HISTORY OF SOIL SCIENCE

E. W. Hilgard and John Wesley Powell: Efforts fora Joint Agricultural and Geological Survey

Ronald Amundson* and Dan H. Yaalon

ABSTRACTEugene W. Hilgard, professor of agriculture at the University of

California, was a pioneer in agricultural, or soil, survey. In the midto late 1880s, he vigorously sought to incorporate agricultural surveywithin the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), then under the directionof Major John Wesley Powell. Hilgard recognized that agriculturalsurvey fell within the USGSs original charge of land classification.Powell considered soil survey to be part of a much larger plan thatwas needed to develop the water and land resources of the aridAmerican West. Through his early efforts, Hilgard was offered aposition in the USGS (1886), which he declined, and he helped tomake soil investigations part of the USGSs activities by the end ofthe 1880s. A bill to appropriate funds for the USGS to conductan agricultural survey, supported by both Powell and Hilgard, wasdefeated by Congress in 1888. In 1889, Powell helped lead an effortto appoint Hilgard the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture (which Hil-gard also declined), a position that would have given Hilgard powerto help develop a national agricultural or soil survey. In the late 1880sand early 1890s, Hilgard was a strong supporter of Powell's attemptsto transfer the USGS from the Department of Interior to the newlyorganized Department of Agriculture (USDA). Ultimately, Powell wasattacked by western politicians, who rejected his plans for intensivemapping and land planning and for his attempts to join the USDA,effectively ending Hilgard's dream of a federal program of joint agricul-tural and geological surveys.

AIIDST THE MASSIVE BACKBONE of the Sierra Nevada ofCalifornia towers Mt. Hilgard. Named after Eugene

W. Hilgard (Fig. 1), the mountain commemorates the19th and early 20th century scientist who combinedgeology and agricultural chemistry into a field of scien-tific enquiry known today as pedology (Jenny, 1961).Nearby among these lofty peaks is Mt. Powell, namedafter the American soldier, geologist, ethnologist, andadministrator, John Wesley Powell (Fig. 2). Althoughit is probably a coincidence that these two peaks lie closeto one another, it underscores an interaction betweenthese two men that, had it borne fruit, would haveprofoundly altered the basis of soil survey, and possiblythe earth sciences, in the USA.

We examine E.W. Hilgard's vision of what he calledagricultural survey (an enterprise analogous to what wenow term soil survey) and reveal how he worked toimplement a national policy of soil survey as a part ofthe responsibilities of the USGS, then under the directionof Major John Wesley Powell. We begin our examination

R. Amundson, Division of Ecosystem Sciences, 108 Hilgard, Univ. ofCalifornia, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA; and D.H. Yaalon, Inst. of EarthSciences, Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel 91904. Received8 Apr. 1994. ""Corresponding author.

Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:4-13 (1995).

of this period, spanning much of the 1880s, with a reviewof Hilgard's early concepts and activity in agriculturalsurvey. We conclude at a point in the early 1890s whereHilgard began a period of intellectual battles with MiltonWhitney, the man who successfully established the soilsurvey within the USDA. As we will show, both Hilgardand Powell were linked by more than a shared interestin geology. Both men developed, early in their careers,personal agendas for the rational development of theAmerican frontier. These plans, however, differed intheir scope and content. Both men eventually recognizedthe value of each other's opinion and, by 1889, werepromoting the concept of a joint agricultural and geologi-cal survey, potentially within the USDA. The ideas thatHilgard and Powell fought for were never implementedat the time, although a century of government expansionin science and land management has incorporated, piece-meal, the essence of their vision. One of our objectivesis to revisit the originality of thought that these menshared and to examine their differences with regard tosoil survey.

Hilgard in the 1850s:Concepts of Agricultural Survey

Born in Germany and raised on the American frontierwithin a close-knit community of immigrant intelligen-tsia, Hilgard was at ease in the company of both farmersand scholars. One distinguishing characteristic of hiswriting is the simultaneous attention to both the practicaland theoretical. His correspondence and memoirs revealenthusiasm for the agricultural and industrial develop-ment of America when based on sound scientific enquiry:"a geological and agricultural survey is essential to thedevelopment of those resources; and that when made,it is necessary that it should be well done to be of use"(Hilgard, 1858).

Hilgard's habit of intertwining scholarship with practi-cal applications began with his first major position follow-ing his university training at the University of Heidelberg.Offered the position of assistant state geologist of Missis-sippi in 1855, Hilgard "promptly accepted it, amid thesincere condolence of his scientific friends upon hisassignment to so uninteresting a field, where the paleozoicformations (then occupying almost exclusively the mindsof American geologists), were unrepresented" (Hilgard,1901). During the initial phases of his field work inMississippi, Hilgard recounted that

it having become clearly apparent to me by this time thatthe survey would never maintain itself in public esteem onthe basis of mineral discoveries, and that it must seek its

AMUNDSON & YAALON: HILGARD AND POWELL AGRICULTURAL AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Fig. 1. E.W. Hilgard (1833-1916) in 1874, a year before his arrivalat the Berkeley campus.

main support in what services it might render to agriculture,I made a point of paying close attention to and recordingthe surface features, vegetation, soils, and the quality andsupply of water, and especially the marls, which I foundto occur in large supply and great variety. I also made acollection of plants, which, although omitted from the sub-jects mentioned in the act creating the survey, I perceivedwas essential toward the characterization of soils, In theprosecution of these studies, the close connection betweenthe surface vegetation and the underlying formations becameso striking, that I soon largely availed myself of the formerin tracing out the limits of adjacent formations, in searchingfor outcrops, etc.After several years, amid controversy within the state

legislature regarding the progress and quality of thesurvey, the state geologist was dismissed, and in 1858,the position was offered to Hilgard. Hilgard embarkedon a deliberate effort to educate the legislature about thegreat need for enhanced appropriations for the survey(Hilgard, 1858). In the 1858 report, Hilgard seized onthe importance of the relationship of a joint agriculturaland geologic survey, in this case, emphasizing the greaterimportance of the agricultural portion to a state likeMississippi. Realizing even before his final geologicinvestigations were complete that economically viableore deposits were lacking in Mississippi, Hilgard, in hisreport to the governor, downplayed the geology andbegan his life-long promotion of the agricultural survey:

Any one at all familiar with geology and mineralogy, willno more look for metallic mines in the formations of Missis-sippi, than a whaler would hunt for whales in the riverwhose name it shares. Experience has in both cases, equally

Fig. 2. Major John Wesley Powell (1834-1902).

demonstrated the vanity of such expectations. That 'Missis-sippi is entirely an agricultural State' has been so often said,as to be almost a truism. . . . It is not a difficult matter torecognize a metallic ore; to determine its value, and themost successful mode of working a mine, is sometimes thework of a few minutes. But it is not so with soils, the oresfrom which the agriculturist extracts his precious materials. . . While the useful minerals are comparatively few andsimple, soils are infinitely varied, and their action on vegeta-tion exceedingly complex. The most experienced eye isunable to judge with certainty of a quality of a soil or marl,or the adaptedness of the one to improve the other, by theeye, or any superficial examination alone. Nothing short ofa complete and careful chemical analysis, and extensivecomparisons of the results with others, and with previousexperience, can give them that practical value and fullreliability as guides to the practical man, which in thepresent state of science he does, and has a right to expect.Investigations of this kind are not a matter of an hour or aday; they require time, extreme care, and the best meansof research—not only in the laboratory, but quite as muchin the field.

Of his final report (Hilgard, 1860), Hilgard (1901)wrote

I undertook to separate as far as possible, the purely scientificpart from that bearing directly upon practical points, inorder to render the latter accessible to unscientific readers asthe nature of the case permitted; while at the same time givingscientific discussion full swing in its proper place . . . Thevolume is thus divided nearly evenly between a 'geological'and 'agricultural' portion; the former giving under the specialheading of "useful materials' the technically important fea-tures of each formation, after its geological characters havebeen discussed. In the agricultural portion, it seemed needful

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. )., VOL. 59, JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1995

at the time to give, by way of introduction, a brief discussionof the principles of agricultural chemistry, then but litdeunderstood by the general public; and, accordingly, fiftypages are given to this subject and are discussed with refer-ence to the agricultural practice of the State. In the specialor descriptive portion of the agricultural report, the Stateis divided into 'regions' characterized by more or less unifor-mity of soil and surface features; and each is considered indetail with respect to all natural features bearing on agricul-tural pursuits; special attention being given to the nature ofthe soils, as shown by their vegetation and analysis. In thelatter respect I departed pointedly from the then prevailingopinions, by which soil analysis was held to be practicallyuseless. My exploration of the State had shown me suchintimate connection between the natural vegetation and thevarying chemical nature of the underlying strata that havecontributed to soil formation, as to greatly encourage thebelief that definite results could be eliminated from thediscussion of a considerable number of analyses, of soilscarefully observed and classified with respect both to theirorigin and their natural vegetation, and a comparison of thedata with the results of cultivation; and that thus it wouldbecome possible, after all, to do what Liebig originallyexpected could be done, viz: to predict measurably thebehavior of soils in cultivation from their chemical com-position.What were the array of concepts that Hilgard devel-

oped with respect to soil survey during his work inMississippi? The answer is particularly relevant becausethese concepts were promoted by Hilgard for the next30 years and were the basis of his plan for the proposedUSGS agricultural survey program. From his final reportto the State (Hilgard, 1860), these main points regardingHilgard's approach to soil survey become apparent:

1. Judging the land by its natural vegetation. From his1860 report and throughout his career (Hilgard, 1891),Hilgard stressed that adequate soil surveying could beapproached through the acute observation of both thegenotype and phenotype of the natural flora. He statedthat "the prima facie evidence of the natural vegetation,which results from the secular co-adaptation of soils andplants under given climatic conditions, is manifestly offirst importance" (Hilgard, 1891). Plants were a key tobedrock type as well as to the inherent fertility of thesoil. However, native vegetation, particularly trees, werenot a fool-proof guide to the productivity of the land foragricultural uses (Hilgard, 1860), so other field methodsmust also be employed.

2. Examination of the soils in the field. Field examina-tion (the soil profile in modern parlance) revealed thedepth at which the soil (Hilgard's term for the A hori-zonfs]) ended and the subsoil (Hilgard's term for whatmight now be any horizon below the A) began. Hilgardconsistently referred to soil vertical differences usingthese terms. To Hilgard, the recognition of where thesoil and subsoil were located was essential to rationalsoil sampling for subsequent laboratory analyses.

3. Chemical and physical analyses of soils collectedin the field. This was to be one of Hilgard's life-longbattles — to emphasize the value of soil analyses, particu-larly chemical, in soil surveying. With respect to chemi-cal analyses, Hilgard stressed the need for an understand-

ing of plant-available elements, not just total quantities(Hilgard, 1860). Hilgard stressed the need for adequatefield work to select samples for analysis, representativeof large areas.

To the above list, we might add another componentthat Hilgard did not explicitly mention in his 1860 reportbut upon which he elaborated later (Hilgard, 1888a):

4. The simultaneous observation of Quaternary geol-ogy and soils during mapping. As years progressed,Hilgard noted with increasing clarity the importance ofgeologic maps (Hilgard, 1891):

To scientific observers, of course, it will come easy to takea wider scope of observation; and it need hardly be saidthat an excellent preliminary idea of the soils of a regioncan be gained from a geological map, provided only, thatsuch maps include the quaternary and modern formations,as has of late been done.What can be said of Hilgard's concept of the mapping

units, which he both conceptually and visually (in maps)designated? Natural vegetation (Northeastern Prairie Re-gion, Long-Leaf Pine Flats, etc.), geological influences(Red Lands, Limesink Region), or topography (Flat-woods Region) appear to play key roles as criteria ingeneral soil mapping units. Within these broad geograph-ical regions, Hilgard discussed soil distribution in moredetail, focusing on soil change with respect to variationsin geology, topography, and vegetation. Description ofsoils corresponding to these interregion divisions aregiven, many tunes with a separate discussion of boththe soil and subsoil and occasionally with accompanyingchemical analyses.

A comparison of Hilgard's concepts of soil horizons,mapping units, etc., to those of today will, of course,reveal significant conceptual differences. However, thesimilarities are striking and it is clear that Hilgard wasdeveloping a legitimate precursor to modern soil survey-ing activities (Yaalon, 1989).

The Mid-1880s: Hilgard, Powell, and"Land Classification"

Hilgard arrived in Berkeley in 1875. During his careerin California, his energies were drawn in many directionsand he was occupied in developing and expanding theCollege of Agriculture and in expanding the experimentstation activities of the state (Jenny, 1961). Additionally,his first years were also occupied with the enormous taskof completing the Cotton Census and its correspondingreports for each cotton-producing state (Hilgard, 1884).Although this work left Hilgard exhausted, it was anopportunity for him to expand his agricultural survey toCalifornia and elsewhere (Jenny, 1961). Most impor-tantly, from the perspective of soil survey, it gave himan opportunity to publish his first agricultural maps (Fig.3). The Cotton Census reports were finished in 1884.Based on the record of his correspondence, Hilgardseems to have then turned his attention to the idea of anational agricultural survey conducted by the USGS.The first evidence of this is contained in a letter dated

AMUNDSON & YAALON: HILGARD AND POWELL AGRICULTURAL AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Fig. 3. Hilgard's agricultural map of the cotton states (excluding California) (Hilgard, 1884). This map was among Hilgard's first publishedagricultural maps.

13 July 1885 to H.E. Alvord1; the effort continued un-abated until near the end of the decade.

The basis of Hilgard's efforts to push agriculturalsurvey on the USGS appears to be his observation thatone of the original charges of the USGS was the "classifi-cation of lands." In a letter to Leland Stanford2 (19 April1888), U.S. Senator from California in 1888, Hilgardwrote that he had read the First Annual Report of theUSGS, prepared by its director, Clarence King (1880),and that

Upon full examination of the law . . . I have concludedthat the intention of Congress was to begin a rigid scientificclassification of the lands of the national domain, not forthe purpose of aiding the machinery of the Land Office, butfor the general information of the people of the country andto produce a series of land maps which should show allthose features upon which intelligent agriculturalists, min-ers, engineers, and lumbermen might base their operation,

1 Henry Elijah Alvord, 1844-1904, educator, specialist in animal hus-bandry. General Manager of Houghton Farms, New York; professor ofagriculture at Massachusetts Agricultural College; president of MarylandAgricultural College and Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station; activein American Association of Agricultural Colleges; chief of Bureau ofAnimal Husbandry, USDA. All letters cited in this paper are availablethrough the Bancroft Library, Univ. of California, Berkeley.

2 Leland Stanford, 1824-1893. Railroad builder, politician. Governor ofCalifornia; U.S. Senator from California; founder of Stanford University.

and which would, obviously be of the highest value for allstudents of the political economy of the United States.

This letter, written after several years of efforts to con-vince the second director of the USGS, Major JohnWesley Powell, to initiate agricultural surveys, reflectsHilgard's impatience with Powell's early responses to hisrequests. In some of Hilgard's earliest correspondenceregarding Powell, he wrote (13 July 1885, H.E. Alvord),that "he (Powell) is an obstinate man and has put it onrecord his conviction that 'too much attention has beengiven to the composition of soil'. . . ".

From the above statement, and other available records,it appears that Hilgard initially misjudged Powell onseveral levels. First, although it is true that Powell down-played the importance of soil chemical properties inagricultural development, he was very aware of theimportance of soil physical properties in agriculturaldevelopment of irrigated lands (Powell, 1878). Mostimportantly, it appears that Hilgard was not aware thatit was Powell himself who helped make the "classificationof lands" a primary objective of the USGS, and thisclassification was a cornerstone of Powell's comprehen-sive scheme for the development of the USA west ofthe 100th meridian.

In his surveys and explorations of the west, Powellwas struck by one almost universal fact: the shortage of

8 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 59, JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1995

water for agricultural and urban development (Stegner,1954, 1962; Smith, 1948). In 1874, before a House ofRepresentatives Committee Meeting on Public Lands,Powell stated (Smith, 1948):

All of the region of country west of the 100th or 99thmeridian, except a little in California, Oregon, and Washing-ton Territory, is arid, and no part of that country can becultivated, with the exceptions I have mentioned; no partof it can be redeemed for agriculture, except by irrigation. . . I believe that of more than two-fifths of the whole areain the United States, not more than three per cent caneventually be cultivated.In 1878, Powell established a book that encompassed

his vision for the development of the arid west, a bookconsidered so revolutionary in its vision that it has takenmore than a century for many of its concepts to beembraced (Stegner, 1962). Powell made the followingrecommendations:

1. Classification of remaining public lands accordingto their economic potential. Powell (1878) recognizedthe need to delineate irrigable, pasture, and forest landsof the public domain. Additionally, in certain areas,mining and coal lands would need to be designated.

2. Modification of homestead acreage for irrigated andpasture lands. When irrigation was possible, homesteadscould be 80 acres or less, whereas pasture lands required2560 acres or more.

3. Abandonment of rectangular surveys. Powell recog-nized that land division and mapping, by watershed andstream courses were the keys to wise distribution andsettlement of public lands.

4. Federal aid in building dams and water courses thatwere too costly for individuals.

One of the most revolutionary aspects of PowelFsblueprint was the proposed organization of irrigation andpasture districts in which members would allocate landand resources according to the best interests of the group.The basis for this plan can be attributed to Powell'sobservation of Mormon settlers and their efforts in or-ganizing irrigated agriculture hi Utah (Stegner, 1962).This controversial part of his plan was never acceptedby Congress, nor was it widely discussed or credited toPowell until historians began investigations in the 20thcentury (Webb, 1931; Smith, 1948; Stegner, 1954).

During deliberations that led to the establishment ofthe USGS in 1878, Powell's report on the arid lands wasused as a basis for a recommendation by a NationalAcademy of Sciences panel, although in subsequent legis-lation many of its controversial portions were deleted.However, the "classification of lands" clause was retained(King, 1880), along with the examination of the mineralresources of the national domain (Darrah, 1951).

If Hilgard credited King, and not Powell, with aninterest in land classification and its relationship to agri-culture, he was mistaken. King's interest and backgroundwas in mining, whereas Powell "considered the Geologi-cal Survey to be an ally of the agricultural industries,including animal husbandry, and correlated this with abroad national policy for land use" (Darrah, 1951). Pow-ell envisioned the science of geology to be "nothing less

than the earth and all its attributes" (Darrah, 1951). Asimilar observation, although intended in a less comple-mentary manner, was made by Senator Herbert of Ala-bama: "Major Powell has the most ambitious scheme ofgeology ever conceived in the mind of man" (Darrah,1951).

During the mid to late 1880s, Hilgard, in letters toPowell, through his friends in Congress, or througheastern scientists, doggedly pressed Powell to instigatean agricultural survey. Although Hilgard's proposalswere not wholly integrated into the Survey's activities,several concessions in that direction were made. First,Captain C.E. Dutton3, one of Powell's associates at thesurvey, met with Hilgard at Berkeley and then, a fewmonths later (9 Dec. 1885), extended to Hilgard Powell'soffer of a position with the USGS as head of the agricul-tural geology division (if one should be approved) or asthe director of the Geologic Survey of Texas and Louisi-ana. Hilgard, in a letter to G.F. Decker4 (10 Dec. 1885),said he thought that Powell must think Hilgard was "badlyoff for a change" and said, "I have no idea of relinquishinga speciality in which I am facile princeps: since no oneelse has paid attention to it: and sink back to where Iam simply one among many". Whether Hilgard underesti-mated the possibilities of this offer remains uncertain.However, given Powell's growing budget and his pro-gressive view of the domain of geology, it seems thatHilgard might have made inroads into agricultural sur-vey. In response to Dutton's offer, Hilgard (22 Dec.1885, C.E. Dutton) declined the position and somewhatflippantly replied that he would like to do geology butonly on "vacations". Later correspondence from Alvord(12 Feb. 1886) indicated the strength of Powell's interestin agricultural geology: "Major Powell of the GeologicalSurvey has written me two or three times about the newdivision to his work, and I understand him to say once,unequivocally, that he proposed to begin this duty atonce, provided he could secure your promise to undertakeits supervision".

A second development was signaled by a 7 June 1888letter in which G.K. Gilbert5, director of the Appalachiandivision of the USGS, wrote to Hilgard to inform himthat in the geological work south of Pennsylvania, Gilbertwas having a soil map made in conjunction with thegeneral geology map. Gilbert's instructions to his map-pers were to map soils based on mode of origin: (i)residual, (ii) alluvial, or (iii) overplaced. Gilbert askedHilgard how to collect soils for subsequent physical and

3 Captain Clarence Edward Dutton, 1841-1912, Soldier, geologist.Served in U.S. Army during Civil War. Joined Powell, 1875, in U.S.Geological and Geological Survey of Rocky Mountain Region; expert involcanism, earthquakes, and isostasy.

4 George Ferdinand Becker, 1847-1919. Geologist, mathematician,physicist. Ph.D. from University of Heidelberg, 1869; graduated RoyalAcademy of Mines (Berlin), 1871; lecturer in Mining and Metalurgy,Univ. of Calif., 1874-1879; appointed to USGS by King and madenumerous geological surveys in California.

5 Grove Karl Gilbert, 1843-1918. Geologist. Studied at University ofRochester; volunteered to work on Geological Survey of Ohio, 1869;obtained position in Lt. G.M. Wheeler's geologic survey west of 100thmeridian; joined Powell's survey, 1874; studied extinct Lake Bonneville;leader of Appalachian Division of USGS, 1884-1889; Chief Geologist ofUSGS, 1889-1892.

AMUNDSON & YAALON: HILGARD AND POWELL AGRICULTURAL AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

chemical analyses. Gilbert's intentions had obviouslybeen made in consultation with Powell, for in the NinthAnnual Report of the USGS (Powell, 1889), Powellwrote that, "the complete mapping of the geologic fea-tures thus shows the distribution of soils, and it has beendetermined to separate the data concerning soils andprepare a soil map to accompany each geological map.The field parties gather data for both at the same time".In a later letter to Representative W.W. Morrow (16June 1888), Hilgard stated that he was elated by Gilbert'srequest, which indicated that 30 years of effort wascoming to fruition (also, Hilgard, 1888b).

If we believe that Powell was genuinely concernedwith the classification of lands, what evidence do wehave of progress in this direction in the mid-1880s orlater? Reviews of Powell's annual reports of the USGSand subsequent biographies (Stegner, 1954, 1962; Dar-rah, 1951) indicate his belief that topographic surveysshould precede geologic and soil mapping. A good topo-graphic map "is a proper basis for a geologic map. It isalso a proper basis for all other maps designed forindustrial purposes . . ."(Powell, 1888). The topographicmapping of the western USA was a massive undertakingthat involved decades, not years. Did Powell intend tobegin the agricultural work only after the topographicsurvey was well underway? Certainly he was aware ofthe importance of a soil survey, for in this same reportPowell again acknowledged Hilgard's ideas: "Some ofthe most important questions of the day, from both ascientific and economic standpoint, are the relations ofthe soils and vegetation of the earth to the roots whichthey conceal and from which the one derived and the otheris supported." This remark reflects Hilgard's conceptsdeveloped more than 25 years earlier in Mississippi. Themost visible outcome of Hilgard's, and Powell's, effortscame in the USGS Annual Report of 1890-1891 (Shaler,1891). In this report, N.S. Shaler6, of the Atlantic CoastDivision of the USGS, published a paper entitled "TheOrigin and Nature of Soils." This 132-page treatise wasintended as a "popular" introduction to soils, and containsa comprehensive view of soils and their formation (in-cluding an illuminating discussion of paleosols-with anillustration). Yet much of this had been discussed byHilgard before, and because no citations were includedin the paper, a direct recognition of Hilgard's influenceis not possible.

The Late 1880s: A Lost Opportunity for anAgricultural and Geological Revolution

Important events involving Hilgard and Powell oc-curred between 1888 and 1890. Had they followeddifferent courses, it may have had an immeasurableimpact on soil survey, agriculture, and geology in theUSA. In 1887, Hilgard began to intensively lobby hiseastern associates for a general appropriation in Congressthat would have created funds for a division of agricul-

tural geology in the USGS. Hilgard made it clear thatagricultural survey should be in the hands of the geolo-gists and not the Department of Agriculture. In a letterto Powell (12 Nov. 1887), Hilgard wrote that he opposedthe Agriculture Department takeover of the survey be-cause the USGS work was "the indispensible basis toany really thorough work on the agricultural features;which are, primarily, the Quaternary geology of theregion carried into detail and considered with referenceto their bearing on agriculture." Later, Hilgard (1888a)countered the notion that agricultural survey would "vul-garize" the USGS and in an article entitled "Agricultureand Late Quaternary Geology", again stressed the impor-tance of Quaternary geology to soil survey. Hilgard alsopointed out, as Powell had done for so long, the needto proceed before the advance of civilization; "the delicatetraces of the latest pre-modern epochs are liable to fadeaway rapidly before the advancing settlement of thecountry". In a letter to G.F. Decker (24 Dec. 1887),Hilgard restated his opposition to agricultural mappingin the Agriculture Department. If that department hasthe survey, Hilgard wrote, "it would come wrong endforemost".

The intent of Hilgard and his colleagues was to passan appropriation through Congress that would providefunds for the USGS to pursue the agricultural survey.To achieve this, Hilgard pressed his local U.S. Represen-tative, W.W. Morrow7 from San Francisco, to introducethe legislation and meet with Powell. Morrow's firstletter to Hilgard (13 Dec. 1887) indicated the nature ofthis legislation:

I have had a very satisfactory interview with Major Powell,concerning an appropriation sufficient to enable him to un-dertake the classification of public lands in the United States.At first he was a little backward about approving the scheme,but . . . he admitted that there is a good deal of force inthe proposition. He said he had hoped that this matter wouldnot be brought forward for some time yet, as he is hardlyready to commence field operations . . . I ventured to suggestthat, possibly he might obtain your services... this appearedto please him, and he assured me that if an appropriationis made, he will invite you to aid him in carrying out thedirection of Congress. The Major has formulated the formof an amendment for me that can be incorporated into the'Sundry Civil Appropriations Bill' . . . I shall offer thisamendment to the Committee, with the full sanction ofMajor Powell. If we encounter no opposition from theDepartment of Agriculture, I think we may reasonably hopefor success in our efforts.In an earlier letter to Representative Morrow (24 Nov.

1887), Hilgard had outlined his suggestion for the pro-posed 1888 appropriation (Powell was to fill in the blank):

—For salary of one Chief Agricultural Expert, four thousanddollars,— For salary of three Agricultural Experts, at three thousanddollars each;—For field and office expenses of the above four assistants,___thousand dollars.

6 Nathaniel Southgate Shaler, 1841-1906. Geologist, professor. Studiedgeology under Agassiz, broke away to embrace Darwinism; professorpaleontology and geology, Harvard, 1869; appointed head of AtlanticCoast Division, USGS, 1884-1900.

7 William W. Morrow, 1843-1929. Jurist, congressman. U.S. DistrictAttorney, San Francisco 1870-1874; U.S. Representative, 1885-1891;federal judge.

10 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 59, JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1995

In a response to Morrow (14 Dec. 1887), Hilgardwrote that Powell was a great administrator who coulddo the same for Agricultural Survey . . . "I have notheard on the subject from Gen. (sic) Powell, who Isuppose is extremely busy and perhaps a little nettled atmy mode of proceeding".

During the summer of 1888, the appropriation billwas debated in Congress. On 21 June, Morrow offeredthe bill to the Committee on Appropriations: "The amend-ment was earnestly recommended by Major Powell . . .but . . . the amendment was not incorporated into a billby the Committee" due to opposition by Rep. Randall.Morrow introduced the bill directly to the floor of theHouse, but it was voted down because of an "absenceof so many of its friends in Chicago". Morrow's strategywas to have the bill introduced to the Senate Appropria-tions Committee later in the summer. In September (14Sept. 1888), Morrow reported to Hilgard that the SenateCommittee did not consider the Powell-Morrow bill:"the effort to secure an appropriation for the classificationof the agricultural lands of the United States failed toreceive favorable consideration in the Senate by reasonof the influence brought to bear in favor of an amendmentto the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill providing for thelocation of reservoirs to store water for the irrigation ofdesert lands".

During the time that the appropriation bill for theclassification of agricultural lands was being presentedin Congress, Powell was also becoming part of whatwas to become the competing irrigation appropriationpackage. This appropriation gave Powell, for severalyears, nearly absolute control over the development ofthe arid west and, ultimately, would lead to aggressive,politically motivated attacks and to his downfall. Therehave been many reviews of this period of Powell's career(Stegner, 1954, 1962; Darrah, 1951; Smith, 1948), andonly the outline as it pertains to Hilgard will be presentedhere. Spearheaded by Senator W. Stewart8 of Nevada,the irrigation appropriation was passed by Congress in1888, providing funds for an irrigation survey that wouldbe headed by Powell. One of the stipulations of the act,not widely considered at the time of passage, was thatit allowed Powell to remove all land in the public domainfrom settlement until a survey of its water resources hadbeen made and dam sites had been proposed. Effectively,this gave Powell jurisdiction to proceed with his planfirst published in 1878 and made him the most powerfulman in America with respect to the management of publiclands.

Hilgard did not at this time appear to grasp the signifi-cance of Powell's new powers, his vision, or the politicsthat formed it. In a letter to Alvord (19 Feb. 1889),Hilgard believed that Powell still appeared to be resistantto some of Hilgard's ideas and that Powell "headed meoff nicely" in the last session of Congress by introducinghis "irrigation survey scheme". While Hilgard viewed

8 William (Big Bill) Morris Stewart, 1827-1909. Lawyer, politician.Left Yale to search for gold in California; became lawyer in California,1852; moved to Nevada on discovery of silver, 1858; U.S. Senator fromNevada, 1864-1875 and re-elected 1887-1905 on platform of free silverand irrigation.

Powell's irrigation survey as a way to bypass the agricul-tural survey, it is clear that Powell envisioned somethingquite different. In the first report of the irrigation survey(Powell, 1890), Powell wrote: "There are three generalrequisites (for an irrigation survey), as follows: (a) theconstruction of an accurate topographic map, . . . (b)the determination of the total annual discharge of waterfrom the catchment basin . . . , (c) an examination of thesoils in the area from which, under existing topographicconditions, the selection of land for irrigation must bemade".

As we have noted, Powell's irrigation survey has nowbecome an important, if failed, landmark in governmentmanagement of the public domain. However, it wasquickly sabotaged by the same senators who initiallysponsored it when they found that Powell intended toconduct a thorough topographic survey and scientificselection of potential dam sites, all of which wouldproceed slowly and rationally. These western senators,who had originally hoped for a quick identification ofpotential sources of irrigation water and the governmentmoney to develop them, reacted quickly when they recog-nized that Powell's plan would provide no quick develop-ment and exploitation, and that it was raising dissatisfac-tion among their constituents.

In early 1889, while Powell was at the pinnacle ofhis powers with the irrigation survey and the USGS, thepace of events, which had the power to profoundly changegeology and agriculture in the USA, began to quicken.In 1888, the Agriculture Department was elevated to aCabinet level department. Correspondence from othersto Hilgard indicates that Powell recognized an opportu-nity for the USGS in this new department. In February(11 Feb. 1889) Alvord wrote Hilgard that "Powell is hotto get into the 'enlarged' Dept, of Agr." and to "fulfillthe original intention of the survey by doing agriculturalwork! He really tried to move in, before the roof wason the house, but Congress told him to wait a year orso." Alvord, then head of the American Association ofAgricultural Colleges, sounded Hilgard for his opinionof Powell. In a letter to Hilgard, Alvord (22 Mar. 1889)wrote: "Many thanks for giving me so concisely MajorPowell's position of late years and now, so far as youand your recommendations are concerned. We have beena little afraid that he was too anxious to encroach uponthe experiment station work and while quite willing forhis bureau to do as much agricultural work as it can,we have a proviso attached to an Experiment StationAppropriation bill, relating to soil examination, whichI trust will meet your approbation when you see it infull." This bill required "soil examination and classifica-tion 'when practicable'" (11 Feb. 1889, H.E. Alvord).It is interesting that at this time, Alvord and others,while pressing so hard for Powell to pursue agriculturalwork, were somewhat wary of his joining forces withthem in the newly established USD A.

The last potential major event of import occurred inthe winter and spring of 1889, when Hilgard began toreceive offers from his eastern associates to be put for-ward for the post of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.In letters, Hilgard said he was interested in the possibility

AMUNDSON & YAALON: HILGARD AND POWELL AGRICULTURAL AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 11

because he was poorly treated by the University of Cali-fornia Regents. He also said he only wished to spend oneyear in Washington due to his health and his long-termfinancial interests. Hilgard was worried about the tenuousnature of a political appointment. In a letter to Stearns9

(15 Mar. 1889), Hilgard responded to Stearns' telegramand wrote that his salary had been reduced at Berkeley,and queried about the possible offer of a $6000 annualsalary, although he suspected that was "too much to hopefor." In a response to a telegram by Alvord, Hilgardreplied (14 Mar. 1889) to Alvord's support for his appoint-ment as Assistant Secretary and wrote that even if Powelldid not like him, Hilgard could help Powell with hiswork. Hilgard also wrote, after being informed of theappropriation given for soil investigations to the experimentstations, that it may have all been for the best that theagricultural survey was now under the Department ofAgriculture. Hilgard said that the clause about soil examina-tion in the new appropriation was good and went beyondthe agricultural prejudice that only "culture experts" couldgive information about soils.

As head of the American Association of AgriculturalColleges, Alvord was given the opportunity by PresidentHarrison to nominate the Assistant Secretary of Agricul-ture, "the man who is to be the organizing and controllingagent of the scientific work of the Department aroundor in which, is soon to centre, the scientific affairs ofthe U.S. Govt." (22 Mar. 1889). Hilgard was the secondchoice for the position (after the first candidate declined)Alvord wrote: "I found no trouble in uniting our folkson you . . . We thought it best to get Maj. Powell in,too — and — after some little skirmishing, we succeeded.He, at last, joined heartily." Alvord forwarded Hilgard'sname to the Cabinet, where it was approved, and thensent to the Senate for confirmation. In the meantime,Hilgard sent a letter (19 Mar. 1889) to the UC Boardof Regents requesting a leave of absence, without pay,for one year. In this letter, he cited the fact he wasoverworked and was planning to assume the position ofassistant secretary.

It is apparent, from his correspondence, that Hilgardwas secretly hoping for a salary of $6000 per year untila clarification by Powell put the sum at $4000, an amountthat Hilgard considered too small to cover the costs ofmoving, etc. A special meeting was scheduled by theBoard of Regents in the afternoon of 19 Mar. 1889.There, Hilgard restated his request for a leave and out-lined his grievances with respect to his work load andsalary. In the midst of this meeting, a telegram boyinterrupted the proceedings with Powell's latest salaryoffer to Hilgard ("Salary is now at four thousand fivehundred dollars the secretary believes it will be increasedwe all hope you will come J.W. Powell"). Hilgard laterwrote that, after reading Powell's telegram, he turnedto the Regents and said "gentlemen, you might as wellsee for yourself how the matter stands" (23 Mar. 1889,

9 Robert Edwards Carter Stearns, 1827-1909. Naturalist. Briefly en-gaged in mining; migrated to California, 1857; secretary to Universityof California Board of Regents, 1874; appointed paleontologist in USGSby Powell, 1884.

E.S. Holden) and passed the telegram to the regents.After a short, and animated, discussion, the regentsoffered to raise Hilgard's salary and provide assistanceto reduce his work load, an offer which Hilgard readilyaccepted.

The regents' response to Hilgard's demands (bolsteredby the fortuitous arrival of Powell's telegram), clearlysoothed Hilgard's ego. Yet, in retrospect, Hilgard gaveup a great deal for this personal victory. Immediatelythere were ramifications to his decision to turn downthe secretary position. Alvord (22 Mar. 1889) wroteHilgard an emotional letter outlining the embarrassmentthat Hilgard's refusal caused back in Washington: "If awritten assurance of such a person as yourself, on soimportant a matter, cannot be depended on, - what arewe coming to? ... Do you wonder that we are feelingsore? I am simply quite amazed!!" Hilgard admonishedthem for their criticism of his decision and consistentlyargued that he could not have financially afforded thechange in positions however much he would have enjoyedWashington society and the possibility of heading up theagricultural survey: "I had looked forward with pleasureto a renewal of direct intercourse with many friends andscientific conferences East, after fourteen years of quasiexile; and the re-organization of the Dept, at which Ihave so long been tugging from the outside, togetherwith agr. side of the geol. survey, were within my grasp. . . but with the salary as it is I would have beenjumping out of the financial frying pan into the fire" (21Mar. 1889, H.E. Alvord).

Hilgard was apparently unaware of the (at least) semi-permanent nature of the secretary position, and as itstrue nature was to become more apparent to him duringthe weeks following his declination, there was a traceof regret that found its way into his correspondence. Ina letter to Stearns (31 Mar. 1889), Hilgard revealed thathe had learned from Alvord and others that the positionwith the Department of Agriculture would have beenpermanent, and he would have been in charge of organiz-ing all of its science programs. He also said that Powellhad even said he would have tried to get Hilgard aposition in the USGS if he had desired. Hilgard, in theclosest to what he ever revealed as regret, said that "if(I) had known that, I would be in Washington now" (30Mar. 1889, H.E. Alvord). Later, Alvord wrote Hilgard(6 Apr. 1889) that he understood Hilgard's decisionand that "I now think Powell ought to have given youadditional points, and put on a little pressure!"

Although Hilgard missed a critical opportunity to be-come part of the Federal agencies, and their abilityto begin an agricultural survey, he continued to lobbystrongly for one from the outside and to act as a strongsupporter of Powell's efforts to join the USDA. In aletter to Holden (November 1889), Hilgard wrote thaton a visit to Washington, he had met Powell, noting:"you remarked that Powell was rather a fighting man. . . that is all true, and yet he has now fully adoptedmy ideas and actually aims to come under the Departmentof Agriculture instead of the Interior. That is why hewanted me at headquarters. It is all right and smoothand I have even the personal promise of Stanford that

12 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 59, JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1995

he will see the thing through — provided I write it allout so as to post him thoroughly!"

However, despite Hilgard's efforts, Powell was vigor-ously attacked by Senator Stewart and others in the springof 1890. By that time, Hilgard seems to have recognizedthe importance of Powell's insistence on topographicsurveys and understood all the power that Powell hadacquired with respect to the distribution of lands: "I seePowell is under fire about the irrigation business and Iam sorry for it. But when people are such fools as totelegraph that irrigation surveys have no business withtopography, it is hard to see any way to illuminate theirideas" (28 Apr. 1890, Becker); "I suppose the attack onhim . . . in getting him out of the irrigation survey (formanifestly, 'there's millions in it' for somebody if theact can be repealed)" (6 June 1890, Atwater10). By thesummer of 1890, Hilgard recognized the fading opportu-nity for Powell's role in the survey and the USD A: "Isuppose that the agricultural side of your work will forthe present have to rest satisfied with not losing theirrigation part, if, as I hope, that is accomplished" (10July 1890, J.W. Powell), even though his admirationfor Powell's ideas was undiminished, "Long may hewave!" (10 July 1890, Atwater). Powell continued toreceive appropriations, although at a reduced and morerestricted level. In a letter to Becker (8 Feb 1891),Hilgard admitted: "I am sometimes sorry that I am notwhere I might have been and helped to smooth over agreat deal of unnecessary friction".

It is difficult to envision the extent of what might havetranspired had Hilgard gone to Washington. It is certainthat the agricultural survey would have been near thetop of his agenda, and given his knowledge, he wouldhave (within limits imposed by the intricacies of Federalgovernment) tapped the resources of the USGS and hisassociation with Powell. But this was never to occur.As tune passed, Powell was beset by a series of actswhich resulted in reduced powers and in a reduction infunding. He retired from the USGS in 1894, plaguedby pain in an arm amputated during the Civil War andby the acts of a malicious Congress. In the early 1890s,Hilgard remained a strong advocate of Powell and hisattempts to join the USDA in the early 1890s. However,in 1892, Hilgard obtained a leave of absence from theuniversity for one year to travel in Europe, effectivelydiverting his attention from Powell and the USGS.

As Hilgard's attention declined to Powell, the USGS,and agricultural survey, his correspondence indicates anincreased attention to the activities of Milton Whitneyand his ideas. Jenny (1961) chronicles Hilgard's growingbattles with Whitney during the 1890s and early 1990s,particularly over Whitney's inexplicable disregard forsoil chemical analyses in the soil survey (and controver-sies associated with this dogma). The contrast betweenHilgard's concept of soil survey and Whitney's was sharp,and no resolution was possible. Rather, Whitney in hisgrowing power within the federal mainstream was able

10 Wilbur Olin Atwater, 1844-1907. Agricultural chemist, Ph.D. Yale;instrumental in passage of Hatch Act, 1887; Chief of Office of ExperimentStations, 1888.

to move forward with his plan, while Hilgard, in whathe himself described as "quasi exile" in California, coulddo little but agitate in journals and in correspondence.This decade or more of struggle is deserving of furtherhistorical research.

EpilogueToday, Federal appropriations for soil survey, land

management, and various geological investigations arecommonplace and are generally accepted by politiciansand the public. Yet, a century ago, in the wake ofunchecked expansion of the west, and limited governmentoversight, these government activities were novel, if notrevolutionary. Hilgard and Powell recognized, manyyears before the concepts became acceptable, that gov-ernment support of scientific activities was crucial to arational development of the nation's vast natural re-sources. In 1888, Hilgard seemed at the brink of incorpo-rating soil survey into the USGS and making one of theUSGSs original charges (conceived by Powell himself),the classification of lands, a permanent fixture in itsactivities. This action was thwarted at the last momentby Congressional action that gave Powell the power,if only temporary, to personally control and plan thedevelopment of the public domain. Although Powell'splan included soil survey activities, he was sabotagedby jealous politicians before the major portions of hisplan could be achieved. Hilgard himself was poised toinitiate his own plan, possibly within the newly organizedUSDA, but turned down the position of Assistant Secre-tary of Agriculture and the opportunity he would havehad to directly influence Federal activities in this area,including the transfer of the USGS.

From the vantage of our present academic environ-ment, one can only marvel at the contrast of Hilgard'sworld. His voluminous files of correspondence containletters to and from U.S. senators, congressmen, cabinetmembers, governors, and the giants of the 19th centuryearth sciences. Although he remained "in exile" in Cali-fornia, Hilgard still maintained an impressive influenceamong the scientists and politicians of the east. Yet,despite his political savvy, it seems surprising that if hetruly wanted an agricultural survey, he did not recognizethe significance of the several opportunities he had inthe 1880s* for positions both within the USGS and theUSDA. It is quite probable that Hilgard enjoyed theopportunities and accolades that University life providedand may have been swayed by the personal prestige heenjoyed at Berkeley, although the frontier-like qualitiesof Berkeley of the 1800s (Jenny, 1961) would startlethe modern academician.

What remains important, however, is the recognitionof the farsighted intellectual concepts and goals of anAmerican pedologist who, arguably, has not receivedhis due in the annals of history (Jenny, 1961). Anymodern student of the soil who reads Hilgard's 1860report will surely be struck by its insight and "mod-ernness". Among his varied contributions, his efforts todevelop a national agricultural survey should not beforgotten. In what might be the finest tribute to Hilgard

AMUNDSON & YAALON: HILOARD AND POWELL AGRICULTURAL AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 13

and his vision, W.J. McGee11, in a letter to Hilgard (17July 1888), wrote, "I have long regarded you as theNestor among agricultural chemists and agricultural geol-ogists, . . . It is time for scientists and laymen to realizethat the important resources of the earth are not rocksbut bread-not minerals, but plants; it is quite time forscientists and laymen alike to realize that ten times morebenefit to mankind will come from the study of soil andits products than from deep-seated strata".

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSHilgard's efforts to develop a national survey within the

U.S. Geological Survey were first recognized by Jenny (1961)in his biography of Hilgard. We benefited greatly from yearsof research on Hilgard by Professor Hans Jenny, and highlyrecommend his biography to anyone interested in the historyof the soil sciences. We also thank John Tandarich for bringingthis issue to our attention and encouraging us to conduct thisresearch. This paper was first presented at the 1993 SSSAsymposium in Cincinnati commemorating the centennial of theUSDA Soil Survey.

11 William John McGee, 1853-1912. Geologist, anthropologist, hydrol-ogist. Born in log cabin on Iowa farm; largely self-taught; made indepen-dent geologic survey of Iowa; appointed to Atlantic Coastal Plain Divisionof USGS by Powell, 1883; Ethnologist in Charge, Bureau of AmericanEthnology, 1893; appointed to Inland Waterways Commission (by Presi-dent Roosevelt) and to Water Resources of U.S. (by Secretary of Agricul-ture), 1903.