the feeling felt in many States-grows out of the feeling of ill administration of the act. That is a problem that I feel very keenly about, and I think we ought to be concerned about. And that should be corrected by the administrative machinery, if there are defects in the administration, rather than by formulating a specific legislative act, because, after you get this into operation it is difficult to change it. Frankly, and I say this with no spirit of criticism, it seems to me that Congress moves mighty slowly. It moves tremendously slowly with reference to some legislation that we are interested in. Out in the States it is difficult for us to understand

Mr. ASWELL. You are talking about Purnell's bill now?

Mr. BIZZELL. It grows out of the necessity for your great deliberations, but we feel that way sometimes about it. I don't want to be misunderstood about it.

Mr. ASWELL. Is there any prospect of improving the administration of this thing?

Mr. BIZZELL. I can not answer that; but I can say this: This committee has very great persuasive powers with all the powers that be in the States and in the Federal Government, and I would like to see that matter looked after.

Just a word about the specialist. There is a place for the specialist. I admit, but the term has been abused. Some men who call themselves specialists are nuts. You don't like that; nobody does. On the other hand, the county agent is a man with general agricultural knowledge, or supposed to be, and he simply can not be a specialist is dairying and horticulture, especially the soil side of it, and we find it absolutely necessary in making campaigns in the areas to send a specialist into the field who really knows his specialty, to cooperate. Those men go out and cooperate for days and weeks in certain kinds of information. It may be soil fertilization one time, and it may be some other problem. But we can not avoid the specialist. The only question here is the question of the relative number; whether you can utilize wisely the number that you have.

Now, just a word about this overhead that you are talking about. I believe I have a different view, perhaps, from the expression that was used here by Doctor Smith a moment ago in reference to the question of overhead. Of course I am guided by that in my own administration largely. We think the overhead in our organization is the expenditure involved in the administrative offices and the extension service, plus the actual administrative work at the college of the specialists only. That is all we call overhead. We would not classify publications, except the time a man may devote in the preparation of the material. So for the amount of time that a specialist is in the field he is in a sense a county agent, so far as the effect of it is concerned. I think that matter needs to be understood by all of us.

Now, I want to close with one very brief thought. It does not bear immediately on this, but still has a bearing on it. The resolutions that we heard read here are rather significant. You have reference there to the question of cooperation between the States and the Federal Government in various kinds of work. I believe that it is about time for us to try to clear up the thinking public men on the question of what is involved in that. In other words, it is the duty of some of us to come to defining the underlying prin

ciple of cooperation between the States and the Federal Government. In my section of the country you hear it over and over again by men opposing the so-called 50-50 idea.

Now, just to be frank with you, the Federal Government is our Government, the Government of the people, just like the State governments, and I hear men talking about these questions sometimes as if they were thinking only in terms of their own States, rather than in terms of the Federal Government and their relation to it. Suppose you had a State that refused to make any provision, for examplethis is an extreme illustration, of course for public education. Under a democracy like ours we are depending, of course, upon general intelligence to sustain it, and you could not tell me that the Federal Government would not have the right to go into that State and insist that the intelligence in the State be brought up to some kind of reasonable standard. Looking at it from my standpoint, in my State agriculture is 50 years in advance of what it would have been if you had not had the Smith-Lever Act. That is literally true. Mr. KINCHELOE. What is the purpose of the objection as to the Federal Government bearing 50 per cent of the expense? They certainly don't object to the 50 per cent that they get.

Mr. BIZZELL. I will tell you what I think it is. Of course, you understand I come from a section of the country where we have conditions that are different from yours, and I think this question of State's right has had its influence. We have heard that echo. But at the present time there is, of course, a universal demand and cry for a reduction in taxes. That is the whole truth about it. They think, of course, this is a rather insidious way of compelling them to assume obligations that they would like to escape.

Mr. RUBEY. Let me call your attention to this report, read by Doctor Aswell, with regard to these resolutions. It says:

The report of the committee on Federal aid brought about prolonged discussion. A motion to table prevailed, but this motion was reconsidered and the report again placed before the Union for consideration, resulting in final adoption.

That would indicate that they were not harmonious and it was not a unanimous proposition by any means.

Mr. BIZZELL. You are correct about that and I am glad you called attention to it.

This will summarize what I have in mind about it. I believe all of us working out in the States, connected with these colleges, want to see all the money possible expended with the home and farm demonstration agents in direct contact with the farmers, and they must have it if they are to succeed. I feel that we can best accomplish that purpose, and in saying this I reflect the opinion of the executive committee that I represent, of all the colleges in the country, that this purpose ought to be accomplished and can be accomplished probably just as effectively through wise administration.

Mr. KINCHELOE. That is the law now?

Mr. BIZZELL. Yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Has there ever been any trouble between your department and the Federal Government as to how the funds shall be distributed in Texas?

Mr. BIZZELL. Not in the least, sir. I have been in contact with this thing from the very beginning. We make up a budget and send 92486-24-SER Q- -3

it to Washington. The extension director of the State usually brings it up here; and so far as I recall there has never been the slightest difference of opinion about it. They have gone into it very carefully, but we have had no conflict and they have always approved it.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Has your department ever kicked on the idea that you did not have enough of this money for salaries?

Mr. BIZZELL. No; we get our share of the funds all right. It comes to the States automatically.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Under the organic law it says that it shall be expended in the way agreed upon by the agricultural college and the department?

Mr. BIZZELL. Yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. The purpose of the bill is that 75 per cent of the fund shall be used in salaries?

Mr. BIZZELL. Yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Has there ever been any disagreement between your college department and the Government as to the amount that shall be expended for salaries?

Mr. BIZZELL. No disagreement so far as I know.

Mr. ASWELL. I call your attention to the fact that Texas has the lowest ratio of overhead expense for county workers of any State in the Union. It has 259 county workers and has the lowest ratio of overhead.

Mr. KETCHAM. Wouldn't that be true by reason of the fact that there has been an overwhelming number of county agents?

Mr. ASWELL. No; it isn't affected by the law at all. The college in Texas sends the money to the counties.

Mr. BIZZELL. That is the point I make. Our State is largely rural and we have had no problem of this kind.

Mr. KETCHAM. What is your conception of the proper division of overhead? Would you be willing to state in terms of percentage what you think should be distributed to overhead from this $3,000,000? You would not want to go into that?

Mr. BIZZELL. No; I would not know how to do that.

Mr. CLARKE. It would be different in the different States?

Mr. BIZZELL. It certainly would.

Mr. KETCHAM. The variation would be so great that you wouldn't care to make a general statement on it?

Mr. BIZZELL. The variation is so great in the different States that I would not know how to do it.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Doctor Aswell, have you a list of the agricultural colleges of the various States that are making complaint along this line that there is not enough money set apart for salaries?

Mr. ASWELL. I would not call it a list of complaints. I would not submit a list of complaints.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I came in late and I do not know how many State colleges were affected with regard to this proposition of disagreement with the Department of Agriculture as to the amount of money to go for salaries.

Mr. ASWELL. I have not a list of complaints, and I would not file it if I had. I would not feel authorized to do that without referring to them. But this bill would put money back into the county, more and more of it, year by year, and would stimulate the number of county agents working within the county, and create more men and women county agents.

Mr. KINCHELOE. You can not have a county agent without the county pays a portion of it?

Mr. ASWELL. That is true. That's why I want the counties to get more Federal funds to lighten their burdens.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Suppose you had a 100 per cent proposition; how could you put it into effect with the law against it?

Mr. ASWELL. The way to extend the county agent work is to have one man go into a county and be successful there as a county agent, and the influence that he radiates there will get agents into the other counties.

Mr. BIZZELL. That is all the statement I care to make, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us something about the specialists, as to who they are? Are they professors in the colleges?

Mr. BIZZELL. No; they do no teaching in my institution, and I think that is the general rule all over the country.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not on the college roll?

Mr. BIZZELL. They wouldn't be at the college enough to enable them to do any work of that kind. They are regarded as special field men.

Mr. KETCHAM. How many specialists, so called, have you in Texas?

Mr. BIZZELL. We have 22.

Mr. KETCHAM. All from that section?

Mr. BIZZELL. No; they come from all over the country. They are practically all agricultural college graduates, but they come from other places. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the committee wil stand adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, March 11, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., Tuesday, March 11, 1924. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment of yesterday, at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Haugen (chairman), Purnell, Voigt, McLaughlin, Williams, Sinclair, Thompson, Clague, Clarke, Ketcham, Aswell, Kincheloe, Rubey, Johnson, Doyle, and McSweeney. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order. Aswell, what is the program for to-day?

Doctor

Mr. ASWELL. I would like the committee to hear first Dean

Russell, of the University of Wisconsin.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Dean Russell.

STATEMENT OF DR. H. L. RUSSELL, UNIVERSITY OF WIS

CONSIN.

Mr. RUSSELL. There were some things, gentlemen, that it seemed to the committee representing the land grant colleges ought to be straightened out during the discussion of yesterday so that we are

dealing with facts, concerning which there is no difference of opinion; and before giving you some of these figures which we have secured from the department, I want to very briefly point out the fact that the terms of the Smith-Lever law provide for extension work in the several States and the United States Department of Agriculture, defining the same as "the giving of instruction and demonstrations to persons not resident at the college."

Now, after the initial $10,000 appropriation was made, additional moneys were provided equally by Congress and the several States. The several States entered into this Smith-Lever law in good faith and proceeded to develop. I thought it was worth while to put this in definite form before you graphically, so that you could see exactly what this amounted to.

In the Smith-Lever law, passed in 1914, Congress said to the States, "We want you to give on a 50-50 basis after the initial $10,000." If the States would do that, then Congress would give $10,000 and the other 50-50, that would amount to 47.2 per cent on an average for the whole United States from the States and counties, and 52.8 per cent that came from the Federal Government. That is, the 50-50 plus the $10,000 on the average would equal that.

In order that you might see the minimum and the maximum, by taking the two States of the Union that were the largest and the smallest, Texas would have to pay 49 per cent

Mr. RUBEY. Mr. Russell, in explaining that chart, so that it can go into the record, will you say what the black represents and what the white represents?

Mr. RUSSELL. The black represents the amount which the States and counties would have to pay and the light color represents the amount which would come from the Federal Treasury. This red line shows the average for the other States that are given here in detail, representing 47.2, so that you can see whether these States are below the average.

Now, in Texas, which is a very large rural State, the amount which should be paid there on the part of the States and counties would be relatively larger than it would be in an industrial State like Rhode Island.

Mr. ASWELL. Why is that, Mr. Russell?

Mr. RUSSELL. Because the Smith-Lever law is based upon the rural population rather than upon the total population. Rhode Island is very largely an industrial State and has a very small rural population. Therefore, the amount which the State would have to pay, figured on terms of 100 per cent, would only be 10 per cent, and the Nation would have to pay 90 per cent.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Why is that, if they maintained the 50-50 appropriation?

Mr. RUSSELL. Because $10,000 plus the 50-50 would make, in the case of a State that appropriated only $16,000 that difference. There is only $16,000 for the State of Rhode Island altogether, because of the fact that there is an almost negligible rural population. This ratio is $10,000 plus the 50-50 basis in each State. That is what Congress said to the States when they passed the SmithLever law. Now, let us turn our attention to seeing what the States have done with this request from Congress. This is based upon actual results that now obtain for the entire United States.