on the
process by which policy becomes a legislated reality. This
includes a discussion on the process for the formation of
educational policy, followed by a review of the formative
process for creating agricultural policy, and finally a
candid view of how legislation is dealt with in Congress.

Baker, Brunner and Yang, and Scott indicated that
Extension resulted from numerous societal inputs, some of
which can be traced back to the early nineteenth century.
While there was no indication then that an extension program
or agency had ever been seriously considered, these early

developments may well have been the foundation upon which

Extension grew.

 

lGladys Baker, The County Agent (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1939I.

 

Edmond de Brunner, and E. Hsin Pao Yang, Rural
America and the Extension Service (New York: ColfifiEIa
University, 1949).

 

O. B. Martin, The Demonstration Work (Boston: The
Stratford Co., 1921).

 

Barton Morgan, A History of the Extension Service of
Iowa State College (Ames, Iowa: C61Iegiate Press, Inc., 1934).

 

 

Theordore V. Schannon, and Clarence A. Schoenfeld,
University Extension (New York: The Center for Applied
Research in Education, Inc., 1965).

Roy V. Scott, The Reluctant Farmer (Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1970?:

 

16

The agricultural societies of the mid 1800's had
members who were for the most part successful farmers. The
purpose of these socieities was to promote agricultural pro-
ducts and to encourage supportive kinds of programs and
legislation. Morgan described how the various Iowa societies
specialized their services to assist horticulturists, bee-
keepers, fruit growers, florists, etc., advocating then,
educational programs to advance their Special interests.l

All of the authors who mentioned the Morrill Land—
Grant College Act of 1862 referred to it as the first major
effort by the 0.8. Government to actively support public
education for the farmer. The Act granted huge amounts of
land to each state, which had the authority to accept or
reject the grant. Iowa in 1862 became the first state to

2 The

accept the grant under the provisions of the new law.
land-grants could be transferred to cash with the stipulation
that any resulting investment would assist in the teaching
of agricultural, mechanic arts, and military science via a
college level program.

The Land-Grant Act of 1862 in general, had little
immediate impact on agricultural education and agriculture as

a way of life. The Civil War had brought the farmer a short-

lived prosperity, and after the war the gross farm income

 

1Morgan, Iowa, p. 4.

Scott, Reluctant, p. 27.

 

21bid., p. 8.

17

declined steadily for 30 years: Scott reported that the
average gross farm income of $945 in 1870 drOpped to $674
by 1900.1

The land-grant colleges had a difficult time in
starting. Their enrollments were small and their programs
were ridiculed by the more academic and established faculties.
Not only was there a shortage of agricultural teachers, but
the future offered to its graduates was that of an unstable
agricultural economy.2 The farmers themselves were skeptical
of the colleges' value.

During the late nineteenth century there were decreas-
ing farm prices and income, and mounting expenses, causing a
general feeling of discontent among the agricultural popula-
tion. Many of the agricultural organizations such as the
Grange, Alliance, Farmers Union and numerous regional and
state organizations tried to alleviate these problems but
usually were unsuccessful. However, their combined forces
caused the formation of the Populist Party in the 1890's which
achieved national recognition and spurred a growing sensitivity

to the problems confronting the farmer.3

 

1Scott, Reluctant, p. 31.

 

21bido' pp. 27-29.

Morgan, Iowa, p. 7.

3Scott, Reluctant, pp. 40-42.

 

Baker, County Agent, pp. 12-14.

 

18
The area of adult education had several successful
programs of non-formal education. The American Lyceum of
pre-Civil War days and the two Chautauqua movements of the

1870's and 1900's attracted many people.1

Gradually numerous
programs in non-formal extension—type education began to
emerge in the agricultural areas of the country during the
last half of the nineteenth century. Of these programs, the

most well-known and popular appeared to be the Farmers'

. 2
Institute.

 

1The American Lyceum was started by a young Yale
graduate, Josiah Holbrook, in 1826 as a lecture system and
public forum for the small towns of Massachusetts. The
lyceum movement gathered momentum rapidly. By 1839 some
3,000 lycea existed throughout the country, their purpose
self-culture, instruction in "rational and useful information,"
and discussion of current issues...By 1860, most had
disappeared.

Shannon and Schoenfeld, p. 9.

Tent Chatauqua was a combination of the more respect-
able instructions of the Lyceums and the traveling comedy
shows, both of which had their ups and downs ever Since the
Civil War. In 1904 Keith Vawter named it Chautauqua after
the institution in Lake Chautauqua in New York. From then
until the depression of the 1930's it became a popular
traveling missionary comedy Show to the states south and
west of the Alleganies.

Harry P. Harrison, Culture Under Canvas (New York:
Hastings House, 1958), pp. xvi-xvii.

 

2Morgan, Iowa, pp. 11-15.
Shannon & Schoenfeld, p. 10.

Baker, County Agent, p. 6.

 

Scott, Reluctant, pp. 64-102.

 

19

The Association of American Agricultural Colleges
and Experiment Stations (hereafter referred to as AAACES)
recorded several forms of agricultural extension education,
including rural schools, farmers institutes, agricultural
trains, school gardening, demonstration plots, movable
schools, exhibits at fairs, young peoples' contest work,
and reading courses.1 Agricultural education occurred in
many forms, and much of it was supported by the agricultural
colleges.

The 0.8. government became involved again in agricul-
tural education with the Hatch Act of 1889, which funded
agricultural experimental research at the land-grant

2 Some of the rural organizations supporting this

colleges.
bill asserted that the funding should be limited to agricul-
tural research.

Another area of U.S.D.A. involvement focuses on the
Farmers Cooperative Demonstration Work and its efforts to
control the cotton boll weevil which entered the country
from Mexico in 1892. During the ten years which followed,
the boll weevil spread throughout the South, causing extensive
crop reductions, and posing a real threat to the southern

agricultural economy. In 1902, Secretary of Agriculture

James Wilson and his assistant Beverly T. Galloway toured the

 

1Baker, County Agent, p. 7.

 

2Scott, Reluctant, p. 58.

 

Brunner & Yang, p. 5.

20

affected areas and were impressed by the work of Dr. Seaman
A. Knapp whose teaching methods were providing much assistance
to the troubled farmers. In 1903, Secretary Wilson requested
and received $250,000 for a boll weevil control program via
the Bureaus of Plant Industry and Entomology. These federal
funds were earmarked for boll weevil control, however, and
could not be used to support Knapp's other work in demonstra-
ting improved general farm practices.1

Seaman A. Knapp had developed an effective method of
teaching utilizing strong community support. He and his
staff, which included many former railroad farm agents, took
on the task of convincing the hard pressed farmers to experi-
ment with new methods, not yet proven, and possibly financially
risky. Knapp and his staff had persuaded local businessmen
to financially guarantee payment for any losses to the
farmers, and with the risk covered, the farmers were willing
to experiment and did so successfully.2 Since Knapp's pro-
gram received federal support only if it pertained to boll
weevil control, the General Education Board, a foundation
privately endowed by John D. Rockefeller, supported the
Knapp program in the other general farming areas during the
period of 1906 to 1914. The funding was made to the U.S.D.A.
through a series of agreements known as "memoranda of

understanding."

 

1Scott, Reluctant, p. 213.

 

2Baker, County Agent, p. 29.

 

21

This U.S.D.A. program became known as the Farmers' Cooperative
Demonstration Work. Its focus was primarily local, and
encompassed such areas as general agricultural education,
home economics, youth work, and agricultural schools.1

The agricultural situation in the north during the
late nineteenth century had its own kinds of problems.
Farms were smaller and more diversified in the crOps raised.
The farmers practiced continuous farming which contributed
to the depletion of soil nutrients, causing low agricultural
production. The agricultural colleges responded to this
situation through lectures, tours, institutes, and other
extension-type programs. Many of the university farms, which
had originally been used only as teaching aids for the
students, became research farms for gathering basic data
about farming in the area and were federally sanctioned to
do such by the enactment of the Hatch Act of 1887, known as
the experiment station legislation. W. J. Spillman in the
newly organized Office of Farm Management in 1904 encouraged
the development of diversified farms to be used as demon-

stration and observation centers.2 Later he referred

 

lIbid., pp. 26, 28.

Scott, Reluctant, pp. 223, 227.

 

Martin, Demonstration, p. 4.

 

Brunner & Yang, pp. 8-11.

2Baker, County Agent, p. 3.

 

Morgan, Iowa, pp. 11, 35.

Scott, Reluctant, pp. 58, 258, 261.

 

22
to these farms as failures because he believed too few
farmers were convinced to try the demonstrated farming
practices.

The Office of Farm Management also conducted research
investigations into methods of successful management, which
provided a wealth of useful data used in bulletins.

The Association of American Agricultural Colleges
and Experiment Stations was organized in 1885 after it had
been encouraged by the Secretary of Agriculture to solicit
support for the Hatch Act. AAACES continued to grow in
number and strength. In 1904 it formed a subcommittee on
extension with Kenyon Butterfield as chairman.

Four years later, President Theodore Roosevelt
appointed several AAACES members to his Country Life
Commission, which quickly recommended, in 1908 and 1909, that
there should be a national program to improve the quality
of rural life. The AAACES subcommittee prepared a similar
report and a proposal in 1909, which was given to Representa-
tive J. C. McLaughlin of Michigan, who introduced the first
extension bill in 1909.2 Five years and an additional 31

pieces of legislation later the Smith-Lever Act was made law.

 

1Scott, Reluctant, p. 288.

 

2Ibid., pp. 288, 291.

Baker, County Agent, p. 36.

 

Brunner & Yang, pp. 11—13.

23

Limitations of the Literature

 

The research of the previous authors listed was
extensive and proved to be valuable as well as interesting
reading. The authors occasionally utilized firsthand
accounts which not only documented specific events but
illustrated the reasoning of the time. However there are
certain limitations to the literature, and these are
summarized below in four areas.

1. The material tends to focus on the rural and
agricultural sectors. Certainly this was the area of major
concern, but it is doubtful that rural development occurred
in isolation from the rest of the country. What influences
were there from capital, government, labor, and education,
and what impact did the industrial revolution have on agri-
culture? The tariffs? Educational policies? If the
extension model is to be duplicated, then all the major
forces, rural and nonrural, must be taken into account.

2. The circumstances surrounding the development of
the land-grant colleges raise a similar question. Most of
the literature emphasizes the agricultural programs of these
colleges, and little is mentioned of the engineering programs
and what influence they had on these colleges struggling for
survival. In another area, home economics emerged as a
college prOgram and became more aligned to agriculture than
to the mechanic arts. Little was written as to why home
economics and agriculture were so closely related in colleges,

institutes, and the various proposed extension legislation.

24

3. The writings appear to focus again on the
agricultural extension bills in the legislative processes.
Certainly Congress, especially those committees in both
houses which dealt with extension legislation, had more
issues facing them than the establishment of an agricultural
extension service. The same can be said for the Country Life
Commission and the Association of American Agricultural
Colleges and Experiment Stations. Further examination of
this area, including other subjects of legislation such as
tariffs, trade bills, budgets, vocational education, etc.,
may explain why it took five years and 32 pieces of legisla-
tion to lead to the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.

4. Not much has been written regarding the timing
of the Smith-Lever Act, and this is a major concern in this
study. 1910 to 1914 has been referred to as the golden-age
of agriculture. It was this period of time that was used to
determine the first farm parity price program. If agriculture 9
was doing so well then why was Extension established. It is
doubtful that rural organizations, much less militant by 1910
than before 1900, could have caused the passage of the Smith-
Lever Act. Their strongest effort was associated with the
Populist movement in the 1890's. Somewhat related were the
problems associated with the control of the cotton boll
weevil. It seems doubtful that the issues related to this
problem could have had direct effect on the passage of the
Smith-Lever Act a decade later. It appeared that extension

legislation was enacted during a non-crisis situation. V

25

The underlying theme of these four concerns then is
to examine the total context from which the Cooperative
Extension Service emerged. Perhaps extension education may
be a part of national policy on adult education, and not
"...the end of a long search for that effective teaching
technique," as indicated by Scott.1 The justification for
this implication is the application of the extension model.
If the extension model is to be duplicated then national
and/or state policies on education should be examined in

addition to the immediate area of concern.

The Formation of Educational Policy

 

The studies used in the review of literature indicate
that the extension concept traces back to post-Civil War
agricultural movements. While this does not imply that the
agricultural organizations of the 1870‘s and 1880's were
designing a Cooperative Extension Service, their actions
may have set the groundwork for a national policy from.which
extension could later evolve. There was a process by which D/
the concept of extension was created, shaped, and eventually
legislated.

Roald Campbell has developed a simple model (see

Figure l) which can be used as a general illustration of the

 

1Scott, Reluctant, p. x.

 

26

HHHHHTE .m moaumno

mmflosmmm
w>ausomxm paw
.Hmaoapsfl .m>aumfl
Imfimma nmsouzu

w umHm>mH
Hmc0flvmc paw
.mumum .HmooH

um ma was

 

ucwEuomcm HmEHom

>H

”capo .mspesaoov

H

«m2 a .oHo

Iqmd .ooumEEou
m0 HTQEMEU

.m.D mm scam
mam>ma Hmcoflumc
pcm .mumum

.HEUOH um pwumawn
IHTDCH MHHMSms
mcoHumNHcmmno hm

 

mcofluod Hmoflufiaom

HHH

L. .AW ,
w... a I, .m. Ed m we.

.eem .a .ASMWH .mpmano manna Hana

.oum .mmflpsum
ucmsou .wmflwsum
..moum Hmaammmxoom

.EOHmmHEEOU umzomcmz

Hmcoflbmz may
mm £05m mmoom ca
Hmcowum: >HHm5mD

 

mucwEm>oz

 

ucmpmomusd

HH

.maoonom smeauwfid mo Houusou 0cm coflumuficmmud one
.pcmuumwz .0 Hmmnmmm .mmsmoz .m xowumpom .EmcmcHEGSU .A cum>sq .HamnmEmu .m pamom

H

.coflumospm cw coflumEuow moaaom so Dunno 30am 4 “a madman

mmoum

EH wofl3pauoz

paw HmcoHum:
wHHESms .mmouom
amoemoHosnomu mam
.Hmoapaaoe
.uweocoow

.Hmaoom

 

mmouom oammm

1
process.

27

It should be noted that Campbell's model is

usually applied to public supported educational systems.

His model is employed as a tool to aid in the examination

of the formation of the educational policy which eventually

fostered the Cooperative Extension Service. Examination of

Campbell's model shows that he included specific components

in each stage of the process.

1.

2

Basic Forces. Policies for education begin with

 

the basic movements in society. These include
social, economic, political, and technological
developments, which are not local in character,

but national and sometimes worldwide in scope.

They include wars, international tensions, economic
interdependence of all people, population mobility,
widespread communication, technological advance-
ment, growth of knowledge, and the human drive

for self-improvement.

Part of the difficulty in identifying a basic
force is in measuring its scope. The locus of the
basic force could be anywhere but its effect is
nationwide. For example, employment conditions
in industrialized communities are localized but
the economic results of these employment conditions

affect many other communities.

 

1Roa1d F. Campbell, John E. Corbally, Jr., John A.

Ramseyer,

Introduction to Educational Administration (2nd ed.;

 

Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1962), pp. 24I?246.

21bid., pp. 241-246.

28
Antecedent Movements. These movements are in
direct relationship to the basic forces, and may
arise "non-officially", through privately
endowed efforts, movement groups, etc., or

"officially,' through legitimizing organizations
such as government units or corporate policy.
Sometimes an antecedent movement comes from
regional or national organizational leadership
which is capable of dealing with, and expected

to respond to, a problem situation. By the time
an antecedent movement has reached national scope,
it has been articulated and is easily recognized,
and it is much easier to study than an antecedent
movement which is in its early stages and only
locally based. Unless a local movement succeeds
to the point of regional or national recognition,
the history of its development is usually ignored
or dismissed and remains unrecorded.

Political Action. The antecedent movements and

 

their related programs provoke political activity
and it is at this point that the policy begins

to be formulated and tested. Polarization by
supporters begins to appear. Devices for study
and investigation are a recognized part of the
governmental process used by local, state, and
national policy-making units. Most of this kind
of action is employed after issues have been

raised, debated, investigated, and perhaps

29
polarized by lay citizens and educators.
Ordinarily, governmental studies merely
formalize what vigorous proponents have already
said. Legislators seldom are opposed to con-
ducting a study of an issue as a prelude or
substitute for action on it. A legislative
study will usually provide the decision-makers
with needed data, allow them to have more time
to study the policy and its related issues,
and examine the polarization.

Political action on a policy is usually more
than local. To assume that most problems are
purely local issues is, in Campbell's words,
"sheer nonsense." Few movements, if any, are
so isolated in nature. Policy producing move-
ments may be limited in the early beginnings but
eventually they become state and/or national in
scope.

Formal Enactment. The process of the previous
three stages often culminates with the formal
enactment of policy by some sort of legislation.
It is in this stage that the policy goes through
its final metamorphosis, as those who are to
approve or disapprove of it can also amend the
proposed policy. When formal enactment is
recorded in the media, there is generally the
erroneous impression that the policy is also

originated and designed there, which is an

30
interesting point because the final form and
capacity of a policy, could very well be quite
different from what was intended back in the
early stage of the antecedent movements. This
is not surprising considering the number of
different inputs that are made. This could
alter drastically its final form found in formal
enactment from what its designers had originally
intended, and this is the uniqueness of the
policy formation process.

Thus we have Campbell's process model for the forma-
tion of educational policy. There are two important limita~
tions about its use. First, the various stages of policy
formation seldom occur in easily observed steps of one,
two, three and four. Normally this is a continuous process
of one stage of evolution blending into the next. It is
only after the data are researched and laid out that they
can be examined with the model.

Secondly, the model does not account for the
recycling of ideas and the interrelatedness of events.
Antecedent movements may reappear under many different labels,
and a movement which is in phase III or IV of Campbell's

model in one area might prompt phase I or II in another area.

The Legislative Process
Whenever proposed legislation is brought to Congress,

it is subjected to a political process that will inevitably

31

alter its structure, in order to account for all those who
have vested interest in its enactment. Benedict, in his
review of agricultural policy, described four characteristics
relating to the enactment of agricultural policy.1

First, national agricultural policies result only
after many years in the formative and deve10pmental stage.
For example, it took many years before official action occurred
on issues related to the greenbacks, homesteading, agricul-
tural tariffs, and rural credit.

Second, nearly all national agricultural policies are
established after a series of strategic compromises. The
Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the meat inspection laws, and
the tariffs, are examples of policies which have resulted
only after much alteration in order to reconcile all the
self-interest groups involved in its passage.

Third, agencies or organizations which were created
to promote or implement policy may well outlast their assigned
task. The Association of American Agricultural Colleges and
Experiment Stations is a classic example, as the original
objective which brought this group together was to support
the Hatch Act in the 1880's.

Fourth, Congress has a tendency to enact "watered-
down" legislation because of the difficulties encountered

when attempting to enact effective legislation regarding

 

1Murray R. Benedict, Farm Policies of the United
States 1790-1950 (New York: American BooK, Strafférd Press,
InC. ' 1953) ' p. Xi]... ‘

 

32
agricultural problems. Usually there is mutual agreement
regarding identification of the problem but the differences
are great regarding the actual methods of resolution. A
number of the ineffectual marketing and tariff bills serve as
good examples of the excessive compromising which can occur,
and which can render the resulting bills less effective than
intended.

Bills have been introduced into Congress and then
amended so many times that it appears doubtful that the bill
can do whatever its original intent had been. Some Congress-L»
men have admitted that it is easier to pass an incomplete
bill and rework it later, than try to enact a complete
perfect bill. This situation is known as legislation generat-V’
ing legislation.l For example, the Morrill Act of 1862 was
followed by the Hatch Act of 1887, the Second Morrill Bill
in 1890 and the Adams Act of 1906. The current G.I. Bill
is another example of legislation being altered several times
in the years following its original adOption.

In order to enact legislation, the person or group
responsible will no doubt become aware of the slow step-by-
step procedure. But more important than this legislative
road map is an understanding of the major hurdles which must
be passed on the way. In the first place, at least one

organization or Special interest group must develop and

 

1Robert Bendiner, Obstacle Course on Capital Hill
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 39.

 

33
present the proposal to a representative or senator who is
willing to introduce the measure, such as the case of AAACES
recommending extension legislation to Representative
McLaughlin. This initial organization may also serve as a
"legislative watchdog" during the process of legislation,
protecting their original prOposal from undergoing too much
amending and compromising by other special interest groups.1
In the case of extension legislation, these other groups
included the Crop Improvement Committee, Soil Fertility
League, marketing groups and educational interests, to mention
a few.

Thewnext step is the introduction of the bill. All
congressmen may introduce bills, but the important bills are
introduced either by the chairman ofpa committee who is the
rankingwmajority committee member or by the ranking minority
member. The bills introduced by these persons are high
priority on the committee's agenda. Low priority generally
indicates that no action will be taken on a bill and it will
"die" in committee.2 Only about 10% of the bills introduced
are reported out of committees.

There is considerable power vested in the chairman
of a committee. In the Senate, committee chairmen are appointed
by the majority party leaders, and in the house, chairmen are

assigned by the house rules committee. Generally this

 

lIbid., pp. 40-41.

21bid., p. 17.

34
powerful position goes to the majority member with the
longest tenure. Many southern Democrats have the longest
tenure and usually end up being chairmen for years.

In general, bills are acted upon within the committees
and seldom by floor discussion. Within this committee
structure are certain rules for handling legislation most of
which are determined by the committee chairman, who deter-
mines priorities for the bills to be discussed, appoints sub-
committees, postpones meetings, recognizes certain members
for discussion, and has complete control over releasing
records of committee proceedings. About the only function
left to the committee members is to vote and to invite guests
who will sit in on the hearings.

Such legislative power held by the committee chairmen
can assist the passage of legislation. Representative Hatch
was chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture when he
introduced and maneuvered the Hatch Act of 1887 to its
adoption. Senator Dolliver was chairman of the Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry until his unexpected
death in late 1910, Senator Smith and Representative Lever
were chairmen of their respective agricultural committees
when the final Smith-Lever Bill was actively considered
during 1913 and 1914. Smith had much power while in the

Senate for he was also chairman of the new Committee on

 

11bid., pp. 54, 59-63, 65.

35

Education and Labor, and member of the Post Office and Post

Roads Committee and the powerful Finance Committee.1

 

1Dewey W. Grantham, Jr., Hoke Smith and the Politics
of the New South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University
Press, 1958f, pp. 240-241.

 

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 302.

 

CHAPTER III

THE SETTING: DEVELOPMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES FROM 1800 TO 1880
This chapter is an examination of the major forces
that contributed to the first century of growth of this
country, and which fostered the antecedent movements and

political actions that are described in Chapter IV.

Early Land Use and Monetary Policies

 

The United States in its early history had a great
and unique asset that few other countries had: an over-
abundance of land. Land use played a major role during the
development of the United States in the 19th century. Land
disbursement policies affected farming, colleges, tranSpor-
tation, industrial development, and capital investment.

The first census in 1790 Showed that 90 percent of
the people were farmers, indicating that most of this
country's early problems were agriculturally oriented.1

After the revolutionary war, the U.S. economy was

close to bankruptcy. Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 3.

36

37
Hamilton, felt that the country should develop investment
opportunities, using land resources that would encourage
capital investment, even from wealthy European investors.
Observing that the U.S. had no credit, was poor, and could
not afford to levy taxes, he felt that such a plan was its
only recourse. Thomas Jefferson, the idealist, feared that
this kind of policy might encourage a development similar to
the aristocratic land policies common in EurOpe.l

The Hamilton and Jefferson factions continued to
battle over this issue for the next several decades. It was
Hamilton who did successfully influence the early formation
of land policy legislation.

The Land Ordinance of 1785 was the first official
statement of U.S. land policy and dealt primarily with the
surveying and systemized recording of land. Townships were
surveyed rectangularly with 36 sections, of which sections 8,
ll, 26, and 29 were reserved for future sale by the U.S.
government. Section 16 was set aside for the maintenance of
public schools.2

The Land Act of 1796, specified credit terms for
purchasing land from investors and typified the kind of
aristocratic land ownership policy which Jefferson had opposed.

It required a five percent down payment, the remainder of the

 

11bid., p. 4.

21bid., p. 11.

38
first half in 30 days, and the balance to be paid in one
year. Such stiff repayment could only be afforded by the
wealthy investors.

The Harrison Act of 1800 attempted to alleviate this
situation, but with limited success, extending the credit only
to three years. The land remained inaccessible to the poor
farmer who was forced either to rent his farm land from the
landowner or move west to clear his own land.1 The land-
owner became a powerful person in many communities. Money
was already scarce and the landowner and local banks controlled
most of it.

Jefferson's followers, including the frontier settlers,
remained suspicious of the Hamilton faction, or the eastern
landowners and bankers, and another issue arose which
continued the conflict. In the early 1800's, the monied
easterners wanted to establish a national bank in order to
secure a stable economy. This effort failed, meeting strong
resistance by the frontier settlers, who preferred the estab-
lishment of state banks. These state banks issued their
own notes, and the rates of exchange among these banks became
unreliable. The unstable economy caused a decrease in the
U.S. purchasing power overseas. Then came the bad depression
of 1840. Land sales dropped and the settlement of the west

slowed down considerably. The shortage of money and credit

 

11bid., p. 14.

Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, From Byron to
F.D.R. (New York, Alfred A. Knopf,*l955, p. 55.

 

39
caused financial disaster to many farmers, local bankers

and businessmen.1

Economic recovery was slow. Congressmen
believed that the economy could be spurred by the issuance
of land grants to railroads and canal builders which would

encourage local development and the flow of money.2

Settlement Policies

 

Land policies of the middle 1800's began to Shift
from those which had favored investment and speculation to
those which would encourage settlement. The Homestead Act
was passed in 1862, after many years of legislative struggle.
The purpose of the act was to encourage settlement as fast
as possible. The south opposed such legislation because it
would give the northern states more territory for expansion
and power.3

The Homestead Act did encourage settlement but little
else. There was no plan for land use. The new settler had
the liberty to choose his type of farming and use those
practices he preferred. Unfortunately most of the practices
he used also included careless cultivation which subsequently

contributed to soil depletion.4

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 28.

2Paul Wallace Gates, The Illinois Central Railroad and
Its Colonization Work (Cambridge: Harvard Illinois Press, 1934),
pp. 21-22.

3Benedict, Farm, p. 19.

Russell Lord, The Agrarian Revival, (New York: George
Grady Press, 1939), p. 27.

 

4Hofstadter, Reform, p. 40.

40

The Homestead Act along with the numerous land grants
to the railroad and canal companies during the middle 19th
century did much to encourage Speculation and settlement.1

The Morrill Land-Grant College Act which passed the
same year as the Homestead Act, also contributed to land
speculation. The granting of so much land to settlers,
railroads, and colleges flooded the land market, causing a
decrease in land prices, and the early land-grant colleges
had difficulty in developing capital from their huge land
grants.

Prior to the Civil War farmers were mostly interested
in local banking and credit. But the war raised prices for
farm products and suddenly the farmer became aware of the
importance which state and national policies could have on
his well-being. The Greenback issue is a good example of the
farmer's new political consciousness. Greenbacks, a form of
paper currency backed by western banks, were used in the war
as standard currency. After the war, prices fell and money
was scarce. The eastern bankers wanted to return to the
stability offered by the gold standard, which would mean
retiring Greenbacks. To take money out of circulation was
a threat to most farmers, who were debtors and needed cash

2

to pay their debts. Farmer organizations arose to advance

 

1Gates, Illinois, pp. 46-50.

2Benedict, Farm, p. 33.

41
this issue, and the farmers were now involved in state and

national politics.

Industrial and Capital Growth

Industrial growth in this country took a big jump
during the Civil War and continued at an accelerated pace.
Many of the bigger industries were involved in foreign trade
and favored the gold standard. Most eastern banks which used
the gold standard were making large profits, and were able
to extend credit which did contribute to the general growth
of the economy. However the supporters of the Greenbacks
opposed the gold standard because it tended to deflate the
value of the Greenbacks.

During 1870-1875 U.S. imports and exports balanced
each other. By 1876 the exports exceeded imports for the
first time and continued to do so until the middle of the
20th century. The American manufacturer, already profiting
from protective tariffs, was now profiting from the unsatur-
ated higher priced markets.2

The opportunities for profits in industrial expansion
were appealing. The period from the Civil War to the beginn-
ing of the 20th Century was an economic free-for-all.
Businesses started, many failed, economic expansion was
usually quick, and generally uncontrolled by government

policies. It was during this same period that many crucial

 

11bid., p. 39.

2Ibid., p. 41.

42
issues arose which directly and indirectly affected agriculture
and education and the subsequent development of their policies.
The economic issues of the 1880's to 1914 will be discussed

more thoroughly in Chapter IV.

Educational Development

 

The development of the educational system of this
country underwent considerable change since its early
beginnings. Knowles summarized the results of the colonial
period:

The period between the American Revolution
and the Civil War stands out like a beacon
in the history of education, since it was
during this time that the basic pattern of
our national system of state-supported
elementary and secondary schools, state
universities, and normal schools took
shape.l

Knowles states that adult education started as the
settlers landed at Jamestown in 1607, and attempted to
develop a foothold on their new environment.2 No one
thought of it as "adult education." In fact whatever form
it took at this time, adult education was essentially

unorganized and primarily vocational. Knowles claims it was

during this period that the concept of the "American Dream"

 

1Malcolm S. Knowles, "Historical Development of the
Adult Education Movement in the United States,“ in Handbook
of Adult Education in the United States, ed. by MalcoIm S.
Knowles (Chicago: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A.,
1960), p. 12.

2Ibid., p. 7.

43
arose--the notion that every American can get ahead if
willing and hard working.

The concept of public-supported education can be
traced to the New England colonies of the 1600's where
colonial theocracy was practiced. The churches urged their
communities to establish reading schools, where the students
could learn to read the bible. Massachusetts enacted the
compulsory education laws of 1642 and 1647 which compelled
the communities to establish schools with strong parental
support for their children to attend.1

The middle colonies were so heterogeneous in
nationality and religious backgrounds that there was little
collective effort to encourage schooling. Elementary educa-
tion was left to the decisions and directions of the local
communities. Schooling in the southern colonies was directed
by missionary efforts of the Anglican Church.

While adult education was never known as such, some
of its basic notions came from the Colonial period. Ben ./
Franklin's Friday night discussion group, the Junto, had
several spinoffs, one of which was the concept of the human»
compulsion for self-improvement, the searching mind. Four
other adult educational concepts trace their beginnings to i
this period: the subscription library, the museum, the

"play house" or theater, and the newspaper.2

 

1Campbell, Organization, p. 48.

 

2Knowles, Historical, p. 8.

 

44

The concept of statewide public schools was formally
presented twice (1779 and 1817) to the Virginia assembly
by Thomas Jefferson.1 While both proposals failed to get
adopted, Campbell felt the concept of state supported schools
had been further established.

There was much controversy over the issue of taxation
for public education, a controversy though still current
had some of its bitterest arguments during 1825 to 1850.
Strong feelings and bitter antagonism were engendered,
second in intensity only to the issue of slavery.2 The
issue subsided somewhat after 1850 as more communities estab-
lished tax supported schools. Kalamazoo established a high
school in 1858 supported by taxes. Thirteen years later a
group of citizens challenged the legality of collecting
taxes for high schools and lost. The reluctant taxpayer
continued to pay more for education.3

By the middle of the 19th century two important
cornerstones then were deeply intrenched in America's educa-
tional perSpective: First, the need of taxation to support

the schools and second, the need of tight community control

for these tax supported schools. This second concept has

 

1Campbell, Organization, p. 50.

2Knowles, Historical, p. 12.

 

3Robert E. Potter, The Stream of American Education
(New York: American Book Company, 1967), p. 314.

45
been so strong that state governments have been very
reluctant to act arbitrarily in the alteration of existing
units or in the establishment of new districts.1 Local

community school control was alive and well, and here to stay.

Change in Higher Education
Higher education underwent considerable change in
content during the first 100 years of the Republic. In the
early history of American colleges, religious and academic

principles dominated college curricula.2

Gradually the
curricula began to reflect the growing needs of the local
communities, and the colleges began to respond to the changing
demands of the American life style.

Throughout the country and especially in the midwest,
there was a gradual yet firm rejection of the exclusive I
focus upon classical and theological studies. Some of this
rejection may have been fostered by the apparent successes
of "ill-schooled" people like Ben Franklin, George washington,
Henry Clay, Steven Douglas, and Andrew Jackson, the poorly-
schooled popular frontier hero who became president.3 A

classical education did not appear needed in order to attain

the "American Dream." A practicality toward education was

 

1Campbell, Organization, p. 98.

 

2Edward Banforth Eddy, Jr., Colleges for our Land
and Times (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956i, p.‘1.

 

 

3Allan Nevins, The State Universities and Democragy
(Urbana: University of IIlinois Press, 1962), pp. 16-18.

 

Eddy, Colleges, p. 2.

46

assumed, and curricula began to change to include and favor
the sciences and mechanical fields. Vocational education
was believed to be more important to one's future success
than studying the classics. During the 1830's and 40's
there was an increased demand for scientifically trained
people. Many college presidents, looking for bigger endow-
ments, were willing to offer the new studies and not unex-
pectedly received strong opposition from the classical
scholars.l

The Land-Grant College Act of 1862, introduced by
Senator Justin S. Morrill, was another form of federal legis-
lation that continued to grant land for the support of
education. However this time the government restricted the
instruction to the subject related to agriculture, mechanical
arts, and military science.2 Morrill's first land-grant
bill was proposed in 1859, passed by Congress, but was vetoed
by Buchanan, who feared that such a bill would trigger the
south to secede. Morrill's second land-grant bill of 1862
did pass because the southern opposition had in fact seceded
from the union. This second act granted eleven million acres,

about twice the size of the state of Vermont. The act provided

 

1Eddy, Colleges, p. 8.

Nevins, State Universities, pp. 2, 16-18.

2Frederick Rudolph, The American Colle e and University,
A History (New York: RandomIHBEEET—IHBZTT'FPTEZIV=ZB1.

 

 

47

each state with land or script equivalent to 30,000 acres
for each U.S. Senator and Representative in Congress.1'

In initial practice, most states had difficulty in
profiting from their land grants. There was a surplus of
land on the market, and very few buyers. Loan money cost
about 7 percent, high for the time. There were accounts of
mismanagement and questionable deals. Land was being sold
below cost, for unless colleges could find buyers quickly,
the cost of holding the land, such as loss of potential

interest, would soon exceed any increment in land value.2

Several of the existing state universities wanted to
receive the land-grants in order to add to their existing
systems. Supporters of the agricultural and mechanical
interests feared that the Land-Grant College Act would be
usurped by the academic and liberal arts scholars. They
argued that since the state universities had not been
interested in the land-grants earlier, this later change
of interest must be an ulterior impulse.

Throughout the early years of these land-grant
colleges there were many problems involving land swindles,

price fixing, log rolling, speculation, disappointed advocates,

 

lEddy, Colleges, p. 33.

Lord, Agrarian, pp. 31-32.

2Nevins, State Universities, pp. 23—35.

 

48

and meager endowments. In retrospect it is amazing that
the land-grant colleges did survive.1

The mechanical studies in the early A & M colleges
expanded. The growing industrial economy offered many
employment opportunities for the college graduate with an
engineering degree. Industry wanted trained people to plan,
operate, and supervise mining operations, railroads, and
factories. In contrast agricultural graduates had few
employment opportunities. The prospects of future employ-
ment in the engineering fields looked so advantageous, that
many agricultural students redirected their studies to
engineering.2

During the 1870's the agricultural colleges were
experiencing a difficult start. Professional engineering
societies flourished while the field of agriculture suffered.
There were only a few great agricultural teachers, even
fewer with the combined assets of organizing ability,

scientific training, and farm experience.3

Most colleges
had few if any agricultural students. President E. 0.
Porter of the University of Minnesota abolished agricultural
classroom instruction. The Grange countered his action by

threatening to get the agricultural department and its

 

lIbid., p. 35.

2Nevins, State Universities, p. 59.

 

31bid., p. 56.

49

appropriations removed unless he reinstated the agricultural
studies.1 It was at this time that the Grange-college
relationship became firmly established. Through the mid-
west the Grange became a quick defender of the agricultural
colleges and challenged anybody who threatened their existence.

Businessmen began to support the technical and
mechanical schools, which they felt were preferable to the
liberal "do nothing" schools, as they referred to the
classical oriented college.2

There were many other forms of education that developed
during the later 19th century, which directly and indirectly
contributed to the concept of extension education. Except
for a few pages by Schannon and Schoenfeld little or nothing
was discussed about the growth of education concerning the
land-grant colleges, trade schools, and general university
extension.

Josiah Holbrook is credited with the formation of the
American Lyceum in 1826. This community-oriented lecture
series grew to about 3,000 lycea, mostly in the northeastern

United States, before it all but died out in the 1850's.3

 

11bid., p. 56.

2Edward Chase Kirkland, Dream and Thogght in the
Business Community 1860-1900 (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1956), pp. 87, 101.

 

 

3Schannon and Schoenfeld, p. 9.

50

The Chautauqua movement, started in 1874, was
characterized as education with a missionary zeal, Chautauqua
became something of a folk university with a variety of
educational programs which included such activities as
scientific conferences, temperance conferences, and a
church congress.1 Tent Chautauqua, gestating for years in
rural communities came rushing across the country side during
the 1900's.

During the 1880's many adult education programs
developed throughout the U.S. via farmers institutes, short
courses, farm agents, correspondence courses, libraries,
reading circles, and lectures which will be discussed more
thoroughly in Chapter IV. The concept of education for adults
beyond the formal school and college setting had been firmly

established.

 

1Shannon and Schoenfeld, p. 11.

CHAPTER IV

THE FORMATIVE YEARS, 1880-1910

The preceding chapter described the contextual setting
for movements which led toward extension policy formation.
This chapter will describe the emergence of the forces that
were part of or contributed directly to the antecedent
movements of the Cooperative Extension Service. The material
is extensive and is presented in four sections: national
economic development, western expansion, development of
extension programs, and the formation of agricultural policy.
This format permits a comprehensive examination of the pro-
cess of extension policy formation, the inherent forces at

work, and the continuous interactions of these forces.

Economic Development: 1880 to 1910

This period of economic development was characterized
by the growth of new competition, new centers of economic
power, and eventually during the progressive era of the 1900's,
the increased amounts of legislation directed at the economic
sector. It became a period when the legislative side of
government attempted to deal with the economic forces, which
in turn sought the help of executive government to ward off
these challenges. Agricultural production and related
industries became a part of this scene. The purpose of this

51

52
section is to identify the economic forces and subsequent
policies and to appreciate the extent of their influence
on subsequent educational and agricultural policies, for
from the economic sector came some of the support that
directly advocated agricultural extension.

Knowles perceived the period between the Civil War
and World War I as the developmental transition of this
country from adolescence to maturity. The U.S. population
had grown from 30 million in 1860 to well over 100 million
by 1920, mostly by immigration. With colonization and commerce
developing everywhere, the United States had become a world
economic leader. Knowles summarized the period as follows:

The most phenomenal expansion of all was
the economic life. Indeed, during this
period the character of the nation changed
from essentially an agrarian society to a
predominantly industrial and urban society.

Prior to the Civil War most of this country's indus-
trially produced goods were marketed locally. In the decades
following the Civil War, industrial activity and flow of
capital occurred in enormous proportions, and by 1900 these
markets had expanded to national and international levels.2
This economic activity became so intense that the government

became in some cases, an instrument of big business in an

effort to stabilize the economic forces.

 

1Knowles, Historical, p. 15.

 

2Hofstadter, Reform, p. 168.

Kirkland, Dream, p. 7.

53

Some of the industrial growth was altered by the
two major economic recessions of 1873 and 1893. Kirkland
related that an estimated 95 percent of the businesses failed
during both recessions. After the 1873 panic, many of the
surviving large businesses fearing financial losses, merged
into pools which secretly established prices in order to
secure profits on a more predictable basis for investors.
However the smaller and newer businesses reacted against the
industrial pools by seeking legislative help. In 1887 the
Government enacted the Interstate Commerce Act which declared
price-fixing illegal. For the first time the government was
involved with a regulatory economic policy which directly
affected business affairs. Prior to this business leaders
had not sought governmental influence or control.2

Unexpectedly the Interstate Commerce Act also con-
tributed to many industries forming giant monopolies. Since
price fixing was illegal, price wars resumed as each industry
competed for the bigger share of the market. The result of

this competition caused much fluctuation and unpredictability

in the market and investors were hesitant to make major

 

1Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in
the United States (New York: International Publifihers, 1955),
p. 12.

 

2Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism (New York:
Free Press of Glenco, 1963), p. 59.

 

Kirkland, Dream, p. 101.

54
investments. Businessmen, fearful that the threats to profits
would discourage potential investors, continued to make
mergers via trusts, holding companies, and monopolies, in
an effort to stabilize and to guarantee constant earnings.
Most of the mergers occurred after the recession of 1893,
especially 1899 to 1904.1
Earnings prior to the mergers of the 1890's were high
but risky. Kolko reported profits one-fifth higher prior
to 1890 than during the years of consolidations in 1893 to
1904. DeSpite the large number of mergers, poor business
judgment caused many to fail. Of the 328 mergers of 1888-
1905 studied by Shaw Livermore, only 49 succeeded.2
These surviving mergers had created new pools of
wealth and power which were used to create further new and
competing industries.3 The mergers, however, even with
their size, efficiency, and shrewd capitalization were unable
to stem the tide of rampant competition. Both new and
established firms found it difficult to hold onto markets. The

United States economy had become huge, diverse, decentralized,

and difficult to predict.4

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 92.

Kolko, Triumph, pp. 51, 145.
2Kolko, Triumph, pp. 27, 54.

31bid., p. 54.

4Benedict, Farm, pp. 90-91.

55

The industrial community was unable to control the
economic forces with mergers of any sort, and the business
interests sought governmental involvement to obtain conditions
of stability, predictability, and security. With govern-
mental involvement, the economy entered a period of new but
limited competition, with new centers of economic power,
mostly monopolistic, and a series of administrative enactments
to support the progressive era.1

The Federal government's role in industrial growth
appeared to be dichotomous. On the one hand was the legisla-
tive side of the government; the congressmen who were strongly
influenced by their constituents and in many cases by the
reform movements that will be discussed later. On the other
side was the administrative and judicial branch of government,
which responded to the economic forces, and this relationship
contributed much to the concept "big government for big
business."

President Theodore Roosevelt, in his first term
following McKinley's assasination in 1901, moved cautiously
on the big business trusts. One reason for his caution was
the attitude of his inherited Attorney General, Philandor

Knok, who had been an attorney for the House of Morgan.3

 

1Hofstadter, Reform, pp. 242-244.

Kolko, Triumph, pp. 3, 7.

2Kirkland, Dream, pp. 135-136.

3Kolko, Triumph, p. 65.

56

Throughout most of Roosevelt's administration most
of the antitrust suits were against the "bad" trusts like
Standard Oil while the "good" trusts were seemingly over-
looked. For example during the recession of 1907, when Morgan
wanted to expand his investments into the Tennessee Coal and
Iron Company, via his U.S. Steel Corporation, he needed the
promises of President Roosevelt and Commerce Commissioner
Garfield not to investigate the millionaire's new trust. Both
men were criticized later for allowing this action.1

President William H. Taft continued the conservative
economic policies started by Roosevelt. In 1909, as a newly
elected president, he attempted unsuccessfully to reform the
protective tariff.2 By 1910 he had become, according to
historian Kolko, less of a reformer and more of a conservative.
A case in point concerns the tax exemptions granted to rail-
roads by Secretary of the Interior Ballinger who was charged
by the reformers with showing favoritism to industry. One
of the spokesmen for the reformers was Gifford Pinchot,
Chief of the Division of Forestry, and former member of
Roosevelt's Country Life Commission. The dispute between
Ballinger and Pinchot became so polarized that Taft settled
it by firing Pinchot. This incident convinced the reformers

that big business influenced government, and encouraged voters

 

lKolko, Triumph, pp. 114-115.

2Thomas Leslie Riley, "The Deve10pment of Extension
in the Land-Grant Universities, 1862-1914." (Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1965), pp. 273-274.

57

in 1910 to end the conservative influence and elect more
reform congressmen.l

Woodrow Wilson, like his predecessor Taft, started
his administration by seeking tariff reductions and he
succeeded much to the objection of the Grange. The immediate
effect of the lowered tariffs was free trade and depressed
prices. Wilson's desired long-range goal was to encourage
foreign countries to reduce their tariffs, thus increasing
world trade, and thus increasing the demand and prices of

American goods, including farm commodities.2

The shortages
caused by World War I made Wilson's policies look like a huge
success.

Foreign trade had a large impact on agriculture pro-
duction and will be discussed more thoroughly in the next
section.

Starting with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887
and continuing through 1915, governmental administration of
economic policy implemented two different kinds of controls
on erring businesses. The first method was that of issuing
a warning to the business in question, and this might involve
a whole series of arguments and detentes between the business

and government. The second and stronger method of govern-

mental control was that of outright intervention, usually

 

lIbid., pp. 273—276.

Kolko, Triumph, pp. 159-161, 192.

2Benedict, Farm, p. 143.

58
effected by the creation of an administrative commission
to regulate the situation.1
An important case involving government intervention
in corporate policy occurred with the Nothern Securities
Case of 1902. This involved several railroads with the hold-
ings of Hill, Morgan, and Harriman. While the case did little
to actually damage monied interests, the biggest surprise
to the business community was the government's attempt to
redistribute wealth, and the threat to the previous autonomy
of the business decision-making process.2
However in spite of this type of intervention the
federal government was still regarded as a source of economic
protection and support. The railroads for years had received
many land grants and subsidies from federal and local govern—
ments. During 1906 and 1907 at least five railroads were

also granted business and property tax exemptions.3

Many
other industries had received the benefits of protective
tariffs, direct subsidies in a few cases, use of government-

owned natural resources, and monopolistic privileges possible

in certain federal charters or regulations.4

 

1Hofstadter, Reform, p. 230.

Kolko, Triumph, p. 6.

ZKirkland, pgggg, p. 101.

Kolko, Triumph, p. 68.

3U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Territories,

Copper River and Northwestern Railway Compapy, S. Rept. 873
to accompany S. 6316 61iCong., 2d sess., 1910, p. 3.

 

4Kolko, Triumph, p. 59.

59

The giant industries formed their own national
public lobby when they created the National Civic Federation
in 1907. The purposes were quite clear; encourage businesses
to support federal policies that would counter state and
anti-trust legislation, and attempt to put current business
and government detente arrangements on a more firm footing.l
Big business was very intent.on establishing a firm positive
relationship with federal government, a position that could
be identified with today's relationships.

About the only place big business feared controls
was at local and state levels where the democratic process
might truely actualize with local movements and local legis-
lation. Corporations, already deterred by the fluctuating
forces of uncontrolled competition, turned again to the federal
government for protection from local and state regulations.2

The Federal government was not anxious to interfere
with local and state legislation on these matters. However
when pressured, it would usually establish a commission
which in addition to specified functions, served as a
buffer between the hostile local adversaries on the one
hand, and the corporations on the other.3

The Department of Commerce, established in 1903,

generally fulfilled this buffer role, mostly through the

 

1Ibid., p. 132.

21bid., p. 161.

31bid., p. 179.

60
efforts of its first commissioner James R. Garfield, son
of former President Garfield. The Federal Trade Commission,
enacted under Wilson's Democratic administration in 1915,
served a similar function. Generally commissions identified
and recommended action, but Congress or the executive branch

would initiate action.l

International Trade

The economic policies which grew out of this rapid
industrial development were also affected by international
trade and commerce. Agricultural production was greatly
affected because of the large amount of agricultural goods
involved in international trade. McFall, agricultural
economist from Massachusetts Agricultural College, reported
that the agricultural products constituted over one-half of
the value of all U.S. exports.

Throughout most of the nineteenth century much of the
capital used in the United States came from major European
investors. Because of the huge growth of industry in the
U.S. and expanding markets, American banking was growing
large enough to replace the European investments in this
country, and the United States was fast becoming the

financial capital of the world according to Pratt, Chief of

 

11bid., p. 274.

2Robert J. McFall, "The Farmers Foreign Market," Annals
of the American Academy, V01. 117, January 1925, p. 152.

61
the U.S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.l American
banking interests, seeking a bigger Share of the world
market, competed with the European capitalists who much
earlier had established strong positions of reciprocal trade.
For example, English and German banks made major investments
in South American resources such as railroads, harbor works,
public utilities, and warehouses. It was assessed that
England and Germany had invested four billion dollars in
Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay over a twenty-year period
and in return received 46 percent of the trade from those
countries.2 If American banking, then, was to increase and
establish more control over its trade, it would have to make
foreign investments, remain on the gold standard (the inter-
national currency) and establish policies of low tariffs and
free trade with its competitively priced products. This was
the policy stated by Kies of the National City Bank of New
York.

In 1915 Howe, Commissioner of Immigration at the Port
of New York, described the opportunities for economic
growth:

The free port would offer great opportunity
for financial Operations, now made possible
by the recent currency act (Federal Reserve
Act). It would stimulate international

banking, and would tend to shift the finan-

cial center of the world to this country.
And America, by the logic of events, has

 

1Edward Ewing Pratt, "The Attitude of Business Toward
Foreign Trade," Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 59, 1915,
p. 296.

2William S. Kies, "Branch Banks and Our Foreign Trade,"
Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 59, 1915, p. 301.

62
become the natural center for the world's
financing, just as London became that
center several centuries ago, when it
shifted from the cities of the Netherlands.
But the financial center will only move
to this country when it becomes a clearing-
house of goods as well as of money. For
credit the world over is created by currently
created wealth in transit or change, so that
even our financial expansion is dependent
upon the opening up of American ports tol
the clearance of the wealth of the world.
Tariffs are a tool in international trade policy.
The post Civil War tariffs on U.S. imports were designed to
protect the American industries from the competition of
foreign imports. These tariffs did not include taxes on
agricultural imports, which in effect made free trade in the
agricultural commodities at a time when agricultural prices
were decreasing. The Populists and Greenbackers were
convinced that the only way to improve farm income was to
restrict imports with tariffs. With strong rural representa-
tion, they made a political issue of the need for tariffs
in 1880. The Republicans, having narrowly escaped defeat
in 1872 and 1876, established protective tariffs on certain
agricultural commodities as a means of attracting the farmers'
votes.2 It apparently worked since there was no significant

recurrence of farmer opposition to tariff policies until

1934.

 

1Frederic C. Howe, "The Free Port, An Agency for the
Development of American Commerce," Annals of the American
Academy, Vol. 59, May 1915, p. 239.

2Benedict, Farm, pp. 56, 57.

63

Due to their low prices American agricultural
products sold very quickly on the international market from
1870 to 1890. By the turn of the century, however, U.S.
agricultural prices began an upward climb which continued
until after World War I. There was a growing demand for
agricultural products, specifically from a growing U.S.
consuming public and an increasing number of processing
industries: the producer was delighted. But the dissatis-
fied processors reacted by encouraging programs which would
contribute to an increase in agricultural production in hopes
that the increased supply would decrease the prices.1

To the processor's benefit, the foreign producer was
attracted to the higher American prices, and foreign produced
commodities started to flood the U.S. market. The issue of
protective tariffs rose again. But with the advent of WCrld

War I, the tariff issue was overshadowed temporarily. Prices

for agricultural products went even higher. American

 

1Hofstadter, Reform, p. 110.

Charles W. Holman, "The American Farmer and the Tariff,"
The Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 117, January 1925,
p. 167.

Theodore Saloutos and John D. Hicks, Agricultural
Discontent in the Middle West, 1900—1939 (Madison: University
of WiSconsin Press, 1951), p. 22.

 

 

64

agriculture experienced a brief golden age; brief, because
the postwar surpluses quickly caused a price drOp.1

Cotton had been a major part of foreign trade ever
since the Civil War, with U.S. raw cotton in the 1890's
accounting for about one-half of the world's production.
Prices for cotton prior to 1900 began a general increase
which continued until after World War I. The higher prices
stimulated an increase in production which had a difficult
time meeting the demand. There was an increased number of
cotton mills ordering cotton and secondly the supply was
considerably diminished by the damage caused by the boll
weevil. The cotton millers, foreign and domestic, supported
policies of free trade and insect control, in order to assist
in the availability and production respectively of cotton
and to thus lower prices.2 It was clear that cotton had
been established as an essential commodity in international
commerce, as well as the prime raw material for New England's

textile industry and an indispensible asset to the southern

economy.

 

1Benedict, Farm, pp. 113, 120.
Hofstadter, Reform, p. 110.
Holman, Tariffs, pp. 166-177.

Pratt, Foreign Trade, p. 296.

 

2McFall, Foreign Markets, p. 144.

 

Edwin G. Nourse, American Agriculture and the
Eurqpean Market, (New YorE: McGraw, 1924), p. 41.

 

65

Wheat and corn were very active commodities that
sold well on the international market. There was competition
however from Argentina and Canada, who could grow and sell
corn and wheat more cheaply. This temporarily depressed the
exporting of these products until World War I, when the
demand, and prices, for U.S. wheat and corn rapidly increased.1

Throughout the thirty-year period 1880 to 1910,
agricultural products had become a major part of this
country's trade, and the agricultural producers became
increasingly aware of the need to take an active part in the
decision-making process regarding any trade or financial

policies which were to be formulated.

Agricultural Related Industries

 

American agricultural production was also affected
by the economic policies directed at their related industries
such as the machinery manufacturers, food processors, and
railroads. These agriculturally related industries responded
to the economic forces in a similar manner as did other
companies, as they maneuvered to stay fiscally sound. Their
mergers and other forms of consolidations led to increased
need for government intervention and contributed to the
formation of local and state policies.

The International Harvester Company, controlled
mostly by the interest of J. P. Morgan, was formed in 1902

by merging several smaller companies and it became the

 

lMcFall, Foreign Markets, pp. 145-146.

 

66

largest U.S. tractor manufacturer. This giant company
controlled a large part of the market with 96 percent of
all tractors sold in 1902 to 87 percent ten years later.
McCormick and Deering merged about the same time and attempted
to establish a trust with control of ore lands and milling
operations, but inadequate profits forced them to withdraw.
Most smaller companies were intentionally left out of such
mergers in hopes for their quick collapse. Deere and Co.,
J. I. Case and Co., Oliver Farm Equipment Co., were some of
the 640 smaller companies struggling to stay in business in
1909. By 1915 some of the auto companies entered the tractor
and implement industry. This large amount of manufacturing
competition caused many companies to make reckless fiscal
policy decisions and many became bankrupt.1

Within the auto industry, there is a classic example
of how fundamental technological innovations led to a pro-
liferation of wealth in new hands effecting new centers of
power in the economy. The case in point was the success
of Henry Ford who started with only $28,000 in capital and
the internal combustion engine. In contrast, the Electric
Vehicle Company with its battery operated cars invested 20
million dollars and failed.2

The meat packing industry is another of the early

trusts in the agricultural industry. During the 1880's a

 

1Kolko, Tripgph, pp. 45-47, 74.

211616., pp. 42—43.

67
number of meat packing companies (Armour, Swift, Albertos,
Hammond, Morris, Cudahy, St. Louis Dressed Beef, and
Provision) met regularly to divide the market and adjust
prices. They used their combined influence to procure rail-
road rebates for their large orders. Whenever new and
serious competition arose it was merged into the group of
packers. These mergers succeeded for a few years but were
still unable to get complete control of the market, for it
was easy for new packers to begin the business at the
community level. Local packers received local trade in
spite of several attempts at price adjustments by the big
packers. A court injunction in 1902 dissolved the meat
packing pool, which appeared to be failing anyway because of
internal conflicts and poor management by the second generation
owners.1 The corporate mergers of these companies truly
earned some of the suspicions put forward by organizations
such as the Grange and the Populists, who disliked their
monopolistic policies.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was intended by
its original supporters to standardize the quality of food,
specifically meat. However by the time the bill was enacted
it had set standards so strict that it also had the effect
of controlling the competition from the smaller packers. This

legislation was similar to other conservative policies of

 

11bid., pp. 51—53.

68

the time and illustrates the extent of industrial influence

on legislation affecting the formation of economic policy.1

The railroads were a major factor in the formation
of certain agricultural policies. Much of the railroads'
corporate actions influenced and were influenced by the land-
granting policies of the middle 1800's. Railroads required
high capital investment per mile of construction. In order
to acquire capital, the railroads attempted to sell their
huge land grants to big investors from Germany, England,
and Eastern American banks. Some of these land grants
extended 20 miles, in a checkerboard pattern, on either
side of the right of way.2 Some of the land was even
exempt from local taxes. Post-Civil War land sales by the
Illinois Central Railroad for example carried a provision
of local tax exemption until the last payment was made.3
Local governments were denied tax bases and became furious
at the railroads for their special privilege.

Railroad construction continued faster than the rail-

roads could get investments or sell land. In order to get

 

lIbid., pp. 108-110.

Benedict, Farm, pp. 119, 132.

2Benedict, Farm, p. 69.

3Gates, Illinois, p. 306.

69
additional money railroads were writing off construction
costs with the tonnage shipped.1 Seeking new business and
more cargo to haul, they offered rebates to potentially
large shippers, offered free railroad passes to preferred
customers, started farm demonstration trains in Iowa,
offered excursions to state fairs, encouraged railroad
officials to get into community politics, assisted with the
development of grain elevators, and hired farm agents to
encourage farmers to grow and harvest bigger crops that
could be shipped by rail. The competititive wars of the
iron horse were in full fling.2 There were few legal con-
trols imposed on these railroad policies before 1900.

The cotton industry illustrates well the inter-
relatedness which is vital to industry. At one end.were
the big cotton producers with their manual labor forces;
then the railroads that hauled cotton to the textile industries;
the processors who made the goods; the marketing systems
and international market mechanisms, including stores and
mail orders; and finally the consumer.

Even the lowly sewing machine incited huge profits

in the textile industry. Walter Hunt invented it in 1830,

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 70.

21bidor PP- 69, 71-72.

70
and Elias Howe and Isiac Merritt Singer fought for its
patents in 1859.1 Its impact on mass produced clothing can
be measured by the fact that in 1880 less than one-half
of the population had store-bought clothing. Twenty years
later nearly everyone had at least one article that was
ready made and store-bought. When one realizes the whole
network of industries which both support and depend on the
cotton industry for survival, one can understand the des-
tructive impact of the boll weevil's entry in 1892, causing
a vast reduction in cotton production, thereby causing

shortages and high prices.

Capital and Credit

 

Banking, prior to 1900, was as competitive as were
manufacturing and transportation which were involved D3 the
industrial mergers. By 1900 most of the nation's new
capital was controlled by the New York banks. It was during
this time also that many new businesses further west were
being financed by the state and local banks, which depended
on the Eastern banks for lending capital. Eventually these
local banks ran short of cash, and the Eastern banks could
not supply enough money; the bankers persuaded the government
to float money into circulation. Consequently this deflation
of the dollar contributed to a period of inflation followed

by the Panic of 1907.2 After the panic, major bankers sought

 

lDaniel Boorstin, The Americans! The Democratic
Experience (New York: Random House, 1973), pp. 92-96.

 

2Ko1ko, Triumph, pp. 153—158.

71
legislation which would inhibit the recurrence of recessions
in the future. There was much debate as to what kinds of
controls should be used, and Congress finally passed a
watered down compromise bill that provided little control
of capital flow, but did permit Congressional intervention
into banking policies by the Congressional National Monetary
Commission.

The proposed Aldrich Bill of 1910 was the first
attempt to establish the federal reserve system. This bill
offered many of the measures which the bankers desired:
central control which would stabilize banking policies,
authority to control state banks, and a plan to establish
overseas branches, which would strengthen the position of
U.S. banks in foreign markets. However the bankers disliked
this bill because there was too much presidential control
entailed. When Aldrich removed this clause, Congress then
defeated the bill in 1912 because it lacked control stipu-
lations. Finally in 1913, the Glass Bill, which contained
similar provisions to the Aldrich Bill, but did include more
governmental control measures, was passed by Congress.

One can observe that the government at the national
level was beginning very definitely to direct economic
policy, and it responded favorably to the capitalists.

The conservative decision-makers in Congress believed that

helping the capitalists was doing the country some good.

 

11bid., pp. 181-189, 253.

72
Even the intellectuals who advocated the growth of newer
and smaller businesses urged that such growth not be permitted
at the expense of upsetting the economy. Most intellectuals
acknowledged that big business was essential, misguided at

times, perhaps, but never to be eliminated.1

Western Expansion; 1880 to 1910

The forces of the industrial expansion and inter-
national trade not only affected agricultural production,
as discussed in the preceding section, but had a profound
effect on the various facets of western development and
rural living. The United States was being settled with
hundreds of new and growing communities out of which came
new centers of wealth and influence.

From the western expansion also came the reform
movements articulated by many groups such as the Grange,
Farmers Union, and other rural groups which constantly sought
to reform the seemingly insensitive actions of big business.
Of special note were the efforts of labor and the populists.
Labor and industry had tangled with each other for over a
century. The Populists have come and gone as a political
party, but they successfully challenged the conservatives
and may have contributed indirectly to the mood of the
country to elect a more liberal and reform oriented congress

in 1910 and 1912.

 

lIbid., pp. 214-215.

73
The early development of the Standard Oil Company

illustrates the unique relationship between industrial

growth and western expansion.

Development of an Oil Industry

Colonel Drake drilled this country's first success-
ful oil well in 1859, near Titusville in northwestern
Pennsylvania. Oil was so plentiful and near the surface
that the well only had to be dug a mere 69 feet. The
discovery of this well occurred at a time when oil was
believed to have only medicinal value, consequently the
event did not receive much public acclaim. However, once
oil's many industrial, mechanical, and more profitable uses
were discovered in the 1860's, the oil boom and land specula-
tion shifted into high gear.1 The mineral rights of farm
land were often sold to speculating companies. These land
exchanges occurred so quickly that they were regarded with
suspicion by the rural population.

The discovery and location of oil, coal, and other
minerals usually contributed to a sequence of events that
required legal decisions on land use and settlement,
industrial development, labor growth, and issues related
to transportation and commerce. For example when John D.
Rockefeller invested heavily in oil production the
burgeoning railroads competed to haul it and many new

refineries were established near the railway lines. There

 

1Boorstin, Americans, p. 50.

 

74
was a big business in hauling crude oil from the oil
fields near Titusville to the refineries near Cleveland.
Land investment business became brisk and included many
legal transactions associated with corporate law.

Oil prices during the 1860's fluctuated frequently
and extensively. Rockefeller saw this price fluctuation
as the result of destructive competition. In his effort to
control this fluctuation and assure more predictable earnings
he established the Standard trusts in 1872. This had the
effect of controlling the costs of oil production from the
well head to the railroad, to the refineries, and eventually
to the consumer.

The Standard Oil trusts were a financial success
despite the fact that they were declared illegal by the
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Elkins Anti-Rebating
Act of 1903. Standard's share of the market reached 95
percent by 1879, a combination powerful enough that it
forced out the newer and smaller competing companies with
various methods of price cutting and dealt with the federal
legal cases and laws.

Standard used its large market volume to pressure
for shipping rebates from the railroads. It had controlling
interests not just on petroleum but in the American Cotton

Oil Trust, National Linseed Oil Trust, Distillers and

 

11bid., p. 50.

2Ibid., pp. 50, 418.

Foner, Labor, p. 12.

75

Cattle Feeders Co., Sugar Refining Company, and the
National Land Trust.1 These rebates became an issue among
the critics of the giant monopolies. A legal suit charging
Standard with receiving unfair and illegal rebates was
settled in the courts with the Rebate Case of 1907. Judge
Landis fined Standard 29 million dollars on 1,462 counts.
But a year later Judge Grosscup upheld an appeal, the case
was retried and Standard won. Significantly, a giant
industry had been sufficiently challenged on its control
of rebates and the courts, not the companies, had to settle
the matter. The rebate issue was raised again in later cases
involving transportation of agricultural products.2

The growth of the Standard Oil Company was among
other things an example of a huge industrial complex that
dealt with and endured the forces of competition. It
illustrates how the actions of one company affected other
business interests, and required governmental intervention
in corporate affairs. But the forces of industry reached
beyond the manufacturing world and into the area of
community development. Wherever a new industry began, it
involved capital, labor, transportation of raw materials
and manufactured goods, and the formation of legal statutes
on local and state levels, especially laws governing land

use and transportation.

 

1Foner, Labor, p. 12.

2Kolko, Triump . pp. 40, 122-125.

76

State and Local Law

 

Each state created its own legislation to enforce
controls on instate industries as well as interstate oriented
industries such as the railroads. Generally there were two
legal considerations: laws governing the common carrier
which controlled the establishment of rates, and laws
governing the right of public domain. The states used the
latter to determine which railroads would get the right of
way and the conditions under which the railroads would
function.1 The railroads disliked operating under the many
and variant state laws and sought federal assistance to
alleviate this situation. The railroads, like major industry,
preferred national legislation that would supercede state
regulations.

However the new states and communities wanted to
protect their rights to govern locally the railroads and
canals, and the diversification of giant industries. In
order to assert and strengthen their rights to legislate
on a state and local level, they needed legal training in
the areas of governmental and corporate law. The number of
law schools reflected this growing demand with an increase
from 51 law schools nationally in 1880 to 102 schools in
1900. The new communities and states employed lawyers to

develop legislation that would protect and enhance local

 

1Boorstin, Americans, p. 56.

 

Hofstadter, Reform, p. 17.

77
conditions. According to Boorstin these laws were

legally sound if not just.1

The Consuming Middle Class

 

The rapid increase in urbanization was a consequence
of the industrial and commercial development of this
country. The urban population was 22,100,000 in 1890 and
more than doubled to reach 54,000,000 in 1920. The
agricultural population was 5,737,000 in 1890, but only
increased by 711,000 in the same time period for a total of
6,448,000.2 The American population was fast becoming
predominately urban. Out of these growing populations rural
and urban emerged a middle class that contributed two basic
and vital forces: a consumer oriented public capable of
purchasing goods and services, and a public that had active
participation in voluntary, especially reform, movements.

The middle-income class became a major consumer of
goods and services, responding to the appeal of the depart-
ment stores, five and dimes, and mail order houses. It
became very easy to purchase goods, especially ready made
clothes that could be afforded by nearly everyone. Even
the Europeans were shocked to see commoners dressed like
the more important people, for what was a one-of-a-kind
businessman's suit in Europe, stated Boorstin, was mass

produced here.

 

1Boorstin, Americans, p. 62.

2Hofstadter, Reform, p. 116.

78

"Consumer palace" was the term used by Boorstin
to describe the large department stores located in major
cities.1 These stores extended credit to customers,
encouraged spending, and lobbied successfully to get major
transporters, like street car lines, to bring customers to
their doors.2 The middle class was becoming a vital force
to this country's economy.

Over a period of time, the rural and newer communities
were also drawn into the consumer process by mail order
companies: the Wards mail order business provided goods to
these communities via catalogue sales. In order to encourage
the rural population to use mail orders, Wards pictured
Grange hats, showed Grange endorsements, and offered special
credit arrangements to Grange members.3 Indirectly Wards had
an adult education program that contributed to the formation
of the farmers' expected standard of living.

The general store owners had their share of problems
in competing for the consumers' money. These small business—
men had to buy from middle men whose prices were usually
higher. The small store owners generally Opposed the big
department stores, mail order firms and the proposed legisla-

tion of enacting Rural Free Delivery that would have benefited

 

1Boorstin, Americans, pp. 101-107.

 

21bid., p. 107.

31bid., pp. 118-120.

79

their mail order competition. Small stores favored those

policies that would help local business such as increased
population in the community, lower cost freight charges, and

easier credit.

The Labor Movement

 

By 1865, the labor movement had started to formally
organize itself, mostly in the industrial centers. By 1870
labor organizations had demonstrated a critical concept, the
ability of a movement or action group to induce change.1
As the industrial revolution progressed with large scale
methods of production, the skilled handicraftman became an
adjunct to the machine. When these artisans protested and
challenged management with strikes, immigrant workers were
hired to fill their places. Immigrant labor broke the
strikes in the cotton textile, mining, iron and steel,
cigar, and railroad industries.

The stronger trade unions wanted to protect the
employment of their skilled union members, so refused member-
ship in general to Negroes, women, and foreign born. This

exclusion was opposed by the farmers, storekeepers, rural

professionals, the Grange, and the Greenback Labor Party,

 

lKnowles, Historical, p. 17.
Foner, Labor, pp. 32-33.
Hofstadter, Reform, p. 165.

2Foner, Labor, pp. 14-17.

80

who believed the unions had too much control over the
availability of labor. The unions did not yield and the
issue remained unresolved.

Each of the new labor groups were usually organized
at the local level around a common cause and composed
of laborers of the same skill or trade. The Central Labor
Union started in 1882 and developed the boycott. The Jewish
Socialist started in 1885 and fought the sweatshops. The
International Working Peoples Association started in 1882
under the fiery leadership of Johann Most, August Spier, and
Albert Parsons. Parsons was later indicted in the Haymarket
Bombing of 1886. The American Federation of Labor was started
in Columbus, Ohio in 1886 by Samuel Gompers as a counter
move to the Knights of Labor. The railroad unions developed
additional unions around their specialty jobs such as the
locomotive engineers in 1863, the conductors in 1868,
firemen in 1873, brakemen in 1883, and the switchmen in
1886.1

The unions were generally autocratic, with closed
membership policies. They easily attracted the devoted
laborer and later, when permitted to join, attracted many
immigrant workers who shrugged off the idelogical leadership
of the reform movements and became devoted followers of the
union autocratic leadership. The growing unions became

actively involved in the national elections of 1884, but

 

11bid., pp. 33, 39-40, 141.

81

the results were disappointing for them. Not only did
their preferred candidates lose, but they also failed to
legislate a shorter working day.

The Haymarket bombing for which labor was blamed,
killed three Chicago policemen on May 1, 1886, and was a
major event in the history of the labor movement. Four
labor leaders were later tried, convicted, and banged on
November 11, 1887, for their alleged part in the event.
These "Haymarket Martyrs" offered an emotional charge that
united many of the labor movements for several years.1

The labor movement would appear at first glance to
have only a distant relationship to rural develOpment. Yet
during the 1880's to 1900 the Populist movement caused labor
and agriculture to join forces. The rural population had
many reasons for feeling discouraged. They were dissatisfied
with the decreasing farm prices throughout the last half of
the 19th century, the unequal railway rate structure, the
land and tax policies that favored the railroads, ruthless
mortage foreclosures and land repossessions and resentment
of the methods used by grain elevators to set prices and
grades. In general the rural population experienced a
feeling of helplessness in their being situated in a
monopolistic consumption framework that appeared to have

little if no interest in their welfare, and the newly

 

11bid., p. 114.

82

formed populist movements appeared to be the means for

correcting these inequities.1

The Populists

 

The leaders of the populist movement, as with labor,
came from the rank and file of the followers. Most of the
followers were agrarian but the movement also attracted
some industrial laborers, social reformers, and intellectuals,
but few people competent in conducting political activity.2

The Populist Party was the first effective political
movement to insist that the U.S. federal government take
some reSponsibility for solving the problems created by
industrialism.3

The Populist Party was not successful in creating a
third party, comparable to the Democratic or Republican
parties, but it did manifest a number of concepts that
characterized the positions of many reform movements. First,
the Populists cherished the "good old days," and felt

threatened by the future shock posed by the industrial

revolution and growing capitalism. Secondly they held a

 

lNorman Pollach, The Populist Response in America
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 7.

 

Hofstadter, Reform, pp. 7, 111.

2Pollach, Populist, p. 9.
Hofstadter, Reform, p. 101.

3Hofstadter, Reform, p. 61.

83

dualistic, good vs. evil, perspective of social struggle,
and did not support any middle ground or compromise position.
Their third belief was in the conSpiracy theory, which
implied that plots were continuously being planned against
their efforts. Finally they were appalled by industry's
priority of capital gain, and its lack of sensitivity to
the humanistic values they cherished.1

The populist and labor movements almost officially
joined forces in the early 1890's. Both advocated public
ownership of railroads and were apparently agreeable on
other issues. However Samuel Gompers, leader of the grow-
ing A.F. of L., disapproved of the merger stating that the
farmers, some of whom belonged to the Populists, were
employers too. There were several other reasons which
indicated that any merger would have experienced difficulty.
The Populists and labor also differed on such issues as
skilled vs. unskilled membership in labor unions; and the
agricultural leaders did not want Gompers to share any of
the leadership in the party. Also, many immigrant laborers

were Skeptical of the idealism of the populists, and preferred

 

lIbidol PP- 62-64.

84

the practical, if autocratic, leadership of the shop
foreman.1

The Farmers' Alliance and the Knights of Labor
united briefly for a reform program via the Peoples'
Party. In 1891 their convention called for sweeping social
reforms: to abolish national banks (in favor of the Green-
backs), to regulate the railroads, to establish a graduated
income tax, and to adopt universal suffrage. The Peoples'
Party of 1892 elected several representatives to Congress,
but the disappointing losses in the elections of 1894 and
1896 caused many of the followers to drop out, and by 1900
this third party movement was all but dead.2

During the elections of the 1890's human rights had
become a big issue, but was shelved by the more powerful
supporters of property rights. As stated by Pollach, man
could not control his society because he could not control
industrial capitalism. Individualism, competition, and
self-help, qualities especially characteristic of the many
social reform groups, were ironically the major factors that

served to fractionize this reform movement.

 

lIbid.’ p. 1830
Benedict, Farm, p. 107.
Foner, Labor, p. 320.

Nourse, European Market, pp. 179, 194.

 

Pollock, Populist, pp. 45, 64.
2Foner, Labor, pp. 300-333.

3Polloch, Populist, p. 16.

85

Labor's political activity in the 1890's was a
history of power struggles which experienced some local
success, but usually failed at the national level. Accord-
ing to Foner, industrial management made numerous clandestine
attempts to subvert the labor parties by inciting internal
conflicts as a means of keeping the opposition occupied and
at bay. This according to Schattschnider was an example of
conflict management.‘ To most authorities, pressure groups
like labor, the populists, Grange, etc., were usually per-
ceived as small and weak, and those who controlled conflict
in the 1890's let the reform parties conflict with each
other until their issues became adopted by one of the strong
and established parties, either Republican or Democratic.

By 1900 the efforts of the social reform groups
appeared to have lost whatever power they might have had at
the national political party level. However they still
offered local impact and continued to exert much influence
on their congressmen, and state and local governments.
AS the economic conditions began to settle in the early
1900's and farm prices began to rise, the movement groups
shed their militancy and concentrated on goals attainable

by self-help and educational assistance, out of which

 

1Hofstadter, Reform, pp. 104-105.

E. E. Schattschnider, The Semisovereign People
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960), pp. 53-56,
71, 73.

 

86
evolved many of the successful educational movements at

the community level.1

Development of Extension Programs: 1880 to 1910

The educational development of this period included
numerous efforts by schools and colleges to expand education
beyond the four walls of the formal institution. This was
when the concepts of non-formal and adult education became
well established via the pioneering efforts of educators
within the schools, colleges, and community organizations.
Once these extension programs had proved their value,
several national organizations became involved and offered
help and direction. Three of these became quite active in
the support of cooperative extension work. They were the
Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment
Stations, the General Education Board, and the Country Life
Commission.

It was during these years that many colleges
developed their own versions of extension programs. It
should be noted here that none of the literature suggested
that colleges were trying to design a national "agricultural"
or "cooperative extension service." Instead these programs
were earnest efforts to extend educational programs of any i

form to the non-student population. One common task for

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 114.

Hofstadter, Reform, pp. 94-95, 265.

Riley, University Extension, p. 136.

 

87
all of these committed colleges, however, was to make the

programs worthy of continued funding.

Extension Education

 

Extension education, that is education beyond the
formal school or colleges for non-students, started in
many places and appeared in many different forms. The
general theme behind these educational efforts was the drive
for self improvement, to better one's life and earning .
power. Practical or vocational education was also regarded
as essential to the growth of the country for it was
generally believed that such training would make young
people more employable and productive.

This general theme of self-improvement via education
had emerged in two major areas. The first area included the
very general Spectrum of the extension of college education
from.which later would come agricultural extension and general
university extension.

The second area referred to the various programs
started at the community level. This included the develop- .
ment of agricultural secondary schools and the various self-
improvement programs created by many voluntary organizations
such as the reading programs of the labor unions, lectures
sponsored by the farm organizations, the "Tent Chautauqua,"
and others.

The program accomplishments both at the college and
community levels many times complemented each other. In

some cases, such as the farmers institutes, this dual effort

88
of cooperation was essential to the growth and success of
the programs.

University extension had one of its early beginnings
in Philadelphia in the late 1880's. The University of
Pennsylvania had created two extension programs. It offered
a lecture series for the surrounding communities, and
encouraged by the efforts of Morrison I. Swift, resident
of the first settlement house in Philadelphia, involved the
university in community improvement via the settlement
houses. Neither was regarded as a resounding success but
successful enough to cause, in 1890, the formation of the
American Society for the Extension of University Teaching,
initially known as the Philadelphia Society.1

During its first year of establishment, the Society
sent George Henderson to England to review firsthand the
highly successful university extension system that had
been in operation there Since 1867. The society in England,
and as copied in Philadelphia, was responsible for recruiting
the lecturers, scheduling facilities, soliciting funds, and

generally administering the program. This concept of an

 

1Riley, University Extension, pp. 182, 192.

George M. WOytanowitz, University Extension, The
Early Years in the United States 1885-1915. (National
University Extension Association, and American College
Testing Program, 1974), pp. 3, 35-38.

89

established society directly involved in the mechanisms
of university extension was also tried by several colleges
throughout Ohio and Michigan. However, due to weak commit-
ment most of these groups died out.1

The University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity developed their own version of university extension in
the 1890's with little or no help of a society. The Univer-
sity of Chicago was a successful pioneering institution in
extending the university into the community. John D.
Rockefeller when he invested heavily in the university
saw to it that William Rainey Harper became its president,
where he served from 1892 to 1900. The University of
Chicago, founded almost overnight in 1892, was successful
primarily because of the driving force of Harper, a former
Baptist layman, Hebrew Scholar, Yale University Professor;
and perhaps most significantly a former Chautauqua super-
intendent.2 He also was a motivator of his staff and
firmly convinced that the university should and would
serve the community.

While at Chautauqua Harper started the Chautauqua
Literary and Scientific Circle which was a successful type
of correspondence school. Several years later as founding

president of the University of Chicago he developed a highly

 

1Woytanowitz, Early Years, pp. 38, 50.

 

21bid., p. 35.

Riley, University Extension, pp. 115-116.

 

90

successful correspondence program which was to serve as
a model for other universities.1 Many colleges were
developing extension departments and several, such as
Pennsylvania State University, Michigan Agricultural College,
New Hampshire, and Cornell, added correspondence courses in
1892, and checked closely the progress at the University of
Chicago.2

Other universities established extension departments
in the 1890's out of which came more correspondence courses,
teachings in agriculture, institutes, and a variety of
other programs for non-traditional students. Some of these
early colleges were the University of Wisconsin, University
of Wyoming, and the State University of Iowa in 1890, the
Universities of Kansas and California in 1891, the
University of Oklahoma and University of Nebraska in 1892,
the Oregon System of Higher Education and Pennsylvania State
University in 1893, University of New Hampshire in 1894,
Indiana University in 1895, and the University of Kentucky
in 1899.3

Most of these extension programs consisted of
courses offered on an enrollment basis. WOytanowitz reported

that in the 1892-93 school year nationwide there were 710

l—

,
courses that enrolled 51,000 people for instruction in

 

1Riley, University Extension, pp. 163-164.

 

2Ibid., p. 169.

3Ibid., p. 187.

91
history, literature, social science, natural science, V
and philosophy. The University of Kansas, in 1891,
offered a lecture series on very current, practical, and
popular concepts such as agricultural economics and the
silver issues. Even the Kansas City Board of Trade offered
financial help for more courses on similar subjects.
However, the effort lasted but a few years, and by 1898 the
program had all but died, mostly because of the lack of
faculty commitment and fiscal resources.

Short term courses of several weeks in length were
another form of university extension developed during this
time. These developed powerful popular support which in
turn contributed to separate, much more liberal budgets for
the governing colleges. Cases in point were the Wisconsin
short course on testing milk-fat develOped by Stephen M.
Babcock in 1890 and the Michigan Agricultural College short
courses begun in 1894.2

Most of these programs were held at the university
which pleased the faculty not only because of less travel
but because it might influence participants to become full-4
time students or to be more supportive of the university.

There were other forms of university extension that
literally extended education beyond the campus. These were

the correspondence courses similar to those developed by

 

lWoytanowitz, Early Years, pp. 70, 75.

 

2Riley, UniversityoExtension, pp. 173-175, 177.

 

92

Harper, reading groups, and institutes, all three having a
profound effect on communities seeking self-improvement (

and betterment.1

This was an ideal matchup with the
universities supplying information on one side and the
community accepting in part at least, the knowledge pro-
vided to them. Extension programming was a key opportunity
for universities to develop community support, and some
educators, like Charles R. Van Wise of Wisconsin, were keen
enough to develop it, as will be discussed later.

Reading circles, like the correspondence courses
discussed earlier, can trace their ancestry to such programs
as the Chautanqua Literary and Scientific Circle and the
reading courses for farmers developed in 1882 at the Agri-
cultural College of Ontario. Agricultural subjects became
part of the correspondence courses of American colleges
offered through Pennsylvania State College and Michigan
Agricultural Colleges in 1892. The program at Penn State
was entitled not surprisingly the Chautanqua Course of
Home Reading. Michigan's program.was called Michigan

Farm Home Reading Circle and offered studies in soils and

 

11bid., pp. 170-171.

93

crOps, livestock, garden and orchards, women's courses,
and political science.1

Liberty Hyde Bailey of Cornell University did much
to further another area of university extension. By using
experiment station funds appropriated in 1896 by the state
he expanded the reading circles in New York. By 1902 he
reported 29,792 enrolled in the farmers' reading courses,
9,500 in the farmers' wives program, 1,800 in the home nature
study course for teachers (teacher training), 26,000 in the
junior gardener course, and 20,000 in the naturalist course.

Bailey started his correspondence courses in 1896
with the naturalist courses on nature study materials. His
purpose was to encourage the organization of local nature
study groups. Here again was an example of a university
establishing a relationship with community organizations.

The farmers' institutes played a unique role in
university extension. They are described in more detail
beginning on page 99, but are mentioned here to illustrate
the concept of extension education. These three and four

day community based "schools" were considered a successful

 

1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment
Stations, Farmer's Institute Courses, by Liberty Hyde Bailey.
Bulletin No. 72 (Washington, D.C}, GOvernment Printing Office,
1889). pp. 5, 8, 10.

Alfred Charles True, A Histor of A ricultural Educa-
tion in the University States 1785-1925 (U.S. Department Of—
Agriculture Miscellaneous Publications, No. 36, washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1929), p. 277.

 

2True, Agricultural Education, p. 277.

94
phase of university extension. They started as early as
1867 and grew rapidly in the 1880's and 1890's. These
institutes depended heavily on local groups, not university
faculty alone, to plan the institute programs. Since most
of the planning groups were in rural communities, most
of the programs utilized agriculture information from the
agricultural colleges, primarily midwestern land-grant
colleges. A close supportive educational relationship was
thereby solidified between the agricultural colleges and
many rural communities. Institutes had so completely left
general university extension that when the latter declined
in activity in the late 1890's, the institutes still
prOSpered with the growing agricultural colleges.

Herbert Baxter Adams in 1901 offered five reasons
for the continued decline of general university extension
activities: (1) lack of lecturers from the faculty, (2)
lack of financial support from the university, (3) vast
distances causing travel problems, (4) the necessity and
greater importance given to campus based matters, and
(5) the public had discovered less expensive means of adult
education, such as free public lecturers, public libraries,
education clubs, and of all things the reading circles which
ironically had been organized through the support of

o o ' 1
univerSIty extenSIOn,

 

lWoytanowitz, Earlprears, p. 140.

 

95

University extension declined but it was far from
dead. Wisconsin University's Charles R. Van Hise revitalized
the idea, challenging the university to meet the needs of
the citizens of the state in five'media of education: The
lyceum type of extension including the lecture series,
correspondence courses, off-campus courses, agricultural
extension, and a general consulting role to government
agencies and other institutions of society.1

The Wisconsin idea gained enough momentum that it
helped the University of Minnesota in 1911 and Indiana
University in 1912 to follow similar patterns, and contribu-
ted to the formation of the National University Extension
Association in 1915, the year after the Smith-Lever Act
formally and separately established the Cooperative Extension
Service.2 Van Hise was a key figure in the formation of
this national group. Since most of Van Hise's concepts about
general university extension had not been in the Smith-Lever
Act, it became imperative that NUEA be organized to at
least protect as well as promote general university extension.

Of course Van Hise also had support from a Progressive-

Party Governor, La-Follette, who encouraged Van Hise to use

 

1Nevins, State Universities, p. 86.

WOytanowitz, Early Years, p. 152.

2Nevins, State Universities, pp. 96-97.
Riley, University Extension, p. 257.

Woytanowitz, Early Years, p. 140.

 

96

university officials in state government in advisory
capacities.

University extension throughout most of the rest
of the country did not grow with such spectacular results.
Wherever it was established it remained secondary to the
main teaching and/or research function of the university.
It was in the realm of university extension that many
techniques of extension education were tested and developed,
and not within the struggling colleges of agriculture.
It must be noted that agricultural colleges were not
developing in the usual academic mold. The various forms
of extension education seemed to adapt well to the agricul-
tural studies, particularly in the land-grant colleges.
Many of the programs that were spawned in general university ,
extension, like reading circles, institutes and correspondence
courses, became part of growing extension programs in the

agricultural colleges.

Development of the Land-Grant Colleges

Land-grant colleges struggled to maintain their
existence from their meager beginnings in 1862 to the
1880's. During 1880 to 1900 the colleges developed their
programs and attempted to establish a firm support base.
By 1900 most of the colleges had attained form and
substance and were expanding their respective programs of

study.1

 

1Eddy, Colleges, pp. 111-112.

97
During the period of industrial expansion and diver-

1 Most

sification there was a shortage of skilled labor.
unemployed people had little technical training to make
them employable. The business community wanted schools to
provide technical knowledge, and they believed that the
common (elementary) schools did just this. They could not
understand the value of high school which they felt was a
waste of time, and mostly college preparatory in nature.
They believed that high schools, if they were to exist,
should at least teach "character", "gumption", and practical
skills.2
Businessmen extended this disapproval to the
classical and liberal arts curricula in many of the colleges,
and gradually a few colleges and professors began to respond
to the business community. Eliot of Harvard for example
offered legal advice to businessmen, and revolutionized the
study of law by requiring law students to study and observe
real court cases, instead of pouring through volumes of
court proceedings.3
Many of the attempts to establish practical educa-
tion met with strong opposition from the academic community

who defended the teaching of the classics, and who did not

want the direction of higher education to change its course.

 

1Kirk1and, Dream, pp. 57, 59, 63,
21bid., pp. 65, 68, 70, 71.

3Ibid., pp. 104, 106.

98

The business community sought vocational type training and
most traditional oriented colleges refused to teach it.
The business community then turned to the land-grant
colleges who were more responsive to their request. These
colleges were already geared to teaching practical education
with their programs in agriculture and mechanical arts, and
they sought a strong supportive political base, which the
business community might well provide.1

The business and industrial community understandably
preferred the mechanical studies to the agricultural curricu—
lum, and as the number and variety of industrial jobs
increased, the mechanical studies programs expanded into new
fields of engineering. State universities that offered
engineering studies also took part in the same growth of
their curriculums.2

Engineering at the college level was sometimes
lucrative, for there were opportunities for private profit
in the development and sales of patents. Professional engi-
neering societies also benefited the colleges because they
solicited funds from industry for commercial research at
the college. Engineering programs here were hardly an economic

burden for college administrators.3

 

11bid., pp. 72, 75, 81.

2Eddy, Colleges, pp. 121.

 

31bid., p. 127.

99

Without the lucrative benefits which encouraged
growth of the engineering sciences, the agricultural
colleges had a more difficult time in obtaining funds and
personnel to expand their programs. First, there was a
shortage of experienced teachers in agriculture. Some of
those who were teaching agriculture were either successful
farmers or scientists recruited from other backgrounds.
College administrators were at a loss, and were receptive
to any kind of experimentation which might offer positive

growth in their agricultural programs.

The Farmers Institutes

 

The farmers institutes were by all measures a very
popular form of extension education from the late 1880's
through the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. Their

1 Institutes

early beginnings can be traced to the 1860's.
were held in rural communities and were planned to give
helpful agricultural information to the people who lived
there. The resource people who lectured were college
teachers, successful farmers, and scientists. Many of these
institutes became a semi-social event that lasted several

days. By the 1880's and 1890's most of the institutes

had taken form and substance, characterized by institute

 

1Morgan, Iowa, p. 11.

Liberty Hyde Bailey, Farmers Institutes: History and
Status in the United States and Canada, Bulletin Ni. 79
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1900),
pp. 5-7.

 

100

speakers and a whole series of programs covering a variety
of topics, for both men and women.1

The early institutes were administered in one of two
ways. Some, as in the eastern states, were governed by
the state board of agriculture, an administrative agency of
state government, most of which were concerned with
agricultural regulatory policies rather than educational
Programs. In other states the boards of agriculture had
inadequate funds, so the institutes sought aid from the
agricultural colleges. In 1900 forty-seven states reported
institute events in which the sponsorship was about equally
divided between the land-grant colleges and the state
boards of agriculture.2

As the institutes grew so did the appropriations
made by state legislators. True reported that $400,000 was L
zappropriated by the states in 1910 and $1,000,000 by 1913.3

The midwestern colleges appropriated money for
institute operations to cover salaries, transportation,_

and facilities. Ohio went so far as apprOpriating money

«directly to the community organizations that sponsored the

1Scott, Reluctant, p. 117.

 

21bid., p. 92.

Bailey, Institutes, p. 31.

 

3True, Agricultural Education, p. 279.

101
institutes and let them pay the expenses.1 This direct
payment.of state funds was an important example of cost-
sharing'at the state and local level, which is similar
to the current structure of the Cooperative Extension
Service.

The institutes grew quickly in number, forming a
national association by 1896. There were, 2,772 institutes
reported in 1902, and by 1914 there were 8,861 institutes
With over 3,050,151 participants.2

The institute movement made several important
contributions to the land-grant colleges. By providing a
successful extension activity that had support of the
clientele, college administrators, and legislators, it
helped to promote the value of the college's function.3
Colleges were convinced of the institute's value and some
«:ontinued to apprOpriate funds for institute programs even
Tafter the Smith—Lever Act was made law.

The institutes occasionally served as a meeting
ground, in some cases as battle ground between irate farmers
and the colleges. For example, the Grange and Farmers

Alliance used the institute format to charge the University

 

1Scott, Reluctant, p. 75.

 

Morgan, Iowa, p. 15.

2Scott, Reluctant, pp. 91, 105.

 

31bid., p. 80.

Baker, County Agent, p. 6.

 

102
of Minnesota with misuse of land-grant funds and sub-
ordination of agricultural education. Both rural organiza-
tions became so dissatisfied with the University's policy
that they threatened to lobby for the removal of agricultural
studies. This incident illustrates the real feelings of
possessiveness that the agricultural groups had towards the

land-grant colleges.1

The Hatch Act

 

The Hatch Act of 1887 provided federal funding for
conducting agricultural research at the land-grant colleges.
The antecedent movements of this act can be traced to those
colleges which in the 1860's and 1870's had developed
their own teaching farms. While the original intent of
these university farms was for teaching purposes and not
for experimental use, they in part illustrated a commitment
to solve the complex problems of low agricultural
productivity:2 The concerns included soil depletion which
was associated with the increased number of abandoned
farms. Also the farmers who settled under the provisions
of the Homestead Act of 1862 wanted the colleges to teach
them how to increase crop productivity. Increased
productivity would also benefit the business interests.

For example the railroads wanted more products to ship to

 

1Scott, Reluctant, pp. 81-82.

 

2Saloutos and Hicks, p. 67.

103

the eastern markets, and the grain elevator dealers wanted

more grain for their markets.1

The scientists who were teaching college agricul-
ture questioned the original intent of training college
students to be farmers and sending them back to the farm,
especially when many of them did not return to their home
farms. These scientists preferred a plan of training
scientists and specialists who would in turn train the
farmer. The university farm could be transferred from a
teaching aid for the agricultural student to a research
center for experimentation, and this was the principle
issue which prompted the Hatch Act of 1887.2

The first draft of this experiment station act
was made in 1882, supposedly with the assistance of Dr.
Seaman A. Knapp, then president of Iowa State College,
according to historians Morgan and Scott. Eventually
William Hatch, U. S. Representative of Missouri, and
Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, guided it

through Congress in 1887, with much support,3

especially
from the United States Department of Agriculture. Many

of the scientists of the Department needed more research

 

1Eddy, Colleges, p. 94.

21bid., pp. 87-88.

31bid., p. 94.

104

data than was currently available in Washington, and they
were aware of the valuable experiments, research, and data
available at the land-grant colleges, since most of them
had worked at a state college before coming to Washington.
To many of these U.S.D.A. staff scientists reliable infor-
mation about a particular product came from former colleagues
in the states where the product was grown.

There were three significant implications of the
Hatch Act and the coalitions which supported it. First,
the colleges had established research and not just teaching“
as a basis for requesting federal funds. Secondly the
Federal government was for the first time involved with the1
direct appropriation of funds for the colleges, and not
indirectly as with its issuance of land grants.1 This
direct fiscal support would reoccur in the Second Morrill
Act of 1890, The Adams Act of 1907, and the Smith-Lever
Act of 1914. Third, the colleges and the U.S.D.A. had
collectively created the Association of American Agricul-
tural Colleges and Experiment Stations (AAACES). This
group would eventually become a strong lobby for seeking
Federal funding for programs beneficial to the colleges.

Association of American Agricultural
Colleges andExperiment Stations

 

The beginnings of AAACES can be traced to 1885 when

the Commissioner of Agriculture, Norman Coleman, invited

 

11bid., pp. 99-100.

Nevins, State Universities, p. 103.

 

105

the presidents of the various land-grant colleges to come
to Washington and testify before Congress in support of the
proposed Hatch Act. By 1887 the group officially organized
itself into AAACES and began its annual meetings. One of
its early accomplishments was the successful lobbying in
1890 for the Second Morrill Act.

Throughout the first ten years of the new century
AAACES and their colleges "matured," according to Nevins.
In the midwestern states the colleges were regarded as
community service centers for governmental units. The
colleges benefitted from this popularity and sought to
continue it. Typical of some of the universities' efforts
to this end, Wisconsin encouraged its staff to be consul-
tants and serve on community and state advisory committees.1

AAACES appointed Kenyon Butterfield, then Director
of Farmers' Institutes at Michigan Agricultural College
and a strong advocate of extension programs, to chair a
committee on the study of extension. Its first report
in 1906 recommended that each college of the association
organize a department of extension. In 1908 the same
committee recommended that extension be broadly based
with full recognition of the economic and social
phases of agriculture as well as the productive. It

recommended expansion in the field of home life on the

 

lNevins, State Universities, p. 78.

 

106

farm.l While the report recommended a broad program, it
did not specify the source of funding. The report was
accepted and AAACES would eventually lobby for extension.

By the time of Butterfield's second report most of
the land-grant colleges, especially those in the midwest,
had established successful extension programs and enjoyed
-reasonable support from their state governments and
communities. The colleges realized that if Extension was
to expand, then the Federal government, already committed
to the support of agricultural research, would be the
logical source of funding. Furthermore, AAACES, having
successfully lobbied for the Second Morrill Act would be
the loqical organization to develop and promote the Extension

proposal.

The General Education Board

 

The General Education Board was a philanthropic
foundation that funded various educational programs in the
south. It was privately endowed, mostly by grants from
John D. Rockefeller. During the years of its existence,
1902 to 1914, it apprOpriated over 15 million dollars to

programs including the southern agricultural schools,

 

1Eddy, Colleges, p. 130.

 

Alfred Charles True, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
A History of the Agricultural Extension Work in the United
States 1785-1923, Miscellaneous Publication No. 15, U. S.
Department of Agriculture (Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office, 1928), pp. 30, 100.

107

medical colleges, agricultural colleges, and the Farmers'
Cooperative Demonstration WOrk which was directed by Dr.
Seaman A. Knapp.1

The activity of the General Education Boards had
been preceeded by other philanthropic foundations including
the Peabody Foundation, Slater Foundation, Carnegie Founda-
tion, and the Southern Education Board, from which some of
the trustees were persuaded to join the General Education
Board.2

The philOSOphy upheld by the members of the General
Education Board was that education was important for
everyone because it would help people become more employ-
able and raise the general standard of living. Generally
these benefactors felt that their contributions were not
charity for relief, but philanthrophy for reform.3

The General Education Board was convinced that

agricultural education was the crucial key to uplift the

 

1The General Education Board, (New York: The
General Education Board, 1915), p. 17.

 

Lord, Agrarian, p. 68.

2General Education Board, p. 8.

 

Rudolph, American Colleges, p. 431.

 

Riley, University Extension, p. 206.

 

3Kirkland, Dream, pp. 146, 148.

108
southern agricultural economy, and it was greatly impressed
with the demonstration education programs set up by Dr.
Knapp with federal funds, to combat the boll weevil.
Dr. Knapp, however, wanted to establish more widely based
agricultural programs, and his federal funding stipulated
that his work focus exclusively on boll weevil control
programs. The General Education Board supported Dr. Knapp
to this end by appropriating $925,750.00 to the Farmers'

Cooperative Extension Work from 1906 to 1914.1

Commission on Country Life

 

In May 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt
addressed the presidents, deans, principal professors of
the land-grant colleges who were assembled in Lansing,
Michigan, in observance of the semi-centennial celebration
of the United States agricultural colleges. It was here
that he announced his intentions for forming a commission
to look at the problems associated with rural living.2
A year later he appointed seven prominent men to the

Commission on Country Life and charged them to review

and recommend programs that would improve the quality

 

1General Education Board, pp. 17, 22.

 

2Joseph Cannon Bailey, Seaman A. Knapp, School-
master of American Agriculture. (New York: Col 1a
University Press, 1945), pp. 245-246.

 

109
of rural life. All the members of the commission were
sympathetic to agricultural concerns.

Liberty Hyde Bailey, named chairman of the
commission, had already successfully demonstrated in New
York the value of Extension education, at least with
bulletins and correspondence programs. Kenyon L. Butterfield,,
graduate of Michigan Agricultural College, was like Bailey
a member of AAACES. More importantly he was at the time
chairman of the Association's committee on extension,
appointed in 1904, and would in a few years become presi-
dent of AAACES. "Uncle Henry" Wallace was a popular
journalist and author from the midwest, who had for years
agitated that government take a more serious look at rural
living. Charles Barrett was a respected lobbyist for
agriculture, President of the Farmers Union, and quite
familiar with the marketing problems facing the midwestern
and southern producers.

Gilford Pinchot was a close friend of President
Roosevelt, and at the time head of the U.S. Forest Service.
Walter Hines Page was one of the charter members of the
General Education Board, and before that a trustee of the

Southern Education Board. While serving on the General

 

1Theodore Saloutos, Farmers Movements in the South,
1865-1937, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1960),
p. 191.

 

 

110
Education Board, Page met and befriended Knapp. Page kept
Roosevelt informed of Knapp's work.1

The last member of the committee was W. A. Beard,
from California and about whom little was written.

The Commission conducted 30 hearings and received
testimony from 100,000 people. Their final report offered
three recommendations; the government should inventory rural
resources, develop a nationwide campaign for rural programs,
and organize a national extension program through the

2 By the end of 1909, which was

colleges of agriculture.
about the same time that the first extension bill was
proposed in Congress, there were three important groups
actively supporting extension-type programs: The Association
of American Agriculture Colleges and Experiment Stations,

The General Education Board, and the Country Life Commission.

Indeed it was an impressive group of supporters.

 

1Bailey. Knagg, pp. 245-246.

Eddy, Colleges, p. 138.

The General Education Board, p. xiii.

 

Lord, Agrarian, p. 52.

2Hofstadter, Reform, p. 3.

Lord, Agrarian, p. 53.

 

Saloutos and Hicks, p. 62.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Report of the Country Life
Commission, 8. Doc. 705, 60th Congress, 2d sess., 1909,
p.794.

 

 

111

Home Economics

 

The last quarter of the 19th century was the
incubating period for college level home economics. The
field of home economics as a science emerged quickly and,
like agriculture, expanded greatly under the guidance and
nurture of the land-grant colleges. In its early develop-
ment during the 1870's, the teaching of home economics,
or domestic science, was vocationally oriented with a
practical rather than theoretical focus. By 1900 the area
of home economics included many facets of home life studies
and emerged as a major curriculum in the land-grant
colleges.

Bevier reported that at the end of the century,
two of the more effective programs were started at the
colleges of Kansas State and Iowa State.1 Initially, the
home economics curriculum at Kansas State College (1873,
1874) included only sewing courses. However the students
enrolled in these classes also received lectures on
chemistry as it related to cooking and nutritional values

of foods.2

 

1Isabel Bevier and Susannah Usher, The Home
Economics Movement (Boston: Whitcomb and Burrows, 1906),
p. 24.

 

41618., p. 24.

112

The Mount Holyoke1

plan at Iowa State College
(1875) was very successful. In a plan similar to the agri-
cultural programs which encouraged field experience on
college farms, the home economics students were required to
work several hours a day preparing meals for the students.
By 1883 the curriculum had expanded to include "lectures on
hygiene, laws of good breeding, and things that make a home
beautiful."2

The home economics studies in the midwestern land-
grant colleges became popular and the enrollments thrived.
This was, of course, politically beneficial, and it is
interesting to observe that the home economics curriculums
were initiated by Iowa State and Kansas State at a time
when both these colleges were still in their early years
and struggling to survive.

In contrast to the popularity it experienced in the
midwest, home economics was hardly considered an appropriate
field of study by the eastern colleges for two reasons.
First, most of the eastern colleges were not coeducational,

and to offer such a curriculum at that time would have been

 

1Mount Holyoke Female Seminary, Massachusetts,
was founded in 1837 by Mary Lyon, similar to several other
eastern academies for girls. The seminary sought to keep
costs as low as possible by having the girls do all the
domestic work at the school. Teachers for girls in the
newer land-grant colleges were graduates from some of these
eastern schools.

Robert E. Potter, The Stream of American Education
(New York; American Book Company, 1967), p. 249.

 

2Bevier and Usher, p. 24.

113'

unfeasible. Secondly these established and strictly
academic colleges disapproved of including in their curricu-
lums the teaching of vocational studies such as agricultural,
mechanical and domestic arts.l There were many womenfis
academies, in the east, that offered a liberal arts program.

The rejection of home economics by the eastern
colleges did not in any way diminish its growing popularity
in other environments. Privately operated cooking schools
were founded on the east, the first in New York in 1879.
These schools, however, were designed primarily for the
training of domestic servants. Also, by the 1890's sewing
and cooking classes were taught in the public secondary
schools.2

The beginnings of many of the county extension home
economics study groups can be traced to home reading circles
started with the university extension program. A case in
point is in New York state, when Martha Van Rensseler was
hired in 1900 by the College of Agriculture to take care of
the large amount of correspondence from study groups assoc-
iated with the college's growing reading programs. Some
of the groups became known as Cornell Study Clubs and in

some cases home bureau units.3

 

1Isabel Bevier, Home Economics in Higher Education
(Philadelphia: J. B. Lipponcott Co., 1924), pp. 134, 156,
160.

 

2Bevier and Usher, p. 44.

3Eunice Heywood, "Home Demonstration Clubs and
Councils," The Cooperative Extension Service. H. C. Sanders,
ed., (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1966), p. 252.

 

114

The early groups had many names and followed
different formats. In Illinois they were known as domestic
science clubs as early as 1898. Other names included Farm
Women Clubs, Homemaker Clubs, and Extension Clubs, with
programs on canning of home grown foods, better baking, and
egg grading.l

By the early 1900's some of these groups became
movement groups and organized community efforts to get hot
lunches for school children, rest rooms for women41cleaned
up landscapes, road side markets, and establishment of
community libraries, representing perhaps the heritage to
the earlier reading circles. In 1908 many of these groups
sent statements to the Country Life Commission recommend-
ing programs on labor saving equipment, running water,
household management, nutrition and sanitation education,
and attention to comfort and beauty.2 Indeed these
organizations were active and moving.

Two major developments occurred during the late
1890's that illustrate this expansion and direction of the
field of home economics. First the practical home
economics programs in the colleges and their affiliated
farmers' institutes had become viable and were steadily
growing. Secondly home economics studies expanded from

the practical to include the theoretical disciplines

 

lIbid., pp. 252, 254.

2Ibid., p. 255.

115
associated with family life.
As mentioned earlier, the farmers' institutes
as they expanded began offering programs to meet the
interests of the farmers' wives, and the institutes even-
tually sought the assistance of the college home economics

departments.1

Agriculture and home economics had what

could be called a symbiotic relationship in the institutes
and colleges during this time. In 1897 the new Secretary

of Agriculture, James A. Wilson, former professor of agricul-
ture at Iowa State College, when Knapp was president, pub-
licly endorsed this growing relationship of agriculture

' and Dr. Alfred C. True seconded

and "domestic science,‘
this position of support in 1905. Both men had recognized
the popularity of these two areas of study evidenced by
their growth in the institutes, and the growing demands
from the public schools for bulletins related to agriculture
and home economics.2

This recognition was vital support for home
economics. Not only did it indicate the interest and
general acceptance by the U.S.D.A., but also the potential
support by the Association of American Agricultural Colleges

and Experiment Stations since True was one of its active

members.

 

1Bevier, Home Economics, pp. 207—208.

 

True, History of Extension, pp. 35-38.

 

2Bevier, Home Economics, pp. 128, 131.

 

116

The theoretical aspects of home economics were
established primarily during the Lake Placid Conferences
of 1899 through 1908. The delegates to these conferences
attended lectures and discussions on a variety of subjects
within the realm of daily home life and its personal
application to the family.1 There was much concern about
the forces that contributed to the degeneration of the
family. By the close of the Lake Placid Conferences, the
field of home economics had expanded much beyond a curricu-
lum of cooking and sewing.

Mrs. Ellen M. Richards was a powerful leader at
the Conferences; she may well have been to home economics
what Seaman A. Knapp was to southern agriculture. She
promoted the Rumford Kitchen, a popular plan for dietary
teaching that was first used at the 1893 Chicago
Exposition. The Rumford Kitchen, as part of the Massachusetts
exhibit at the Chicago Worlds Exhibition, permitted those
in attendance to watch the preparation of recommended
nutritious foods. The kitchen was named for Massachusetts
born Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford of Bavaria, who
supported these demonstration kitchens because they dealt

with the direct application of science and nutrition. In

 

11bid., pp. 153-163.

117

its earlier days, starting in 1890, Mrs. Richards called
it the New England Kitchen.1

Professor Atwater of the U.S.D.A. was impressed
with the nutritional emphasis and together with Mrs. Richards
launched a series of nutritional investigations in 1894 in
the Office of Experiment Stations.2

Mrs. Richards was the first president of the
American Home Economics Association from 1909 to 1911, and
she helped to expand public awareness of the necessity of
education for the home which later became a major reason
for the development of extension home economics.3

Mrs. Richards successfully urged the Lake Placid
Conferences to expand into collaboration with national
organizations. In 1903 the delegates had a joint session
with the Manual Training Section of the National Education
Association. By 1908 Mrs. Richards and her Lake Placid
delegates had received formal support for home economics

programs from the U.S.D.A. During 1908 the American Home

Economics Association was formally organized, and one

 

1Caroline L. Hunt, The Life of Ellen H, Richards

(Washington, D.C., The American Home Economics Association,
1958): pp. 124—125.

2Hunt, Richards, p. 134.

 

3Ibid., pp. 141, 150.

Jeanette Lee and Paul L. Dressell, Liberal Education
and Home Economics (N.Y.: Institute of Higher Education,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963), p. 24.

 

 

118

year later it met concurrently with the American Association
for the Advancement of Science.1

By the end of the first decade of the 1900's the
field of home economics had become firmly established
side by side with agriculture at the land-grant colleges.
Strongly supported by the U.S.D.A. and several national
college affiliated organizations, its inclusion in the

extension work was secure.

Formation of Agricultural Poligy: 1880-1910

 

The purpose of this section is to examine agricul-
tural expansion from two perspectives. First, the macro
approach will be used in order to generally review agricul-
tural history as it was affected by economic and govern-
mental policies. The second approach will be the micro
perspective, to examine the sectionalized farming within
the country, and the associated special interest groups, such
as the Grange, and various agricultural producer trusts.

Agricultural Expansion
In General

 

 

Farming in the early days of this republic was the
livelihood of over one half of the population. As the

country expanded in land area and population, agriculture

 

1Bevier, Home Economics, pp. 152-154, 162.

 

Lee and Dressell, p. 25.

119

and rural living underwent much change. The midwest had
become the farming center of the country after the Civil
War for a whole series of reasons. Homesteading had induced
midwestern population growth, a better system of credit
assistance was offered to its farmers, and midwestern soil
was conducive to diversified farming. Other areas of the
country had experienced serious agricultural setbacks. New
England soil had been depleted, and post-Civil War southern
agriculture experienced its own problems: a slow rehabili-
tation due to lack of capital and insufficient assistance
from the federal government. Slavery had been abolished,
and the blacks remaining to farm the land needed assistance
to learn effective farming techniques. Further, the "Cropper"
credit system had been established, in which the farmers
could use their growing crops for collateral for loans.1

The midwestern settlers brought with them New England
values of self-determination and established family-sized
and self-supporting farms. These farmers preferred the
concept of local public taxation for schools and local
control and were generally suSpicious of industrial or

Federal "interference." Figuratively speaking these farm

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 89.

Saloutos and Hickes, p. 31.

120

settlers supported "state rights" as strongly as the south
had done, but without carrying the point to secession.
Agricultural production increased steadily during
the period 1880 to 1914 as shown in Figure 2. Prices for
these same commodities decreased until 1896 and then started
a general increase that continued for the next twenty-five
years.2
Farmers of the 1880's and 1890's were confronted
with continual indebtedness, and decreasing prices and
their organizations were no longer content with social and
educational programs. Instead they became more militant
in their efforts to better the farmers' financial position.3
There was a high risk for anyone who remained in

farming. Many of the immigrant farmers, who were attracted

by the prospects of homesteading free land on new fertile

 

1Benedict, Farm, pp. 76, 81.

Hofstadter, Reform, pp. 30, 127.

2FrederickStrauss and Louis H. Bean, Gross Farm
Income and Indices of Farm Production and Prices in the
United States 1869-19378(U.S. Department of’Agriculture,
Technical Bulletin No. 703, Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1960), p. 4.

 

 

 

John D. Black, Agricultural Reform in the United
States (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1929),

p. 34.

 

3Black, Agricultural Reform, p. 34.

 

Hofstadter, Reform, p. 3.

121

 

.v .m .Enmm mmouu ..4.o.m.D
.hmmanmmma .mnmmm mono .mmoaum Eumw was coau05©oum Eumm Hobo» mo xmocHlu.~ muomflm
mnmmm .m.d.m
ommH omma oama coma omma ommH osma

 

 

 

 

   
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am 5:: :21... ::_:: _:__:: _:_=:_::_:_ 3.1:... em
I \L
x
, GOwuospoum Eumm Q
3. 133 mo 565/) u... 11. 3
II 9. I.
_ .
om \ I!
l >14. 1 om
om ?0L>¢~< om
m on :.._ .. as m
m cm I I. Illa.” as m
mu. 2: i1 2: m
u u
m m
m 9: ems m
me. m
49!!! moowum
com Q anon Hmuou mo xmocH com
com 7 com

122

soils, failed to produce enough to overcome the low market
prices. To many of the agriculturalists the only way to
survive low cost farming was to increase volume. As a
result the larger and more commercialized farms began to
displace the smaller independent farmers.1

By 1900 the commercial large-producing farms had been
firmly established, and the crops had become geographically
sectionalized: Cotton and tobacco dominated the south,
small grains were grown mostly in the plain states, corn in
the upper midwest, fruit near the water protected regions,
dairy near the metropolitan and in the northeastern states
and beef cattle in the open ranges. As the sectionalized
farming became more established in each of these regions,
Special interests groups arose, such as the cotton growers,
and cattlemen's associations, etc., and these groups will
be discussed later.2

In contrast to these large farms, the smaller farms
diversified their crop production in order to hedge on
their investments. They could not afford to risk their

meager investments in one crop only.3

 

1Black, Agricultural Reform, p. 50.

 

Lord, Agrarian, p. 72.

2Ross M. Robertson, History of the American Economy
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company,’l955), p. 221.

 

3Lord, Agrarian, p. 68.

123

By the turn of the century the country had entered
the Progressive Period, a time of relative economic
stability. As the prices for farm products rose, a brighter
outlook was promised the farmer, and a new set of forces
began to influence agricultural production, some positive
and some negative.

The positive forces included: greater demand and
higher prices for agricultural products in the domestic and
foreign markets; improved credit for farmers; protective
tariffs; better mail service; communication and transporta-
tion; efforts by the government to help check animal
diseases; encouragement for the rapid settlement of land
(which appealed to the immigrant and commercial farmers);
research and disPersement of new seed varieties; and
fulfilling the demands by the farmers for more information
on how to increase production.1

The government's involvement with agricultural
problems started two or three decades before the prosperous
early 1900's. However this involvement had been initiated
at the insistence of commercial and not farmer interests.
For example, Italy stopped importing U.S. pigs in 1879
because of diseased carcasses from the U.S. France did
the same two years later. The government, prodded by
exporters and processors finally passed a meat inspection

law in 1891 which reopened many of the foreign markets.2

 

1Black, Agricultural Reform, p. 50.

 

2Kolko, Triumph, p. 100.

124

The severity of the grasshopper plagues of 1872
to 1876 contributed to the federal establishment of the U.S.
Entomological Commission. Usually if an agricultural prob—
lem became severe, the government would create a new agency
or commission within the U.S.D.A.1

This was only a beginning of governmental involve-
ment in agricultural policy. The tariffs on raw materials
as earlier discussed (pp. 60 to 65) continued to evidence
that American agriculture was not autonomous, but an inte-
gral part of this nation's economy and subject to the
economic forces therein. 4

As the farmers became more subjected to economic
forces and more organized in their special interest groups,
they became more informed. A survey conducted in 1913 with
3,698 farmers interviewed indicated that one in every 1.5
farmers received farm newspapers, one in every 2.3 received
farm.bulletins, one in every 3.3 went to farmers' institutes,
and one in every 6.5 belonged to an agricultural organization.
Then the contacts decreased significantly: only one in 14.5
went to agricultural institutions seeking advice, and only
one in every 23.8 owned farm books. Rather surprisingly,
while one farmer in 11.0 in the south reported receiving
instruction from farm agents, the northern proportion was
only one in every 159.0. The farm agents of the south
played an active part in Dr. Knapp's Farmers Cooperative

Demonstration WOrk and no doubt made many direct contacts

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 116.

125

with the southern farmers. The northern states did not have
such an active farm agent program.1

Agriculture of the early 1900's was also affected by
negative forces, mostly from industrial policies established
in the late nineteenth century. The urban industries had
expanded their production and markets, and by their power
had prompted the introduction of protective import tariffs,
some of which were as high as 40 percent of the face value of
the product. Yet, the raw materials used in many industries
were, to the benefit of industry, duty free, forcing the
American farmer to compete with foreign producers.2

However the growth of industrial need for agricultural
commodities was so prolific just prior to 1900 that it soon
created a demand for the raw materials, which in turn raised
prices. This increase in prices was so encouraging that it
sparked an expansion in farming activity, much of it so
hurried and unplanned that many natural resources were unwise-
1y exploited and much land was dangerously exposed to over
production and soil erosion. In addition, there arose prob-
lems of unequal transportation rates, rapid expansion of cor-
porate laws that usually did not benefit the producer-farmer,

and taxation policies that subsidized urban expansion.3

 

1B. T. Galloway, The Bureau of Plant Industry, Its
Functions and Efficiency (U.ST Department of Agriculture,
Bureau Of:PIant IhduStry, Miscellaneous Papers, Circular
No. 117, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1913), p. 25.

 

2Black, Agricultural Reform, p. 51.

 

3Ibid., pp. 52, 177.

126

The increase in farm prices was also caused by
forces within agriculture. The cost of farm land had
increased, partly because there was no more land available
for homesteading. In one case 50,000,000 acres of potential
farm land could not be homesteaded and subsequently farmed
because of the coal rights on the land. However President
Roosevelt, in a move to increase agriculture production,
secured legislation in 1908 that permitted homesteading
while protecting the coal rights.1

The increased costs to farming were attributed also
to the rise in labor costs, as many of the farmers were now
competing for labor with the urban industries. To paraphrase
an old saying, it was difficult to keep them down on the
farm. Also these same farmers had to make heavy financial
investments in farm machinery in order to accomplish large
volume production.2 While prices for farm commodities
increased the production costs, the proportion of prices
received compared to the cost of farming was still sound
enough for agriculture to arrive at that period of time
(1910 to 1914) known as the golden age of agriculture.
In years to follow this five-year period would be used as

the basis for establishing parity price supports.

 

10.8. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Lands,
Agricultural Entries on Coal Lands, Report No. 703, 6lst
Congress, 2nd Sess., 1909-1910, Senate Reports Vol. III

(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 20,
1910), p. 3.

2Saloutos and Hickes, pp. 22-25.

127

The combination of high prices, increased demand
for food, and strained production methods of 1900 to 1910
concerned some people who feared that agricultural food
production could not keep pace with the pOpulation growth.
Some publicists began to voice a demand for more effective
agricultural education that would assist the farmers to
increase crop production.

While many industries affected agriculture as
discussed earlier (pp. 65 to 70), in the eyes of the farmers
and developing western communities, the railroads were the
big powers to confront. The railroads had more occasion
to come into local contact with these people and their
complaints. These people suspected the railroads' policies
on many counts: commission charges, dockage, methods of
grading, reports of poor service, attempting "short weights,"
and high marketing costs. The railroads were even blamed
for the low prices for farm products on the eastern markets,
although they were if anything, only remotely responsible.2

The railroads had a major interest in American
agriculture and had invested heavily in rail construction in
order to secure shipping privileges. One of the railroads
main concerns in the grain producing areas was to gain

control of the grain markets by establishing a type of

 

1Saloutos and Hickes, pp. 27—28.

2Ibid., p. 58.

128

trust called commercial line companies. This meant that
railroads, with abundant capital from exporters and
commission firms, could often purchase and influence the
location of grain storage elevators. This control opened
the door to cheaper rates for the favored elevators, and
forced the independent operators to comply with their
policies. Often the managers and large investors in these
commercial lines were stockholders and directors of the
railroads.1 They became a very powerful force in determin-
ing agricultural policy especially in matters pertaining
to grain marketing.2

The marketing of grain became such a problem that
Congressmen representing the grain states tried unsuccess-
fully to get the issue resolved in 1908. Farmers and
businessmen of the midwest accused the owners of railroads
and elevators of buying wheat at one price, shipping it
east, and selling it at a lower price. The loss was passed
back to the original buyer forcing him to either buy at a
lower price or get out of the business. The lower grades

were blamed on shipping damage. The lower prices on the

 

1Saloutos and Hickes, p. 75.

2U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry. Bill to Provide for the Inspection and GradiAg
of Grain Enteringfintoihterstate Commerce and to Secure
Unifbrmity In Standards and Classification of Grain, And
For Other Purposes, Hearings. Senate Bill 382. 60th Congress,
lst Session, 1908, pp. 54, 155, 157, 162.

True, History of Extension, p. 101.

 

129

east coast made American wheat competitive on the world
market. Grain inSpectors at the time (and for years to
follow) were employed by the Boards of Trade of the export-
ing cities on the east coast, much to the disapproval of
the midwesterners. To them the solution of the problem was
to have grain inspectors and graders employed by the U.S.D.A.
A series of hearings was held on the bill to establish the
desired changes, with personal endorsements from midwestern
bankers, newspapers, and Boards of Trade from Chicago, St.
Louis and other areas.1 The bill was reported out of
committee but defeated by the Senate.

Many times prior to 1900 the grain farmer was at
the mercy of these large companies. Since little could be
done by any one farmer, the farmers organized into large
special interest groups to collectively assess their
economic problems, and to collectively take issue with any
outside group practicing policies detrimental to the
farmer's financial survival.

Development of Special
InterestiGroups

 

 

Many of these farmer organizations were effective
in bringing issues to the surface especially during the
post-Civil War period. These groups contributed to the

sectionalization of agricultural interest; i.e., the corn

 

10.5. Congress, 5. 382, pp. 157, 161, 186, 187.

130
belt, cattle states, fruit areas, etc. Eventually many
of these groups became active in the formation of policy
and legislation at the state and national level.

The cattlemen's association is an illustration of a
special interest group in the western United States exer-
cising its influence on other systems. Beef cattle farming
was very profitable in the mid-1800's. Cattlemen bought
cattle inexpensively from the settlers who did not want
to drive their herds over the mountains. Labor was available
and cheap, grass land ranges were free and open, the markets
were available, and the animals had only to be delivered
live for payment.1 Some cattlemen recorded purchasing
cattle at $4 per head and selling them at $40 per head with
little overhead costs. During the 1880's many other farmers
and businesses arrived on the cattle ranges, and cattlemen
were forced to put in long, expensive fences, pay land taxes,
legal fees, and conform to new local laws. Added to these
expenses were the two hard winters of 1885-86 and 1886-87
which killed many of the cattle.2 The cattlemen organized
themselves into groups called associations to protect and
further their interests by confronting the new local laws.
The cattlemen's association was typical of many other

special interest groups. Some of these organizations became

 

1Boorstin, Americans, p. 10.

 

21bid., p. 27.

131
part of the political action that demanded government
assistance.

While the founders of the Grange envisioned the
establishment of a cultural and self-improvement organization,»'
the people who joined it used it to better their economic
and political plight. The 1870's were ripe for farmers to
form militant organized groups, as there was growing unrest,
increasing antagonism of the special interests by the rail-
roads, the immense and dominating power of the corporations
and banks, plus a general new class awareness. The farm
communities, recognizing this lack of powerful local leader-
ship and secondarily the scarcity of organized recreation
accepted the Grange as filling a long-felt need.1

The Grange's political and economic power in rural
communities rose to over 800,000 members in 1875. However
by 1880, disenchanted members left the group and its size
dwindled to 100,000. Many other rural organizations had
similar histories. But the Grange's political efforts of
the 1870's had several significant accomplishments. One
worth noting for the purpose of this study was the Grange's
court case against the Illinois Central Railroad Company
which the Grange finally lost before the Illinois Supreme
Court. But it set a precedent, as it forced the government

to settle a rate case of a privately owned utility company.

 

11bid., p. 95.

Scott, Reluctant, pp. 43, 46.

 

132

The railroads were quite disturbed, and justly so. As a
result of this case five midwestern states passed rate laws
in the 1870's that signaled the involvement of state govern-
ments into utility control. These laws usually varied from
state to state, and industry considered these varying laws
such a nuisance that they asked federal assistance to
standardize them. To the rural peOple this was another
example of federal control that superceded local control
and confirmed their suSpicions that federal governmental
control did not favor local interests.1

After the turn of the century, when agricultural
production and prices seemed to be stabilizing, the farm
organizations became less militant. The American Society of
Equity, founded in the Northcentral states, split its member-
ship over internal economic issues in 1907. One side favored
control of the market by withholding the products. The other
faction was more characteristic of an emergent cooperative
movement. Encouraged by better prices and increasing markets
there was every reason to believe that agricultural commodity
cooperatives could and would succeed. These cooperatives
supported the one man, one vote form of group determination,
and equal distribution of earnings: The equality issue was

a typical belief which was considered attainable by the

 

1Benedict, Farm, pp. 98-100.

Gates, Illinois Control, p. 307.

 

133
cooperatives during the relatively prosperous times of the
early 1900's.1

Southern agriculture experienced a different history.
It had large farms and fewer agricultural organizations,
and the two major influences directing the growth of its
agriculture were the cotton industry and the Federal
government.

By 1890 Southern agriculture had regained much of its
economic strength, mostly by the growing of cotton and tobacco.
As in the rest of the country the 1880's and 1890's were
difficult economic times. In order to secure better control
of their situation, especially to raise prices, many southern
producers, processors, and distributors formed trusts. Of
the eleven trusts formed during 1881 to 1903 the only three
that were successful were the cane sugar, tobacco, and cotton
seed oil trusts.2

The cotton producers first attempt to control cotton
prices occurred in 1898 when a group, referred to as the
reductionists, urged other growers to withhold cotton from
the market. Only a few responded and the effort failed as
production went up and prices went down in 1898-1899.3

The growers, led principally by politician Harvie

Jordan, organized the Southern Cotton Growers Protective

 

1Benedict, Farm, p. 145.

2Saloutos, Farmer, p. 167.

3Ibid., p. 154.

134
Association in 1900, later changed to the Southern Cotton
Association (SCA).l The SCA attempted unsuccessfully to
withhold cotton from the market in 1905 in order to force a
rise in prices. However the SCA could not control enough
of the variables, such as the poor tenants and immigrant
farmers who could not afford to hold out for a higher price.
Instead of selling at 15 to 16 cents per pound, as encouraged
by the SCA, they sold at the 11 and 12 cents price, depress-
ing prices again.

The SCA also attempted to sell directly to the European
spinners, in order to bypass the expensive commission
interests. But the spinners surprised the SCA by defining
the terms of marketing cotton: The growers would have to
ship it to England, have it inspected there, and then have
it sold. This was too much of a risk for the SCA and they
withdrew.3

The Southern cotton industry continued to grow,
including its many interdependent companies, employing over
4,000,000 people in 1914. This included the producers,
ginning, warehousing, processors, and marketing. But even

during this time of relative prosperity the producers were

 

lIbid., p. 156.
21bid., pp. 160-161, 166.

3Ibid., p. 162.

135

unable to establish significant control of the market by
themselves.

The Farmers' Union also involved itself in the
cotton market dilemma after the SCA had failed. Their
attempts appeared a little more successful in 1907 with
cotton selling at 13 cents per pound. However, one year
later the price dropped to 8 cents per pound. Once again
like the Grange, SCA, and others, the producer-oriented
groups could not control or determine effectively desirable
marketing conditions without outside help.

The SCA and other producers turned to their southern
congressmen for help. The government sponsored cotton
warehouse storage facilities, the first congressional
attempt to keep cotton off the market and to raise prices.
The law makers rationalized this as an essential action
taken to prevent the collapse of the giant cotton industry.

There was Opposition to the storage plan since it
would cost the government ten and eleven cents a pound for
cotton, plus storage and insurance expenses. The business
leaders, which included financiers, ship owners, and members
of the Federal Reserve Board, suggested unsuccessfully a
different proposal, in which the Secretary of the Treasury
could deposit large amounts of money in international

market exchanges in order to encourage cotton purchases.

 

11bid., p. 238.

136

However the Southern Congressmen stood firm with their
warehouse plans saying that if any money were to be deposited
it would be better to deposit it in southern banks to

assist the credit needs of the cotton producers. This is

an indication of the influence and power that the southern
Congressmen had and used. Since many were chairmen of

their committees they were usually effective in protecting
the southern agricultural interests.1

To the south came Dr. Seaman Asabel Knapp, about
whom much has been written. With all due credit to Dr.
Knapp, the purpose of this part of the review is not to
list his life-time accomplishments, but to focus on the
formation of national agriculture policy as Dr. Knapp was
involved with it. This naturally includes a partial his-
torical review of Dr. Knapp's work.

By the time he was 53, Knapp had been a school
teacher, pastor, editor, writer, part-time farmer, professor
(of experiments in stock raising and farm products) and
President of Iowa State University. Knapp moved to
Louisiana at the request of the North American Land and
Timber Company, which with English and German capital had
purchased over a million and half acres of land at prices
that ranged from twelve and one-half cents to $1.25 per
acre. Knapp's job was to discover which crops would yield

well and then to develOp successful crop demonstrations for

 

11bid., p. 222.

137

prospective land buyers. By 1889 Knapp had a strong
understanding of southern capital and agriculture, and
formed his own Southern Loan and Guaranty Co.1
Knapp's company prospered for a short time then lost
money via the sugar industry, which was experiencing a
recession in 1892. He then invested in banking the same
year and successfully invested in a mill.
James Wilson, a former colleague of Knapp's at
Iowa, became Secretary of Agriculture in 1897, and appointed
Knapp as special agent for the U.S.D.A. to find rice
varieties in the Orient which could be used successfully
in the South. By 1902, after two trips to the Orient he
set up three government owned demonstration farms. These,
however, were unsuccessful in convincing the farmer of
the new rice varieties. By this time the cotton boll weevil,
had nearly crippled the cotton textile industry, and Wilson
hired Knapp to show the farmers weevil control methods.
The best known control at the time called for changes

in agricultural practices. The farmer was encouraged to

start an earlier cotton season in order to harvest before

 

1Lord, Agrarian, p. 59.

Rodney Cline, The Life and Work of Seaman A. Knapp
(Nashville: Cullam and—Chartner Co.{il936), pp. 24, 28,
33-37.

Allen G. Bogue, "The Administrative and Policy
Problems of the J. B. Watkins Land Mortgage Company 1873-
1894," Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, XXVII
(March,_19§§)y PP. 26-57.

 

138
the boll weevil reached the destructive phase of its life
cycle. This meant planting earlier bearing varieties, wider
rows to encourage faster maturing plants, crop rotation,
frequent cultivation, and weed control. Other measures
included increasing the quail population, that ate the
weevil, and burning old stalks in which the weevil laid
its eggs.l Most farmers hesitated to take such risks of
trying untested practices: credit was tight, economic
conditions were shakey and one wrong move could incur
financial disaster.

In 1903 Knapp persuaded the Porter farm to try his
recommended practices by guaranteeing coverage for any losses;
he raised this money from the businessmen from Terrill,
Texas. At this now famous farm, the recommended practices

2 One of the key parts of Knapp's

were used successfully.
strategy was the solicitation of local funds to underwrite
expenses and guarantee to the demonstrating farmer that he
would experience no financial losses. Knapp usually

sought and received such community financial support for

 

1O. F. Cook, A New S stem of Cotton Culture (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry,
Miscellaneous Papers, Circular No. 115, Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1913), pp. 15-17.

 

2Scott, Reluctant, pp. 210-211.

Cline, Life, pp. 58-60.

139

his demonstration work, and he also established a consider-
able following of peOple who supported his programs.1

The railroads and other businesses supported
Knapp's work because it was in keeping with their efforts
of promoting agriculture production. Railroads were so
committed to stimulating the production of transportable
cargo that they hired farm agents to advise farmers on
crOp production. Knapp invited some of these railroad
farm agents to join his staff of farm demonstration agents.
When some were assigned to a county then they were known
as county farm demonstration agents.2

Secretary of Agriculture Wilson took a high
interest in Knapp's Farmers Cooperative Demonstration Work
(FCDW) as did the business community. Knapp received
support from bankers, railroads, and the cotton producers.
This support was manifested by southern congressmen in
later hearings on various agricultural bills: they wanted
assurance that any proposed legislation would not inter-
fere with Knapp's work. By 1903, cotton prices and pro-
duction were rising together after a ten year slump, and

the cotton industry appeared to be on firm ground again.

Knapp's efforts in helping the cotton farmers increase

 

1Scott, Reluctant, p. 220.

 

21bid., pp. 29, 182, 183.

140

cotton production during a time of rising cotton prices
were well recognized.

As discussed earlier, Knapp desired to improve
the general economic conditions of all southern agriculture.
But the U.S.D.A. had stipulated that the federal funding
be directed exclusively toward the control of the cotton
boll weevil. Federal funding was not made available for

2 However before

his other agricultural programs until 1908.
such funding was available, Knapp's other programs expanded
with the assistance of the General Education Board as
discussed on pages 106 to 108.

Knapp incited some controversy on a number of matters.
On several occasions he had criticized the entomologist at
the U.S.D.A. and additionally criticized the research at the
land-grant colleges for being narrow in vision and fault-
finding regarding his own research. Also he felt some degree
of opposition posed by another powerful agricultural figure,
William J. Spillman.3 While Spillman could not be considered

an opponent to Knapp's work, his phiIOSOphy, and supporters,

differed so widely from Knapp's, that their efforts appeared

4

to be polarized later. Spillman came to the U.S.D.A. Office

 

1Strauss and Bean, Technical Bulletin 703, p. 2.

2Scott, Reluctant, pp. 217, 216, 227.

 

31bid., pp. 218-220.

4Lord, Agrarian, p. 61.

 

141

of Grass and Forage Plant Investigations in 1902 having
been successful in developing demonstration farms at
Washington State College. He firmly believed that the best
procedure for furthering agricultural innovations was by
establishing demonstration farms so that farmers could
observe various experiments and receive the latest informa-
tion regarding current research, without taking any kind of
personal financial risk.1

Both Knapp's and Spillman's efforts were sound and
gained support. Spillman's early programs at the U.S.D.A.
included cooperative research projects with several land-
grant colleges. When he became head of the Office of Farm
Management in 1905 his work concentrated more on the estab-
lishment of federal funded demonstration farms. The land-
grant colleges became concerned over their decreasing involve-
ment and stated their objections on this matter later in the
hearings during the proposed Smith-Lever Bills. At the time ,
of Knapp's death in 1911, and Wilson's resignation in 1913,
the controversy remained unresolved, and became part of the
legislative compromising in the extension hearings in
Congress.

The issue was ignited again in 1914 when Spillman

requested that the General Education Board withdrew its

 

11bid., p. 78.

Scott, Reluctant, pp. 254-255.

 

142

support from the U.S.D.A. programs it had funded. Supporters
of Knapp's work feared that this was an attack upon the
former leaders programs, and quickly discredited Spillman's
comments.1 Such an argument only served to underline the
differences between the northern and southern extension
programs.

By 1910 American agricultural production had become
a dominant factor in the economic health of this country as
well as the world's leader in food production. Like any
other major industry, agriculture had become subjected to
social, cultural, and economic forces that would not only
affect the production of the agricultural commodities but
the lives of thousands of people who made up the rural popu-
lation. The farmer was no longer isolated from his city

cousin.

The Farm Bureau

The first recorded Farm Bureau was organized in
Broome County, Bingham, New York, on March 1, 1911, two years
after the first extension bill was introduced into Congress.
Actually many community organizations, including the Grange,
had attempted for years to develOp such an organization
composed of businessmen and rural leaders.

Seemingly Farm Bureau would not appear to be involved

with the creation of the extension service. Yet the reasons

 

lLord, Agrarian, p. 82.

 

True, History of Extension, pp. 110-111.

 

143
for and how it was established reflected the mood of the
communities, for in the space of a few short years, farm
bureaus would be one of the key organizations behind the
establishment of many county extension offices.

Buyer H. Gitchell, Secretary of the Bingham Chamber
of Commerce, had agitated for years the creation of a farm
bureau or department in the chamber. Finally after several
years work Gitchell provided enough evidence and influence
to create the bureau. He utilized the report of the Country
Life Commission chaired by fellow New Yorker, L. H. Bailey.
Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson and W. J. Spillman of
the Office of Farm Management visited Bingham to show the
Chamber what such an organization could do for the community.
Wilson drew heavily on the successes of the FCDW when
Knapp utilized the support of local businessmen.1

One of the major businesses interested in the forma-
tion of the farm bureau was the Lockawana Railroad. This
type of business interest was typical in many of the other
communities and similar to community groups used by Knapp
(pp. 138 and 139).

The farm bureaus that followed throughout the country

had similar backing although they were not as spectacularly

 

1Lincoln David Kelsey and Cannon Chiles Hearne,
Cooperative Extension Work (Ithaca, New York: Comstock
Publishing Associates, 1963), p. 21.

Lord, Agrarian, p. 80.
True, History of Extension, pp. 73-75.

 

Riley, University Extension, p. 303.

 

144
organized with the likes of Bailey, Wilson, and Spillman.
Yet here was a key organization in establishing and promoting
county extension programs. In Michigan the wexford County
annual extension report of 1915 was published, with pictures,
by the County Farm Bureau. Throughout much of the country,
the midwest especially, farm bureaus became more and more
identified as a supporter and in some cases part of the
extension service. As Miller put it farm bureaus were
responsible for "...pushing the roots of extension more

deeply at home and spreading them more widely beyond.“1

The Growth of Youth Work
Today this part of the Cooperative Extension Service
is known as 4-H, but in its scattered beginnings at the turn
of the century it was known by such names as boys and girls
clubs, corn clubs, canning clubs and similar names. The
clover emblem and the name 3-H appeared in 1909, followed
by the present name 4-H in 1910, as part of the symbols
used by the Iowa corn clubs.2
The development of youth work followed two directions.
One approach was through the rural school teachers who used

the club structure to help the students conduct experiments

and demonstration plots. The second approach was developed

 

1Paul A. Miller, COOperative Extension Service in the
Industrial Economy (East Lansing, Mich.: Unpublished Mono-
graph, 1959), p. 16.

 

2Franklin M. Reck, The 4-H Story (Ames: The Iowa State
College Press, 1951), pp. 45, 47.

 

145
through the institutes, which usually sponsored contests for

the young student provided they would use new seed varieties

and recommended practices.1

Rural school teachers about this time were disturbed
about the lack of practical education offered in their
schools, as illustrated by the words of O. J. Kern in 1903.

Why not a course of training in the
country school for the country boy
which shall teach him more about the
country life around him? Along with
his study of the kangaroo, the bamboo
and the cockatoo, why not study the
animals on the farm and a proper
feeding standard for them? . . .
Instead of all the boy's arithmetic
being devoted to problems on banking,
stocks, exchange, brokerage, allegation
and partnership, why not some practical
problems with reference to farm economics?2

Kern was a school teacher in Winibago County Illinois.
In 1902 he organized a county-wide boys agricultural club to
conduct crOp experiments. One year later he enrolled 215
girls in a new venture called home culture clubs.3

Albert B. Graham, a school teacher in Springfield,
Ohio, organized his agricultural clubs in the same year and
manner as Kern. One year later both Graham and Kern were
utilizing the bulletins from their respective state experiment

stations. Many of the bulletins were technical and difficult

for the students to read. But they were probably the only

 

11bid., p. 24.
21bid., p. 17.

3Ibid., p. 16.

Scott, Reluctant, p. 124.

 

146

printed material available on agricultural subjects, there
was no purchase costs to the schools, and the bulletins
offered suggestions for possible experiments in the school
garden.1

The school clubs became very popular in the rural
communities and continued to receive assistance from the
staff of the land-grant colleges. The colleges welcomed
the opportunity because the school clubs had become a new
media for demonstrating new recommended crop varieties and
practices, and new methods of canning and food preparation
to the girls clubs. Some of the college staff that had
helped these clubs were also involved in the farmer's
institutes. This school-college—institute relationship
became a vital linkage because these same people eventually
recommended that youth work be included in the proposed
extension legislation.

The more active farmer's institutes became more
directly involved in the formation of youth work, usually
by offering contests that were intended to find the best
yield for each crop. For example institute worker W. B.
Otwell could not get adults to attend institutes in Macoupin

County, Illinois, in 1898. So he sponsored a corn contest

for boys in 1899 which successfully recruited the adults

 

1Reck, 4-H Story, pp. 12-16.

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 125.

 

U.S.D.A., History of Extension, p. 38.

 

147

because they had to bring their sons to the institutes.1
As soon as the adults arrived the other institute workers
would present their lectures.

Otwell's efforts were copied by other institutes in
1903. By 1907, youth activities including corn contests were
reported by 363 institutes in eight states. Just two years
later institute youth activities including contests had
increased to 20 states and territories.2

Up till 1907 all youth work was sponsored by local
schools and business groups with partial support from the
land-grant colleges. In 1907 William Hall Smith was hired
by the U.S.D.A.‘s Farmers Cooperative Extension Work to
establish corn clubs in Holmes County, Mississippi, which
also marked the first effort by the Federal government to
fund this type of youth work.3

Smith's primary purpose was not to start clubs as

part of a youth movement but to use the youth groups to

 

1Martin, Demonstration, p. 40.

Reck, 4-H Story, pp. 20-21.

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 123.

 

True, History of Extension, p. 38.

 

2True, History of Extension, p. 39.

 

3Ibid., p. 65.
Reck, 4-H Story, p. 48.

 

148

encourage the adoption of new recommended corn varieties.
His initial efforts were successful, so a state administra-
tive group to direct the program was formed in 1908 with
representatives from FCDW, officials of land-grant college
experiment station, and the state superintendent of
education.

By 1909 the Farmers Boys Clubs, by which most of
these groups were known, had been successfully started in
North Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and
Arkansas, with the combined efforts of the U.S.D.A. and the
land-grant colleges. To many southerners the FCDW not only
meant a popular adult educational program but a valuable
learning experience for rural children. The support was
so strong that southern congressmen repeatedly checked to
make sure that the FCDW had not been altered or withdrawn
from the proposed extension legislation.

Knapp, head of the FCDW, preferred to work with
county school superintendents when establishing youth work.
By 1909, after his many years of successful demonstration
work, as described on pages 136 tovl42, Knapp was no longer so

hesitant about working with colleges.2

 

lReck, 4-H Story, pp. 48, 63.

2True, History of Extension, p. 65.

 

CHAPTER V

FORMAL ENACTMENT

On December 15, 1909, Representative J. C.
McLaughlin of Michigan introduced the first extension bill
to the House of Representatives, thereby initiating a pro-
longed legislative struggle from which finally resulted
the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. This Act was signed into
law on May 8, 1914, by President Woodrow Wilson, and
established the Agricultural Extension Service. This
legislative struggle was an interesting phase of Extension's
development, for it took Congress several years to come
into agreement on acceptable legislation for what had already
been established as an effective and popular program,
strongly endorsed by both business leaders and colleges.

This chapter will first consider the contextual
setting in which extension legislation was initiated in
Congress, with specific references to those special
interest groups who especially supported such legislation.
Second, there will be an account of the developing extension

legislation itself.

The Setting

 

The setting, which was studied in depth in the
previous chapter, included the combined roles of government,

149

150

business, capital, education, and numerous special

interest groups. It was the apparent disposition of the
Federal government of 1900-1910 to enact legislation bene-
ficial to the major economic interests; certainly they
were not legislating against these interests. When a
liberal Democratic Congress was elected in 1910, and
Woodrow Wilson in 1912, lawmakers began to pursue legis-
lation more beneficial to the agricultural interests.
During the period 1912-1916, the Congress, led by Southern
Congressmen, enacted tariff reductions, the graduated
income tax, the Federal Reserve Act, educational assistance
from the Smith-Lever and Smith-Hughes Acts, and over 70
measures beneficial to rural-credit interests.1 This newly
raised national consciousness for agricultural welfare was
not entirely altruistic. The nation's economy started to
turn down in 1913, and continued to do so in 1914. Foreign
trade had slowed down, causing a decline in the securities
markets and bank clearings. Iron and steel production

were only at 40 to 50 percent capacity. While this slow-
down was not severe, it startled the economists and
investors who remembered too well the panics.of 1906 and
1907; and they strongly urged an increase in agricultural
exports to replace the losses from sales in manufactured

exports.2

 

1Saloutos, Farmer, pp. 234—236.

Saloutos and Hicks, p. 85.

2Saloutos, Farmer, p. 236.

151

This kind of pressure was indicated by the rise
of many business-backed agricultural organizations to
increase agricultural production. The boards of trade and
chambers of commerce of a number of large eastern and
midwestern cities, formed a Council of North American Grain
Exchanges for the purpose, "to discuss ways and means to
interest all organizations in a national movement to
obtain a larger yield of better grain."1 Members of this
council represented U.S.D.A., two state experiment stations,
the German government, the seed interests, seven railroads,
four industrial concerns, seven newspapers, nine boards of
trade, and the millers' national foundation. In 1911, the
Crop Improvement Committee arose from the Council, and with
advice from L. H. Bailey, E. G. Montgomery, and W. M. Hays,
spearheaded numerous efforts to improve seed quality and
quantity. They utilized the popular seed trains, farmers'
institutes, bulletins and club work. Encouraged by this
widespread effort, Julius Rosenwald of Chicago in 1912
offered $100 to 100 midwestern counties to help establish

employment of county agricultural agents.2

 

1True, History of Extension, p. 74.

2Ibid., p. 75.

Roy W. Scott, "American Railroads and Agricultural
Extension, 1900-1914: 'A Study of Railway Developmental
Techniques," Business Historical Review, XXXIX (Spring,
1965), p. 97.

Scott, Reluctant, pp. 203, 267.

152

Another business-backed group was the National
Soil Fertility League, which was established in 1911 and
which later lobbied heavily for extension. This League
was endorsed by bankers, railroads, midwestern businesses,
and persons like William J. Bryan, Champ Clark, Samuel
Gompers, J. J. Hill, and William H. Taft.1

Business interests were increasingly concerned with
the rate of agricultural production including such groups
as the Better Farming Association of North Dakota, started
in 1911 by the Great Northern Railway; a Committee on
Agricultural Development and Education, sponsored by the
American Banking Association; educational programs by the
National Implement and Vehicle Association; in addition
to numerous efforts by other railroads, chambers of
commerce, and marketing groups.2

The recognition of the farmer's changing status,

from the "exploited yeoman" to a potential business person,

was occurring, and such groups as The American Society of

 

1Scott, Railroads, p. 97.

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 290.

U.S.D.A., History of Extension, p. 107.
2Hofstadter, Reform, pp. 124-125.
Scott, Reluctant, pp. 190, 201.

U.S.D.A., History of Extension, pp. 28, 73, 75.

153

Equity, composed both of farm and business leaders,
stressed that the farmer was capable of implementing
management and production policies, which would benefit
the farmer's agricultural "business."

By 1910, there were many forms of extension educa-
tion operating in the midwestern and southern states.
These included the Farmers Cooperative Demonstration Work,
club work, farmers' institutes, county-wide tours,
demonstration and experiment farms, short courses, reading
circles, study clubs, bulletin distribution, news articles,
and numerous personal contacts. The land-grant colleges
as part of this educational scene were increasing their
involvement in extension programs: Five colleges reported
having extension departments in 1905; this number grew
to twenty-seven in 1910, and to forty-three in 1912.
Extension education was fast becoming a popular and
financially successful educational service.2

Aware of the growing impact of extension-type
programs, the Association of American Agricultural
Colleges and Experiment Stations appointed a committee on
extension in 1904. Both in 1908 and 1909, this committee.
issued a report to the Association, recommending the

establishment of a national and federally funded extension

 

1Hofstadter, Reform, p. 126.

2Scott, Reluctant, p. 168.

 

154

service.1 The 1908 report cited extension's growth and the
overwhelming demands burdening the existing colleges, staffs
and suggested that federal funding be established on a
matching basis with state funding. The committee members,
representing the colleges, and already aware that state
funding was available, realized that federal funding on
such a basis would alleviate the strain significantly.
They were also aware that by requesting such, they would
be tying colleges into federal funding, an unpopular con-
cept, but they rationalized this issue by recalling previous
federal support programs, such as the Land-Grant Act of
1862, the Hatch Act of 1887, the Second Morrill Act of
1890, and the Adams Act of 1906.2

The committee's second report (1909) was so well
received by AAACES that President K. L. Butterfield and
Professor Hamilton of the Office of Experiment Stations
were asked by the Association to actually draft the first
extension proposal. This proposal was then approved by
the AAACES executive committee, and given to Representative

McLaughlin for introduction to the House of Representatives.3

 

11bid., p. 167.

2Ibid., pp. 168, 289.

True, History of Extension, p. 100.

 

3True, History of Extension, pp. 101—102.

 

155

Besides the support from land-grant colleges and business
interests, there was the additional endorsement for exten-
sion from the Commission on County Life, the General Educa-
tion Board (see pages 107 to 110), and the U.S.D.A.l The
support appeared unanimous, and enactment of this bill
appeared secure yet it failed to even get out of committee.
Passage of any federal legislation is an extremely compli-

cated process, as will be shown in the following discussion.

Extension Legislation

 

The 32 different proposals regarding extension
legislation which occurred during this time was in effect
the typical legislative process of designing and compromising
on an acceptable version of what exactly extension's function
and structure would entail. By the time the first extension
bill was introduced in 1909 Congress was already dealing
with agricultural education legislation relating to vocational
agriculture and mechanical studies in the secondary schools.
There was an attempt to combine these two approaches legis-
latively with the Dolliver Bill in 1910 and the Page Bills
in 1911 and 1912, but these measures failed. Finally, the
resolution of these two approaches occurred with the passage
of two separate bills, the Smith-Lever Extension Bill of

1914, and the Smith-Hughes Vocational Agricultural Bill of

 

1Dewey W. Grantham, Jr., Hoke Smith and the Politics
of the New South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University

Press, 1958), p. 256.

 

156

1917. There was no significant opposition to any form of
agricultural education, but there were considerable differ-
ences on how it should be structured, as will now be
discussed.

The Nelson Amendment of 1907 provided funding for
the training of agricultural teachers at the numerous
agricultural schools develOping around the country. The
appropriations were a disappointing $5,000 per state with
a maximum increasing limit of $25,000. Willets M. Mays
of the U.S.D.A., and former student of Seaman Knapp when
at Iowa State, had Representative Charles R. Davis of
Minnesota introduce a new bill in 1907 to support vocational
agricultural training of teachers in normal school. Mays
was quite experienced in this area having successfully
organized a sound agricultural school system in Minnesota,
before coming to the U.S.D.A.l

The National Education Association appeared before
the committee urging the committee to pass the bill stating
it would help the states already financially hard pressed with
an increase in the number of agricultural students.2

The bill also had the support of President

Roosevelt, the National Grange, the Farmer National Congress,

 

lRiley, University Extension, pp. 247—249.

 

2U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry. Bill to Provide for the Advancement'of'Instruction
in Agriculture, ManualTraining, and Home Economics in the
State Normal Schools of the United States. S. 3392, 60th
Cong., lst sess.,51908, pp. 2-3.

 

 

 

157

and the Southern Educational Congress. The opposition
at that time had come from agricultural and educational
interests who were skeptical of the federal control that
usually accompanies federal funding. The AF of L had
recommended some changes in curriculum before they would
endorse it. The bill died in committee.

Before the next attempt was made at similar legis-
lation, the AAACES committee on extension had written its
recommendation for an extension proposal.

Butterfield, chairman of the AAACES committee on
extension, and Bailey were wary of federal control that
might be part of federal funding. Thus the AAACES report
which became part of the first extension legislation
included the following provisions.

1. $10,000 appr0priated to each state.

2. Federal funds to be matched by state appropria-

tions.

3. Appropriation to go only to land-grant

institutions.

4. Each land-grant college was to organize an

extension department.

5. Extension instruction was to be limited to

agriculture, domestic science, and other
phases of rural life.

6. Extension was to be granted the Penalty mail

privilege.

158

7. Recommend further appropriations increasing

from $25,000 to $50,000.

Chairman Butterfield gave the proposal to his
Michigan Representative J. C. McLaughlin to introduce in
the house on December 15, 1909, where the bill "died"
later at the end of the session. This bill included the
provision for cooperative funding between the states and
the federal government. The bill also indicated that the
funded instruction should involve the area of domestic

I O 1
sc1ence as well as agriculture.

While this original
proposal did not include any measures supporting boys'
and girls' club work, this was added to later extension
legislation at the insistance of the supporters of the
Farmers Cooperative Demonstration Work.

True reported that the major extension legislation
bills were prOposed by Dolliver on June 22, 1910 (S. 8809,
U.S. Glst Cong., 2d sess.), Page on April 6, 1911 (S. 3,
U.S. 62d Cong., lst. sess.) and the final bills of Smith

on September 6, 1913 (S. 3091, U.S. 63rd Cong., lst. sess.)

 

1Association of American Agricultural Colleges and
Experiment Stations. ProceediAgs of the Twenty-ninth
Meeting (Washington, D.C., 1915), p. 34.

 

Benedict, Farm, p. 153.

Grantham, Hoke Smith, p. 256.

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 292.

 

U.S.D.A., History of Extension, pp. 102-103.

 

159

and Lever on the same day (H.R. 7951, U.S. 63d. Cong., lst.
Sess.).l All other legislation and related action were part
of the many bills which were submitted by these and other
Congressmen on behalf of their constituents, and these were
very similar to the major bills. Extension was very popular
and no Congressman would be hurt politically by introducing
such a bill.

The second legislative proposal for vocational educa-
tion was given to Senator Dolliver who introduced it on
January 5, 1910, just a few weeks after the McLaughlin Bill.2
However, in sensing the popularity of the extension bill,
Dolliver withdrew his original bill in order to incorporate
an extension provision, and then reintroduced it on June 22,
1910. This bill would have provided a huge vocational
educational system in areas of agriculture, industrial
trades, and home economics via formal schooling and extension—

type programs.3 It proposed that $10,000,000 be allocated

 

lAAACES, Proceedings, 1915, pp. 34-36, 41-43.

 

2Scott, Reluctant, pp. 293-295.

 

True, History of Extension, pp. 103-104.

 

3AAACES, Proceedings, 1915, p. 34.

 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry, CooPerationgith the States in Providing Vocational
Education, S. Rept. 902 to Accompany S. 8809, Glst Cong.,
2d Sess., 1910, p. 2.

 

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 294.

 

U.S.D.A., History of Extension, p. 105.

160

directly to secondary and agricultural schools for instruction
in trades, industries, home economics, and agricultural
subjects. Additionally, $1,500,000 would be allocated
to land-grant colleges with extension departments, and
$1,000,000 to normal schools for the preparation of
teachers. The Secretary of the Interior Department would
administer the Federal funding with assistance from the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce and Labor. The
Dolliver Bill received strong endorsements at the hearings
from the National Grange, National Farmers' Congress,
Farmers' Union, American Society of Equity, American
Federation of Labor, American Association of Home Economics,
and the National Educational Association.1

The proponents used three main arguments in support
of the Dolliver Bill: First, it would help increase agri-
cultural production thereby averting a possible food short-
age which was a concern at the time. Second, it was felt
that such a bill would help reverse the exodus of the farm
population to the cities. Finally, it was believed that the
federal government was in the best position to help

financially.2

 

1AAACES, Proceedings, 1915, pp. 35-36.

 

Riley, University Extension, p. 317.

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 294.

 

True, History of Extension, p. 105.

 

U.S. Senate, S. 902, p. 2.

2U.S.D.A., History of Extension, p. 104.

 

161

Despite all the apparent support, the bill ran into
difficulty. Many members of AAACES would not support the
Dolliver Bill because they could not support the lesser
role placed on the land-grant colleges. AAACES did not
oppose vocational education but were wary that such a bill
might hinder future extension development especially if
administered primarily by the Office of Education in the
Department of the Interior. Rather than risk open conflict
on the Dolliver Bill AAACES preferred legislation that
would make extension separate from vocational education.1
As a result of these concerns, the executive committee of
AAACES in 1910 did not endorse the Dolliver Bill and stated
it preferred the passage of McLaughlin's second Bill during
the next session.2 While it appeared that legislative
battle was imminent, Senator Dolliver died unexpectedly
in October, 1910, and the legislative process surrounding
his bill came to a temporary halt.

In the Spring of 1911, Senator Carroll S. Page (no
relation to Walter Hines Page) of Vermont took up where
Dolliver left off by introducing the Page Bill. This bill
had similar provisions to the Dolliver Bill and received
much of the same support for its sections on teaching

agriculture, trades and industries, and home economics.

 

lRiley, University Extension, p. 319.

 

2Scott, Reluctant, p. 296.

 

True, History of Extension, p. 106.

 

162
This bill required the establishment of a board of educa-
tion in each state. However the bill soon became filled
with so many provisions that the definitions and stipula-
tions became unwildy and confusing, causing much concern
among the lawmakers.1

The Page Bill differed little from the Dolliver
Bill and AAACES found itself in a similar position favor-
ing separate legislation.

Yet during this legislative process regarding
extension, there was a growing sense of both urgency to
establish such a program, and frustration that none of the
proposed extension bills appeared adequate. In the spring
of 1911, the National Soil Fertility League was formed
(as discussed on page 152). Mr. Howard M. Gross, represent-
ing the League, indicated to Congress that the League was
anxious to start a Federally funded extension program, with
agents in each county, that such a program should be in
cooperation with the land-grant colleges, and that the
proposal had the support of President Taft.2 When Gross
appeared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and

Forestry, he told the committee that an extension program

 

1AAACES, Proceedings, 1915, p. 34.

 

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry. Bill to Establish Agricultural Extension Depart-
ments in Connection withdthe Agricultural ColIeges in the
Several States Receiving Benefits of an Act of Congress
Approved July 2, 1862, and of’Acts Supplementary Thereto,
Hearings,S. 4563, 63d. Cong., 2d. sess., 1912, p. 41.

 

 

2True, History of Extension, p. 107.

 

163

as envisioned by the League would increase grain production
and improve the U.S. economic position in the world markets.
Apparently Gross was articulating the sentiments of those
interested in American agricultural commodities and foreign
trade.1

The National Soil Fertility League was soon to
direct its support at an extension bill being develOped by
Asbury Lever and Hoke Smith. The Democrats were successful
in the elections of 1910 and Representative Asbury Lever
became a ranking and influential member of the House
Committee on Agriculture in 1911. Senator Hoke Smith was
ascending in power too. Both of these men and several other
southern congressmen were concerned about the Farmers
Cooperative Demonstration Work if it became administered
too strictly under the provisions of the Page Bill. In
the fall of 1911, the executive committee of AAACES,
officers of the National Soil Fertility League, representa—
tives of the Department of Agriculture, all of whom were
generally becoming opposed to the Page Bill, drew up their
own version of a suitable extension bill, which was intro-
duced by Smith and Lever in their respective houses on

January 16 and 17, 1912.2

 

lIbid., p. 109.
U.S., Senate, S. 4563, p. 63.

2Scott, Reluctant, p. 298.

 

True, History of Extension, p. 108.

 

164

The concern of how any extension bill might
restrict Dr. Knapp's program was so great, that Lever's
bill was amended in August 1912 to guarantee that his bill
in no way would interfere with the Farmers C00perative
Demonstration Work. Another related amendment assured that
75 percent of all the appropriations would be directed
toward actual demonstration work thus prohibiting its use
for college teaching and research.

By the middle of 1911 support was mounting for a
federally funded extension service. Those favoring such a
system included southern Congressmen, the General Education
Board (already supporting such a program), Theodore Roosevelt,
President McKinley, and the National Soil Fertility League.
AAACES was in a difficult position for it had always favored
separate legislation. Now such legislation was about to
be passed but with limited provision for the colleges.2

In 1912 Dean Mumford representing AAACES and B. T.
Galloway of the U.S.D.A. tried to resolve the concerns of
AAACES. Mumford could approve the colleges current c00pera-
tion with the Office of Farm Management and with the FCDW,
but felt that college agricultural teachers should be doing
some of the same work. The issue was not settled and carried

over into 1913.3

 

lScott, Reluctant, pp. 294, 298.

 

True, History of Extension, pp. 108-110.

 

2Bailey, Knapp, p. 260.
3Ibid., p. 262.

165

Dean Davenport at the 1913 AAACES convention leveled
his criticism at Spillman's Office of Farm Management and

Knapp's FCDW.1

The concerns among the members of AAACES
were very deep. For one thing there was the old fear of
cooperating with a federal agency and not having the con-
trol they had enjoyed under the provisions of the Hatch
Act. There was some resentment among college faculty of
working with unacademic agents. But perhaps more than
anything else was the concern of how to cope with the
formidable backing that was supporting the current exten-
sion legislation. There was real concern that the growing
college agricultural extension departments, which meant

so much to the colleges might suddenly be by-passed in
favor of a straight line, federally sponsored, non-college
participating extension service.

Housten was the new Secretary of Agriculture and
was anxious to settle the dispute between his U.S.D.A.
co-workers and his former colleagues of AAACES. Housten
received encouragement from his friend Walter Hines Page,
who also recommended to Woodrow Wilson that Housten be
appointed as Secretary of Agriculture. Wilson, former

college president, also favored the college's position.

It was quite imperative that the U.S.D.A. and AAACES split

 

1AAACES, Proceedings, 1913, p. 124.

 

Bailey, Knapp, p. 324.

166

be settled. In November 1913 Housten addressed the AAACES
convention and announced that the U.S.D.A. was going to
seek the formation of a national extension service and
that he needed AAACES's cooperation.l He got it.

During the August 1912 recess of Congress, the
National Soil Fertility League circulated a report which
criticized the Page Bill and supported the Smith-Lever
Bill. The National Society for Industrial Education and
the AF of L meanwhile were just as active in their support
for the Page Bill.2

Southern lawmakers became more concerned about the
Page Bill and its potential affect on agriculture. They
were convinced that a bill with so many provisions would
inevitably fail, and with it would go the hope of any
extension bill. The strategy seemed to be to sidetrack
the Page Bill in favor of separate legislation. Smith
attacked the Page Bill, calling it loosely structured and
too costly, and told Page his bill would not pass the
house. Despite the warning, Page pushed his bill through
the Senate by a one vote margin on January 29, 1913; but

it failed to win the house vote a short time later.3

 

lBailey, Knapp, pp. 267-268.

2True, History of Extension.

 

31bid. ' p. 1100
Benedict, Farm, p. 153.

Grantham, Hoke Smith, pp. 258-59.

 

Scott, Reluctant, p. 301.

 

167

Once the U.S.D.A. and AAACES differences were
settled the way seemed clear for passage except for a few
hanging obstacles. Sectional differences became apparent
when the lawmakers brought up the tariffs during committee
hearings on extension. Representative Gilbert N. Haugen
of Iowa, announcing his support of the extension legisla—
tion on May 2, 1913, attacked some of the free tariffs.

He pointed out how a low sugar tariff permitted eastern
processors to buy lower priced foreign raw sugar thus
forcing a beet sugar processor in Iowa to file bankruptcy.
Senators McCumber and Gronna of North Dakota attacked the
tariffs stating that it kept U.S. agricultural commodities~
competitive in the world market forcing the producer to
sell at depressed prices.1 While the tariffs had little

to do with the extension legislation, this type of discussion
illustrates the sectionalization of American agriculture,
the variety of issues before Congress, and the strong
influence on Congressmen by the processors, who favored pro-
tective tariffs.

Another and unfortunate issue arose in January and
February of 1914, regarding the allocation of funds at both
the black and white colleges in the south. These colleges

were not yet integrated, and the NAACP sought a division of

 

lU.S. House of Representatives, Hearings, Reports
and Debates, Smith-Lever Act of 1914, Blacksburg, Virginia,
Virginia Agricfiltural Extension Service, 1959, pp. 2450-51,
2742.

 

168

funds. Senator Clapp of Minnesota and Senator Vardaman
of Mississippi sharply disagreed with each other on this
issue. Finally, when the southern congressmen made it
clear that they would vote against the proposal if the
funds were divided, the issue was dropped.1

The final issue concerned the method of allocating
funds proportionally to the states: The legislation would
provide funds based on rural population. The larger states
preferred that the funding be determined by total acreage
of improved land instead of a percentage of rural population,
but their attempt to establish this allocation measure
failed.2

Lever's Bill, H.R. 7951, introduced on September 6,
1913, with amendments passed the House in January 1914.
Smith's bill would need the same amendments as already
incorporated into Lever's bill, so in order to hurry the
process, Smith substituted his bill with Lever's bill.
Lever's bill passed the Senate on February 7, and after
several more amendments from both houses, it passed in
final form on April 27. So about 4 1/2 years after the
initial McLaughlin Bill, and after numerous attempts to
change and amend proposals regarding the extension bill by

various special interest groups, the bill was passed in

 

1Ibid., p. 2472.

Scott, Reluctant, p. 310.

 

2Scott, Reluctant, p. 310.

 

169

final form, and in actuality varied little from the
original McLaughlin Bill.1 Basically the bill stipulated
that the Cooperative Extension Service would disseminate
to the peOple of the United States information related to
agriculture and home economics. Final provisions pro-
hibited the use of extension funds for teaching classes,
thus insuring that the media of non-formal education would

remain intact.

 

lAAACES, Proceedings, 1915, p. 43.

 

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter will summarize the major components
prompting the develOpment of Cooperative Extension. The
summations are presented in answer to the considerations
introduced earlier on pages 5 and 6. The conclusions were
formulated after extensive examination of the material
and prompted by a concern for potential extension programming.
The summations to follow result from this study, and accord-
ingly relate to the contextual conditions prior to Extension
(Summations 1-3), the actual movements which prompted the
establishment of Extension (Summations 4-8), and the
legislative conflicts which had to be resolved before the
final legal establishment of an Extension policy (Summations
9-10).

1. The dominant force in the development of the United
States was its economic growth and power.

After the Civil War the United States was fast
becoming the economic capitol of the world, and with this
gigantic growth came the accompanying forces associated
with larger investments,credit, foreign trade, increased
productivity, market expansion, and greater distribution
of wealth. The Federal government by its conservative

170

171

economic policies prior to but specifically during 1900
to 1910 either directly or indirectly supported all of
these forces in order to continue the advance of this
economic growth. Other forces were existent, such as
the populist reform movement, education, and the social
and cultural changes, but it was big business that had
high legislative priority.

2. The Federal Government had become directly involved

in defining policy that contributed to economic
stabilitypandApredictability.

 

 

Unable to control the economic forces prior to
1900, major industries and capital literally pushed and
pulled the government into the role of directing economic
policy. The government had been only minimally involved
with economic policy and up until 1900 most of the policies
were of a non-intervention or hands-off nature. By 1900
however, the government was becoming directly involved
with such things as tariffs, establishing transportation
rates, creation of the Federal reserve banking system,
and in some legal cases the actual distribution of corpor-
ate wealth.

Most of the economic decisions after 1900 had two
major characteristics. First, they were national and/or
international in scope and tended to supercede state and
local regulations. Secondly, these decisions were usually
made by the government on the advice and influence of major
industries and capital, typifying the image of "big

government for big business." Many state and local

172

communities were apprehensive of this increasing federal
control.
3. Supporters and investors in foreign trade were a

majOr forceiin support of increasing agricultural
produdtion.

 

 

One of the key factors in this country's economic
development was the establishment of strong foreign trade
policies. This country's agricultural commodities,
especially cotton, tobacco, and certain small grains, were
able to compete successfully on the world market and help
keep the balance of gold payments in favor of the United
States and minimize the risk of reducing cash reserves.

Those involved in foreign trade advocated large
production, lower prices, and lower tariffs. Some of
these special interests included food and cotton processors,
banks, elevator Operators, railroad companies, boards of
trade, warehouse owners, and commission houses. The
agricultural sector would have much difficulty if they
attempted to adjust commodity prices against the wishes
of these powerful marketing interests.

4. Most of the methods used by the Cooperative Extension
Service were initially developed’by general university
extension programs in thepperiod of the late 1880's
to 1900.

General university extension was quite popular
during the last two decades of the 19th century, during
which time such programs as reading circles, correspondence
courses, short courses, visiting lectures, tours, and others

were successfully offered. While the pOpularity for

173

general university extension subsided in the early 1900's
agriculture oriented extension grew in size and in curricu-
lum.

5. Voluntary organizations were a major force which

contributed to the development of Extension education
programs at the college and community level.

 

 

 

Many of the extension-type programs can trace their
beginnings to the community oriented activities of the
lycea, Chautauqua, tent-Chautauqua, community institutes,
women's study groups, and some forms of youth work. Much
credit must go to groups like the Grange, Farmers Alliance,
Farmers Union, the Populists movement, labor unions,
schools, reading circles, and such for planning and
supporting these programs. Just prior to the 1900's
the interests of the various rural organizations turned
to the more far reaching goals of quality of life, self-
help programs, youth develOpment, credit and protective
legislation. The land-grant colleges, anxious to receive
more exposure and increase their enrollments, took interest
and sponsored many programs, such as the institutes, to
meet this need. With the colleges supporting and expanding
programs which revolved around the interests of these
various volunteer organizations, the need for an extension-
type department at the college level became evident.

The colleges so structured were able to do what the volun-

teer organizations separately could not.

174
6. The landégrant colleges had established research
and extension education as a basis for successfully
requesting federal funding.

By 1910, the land-grant colleges were sufficiently
well established to concentrate on expanding their agri-
cultural extension programs. They had established a unique
arrangement for federal and state funding, largely due
to the efforts of the growing Association of American
Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. These
colleges had sought and received help via the Hatch Act
(1887), the Second Morrill Act (1890) and the Adams Act
(1906), plus other appropriations from state funds. The
Federal government, then, appeared the logical place to
seek funding for proposed extension programs. AAACES
started its movement for a federally supported extension
service of major proportion when it created its Committee
on Extension in 1904.

7. Home economics became part of extensign legislation
Because of its strong support in AAACES.

 

 

The home economics curriculum had become so well
established at the land-grant colleges that AAACES included
it in all its prOposed extension legislation. The leaders
in the home economics area had worked diligently to expand
its fields of study and to establish contacts with several
national academic organizations. Home economics, like
agriculture, was able to grow in two directions, the
vocational area of skills and trades, and the theoretical

area of fundamental knowledge.

175

8. The forces for the development of a national extension
oolicy came predominantly from the economic sector,
the land:grant colleges, ahdhthe U.S.D.A.

 

 

 

 

 

The business interests had for several decades
encouraged the increase of agricultural productivity. The
railroads, looking for cargo, hired farm agents to assist
the farmers, and some railway lines sponsored seed and
demonstration trains, and occasionally provided transpor-
tation to state fairs. The Crop Improvement Committee, an
outgrowth of the North American Grain Exchanges and heavily
involved in foreign trade, actively supported educational
programs that would increase agricultural production. The
National Soil Fertility League as well supported similar
policies and lobbied vigorously for the more extension
oriented bills. Also, some of the elite rich made major
contributions to privately further various forms of secular
education. John D. Rockefeller's contributions to the
General Education Board sponsored many formal and non-formal
educational programs when federal funds were not available,
such as Knapp's comprehensive agricultural efforts.

AAACES became the major force representing the land-
grant colleges at the national level. The Association
through its own committee on extension became convinced of
the need for extension education and proceeded to help
draft the first extension bill, was represented at the
hearings on all extension legislation, conferred with
special interest groups especially the National Soil

Fertility League on pending extension legislation,

176

consulted with Senator Smith and Representative Lever on
their bills, and stated in hearings their preference for
extension legislation over the multi-dimensional Page Bill.
In addition, the Association had several of its members
serve on the Commission on Country Life.

The U.S.D.A. by 1910 was in favor of extension
education due mostly to the efforts of its own staff such
as Knapp and Spillman. During the hearings on extension
legislation Secretary of Agriculture Wilson and his
successor Houston, and Assistant Secretary Galloway
supported extension legislation, stating that such a pro-
gram could provide the education needed to increase
production. Indeed it had become a powerful group that
earnestly sought passage of extension legislation.

9. Vocational education was eliminated from extension
Iegislation because it was incompatible with the
6bjectives held’by those who backed exten§ion

legislation and the unclear compiexity of the
proposed vocational-education bills.

 

 

 

 

 

The primary purpose of extension legislation was
to implement agricultural education so as to increase
agricultural productivity, and the provisions of the
giant vocational education bills prOposed by Dolliver
and Page overshadowed the provisions of extension educa-
tion which was upsetting to those in support of extension
legislation. The only politically feasible solution was
to pass two separate bills, one for extension, and another

for vocational education.

177

There are several reasons why it took four and one-
half years to pass extension legislation, of which the
issue over vocational education was one. For another
reason, seldom is legislation ever passed on the first
prOposal. The extension proposal had many vested interests
all of which had to be interjected, discussed, and compro-
mised to some kind of acceptable resolution.

10. Cooperative funding became part of extension legisla—
tion’in order to assure the continued autonomies of
the many separate vested interests involved}

Congress really did not design the total extension
program; it was already in operation in many areas of the
country, and Congress, with the influence of many forces,
had to guarantee that any extension legislation would not
disturb the favored programs such as institutes, field
days, the Farmers C00perative Demonstration Work, Office
of Farm Management, boys and girls club work, and a few
others. With much already established in these on-going
extension programs, it was politically sound for lawmakers
not to interfere, but to guarantee their continuance.
Therefore provisions had to be made to permit continued
support from state legislators, the special and general
appropriations from the federal government, plus options
that would permit funding from counties and private sources

like the Farm Bureaus.

178

Conclusions

 

One of the most unusual aspects of the Cooperative
Extension Service was the unique combination of special
interest groups that shaped and enacted its legislation.
Congress and business actively supported the Office of
Farm Management and the Farmers Cooperative Demonstration
Work; AAACES carefully watched the concerns of the
extension programs at the land-grant colleges; processors
and marketing interests, plus allied interests of banking,
credit, and shipping, wanted higher production and reduced
prices. From the complex legislative process of compromise
came a bill that all these groups could support.

The federal government's role in the formation of
national policy followed an interesting dichotomy. On
the one hand, the executive branch was guided primarily
by major industry and capital. The legislative side,
however, was influenced more by the forces from the home
electoral areas, and by various political movements and
reform groups. From macro differences to micro, even the
Congressmen often differed with each other, as illustrated
by complicated legislative procedures on grain marketing
and tariffs. All of these various polarizations within the
legislative process have to be recognized and in some way
be resolved before the establishment of any kind of
legislative policy.

Another issue to consider is that of governmental

timing, regarding establishment of the Smith-Lever Act of

179

1914. Extension legislation was introduced not in bad
times but in a relative period of prosperity. The boll
weevil problem was at its highest twenty years before,
generally farm prices were on the increase, general
prosperity of the country was good, land-grant colleges
were developing solid programs, and reform groups were
less militant and more sophisticated in the drive for
reform. There were problems but not as severe as in the
late nineteenth century. To some historians extension was
enacted to help the farmer. If this is the case it was
not established during a time when it was most needed by
the farmer but during a time of prosperity, after the
various programs of the colleges, U.S.D.A., and communities
had already dealt with some of the issues. In other words
extension policy and programs had been in operation before
federal legislation was enacted.

The Cooperative Extension Service appears to have
been legislated more as a result of a series of compromises 1
by the vested interests than as an actual new plan to
establish an extension agency. Here again the supporters
of the Farmers Cooperative Demonstration Work, the Office
of Farm Management, and the extenSion programs at the
colleges, all wanted to see the broadening of their respec-
tive, already established programs. Even vocational educa—
tion had to be taken out of the extension legislation, not
because it was not needed or desired, but because the manner

in which it was proposed would have been a conflict of

180
interests if included in the same bill as extension.
Cooperative extension legislation had to be established
separately from vocational education.

When one considers the total amount of educational
legislation put before Congress during the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, extension legislation was
but a spinoff in the whole developmental process of
establishing a national policy on education. Congress
had attempted for over a decade before the Smith-Lever
Act to enact legislation that would address itself to
vocational education, teacher training, higher education
as well as the more directly related proposals for
support of agricultural education. Congress continued to
wrestle with these issues during and after the Smith—
Lever Act.

Campbell's model of the formation of educational
policy can be applied to the development of the Cooperative
Extension Service but with difficulty. A key concern is
whether the extension service was the end result or but a
part of a continuing process in the establishment of a
national policy on adult and higher education. To the avid
extension supporters, the former, more isolated views
may be preferred. But to the clientele, the decision—
makers, and the people who appropriate money, the
Cooperative Extension Service is only one in a whole

Spectrum of educational agencies.

181

Seemingly an agency like extension, which was
established from the mixed interests of business, the
land-grant colleges, the U.S.D.A., and numerous organiza—
tions, might be overburdened by internal disagreements.
Yet somehow it has survived in spite of itself, and this
in itself deserves more study. It is interesting to
speculate that perhaps these varying vested interests
are the very reason why extension has not been destroyed.
Rather than channel these interests in other directions
extension has attempted to meet these requests, and may have
at the same time cultivated new areas of support. Some
extension peOple have criticized extension for trying

"to be all things to all people,‘ yet this may be why
it has gained the support it has, and perhaps why it has

attracted the employees it has.

Implications for Further Study

 

The very broad nature of this study, which scanned
the years of 1880 to 1914, suggested possible studies on
more specific subjects. The researcher offers three
suggestions, all are related to the major findings of this
study.

Examine more closely the link of business influences
on educational programs. While such research would be
difficult, there appears to be sufficient evidence to
indicate that business leaders believed the American agri-

cultural commodities should be produced in quantity with low

182

prices, and that they supported educational programs

that would contribute to such goals. Suggested research
might include the examination of corporate policies of

the food processors and clothing manufacturers, or the
political activities of the National Soil Fertility League,
Crop Improvement Committee, or other similar groups.

Examine more closely the relationship and influences
of key peOple involved in the formative and legislative
process of extension. Much has been written about Knapp,
but just as much ought to be known about other persons
involved such as Spillman, Walter H. Page, Wilson, Hayes,
Butterfield, Bailey, Mumford, Cross, to mention a few.

It appears that there is more than coincidence involved

in the relationship of Knapp, Wilson, Hayes, a relationship
that started at Iowa State. Additionally research could
focus on the appointment of Butterfield and Bailey to the
Country Life Commission. The request for research here

is not for a biography on each individual but for research
surrounding their relationships with each other, and their
separate and collective influence regarding the establishment

of extension.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association of American Agricultural Colleges and
Experiment Stations. Proceedin s of the Twenty-
nineth Meeting. Washington, D.C., I915.
Bailey, Joseph Cannon. Seaman A. Knapp, Schoolmaster of

American Agriculture. New York: CoIhmbia University
Press. 1945.

 

 

Bailey, Liberty Hyde. Farmers' Institute Courses. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment
Stations. Bulletin No. 72. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1899.

 

Bailey, Liberty Hyde. Farmers' Institutes: History and
Status in the United States and'Canada. U.S.
Department of AgricuIture, OffiCe ofExperiment
Stations. Bulletin No. 79. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1900.

Baker, Gladys. The County Agent. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press. 1939.

Barzun, Jacques, and Graff, Henry F. The Modern Researcher.
Revised. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and werld,
Inc., 1970.

 

Bendimer, Robert. Obstacle Course on Capital Hill. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company,'l964.

Benedict, Murry B. Farm Policies of the United States 1790-
1950. New York: American Book. Straffbrd Press,
Inc., 1953.

 

 

Bevier, Isabel. Home Economics in Education. Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott Co., 1924.

 

Bevier, Isabel, and Usher, Susannah. The_Home Economics
Movement. Boston: Whitcomb and Barrows, 1906.

 

Black, John D. Agricultural Rergrm in the United States.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,dl929.

 

Bogue, Allen G. "The Administration and Policy Problems
of the J. B. Watkins Land Mortgage Company 1873-1994."
Bulletin of the Business Historical Society. XXVII
(Marsh 1973), pp. 26-37.

 

Boorstin, Daniel J. The Americans, The Democratic Experience.
New York: Randbm House, 1973.

184

Brunner, Edmund de 8., and Yang, E. Hsin Pao. Rural America
and the Extension Service. New York: Columbia
University, 1949.

 

 

 

Campbell, Roald F., Corbally, John E., and Ramseyer, John A.
Introdugtion to Educational Administration. Boston:
AIIyn & Bacon, 1962.

Campbell, Roald F., Cunningham, Luvern L., McPhee,
Roderick F., and Nystrand, Raphael O. The Organiza—
tion and Contrglof American Schools. C61umbus,
Ohio: Charles E. MerrilI Publishing Company,
1970.

 

Cline, Rodney. The Life and Work of Seamgn A. Knapp.
Nashville: Collam and Chertner Company, 1936.

Cook, 0. F. A New System of Cotton Culture. U. S.
Department of’Agriculture. Bureau of Plant
Industry. Miscellaneous Papers. Circular No. 115.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1913.

 

Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University.
"Staff Time Use Profile, 1973-1974." East Lansing,
1974 (Mimeographed).

Eddy Jr., Edward Danforth. Colleges for Our Land and Time.
New York: Harper and Brothers, I956.

 

Foner, Phillip 8. History of the Labor Movement in the
United States. New York: International Publishers,
1955.

Galloway, Beverly T. The Bureau of Plant Industry, Its
Functions and Efficienc . U.'S. Department of
Agriculture. Bureau 0 Plant Industry. Miscellaneous
Papers. Circular No. 117. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1913.

 

Gates, Paul W. The Illinois Central Railroad and Its
Colonization Werk. Chmbridge: Harvard University

Press, 1934.

The General Education Boarg. New York: The General
Education Board, 1915.

Grantham, Jr., Dewey W. Hoke Smith and the Politics of
the New South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1958.

 

Harrison, Harry P. Culture Under Canvas. New York:
Hastings House, 1958.

 

185

Hearings, Reportyyand Debate, Smith-Lever Act of 1914.
Blacksburg: ’Virginia Agricultural ExtenSlon
Service, 1959.

 

Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform From Bryan to
F. D. R. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1955.

Holman, Charles W. "The American Farmer and the Tarriffs,"
Annals of the American Academy. CXVII (January
1925?. pp. 166-176.

Howe, Frederic C., "The Free Port An Agency for the
Development of American Commerce." Annals of the
American Academy. LIX (May 1915), pp. 236-244.

 

Hunt, Caroline L. The Life of Ellen H. Richards.
Washington, D.C.: The American Home Economics
Association, 1958.

 

Kelsey, Lincoln David, and Hearne, Cannon Chiles.
Cogperative Extension WOrk. Ithaca, New York:
ComstOEk Publishing AssOEiates, 1963.

 

Kies, William S. "Branch Banks and Our Foreign Trade.”
Annals of the American Academy. LIX (May 1915),
pp. 3014368.

Kirkland, Edward Chase. Dream and Thou ht in the Business
gommunit 1860-1900 Ithaca. gornelIUniversity
Press, 6.

Knowles, Malcolm 8. "Historical Development of the Adult
Education Movement in the United States.“ Hand-
book of Adult Education in the United States.
Edited by’Malcolm S. Knowles. Chicago: FAdult
Education Association of the U.S.A., 1962.

Kolko, Gabriel. The Tri h of Conservatism. New York:
Free Press of Gienco,l963.

Lee, Jeanette, and Dressel, Paul L. Liberal Education
and Home Economics. Institute of Higher Education,
CoIfimbia University, 1963.

Lord, Russell. The Agrarian Revival. New York: George
Grady Press, 1939.

 

Martin, O. B. The Demonstration. Boston: The Stratford
Co., 1921.

186

McFall, Robert J. "The Farmers Foreign Market." Annals
of the American Academy. CXVII (January 1925),
pp. 129:155.

 

Miller, Paul A. “Cooperative Extension Service in the
Industrializing Economy." Unpublished Monograph.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1959.

Morgan, Barton. A History of the Extension Service of Iowa
State College. Ames: Collegiate Press, Inc., 1934.

Nevins, Allen. The State Universities and Democracy.
Urbana: University obellinois Press, 1962.

 

Nourse, Edwin G. American Agricultural and the European
Market. New York} MCGraw, 1924.

Pacacha, Carl T. "Floyd Wesley Reeves: Pioneer in Shaping
Legislation in Support of Adult Education."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State
University. 1970.

Pollack, Norman. The Populist Response in America.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I962.

 

Potter, Robert E. The Stream of American Education. New York:
American Booh Company,l967.

 

Pratt, Edward Ewing. "The Attitude of Business Towards
Foreign Trade." Annals of the American Academy. LIX
(May 1915). PP. 291-3002

 

Reck, Franklin M. The 4-H Story. Ames: The Iowa State
College Press, 1951.

 

Riley, Thomas Leslie. "The Development of Extension in
the Land-Grant Universities, 1862-1914.” Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1965.

Roberston, Ross M. History of the American Economy. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1955.

 

Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University.

New York: Random House, I962.

Saloutos, Theodore. Farmer Movements in the South 1865-1933.
Lincoln: University 6? Nebraska Press, 1 60.

 

Saloutos, Theodore and Micks, John D. Agricultural Discontent;
in the Middle west 1900-1939. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, 1951.

 

187

Sanders, H. C., ed. The Cooperative Extension Service.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice HaII, Inc.,
1966.

Schattschnider, E. E. The Semisovereign People. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

 

Scott, Roy V. "American Railroads and Agricultural Extension
1900-1914: A Study in Railway Developmental
Techniques." Business Historical Review. XXXIX
(Spring 1965). PP. 74-98.

Scott, Roy V. The Reluctant Farmer. Urbana: University Of
Illinois Press, 1970.

 

Shannon, Theodore J., and Schoenfeld, Clarence A.
University Extension. New York: The Center for
Applied Researchiin Education, Inc., 1965.

 

Strauss, Frederich, and Bean, Louis H. Gross Farm Income
and Indices Of Farm Production an r
united States 1869—1937. UlS. Department ofT"
Agrichlture. TEEhniOEI Bulletin NO. 703. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1940.

 

 

True, Alfred Charles. A History Of Agricultural Extension
Work in the UniteHPStates. U.ST‘Department of
AgriEulture. MisceIIaneous Publication NO. 15.
Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1928.

True, Alfred Charles. A Histo Of A ricultural Education
in the United States i785-I915. U.S. Department Of
Agriculture. Miscellaneous Publication NO. 15.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1929.

 

 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Report Of the Country Life Commission.
S. Doc. 705. 60th‘Cong., 2d. Sess., 1909.

 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Bill to Provide for the Inspection and Grading_g£
Graln EnteringIntobihterstate Commerce and tOtSecure
UniformityIn Stahdards and Classification OfiGrain,

and—fer Other Purposes, Hearings. S. 382. 60th Cong.,
Ist Sess., 1908.

 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Bill to Establish Agricultural Extension Departments

 

in Connection pith AgriculturaI Colleges in the
Several States Receivinhihenefitsbf_en Act Of
Congress Approved July , 1862, and thActs
SupplementaryTheretO, Hearings. S. 4563, 62d Cong.,
2d Sess., I212}

 

 

 

 

188

U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Bill tO Provide for the_Advancement Of Instruction
in Agriculture, Manual Training, and Home EEOnOfiics
in_the State Normal SchoOls Ofithe United States.
S. 3392, 60th Cong., lst. Sess.{‘l908.

 

U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Bill to Provide for the Inspection and Grading Of
Crain Entering Into Interstate Commerce and to
Secure Uniformity in Standards and Classifications
Of Grain, and‘fOr Other Purposes, Hearing_. S. 382,
60th Cong., IstiSess., 1908.

 

 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Cooperation with the States in Providing Vocational
Education. S. Rept. 902ito Accompany S. 8809, Glst
Cong., 2d Sess., 1910.

 

 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Lands.

Agricultural Entries on Coal Lands. S. Rept. 703 to
Accompany S. 4180. Elst Cong., 2d Sess., 1910.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Territories. Copper

River and Northwestern Railway Company. S. Rept.
873 to Accompany S. 6316. 6lst Cong., 2d Sess.,
1910.

 

Woytanowitz, George M. University Extension, The Early Years

 

in the United States 1885-1915. NationaI'Uhiversity
Extension Association and the American College
Testing Program. 1974.

 

Winkes, Robin W., ed. The Historian as Detective. New York:

 

Harper and Row PuinShers, 1968.

189
GENERAL REFERENCES

Blair, Lyle and Kuhn, Madison. A Short History Of Michigan
State. East Lansing: Michigan State College
Press, 1955.

Blaisdell, Donald. Government and Agricuiture, The Growth
Of Federal Farm Aid. New York: Farrer and Rinehart,
1940.

Bliss, R. K., ed. The Spirit and Philosophy Of Extension
Work. Washington: Graduate School, United‘States
hepartment Of Agriculture and Epsilon Sigma Phi,
1952.

Borgstrom, Georg. The Hungry Planet. New York: Collier
Books, 1972.

 

Gilbert, Arthur N., ed. In Search Of a Meaningful Past.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972.

 

Conklin, Paul K. and Stromberg, Roland N. The Heritage and
Challenge Of History. New York: DOdd, Mead and
Company, 1972.

 

GOOdsell, Willystine, ed. Pioneers Of Women's Education in
the United States. Reprinted from 1931 edition.
New YorE} AMS Press, Inc., 1970.

Gray, L. C. "A Domestic Market for American Farm Products."
Annals Of the American Academy. CXVII (January

 

 

Graven, Avery. "The Agricultural Reformers Of the Ante-
Bellum South." The American Historical Review.
XXXIII (October 1927). PP. 302-314.

Greathouse, Charles H. Historical Sketch Of the U.S.
Cepartment Of Agriculture; Ets Objects and
Present OrganiEatign. U.S. Department Ofngricul-
ture. Ditision Of Publications. Bulletin NO. 3.

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1898.

 

Kelsey, Lincoln David, and Hearne, Cannon Chiles.
Cooperative Extension Service. Ithaca, New York:
COmstock Publishing Associates, 1955.

Kolko, Gabriel. The Roots Of American Foreign Policy.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1969.

190

Lembert, Ben F. The Cotton Textile Industry of the
Southern AppalaEhian Piedmont. Chapel Hill:
The Uhiveréity Of North Carolina Press, 1933.

Michigan State Board Of Agriculture. Michigan State
Farmers' Institutes. Institute BuIletin 7.
East Lansing: Agricultural College, 1901.

 

Pollack, Norman, ed. The Populist Mind. Indianapolis:
The Bobbs-MerfiIl Company, Inc., 1967.

 

Skotheim, Robert Allen, ed. The Historian and the Climate
gf Opinion. Menlo Park, Cal.: Addison-WeSIey
Publishing Company, 1969.

 

 

True, Alfred Charles. "Agricultural Education and
Agricultural Prosperity." Annals Of the American
Academy. LIX (May 1915), pp. 51-64.

 

U.S. Congress. House. COO erative Agricultural Extension
WOrk. H. Rept. 115, 633 Cong., 2d Sess., 1913.

U.S. Congress. House Committee on Agriculture. Bills
Regarding the Cotton-Boll Weevil and Appropriations

fer the De artment Of A rieuIture Hearin s.
H.R. 4477 5496, 7300, 3354, 7646. 58th Cong., lst

I
Sess., 1903.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Hearin 3
Before the Committee on Agriculture on H.R. 7931,
Commonly Rnown as the Lever AgricuItural Extension
EiII. 63d Cong., lst Sess., 1913.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture.
Miscellaneous Bills and Other Matters, Hearings.
62d Cong., 2d and 3d Sess., 1912.

 

U.S. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Agricultural Appropriation Billy Hearings. H. 19158
th Cong., lst Sess., 1908.

U.S. Congress. Senate. The National University, by Edmund
J. James. S. Doc. 39, 62d Cong., 2d sess., 1912.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Vocational Education. S. Doc. 845,
62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912.

 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry. Bill tO Provide for an Increased Annual
ApprOpriation_fOr the Support Of’Agricultural
Colle es and Experiment Stations, Hearings.

8. 4636, Glst’COng., 2d Sess., 1910.

 

191

Congress. Senate. Committee on Conservation Of
National Resources. National Commission for the
Conservation Of Natural Resources. S.“Rept. 826
tO Accompany S. 3719. Glst Cong., 2d Sess., 1910.

 

Department Of Agriculture. Yearbook Of Agriculture,
1962. Washington, D.C.: GOvernment Printing
Office, 1962.

 

Department Of Agriculture. Bureau Of Plant Industry.
Miscellaneous Paper. Leaf-Cut or Tomosis, A
Disorder Of Cotton Seedlihg§,—by O.F. Cook.
Circular NO. 120. WashingtOn, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1913.

 

 

Department Of Agriculture. Office Of Experiment
Stations. Proceedings Of the Thirteenth Annual
Convention Of the Associatibn Of American
Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations
field at Sanfrancisco July 5-7, 1899,1by A.CT
True, W. H. BeaI, and H. H. GOOdeIl, ed. Bulletin
NO. 76. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1900.

 

 

 

 

 

Vexler, Robert 1., ed. Woodrow Wilson 1856-1924. New York:

 

Oceana PublicatiOns, 1969.

V.

MICHIGAN STATE UNI LIBRARIES
ilHIWI"U"!HIVIWIWIIH‘II IIWIWIWWI
31 293009 671 6

98