This article is from agricultural history, volume 60, number 2, spring 1986. Ó agricultural history society
The Ivory Silo: Farmer-Agricultural College Tensions in the 1870s and 1880s
ALAN I MARCUS (MARCUS is a member of the History Department, Iowa State University.)
Farmers persistently voiced dissatisfaction, even disgust, with the condition of American agricultural colleges in the 1870s and 1880s. Through articles in agricultural newspapers and speeches at agricultural society meetings, they continually harped on the low attendance at these schools, complained about courses of study, and objected to individual faculty members. They often argued that these institutions did little more than absorb public funds and provide sinecures for those otherwise unable to find employment. In any case, farmers frequently maintained that these colleges had not aided American agriculture and that the schools had not decreased the stream of farm children fleeing to cities. In short, farmers contended that the colleges had failed to live up to their Morrill mandate; they regularly pronounced these schools unfit, not entitled to further federal aid.
The intense hostility toward and the recurring sense of frustration with agricultural schools indicated the seriousness with which farmers approached the college question. To these men and women, the establishment of federally supported agricultural colleges served as a reaffirmation of the farmers' importance to America as well as an acknowledgment of the nation's stake in making better farmers or farmers better. That the colleges appeared to pursue other agendas was to farmers a particular affront. It suggested either that college personnel had seized these schools for their own purposes or that they lacked understanding of and sympathy for farmers and their difficulties. In either case, farmers claimed to receive from agricultural colleges neither the assistance nor respect to which they were entitled. Put more simply, the farmers' vehemence was not directed at agricultural colleges per se but at what these colleges had become, a state of affairs they blamed flatly on college personnel.
To remedy this distressing situation seemed to require farmers to assert themselves, to take control of or at least oversee college activities. The summoning of agricultural college personnel to appear before farm organizations was one such attempt. There a college's representative reported on his institution and usually was called into account for its failings. Sometimes the matter went deeper. Rather than wait for or rely on a college delegate to report, farm organizations established committees of their own members to visit and investigate a suspect agricultural school. These probes generally led to declarations that agricultural colleges were farces and frequently resulted in farm organizations bringing their complaints to legislative assemblies.' The U.S. Congress stood as one target, but farmers received only partial satisfaction there. Congress did initiate an investigation of agricultural colleges and refuse several times to add to their endowments, but it did nothing to reform these institution S.2 State legislatures were more responsive. Since the Morrill Act placed immediate control of colleges with state legislatures and because farmers comprised a large bloc of votes in most states, legislatures proved more sensitive to farmers' concerns and repeatedly interceded in college affairs. College trustees, presidents, and professors often were dismissed or forced to resign. Farmers or those voicing support for their cause sometimes were appointed to the vacancies and as a result, courses of study were drastically altered.
College personnel did not stand idle in the wake of the farmers' attacks. They frequently launched counteroffensives, which often produced further shifts in college offerings? But even if the initial counter-assaults failed to beat back farmers, the matter remained far from settled. College staffs and agriculturists continued to do battle throughout the two decades.
Though the exchanges were sometimes heated and despite the farmers' contentions, little of the tension between college personnel and their agricultural opponents stemmed from a disagreement over school mission. Even the most fervent college staff members recognized that the purpose of the colleges was to help American agriculture and agriculturists. Nor was the tension a manifestation of a clash between the forces of modernity and those of tradition. Both sets of participants demanded a new farmer, one fitted for the 1870s and 1880s. Indeed, making modern farmers or farmers modern stood as the raison detre for agricultural education. But while the two sides came to similar positions on both issues, they were at odds over what the new farmer ought to be. Much of the antagonism between farmers and college personnel turned on that question, a question that made agricultural college control seem essential. It appeared that these institutions would determine, to a great degree, what farmers and farming in the present and future would become.
To many farmers who routinely criticized agricultural colleges, farming in the 1870s and 1880s suffered from dependence on traditional methods. These methods relied on farmers' backs, muscles, and hands but ignored their brains; farming was characterized by "guess-work, random efforts, [and] 'cut and try' " procedures. As a consequence, farm practice was anachronistic not simply because it appeared inefficient but also because it was not modern. It marked farmers as peculiar because it did not depend on, or even incorporate, the mind, a condition that made farming seem to lag behind other occupations; the lack of mind in agriculture directly contributed both to lower profits and lack of respect. Only by creating for agriculture a distinct set of organizational and business principles-farm practice principles based on mindcould "farmers expect to keep pace" with others. The reason for this prescription was clear. It now seemed that a coherent group of principles was "the soul of success and progress in every handicraft."'
Critics of established farm practice often explained to their less well-informed colleagues the nature of these principles and their importance to agriculture. A common tactic was to make an analogy between factories, the sites of modern industrial production, and farms. Both had "many different departments and processes, each of which is essential to the success of the whole." In the two instances, the various departments and processes "should be so adjusted and harmonized that each would contribute its due proportion to the general result, and no single department should be developed to an extent that interferes materially with the success of the any other." But even if analogy was not employed, the message remained the same. Farms were defined as a group of discrete yet interdependent and hierarchically organized parts and farming or an aspect of farming as a group of activities structured in the same manner. This identification of farms and farming required farmers to systematize operations, to develop plans based on the laws by which these hierarchies operated. Put in their own words, modern farming was "a collection of rules and principles" in which each individual activity had "a proper classification and a proper assignment." It was nothing more than "a place for everything and everything in its proper place," where everything was "done at the proper time and in the proper manner." 5
This vision of the agricultural enterprise led farmers to demand that agricultural colleges serve a dual role. These institutions were not only to identify and refine these principles, but also to teach them to farm children and, through these children, to farmers generally. In that sense, agricultural colleges were to stand primarily as agricultural business schools, sites at which future and present farmers received training for their vocation. Subjects recognized as crucial to this endeavor included farm accounting, farm management techniques, comparison of different agricultural plans and layouts, and acquaintance with farm machinery. In addition to these studies, students were to engage each day in manual labor. Manual labor not only introduced students to modern farming's new and different techniques, but it also kept them in touch with the basics of their chosen occupation; work in the soil seemed likely to keep children on the farm. To sum up, agricultural colleges were to introduce mind into the agricultural equation and to give it the role of directing the back, muscles, and hands.6
Though this approach to agricultural education incorporated lectures and texts, it revolved around the college farm. The farm functioned as the means to demonstrate those lessons related in the classroom-as a demonstration farm-as well as to extend and test the acquired information. Not surprisingly, those who stressed agricultural colleges as business schools looked upon the farm as the single most important aspect of the college; it was where learning occurred and where new principles were uncovered. And since they accorded the farm such an exalted position , they were particularly insistent, even adamant, about who ran it. Experts in modern farm practice, men who had proven themselves successful farmers, were deemed the only suitable individuals.'
Farmers, then, envisioned agricultural colleges predominantly as places at which farmers who had studied and exhibited their mastery of the business and organizational principles of modern agriculture trained the next generation. Agricultural college personnel generally rejected that assessment. While they agreed with farmers that farming could be reduced to a series of principles, they disagreed with agriculturists about what those principles were. In fact, college personnel maintained that farmers usually lacked knowledge of and access to these principles; farmers as a class were incapable of deriving or adding to them. As' a consequence, farmers rarely could participate meaningfully on agricultural college faculties or in agricultural college design. To college staff members, successful modern farming required agriculturists to rely on others outside their cohort.
Agricultural scientists were the group identified as indispensable by college staff members, many of whom defined themselves as fitting within that category. But while their support of the primacy of agricultural scientists in agriculture and agricultural colleges smacked of self-interest, it nonetheless was based on several important assumptions: agricultural processes followed and could be expressed as scientific principles; these principles could be revealed and verified through the pursuance of the methods of science; the understanding and uncovering of these principles necessitated specialized training, competence, and knowledge as well as adherence to science's methods; and this specialized training, competence, and knowledge was held by no other group. These assumptions defined specific relationships among science or scientists and farming or farmers. Only scientific principles could improve farming and only scientists could deduce them. Farmers might utilize these principles, but they could not produce them. Scientists preached, and farmers applied what scientists preached, a situation that demanded that agriculturists know what scientists were preaching. Farmers needed to rely upon scientists for their well-being; rather than an autonomous group, farmers were a dependent caste. 8
The implications of this argument were manifest and varied. They were expressed in the programs that agricultural scientists and their supporters drew up for agricultural colleges. But it would be wrong to suggest that all agricultural scientists expected an identically framed agricultural education or similarly trained college graduates. At least two different thrusts emerged. In both cases, however, the central point was the same. Modern agriculture required farmers to rely on the scientists' wisdom.
One segment of agricultural science advocates wanted agricultural schools to create a new class of farmers, practical farmers. These agriculturists were identified as favoring science, receptive to scientists' teachings, and capable of applying scientific principles learned at college to farming. Creation of such a class required designing a special education and agricultural scientists proved up to the task. They opposed as irrelevant to late nineteenth-century American farmers the teaching in agricultural colleges of the staples of a classical education--Greek, Latin, higher mathematics, ancient history, and the like. Conversely, they insisted upon social, physical, and natural science classes and not simply because of course material. Agricultural science proponents maintained that a similar set of logical rules governed each subject and that repeated exposure to science's exactness would instill in students reverence for its methods.'
Two other planks characterized the agricultural scientists' practical farmer agenda. They sought to rid agricultural colleges of both daily manual labor requirements and the pretense of teaching farmers how to perform mechanical farm operations. They rejected manual labor as a hinderance to scientific study, either weakening the constitutions of young scholars and impeding their absorption of scientific knowledge or detracting from the time that should be used studying science. Their objections to teaching agriculture's mechanical aspects went deeper. It seemed beneath the dignity of scientists and violated their notion of higher or professional education. In any case, it appeared unnecessary because "scientific knowledge begets skill, and any one conversant with principles acquires mere manual dexterity or handicraft with the greatest facility." Andrew D. White, president of Cornell University, put it more bluntly. "For instruction in the simple fundamental processes of farming," he argued, "the schools are the farms."
The other part of the agricultural science contingent dismissed as inefficient the college education of farmers and instead accentuated the institution's role in creating the next generation of scientific investigators. Their agricultural college program differed in only two particulars. They wanted colleges to teach French and German-the scientific languages-and how to experiment-how to produce new knowledge in the laboratory. To these men, "the prime object of our Agricultural colleges" was to instruct a small group of individuals in the use of the laboratory so that they would "develop and elucidate science, which the masses may apply." These experimenters would advance agriculture by "advising and directing farmers" and exercise "a progressive, intelligent influence over the work of the husbandman." An unidentified commentator put the situation succinctly. "If our agricultural colleges succeed in training up two good experimenters in twenty years," he reflected, "they will, in this alone, return a full equivalent for the money expended on them.""
Both the proposal to create agricultural scientists and the plan to form a practical farmer class placed agricultural scientists and farmers in direct opposition. They did not disagree on all points, however. For example, farmers overwhelmingly supported the rejection of the classical curriculum's tenets as not germane to modern agricultural education. They often went further, however, and demanded that states separate agricultural colleges from institutions that offered classical studies, such as state universities, a stipulation with which few agricultural scientists would concur." Instances of agreement between faculties and farmers remained isolated and limited. The vast differences in agricultural college visions-in visions of what the modern American farmer ought to be-usually precluded harmonious relations and resulted instead in contentiousness and political maneuver. In Michigan, for example, the agricultural college faculty tried to overturn the college's manual labor requirement. Farmers stood steadfast in support of the requirement and won the battle, but lost the war. The faculty then appeared to embrace the regulation while actually vitiating it. College staff members started to describe manual labor as primarily those activities that served to demonstrate the scientific principles set forth in lectures. In practice, manual labor at Michigan generally meant investigations in the chemical laboratory or horticultural gardens, use of the microscope, or the like; the faculty met the letter of the law, but violated its spirit."
But the contest between farmers and agricultural science enthusiasts for agricultural college control ranged more broadly than matters of curriculum. Competition between antagonists also produced new initiatives, most of which came from agricultural scientists. These men understood quite early that their agricultural education designs would face strong objection and they prepared themselves to confront it. The establishment of farmers' institutes was one attempt by which agricultural college scientists sought to gain the upper hand. Beginning in the midwest around 1870, these assemblies were sponsored by agricultural colleges and staffed exclusively by their personnel. Institutes did not meet at a single fixed site, moreover, but traveled throughout the state during the winter months, staying at one place from two to seven days. At each location, the institute faculty delivered the same set of lectures, puffing science's veracity and utility as well as the agricultural scientists' importance to agriculture. 14
Farmers' institutes, then, were originally erected by agricultural college personnel to boost themselves and their college claims. The form of these institutes engendered complaints almost immediately. Some farmers argued that college professors confused who ought to be talking and who should be listening. Rather than use institutes to dispense agricultural science to farmers, critics maintained that agricultural education would be better served if professors listened to and took the advice of "those whose sons are invited to receive the instruction [that an agricultural college] is created to furnish them." Farmers did more than talk. They also took action. State agricultural societies, boards, and departments either created competing farmers' institutes, each of which permitted only farmers to present lectures, or, more common, tried to take over the college-initiated institutes. 15
Results of these farmers' uprising were dramatic. Since colleges and state agencies ultimately drew their authority from the state, college faculties found it difficult-and inconvenient-to mount a counterattack. An uneasy merger usually was the outcome. Agricultural colleges and state agencies jointly put on institutes or the agencies ran them alone. No matter which form of institute was adopted, the consequences were similar. Agricultural college personnel continued to address farmers at institutes, but in diminished numbers. They now had to share the podium with state agricultural agencies' representatives as well as local farmers. Both sets of agriculturists attacked the vision of agricultural education presented by college personnel and called for the reconstruction of agricultural colleges to teach modern farming's business and organizational principles. In short, professors continued to be heard at these revamped farmers' institutes, but now they were likely to be soundly rebuffed by their fellow orators. 16
Once it was clear that farmers had gained equality or ascendancy at farmers' institutes, even fewer agricultural college scientists appeared at the meetings. They disliked sharing the platform and contending with "the erroneous and loose statements and unsound views which are promulgated by speakers and debaters who are not qualified to impart correct and useful information." To get around their competitors, college scientists proposed a new agricultural education venture, one that allowed scientists to maintain exclusive control. Asserting that "before practical farming can be conducted intelligently and successfully, those pursuing the industry must be taught thoroughly the elementary principles of the departments of science which have a direct bearing on agriculture," scientists established at their colleges winter short courses. These short courses were to provide farmers, who would "graduate without diplomas," intensive training in the scientific foundations of agriculture-radically condensed summaries of agricultural science wisdom. Instruction took place primarily in the classroom, not in the field or laboratory. At the University of Wisconsin, for example, the twelve-week-long short course consisted of twenty-four lectures in veterinary science and sixty each in agriculture, agricultural chemistry, and agricultural botany."
Although it marked the agricultural scientists' final new educational foray before 1890, formation of short courses did not forestall farmers' attacks on agricultural colleges. Indeed, it could not. Short courses stemmed from the agricultural scientists' agricultural education vision, which was profoundly different from that of farmers. To be sure, the visions of the two groups had several common characteristics. Both sets of partisans conceived of farms and farming as a collection of hierarchically arranged facets or activities that were structured by or operated according to specific principles. Both maintained that those principles were based upon special knowledge and both claimed that modern agriculture demanded new, modern techniques and practices. But scientists and farmers differed considerably over what those principles were and, more importantly, who possessed the knowledge necessary to formulate them.
Those disagreements rested at the heart of the matter. The scientists' program diminished farmers-it treated them as a dependent class-while the farmers' agricultural education plan virtually excluded scientists. In that sense, the battle for agricultural college control was not simply a contest over what modern farmers were or ought to be but also a dispute over what agricultural scientists were and ought to be; the conflict's dual nature seemed to pose a potent threat to the group ultimately defeated. And that menace manifested itself in the stridency with which both parties approached the agricultural college question.
Ironically, the U.S. Congress institutionalized the conflict by enacting the Morrill Education Act of 1890. This measure was the product of both the farmers' and agricultural scientists' agricultural education visions. On its most basic level, the act pleased farmers by establishing the precedent of federal oversight of agricultural colleges. It contained a plank sponsored by the National Grange and Farmers' Alliance commanding college presidents to submit to the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Interior "full and detailed annual reports ... regarding the condition and progress of each college" and specified that the reports include discussions of faculties, facilities, course offerings, and enrollments. To insure that colleges complied with this mandate and that the public had full knowledge of what went on at these schools, the act outlined penalties for any agricultural college that failed to file a report. The law's terms further delighted farmers by requiring that federal monies "be applied only to instruction in agriculture." But the act also legitimized the agricultural scientists' assertions. It identified one manner of agricultural instruction as the study of "physical, natural and economic science with special reference to their [sic] applications. "18
This legislation enabled both parties to claim victory. Farmers and agricultural scientists could both maintain that Congress upheld their vision and point to the act's relevant clauses to support their case. And the assumption that the new Morrill Act provided for their vindication refortified the resolve of both sides and exacerbated tensions. With renewed zeal, scientists and farmers carried into the 1890s their battles for agricultural college control.
FOOTNOTES:
1. The material on agricultural societies and their investigations of agricultural colleges is voluminous. Rarely were college faculties exonerated. For the situation in Pennsylvania, for instance, see "Pennsylvania Agricultural College," Practical Farmer 10 (1873): 28; Mother, "Agricultural College in Centre County," Practical Farmer 10 (1873): 60; "Agricultural Colleges," Practical Farmer (1873): 76-77; George Blight, "Pennsylvania Agricultural College in Centre County," Practical Farmer 10 (1873): 149; "The Pennsylvania Agricultural College," Rural New- Yorker 28 (1873): 112; and "Agricultural Colleges," Western Planter 3 (1873): 115. For Kansas, see Charles W. Murtfeldt and L. S. Strong, "Kansas Agricultural College," Western Planter 3 (1873): 26-27; Probus, "Kansas State Agricultural College," Western Planter 3 0 873): 132; and "The Kansas State Agricultural College," Western Planter 3 (1873): 440. For Wisconsin, see "[Discussion]," Transactions of the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society 24 (1885): 249-72; H. C. Adams, "Agricultural Education," Transactions of the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society 25 (1886): 335-41; and "Discussion," 341-45 and 364-76. Also see "The Wisconsin Convention," Prairie Farmer 56 (1884): 104; and "Wisconsin Farmers in Council," Prairie Farmer 57 (1885): 98. For the situation in other States, see, for example, "The Agricultural Department," Western Planter 3 (1873): 168; G. C. Swallow, "Agricultural College of Missouri," Western Planter 3 (1873): 230; and "A Southern Agricultural College," Rural NewYorker 45 (1886): 828. The National Grange also took up the call. See, for example, Journal of Proceedings of the Tenth Session of the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry, 1876 (Lousiville: John P. Morton and Co., 1876), 96-97, 102-3, 106-8; William M. Ireland, reporter, Journal of Proceedings of the Eleventh Session of the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry, Held In The Grand Hotel, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 21 to 30, Inclusive, 1877, (Louisville: John P. Morton and Co., 1878), 128-32; and Journal of Proceedings of the Thirteenth Session of the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry, 1879 (Philadelphia: J. A. Wagenseller, 1879), 112-13.
2. Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress, 3rd Session, 525-37 and 557-70; ibid., 43rd Congress, 1st Session, 188; Congressional, Record, 44th Congress, 1st Session, 2761; and ibid., 48th Congress, 1st Session, 856 and 1496-97. For a brief overview of Congress's involvement in the agricultural college question during the period, see George N. Rainsford, Congress and Higher Education In the Nineteenth Century (Knoxville, 1972), 106-8.
3. The continual reshuffling of college agendas and courses of study during the period is reflected in numerous college histories. See, for example, George H. Callcott, A History of the University of Maryland (Baltimore, 1966); John Bettersworth, People's College: A History of Mississippi State (Birmingham, 1953); Alexis Cope, History of the Ohio State University, ed., Thomas C. Mendenhall, Vol. 1 (1870-1910), (Columbus, 1920); Merritt Caldwell Fernald, History of the Maine State College and the University of Maine (Orono, 1916); and Earle D. Ross, A History of Iowa State College (Ames, 1942).
4. William R. Taylor, "Agricultural Societies, Industrial Education and Cooperation Among Farmers," Transactions of the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society 11 (1872-73): 77; and "Systematic Farming," Southern Planter 44 (1883): 179. Also see, for example, "Do Farmers Study Enough," Journal of Agriculture 7 (1870): 76; "Progressive Farming," Western Agriculturist 11 (January 1879): 1; W.G.W., "Agriculture Both a Mechanical and Intellectual Pursuit," Western Farmer 24 (1872): 101; H. H. Walter, "How to Make Farming Attractive and Profitable," Journal of Agriculture 7 (1870): 243; R., "Does Farming Pay?" Prairie Farmer 10 (1873): 162; Bill Jinkins, "Practical Agriculture," Western Planter 3 (1873): 51; Correspondent to the Southern Farm and Home, "Improvement of Our Worn-Out Land," Maryland Farmer 7 (1870): 295; W. H. White, "Systematic Farming," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 41 (1876): 99; "The Life of A Farmer-Some Kindly Suggestions," Maryland Farmer 9 (1872): 267-69; "Farm Life, and How to Make it More Attractive," Rural Carolinian 3 (1871/72): 513; "Progression," Farmers' Journal 3 (1874): 36-37; D. S. Curtiss, "Mind and Muscle in Farming," Maryland Farmer 20 (1883): 209; "Business Methods On the Farm," Southern Planter 45 (1884): 559; "Head Versus Hand," Rural New- Yorker 42 (1883): 596; "How to Make Farming Profitable," Western Planter 2 (1872): 171; Subscriber, "Specialty Farming," Prairie Farmer 56 (1884): 178; Alex Ross, "The Dignity of Our Calling," Prairie Farmer 56 (1884): 114; and T.F.H., "A Plea For Agriculture," Prairie Farmer 55 (1883): 130.
5. Manly Miles, "System in Farming," American Agriculturist 40 (1881): 402-3; George B. Burrows, "The importance of a System of Practical Agriculture," Nineteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture For the Year 1874, p. 90; "System in Farm Management," Maryland Farmer 9 (1872): 56; and James A. Fulbright, "Organization, Education and Co-operation of Farmers," Nineteenth Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Missouri For the Years 1886187, p. 341.
6. See, for example, Michigan Farmer, "Unreasonable Complaints Against Agricultural Colleges," Western Farmer 26 (November 7, 1874): 1; "Manual Labor Schools," Rural NewYorker 21 (1870): 176; "The College-Labor System," Journal of Agriculture 8 (1870): 112; Suel Foster, "Agricultural Colleges," Prairie Farmer 41 (1870): 297; "Are Agricultural Schools Failures?" Rural New- Yorker 28 (1873): 272; N. C., "Farmers Boys," Western Planter 3 (1873): 307; "Agricultural Colleges," American Agriculturist 34 (1875): 8; A. B. Allen, "Agricultural Colleges," Rural NewYorker 42 (1883): 365; Western Agriculturist, "Agricultural Colleges," Maryland Farmer 22 (1885): 319; "Stimulated," Rural New- Yorker 45 (1886): 452; John A. Anderson, "Principles By Which The Course of Study In An Agricultural College Should Be Governed," Third Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture To the Legislature of Kansas For the Year 1874, pp. 311-14; H. N. M'Allister, "An Essay On The Proper Sphere, Objects and Duties of Agricultural Colleges In the United States, Under the Provisions of the Act of 2 July 1862," Report of the Transactions of the Pennsylvania State Agricultural Society For the Years 1871172, pp. 80-83; M. D. Boruck, "Annual Address," Transactions of the California State Agricultural Society For the Year 1874, p. 306; "Agricultural Colleges," Maryland Farmer 23 (1886): 353; E. M., "Mississippi Agricultural College," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 50 (1885): 65; and A. F. North, "Farmers' Schools," Transactions of the Wisconsin Agricultural Society, Vol. 23, 1885, pp. 221-27.
7, See, for example, "Agricultural Professors," Rural New-Yorker 27 (1873): 304; C. W. Musselman, "Our Agricultural Colleges," Rural Alabamian 1 (1872): 362-64; "Agricultural Education," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 37 (1872): 744; "An Agricultural College," Maryland Farmer 10 (1873): 363-64; "Practical Education," Maryland Farmer 13 (1876): 34; Peter Henderson, "Agricultural Colleges," Rural New- Yorker 42 (1883): 3 and 285; W.F.M., "The Education of Farmers' Sons," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 49 (1884): 1004; L.E.B., "Agricultural Colleges and Agricultural Education," Rural New- Yorker 45 (1886): 739; J. M. Deering, "State Aid to Agriculture," Thirtieth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture For the Year 1886187, p. 14; "Letter From 'Rural,' " Prairie Farmer 42 (1871): 331; "The Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College," Maryland Farmer 10 (1873): 211; "Industrial Education," Journal of Agriculture 7 (1870): 401-2; Tobias Martin, "Pennsylvania Agricultural College Farm," Practical Farmer 10 (1873): 77; B.F.J., "Our Illinois Letter," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 35 (1871): 340; B., "Our Ohio Letter," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 35 (1871): 612; and "Agricultural Colleges," American Agriculturist 43 (1884): 511.
8. See, for instance, C. F. Allen, "Science in Agriculture," Eighteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture For the Year 1873, pp. 376-77; T. C. Abbot, "Address of President Abbot of the State Agricultural College Before The House of Representatives of the Michigan Legislature, March 4, 1875," Thirteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan For the Year 1874, pp. 7677; H. H. McAfee, "Agricultural Experimentation," Western Farmer 24 (1872): 82, go, and 98; R. G., "Progress in Agricultural Science," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 39 (1874): 132; J. D. Warfield, "Address by Professor J. D. Warfield," Maryland Farmer 17 (1880): 308-10; Edward Wiggin, "Intellectual and Social Culture Among Farmers," Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture For the Year 1884, p. 133; D. D. Wo Worthington "Science and Agriculture," Maryland Farmer 13 (1876): 165-66; C. A. Groessmann, "The Fertilization of Farm Lands," American Chemist 4 (1873-74): 139; Peter Collier, "Relations of Science to Agriculture," First Annual Report of the Vermont State Board of Agriculture Manufactures, and Mining For the Year 1873, p. 487. W. H. Jordan, "The Farmers' Relation to Science," American Agriculturist 40 (1881): 522; Martin P. Scott, "Concerning the Contributions of Science To Practical Agriculture," Southern Planter 45 (1884): 60; "Science and The Farmer," Rural New- Yorker 40 (1881): 636; Edward Orton, "The Relation of Science to Agriculturture," Thirty-Fourth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture For the Year 1879, pp. 70-71; and S. M. Tracy, "The Work of Agricultural Colleges," Western Stock Journal and Farmer 9 (1879): 163-64.
9, See, for example, "New Departure of Colleges," Prairie Farmer 42 (1871): 221; Darius H. Pingrey, "The School of Agriculture," Prairie Farmer 43 (1872): 283; "Agricultural Colleges," Maryland Farmer 10 (1873): 276; S. B. Buckley, "Agricultural Education," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 46 (1881): 590-91; T. C. Abbot, "The Prejudice Against Industrial Schools," Fourteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture for the State of Michigan For the Year 1875, pp. 215-18; C. L. Ingersoll, "Progressive Agriculture," Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture 21 (1879): 183; Samuel Johnson, "The Needs of Agriculture," Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Michigan State Board of Agriculture, 1886, p. 50; Edward Orton, "The Relation of Science to Agriculture," pp. 70-71; E. E. White, "Agricultural Education," Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, 1876, pp. 104-5; Paul A. Chadbourne, "Address of Welcome," Thirtieth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture For 1882, pp. 14-16; and James C. Greenough, "The Place and the Work of the State College," Thirty-First Annual Report of the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture For 1883, pp. 53-59.
10. John R. Page, "Agricultural Education," Southern Planter 43 (1882): 328-29; and Andrew D. White, "What Agricultural Colleges Should Be," Journal of Agricufture 8 (1870): 174-75. Also see, for example, N. B. Worthington, "Manual Labor at Agricultural Colleges," Maryland Farmer 10 (1873): 149-50; "Manual Labor of Students," Western Farmer 25 (November 1873): 4; "Our Agricultural Colleges," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 46 (1881): 504-05; "Student Labor," Western Farmer 25 (November 8, 1873): 4; W. 1. Chamberlain, "Agricultural Colleges-III," Rural New- Yorker 42 (1883): 301; "President's Report of Purdue University For the Year Ending October 31, 1874," Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, 1874, p. 119; Alfred Gray, "Secretary's Report," Transactions of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, 1872, pp. 12-13; N. S. Townsend, "Agricultural Education," ThirtyFirst Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture For the Year, 1876, p. 305; C. A. Goessmann, "Annual Report of the Massachusetts Agricultural College 1884," Thirty-First Annual Report of the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture, 1883, pp. 422- 25; H. P. Armsby, "The Storrs Agriculture School-Course of Study," Sixteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture, 1882-8 pp. 18-26. See also, for example, R. Goodman, "Agricultural Education," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 44 (1879): 51; G. C. Caldwell, "Are Agricultural Colleges A Failure?" Rural New- Yorker 41 (1882): 795-96; W. 1. Chamberlain, "Agricultural Colleges," Rural New-Yorker 42 (1883): 66 and 185; W.H.R. "Agricultural Education," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 51 (1886): 791; J. Skirving, "Agricultural Colleges," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 39 (1874): 755; E.L.S., "Agricultural Education," Scientific Farmer 1 (1876): 240-41; and G. W. Jones, "The Work of the Agricultural Colleges," Farmers' Journal 1 (November 1872): 2.
11. E. M. Pendleton, "What Are the Legitimate Duties of An Agricultural Professor?" Addresses and Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Educational Association 16 (1876): 267-68; Charles S. Plumb, "Our Agricultural College Graduates," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 50 (1885): 126-27; and "Experimental Agriculture," Transactions of the Illinois State Agricultural Society, 1870, p. 152. Also see, for instance, T. D. Warfield, "The Question of Labor in Agricultural Colleges," Maryland Farmer 15 (1878): 9; "The Laboratory in Modern Science," Science 3 (1884): 172-74; J. B. Turner, "Industrial Education," Prairie Farmer 43 (1872): 275; "Agricultural Colleges," Boston Journal of Chemistry 7 (1873): 114-15; Eugene W. Hilgard, "Progress in Agriculture By Education and Government Aid," Atlantic Monthly 49 (1882): 534-35 and 540-41; A. S. Welch, "The True Work of National Industrial Schools," Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Session of the National Agricultural Congress, At Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 12-14, 1876, (Chicago, 1877), 39; W. W. Tracy, "Are Agricultural Colleges A Failure?" Rural New- Yorker 42 (1883): 217; W. H. Jordan, "[Discussion About Role of Agricultural Colleges]," Agriculture of Pennsylvania, Containing Reports of the State Agricultural Board, State Agricultural Society, State Dairymen's Association, State Fruit Growers' Association, and the State College For the Year 1882, p. 125; and S. W. Johnson, "Systematic Education for the American Farmer," Fourteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture, 1880-81, pp. 90-91.
12. See, for example, "Bad Farming," Maryland Farmer 10 (1873): 2-3; Z. J., "The Intelligent Farmer," Farmers' Journal 1 (October 1872): 3; "Agricultural Students," Rural NewYorker 21 (1870): 288; "Kansas Agricultural College," Western Farmer 24 (1872): 148; George T. Anthony, "Agricultural Education," Transactions of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture 1872, p. 285; James W. Ross, "President's Annual Address," Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture For the Year, 1870, p. 204; "[The Trustees of Purdue University]," Prairie Farmer 55 (1883): 504; John Davis, "Illinois Industrial University," Prairie Farmer 41 (1870): 69; and H. L. Leeland, "Farmers' Boys and Girls," Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture For the Year 1883, pp. 188-90.
13. See, for example, "President Abbot's Address," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 40 (1875): 297; B. D. Halsted, "Student Labor At Agricultural Colleges," Western Farmer 25 (November 23, 1873): 1; and W. J. Beal, "Our Schools of Agriculture," Fourteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Connecticut State Board of Agriculture, 1880-8 1, pp. 46- 53.
14. See, for example, "University Lectures," Prairie Farmer 41 (1870): 12; "Agricultural Lectures and Discussions," Prairie Farmer 42 (1871): 4; and Charles W. Murtfeldt, "[Address to the Kansas State Agricultural Society]," Transactions ... Kansas ... 1872, pp. 55-56.
15. "Agricultural Professors," Rural New- Yorker 27 (1873): 304. See, for instance, "Board of Agriculture," Prairie Farmer 42 (1871): 77; "Farmers' institute at La Porte City," Farmers' Journal 3 (1874): 66; "Farmers' Institute of Eastern Pennsylvania," Practical Farmer 10 (1873): 148; W. J. Jennings, "How to Elevate the Farmer's Calling," Western Farmer 26 (March 21, 1874): 1; Thomas T. Kinney, "President's Address," Eighth Annual Report of the New Jersey State Board of Agriculture, 1881, pp. 6-7; W. 1. Chamberlain, "Our State Boards of Agriculture, Cultivator and Country Gentleman 28 (1883): 376; "[Proceedings of the January Meeting]," Report of the Iowa Agricultural Society, 1870, p. 185; and George B. Burrows, "The Province Of A Board Of Agriculture," Nineteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture, For the Year, 1874, pp. 338- 43.
16. See, for example, "Agricultural Lectures and Discussions," Prairie Farmer 42 (1871): 4; Arator, "Agricultural Education," Maryland Farmer 12 (1875): 235; C.C.W., "A Michigan Farmers' Institute," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 43 (1878): 68; "School Is Out," Prairie Farmer 57 (1886): 668; G. E. Morrow, "Farmer's Institutes," Prairie Farmer 58 (1886): 660; Z. A. Gilbert, "Report of the Secretary," Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture For the Year 1880, p. 7; "Report of the Secretary," Thirty-First Annual Report of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, 1881, pp, 82-85 and 88-92; W. F. Kelley, "Opening Address at the Ottawa County Farmers' Institute, January 24, 1881," First Biennial Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Michigan, From September 1, 1880, to September 38, 1882, p. 201; John Avery, "Opening Address At Farmers' Institute at Greenville, January 26, 1881," First Biennial Report ... Michigan, 1880-82, pp. 204-06; D. L. Pope, "[Presidential Address to the Ohio State Agricultural Convention]," Thirty-Sixth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture For the Year 1881, p. 35; and N. F. Underwood, "Farmers' Institutes," Agriculture of Pennsylvania, 1881, pp. 245-46.
17. James R. Nichols, "Confused Farmers," Boston Journal of Chemistry 6 (1872): 125 and "Farmers' Institutes," 16 (1882): 42. Also see, for example, "The Taste For Farming Develops Late," Prairie Farmer 44 (1883): 329; "Agricultural Societies," Scientific Farmer 3 (1878): 66; S. W. Johnson, "Systematic Education," 93-94; "A Short Course In Agriculture," Prairie Farmer 58 (1886): 735; G. E. Morrow, "Agricultural Education," Cultivator and Country Gentleman 51 (1886): 791; Samuel Johnson, "Report of the Professor of Agriculture and superintendent of the Farm," Twenty-Fifth Annual Report ... Michigan ... 1886, P. xxii; and "Ohio State University," Prairie Farmer 57 (1885): 475.
18. United States Statutes at Large, 1890, 26: 417.