Newark post., 1912-11-20
TIE. INFLUENCE OF THE
MORRILL, ACT UPON AMER
fCAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Address by DR.. W. y. Thompson.
President Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, delivered at the
annual meeting Of the Association
of Agricultural Colleges and EX-
pertinent Stations, at Atlanta,
Georgia. November 18th, 1912.
Anniversary paper. c0mmemor-
ating the 5Oth Anniversary of the
Establishment of Land Grant Col
leges and 25th Anniversary of
State Experiment Stations.
The theme of this paper in the light
of the semi-centennial morning program
does not require an extensive or critical
study of the legislative foundation of the
Morrill, Act, nor does it require that much
attention shall be given to the legal his
tory underlying the movement represent
ed in the colleges whose foundation was
in the Morrill, Act. Nevertheless the
fact that the Act was passed and vetoed
by the President of the United States,
and subsequently passed and signed, and
thus made a law, would suggest that prob
ably the underlying objections as set out
both in the debates in Congress and in
the Presidential Neto would throw some
light upon the effect of this legislation
upon American higher education. shall,
therefore, pass in rapid review at the out
set over some of the essential and char
acterstic features Of the debates con
cerning the passage Of this measure.
The Bill was first passed in the House
by vote of lO5 to 100 on the 22d day
of April. 1858, being the first session of
the 35th Congress. During the second
session of this Congress, on February lth,
! 1859, the Bill passed in the Senate by a
vote of % to -. Nine days later the
House agreed to the Senate Amendments
to the Bill On February 24th, 1899,
President Buchanan sent his veto to the
House of Representatives. In this veto
there were a number of arguments; first
that the time was inopportnne on account
! of the depleted condition of the treasury
second, the effect feared on the relations
between the Federal and State Govern
ments. 1t was argued that this grant OF
lands was the exercise of power OUTSIDE
Of the expressly enumerated powers del
egated to Congress; third, the danger OF
in iury to the new states on the ground
that SPECTATORS would control large
grants of lands fourth, a doubt whether
the bill would contribute to the advance
ment of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts
This doubt was based on the theory that
the Federal Government had no consti
tutiona power to follow it into thu
states and enforce the application of tho
funds to the intended objects. 1t was
urged that the state would lose contro
over the gift after having made it; fifth
il was argued that the bill would inter
fere with existing colleges in the ditferen
states, in many of which agriculture wa
taught as a science, and in all of which
if ought to be so taught. This was th'
familiar argument of paralleling and par
alyzing existing institutions which w
have heard in the present generation
sixth. IA doubt as to the power of Con
sress, under the constitution to make
donation of public lands for the purpos
of educating the people of the severa
states. 1t was affirmed in the veto mes
sage as undeniable that Congress did no
possess the power to appropriate none
in the treasury, raised by taxation, TO
tbe purpose of educating the people o
: the several states. 1t was urged that t
do so would break down the constitutions
barriers between the Federal government
and the several states. Indeed, 1T wa
urged as a step toward the actual cor
soldation of these two governments. ]
was further agreed that to do the sam
thing by indirection, that is, by gran