In almost any course in agricultural education or vocational education, one thing that is likely to be mentioned is the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. I suppose that in nearly every graduate course in vocational education I have ever taken or taught, the 1917 Act and its impact on the present form of the profession have been discussed. Vocational educators often attribute the very beginnings of our profession in the U.S. to this single piece of legislation.

If you read all of the theme articles in this issue, you will find that was not the case, and that vocational and agricultural education were already accepted parts of the American educational scene well before 1917, and, in fact, were growing steadily more popular. The Act, however, did establish vocational education as a federal program and provide both the form and much of the substance of vocational education as we have known it over the past 70 years. Indeed, there is general agreement that the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 is the most important single event in the history of vocational and agricultural education in America (Camp & Crunkilton, 1985).

We also often speak of Smith and Hughes as though they originated vocational education; whereas, that is certainly not true. This is not to minimize the critical roles played by either of these two men in the passage of this benchmark legislation. However, this article will point out that there are four men whose efforts and influence were largely responsible for the formulation and passage of the Smith- Hughes Act of 1917. And, of those four, Smith and Hughes probably played lesser roles in the action than did the other two.

Prosser

Charles Prosser was the only professional educator among the four principal players. As a prominent educational leader with experience in industrial education program development, Prosser was hired in 1912 as the first Executive Secretary of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education (NSPIE). The NSPIE had been formed in 1906 for the expressed purpose of securing federal support for industrial education. In that position, Prosser's sole function was to work toward what would eventually become the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 (Wirth, 1972; Barlow, 1967; Barlow, 1976).

One of Prosser's chief early allies was Senator Carroll Page (R, Vermont), who would propose and fight unsuccessfully for several bills to provide federal support for vocational education over the next few years. Prosser was most influential in the wording of Page's bills and in planning the efforts at their passage.

 
Because of his leadership in the move toward federal legislation, and as a result of great political pressure from the NSPIE, Prosser was named to the Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education in 1914. Since he had written much of the Page bills, Prosser was in a particularly strong position to influence the Commission's deliberations. It is generally accepted that he wrote the portion of the Commission's Report that later became the Smith-Hughes Bill and later the Act of 1917 (Venn, 1964).
 

Page

Senator Carroll S. Page, a Republican senator from Vermont, was a disciple of the late Senator Justin Morrill, also of Vermont, whose Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 had been so influential in the development of land grant colleges in the United States. It was his desire to leave a legacy of similar accomplishment credited to his name. In 1911, Senator Page assumed responsibility for promoting legislation for vocational education. He immediately formed an alliance with Charles Prosser and began a six-year odyssey of frustrations in a futile attempt to secure passage of vocational legislation under his sponsorship.

In 1916 when the Senate was preparing to vote on the Smith-Hughes Bill, Senator Hoke Smith rose to pay tribute to Senator Page's work and leadership in the formulation of the legislation. Smith specifically indicated that, but for the Democratic majority resulting from the 1913 election, Page would have been in charge of the bill. By direct implication, he thus conceded that the bill would have been the Page Bill.
 
Senator Page appears to have been a good-hearted, but rather ineffectual parliamentarian who was out-maneuvered repeatedly by the wily Hoke Smith. On the other hand, one wonders whether Page could have ever succeeded in securing the passage of the bill without Smith's support.

Smith

Hoke Smith was governor of Georgia during the early part of the century and was a supporter of vocational education as well as a strong advocate of rural interests in general and agriculture in particular. In 1908, while governor, he spoke on both subjects to a meeting of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education (NSPIE), expressing strong support for vocational education. Later, as a Democratic senator from Georgia, he proposed legislation to establish the Cooperative Extension Service (the Smith-Lever Act of 1914). As a result of the election in 1913, of a slight Democratic majority in the Senate, he was named chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. He also prepared the legislation creating a Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education in 1914. As a result of his involvement in vocational education, his chairmanship of the relevant Senate committee, and his role in the establishment of the Commission, Senator Smith was appointed chairman of the commission, putting him in a pivotal position for formulating the later legislation. On December 7, 1915, he introduced Senate Bill 703 (later to become known as the Smith-Hughes Bill) and it was referred to the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. Senator Smith was a very powerful and influential member of the Senate, being generally regarded as a skillful parliamentarian and political strategist.

Hughes

Representative Dudley M. Hughes was a Democratic Congressman, also from Georgia, and Chairman of the House Committee on Education during this time frame. Hughes was well known in his home state for his support of agricultural education both at the college and secondary levels. His efforts in 1905 were instrumental in the expansion of the use of agricultural clubs as an instructional tool in agricultural education (Dudley M. Hughes Vocational School, 1955.)

Because of his influential position on the House committee and his long-standing support for industrial education, he was also appointed by President Wilson to the Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education in 1914. He introduced House Bill 11250 on February 10, 1916, as the Smith-Hughes Bill. Representative Hughes was also known as a skilled parliamentarian and politician (Barlow, 1976).

Between 1900 and 1917, at least 38 Senate and House bills were offered pertaining to vocational education (Hawkins, Prosser & Wright, 1966). Two of those were the Dolliver Bill (S.4675), introduced in 1908, then reintroduced as the Davis Bill (H.R. 20374) in 1910. When Senator Dolliver (Iowa) died in 1910, the newly elected Senator Page reintroduced the Dolliver Bill in 1911 as the Page Bill (S.3). Representative Wilson (Pennsylvania) submitted the companion bill in the house (Hawkins, et al, 1966). During the succeeding months, a number of serious flaws surfaced in the bill and Senator Page introduced numerous changes. Some of the changes appeared to be poorly thought out. As a result, it began to become apparent that, although there was widespread support for vocational education in the country and in Congress, the Page-Wilson Bill might not be successful. Even the NSPIE and the United States Commissioner of Education could not support the bill in its original form (Bennett, 1937; Barlow, 1967; Barlow, 1976).

In 1912, Senator Smith introduced the agricultural extension bill in the Senate and Representative Lever (South Carolina) introduced it in the House. During the ensuing deliberations, it became clear to Smith that the passage of both bills in the same session of Congress was unlikely. Since his first loyalty was to the agricultural extension bill, the Senator from Georgia succeeded in undermining the Page-Wilson Bill through a series of brilliant parliamentary maneuvers. At one point, he managed to get the provisions of the Page-Wilson Bill incorporated into the Smith-Lever Bill, then, just as quickly dropped it from his extension bill. This move, coupled with the rather careless steps by Page, resulted in the Smith-Lever Bill's becoming the more passable of the two (Barlow 1976; Bennett, 1937).

Smith then proposed a compromise to Page and Prosser. He suggested that they support the Smith-Lever Bill, in exchange for which he would propose a Commission on National Aid for Vocational Education, and his subsequent support for a vocational education bill in the next Congress. The deal was struck, and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 established the Cooperative Extension Service (Venn, 1964). The Commission was established in 1914, and the Democratic President Wilson appointed Senator Smith to chair it, with Page, Hughes, and Prosser among its members (Barlow, 1976).

Prosser largely wrote the part of the report that was later enacted. It was basically a revision of the Page-Wilson Bill, with some of the problems that had been included in the earlier document worked out. Because Senator Smith was chairman of the Commission, his name was attached to the report. Because it was "his report," he introduced the recommended legislation under the unofficial title of the Smith Bill in the Senate.

As chairman of the relevant committee in the house, Representative Hughes submitted the House bill. Thus, it became the Hughes Bill instead of the Wilson Bill in the House of Representatives.

Since Senator Page had been such a vocal advocate of the legislation for so long, he supported the bill regardless of the fact that Smith was literally simply resubmitting Page's work with modifications. Thus, according to Barlow (1976), Hoke Smith prevented the passage of federal vocational education legislation in 1914. He managed, though, to secure passage of the agricultural extension bill. Then he took over Page's work and put his own name on the bill.

At the same time, we must recognize that Hoke Smith and Dudley Hughes were long-time supporters of vocational education (Bennett, 1937; Hawkins, et al, 1951; Hawkins, et al, 1966). They had both worked for passage of vocational education legislation before the appointment of the Commission in 1914. Further, a close reading of Barlow (1976) leads me to conclude that Senator Page might well have been unable to successfully maneuver the legislation through Congress. Although well-intentioned he appears to have been rather naive and unskilled as a legislator.

There were many education, industrial, political, and other leaders advocating federal vocational legislation during the first 17 years of the 20th century. While the concept was generally supported, the specific details were more heartily debated. Four of the champions of such legislation were Hoke Smith, Charles Prosser, Dudley Hughes, and Carroll Page. Page, a senator from Vermont, was an early, albeit, somewhat ineffective legislative leader in the fight. He relied heavily on the advice and assistance of Prosser in formulating his proposed legislation and political moves regarding the bill.

 Prosser was a professional educator who was hired to act as a full time lobbiest by the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education and to lead the fight for federal vocational legislation. He relied heavily on Page for access to the legislative process until 1915 when it became clear that Hoke Smith would be a more effective ally.
 
Smith and Hughes, Senator and Representative from Georgia, respectively, were the architects of the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. The contributions of these two men in formulating the legislation may be questioned, but their role in securing its passage cannot.

It is unfortunate that history should have so nearly forgotten the roles of Dr. Charles Prosser, and to a greater extent, Senator Carroll Page in shaping of federal policy and support toward vocational education since 1917. Regardless, the legacy of these four great leaders has served America and our society well.

Barlow, M.L. (1967). HISTORY OF INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES, Peoria, IL: Chas. Bennett, Co.

Barlow, M.L. (1976). THE UNCONQUERABLE SENATOR PAGE.Washington, DC: American Vocational Association.

Bennett, C.A. (1937). HISTORY OF MANUAL AND INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION 1870 TO 1917. Peoria, IL: Chas. A. Bennett, Co.

Camp, W.G. & Crunkilton, J.R. (1985). The history of agricultural education in America. The great individuals and events. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATORS IN AGRICULTURE,26(1).

Dudley M. Hughes Vocational School. (undated, circa 1955). DUDLEY M. HUGHES, A MAN WITH A VISION. MACON, GA: AUTHOR.

 HAWKINS, L.S., PROSSER, C.A., & WRIGHT, J.C. (1951). DEVELOPMENT OF

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION. Chicago: American Technical Society.

Hawkins, L.S., Prosser, C.A., & Wright, J.C. (compiled by Swanson, J.C. (1966). DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATION FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION. Chicago: American Technical Society.

Venn, G. (1964). MAN, EDUCATION, AND WORK. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Wirth, A.G. (1972). EDUCATION IN THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY. San
Francisco: Intext Educational Publishers.