Rothamsted Experimental Station and the establishment known as the Institut National Agronomique at Paris, France. The work of the Rothamsted Station is given on page 955. Here we are concerned with the National Agricultural Institute

at Paris.'

The outburst in 1848 for popular government and the dissemination of intelligence which created the second French Republic, established at the magnificent suburban resort of the French kings called Versailles an institution named an agricultural institute. The coup d'è'tat that founded the second Napoleonic empire in the course of two or three years ousted this school from the outbuildings and the park of this palace, and the school was no more heard of. The third French Republic of 1875, however, established an institute agronomique whose function was declared to be "to study and to teach the sciences in their relations with agriculture." The school was joined to the School of Arts and Trades (Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers) at Paris. There was a question as to the advisability of locating an agri cultural institute in a city. This fact decided that question, "The great city of Paris alone possessed the savants who are the keystone of the vault of higher education, and the libraries, museums, and all the auxiliary riches of the same nature • which are indispensable to thorough scientific studies (aux fortes études scientifiques)." M. Boussingault was put in general charge of the laboratories, M. Schloesing was appointed professor of chemistry applied to agriculture, and his colleague in the discovery of the microbous ferment in the soil, M. Müntz, had charge of the practical course in chemical manipulations. But in the course of twenty years the instruction has been very greatly changed, though the general plan is the same. In the first place, in 1882 the school was removed from the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers and installed at the corner of Claude Bernard and Arbaléte streets, quite near to the Sorbonne, and "two steps from the Jardin des Plantes."

Each "salle d'études” is capable of holding ten students. They are in rows occupying the front along Claude Bernard street. The library contains 16,000 volumes, and is particularly rich in the literature of agriculture, both French and foreign. The micrographic or botanical dissecting hall will hold forty students, and is fitted up with light tables. The laboratories are numerous and large. In one eighty students may work at the same time. The professor director has a laboratory, so has the professor of chemical analysis and demonstrations, the demonstrators, preparators, etc. There is also a "laboratory of fermentations," of mechanical and hydraulic agriculture, of zootechny. Then there are the museums on the third floor. In all making a very imposing display and offering every inducement to the inhabitants to do something worthy of their opportunities.

THE TRADE INSTITUTE OR MUSEUM.

The conservatism of the French Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers has been pictured by the late Viollet le Duc in his How to Make a Draftsman, a book which should be constantly in the hands of those who are ambitious to direct "industrial education" in America. M. Viollet takes his young draftsman hither and thither in the world, but the Germans, like the English in their South Kensington Museum, collect the productions or imitation thereof of foreign nations past or present in a gewerbe, that is to say a trade, institute, which is not an exchange or place for selling things, but a place for showing how other people make better things than the Germans do, and therefore conquer them in competition. In the next report of this Bureau it is hoped to lay this movement before those interested in the development of industry and competition in the world's markets. It will suffice on the occasion to show the outside appearance of the most recently erected of these institutions.

Following G. Wery in Journal d'Agriculture Pratique, Nos. 43 and 44, 1897

2 Prussia has done the same, founding an agricultural institute in Berlin.

Institutes of the medical faculties of the German universities and the attendance of the

faculties.

e Not including the salary of the six mechanicians to be added in 1894 but included in preceding column.

IV. THE INTEREST OF THE STATE.

The active reform in medical education began about 1880. In the early part of that year the American minister to Germany, Hon. Andrew D. White, addressed a letter to the honorable the Secretary of State, Mr. Evarts, by whom the letter was forwarded to this Department. Mr. White had been requested by the German anthorities to give information respecting the diploma presented by a man named Volland, which had been granted him by the "American University of Philadelphia." Mr. White's letter is as follows:

After looking through the correspondence on record in this legation and seeking in vain for the came of the institution in the list of colleges and universities published by the Bureau of Education in the Department of the Interior at Washington, my answer was unfavorable to Volland's claim... That such cases as these have brought disgrace upon the American system of advanced education and upon the American name in general is certain. This has been recently revealed to me incidentally in a curious way. In a very successful play now running at the Royal Theater in this city (Berlin), a play written, strangely enough, by a judge of one of the highest tribunals in the Empire, one of the characters, in casting a reflection upon another, who is dignified with the title of doctor, declares a belief that the latter had simply bought his degree in America; and in a recent novel by a popular anthor here, the scoundrel of the book, having escaped justice in Germany, goes to America, and is, at last advices, very comfortably settled and practicing medicine with a sham diploma which he has bought for money.

Immediately the police powers of the States were invoked to remedy this evil, and since that date we have seen State after State create boards of medical examiners or

empowering boards of health to act as such. Law, too, has felt the swing of the movement in medicine. But both in the case of medicine and law there are difficulties to be encountered in practice that theory perhaps is too disinclined to see. The principal of these are (1) the control of the States, making forty-five jurisdictions to be taken into consideration, and (2) the fear of creating a close corporation or monopoly. Perhaps by an arrangement among the medical and judicial authorities of the States uniformity might be introduced all over the Republic, while the State, retaining the administrative power in its own hands, might prevent there being a professional monopoly by legislating in such a way as to prevent the accomplishment of the purposes for which monopolies of a dangerous kind are formed. Great Britain, after whose early practice our own is formed, presents us with an example both for what is good and for what appears undesirable in legislating upon this subject.

The earliest effort of a State to regulate, or rather to coordinate institutions maintained and managed by private persons or corporations, is New York. That State, in 1784, created a board of regents of the University of New York, which is a State body, composed of the governor, the lieutenant-governor, the secretary of state, the state superintendent of public instruction, and nineteen members chosen by the State legislature. The duties of this board are to approve the incorporation of colleges and secondary schools, to visit and inspect such institutions, to examine into their condition and methods, and to grant honorary degrees above the degree of magister artium, and to establish examinations for the bestowal of a degree of any grade. From time to time since 1866 the board has also been called upon to examine candidates for the degree of doctor of medicine and of dentistry and to confer those degrees, to establish a standard of graduation from the secondary schools (which is also the entrance requirement to any college in the State), and, finally, to examine candidates for matriculation in a law or medical school or other place for the study of law or medicine, as to the literary qualifications of such candidates.

By a law passed June 26, 1895, the State of Pennsylvania instituted an official body, which has control of the incorporation and the course of study of all institutions empowered to confer degrees established after the date of the act. This official body is styled the College and University Council of the State of Pennsylvania, and its members are the governor of the State, the attorney-general, the superintendent of public instruction, and nine persons appointed by the governor, three of whom are presidents of undenominational colleges or universities of the State of Pennsylvania, three others are presidents of denominational colleges, and the remaining three members have some relationship to the common schools of the State. No new institution may be chartered by the College and University Council unless it has property amounting to $500,000 to be exclusively used in education, has a faculty of six or more regular professors who are to devote their entire time to instruction, and requires four years of study for a degree, the requisites for entrance upon each course of study leading to a degree being fixed by the College and University Council. But a university or a college empowered before the passage of the act creating the College and University Council to confer degrees may continue to do so provided, in the case of the university, it have $500,000 in property or capital, and in the case of the college, $100,000. The recent action of the State of Pennsylvania is the most decisive step taken in the United States for the regulation of granting degrees, which is the object of the law, for it states explicitly within itself that its provisions shall not apply to institutions possessing capital stock and established for purposes of private profit or gain. This law is too recently enacted to speak of its results.

In the United States the admission to the bar of persons who desire to practice in the Federal courts has been left by Congress in the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the States, though invariably it is a court of law which licenses the applicant, much diversity exists in the manner of ascertaining his qualifi

cations. In some States the local courts decide upon this question; in others it is the supreme court of the state that establishes the rules by which the applicant's knowledge is tested. It is very generally the case, however, that the examination is made by a committee of the court. A notable innovation on this time-honored method is that of the State of West Virginia, which sends all applicants who desire to be admitted to the State bar to the faculty of law of the University of West Virginia. This body examines the applicants and certifies the result of its examination to the supreme court of the State, by which final action is taken.'

The licensing of persons who desire to practice medicine is entirely in the hands of the legislatures of the several States. These bodies have delegated their powers to certain boards of medicine, sometimes called a State Board of Health, sometimes a State Board of Examiners. The discretionary power of the majority of these boards is very large. There are now eighteen States having the rule to admit no one unless he has been examined by the board of that State. These States are thus treating not only each other, but all other sister States of the Union as though they were foreign countries. A very interesting question, indeed, is raised in this matter by a correspondent of the Bureau, in answer to a recent inquiry, who replies that "The law of his State does not permit reciprocity, which in his opinion is an error and unconstitutional."

In the tabulations which follow are given the answers concerning citizenship, the treatment of a diploma from a school in a sister State or in a foreign country, and admission of practitioners of a sister State or foreign country.

SUMMARY OF TABLE.

Medicine.

Showing the number of States (a) which will not accept a diploma from any school as an evidence of fitness to practice medicine; (b) those that do not make any distinction between a diploma from schools in their own State or those of another State of the Union and the diploma of a foreign school; and (c) those that will not accept a State certificate from the medical authority of a foreign government or of a sister State as prima facie evidence of fitness to practice medicine.

Class a: States that refuse to accept the diploma of any school-Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico (from foreign countries), North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington (?), and West Virginia.

Class: States that make no distinction between home and foreign diplomasCalifornia, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kausas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington (?), Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Among these twenty-eight States are eight which require both a diploma and an examination. States thus admitting no one to examination unless he has a diploma are Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and South Carolina.

Classe: States that will not accept a State certificate from the medical authority of a foreign government or of a sister State-Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey (except in the case of certificates from the State board of New York or of Pennsylvania), North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania (certificates from New Jersey State board are accepted), Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.

1 See page 1191.