"With the different State agricultural colleges, and the State agricultural societies, or boards, we have every advantage for building up a national bureau of agriculture worthy of the country and its vast productive interests, and on a thoroughly economical basis, such as that of Prussia, for instance."

In short, the view in mind was something in the nature of that which has since been adopted by our neighbors of the North, where there is a central or national station or farm at Ottawa and sub-stations or branch farms at Nappan, Nova Scotia, Brandon, Manitoba, Indian Head, N.W.T., and Agassiz, British Columbia, all under the able direction of Mr. William Saunders, one of our esteemed fellow workers. It was my privilege to be a good deal with Mr. Saunders when he was in Europe studying the experience of other countries in this matter, and the policy finally adopted in Canada as a result of his labors is an eminently wise one, preventing some of the difficulties and dangers which beset our plan, whether as between State and nation or college and station.

Under the present laws and with the vast influence which the Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations will wield, both in Congress and in the different States, there is great danger of transposition, in this agricultural body politic, of those parts which in the animal body are denominated head and tail, and the old saw to the effect that "the dog wags the tail because the tail cannot wag the dog," will find another application. So far as the law goes, the national department, which should hold a truly national position toward State agricultural institutions depending on federal support, can do little except by suggestion, whether in the line of directing plans or in any way co-ordinating or controlling the work of the different stations throughout the country. The men who influenced and shaped the legislation which resulted in the Hatch bill were careful that the department's function should be to indicate, not to dictate; to advise and assist, not to govern or regulate. We have, therefore, to depend on such relationships and such plans of co-operation as will appear advantageous to all concerned, and these can best be brought about through such associations as are now in convention here.

Without such plans there is great danger of such waste of energy and means and duplication of results as will bring the work into popular disfavor and invite disintegration, for already there is a growing feeling that agricultural experiment is and will be subordinated to the ordinary college work in the disposition of the federal appropriations.

What is true of the national department as a whole in its connection with the State stations is true in a greater or less degree of the different divisions of the department in connection with the different specialists of the stations. With the multiplicity of workers in any given direction in the different States, the necessity for national work lessens. A favorite scheme of mine in the past, for instance (and one I am glad to say fully indorsed by Prof. Willits), was to endeavor to have a permanent agent located in every section of the country that was sufficiently distinctive in its agricultural resources and climate, or, as a yet further elaboration of the same plan, one in each of the more important agricultural States. The necessity for such State agents has been lessened, if not obviated, by the Hatch bill, and the subsequent modifications looking to permanent appropriations to the State stations or colleges, which give no central power at Washington. The question then arises, What function shall the national department perform? Its influence and field for usefulness have been lessened rather than augmented in the lines of actual investigation in very many directions.

Many a State is already far better equipped both as to valuable surrounding land, laboratory and library facilities, more liberal salaries, and greater freedom from red tape, administrative routine, and restrictions as to expenditures, than we are at Washington; and, except as a directing agent and a useful servant, I cannot see where the future growth of the department's influence is to be outside of those federal functions which are executive. Just what that directing influence is to be is the question of the hour, not only in the broader but in the special sense. The same question, in a narrower sense, had arisen in the case of the few States which employed State entomologists. In the event, for instance, of an outbreak of some injurious insect, or in the event of any particular economic entomological question within the limits of the State having such an officer, the United States entomologist would naturally feel that any effort on his part would be unnecessary, or might even be looked upon as an interference.

He would feel that there was always danger of mere duplication of observation or experiment, except where appealed to for aid or co-operation. This is, perhaps, true only of insects which are local or sectional, and is rather a narrow view of the matter, but it is one brought home from experience, and is certainly to be considered in our future plans. The favor with which the museum work of the national division was viewed by you at the meeting last November and the amount of material sent on for determination would indicate that the building up of a grand national reference collection will be most useful to the station workers. But to do this satisfactorily we need your co-operation, and I appeal to all entomologists to aid in this effort by sending duplicates of their types to Washington, and thus more fully insuring against ultimate loss thereof.

Status Of Our Society

This train of thought brings up the question of the status of our society with the station entomologists as represented by the committee of the general association. Those of us who had desired a national association for the various purposes for which such associations are formed, felt, I believe, if I may speak for them, that the creation of the different experimental stations rendered such an organization feasible. Your organization at Toronto and the constitution adopted and amended at the meeting at Washington all indicate that the chief object was the advancement of our chosen work and that the strength of the association would come from the experiment station entomologists. There was then no other organization of the kind, nor any intimation that such a one would be founded. Some of us therefore were surprised to learn from the circular sent out by Prof. Forbes, its chairman, that the committee appointed by the association of agricultural colleges and experiment stations, and through which we had hoped to communicate and co-operate with that association, was not in the proper sense a committee, but a section which has prepared (and in fact was required by the executive committee and the rules of the superior body to prepare) a programme of papers and discussions for the meeting to be held at the same time and place with our own.