« PreviousContinue »
first year that this act has been in operation—the different projects which they are proposing:
That act differs from the other act in that it provides for a higher kind of work, as the act expressly states that the work to be done must be of the nature of original research, and naturally a good deal of discussion is going on as to just what is meant by “ original research.” We are trying to solve that in a way which will lift that portion of the work of the stations to a higher plane, making it more thorough and scientific and accurate, and thus strengthening the work of the stations, and that is very much needed. The stations have gone on for a considerable number of years and have done in a considerable measure what I should call the more superficial work. They now need to get deeper into the agricultural problems, to do more fundamental and thorough work, and it was the object of this act to secure that through this additional appropriation.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you hold “ original research ” means? Does it mean new lines of investigation or simply lines being elaborated upon--that is, I mean in your practical application of the appropriation?
Doctor TRUE. The work may be either in a new line or in a line upon which work has been previously done, but it must contain original features.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by“ original features?" That is defining it by giving the word for a definition.
Doctor True. That will depend on the character of the work.
The CHAIRMAN. How long have those appropriations been in force?
Doctor TRUE. About a year.
The CHAIRMAN. You have already applied some of those appropriations?
Doctor TRUE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Take one college, if you please, and just tell us how you applied and made practical that original research direction.
Doctor TRUE. Take the matter of the feeding of live stock. A large number of experiments have been made, which have consisted in the trving of different kinds of feed and combinations of feed, determining the relative cost of such rations, and matters of that kind. Now, that is a line of work that has given very useful practical results, but it has gone on to such an extent that there is very little about such work as that that is new.
The CHAIRMAN. That is to say, investigators have been going over, to a large extent, the same ground?
Doctor TRUE. Yes, sir.
Doctor TRUE. But back of that kind of work are certain fundamental features of feeding which have been investigated to a certain extent, but have not been thoroughly worked out. For example, the question of the amount of protein which should be contained in the rations. We do not know to-day what that should be in any thorough way, so that there is an opportunity for a station to make an extensive, thorough investigation to determine that. That can not be done without employing the services of thoroughly trained scientists and going into the matter with a considerable number of
animals, regardless of commercial considerations. One station some years ago undertook some investigations along this line with dairy cows, and after going a certain way it appeared that the rations which they were giving were not sustaining the cows; they were running down.
Instead of going on with the work and allowing the cows to die, the experimenter became alarmed, principally because of his limited appropriation, and he began to feed those cows another ration, and he built them up again. The result is that we do not know now what the limit of the protein ration for a dairy cow is. Some one must come along who will take up that subject so thoroughly that even if his cows die in the process he will go on and find out that thing-get to the bottom of that thing. We are doing some of our most thorough work in that line in the State of Pennsylvania, at the State college, where Doctor Armsby, who is a specialist in the subject of nutrition of animals, has constructed an elaborate apparatus called a respiration calorimeter, by means of which he can determine quite accurately what the income and outgo is for an animalthat is, we feed an animal a certain amount of food, and we determine what is excreted in the way of feces and what is thrown off in the way of respiration of the animal, and all those factors are taken into account to determine exactly what became of that food and, as far as possible, of the different elements.
Now, work of that kind, which is thorough and has definite original features in it, we say is work proper to be done under the Adams Act.
The CILARMAX. The expenditure of that money for original research is to be made under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, and therefore it comes within the scope of your Bureau as his representative?
Doctor TRUE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, take the $15,000 that goes to these colleges or experiment stations; is that required by the act to be devoted to any particular purpose, or is it for the use of the colleges generally?
Doctor TRUE. It must be devoted to the station work.
The CHAIRMAX. It is specifically confined to the work of the experiment stations?
Doctor TRUE. Yes. We are very careful about that. We do not allow any of that money to be spent for teaching.
The CHAIRMAX. Does the act require it to be devoted to the work of the experiment stations?
Doctor TRUE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I find upon looking at this Adams Act, of which I have a copy before me, that this money is to be applied only to the necessary expenses of conducting original researches bearing upon the agricultural industry of the United States. That is the scope of that authority.
Doctor TRUE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. The Hatch Act provided, section 2, as follows: That it shall be the object and duty of said experiment stations to conduct original researches or verify experiments, etc.
Section 3 provides
That in order to secure, as far as practicable, uniformity of methods and results in the work of said stations, it shall be the duty of the United States Commissioner [now Secretary) of Agriculture to furnislı forms, as far as practicable, for the tabulation of results of investigation or experiments; to indicate from time to time such lines of inquiry as to him shall seem most important, and, in general, to furnish such advice and assistance as will best promote the purpose of this act.
And it is under that provision of the law your Bureau operates in connection with the experiment stations?
Doctor True. Yes; though subsequent legislation contained in the appropriation acts extended the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture.
The CHAIRMAN. So that it is even broader in its scope than these provisions of law which have just been quoted?
Doctor TRUE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Upon what particular lines does your Bureau conduct experimental work in collaboration with the experiment stations? You have called attention to drainage, for one.
Doctor TRUE. We have investigations on the food and nutrition of man, and on irrigation and drainage.
The CHAIRMAN. Take your investigations along the line of irrigation. Are those investigations made for the purpose of developing irrigation projects, or what is the purpose of your investigations on irrigation lines?
Doctor True. We are to study what may be called the agricultural problems of irrigation, and the economic problems, as distinguished from a study of the water supply or work connected with the construction of irrigation works. The Reclamation Service of the Geological Survey has authority to construct reservoirs and other irrigation works. We do not go into that line of work at all, but we take up questions relating to the distribution and use of water, the methods of applying water.
The CHAIRMAN. Not so much the question of the hydraulic problems involved in transporting the water, and distributing it, but the question of the effect of the water after it reaches the land upon the agricultural questions; is that it?
Doctor True. No, sir; we study some of the hydraulic questions, and questions relating to the preparation of the land, and the utilization of small supplies of water.
The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that this question, within the scope that you describe, is investigated and experimented with by your Bureau in collaboration with the State experiment stations?
Doctor Trus. We work partly in collaboration with the stations and partly independent of them.
The CHAIRMAN. Where do you make your experiments on that question?
Doctor TRUE. In the arid and semiarid States-for instance, in California and in the States of Washington, Utah, and Texas.
The CHAIRMAN. Does not that in the last analysis simply involve the effect of the water upon the soil; that you find as to whether or not it increases its productivity ?
Doctor TRUE. That is the final result—that is, we seek to determíne the methods for securing the greatest increase in production with the available water supply.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the last analysis?
The CHAIRMAN. In what way does it become necessary for your Bureau to experiment on that—that is, why is it necessary for experiments of that sort to be conducted ?
Doctor TRUE. One of the large investigations which we carried on related to the duty of water—that is, the amount of water which should be put on land to produce certain effects. When we entered on this work there was no authoritative literature in this country relating to that subject. The first thing we did was to determine what was the actual practice in that respect in different localities on different soils and different crops. That part of our work is for the most part finished. We are now determining what is the amount actually required under given conditions, which is a very different thing.
The CHAIRMAN. Does not that vary with every locality, or, in other words, is it a constant factor ?
Doctor TRUE. It varies within certain limits; but there are certain general limits which we can determine for wide areas.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, you have areas having common factors?
The CHAIRMAN. And the investigation of one section of that area would be sufficient to determine the proposition with reference to the whole area?
Doctor True. Yes. Now, that has important bearing on legislation and court practice with regard to irrigation, because the laws often determine in a general way the amount of water which individuals may appropriate—that is, it may be only what they can put to beneficial use. Then the courts have to take it up and determine in specific cases of appropriation whether a man is getting more water than he ought to have. Before there was any authoritative literature on this subject it was very difficult to determine what was a proper course of procedure. As a result of that you will find a great confusion in the laws and in the decisions of the courts relating to that matter. A man might come into court, for example, and claim that he ought to have 1,000 inches of water, when he only needed 500 inches, and there was really nothing to determine-no authoritative literature to determine—whether he ought to have one amount or the other, and naturally the tendency was to give a man more water than he really needed, with the result that in some cases out West on particular streams rights were decreed which largely exceeded the entire flow of the stream. That then led to more litigation to straighten that matter out.
The Chairman. What practical results did you reach in investigations of that character? Was it in the line of being able to prepare literature which was taken judicial cognizance of by the courts as a standard of use, or in the line of preparing men who became possessed of knowledge, and therefore became valuable as witnesses to establish results in contests between owners of property?
Doctor True. Our results are put into our literature.
The CHAIRMAN. Are your publications sufficiently general in their character and application to make them valuable in that respect?
Doctor TRUE. Our literature might not be the only thing to be taken into account for a given region, but that would be taken in as one of the factors and would probably determine the matter within certain limits, so that it would be difficult for a man to come into court under present conditions and claim ten or one hundred times more water than he ought to have.
Before such literature was prepared there were cases where men claimed and obtained very large amounts of water which they could not possibly use.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that a surplus of water is an injury and not an advantage to the user?
Doctor TRUE. Yes, sir; but under the laws of some of the States such appropriations of water may become the property of the individual, and if a man succeeds in getting, we will say, a thousand inches of water and he can use but 100 inches, he may sell the other 900.
The CHAIRMAN. Sell it in the canal ?
The CHAIRMAN. That, is, I suppose, by virtue of a prescriptive right.
I do not suppose people who have property along on the line of the canal can arbitrarily take out 1,000 inches when they would only be entitled as riparian proprietors, or by the necessities of their own use--the necessities of their own land-to that much water. That is what that means?
Doctor TRUE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The right to use, as I understand it, is governed and controlled by the land owned by the man appropriating the water. Do I get that right?
Doctor True. That is the general supposition. But oftentimes he is merely required to show that he is claiming appropriation of a certain amount of water for beneficial use. This use may be by himself or by other parties to whom he may sell his water right. And in the past, in the absence of definite authoritative statements as to how much is required for a given area, courts, taking the general evidence, have decreed rights vastly in excess of what was required.
The CHAIRMAN. That is to say, the owners of 100 acres to illustrate and bring it down concretely—in instances have been able to get a decree from the court, confirming an appropriation on their part of inches of water largely in excess of the necessities of the land?
Doctor TRUE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, 100 acres of land is entitled to so many inches of water.
Doctor True. Yes; to the amount needed by that land.