Senator Hoke Smith, Southern Congressmen, and Agricultural Education, 1914-1917 Author(s): Philip A. Grant, Jr. Source: Agricultural History, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring, 1986), pp. 111-122 Published by: Agricultural History Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3743434 Accessed: 09-01-2017 17:14 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

Agricultural History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Agricultural History

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Senator Hoke Smith, Southern

Congressmen, and Agricultural Education, 1914-1917 PHILIP A. GRANT, JR.

On 1 December 1913 the Second Session

of the Sixty-Third Congress was called to order. Between

ening ceremonies on that date and the formal adjournment o Sixty-Fourth Congress on 3 March 1917 the House of Rep tives and United States Senate were to devote a substantial

amount of time and attention to agricultural legislation. A

the landmark farm bills enacted into law during this thirtymonth period were the Cotton Futures Act, the Federal Farm (Rural Credits) Act, and the Warehouse Act. In addition to these

measures Congress approved two significant bills, the Agricultural Extension Act of 1914 and the Vocational Educational Act of 1917.

The Agricultural Extension Bill had been introduced in September 1913 by Representative A. Frank Lever of South Carolina and Senator Hoke Smith of Georgia. The bill provided for a system of agricultural extension work based on cooperation between the Department of Agriculture and the numerous land-grant colleges. The program, calling for an annual expenditure of $4,580,000 and authorizing the appointment of two farm demonstration agents in PHILIP A. GRANT, JR. is a member of the History Department, Pace College. agricultural history volume 60 * number 2 * spring 1986. c agricultural history society

111

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

112 agricultural history

each of the nation's 2,850 rural counties, was to be financed

equally by federal grants-in-aid and appropriations by the state legislatures.' Because Congress was preoccupied with such vital questions as tariff reform and the proposal to establish the Federal Reserve System, action on the Agricultural Extension Bill was necessarily deferred for several months. At the time of the introduction of the Agricultural Extension Bill

both the House and Senate were largely under southern domination. Indeed 103 of the 291 Democrats in the House and 22 of the 51

Democrats in the Senate were from the South. Deriving obvious advantage from the traditional one-party nature of southern politics, many of these congressmen had accumulated considerable senior-

ity and thereby had acquired choice committee assignments.2 The most prominent southern Democrats serving in the House

in 1913 were Majority Leader Oscar W. Underwood of Alabama and Rules Committee Chairman Robert L. Henry of Texas. Presiding over key standing committees were such veterans as Carter Glass of Virginia (Banking and Currency), William C. Adamson of Georgia (Interestate and Foreign Commerce), Henry D. Clayton of

Alabama (Judiciary), and Benjamin C. Humphreys of Mississippi (Flood Control).3 Wielding influence in the Senate in 1913 were President pro tempore James P. Clarke of Arkansas and Appropriations Committee Chairman Thomas S. Martin of Virginia. Other individuals chairing major Senate committees were Furnifold M. Simmons of North Carolina (Finance), Charles A. Culberson of Texas (Judi1. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, H.R. 7951-A bill to provide for cooperative agricultural extension work between the agricultural colleges in the several States receiving the benefits of an act of Congress approved July 2, 1862, and acts supplementary thereto, and the United States Department of Agriculture, September 6, 1913. 2. U.S. Congress, Congressional Directory, 1913 (Washington: GPO, 1913), 131-40, 14354; Guide to U.S. Elections (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1975), 457-81, 71723, 928; Richard M. Abrams, "Woodrow Wilson and the Southern Congressmen, 1913-1916," Journal of Southern History 22 (November 1956): 417-37; Arthur S. Link, "The South and the 'New Freedom': An Interpretation," American Scholar 20 (Summer 1951): 314-24; George S. Tindall, The Emergence of the New South, 1913-1945 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967): 1-18. 3. Lawrence F. Kennedy (comp.), Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 17741971 (Washington: GPO, 1971), 495, 750, 1007, 1108, 1161, 1843; David C. Roller and Robert W. Twyman, eds., The Encyclopedia of Southern History (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1979), 6, 239, 545, 718, 1260.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

113 Senator Hoke Smith

ciary), Duncan U. Fletcher of Florida (Commerce), and J Bankhead of Alabama (Post Offices and Post Roads).4

Representative Lever and Senator Smith certainly ranked the more activist members of Congress. Representing two original southern states, Lever and Smith were keenly awar acute economic problems facing their heavily agrarian cons

cies. Both gentlemen were to compile records of genuine tion on Capitol Hill. A lawyer by profession, Lever had been educated at Newberry

College and Georgetown Law School. At the time of his election to Congress in 1901, Lever was serving in the South Carolina House of Representatives. Destined to spend ten consecutive terms in the House, he was Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture between 1913 and 1919.5

Smith was also an attorney. During the final years of the nineteenth century he had been editor of the Atlanta Journal and Secretary of the Interior under President Grover Cleveland. Smith twice had been elected Governor of Georgia prior to entering the Senate in 1911. From 1913 to 1919 Smith was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor and a senior member

of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.6

Since the House Agriculture Committee was firmly contro

by Democrats, it was expected that the Lever Bill would be fav

rably reported without excessive delay. On December 8, 191 bill was unanimously approved by the committee. Joining Lever in supporting the measure were five southerners, Gordon Lee of

Georgia, Ezekiel S. Chandler of Mississippi, J. Thomas Heflin of Alabama, James Young of Texas, and Henderson M. Jacoway of

Arkansas.7

4. Biographical Directory of American Congress, 548, 746, 805, 950-951, 1345, 1698; Encyclopedia of Southern History, 100, 438, 783, 1105-06, 1119-20. 5. Francis B. Simkins, "Asbury Francis Lever," Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement Two (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), 379-80; Biographical Directory of American Congress, 1285. 6. Dewey W. Grantham, Jr., Hoke Smith and the Politics of the New South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1958), 3-253; Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds., Biographical Directory of the Governors of the United States, 1789-1978 4 vols. (Westport, Connecticut: Meeker Books, 1978), I, 310; Biographical Directory of American Congress, 1714. 7. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Report Number 111, 8 December 1913; Congressional Directory, 1913, 185.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

114 agricultural history

The Lever Bill was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules procedure on 19 January 1914. Three of the eleven speeches in the Senate chamber were delivered by southerners. In addition to Lever, Majority Leader Underwood and Rep-

resentative Dudley M. Hughes of Georgia argued in favor of passage of the bill. Lever, noting that the agricultural colleges and the Department

of Agriculture were in possession of valuable information, insisted that, if this information were made available to the farmer,

it would effect "a complete and absolute revolution in the social, economic, and financial condition of our rural population." Identifying the fundamental problem to be linking up the farmer with the various sources of information, Lever asserted:

This bill proposes to set up a series of general demonstration teaching throughout the country, and the agent in the field

of the Department and the college is to be the mouthpiece through which this information will reach the people-the man

and woman and the boy and girl on the farm. You can not make the farmer change the methods which have been sufficient to earn a livelihood for himself and his family for many years unless you show him, under his own vine and fig tree as it were, that you have a system better than the system which he himself has been following.8

Underwood, who had been a leading contender for the 1912 Democratic presidential nomination, was the only member of his party ever to occupy the post of floor leader both in the House and the Senate. Underwood explained that the Lever Bill was designed to supplement the efforts of the Department of Agriculture and transmit relevant information into rural communities. Believing that it was impossible for most farmers to profit from the contributions of the Department by reading bulletins or pamphlets, Under-

wood concluded: "In order that the people of the United States may receive the full benefit of this work you must carry it to the farm by a man who knows the work itself and can demonstrate it."9 Hughes maintained that his support of the Lever Bill was based 8. U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, Sixty-Third Congress, Second Session (Washington: GPO, 1914), 51: 1937. 9. Ibid., 1945-46.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

115 Senator Hoke Smith

on his forty years of experience as a "practical farmer." The G

gian, pleased that the bill would "place within the reach o farmer that which he can understand and apply," climaxed his remarks as follows:

... This information, which has been obtained by scientific re-

search, is locked up in the vaults of our agricultural colleges, dormant and rusty. This bill is the key which will unlock these vaults and make the valuable information now had and to be

obtained to the farmer on the land and by demonstration put it

into the various agricultural channels where it will render great service and get results.'0

Altogether only two hours of discussion were allotted for th Lever Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that a few congressmen ex pressed reservations over the wisdom of specific features of t bill, it appeared certain that the measure would be approved b the House. After the Speaker's gavel fell, the bill passed by a 17 9 standing vote."1

While the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee had r ported the Smith Bill on 10 December 1913, the Senate decided wait until the House had disposed of the Lever Bill. Accordingly on 26 January 1914 Smith informed his colleagues that the Agr culture and Forestry Committee was urging passage of the Hou Bill. Agreeing with Smith were the four other southern committe members, Ellison D. Smith of South Carolina, Morris Sheppard of Texas, Joseph E. Ransdell of Louisiana, and Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas.12

Unlike the House, the Senate debated the Agricultural Extension Bill in leisurely fashion between January 28 and February 7. Whil only a small number of senators voiced direct criticism of the ob-

jectives of the bill, a number of substantive amendments were proposed. Several midwestern and western senators claimed th the bill, as constituted, was unduly favorable to the South.13 10. Ibid., 1933-35. 11. Ibid., 1947.

12. U.S. Senate, Report Number 139, 10 December 1913; Report Number 175, 26 January 1914; Congressional Directory, 1913, 162. 13. Congressional Record, 51: 2425-29, 2511-25, 2572-83, 2650-55, 2731-45, 2929-48, 3031-46, 3115-30.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

116 agricultural history

The most serious obstacles to the preservation of the Smith Bill involved amendments offered by Republicans Albert B. Cummins

of Iowa and Wesley L. Jones of Washington. Cummins was upset over the formula for distribution of federal appropriations under

the bill, while Jones was convinced that black colleges would likely be denied access to federal funds. Cummins felt that it was grossly unfair that eligibility for federal appropriations would be based strictly on rural population. The lowan insisted that such an arrangement would be overly beneficial to the South and clearly discriminatory against other parts of the nation. The Cummins Amendment provided that federal money would be allocated "in the proportion within which the acres of improved land in farms in each State bears to the total acres of improved land in farms of all the States." Strenuously opposing the Cummins Amendment, Smith warned that its adoption would guarantee that a few of the more affluent states would gain a disproportionate share of the federal funds. The Cummins Amendment was defeated 41-16. On this roll call Smith and thirteen other southern

senators were aligned against the amendment, while not a single southerner was recorded in the affirmative.14

Jones was fearful that white political leaders in southern states would ignore black colleges on the question of dispensing federal funds. According to the Jones Amendment, federal money would have to be "equitably divided" between white and black colleges in those states sanctioning racial segregation. Senator James K. Vardaman of Mississippi denounced the Jones Amendment, maintaining that agricultural extension work had to be directed by "the

Anglo-Saxon, the man of proven judgment, initiative, wisdom, and experience." The Jones Amendment was rejected by a 32-23 margin. Twelve of the negative votes were supplied by southern senators, and no southerner was listed among the amendment's supporters.15 During the course of debate several minor amendments were attached to the Agricultural Extension Bill. On 7 February 1914 the 14. Ibid., 2744.

15. Congressional Record, 51: 3124; William F. Holmes, The White Chief. James Kimble Vardaman (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970), 286; New York Times, 7 February 1914, p. 2; Washington Post, 7 February 1914, p. 6.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

117 Senator Hoke Smith

Senate passed the bill by voice vote. Since there were a nu of variations between the House and Senate versions of the mea-

sure, it was necessary to appoint a conference committee to reconcile the differences.16

The House designated a conference committee of three members on February 21 and the Senate chose a panel consisting of the same number three days later. Four of the six conferees were southerners. In addition to Lever and Smith, Representative Lee

of Georgia and Senator Robinson of Arkansas were vested with the responsibility of finalizing a compromise between the House and Senate. Lee, who had served his political apprenticeship in both Houses of the Georgia Legislature, in 1914 was in his fifth of eleven terms in the House. Robinson, a former Governor of Arkansas, would later be the 1928 Democratic vice-presidential nom-

inee and Senate Majority Leader.17 The conference committee did not reach accord until late April. On April 27 the House adopted the conference report by voice

vote and on May 2 the Senate did likewise. The Agricultural Extension (Smith-Lever) Bill was signed into law at the White House by President Woodrow Wilson on May 8.18 The origins of the Vocational Education Act of 1917 could be traced to a joint resolution offered by Senator Smith in April 1913. The Smith Resolution called for the establishment of a presidential commission to devise a plan for federal assistance to agricultural and industrial schools. After signing the resolution on 20 January 1914, President Wilson appointed Smith as Chairman of the new commission and Representative Hughes of Georgia as one of its eight other members.19 16. Congressional Record, 51: 3130; New York Times, 8 February 1914; Washington Post, 8 February 1914, p. 4. 17. Congressional Record, 50: 3744-45, 3877; Nevin E. Neal, "Joseph Taylor Robinson," Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement Two, 566-68; Biographical Directory of American Congress, 1276. 18. House Report 587, 27 April 1914; Congressional Record, 51: 7305, 7645-46; Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966-1985),

30: 8; The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, 1913-1915 (Washington: GPO 1915), 38: 372-74; Murray R. Benedict, Farm Policies of the United States, 1790-1850 (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., 1953), 153-54. 19. United States Senate, S.J.Res. 5-A joint resolution providing for the appointment of a commission to consider the need and report a plan for national aid to vocational education, 7 April 1913; Congressional Record, 51: 1616, 1624, 2016.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

118 agricultural history

Based on the recommendations of the commission, Smith and

Hughes introduced the Vocational Education Bills in their respective bodies at the opening of the Sixty-Fourth Congress in Decem-

ber 1915. The Smith-Hughes measure authorized three million dollars annually for salaries of teachers and supervisors of agricultural subjects and one million per year for the preparation of teachers and supervisors in industrial and agricultural schools. As in the Smith-Lever Act, the bill provided for cooperation between the national and state governments.20 On 31 January 1916 the Senate Education and Labor Committee reported the Vocational Education Bill. The two other southerners registering approval of Smith's proposal were Senators Oscar W. Underwood of Alabama and Claude A. Swanson of Vir-

ginia. Underwood had relinquished his House seat to seek elec tion to the Senate in 1914, and Swanson had previously serve the House and as Governor of Virginia.21

Because Congress was devoting nearly all its energies to th issue of military preparedness in the winter and spring of 1

the Senate did not seriously consider the Smith Bill until the fi week of July. Since the bill was not deemed to be controversial,

only one hour was needed for routine discussion of its contents. Observing that the Senate had been focusing attention on preparation for war, Smith commented:

... We might well give some preparation for peace and to the better preparation of our girls and boys for the struggles of life,

for its joys and its trials. We might well present the fact that even in case of war more men and women would be required at home to prepare the instruments of war and to prepare the

food and clothing for the soldier than those who would be

required to be at the front. They should be prepared for their duties in war and in peace. 20. U.S. Senate, S. 703-A bill to provide for the promotion of vocational education; to provide for cooperation with the States in the promotion of such education in agriculture and the trades and industries; to provide for cooperation with the States in the preparation of teachers of vocational education; and to appropriate monet and regulate its expenditure, 7 December 1915.

21. Senate Report 97, 31 January 1916; Congressional Directory, 1916, 162; Grace C. Farnum, "Claude Augustus Swanson," Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement Two, 641-42.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

119 Senator Hoke Smith

After Smith had terminated his remarks, the Vocational Education

Bill was approved by voice vote.22 In the House the Hughes Bill had been reported by the Education Committee on 12 February 1916. The southern members voting affirmatively on the committee report were Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, John W. Abercrombie of Alabama, and William J. Sears of Florida.23

The House did not begin debate on the Vocational Education Bill until 22 December 1916 on which date Hughes recommended

approval of the Senate measure. A former member of the Georgia State Senate and President of the Georgia State Agriculture Society, Hughes was Chairman of the Education Committee between 1911 and 1917. In his capacity as chairman Hughes assumed overall direction of the bill during three days of floor discussion.24

Three southerners, Representatives Doughton, George Huddleston of Alabama, and James L. Slayden of Texas, voiced their sentiments on the Vocational Education Bill, Doughton and Huddleston were enthusiastically in favor of the bill, while Slayden was unalterably opposed to its passage.

Doughton, who was later to be Chairman of the prestigious Committee on Ways and Means, was alarmed that the population was steadily declining in hundreds of the nation's rural counties. Alleging that the existing forms of public education were of "little

value" to the majority of people engaged in agriculture, Doughton concluded that "no more important matter has been or will

be considered by this Congress."25 A member of one of Alabama's most renowned political families, Huddleston served in the House from 1915 to 1937. The Ala-

bamian hailed vocational education as that which fitted the youth of the country "to make his way in the world, that which teaches

good judgment as applied to the business of earning a living." 22. U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, Sixty-Fourth Congress, First Session (Washington: GPO, 1916) 53: 6478-80, 9223-24, 11275, 11403, 11404, 11873-78.

23. House Report 181, 12 February 1916; Congressional Directory, 1916, 184.

24. U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, Sixty-Fourth Congress, Second Session (Washington: GPO, 1917) 54: 714-25, 749-82, 1971-84; Biographical Directory of American Congress, 1156. 25. Congressional Record, 54: A79-A80.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

120 agricultural history

Predicting that the type of education encouraged by the bill should "produce better farms, and more fruitful fields," Huddleston declared:

... By it the yield of the farm will be enhanced so that the cost of living will be reduced, farm income multiplied and reflected in better farm dwellings, more of the comforts of life, rural life made more attractive, and the farming population increased.2 Slayden was distinctly hostile to the idea of federal involvement in education. Construing the Vocational Education Bill "as

an assault upon the prerogatives and the high duties of the States," Slayden held that the bill was ... in derogation of the dignity of the States, and hurtful to the system of public schools within the States, in that it will teach

the taxpayers more and more to rely upon federal appropriations, but it suffices to tempt gentlemen from the traditions and principles of their party, the party of Thomas Jefferson.27

The House on 9 January 1917 passed the Vocational Education Bill by voice vote. Two days later, citing of number of differences between the Senate and House bills, Senator Smith sought the appointment of a conference committee. By January 13 both the Senate and the House had chosen their conferees. Three of the

six members of the conference committee, Senators Smith and

Swanson and Representative Hughes, were southerners.28 After five weeks of meetings the House and Senate reached agreement on the final provisions of the Vocational Education Bill. The conference report was adopted by the Senate on Febru-

ary 16 and ratified by the House on the following day. Six days after the completion of congressional action President Wilson signed the bill.29 There were several factors which explained why Smith, Lever, 26. Ibid., 723-25. 27. Ibid., 1079.

28. Ibid., 1084, 1189, 1332.

29. House Report 711, 16 February 1917; Congressional Record, 54: 3262-63, 3423-29, 3482-83; Statutes at Large, 39: 929-36; Washington Post, 17 February 1917, p. 6; 18 February 1917, p. 4.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

121 Senator Hoke Smith

Hughes, and their southern colleagues supported the Agric Extension Act and the Vocational Education Act. They were the political spokesmen of a region harboring the nation's highest proportion of rural population. According to the Census of 1910, 80.1 percent of southerners resided in rural communities and 35.9 percent of the country's rural inhabitants were concentrated in eleven southern states.

The essentially rural complexion of the South and its congr sional districts was reflected in the official statistics relating farming. In 1910 the 2,959,000 southern farms constituted 43.9 percent of the nationwide total, while in the same year the south-

ern states accounted for 40.5 percent of the overall farm population of 32,037,000.

Although the South led other parts of the nation in various agricultural categories, the region possessed a relatively modest share of actual farm land, In the Census of 1910 the southern states

contained only 291,850,000, or 32.9 percent, of the 881,431,000 acres of farm land in the United States. Moreover, southern farms were considerably smaller than farms in other sections of the

country. Whereas the average farm throughout the nation consisted of 139 acres, the comparative figure for the South was 105 acres.

The South was also deficient in such importan value of farm property and average value per fa

aggregate worth of American farm property was e

$34,885,000,000. In the South the value was only or 18.3 percent, of the nationwide total. Throug the average farm was appraised at $5480, while figure was a mere $2051, or 38.2 percent, of the Perhaps the most ominous figures in southern agriculture involved the low proportion of improved land and the prevalancy of farm tenancy. In only three southern states, Virginia, Tennessee,

and Louisiana, was a majority of the acreage improved in 1910, and throughout the region only 44.2 percent of the farm land was improved. In 1910 tenant farms constituted a majority of farms in six of eleven southern states, while tenant farms exceeded 40 percent of the total number in three other states. Within the South

50.2 percent of all farms in 1910 were operated by tenants. The

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

122 agricultural history

high percentage of unimproved farm land and the reality of farm

tenancy undoubtedly influenced the attitudes of southern congressmen on the desirability of upgrading agriculture by increased emphasis on extension work and by enhancing the growth of agricultural schools.

When the Sixty-Third Congress had been called to order in 1913, the Democrats had undisputed control of the House and Senate for the first time in eighteen years. Through their accession to the chairmanships of committees exercising jurisdiction over agriculture and education, Smith, Lever, and Hughes were afforded the opportunity to initiate legislation in such areas as agricultural extension and vocational education. Most of their fel-

low southerners recognized that the South was less advanced in agriculture than other regions of the nation. While the Agricultural Extension (Smith-Lever) Act of 1914 and the Vocational Edu-

cational (Smith-Hughes) Act of 1917 were admittedly limited in scope and certainly not as sweeping as many of the farm bills in the New Deal era, they were designed to improve the quality of rural life and enable the South to be more competitive in developing its farm economy.

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:14:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms