or Horace
Mann. It was not just as a slip of the tongue that the words "and home
economics" were placed by the words "subjects relating to agriculture."
No: the concurrence of the phrases came about as a natural outcome of
well-considered belief, as indeed a testimonial to the fact that in the
mind of the framer of the bill the two matters were of equal importance
and were to be logically united in the minds of the people. At any rate,
the fact that the phrase "home economics" stands at the head of this
bill represents an incalculable leap forward of public opinion in the
direction of betterment for the home and all that it contains of
influence on our well-being. Let it be deeply impressed, then, that the
two words, "Agriculture" and "Home Economics" stand together at the head
of a bill that is to provide for instruction on a vast scale for all the
rural districts of this land.

In a letter to the author, the Honorable Asbury F. Lever, the framer of
the Smith-Lever Bill in its present form, shows a full appreciation of
the claim of the countryside to a fair share in this distribution. The
letter by kind permission may be quoted here and is as follows:

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

_House of Representatives, U. S._

WASHINGTON, D. C., August 20, 1914.
MRS. MARTHA FOOTE CROW,
Tuckahoe, New York City.

_My dear Mrs. Crow:_

Responding to your letter, permit me to enclose you herewith a
marked copy of my report which accompanied the bill from the
Committee on Agriculture. I say unhesitatingly that the problem of
the farm wife is one of the most vital of all of our rural
problems and when this bill was drawn, I had in mind the use of a
reasonable portion of the funds for the amelioration of her
condition. I think the exact division of the funds should depend
upon conditions in each individual State and may be increased or
decreased as seems wise to those charged with the handling of the
funds. I believe that the home economics feature of this bill is
one of its most important features. In my own State one-fourth of
the funds are to be used for the teaching of home economics by
means of the itinerant teacher. This may be found to be
insufficient and if it is the ratio can be changed. I would feel
greatly disappointed if those who use these funds should in any
manner get it into their minds that the home economics feature of