Reconsideration of Prior Opinion

Concerning Land-Grant Colleges

A fter re c o n sid e ra tio n o f a p rio r opinion, we a d h ere to the co n clu sio n th at the State o f W est V irginia 

m ay v a lid ly d esig n a te W est V irginia S tate C ollege as th e b eneficiary o f app ro p riated funds under 

the S e co n d M o m ll A ct o f 1890.

R ev e rsin g o u r p rio r co n clu sio n , w e find that th e S la te ’s d esig n atio n o f the C ollege as a Second M orrill 

A ct b e n efic iary d o e s not m ake that in stitu tio n eligible fo r funds ap p ro p riated under certain statutes 

a d m in iste re d by the D ep artm en t o f A griculture.

D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 1993

M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n f o r t h e G e n e r a l C o u n s e l

D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e

This responds to your request that this Office reconsider our opinion that West 

Virginia may designate W est Virginia State College (“State College”) as the beneficiary of appropriated funds under the Second Morrill Act, ch. 841, 26 Stat. 417 

(1890) (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. §§ 321-326, 328) (“Second Morrill Act”), 

and that, upon such designation, State College would become eligible to receive 

appropriated funds for agricultural research and extension under 7 U.S.C. §§ 3221, 

3222, and 3223.1

After reviewing the matter once more, we hereby withdraw our original opinion 

in favor of the revised views expressed in this memorandum. As explained below, 

we adhere to our earlier conclusion that West Virginia may validly designate State 

College as the beneficiary of appropriated funds under the Second Morrill Act. 

We reverse, however, our original conclusion that West Virginia’s designation of 

State College as a Second Morrill Act beneficiary made that school eligible for 

funds appropriated pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 3221, 3222, 3223 and similar statutes. 

(Following the usage of Agriculture, we shall refer to these statutes collectively as 

the “ 1890 derivative statutes ”) Rather, we conclude that State College is not eligible for funds under the 1890 derivative statutes.

I.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL HISTORY

OF THE LAND-GRANT COLLEGE SYSTEM

A knowledge of the legal history of the land-grant college system is essential to 

interpreting the Second Morrill A ct and the 1890 derivative statutes. In Subpart A 

below, we discuss the following four cornerstones of the statutory structure:

1 See Letter for Alan C harles Raul, G eneral Counsel, D epartm ent o f Agriculture, from Principal Deputy 

A ssistant A ttorney G eneral Douglas R. Cox, O ffice of Legal Counsel (A ug 21, 1992), Letter for Douglas R 

C ox, Principal Deputy A ssistant Attorney G eneral, O ffice of Legal Counsel, from James M ichael Kelly, 

A ssociate G eneral Counsel, Department o f Agriculture (O ct. 23, 1992) ("R equest for Reconsideration”). 

H eretnafter, references to “Agriculture ‘ mean the D epartm ent o f Agriculture

184
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

Statute Enactment

Table I

Main Object of the Legislation

First Morrill Act 1862 Grants states public lands to sell for endowment of agricultural & mechanical colleges

Hatch Act 1887 Authorizes funds for agricultural research at 

experiment stations established at land-grant 

colleges or independently by a state

Second Morrill 

Act

1890 Authorizes supplemental operating funds for 

land-grant colleges

Smith-Lever Act 1914 Authorizes funds for agricultural extension at 

land-grant colleges

In Subpart B below, we discuss the evolution of the land-grant college system in 

West Virginia and elsewhere prior to the enactment of the 1890 derivative statutes. 

In Subpart C below, we discuss the 1890 derivative statutes.

A.

The First M orrill Act. The land-grant college system began in 1862 with the 

First Morrill Act, ch. 130, 12 Stat. 503 (1862) (“First Morrill Act”)-2 That statute 

provided the states with grants of public land or equivalent land scrip. Id. § 1, 12 

Stat. at 503. The states that chose to “take and claim the benefit” of the First Morrill Act were required to invest the funds derived from the sale of the land or land 

scrip in such fashion that the principal would “remain forever undiminished.” Id.

§ 4, 12 Stat. at 504. The states were further required to devote the interest generated by such funds exclusively to the “endowment, support, and maintenance of at 

least one college where the leading object shall be . . . to teach such branches of

2 For accounts of the history o f the college land-grant system, see Joseph B Edm ond, The M agnificent

Charter The Origin and Role oj the M orrill Land-Granl C olleges and Universities (1978); Allan Nevins, 

The State Universities and D emocracy (1962), Edward D Eddy, Colleges jo r O ur Land and Time: The

Land-Grant Idea in Am erican Education (1957), and Earle D. Ross, D em ocracy's College: The U ind-G rant

M ovement in the Form ative Stage (1942) For a recent study of the origins of the college land-grant system , 

see Roger L W illiams, The O rigins o f Federal Support fo r H igher Education G eorge W Atherton an d the

Land-Grant College M ovem ent (1991), see also Knight v A labam a, 787 F Supp. 1030, 1040-53, 1 167-72 

(N.D. Ala 1991) (outlining origins and developm ent of college land-grant system with special reference to 

Alabama), a jf'd in p a rt, rev'd in part, & vacated in part, 14 F 3d 1534 (11th C ir 1994), Avers v A lla in , 674 

F Supp 1523, 1543-50 (N D. M iss 1987) (providing less detailed history of land-grant system with special 

reference to M ississippi), a ff’d, 914 F 2d 676 (5th C ir 1990) (en banc), vacated sub nom. United States v

Fordice, 505 U S 717 (1992)

185
Opinions o f the O ffice o f Legal Counsel

learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts.” Id. The states were 

required to express acceptance of the land grant (or land scrip) through their legislatures.3 Once a state had accepted, it would still lose its benefit unless it provided 

“within five years . . . not less than one college” of the prescribed kind. Id. § 5, 12 

Stat. at 504.

The Hatch Act. The Act of Mar. 2, 1887, ch. 314, 24 Stat. 440 (codified as 

amended at 7 U.S.C. §§ 361a-390d) authorized appropriations for agricultural research at experiment stations under the direction either of a college “established, or 

which may hereafter be established, in accordance with the provisions of [the First 

Morrill Act]” or an independent station established by a state. See id. §§ 1,2, 8, 

24 Stat. at 440-42. Unlike the First Morrill Act, the Hatch Act provided for payments by the federal government directly to the beneficiary institutions, although 

the appropriations were still said to be “to each State.” Id. § 5, 24 Stat. at 441. In 

states having two colleges established under the First Morrill Act, the funds were 

to be divided equally unless the state’s legislature directed otherwise. See id. § 1, 

24 Stat. at 440.

The Second M orrill Act. The Second Morrill Act provided an annual appropriation of funds “to each State .. . for the more complete endowment and maintenance of colleges for the benefit o f agriculture and the mechanic arts now established, or which may be hereafter established, in accordance with [the provisions of 

the First Morrill Act].” § 1, 26 Stat. at 417-18. The funds so appropriated were to 

be paid to the state treasurer “designated by the laws of such State . . . to receive 

the same” and then “immediately [paid] over . . . to the treasurers of the respective 

colleges . . . entitled to receive the sam e.” Id. § 2, 26 Stat. at 418. The use of the 

funds was restricted to “instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, the English 

language and the various branches o f mathematical, physical, natural and economic 

science, with special reference to their applications in the industries of life, and to 

the facilities for such instruction.” Id. § 1, 26 Stat. at 418.

The Second Morrill Act also forbade payment of funds appropriated under the 

Act to colleges “where a distinction of race or color is made in the admission of 

students.” Id. This prohibition, however, was qualified by a proviso deeming the 

establishment of a separate college for each race to be sufficient compliance if the 

funds were divided “equitably” between the two schools. Id. A second proviso 

described the mechanics of “separate but equal” compliance in greater detail:

That in any State in which there has been one college established 

in pursuance of the [First Morrill Act], and also in which an educational institution of like character has been established, or may be 

hereafter established, and is now aided by such State from its own

1 The deadline for acceptance was two years from the date of the First Morrill A ct's enactm ent. Id. !) 5,

12 Stat. at 504 T his deadline was extended to the later of July 23, 1869, or three years following a state's 

adm ission to the Union Act of July 23, 1866, ch 209, 14 Stat. 208.

186
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

revenue, for the education of colored students in agriculture and the 

mechanic arts . . . or whether or not it has received money heretofore under the act to which this act is an amendment, the legislature 

of such State may propose and report to the Secretary of the Interior 

a just and equitable division of the fund to be received under this act 

between one college for white students and one institution for colored students . . . which shall be divided into two parts and paid accordingly, and thereupon such institution for colored students shall 

be entitled to the benefits of this act and subject to its provisions, as 

much as it would have been if it had been included under the act of 

eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and the fulfillment of the foregoing 

provisions shall be taken as a compliance with the provision in reference to separate colleges for white and colored students.

Id.

The Smith-Lever Act. The Act of May 8, 1914, ch. 79, 38 Stat. 372 (codified as 

amended at 7 U.S.C. §§ 341-349) established and funded agricultural extension 

services “in connection with the college or colleges in each State now receiving, or 

which may hereafter receive, the benefits of the [First Morrill Act] . . . and the 

[Second Morrill Act].” Id. § 1, 38 Stat. at 372-73. As with the Second Morrill 

Act, the appropriations were payable to the States for disbursement. Id. § 4, 38 

Stat. at 374. States having more than one eligible college were permitted to divide 

the appropriation as the legislature saw fit. Id. § I, 38 Stat. at 373.

B.

In 1863, the West Virginia Legislature assented to the provisions of the First 

Morrill Act. 1863 W. Va. Acts ch. 56. After passage of the Second Morrill Act, 

the W est Virginia Legislature assented to its terms, designated W est Virginia University as the beneficiary of the funds available under the First Morrill Act, and 

established State College as the beneficiary of a portion of the funds for the instruction of “colored” students. 1891 W. Va. Acts ch. 65, § l.4 W est Virginia was 

among a group of seventeen states that ultimately complied with the Second M orrill A ct’s eligibility requirements by establishing a racially segregated land-grant 

college for black students.5 The class of institutions thus established or designated 

by these seventeen states are commonly known as the 1890 colleges. The colleges 

in these same' states that restricted enrollment to white students, as well as the

4 Slate College was chartered as “The West V irginia Colored Institute." Am erican U niversities and C olleges 1822 (14th ed. 1992) In 1915, its name was changed to “The W est Virginia Collegiate Institute ” Id

at 1823. In 1929, State C ollege was given us present name. Id

5 The other sixteen states were Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North C arolina, South Carolina, V irginia, 

K entucky, Tennessee, M ississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahom a, Texas, M issouri, M aryland, and D elaware See Kmght, 787 F. Supp at 1168, Eddy, supra note 2, at 257-59.

187
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel

non-segregated land-grant colleges in all other states, are commonly known as the 

1862 colleges. See Knight, 787 F. Supp. at 1145 n.44, 1167-68.

In most states, there is only a single land-grant college, which receives all of the 

funds distributed to the state under the four statutes discussed in the preceding subpart. Even in states having both an 1862 and an 1890 college, the experiment station and extension service funded under the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts, 

respectively, are almost uniformly located at the 1862 college, which consequently 

receives all of the appropriations provided pursuant to those two Acts. See id. at 

1167-68.6 Furthermore, according to Agriculture, no 1890 college receives First 

Morrill Act funds.7 Consequently, with respect to the four statutes outlined above, 

the only funds that the 1890 colleges receive are a share of the Second Morrill Act 

appropriation.8 Thus, except as altered by the 1890 derivative statutes, see infra

Part I.C, the pattern of unequal distribution of federal funds (and of state funds as 

well) has remained little changed from the inception of the 1890 colleges.9 In the 

mid-1950s, the Supreme Court held that the system of racially “separate but equal” 

state education (including higher education) was unconstitutional.10 The end of 

de ju re racial segregation raised the question whether there was a necessity for the 

continued participation of the 1890 colleges in the land-grant system. See Eddy, 

supra note 2, at 265-66 (1957). Thus, West Virginia complied with the Supreme 

Court’s decisions by integrating both its 1862 college, W est Virginia University, 

and its 1890 college, State College, and by consolidating the land-grant function in 

West Virginia University. State College was removed from the land-grant system. 

See 1957 W. Va. Acts ch. 72, John C. Harlan, H istory o f West Virginia State College 1891-1965, at 101-04 (1968). The other sixteen states, however, did not fol6 The exception is the State o f Arkansas, w hose experim ent station is independent o f both its 1862 and 

1890 colleges. See id at 1168

7 W e understand that neither Agriculture n o r the D epartm ent of Education (which adm inisters the First 

M orrill Act) has records from which to ascertain the states’ distribution o f First M om ll Act funds. But 

A griculture has indicated to us that it has no reason to believe that any 1890 college receives such funds

8 A griculture has provided us with the distribution o f Second M orrill A ct funds by states in fiscal year 

1991 The grant to each state was $50,000, and for those states having an 1890 college, the portion of the 

grant that the 1890 college received ranged from a low o f 6% ($3,125) in M issouri to a high o f 50% 

($25,000) in Florida and South Carolina T he rem ainder o f the Second M ornll Act appropriations in such 

states was given to that state's 1862 college All other states had only an 1862 college, which received the 

entire Second M orrill A ct appropriation

9 See, e g , K night, 787 F. Supp at 1040-53, 1167-72; Eddy, supra note 2, at 257-66, Jean Preer, "Just

and E quitable D ivision" Jim C row and the 1890 Land-G rant College Act, 22 Prologue 323, 330-32, 334-36 

(1990), Edm ond, supra note 2, at 64, W illiams, supra note 2, at 155-56, John R W ennersten, The Travail o f

the B lack L and-G rant Schools in the South, 1890-1917, 65 A gric Hist 5 4 ,6 2 (1 9 9 1 )

10 See, e g ., Brow n v B oard o f Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); see also Lucy v. Adam s, 350 U S 1 

(1955) Prior to B row n, in cases all involving “ the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by w hite students w ere denied to Negro students o f the sam e educational qualifications *’ Brow n, 347 U.S at 491-92 (citing M issouri ex rel G aines v C anada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938); Sipuel v

B oard o f Regents, 332 U S 631 (1948), S w eatt v Painter, 339 U S . 629 (1950); M cLaurin v O klahoma

State R egents. 339 U S. 637 (1950)) These cases, however, did not reexam ine the doctrine of “separate but 

equal" that had been set forth in Plessv v F erguson, 163 U S. 537 (1896) Brown, 347 U S at 492 It was 

in B row n that the Suprem e C ourt held, for the first time, ‘that in the field o f public education the doctrine of 

‘separate but e q u al’ has no place.” Id at 495.

188
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

low West Virginia’s approach. Although they formally ended discrimination on 

the basis of race or color in their land-grant college system, they nonetheless retained a dual system of historically white 1862 colleges and historically black 1890 

colleges. See Knight, 787 F. Supp. at 1167-68. Furthermore, as indicated above, 

these states all continued their historical practice of allocating almost all land-grant 

funding to their 1862 college rather than to their 1890 college."

C.

Beginning in the 1970s, Congress enacted a series of statutes — the 1890 derivative statutes — that in terms authorized appropriations to be distributed directly 

by Agriculture to colleges eligible to receive funds under the Second Morrill Act. 

These were:

* Agriculture Environmental and Consumer Protection Appropriation Act, 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-73, 85 Stat. 183, 186 (1971) 

(appropriating “payments for extension work by the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act”);

* National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (“NARET”), Pub. L. No. 95-113, § 1444, 91 Stat.

913, 1007 (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 3221) (authorizing 

appropriation of payments for “extension at colleges eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417-419, as 

amended; 7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328)”);

* NARET § 1445, 91 Stat. at 1009 (codified as amended at 7 

U.S.C. § 3222) (authorizing appropriation of payments for 

“agricultural research at colleges eligible to receive funds under the 

Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417-419, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 

321-326 and 328)”);

* Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, Pub L. No. 97-98, § 1433,

95 Stat. 1213, 1312 (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 3223) 

(authorization, now expired, for grants for upgrading research 

equipment and facilities at the “institutions eligible to receive funds 

under the Act of August 30, 1890(7 U.S.C. 321 etseq .)”);

* Food Security Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-198, § 1416, 99 

Stat. 1354, 1549 (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 3224) 

(authorization, now expired, for grants for upgrading extension fa11 An issue in Knight was w hether A labam a's continued practice of favoring its 1862 land-grant college m 

the distribution of federal funds was a vestige of de jure racial segregation. The court concluded that it was 

not Id. ai 1168, 1171-72

189
Opinions o f the O ffice o f Legal Counsel

cilities at “institutions eligible to receive funds under the Act of 

August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417, chapter 841; 7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.)”);

* Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 

(“FACT Act”), Pub. L. No. 101-624, § 1612(a), 104 Stat. 3359,

3721 (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 3222a) (authorizing 

grants for agricultural research “at colleges eligible to receive funds 

under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.)”);

* FACT Act § 1612(b), 104 Stat. at 3722 (codified as amended at 

7 U.S.C. § 3222b) (authorizing grants to upgrade agricultural and 

food sciences facilities and equipment “to assist the institutions eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890”);

* FACT Act § 1612(c), 104 Stat. at 3723 (codified as amended at 

7 U.S.C. § 3222c) (authorizing grants for national research and 

training centennial centers at colleges “eligible to receive funds under the Act o f August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.)”).

Agriculture has construed these statutes as authorizing funding for the sole benefit 

of the 1890 colleges and has distributed the funds accordingly.

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-111, 107 Stat. 1046, 

(“FY 94 Appropriation”), appropriates for fiscal year 1994 the funds authorized by 

the 1890 derivative statutes. This law makes the following appropriations pursuant 

to the authorization statutes under consideration:

Table 2

Dollar Amount Authorization Description of Recipients

_____________________ Statute_________________ in FY 94 Appropriation

$28,157,000 NARET § 1445 

(7 U.S.C. § 3222)

"for paym ents to the J890

land-grant colleges ”

$7,901,000 FACT Act § 1612(b) 

(7 U.S.C. § 3222b)

“paym ents to upgrade 1890

land-grant college research

and extension facilities ”

$25,472,000 NARET § 1444 

(7 U.S.C. § 3221)

"payments fo r extension work

by the colleges receiving the

benefits o f the second M orrill

A c t”

190
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

See FY 94 Appropriation, 107 Stat. at 1051, 1053.

The first two appropriations listed in Table 2 limit the beneficiaries to the 1890 

colleges. Because the FY 94 Appropriation is Congress’s most recent enactment, 

its express narrowing of the beneficiary class supersedes any arguably broader language in the 1890 derivative statutes that authorized the appropriations. See General Accounting Office, Principles o f Federal Appropriations Law 2-35 (2d ed.

1991) (a statutory authorization of appropriations is a directive from Congress to 

itself that Congress is free to alter in subsequent legislation actually appropriating 

the funds in question). Hence, none of the 1862 colleges could be eligible for 

those funds, regardless of our interpretation of the authorization contained in the 

1890 derivative statutes.12

II. ISSUES FO R RECO N SID ERA TIO N

In 1991, W est Virginia enacted a law renewing its assent to the provisions of 

the Second Morrill Act and designating State College as the sole beneficiary of 

federal appropriations available under that Act. 1991 W. Va. Acts ch. 60.13 As 

discussed above, State College was formerly an 1890 college. Its status as a landgrant college was withdrawn in 1957 as part of West Virginia’s effort to desegregate its higher education system. Thus, the enactment in 1991 represents an attempt to restore State College’s status after a hiatus of thirty-four years.

By current standards, the annual appropriation of $50,000 available to each 

state under the Second Morrill Act is not substantial. Request for Reconsideration, 

App. at 8-34. Significantly more funding is available, however, under the 1890 

derivative statutes. West Virginia seeks funding for State College under both the 

Second Morrill Act and the 1890 derivative statutes.14

Agriculture contends that State College is not eligible for funding under either 

the Second Morrill Act or the 1890 derivative statutes.13 Agriculture maintains 

that an institution may not receive Second Morrill Act appropriations unless it also 

receives funds under the First Morrill Act. Because W est Virginia has not designated State College to receive funds under the First Morrill Act, (and State College 

does not in fact receive funds under that Act), Agriculture concludes that State 

College may not be designated to receive appropriations under the Second Morrill 

Act.

'■ The authorizations for appropriations contained in 7 U S C. Jj§ 3223 and 3224 have expired, and those 

contained in 7 U S C 3222a and 3222c were not funded in the FY 94 Appropriation

n W e express no opinion whether this statute was valid under the laws o f W est V irginia A griculture has 

not questioned its validity on this ground

1 Letter for Edward M adigan, Secretary of Agriculture, Departm ent of Agriculture, from G aston Caperton, G overnor of W est Virginia at I, 2 (M ar 28, 1991)

13 The recounting of A griculture's position that follows is drawn from ihe Request for Reconsideration

and from the M em orandum for Orville G Bentley, A ssistant Secretary for Science and Education, Department of Agriculture, from A Jam es Barnes. General Counsel, Departm ent of Agriculture (M ar 11, 1983)

191
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel

Agriculture acknowledges that State College was founded as an 1890 college, 

which the racial segregation proviso to the Second Morrill Act exempts from any 

requirement of receipt o f First Morrill Act funds. Nevertheless, Agriculture maintains that because State College was withdrawn from the land-grant system, the 

only way to restore it is by the usual route requiring receipt of benefits under the 

First Morrill Act. Agriculture argues that the exception to that requirement — the 

racial segregation proviso — is unconstitutional, and hence, no longer available to 

W est V irginia.16

Concerning State College’s eligibility for funding under the 1890 derivative 

statutes, Agriculture contends that if State College fails to qualify for appropriations under the Second Morrill Act, it may not take advantage of the 1890 derivative statutes, which condition funding upon an institution’s eligibility for 

appropriations under the Second Morrill Act. In addition, Agriculture denies that 

State College could qualify for funding under the 1890 derivative statutes even if it 

were eligible to receive appropriations under the Second Morrill Act. It notes that 

the class of colleges eligible for Second Morrill Act appropriations includes all the 

1862 colleges that receive appropriations under the First and Second Morrill Acts. 

But, Agriculture contends, Congress did not intend to benefit every such school. 

Rather, Congress intended to benefit only a specific group of sixteen historically 

black colleges in the land-grant system at the time that the 1890 derivative statutes 

were enacted (and also the historically black Tuskegee University, which is not a 

land-grant college). Agriculture invokes legislative history on this point, which it 

urges must guide the interpretation of the statutory language. Thus, in Agriculture’s view, even assuming that State College could now be designated to receive 

First Morrill Act funds, it nevertheless could not qualify for funding under the 

1890 derivative statutes, because it is not among the schools that Congress intended to benefit.

This O ffice’s original opinion (superseded by this one) agreed with West Virginia. We concluded that a state may designate an institution for Second Morrill 

Act appropriations without designating it for First Morrill Act funds if the school 

meets the educational requirements of the First Morrill Act and the nondiscrimination requirement of the Second Morrill Act. We further concluded that 

the plain language of the 1890 derivative statutes could not be restricted by the

16 The proviso is indeed unconstitutional See supra note 10 and accom panying text In reading the 

proviso out o f the Second M om ll Act, Agriculture im plicitly assum es that it is severable from the rem ainder 

of that Act W e agree with that proposition as well See A laska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U S. 678, 684 

(1987) (standard for determ ining severability)

S ubsequent to our original opinion, the A m erican Law D ivision of the Congressional Research Service 

(“ALD*’) has advised that '‘redesignation” of State College rem ains possible today under the Second M om ll 

Act, notw ithstanding the u n co n stitu tio n al^ o f the racial segregation proviso See M em orandum from 

A m encan Law D ivision, C ongressional Research Service, Library o f Congress, Re: Validity o f the Second

M orrill A ct in Light o j B r o w v Board o f E ducation at 3 (Sept. 20, 1991). The ALD opinion does not, 

how ever, address the question w hether an institution must receive First M orrill Act funds in order to qualify 

for Second M o m ll A ct funds, nor does it construe the 1890 derivative statutes

192
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

legislative history, and, thus, that West Virginia could qualify for such appropriations after having been designated to receive Second Morrill Act funds.

Agriculture has now asked that we reconsider both of these conclusions. It advances certain textual arguments concerning the Second M om ll Act to bolster its 

reading of that Act. With respect to the 1890 derivative statutes, Agriculture insists that we must avoid a result that is both absurd in itself and at odds with clear 

legislative history. Agriculture emphasizes that a decision that State College may 

share in funding under the 1890 derivative statutes carries potentially broad implications. The language of these statutes seemingly encompasses all schools eligible 

to receive Second Morrill Act appropriations, including the 1862 institutions. 

Thus, says Agriculture, “[i]f your opinion were adopted, a minimum of 74 institutions [i.e., all land-grant colleges and Tuskegee University] would become eligible 

for the [funding] that is now distributed among 17 institutions [i.e., only the 1890 

colleges and Tuskegee University].” Request for Reconsideration at 7 Obviously, 

this outcome would considerably lessen the share of funds given to the 1890 colleges. According to Agriculture, this outcome is absurd because the very purpose 

of the 1890 derivative statutes, as shown by the legislative history, was to remedy a 

historical inequity: the states that had maintained racially segregated systems had 

given almost all land-grant funding to their 1862 colleges while excluding the 1890 

colleges from the federal bounty. Consequently, Agriculture concludes that the 

1890 derivative statutes must be read to authorize appropriations only for the benefit of the 1890 colleges.

III.

STATE COLLEGE’S ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDS

UNDER THE 1890 DERIVATIVE STATUTES

On reconsideration, we conclude that the 1890 derivative statutes provide appropriations only for the benefit of the 1890 colleges. Furthermore, we find that 

State College is not among the intended beneficiaries. Because we think that State 

College’s eligibility for appropriations under the Second M om ll Act does not control its eligibility for appropriations under the 1890 derivative statutes, we leave 

consideration of the Second Morrill Act to Part IV, infra.

A.

Our analysis of the 1890 derivative statutes is guided by a longstanding rule of 

construction very recently reiterated by a unanimous Supreme Court:

Over and over we have stressed that “[i]n expounding a statute, we 

must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, 

but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and

193
Opinions o f the Office o f L egal Counsel

policy.” U nited States v. H eirs o f Boisdore, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 113,

122 (1849) (quoted in more than a dozen cases, most recently Dole

v. Steelw orkers, 494 U.S. 26, 35 (1990)); see also King v. St. Vinc e n t’s H ospital, 502 U.S. 215,221 (1991). . . . Statutory construction “is a holistic endeavor,” United Savings Assn. o f Texas v. 

Tim bers o f Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 

(1988), and, at a minimum, must account for a statute’s full text, 

language as well as punctuation, structure, and subject matter.

N ational Bank o f Or. v. Independent Ins. Agents o f America, Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 

455 (1993). All aspects of a statute, including its title, may be consulted in order 

to determine the congressional intent. See id. (consulting title).

It is undisputed that, from the time of the Second Morrill Act’s enactment in 

1890 to this day, the colleges eligible to receive funds under that Act have included 

both the 1862 colleges and the 1890 colleges. Indeed, as indicated above, the Second M orrill Act was passed in large part for the specific benefit of the 1862 colleges. On their face, however, the 1890 derivative statutes fail to distinguish 

between the class of colleges eligible for Second Morrill Act funds, including both 

the 1862 colleges and the 1890 colleges, and the more restricted class of 1890 

colleges. For example, although NARET § 1444 is entitled “Extension at 1890 

Land-Grant Colleges,” 91 Stat. at 1007, the body of § 1444 creates a permanent 

authorization for Congress “to . . . appropriate[] annually such sums as Congress 

may determine necessary to support continuing agricultural and forestry extension 

at colleges eligible to receive fun ds under the [ the Second M orrill A ct].” Id.

(emphasis added). Similarly, NARET § 1445 is entitled “Agricultural Research at 

1890 Land-Grant Colleges;” the substantive text of § 1445, however, authorizes 

annual appropriations of “such sums as Congress may determine necessary to support continuing agricultural research at colleges eligible to receive funds under the

[Second M orrill A ct].” 91 Stat. at 1009 (emphasis added). Thus, were we to consider the substantive provisions of the 1890 derivative statutes alone, without reference to the titles, the legislative history, the other portions of the statutory text, or 

the structure and purpose of the overall statutory scheme for the land-grant colleges, we would be forced to conclude that those provisions benefited 1862 and 

1890 colleges alike.

Such a conclusion would, however, be at odds with the unmistakable purpose of 

the 1890 derivative statutes. That purpose is to rectify the historical imbalance of 

funding between the 1862 and 1890 colleges — an imbalance that originated in 

racial segregation. The House Report concerning § 1444 of NARET described its 

purpose as follows:

The committee intends that the 1890 land-grant colleges . . . become partners in the Department’s agricultural research effort in the

194
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

food and agricultural sciences.. .. [T]he research capacity in the 

food and agricultural sciences at the 1890’s . . . is not as great as the 

agricultural research capacity of many of the 1862 schools. However, it must be emphasized that very few of the 1890 schools . . . 

receive any state funding, and Federal funding for agricultural research, which has not been on a permanent basis but rather on a 

grants basis, has only been available to the 1890’s . . . since 1967. 

Permanent funding for agricultural research has been available to 

the state agricultural experiment stations of the 1862 institutions 

since 1887.

H.R. Rep. No. 95-348, at 122 (1977) (“House Report”).

During hearings concerning § 1433 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, 

the need for the bill was put as follows:

This Congress has been supporting agricultural research for a 

long time. As far back as 1862, Congress set up the land grant college system. Over the years, the institutions created under the 1862 

Act have been helped to build research programs which are the envy 

of the world.

Later, in 1890, Congress passed a second Morrill Act which was 

designed specifically to support black land grant institutions. . . .

These institutions, which were originally created under the old 

separate-but-equal doctrine, have had to make do with inadequate 

state funding and little or no federal funding in the past for research, 

teaching and extension. Their achievements with limited resources 

have been tremendous, but . . . there is a limit to the number of 

bricks a man can make without straw. The 17 institutions we are 

dealing with need help now to bring their food and agricultural research facilities up to acceptable levels.

The 1890 colleges need, simply, to catch up. That is what H.R.

1309 is designed to help them do.

1890 Land-Grant Colleges Facilities: H earings on H.R. 1309 Before the Subcomm. on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture o f the

House Comm, on Agriculture, 97th Cong. 8-9 (1981) (“House Hearing” ) (prepared 

statement of Rep. de la Garza); see also id. at 13-17 (prepared statement of Rep. 

Ford) (contrasting historically “meager funding” by the states and the federal government for the 1890 colleges with the “royal treatment” provided for the 1862 

colleges, and asserting that H.R. 1309 would provide ‘“ catch-up” ’ funds to the 

1890 colleges “for years of past neglect”).

195
Opinions o f the Office o f L egal Counsel

In drafting the 1890 derivative statutes to benefit the 1890 colleges, however, 

Congress conflated two distinct classes: colleges eligible to receive Second Morrill Act funds, and the 1890 colleges. Thus, with respect to NARET §§ 1444 and 

1445, both the Conference and the House Reports use the description “colleges 

eligible to receive funds under the [Second Morrill Act]” interchangeably with 

“ 1890 institutions.” See, e.g., S. Conf. Rep. No. 95-418, at 225-28 (1977) 

(“Conference Report”); House Report at 123-24. In fact, of course, the terms are 

not interchangeable, because all of the 1862 colleges, as well as the 1890 colleges, 

receive Second Morrill Act funds. Congress also understood the class of 1890 

colleges to consist wholly of sixteen identified, historically black schools. See,

e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 97-151, at 3 (1981) (enumerating the sixteen 1890 colleges).17

It appears that Congress intended to fund only the sixteen identified 1890 colleges, and mistakenly assumed that only they were eligible for Second Morrill Act 

funds. The Conference and House Reports specifically contrast the 1890 colleges 

with the 1862 colleges, thus showing that Congress understood the distinction between the two classes, even though it supposed that only the former class was eligible for Second Morrill Act appropriations. See Conference Report at 225-27; 

House Report at 122. Thus, the legislative history suggests that NARET §§ 1444 

and 1445 were intended to authorize appropriations only for the 1890 colleges.18

References to unenacted materials evidencing Congress’s intent would not alone 

be sufficient to control the enacted language of NARET §§ 1444 and 1445, even if 

those materials demonstrated that the statutory language Congress adopted derived 

from a mistake of fact or law. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944-51 (1983) 

(holding that passage by House and Senate and presentment to President are pre17 In addition to the sixteen 1890 colleges. C ongress explicitly named Tuskegee University -- w hich does 

not receive Second M om ll A ct funds - as a beneficiary in each o f the 1890 derivative statutes, bringing the 

total num ber o f beneficiaries to seventeen schools. Like the other sixteen colleges, Tuskegee U niversity is a 

historically black institution See Knight, 787 F Supp at 1086-89, 1093

18 C o n g ress’s assum ption, that only the 1890 colleges receive the benefits of the Second M orrill Act, is 

widely shared. See K night, 787 F. Supp at 1145 (finding based on expert testim ony that “[tjhere is a popular m isconception that the 1890 land grant colleges . got all the money authorized by [the Second M om ll 

A ct]"). Indeed, both the judiciary and the executive branch have made the same m istake See A vers v. A llow , 674 F Supp 1523, 1543 (N D. Miss. 1987) (court erroneously describes M ississippi's 1890 institution 

as "the land-grant institution designated by the state to receive funds pursuant to the second M om ll A ct”), 

a ff’d, 914 F.2d 676 (5th C ir 1990) (en banc), vacated sub nom , United States v. Fordice, 505 U S 717 

(1992) (em phasis added); C onference Report at 227 (reproducing letter from the Secretary of A griculture 

that com m ents on H ouse draft o f the provisions that ultim ately becam e §§ 1444 and 1445 and shows that he 

shared the assum ption o f the drafters that the class of beneficiaries would be exclusively the 1890 colleges, 

notw ithstanding that the text o f the draft bill defined the eligible class as those colleges eligible to receive 

Second M o m ll A ct funds)

The source o f confusion m ay be that the historically black land-grant colleges are the only land-grant 

institutions established under the Second M orrill Act, and they are called the “ 1890 c o lle g es/’ which heightens the im pression that they w ere the principal beneficiaries o f the Second M orrill Act See, e g , House 

Hearing at 8-9 (prepared statem ent of Rep. de la Garza) (*‘[I]n 1890, C ongress passed a second M ornll Act 

which iw j designed specifically to support b la c k land grant institutions.") (emphasis added); Preer, supra

note 9, at 323 (“It is ironic . . that the Second M om ll Act, finally passed in 1890 and still in effect a century 

later, is now know n for its incidental beneficiaries, black land-grant colleges. . . These colleges are w hat we 

now call the 11890 colleges ’") (footnote om itted)

196
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

requisites of valid legislation); Gray v. United States, 76 F. Supp. 102, 104 (Ct. Cl. 

1948) (holding that courts “have no power to, in effect, reform statutes because 

Congress, in writing them, labored under a misapprehension as to facts or law”). 

Our obligation, however, is to give meaning and effect to the entirety of the relevant statutory texts, and we can do so here only if we assume that the 1890 derivative statutes were designed for the sole benefit of the 1890 colleges. An 

interpretation of NARET §§ 1444 and 1445 that takes those provisions to refer 

only to the 1890 colleges is the only reading of the statute that can account for the 

“full text, language[,] . . . structure, and subject matter.” National Bank o f Or., 508 

U.S. at 455.

As detailed below, this understanding of the 1890 derivative statutes helps explain certain provisions in those enactments that otherwise would remain anomalous. Although these anomalies do not necessarily rise to the level of intrinsic 

textual ambiguity, nor do they create patently absurd results, our ability to explain 

them provides some assurance that our use of legislative history has contributed to 

a proper understanding of the text.19

The first anomaly has to do with the computation of funding authorized by NARET §§ 1444(a) and 1445(a). In § 1444(a), it is keyed to a percentage of the 

amount of funds appropriated for extension work under the Smith-Lever Act. See

91 Stat. at 1007. Likewise, in § 1445(a), research funds are authorized in an 

amount based upon a percentage of the level of funds appropriated for agricultural 

research under the Hatch Act. See id. at 1009. As noted above, however, every 

state has given its Smith-Lever and Hatch Act funds exclusively to its 1862 college 

and experiment stations controlled exclusively by those schools (except Arkansas, 

which has an independent experiment station). If §§ 1444 and 1445 are designed 

to rectify the states’ historic discrimination between the 1862 and 1890 colleges, 

these funding mechanisms would have a discernible purpose. But if §§ 1444 and 

1445 are read to benefit the 1862 colleges as well as the 1890 colleges, then Congress would have created a (much smaller) duplicate mechanism to fund research 

and extension at colleges already receiving appropriations for these purposes under 

the Smith-Lever Act and the Hatch Act. It also seems unlikely that when Congress 

provided “catch up” funds for the 1890 colleges, it did so by appropriating still 

more funds for the 1862 colleges already acknowledged to be receiving the lion’s 

share of state and federal land-grant funding. It is more consonant with the statu19 See Retch i’ Great Lakes Indian Fish and W tldhje Ciimm 'n, 4 F 3d 490 (7th C ir 1993) There, the 

court suggested that one may “seek meaning beneath the sem antic level not only when there is an ‘intrinsic' 

ambiguity but also when there is an ‘extrinsic’ one, that is, when doubt that the literal m eaning is the 

correct one arises only when one knows som ething about the concrete activities intended to [be] regulate[d].” Id. at 494. Thus. “A literal reading of the Fair Labor Standards Act would create a senseless distinction between Indian police and all other public police Nothing in the Act alerts the reader to the 

problem ; you have to know that there are Indian police to recognize it But once it is recognized, the Act, 

viewed as a purposive, rational document, becom es am biguous, creating room for interpretation W e cannot 

think of any reason other than oversight why Congress failed to extend the law enforcem ent exem ption to 

Indian police [and] no reason has been suggested to us." Id.

197
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel

tory purpose to read the 1890 derivative statutes as appropriating funds solely for 

the 1890 colleges.

A second anomaly occurs in NARET § 1444(c), which contains presuppositions 

that make sense only if § 1444 is read to apply solely to the 1890 colleges. Subsection (c) provides: “The State director of the cooperative extension service and 

the administrative head for extension at the eligible institution in each State where 

an eligible institution is located shall jointly develop, by mutual agreement, a comprehensive program of extension for such State.” 91 Stat. at 1008. As mentioned, 

every state has an extension service created under the Smith-Lever Act and attached to that state’s 1862 college. This subsection, however, contemplates that 

not every state has an eligible institution (making it necessary to include the phrase 

“where an eligible institution is located”). It also presupposes a distinction between the statewide extension program and the extension program at an eligible 

institution, whose administrative heads are instructed to work “jointly.” These 

presumptions do not make sense if § 1444 is read to include the 1862 colleges, 

which have extension programs. They make sense, however, if § 1444 is read to 

establish a new extension program for the exclusive benefit of the 1890 colleges, 

which are found only in sixteen states and do not have an extension program under 

the Smith-Lever Act. Indeed, the Conference Report confirms that the purpose of 

subsection (c) is to coordinate the extension program newly created under § 1444 

at each 1890 college with the existing extension program at the 1862 college located in the same state. Conference Report at 226-27; see also House Report at 

122 (“[T]he committee wishes to stress its desire that the agricultural research conducted at the 1890’s . . . and the involved 1862 institutions not be duplicative.”).

A third anomaly appears in § 1433(a) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, 

which is opaque unless read to benefit only the 1890 colleges. It states:

It is hereby declared to be the intent of Congress to assist the institutions eligible to receive funds under the [Second M omll Act]

. . . in the acquisition and improvement of research facilities and 

equipment so that eligible institutions may participate fully with the 

State agricultural experiment stations in a balanced attack on the research needs of the people of their States.

95 Stat. at 1312. As has been indicated, no state has more than one agricultural 

experiment station, and all (but one) of these are under the control of an 1862 college that receives Second Morrill Act benefits. Section 1433(a) cannot refer to 

both the 1862 and 1890 colleges because that would mean that the 1862 colleges in 

states without 1890 colleges are to “participate fully” with themselves in performing agricultural research. Thus, the text makes sense only if the eligible institutions 

are understood as a class separate from the existing state agricultural experiment 

stations. Properly construed, the section reflects once again the congressional pur198
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-C ranl Colleges

pose of providing additional funding to the 1890 colleges to restore “balance[]” in 

the allocation of federal funds between the 1862 and 1890 colleges, thus rectifying 

a perceived imbalance that had prevented the 1890 colleges from “participat[ing] 

fully” in agricultural research.

The very same analysis applies to the language of § 1416(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985, 99 Stat. at 1549, setting forth a declaration of congressional intent 

in authorizing grants to upgrade cooperative extension facilities. The title of 

§ 1416, moreover, is “Grants to upgrade 1890 land-grant college extension facilities.” Id.

In sum, a number of anomalies disappear when the 1890 derivative statutes are 

read as benefiting solely the 1890 colleges. There are, moreover, aspects of the 

1890 derivative statutes that affirmatively support such a reading. First, it is significant that all of the 1890 derivative statutes allocate funds not to the states, as is 

true of the earlier land-grant statutes, but directly to the eligible institutions.20 The 

legislative history indicates that Congress understood this structure as a departure 

from prior practice with respect to the 1862 colleges. See Conference Report at 

226 (rejecting a Senate bill provision that would have provided that the states “act 

as intermediaries with respect to the extension programs between the 1890 institutions and the Secretary of Agriculture in the same manner as currently exists for 

1862 institutions” in favor of a House amendment that provided for a direct relationship between the 1890 institutions and the Secretary). This difference in 

structure is consistent with the expressed purpose of the 1890 derivative statutes to 

rectify an imbalance of funding brought about largely by the discriminatory action 

of the states in their allocation of federal (and state) funds.

Second, as noted above, the titles of most of the 1890 derivative statutes expressly refer to funding for the 1890 colleges. See, e.g., NARET § 1444, 91 Stat. 

at 1007 (“Extension at 1890 land-grant colleges”); FACT Act § 1612(b), 104 Stat. 

at 3722 (“Grants to upgrade agricultural and food sciences facilities at 1890 landgrant colleges”). The titles provide strong textual evidence that the 1890 derivative statutes are designed to benefit only the 1890 colleges.

Finally, the sums appropriated pursuant to the 1890 derivative statutes are much 

smaller than those appropriated pursuant to the earlier land-grant statutes. For example, the FY 94 Appropriation provides the 1862 colleges and experiment stations with $272,582,000 in Smith-Lever Act funding for extension work and 

$171,304,000 in Hatch Act funding for research. In contrast, it provides only 

$25,472,000 for extension work pursuant to NARET § 1444 and $28,157,000 for 

research pursuant to NARET § 1445. See 107 Stat. at 1051, 1053. In each case, if 

the NARET funds were divided over seventy-four schools (the combined total of 

the 1862 and 1890 colleges and Tuskegee University), no school would derive

20 Although the Hatch Act provides for disbursem ent of funds by the federal governm ent directly to the 

beneficiaries, the states effectively each choose the beneficiary, and the appropriation is said to be '“to each 

State ” 24 Slat, at 441

199
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel

much benefit from its share of funds and the amount received by an 1862 college 

would be minuscule relative to the funds that each such college will receive for 

essentially the same purposes pursuant to the Smith-Lever and Hatch Acts. These 

circumstances suggest that the congressional intent was not to divide the 1890 derivative funds among all the land-grant colleges, but only among the 1890 colleges. 

See Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 630-31 (1987) (employing division o f appropriations among beneficiaries to determine meaning of statute).

O ur examination of the FACT A ct § 1612, 104 Stat. at 3721, as well as its legislative history, confirms that Congress continued to equate the colleges eligible to 

receive benefits under the Second Morrill Act with the 1890 colleges. See, e.g.,

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-916, at 1047-48 (1990). The same is true of the FY 94 

Appropriation, 107 Stat. at 1051-53, and its legislative history. See, e.g., H.R. 

Rep. No. 103-153, at 29, 40 (1993); S. Rep. No. 103-102, at 29, 40-1 (1993). 

Thus, the class of intended beneficiaries has not changed.

B.

Having concluded that Congress intended the phrase “eligible to receive funds 

[under the Second Morrill Act]” to refer solely to the 1890 colleges, we must determine whether State College falls within this class. Congress understood this 

class to encompass a specific list of sixteen identified schools (to which was added 

the Tuskegee Institute). See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 97-151, at 3 (1981) (listing the 

1890 colleges). Because State College was not among the identified schools, it 

would seem that it may not share in 1890 derivative funding.

C ongress’s list of 1890 colleges, moreover, likely was drawn from the general 

understanding of the term “ 1890 college” as a category encompassing historically 

black land-grant colleges with a common genesis in the Second Morrill Act. 

Originally, State College was commonly understood to be among this group. Because State College was withdrawn from the land-grant system, however, it lost its 

standing as an 1890 college. Thus, when the 1890 derivative statutes were passed, 

this term was no longer commonly understood to include State College.21 State 

College, therefore, was not (and could not have been) among the intended beneficiaries of those statutes.

It might be argued nonetheless that W est V irginia’s putative restoration of State 

College to the land-grant system also restored it to the category of 1890 colleges.22 

W est Virginia took this action in 1991, prior to the 1993 enactment of the FY 94

21 C om pare, e.g , Eddy, supra noie 2, at 258-59 (1957) (State C ollege included among the 1890 colleges) 

with, e Edm ond, supra note 2, at 63 (1978) (State C ollege absent from list of the 1890 colleges otherwise 

draw n from E d d y 's book).

22 T his m ay be the basis of W est V irginia G overnor C aperton's suggestion that W est V irginia's

* redesignation” of State College under the Second M orrill Act m akes it eligible for 1890 derivative funding 

See L etter for Edw ard M adigan, Secretary of A griculture, D epartm ent of Agriculture, from G aston Caperton, 

G overnor o f W est V irginia at 2 (A ug. 9, 1991).

200
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

Appropriation. Therefore, we cannot a priori exclude the possibility that, at the 

time the FY 94 Appropriation was enacted, either Congress believed that State 

College was once again an 1890 college or, in a more general sense, that “ 1890 

college” as a term of art once again included State College. The Appropriation’s 

legislative history, however, does not offer any discussion as to what schools Congress thought were among the 1890 colleges.23 Furthermore, the general usage 

does not appear to have changed.24 In light of the previous congressional belief (as 

well as the general understanding among those using the term) that State College 

was not one of the 1890 colleges, this silence is tantamount to not recognizing 

State College’s restoration as an 1890 college.25 Consequently, we conclude that 

the reference to 1890 colleges in the FY 94 Appropriation does not include State 

College. Accordingly, State College may not share in the funds appropriated in the 

FY 94 Appropriation pursuant to the authorizations contained in the 1890 derivative statutes.

IV.

STATE COLLEGE’S ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDS

UNDER THE SECOND MORRILL ACT

We turn now to the question posed by Agriculture’s Request for Reconsideration whether a land-grant college may receive Second Morrill Act appropriations if 

it does not receive funds under the First Morrill Act.

The Second M omll Act provides an annual appropriation of funds “to each 

State . . . for the more complete endowment and maintenance of colleges for the 

benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts now established, or which may be 

hereafter established, in accordance with [the provisions of the First Morrill Act].” 

Id. § 1, 26 Stat. at 417-18. Agriculture construes this general language to condition the eligibility of a college to receive funds under the Second Morrill Act upon 

its designation as a recipient of First Morrill Act funds. In our original opinion, we 

reached the opposite conclusion, construing this language to impose only a requirement that a college conform to the educational requirements of the First Morrill Act (and the non-discrimination requirement in the Second Morrill Act).

In light of our conclusions in Part III, supra, this issue does not have any bearing on the question of whether State College (or any college) may qualify for

21 See, e g , H R Rep No. 103-153, at 29, 40, S Rep. No. 103-102, at 29, 40 Nor is there such a discussion in the legislative history accom panying A griculture’s appropriation bill for fiscal year 1993. See, e g ,

H R Rep No 102-617, at 41 (1992), S Rep No 102-334, at 40 (1992).

24 See, e g , K night v. Alabama, 787 F Supp at 1168 (W est Virginia absent from list of states having 

1890 institutions), A Century oj Service Land-Gratit C olleges and Universities, 1890-1990 xx, 15 (Ralph 

D C n sty & Lionel W illiamson eds , 1992) (notes that W est Virginia founded State College as a black landgrant college but later rescinded land-grant status; omits State C ollege from list of 1890 colleges).

25 See Walton v. United C onsum ers Club, Inc , 786 F 2d 303, 310 (7th C ir 1986) (‘‘[B]ecause the purpose 

of language is to use shared understandings, meanings held by both w riter and reader, a court m ay not assum e that Congress picked an unusual meaning unless som e evidence supports that interpretation.’’).

201
Opinions o f the Office o f L egal Counsel

funding under the 1890 derivative statutes. Moreover, we note that there are no 

restrictions on the division of funds between schools eligible for First Morrill Act 

funds. See infra note 27 and accompanying text. Therefore, as Agriculture has 

acknowledged, West Virginia “could meet the threshold of 1862 designation by 

giving State College one dollar of 1862 monies per year.” Request for Reconsideration at 10. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, the annual appropriation for each 

state under the Second Morrill Act is not large by today’s standards. These considerations substantially reduce the practical importance of any decision on this 

issue. Nonetheless, since State College’s eligibility for Second Morrill Act funding 

remains in dispute, we will reconsider the issue. We conclude that, although the 

question is a close one, the balance o f the evidence favors our original view.

The legislative history of the Second Morrill Act suggests that Congress believed that the appropriated funds would in fact be used to supplement the funds 

available to the land-grant colleges and departments that had been established by 

the states pursuant to the First Morrill Act.26 Furthermore, the development of the 

land-grant system has indeed followed this course. Except for the 1890 colleges, 

only colleges receiving the benefits of the First Morrill Act have been designated 

by their respective states to receive appropriations under the Second Morrill Act. 

Nonetheless, in our original opinion, we took the view that the statutory language 

did not specifically mandate that the states allocate Second Morrill Act funds only 

to colleges already endowed with First Morrill Act funds if a state (such as West 

Virginia) wished to do otherwise.

In support of our original construction of the Second Morrill Act, these kinds of 

considerations may be cited: the statutory scheme, the contrast with the language 

of a similar statute, the longstanding practice of those administering the Act, and 

judicial construction of it. First, the existence of such a specific limitation seems at 

odds with the statutory scheme, which vests the states with very broad power to 

allocate Second Morrill Act appropriations to institutions o f their choosing. Thus, 

the Supreme Court in Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Agric. College v. Irvine, 206 U.S. 

278, 284 (1907), summarized the plenary nature of the states’ power over First and 

Second M orrill Act funds as follows: “the fund and its interest [under the First 

Morrill Act] and the annual appropriations [under the Second Morrill Act] are the 

property of the State and not of any institution within it.”27 This statutory scheme 

renders the proposed limitation virtually superfluous because, as Agriculture con26 See, e.g , S Rep No. 51 - 1028, at I -2 (1890); H R. Rep No. 51 -2697, at 1, 2, 4-6 (1890).

27 A state m ay select one or m ore schools as beneficianes o f First and Second M om ll Act funds, allocate 

the funds as it chooses am ong qualified beneficianes, and w ithdraw the designation of a previously selected 

school. See, e g , State ex rel Mooclie v. B ryan, 39 So 929, 951 (Fla. 1905) (holding that state has full 

pow er over disposition o f appropriation and m ay withdraw it from an institution already receiving a share), 

M assachusetts A gric. C ollege v MarcJen, 30 N .E. 555, 557 (M ass. 1892) (holding that states may divide the 

Second M ornll Act appropriation among schools, they are not restricted in the num ber of beneficianes except in states practicing racial segregation, w hich are required to have no more than one school for each 

race).

202
Reconsideration o f Prior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

cedes, a state may qualify a school for Second Morrill Act appropriations by allocating to it but one dollar of First Morrill Act funds.28

A second consideration is the difference in language between the Second Morrill Act and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. The Smith-Lever Act follows the structure of the Second Morrill Act in giving appropriated funds to the states. 38 Stat. 

at 373. It expressly provides, however, that the states must allocate the appropriated funds for extension work at “the college or colleges in each State now receiving, or which may hereafter receive, the benefits of the [First Morrill Act] . .. and 

of the [Second Morrill Act].” Id. Thus, Congress knew how to impose this type of 

requirement in clear language when it wished to do so. The contrasting absence of 

an explicit requirement in the Second Morrill Act tends to show that none was intended.

A third consideration is that Agriculture to this day has permitted the states to 

continue giving Second Morrill Act appropriations to the 1890 colleges without 

requiring that they receive First Morrill Act funds, notwithstanding the invalidity of 

the racial segregation proviso. See supra note 10 and accompanying text. Without 

the benefit of the exemption contained in that proviso, however, all of the 1890 

colleges should have been subject to what Agriculture takes to be the requirement 

that they receive First Morrill Act funds, to the same extent as if they were 1862 

colleges. Thus, Agriculture’s administration of the Second Morrill Act does not 

support its position with respect to State College.

Finally, the judicial decisions construing the Second Morrill Act support our 

construction of the Act, although we agree with Agriculture that they are not dispositive of the precise question at issue. The cases concerning requirements for 

receipt of First and Second Morrill Act funds have focused on the type of education to be provided by a college in order to be eligible for such funds. See M arden,

30 N.E at 556-57 (holding that a college may receive First and Second Morrill 

Act funds if it is of the type specified in the First Morrill Act); In re Agric. Funds,

21 A. 916, 917 (R.I. 1890) (holding that the failure of Rhode Island’s agricultural 

school to teach the mechanic arts disqualified it from Second Morrill Act funds 

that were intended “ ‘for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts.’”) 

(emphasis added) (quoting the First Morrill Act, § 4, 12 Stat. at 504); State ex rel.

Wyoming Agric. College v. Irvine, 84 P. 90, 100 (Wyo. 1906) (summarizing In re

Agric. Funds as a decision that “held . . . that a mere agricultural school was not 

within the contemplation of the [First and Second Morrill Acts]”), a ff’d. 206 U.S. 

278 (1907). These decisions do not say that receipt of First M om ll Act funds is a 

prerequisite for eligibility for Second Morrill Act appropriations. On the other 

hand, neither M arden nor In re Agric. Funds holds squarely that a college may

28 M oreover, C ongress's evident purpose in the First and Second M orrill Acts was to prom ote a certain 

lype o f educational institution — i e , '‘colleges devoted to agriculture and the m echanic arts. * A griculture's 

requirement -- that a school receive First Morrill Act funds -- does not advance this purpose to any greater 

degree than our construction, which requires that any school eligible to receive Second M orrill Aci funds 

also conform to the educational requirements imposed by the First and Second M orrill Acts

203
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel

receive Second Morrill Act funds even if it does not receive First Morrill Act 

funds. In M arden, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in fact was receiving 

both. In In re Agric. Funds, the court denied the state agricultural college eligibility for Second Morrill Act funds.29

Agriculture nonetheless contends that the statute does require that any college 

receiving Second Morrill Act appropriations have been designated for First Morrill 

Act funds. Agriculture infers this requirement primarily from the recitation that the 

Second Morrill A ct’s appropriations are “for the more complete endowment and 

maintenance” of the land-grant colleges. The suggestion is that the words “more 

complete” imply that the states are required to use these funds solely to supplement 

the endowment of schools receiving First Morrill Act funds. Agriculture reinforces 

this point by noting that the First M orrill Act requires states to “take and claim the 

benefit” for “at least one college.” 12 Stat. 504. Under the terms of the First M orrill Act, a state failing to designate at least one beneficiary would forfeit its benefit 

entirely under that Act, id. at 504-05, without which no institution could be “more 

com pletely] endowed” under the Second Morrill Act. In light of the considerations discussed above, we doubt that the very general language concerning the purpose of the Second Morrill Act can support the construction that Agriculture has 

placed upon it.

The text of the Second Morrill Act, however, lends support to Agriculture’s 

view for another reason. The Second Morrill A ct’s (invalid) racial segregation 

proviso deemed the establishment o f institutions for “colored students” to be compliance with the proviso that forbade discrimination in the admission of students 

based on race or color. It did so by authorizing states having a college “established 

in pursuance of [the First Momll A ct]” to establish (if they had not already done 

so) an institution “of like character” for black students, “whether or not it has received money heretofore under the [First Morrill Act].” 26 Stat. at 418. This limited exemption of schools for “colored students” from receipt of First Morrill Act 

funds would seem to imply a congressional understanding that schools receiving 

appropriations under the Second Morrill Act and not established under the proviso 

be otherwise subject to the requirement of receiving of First Morrill Act funds.

Some pertinent legislative history also substantiates Agriculture’s view. Most 

relevant is a floor exchange between Senator Hoar and Senator Blair. During a 

discussion of the draft bill, Senator Hoar suggested that the bill ought to, but did 

not, allow states to allocate the appropriated benefits to an institution devoted to 

the agriculture and mechanic arts “which did not receive the benefit of the original

29 Rhode Island’s agricultural school was not a recipient of First M om ll A ct funds (only Rhode Island’s 

Brown U niversity appears to have been specifically so designated) Thus, the court could have disqualified 

the agricultural school from Second M omll Act appropriations on this ground alone, if it had read that Act in 

the m anner that A griculture proposes. That the court denied the agricultural school Second M om ll Act 

appropriations for an entirely different reason, which w as the school's failure to teach the mechanic arts, 

supports the view that there is no requirement th at a school receive First M om ll Ace funds in order to eligible for designation as a Second M om ll Act beneficiary. S ee 2 1 A at 917

204
Reconsideration o f P rior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

benefaction.” 21 Cong. Rec. 6086 (1890). He suggested that the bill be amended 

to rectify this perceived deficiency. Senator Blair — who was answering questions 

and objections from the Senators concerning the bill — asserted initially that the 

bill did not require amendment because it “meets . . . the suggestion[] of [Senator 

Hoar] as it now is.” Id. This initial response implied that the bill did not require 

colleges to receive First Morrill Act funds in order to be eligible for the new appropriation. When Senator Hoar expressed skepticism that the bill met his concerns, however, Senator Blair elaborated as follows:

It was not the understanding of the committee that we were recommending an annual appropriation for an indefinite number of 

colleges which might hereafter come to be established. Meritorious 

colleges undoubtedly will be established including the same subject 

matter; but it was thought that the States where these colleges are 

should receive a certain specific amount, $15,000 a year, and let 

them appropriate that money, as they necessarily must now, to the 

single agricultural college that exists in each State.

If there should be subsequently from those same funds — and I 

do not see how it can be done, for the whole amount that was realized from the lands under that act is already invested in every State 

— but if it is conceivable that they should be subdivided and those 

institutions multiplied with the funds already in the possession of 

the State, then let them divide this annual appropriation for the support of several if they see fit, but otherwise let it be concentrated 

upon a single one of the institutions. However, they must be institutions which derive their vitality from the original act of Congress 

making appropriations of the public lands. The nation itself certainly ought not to be dragged beyond what originates in that specific act of Congress in the way of support of the agricultural 

colleges and those of the mechanic arts which the States may see fit 

to multiply among themselves hereafter.

Id. at 6087. This statement suggests that Senator Blair viewed the Second Morrill 

Act as prohibiting states from allocating funds to colleges not endowed with First 

Morrill Act funds. Of course, the statement is at odds with Senator Blair’s initial 

response to Senator Hoar’s suggested amendment. Nonetheless, it is much more 

detailed than the initial response and therefore likely reflects Senator Blair’s views 

more accurately.

Senator B lair’s statement, however, belies the balance of political forces at the 

time of the Second Morrill Act. To be sure, the Second M omll Act’s enactment 

largely resulted from fierce lobbying by the land-grant college presidents, an effort

205
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel

obviously intended to obtain funds for these particular colleges and no others.30 

Too, the college presidents were able to squelch Senator’s Hoar proposal for explicit language permitting schools not receiving First Morrill Act funds to be given 

Second M orrill Act appropriations. See Williams, supra note 2, at 144. It is 

doubtful, however, that the college presidents had the political strength to obtain 

explicit language confining Second Morrill Act appropriations to schools receiving 

First Morrill Act funds. They faced powerful opposition from the Grange movement, which had long “condemn[ed] the colleges for their inability to attract agricultural students and vow[ed] to oppose the schools in every way,” Williams, 

supra note 2, at 3; see Eddy, supra note 2, at 73; Ross, supra note 2, at 79-80. The 

strength of the Grange was reflected by the “Grange Amendment” to the Second 

Morrill Act, which restricted application of the appropriations more narrowly and 

explicitly than had the First Morrill Act. The college presidents were forced to 

include these restrictions if they were to obtain even the Grange’s sullen acquiescence in the Second Morrill Act. It is doubtful that the bill would have passed had 

they not done so.31 Even with such acquiescence, the Grange maintained their efforts to redirect federal funding away from the existing land-grant colleges.32 

There seems little doubt that the Grange would have opposed vociferously (and 

probably successfully) any language that expressly confined Second Morrill Act 

appropriations to schools receiving the benefits of the First Morrill Act.

10 As one representative in the House com plained:

I tell you, M r Speaker, that the only lobby 1 have seen at this session of Congress was the educational lobby, com posed of the presidents o f the agricultural institutions They have haunted the 

corridors of this C apitol; they have stood sentinel at the door of the Committee on Education, 

they have even interrupted the solemn deliberations o f that body by im prudent and impudent 

com m unications. . My God, if there is any eagerness in the w orld it is possessed by these 

gentlem en who are presidents of these agricultural c o lle g e s .. . . They have buzzed in your ears, 

sir, and in yours, and in the ears of every m em ber o f this House. It has been an organized, 

strong, com bined lobby for the benefit o f the agricultural colleges of the country.

21 C ong. Rec 8836 (1890) (rem arks of Rep. C aruth)

11 See W illiam s, supra note 2, at 143-49; E ddy, supra note 2, at 101, 103; Ross, supra note 2, at 178; 26 

Stat at 418. The G rangers were chiefly concerned that the new appropriations not be diverted to classical 

languages and other studies that they did not consider appropriate for an agricultural college See, e.g ,

W illiam s, supra note 2, at 147. T he Grange had sim ilarly lim ited the achievem ents of the land-grant college 

presidents only three years earlier concerning the bill that becam e the H atch Act, when they successfully 

forced an am endm ent, also know n as the “G range A m endm ent,” that preserved for the states the option of 

m aintaining agricultural experim ent stations independent from the land-grant colleges. The land-grant colleges had desired in the H atch A ct to bnng such stations under their exclusive control See id. at 113-15, 

Ross, supra note 2, at 140.

32 See W illiam s, supra note 2, at 152 (“At its annual m eeting in 1891, the Grange declared the land-grant 

colleges to be ‘practically w orthless' and im plored Congress to separate the agricultural departm ents from 

existing colleges, establishing new and purely agricultural institutions around them ‘W e further ask,' the 

G range added, ‘that all appropriations now paid to the com bined institutions . . be transferred to such separate and distinct agricultural and mechanical colleges as may be established in the several states ’■’) (footnote 

om itted); Edm ond, supra note 2, at 33 (Yale C ollege, Brown U niversity, and Dartmouth received land-grant 

designation from their respective state legislatures during the 1860s but lost it to agricultural colleges during 

the 1890s as a result of opposition from the stale Grange and agricultural societies who resented the form er 

schools' perceived em phasis on instruction in classical as opposed to agricultural studies).

206
Reconsideration o f P rior Opinion Concerning Land-G rant Colleges

Significantly, the land-grant college presidents themselves were not so certain 

that the Second Morrill Act appropriations could be confined to their institutions 

under the language of that Act as it was enacted. They were even fearful that the 

Second Morrill Act could actually be interpreted to deny them such funds altogether. Thus, barely two months after the enactment of the Second Morrill Act:

Atherton and Alvord [two influential land-grant college presidents who had each played a major role in lobbying for the Second 

Morrill Act] were extremely anxious about the potential for rogue 

initiatives— especially from the Grange— to exclude land-grant 

colleges from receiving the benefits of the act or to qualify nonland-grant colleges for the new funds. Thus, they prepared a “Brief 

of Points” for Assistant Interior Secretary Chandler and distributed 

it as appropriate to various land-grant colleges. In their document, 

Atherton and Alvord interpreted the second Morrill Act as a 

“supplement to the Act of 1862.” They were careful to note that the 

latter act applied only to institutions designated by their state legislatures to receive funds from the original act. Anticipating arguments to the contrary, Atherton and Alvord emphasized that the 

broad nature of the original act, and the power it gave to the various 

states to develop their land-grant colleges according to the demands 

of local conditions, had given rise to a disparate class of institutions 

.... They further emphasized that questions of institutional purpose and organization . . . had already been settled in the various 

states “and cannot now be raised to debar them from the benefits of 

the Act of 1890.”

Williams, supra note 2, at 151-52 & n.75. It seems likely that the land-grant college presidents would have obtained explicit language in their favor two months 

earlier if they could have done so. Thus, the absence of such language from the 

Second Morrill Act does not appear to be mere oversight. Rather, it appears to 

reflect a stalemate between the college presidents and the Grange. In these circumstances, we do not find the single (somewhat contradictory) statement by Senator 

Blair to be controlling of our interpretation of the Second Morrill Act.

In sum, although the statute (including its legislative history) is not unambiguous, we conclude that the balance of the evidence supports the view that the Second Morrill A ct’s appropriations may be given to colleges regardless o f whether 

they are endowed under the First Morrill Act. Accordingly, West Virginia could 

validly designate State College to receive appropriations under the Second Morrill 

Act.

207
Opinions o f the O ffice o f Legal Counsel

V. CONCLUSIONS

W e conclude that W est Virginia could validly designate State College as a recipient of Second Morrill Act appropriations without designating it to receive First 

Morrill Act funds. We further conclude that, regardless of State College’s eligibility for Second Morrill Act appropriations, it is not among those colleges eligible 

for benefits under the 1890 derivative statutes.33

W ALTER DELLINGER 

A ssistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

31 A griculture m ay wish to request that C ongress refer specifically to the 1890 colleges in its future appropnacions pursuant to the 1890 derivative statutes. This step would supersede any arguably broader language in the 1890 derivative statutes them selves, and would thereby rem ove all doubt about the intended 

b eneficianes o f these statutes See supra text accom panying note 12

208