recognized as sound throughout this country and beyond. Set forth in his early reports it exercised a profound influence. The proper relation of agricultural practice to agricultural science, as factors in educational effort; the educational distinction between labor performed for enlightenment and labor prescribed to beget a liking for labor; the place of both the art and science of agriculture in a University of higher learning, when both are handled ably for instructional purpose these were among his fundamental contentions, upholding them through many controversies, and his victory is seen in their entry into the regular curricula of all of the newer institutions of learning and their pursuit by older institutions established upon other standards of learning before the existence of them as educational factors was dreamed of as worthy and capable.

Even the vocational point of view, now so universally prevalent, was clearly occupied in his first report, that of 1877, and the first accession to his staff was an instructor in practical agriculture in 1878. Thus, at the first opportunity, he justified his conception of the relation of facts and principles, when the natural temptation was to exalt his own personal line of research by proper laboratory provision and equipment. But Hilgard was always broader than his own science. He was a real man and a true educational philosopher.

HILGARD'S CREATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN

CALIFORNIA

But great as were Hilgard's services to educational science and policy, it is probable that his achievement and influence in agricultural research in the United States will be counted greater. Even if we disregard the incalculable value in his assumption of the agricultural point of view in connection with his geological work in Mississippi and count his services from his beginning in California, he still stands as the founder of American institutional research

in agriculture, including both laboratory and field work. However, as often happens in science, priority can be claimed only by a narrow margin. Fortunately Hilgard opened his laboratory in the spring of 1875 and began an experiment to determine effects of deep and shallow plowing at the same time, and his rival for priority, Professor Atwater of Connecticut, was plowing his legislature at that date, reaped a law in July and opened his laboratory in October, 1875, after Hilgard had his field in fallow. His priority is "not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church door but 'tis enough." The price of that priority seems almost pitiful now. In his report of 1877 Hilgard writes: "The appropriation of $250 for the beginning of an experiment station has, under advice, been carefully husbanded by me, after the failure of the appropriations asked of the last legislature, in order to insure the continuation of the home work.” It is not hard to understand what the words "under advice" really mean. The fact was that Hilgard was told that he could get no more money from the Regents. He must get it from the legislature, the next session of which was two years away. No wonder he "carefully husbanded" his $250, for surely it would not pay for much experimental husbandry. Fortunately the legislature of 1877 gave him $5000 for two years and the legislature of 1879 gave $5000 a year for two years, of which he says, in his report for 1880, "it barely enables us to pay running expenses and farther improvement and increase of scope will be impossible"-for he then had half a dozen field and laboratory assistants to provide for.

The insistent demand of Hilgard for money to carry on his work produced at least two effects.

1. The farmers began to ask pointedly where all the money went which was provided by Congress (through sale of public lands) to conduct an agricultural college such as Hilgard wanted and such as the farmers approved. They liked Hilgard but they hated taxes.

2. The Regents began to wonder whether in the conquest of Hilgard they had not caught a man of Tartaric ancestry. As one of them is reported to have said, "they wondered what was the matter with that man Hilgard: why could he not draw his salary and not make so much trouble about money?" Some of them were quite sure they had embosomed a viper: they would quietly look into the matter. Through a functionary of the secretary's office, whom a regent or two had asked to expert the situation a little, they were told that "Hilgard spent most of his time at home mending his harness." To understand the reference one must remember that, at that day, each professor had to keep a horse and chaise to pull him through the bottomless Berkeley streets and harness-mending was indispensable. But the amateur detective made only one mistake, Hilgard did spend most of his time at home "mending his harness" but it was not for his horse. It was for himself— the harness which he needed to pull through original scientific achievement to results which would establish his standing, with the people and the Regents, and secure the means necessary to properly develop agriculture in the University. Meantime, he fully discharged his University duties and, in addition, held the farming population not only from outbreak but in support, as already cited in connection with the incident of the new constitution of 1879.

As I look back upon it, it seems to me that Hilgard's strategic diversion of 1879 to 1883 was one of the brightest and most effective movements of his career. On the basis of his work in Mississippi he was requested by the Director of the Census of 1880 to take full charge of the cotton investigation for that census and to do something greater for the cotton industry than was ever done before; and he was promised funds for inquiry, investigation, laboratory work and whatever else he deemed necessary to get at the fundamental facts and principles connected with cotton growing in the United States. Hilgard seized what he

recognized as exceptional opportunity to demonstrate his power. He selected assistants and set them at work studying cotton-producing conditions from the soil to the sky and their influence on quantity, quality for various purposes, cultural methods, etc. He reviewed the subject as a whole and in divisions; studied each cotton state and finally produced two volumes illuminated with plates and maps, bristling with tables of analyses, statistics of production and, running through it all, edifying and inviting text. I need not try to characterize it as a whole except to say that the report as printed weighs over ten pounds-every ounce of which was made in California and is emblazoned with the insignia of the University of California, but it cost the state and the University not a cent. More than that, California was presented as a "cotton state" and her natural conditions were so thoroughly studied and so ably set forth that a part of that work entitled "The Physical Features of California" is cited and quoted to this day by those who desire to demonstrate fundamental things about the state. While his local patrons and employers were wondering how Hilgard could use $2500 for expense money, the United States gave him not less than $25,000 to spend in his cotton work-one wide-reaching result of which was that it made California famous.

Yes, the amateur detective was literally correct: "Hilgard was spending most of his time at home mending his harness." And what a powerful harness he made of it! It pulled him away from all doubt of the scientific quality and the industrial value of his work in the development of California. It made it easier to get appropriation for all kinds of research work: it made it easier for the University as a whole to get funds for its general purposes. Not that Hilgard nor the University was able to get as much as they needed to realize their beneficent purposes. Good research men and good institutions never did get as much as they need and probably they never will. Perhaps, if they should, they might cease to be good.

But this monumental cotton work, based upon the soil work which was one of its foundation walls, was nation-wide in its influences. It was accepted throughout the country as a demonstration that Hilgard could do the work which his California reports and other publications were urging upon the public mind. It was a force in engrafting original research upon the instructional work, established through the educational land-grant law of Morrill, by the enactment of the Hatch law for experiment stations in all states; and when those institutions were being developed in the latter '80's Hilgard and the research establishment which he had created in California were the accepted prototypes of men, means and methods.

Nor was he simply a national exemplar in his line. When he went abroad for a short year in 1892, after seventeen years of tireless and most productive work in California, he was received with unusual tokens of honor and esteem, and by many learned scientific bodies was prevailed upon to describe his ways of work and the notable differences, which he was first to formulate, of conditions in arid and humid climates in their scientific and economic aspects.

Hilgard resumed his work in the University in 1893sooner than the regulations required because he could not longer restrain himself from his usual work. For more than a decade after his return he applied himself with his customary vigor, insight and success, upon undertakings which were growing by leaps and bounds because he had started and directed them aright. His last years of administration were his best years: his position of leadership was unquestioned; his physical strength seemed greater than during some of his earlier periods; the demands for instruction and the opportunities for research were multiplied. He labored like one who was realizing the results he had long desired and his heart was light as his time for greatest achievement had come. In the fullest warmth of popular appreciation and with the truest loyalty and devotion from the scores of associates whom he had chosen for particular