1876, apparently called to see just how far the college of Agriculture had fallen. The room was not large and was crowded with men of some prominence in farming and hostile to the University because they really believed that the College of Agriculture ought to be snatched from ruinous association with a so-called "classical institution." It was a stormy assembly but when there came a lull the chairman asked Hilgard to speak. He rose alertly, showing then a slim, graceful figure, and when he had folded and pocketed the blue glasses which a long continued eye trouble forced him to wear, they saw a scholarly face illumined with an eagerness, cordiality and brightness of expression which seemed to say to them: I never was in such a delightful place before in my life. Before he could say a word he had them transfixed with surprise and curiosity, and when he began to speak in a low, conversational voice, with an accent which compelled them to listen closely, every man was at attention. He was saying that he was glad to meet them; that no one could do much for farming unless he had personal knowledge and support of farmers; that he had listened with interest to what they had been saying and much of it doubtless would be helpful to him; that other things they could talk over and agree upon when they became better acquainted; that he had come to California to try, with their help and support, to know California, from the rocks to the sky, and proposed to use all that he had learned in other lands merely as a help to begin to know California, which he had already perceived was different from any other land in which he had lived and worked. He wished to work from California outward; not to try to fit old theories to a new state. He had always been interested in differences and wanted to see what they were and how they worked in farming. On his father's farm in Illinois he learned that the soil was not all alike and had been told that soil differed when it came from different rocks, when it was moved about in different ways and when other things were mixed with it, and since boyhood he had

been studying the rocks, the soils, the plants, to see what was in the soil and in the plant in the hope of matching them up, to get the best crops and the most money in farming-and then followed a charming half-hour with soil formation and movement, tillage, fertilization, etc. etc., without a scientific term, without reference to a chemical formula— all straight farming talk about soils and plants. Finally he said he had come to find out how these things worked in California. He particularly wished to know whether California farmers had anything as hard to handle as the gumbo soil of the Mississippi Valley.

It was a master stroke and all so unconsciously delivered. Before he could regain his seat, questions were fired at him from all over the room and he answered them readily and confidently. At least half-a-dozen had soil which they knew was many times worse than gumbo; would he come to the farm and see it? As the meeting closed after half an hour of such friendly and informal conference, a tall giant from the San Joaquin who was a leader in the opposition and who was known to be able to damn the classics all around a thousand acre grain-farm, leaned down and whispered in my ear: "My God, that man knows something!"

Such experiences were repeated scores of times in different parts of the state during the first few years of Hilgard's administration of the College of Agriculture. His purposes were approved and his personal achievements praised in ways I have not space even to suggest. A single significant token of his victory may be seen in the fact that, within five years after his coming, the State Master of the organization which set itself and its ten thousand members to the task of segregation of the College of Agriculture from the University, presented, in the constitutional convention of 1879, the article which made the organic act of the University a part of the constitution of the state and thus lifted the integrity of the institution above legislative dismemberment. This achievement was profound in its effect upon the development of this institution: it was wide

reaching, for it has proved a rock upon which efforts for dismemberment of land-grant universities in other states have been dashed to pieces.

I do not, of course, mean to intimate that Hilgard's conciliation of the farmers (and those disposed at that time to train with them in opposition) indicated that there was an adverse majority in the convention to be overcome, for the University had abundant strength to prevail. But the importance of the opposing minority is seen in the fact that those in charge of the University interests deemed it worth while that the conquered leaders in opposition should be given leadership in affirmation, and that was possible through their conciliation and satisfaction by Hilgard.

Though Hilgard's first great and enduring work was done by conciliation, do not think for a moment that he was a pacificist. He was a warrior, bold and confident. It was a wonder to some of us, who knew him best, how a man so genial and so full of love for his fellowmen could fight so hard and mercilessly. Sometimes we thought he fought not wisely but too well. Sometimes the cause of war seemed not worth the time and the munitions. But fighting was recreation for him: it seemed to renew his strength, to deepen his convictions, to freshen his thought. My impression is that on the whole it did no harm-not even to himself. I believe that what he counted his greatest victories were won not by the fighting but by the personal sincerity, ability and capacity which he displayed while doing it, and thus victories, when he attained them for his contentions, were not by arts of war but by attributes of peace.

HILGARD'S EARLY WORK IN THE UNIVERSITY

Hilgard came to the University largely by the initiative and influence of the science branch of the faculty, as stated, and he at once took a leading part in the general effort which the sciences had to make to secure parity of pedagogical position and influence with the old culture-studies which were intrenched in the faculty, the Regents and in the

professional classes which held strongly to the old educational ideals. In this effort for the fuller and fairer recognition of science in educational curricula and policy, Hilgard came as a great reinforcement to the protagonist of science, for he could not be impeached for lack of knowledge of classical point of view and materials. He knew his Latin and his Greek and the literatures of them, and only the distinguished professor of German of that day could surpass him in conversational scope in modern languages. And he loved all this learning and constantly used it familiarly, while, beyond all conscious employment of it, there it was, forming his thought, gracing his style and in every way influencing his action and enriching his life. One can readily see what an influence such a man must have been in winning recognition for applied science from those who held ever so strongly to the old standards. Naturally the fiercest opposition came from those within academic circles -from the shrine-makers of Ephesus. Although in his first report, for the year 1877, Hilgard clearly announced the principles upon which his instruction would be developed, for years he still had difficulty in making his position understood and his fundamental principles recognized as educationally sound. In that report of 1877 he said:

"A knowledge of facts and principles and not the achievement of manual dexterity, must be the leading object of a truly useful course of instruction in agriculture.

Object teaching should be made the pre-eminent method of instruction in natural, and more especially in technical science. Manual exercise should be made the adjunct of the instruction in principles."

Thus Hilgard announced, at the very beginning, his adoption of the laboratory and field method of instruction and he pursued it as far as he could command the outfit for it. That he was right in his choice of principle and method is attested by the present educational consensus that there is no other way; and it is being lavishly provided for now, even in branches of learning to which at that time it was

not dreamed to be applicable. And yet, though he announced at that remote day his adoption of a policy which is now dominant in educational work and though he demonstrated the practicability of it with pitiably poor equipment, the opposition which he encountered would strike you as incredible even if I could present it most accurately and with faith to the spirit of it. But he went on writing, speaking and fervently praying I doubt not, as Hilgard was a godly man, for the initial recognition of educational truth which is now all pervading-contending for the recognition of agricultural science, adequately known and properly taught, as a respectable branch of higher learning and inferior to none other, in the line of pedagogic material and in its relation to preparedness for life. He made trouble' for others, of course, for he was always pushing, prying and crying out for the attainment of what he saw to be educationally true and good for mankind. But no opposition daunted him. When a distinguished logician declared once that agriculture was only handicraft and should have no place in University instruction, his comment was in kind, and to the effect that speculative philosophy never arrived: it was mental gymnastics-always indulged in with the danger of being thrown from the parallel bars of knowledge and faith and breaking one's spiritual neck. But such a comment under stress was not an indication of Hilgard's habitual attitude toward other branches of learning. He was not only charitable and tolerant but he was genuinely interested and fair. However, to be told that agriculture was only handicraft was a serious affront to a man who had lighted his torch at the fires of Liebig and went forth to declare and to demonstrate that agriculture is the greatest of the natural sciences because it requires the fullest work of all of them to reach its own greatest development.

The stand taken by Hilgard with reference to the dignity and pedagogical value of agricultural science, while so many institutions, now great, were in their formative periods, was