Newark post., 1912-11-20

|,
that Congress had made grants Of land
prior to this for a variety of purposes was
adrOitly argued as being upon iii itferent
basis from the proposed measure.
q, In the report from the committee on
public lands, April l5th 1858, the bill
was not recommended for passage. 1t
was strongly urged that the proceeds of
the public domain could be devoted to
no purpose forbidden to the money of the
Federal government, and that if Congress
impaired the value of the public domain,
or failed to receive compensation there
fore it would be faithless to its trust
The conception of the government as
land holder seemed to carry with 1t the
conclusion that the right to dispose Of
the public lands did not carry with it the
right to donate them. The public domain
was held to be a source of revenue on
which the nation must rely in times OF
Emergency. The minority report submit
ted at the same time took issue on all
these points, called attention to the gov.
ernmental support of Agricultural inStl-
tutions in Europe, and to the movement
already begun in some of the states, and
undertook to show that the land grants
already made were not different in prln-
ciple from the one proposed.
| The speech of Mr.. Morrill,, April 20th
/ 1853. in support of his bill, covered prac-
ticaly all the points in the subsequent
discussion in addition to giving general
review of Agricultural conditions in the
country as a basis of the appeal to Con
gress. The reply of Mr.. Morrill, to the
presidential veto, is in the light of his
tory, a pretty complete answer to all the
constitutional questions raised, either in
the debates of Congress or in the veto.
The only point that is now to be kept in
mind, as we recall this history, is, that
there was common consent concerning the
propriety OF the land grant act, donating
public lands for the Foundation of higher
education other than agricultural edu-
cation.
The fears expressed that The proposed
granting of public lands WOald open the
way for further aid on the part of Con
grcSs to elementary education were in
teresting prophecies. just now there is
in the public mind the question raised
whether Federal Aid to general education
is constitutional or has a precedent The
fact that in the second Morrill, Act OF
1890 certain restrictions were made as
to the use of the funds, may be construed
as Congressional caution looking toward
u 'iDStI dppil'tliol VI th' ltii''n diinlh :
from this Act to the purposes originally
intended. These restrictions, however
could hardly be urged against the gener
al policy of Fe leral aid to education
since they were for the obvious purpose
Of increasing the government S part II
the type of education represented in the
land grant colleges. The opinion is here
expressed that the discussions of the fu
ture will not regard the principles embod
, led in the Morrill, Act as antagoniStc tt
the further and wider use of sFedera
, Funds to the support and endowment OF
education On the other hand, adequate
, provision being made for industrial edu
cation, the way to a generous support o.
other types of education will be all thu
, clearer.
, A second line of preparation for esti
| mating the influence of the Morrill, Ac
may be suggested from the public senti
t ment revealed in the activities prior t.
, its passage. President James of illinoi
r has called attention to the activity o
Professor Jonathan b. Turner of Jack
D sonville, Illinois, and to the support h
/ received in the various agricultural gath
{ erinngs in that State. 1t is very eviden
; that throughout the State of Illinois i
: the early tifties sentiment was rapid
I crystalizing in favor of agricultural edt
q cation.
t Continued on page g.