AN ACCOUNT OF THE METHODS OF WORK OF

THE AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

IN CALIFORNIA*

THOMAS FORSYTH HUNT

Last spring a letter was received from President Thompson which read in part as follows:

"The Executive Committee last week unanimously decided to request you to go on the general programme on the following theme, or such statement of it as you might prefer, namely, The Plan of Agricultural Operations in California. The committee seemed to think it would be very desirable to have some account of the work at Fresno, Riverside and elsewhere and to set out in a paper the method of procedure," etc.

To this invitation the following reply was sent:

"Your letter of May 3-has been received. I do not feel at liberty to decline your invitation although I have much hesitation in accepting it for the obvious reason that it puts me in the position of discussing and even defending our own work before our guests. However, if you are willing to accept the responsibility for the invitation and for the wording of the title, I will comply with the request."

An address delivered before the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, held at Berkeley, California, August 11-13, 1915.

The more I have analyzed the situation the more I must confess I am puzzled concerning the reason for this request. Even if it were possible to demonstrate that the method of procedure is a successful one, it does not follow that such procedure would succeed elsewhere or if it could be made to succeed would be desirable. We believe it is a good method or we would not follow it, but it may as well be confessed that I have applied all those yard-sticks by the means of which success ordinarily is measured and find that each projects beyond the size of the cloth, whether measured lengthwise or sidewise, except possibly in the case of the stick of popular appreciation. However, the California spirit of appreciation and helpfulness, known to Easterners as the habit of "boasting and boosting" makes this stick a variable one.

California has an area equal to the nine North Atlantic States the six New England States, plus New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These nine North Atlantic States have ten agricultural experiment stations, ten separate organizations and twenty-five millions of people. California has one organization and two and one-half millions of people. It has all the agricultural problems of the North Atlantic States and in addition has problems of which the man who always has lived in a humid climate never has dreamed. Further, most of the agricultural investigators of the world have lived and continue to live in humid climates and have studied the problems of humid climates. The best that can be said for the California organization is, that it has made, or more correctly is endeavoring to make, a virtue out of a necessity. Instead of saying the problem is hopeless because of its size and complexity, the organization has said, we will make a better college of agriculture because of the size and complexity of the problems involved.

The physical aspect of the situation may be illustrated by referring to the fact that we have a farm adviser in Humboldt County and a substation in Imperial Valley.

It is only within the last year that one can go by rail from Eureka, Humboldt County to El Centro, Imperial County, in three days, and this only by spending two nights on a sleeper. The average rainfall at Eureka is 46 inches. There are parts of Humboldt County where, in some seasons one hundred inches of rain falls. Four inches of rain never have been known to fall in Imperial Valley in twelve months. A member of the staff of this college has travelled, within the state, 16,000 miles in sixteen weeks in the necessary conduct of his work.

Doubtless the Executive Committee had in mind only research and education when it asked for this paper, but the title in the programme "Agricultural Institutions in California," offers an excuse for discussing the subject in a somewhat broader aspect. The purpose of the College of Agriculture is to discover and instruct, but not to control any person's actions. The United States Department of Agriculture differs from a college of agriculture in that it does not attempt to give resident instruction. A college of agriculture differs, or to speak more correctly, should differ, from the United States Department of Agriculture in that it does not possess police functions. The University of California is recognized by the State Constitution. Four functions of government are therefore recognized in this State, namely, the executive, the legislative, the judicial and the educational. It must be perfectly obvious that in California, as indeed elsewhere, police powers are an executive and not an educational function. The argument that certain police powers, because of the technical character of the control, can be exercised best by the experiment station is equally as specious as the argument that the executive branch of the government must conduct its own investigations in order that it may know how to act. The fact is that the two functions largely are incompatible. In many instances, it would not be far from wrong to say in most instances, a man who has a law to execute will not think his problem out to its logical conclusions where his

job depends upon not doing so. Of what value is a station's opinion concerning the use of hog serum if onefourth of its revenues are obtained from the sale of said serum? Suppose a police department has organized an efficient staff for the prevention and control of insect enemies and fungus diseases: What would it do if its own research led to the discovery that only one-half of the staff and only one-half of the appropriations were needed for the conduct of its work? Would it publish its researches? Did it ever occur to you that nearly every federal, state and county employee is engaged in controlling somebody's action? Go into any county in any state and run your eye over the officials. Most of them wear a star, if not on their coats then on their suspenders. There is nothing, apparently, that an official cherishes so much as police powers. Has it ever occurred to you that every state should have one institution whose duty it is to discover and whose only power it is to tell the truth? Let me illustrate how it works.

A certain county in California has one paid official who does not have any police powers. He is known as a farm adviser and not as a county agent, however, because in the judgment of the writer the latter smacks of police powers. One of the supervisors in that county decided to try to have a law passed which he insisted quite vehemently the farm adviser should enforce. The farm adviser was quite disturbed, for he knew the policy of the University, and yet he was afraid this supervisor might induce the County Board to withdraw its financial support. The farm adviser was told that it was a matter of comparative indifference whether or not any particular county had a farm adviser. The University only wished to place them where they were wanted, and if this county did not want him he could be transferred readily to another county. We told the supervisor that we did not know what the farm adviser thought about his proposal and we did not care what he thought, but whatever, he did think, it was

his duty, if asked to do so, to advise the Board of Supervisors what action in his judgment they should take; but under no circumstances would he be allowed to enforce the law if they passed one. The fact was, the county had a thoroughly capable police officer with plenty of time, whose natural duty it would have been to enforce such a law if passed. The point I really am trying to make is, that all this came about because neither the supervisor nor the farm adviser had fully grasped the idea that the only functions of the University are to discover and to teach. When the idea really is comprehended, it will be found to have a far reach.

This same farm adviser came to us one day and said he was called to Mr. Blank's farm and found his cattle to be suffering from a contagious disease. After advising him to the best of his ability he asked, "Why did you not call the live stock inspector" "Why, you know," the farmer replied, "we knew that you didn't mean us any harm and we did not know what the inspector might do to us. "What should I have done" asked the farm adviser, "should I have informed the live stock inspector?" The farm adviser was told that it was his duty to try to persuade the farmer with all the power he possessed that it was in the interests of the community and his own interest to call in the live stock inspector and to have the place quarantined, but that action on that subject should be left entirely to the farmer himself.

We may as well be frank about it, this policy is not one that makes for popular appreciation. The majority of the people like to be knocked down with a club. When a man swings a big stick everybody takes off his hat and shouts for joy. If you are looking for immediate results, do not adopt the policy I have outlined. I cannot present you with any evidence that will work, in fact I have some evidence that it does not, but I feel as sure as I stand here that if the agricultural colleges are going to justify the vast sums of money they are spending, they must