act. It has left to the individual initiative of the station workers the planning of the investigations and the selection of the topics most important to their localities. The Office has insisted only that the projects as outlined should be such as to characterize them as scientific investigations, embracing some original features. It has not presumed to pass, except in an advisory way, upon the feasibility of the investigations, the method of procedure, or the probability of the work leading to conclusive results. While it has made many suggestions for the strengthening of the investigations, these suggestions have necessarily been advisory, rather than mandatory, since the responsibility for the planning and execution of the investigation must rest with the station worker. Every effort has been made to lead by suggestion, to inspire the spirit of investigation, and to preserve the individuality of the investigator.

Research is worthy of the name only as it is directed to the answering of definite problems by scientific methods of procedure. This will involve a definite plan of operations and thorough consideration of what is known of the subject and its bearing, and should lead to a knowledge of the reasons for the results secured.

Again, research presupposes a definite aim and a definite problem to be solved, a specific end to be attained rather than the mere accumulation of data. In the matter of projects the Office has insisted that this definite aim should be apparent, and that the work should be directed toward some problem or phase of a problem which would result in a contribution to our knowledge, making it less empirical and more definite. It has declined to approve plans for conducting surveys, the making of collections of and for themselves, the making of compilations and of monographs, studies of broad questions rather than specific problems or phases, the making of analyses or experiments merely to add to the general fund of data, the accumulation of observations not correlated with a definite line of investigation, the mere attempt to secure agricultural products of a superior quality without a recognition of the scientific principles involved and an attempt to add to our knowledge of them, or the conduct of experiments which add merely to our empirical knowledge but do not aim to throw light upon the fundamental principles. In a word, the effort has been made to set up the same standards for investigation and research in agriculture that are generally recognized in older branches of science. 33

The establishment of at least one agricultural experiment station in each State has undoubtedly had a tendency to result in some unnecessary duplication of effort. In order to

33 Alfred C. True and Edwin W. Allen, "Work and Expenditures of the Agricultural Experiment Stations," U. S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report of the Office of Experiment Stations . . . 1906 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1907), pp. 72-3.

minimize this duplication the directors of the New England stations began to cooperate in the development of agricultural research in that area. This movement, which has been in progress for several years, has proved so fruitful that it is being extended to other regions, and the Office of Experiment Stations has stimulated its development. Cooperation in the planning of research seems certain to be greatly stimulated by the provision in the Bankhead-Jones law for regional laboratories, which are now being established by the United States Department of Agriculture in the following fashion:

The first steps in the establishment of regional laboratories in accordance with the provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Act were taken with chiefs of bureaus of the Department and directors of the State experiment stations. The subject was given special consideration during the meetings of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities in November 1935.

. . Following negotiations with the land-grant colleges and experiment stations, the Department issued a statement of policy on December 19, 1935, which embodied suggestions from its bureaus and recommendations from the State stations approved by the executive body of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. Among other things, it provided, as a basis for the activities of the regional laboratories, that the Secretary of Agriculture receive suggestions from the experiment station directors and from bureau chiefs in the Department; that he locate such laboratories solely with regard to the technical requirements and the facilities available; and that the Department and the State experiment stations enter into memoranda of understanding regarding the work to be done, the cost of doing it, the sources of the funds, and the coordination of the laboratory research with regular activities of the States and the Department, Federal and State specialists to cooperate in preparaing detailed plans.34

This policy, combined with the development of cooperation in research through the existing stations, points toward an era of reduction in duplication of effort and of increased returns from funds expended for agricultural research. Some recent discussion, however, centers around the establishment of regional laboratories independent of any existing experiment station. This would be an unfortunate arrangement and would tend to cause confusion in an area where, over a period of years, Federal and State relationships have gradually been clarified.

34 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Report on the Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1936 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1937), pp. 4-5.

Federal-State Financial

Relationships

As was pointed out in an earlier section, Federal support for agricultural experiment stations was initiated at a time when many States already had stations of their own and when the idea was already fairly well established. Thus there was little or no immediate demand on the States to provide new funds. Since the passage of the Hatch Act the States as a whole have contributed liberally from their own funds to the support of the stations. In 1923-24 the State appropriation for experimental stations was more than $4.00 for each $1.00 from Federal sources. Since that time the ratio of State to Federal funds has decreased, owing to a decline in appropriations by the States especially during the depression years, and also as a result of increase in Federal funds under the Purnell Act. In 1934-35 the amounts expended by the States from the appropriations of the Hatch, Adams, and Purnell Acts aggregated approximately $4,384,000. Direct appropriations from the States for that same year amounted to about $6,723,000 which means that the States spent slightly more than $1.50 for experiment stations for each $1.00 appropriated from Federal sources. Other sources, mainly the sale of products, brought $2,872,000 to the stations; this amount also should be credited to the States. Previous balances provided $1,089,000. (See Table 4.)

In general, it may be said that the growth of State appropriations for agricultural experiment stations has been remarkable and has probably taken place as rapidly as the stations demonstrated their value. The increase has been virtually uninterrupted, failing to appear in only 2 years, 1911 and 1915. In the former year, the decrease was small and had little permanent effect on the program. The consequences of the 1915 decline were more serious, however, since there was a decrease of 17 percent from the preceding year's State appropriations, and State appropriations did not regain until 1918 the 1914 level.

TABLE 4.-Experiment station income, by source and by fiscal year, 1888

to 1937 1

1 Secured from records on file in Office of Experiment Stations, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Feb. 25, 1938.

2 Including previous balances. These totals have not been adjusted for differences resulting from rounding to thousands of dollars.

3 Includes individual and community contributions, fees, farm products, and miscellaneous; and, prior to 1919, previous balances.

4 Prior to 1919, previous balances were included in other sources.

127403°-39-4

The cause of this decline seems apparent. In 1914 the Smith-Lever Act had been passed to encourage the development of programs intended to spread knowledge concerning agriculture and homemaking to people in rural areas.35 Because this Act was intended to be stimulative in character, it carried the following provision:

no payment out of the additional appropriations herein provided shall be made in any year to any State until an equal sum has been appropriated for that year by the legislature of such State, or provided by State, county, college, local authority, or individual contributions from within the State, for the maintenance of the cooperative agricultural extension work provided for in this Act.36

This provision in effect constituted a mortgage against any increases in appropriations for agriculture that could be secured from the legislatures of the several States. Appropriations for extension were apparently made at the expense of the experiment stations, whose decrease in appropriations of $445,000 between 1914 and 1915 was approximately equal to the amount ($497,484) required from the States to furnish the matching funds required under the Smith-Lever Act for the year 1916. Although the appropriations of the States for experiment stations did not reach the 1914 level until 1918, their appropriations for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever Act continued to increase markedly. (See Table 5.)

TABLE 5.-Federal funds available to States for cooperative extension work and State offsets under the Smith-Lever Act, by fiscal year, 1916 to 1920 1

1 Data from A. C. True, A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States: 1785-1923, U. S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 15 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1928), pp. 197-8. In the interpretation of this table it should be borne in mind that there was in each year $480,000 granted to the States by the Federal Government for which offset was not required, also that there were offset funds from counties and other sources.

35 For a discussion of this program see ch. IV.

36 Sec. 3.