educated, either are or rapidly become fairly well versed in elementary agricultural science, and are able to solve most questions of that kind that arise.

On the Pacific Coast, however, where the institute season extends over most of the year, and in most states where the system is new, the conductors of institutes are usually of the university staff, who get away from their college duties for a few days at a time for this work. At such institutes the strong feature is apt to be popular presentations of agricultural science, with an effort thereafter to draw out the practical experience of those present, for comparison with the general doctrines advanced. At first thought the latter form would seem more desirable, and the tendency is to regret that the number of university instructors must always be too small to do any great part of the work whenever the demand calls for a large number of institutes. I am inclined, however, although I have never attended institutes where the university work was not the prominent feature, to believe that the best results are secured by non-professional instructors. In the first place, they are pretty sure not to talk over the heads of their hearers, which, with all their care not to do so, university professors are not always able to avoid. The set lectures are more apt to deal with details with which all present are personally familiar, and, therefore, more readily draw out discussion from local men, which after all is the chief end of the institute. There is less shyness in asking questions as to detail of some one who is known as a successful farmer, than in cross-questioning a "professor" on statements of general principles. There is also the general prejudice of farmers against "theorists," by which they mean all persons who do not live by manual labor on the farm, and yet presume to discuss agricultural questions; and this prejudice, although unfounded and irrational, must be taken into account in estimating probable results. It therefore seems probable that the best results in institute work will usually be achieved by nonprofessional, but competent, lecturers when those can be had. Here, however, lies a difficulty. At the beginning they are seldom to be had at all. The best farmers are apt to be busy

farming. The small pay that is offered will not justify a successful farmer in leaving his business unless favored by special circumstances, while it is quite sufficient to attract a large class who can do no possible good, but may very likely have a "pull,” which the appointing power can not always resist. I am told that there is much trouble from this cause in some states. Good farmers are, also, not always good talkers, and good talkers are not always good teachers, and some who may be good farmers, good talkers, and good teachers, are unable to realize that it is not best for them to talk all the time.

The requirements for a successful non-professional institute worker are high character and consequent good reputation at home, infinite tact and good-nature, sound common sense, readiness and clearness of speech, a high order of intelligence, a fair education, with readiness to learn, reasonable success in whatever he has attempted, and respect for the opinions of others. That is a pretty good man. One can not blow a horn and collect a crowd of such men about him. At the beginning the main work must fall on the staff of the Agricultural College, with such help as can be got in the locality where the institute is held. In the end the progress of the work will develop the men who can carry it on, just as only a war can develop the great generals.

The ideal two-day institute is doubtless one or two lectures by college men, on underlying principles, with the remainder of the time occupied by local papers or non-professional lecturers, with a full half of the time devoted to brief and pointed discussion duly kept within bounds by a tactful conductor, and the "question box" always going. The question box is a feature of all good institutes, and affords an opportunity for any one to ask any question on any agricultural topic, with a probability that it will be intelligently answered by some one. Stated times are always set for answering questions in the box, as questions during or following an address should always be connected with the question discussed. On certain topics-like veterinary science, or entomology-the services of a university man, or a specialist of some kind, are almost essential. When not available the

second-hand information of the non-professional must be made to answer. Non-professional lecturers, from their frequent opportunities to hear university or other specialists, and their own experience and observation, rapidly become able to authoritatively answer most questions relating to common pests and diseases, soil chemistry, plant physiology, and the like; and a successful and well-educated farmer will discuss feeding and culture problems with more convincing authority than a professor.

This discussion of what an institute and institute workers should be ought to give any reader who is so unfortunate as never to have attended a Farmers' Institute, a very good idea of its objects and methods. At the institute, so far as possible, there are taught the laws and processes of animal and vegetable growth, the causes, nature, and prevention or proper treatment of diseases of plants and animals, the mechanical and chemical constitution of soils, the action of water in the soil, the commercial value and proper culture of old and new plants, the science and practice of feeding, the details of technical dairying operations, and all the numberless major and minor subjects bearing on rural life. Not that all these things are taught or discussed at any one institute, but such a selection is made as will best suit the needs and desires of the members and the special abilities, knowledge, and experience of those who lead and address it. The institute is successful in a direct ratio with the spontaneous questioning and discussion which it elicits. It is, therefore, what its members make it. I have heard farmers say that they could learn nothing at such an institute, as they already knew their business. Such farmers, if they have the least spark of humanity in their bosoms, should be the first ones on hand and the last to leave, in order that they may communicate some of their knowledge to the unfortunate majority who still have something to learn.

W

CHAPTER VI.

AGRICULTURE IN THE COMMON SCHOOLS.

ITHIN a few years there has been some effort to introduce the study of what is termed "agriculture" in the common schools of rural districts. As discussion has progressed, there has been a tendency to substitute the term "nature study" for "agriculture," as more definitely descriptive of what is proposed to be taught. This term also has the advantage of being commonly employed by teachers. As understood by them, however, it includes subjects not directly pertaining to agriculture, and has the disadvantage of not conveying to the majority of farmers the distinct idea of the connection between the proposed work and the art of husbandry. In default of any single English word expressing precisely what we mean, I prefer for the present to retain the term "agriculture," meaning thereby the study of such natural phenomena, directly bearing upon farm work, as can be profitably presented to pupils of school age.

In this work, so far as I know, the authorities of the state of Connecticut first took official action, but the first real progress was made when, in 1894, the New York Legislature, at the request of the farmers of certain counties in the western part of the state, appropriated $8,000 to be expended by the Agricultural Department of Cornell University in promoting improvements in the practice of horticulture within those counties. The terms of the act permitted the promotion of studies in aid of agriculture in the common schools, and the authorities of the University devoted part of the appropriation to that work. This work was entirely experimental, but it could not have been placed in better hands, and the success was such that the appropriations for the purpose were largely increased, and the work extended to cover the entire state. The New York work attracted the attention of the entire

nation, and is likely to ultimately become part of permanent educational policy everywhere.

It began in New York, as it must begin elsewhere, in personal visits of skilled instructors from the University, going from one school to another and spending half days in instruction. The teachers quickly caught the idea and were eager to take it up. To aid them in this the University printed a series of "leaflets" containing sample lessons to be given orally to pupils, and opened "correspondence classes" with teachers, of whom over ten thousand were enrolled as students by 1897. From this the work has extended in New York and other states, and will be more or less familiar to most of my readers. No more promising effort in aid of agriculture has ever been made.

Up to the present time the term "agriculture" has been generally employed by the press in discussing these new studies, and it will probably hold its place. The vagueness of this term, already alluded to, has resulted in all sorts of misconceptions as to the nature of the proposed work, and it is desirable to inquire a little further as to what is really meant by teaching "agriculture" in common schools.

On the part of farmers I fear that in many cases nothing in particular is meant. There is a vague idea that in some way these common schools can help to make farming more attractive to young people, as well as more profitable, and thus tend to stop the drift of the young to the cities, where most of them lose all chance of ever attaining an independent life. Not knowing how else to express themselves, they speak of introducing "agriculture" as a study, and sometimes of the necessity of a proper " text-book" for the pupils.

There is no doubt that the common schools can be very helpful in this respect, and that they are thus helping in some countries. It is not, however, nor can it be, by the pursuit of a formal "course" leading to definite attainments within certain limits, nor is any "text-book" whatever required for the use of pupils. The first step in any useful study of agri

* See Appendix C to this book, for New York law and specimen leaflets.