mechanic arts," was the fruit of the farmers' protest against what they deemed one-sided educational conditions. So also was the incorporation, at an earlier date, in the organic act of the University of Minnesota, of a requirement that the University should include a "college of agriculture." The aggressive movement of the Farmers' Alliance in "the eighties," to separate the college of agriculture from the University, arose from what was a very natural belief, on the part of farmers, that the regents had failed to make good the purpose for which Congress had bestowed the land grant of 1862. And really the showing of students, during nearly a score of years after it was opened, in the socalled college of agriculture-the number being so small as not to be deemed worth recording in federal reports down to 1886, when there were five-seemed to justify the contention that the regents were giving the state an agricultural college only "on paper."

Regents, faculty and farmers were in fact working in the dark. Rather, one might say, it was a case of the blind leading the blind; with a good deal of doubt, at times, as to which were the leaders and which the led. Neither regents nor professors had any clear conception of the farmer's needs, and the farmer didn't know exactly what he wanted. The former deemed that, having provided courses in a large number of arts and sciences having more or less relation to agriculture, having manned the chairs with competent professors, and issued an invitation to all youths desiring an education in these branches of learning to enter the University, on terms as easy or easier than those exacted of other students they had done their whole duty. The farmers, on the other hand, were possessed with a vague feeling that they were purposely proffered something they couldn't use.

The editor of the Western Farmer fitly compared the errors made in those early days of agricultural education with those made in the first endeavors to educate the southern negroes, during the restoration period. Said he:

"The early agricultural college taught similar subjects, with some mathematics, zoology, and

astronomy added, possibly that more exact knowledge of the moon's action in its first, second and third quarters, on dressing pork, planting potatoes or setting fence corner blocks might be known.

"At all events, the results were similar. The negroes' education was a complete failure. The agricultural college, up to 1888, so far as the farmers were concerned, was also. Its graduates, which were few and far between, looked for positions away from the farm. Its tendency was diametrically opposed to the agricultural education of today."

With the year 1886 a new and better chapter was opened in the history of the agricultural department of the University. It was resolved

The foremost agent in this awakening was Dr. David L. Kiehle, superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio regent of the University from 1881 to 1893. He had followed the leadership of Dr. C. M. Woodward, of Washington University, St. Louis, in the battles which for successive years had been fought in the National Education Association, over the recognition of manual training in the schools; and had become an enthusiast in the advocacy of "the education of hand and eye" as a primary necessity in any system which should adequately meet the needs of an American population.

In the spring of 1888, Dr. David L. Kiehle submitted to the public press and to the board of regents of the University a plan of organization. for a school of agriculture, which will be found. in full in the general history of the University in this volume.

In a circular of information issued by the United States Bureau of Education, concerning the "History of Education in Minnesota," is embodied a contribution from Regent S. M. Owen; in which, referring to Dr. Kiehle's plan, he says: "No proposition suggested in the foregoing met with more adverse criticism than the one to hold the school during the winter months, when, it was said, practical agriculture could not be taught, since the opportunity for object lessons in crop growing and conditions of practice would be wanting. But experience has confirmed the predictions of Professor Kiehle. Many of the disadvantages of teaching practical subjects in the winter have been overcome by means of plants, animals, machines, charts, models, and other illustrative material which from year to year is being collected. The boy receives instruction during the winter that he is eager to put in practice on the farm during the succeeding summer. While at work there, he discovers defects in his education that cause him to look forward with pleasant anticipation to the second term of the school, when the defects may be remedied."

The consideration of this plan by the board of regents was followed by its prompt adoption. This course was facilitated by the circumstance

that, in the experiment farm at St. Anthony Park, the University already possessed not only an ideal location for the new school, but a staff of trained specialists in several branches of agriculture, admirably qualified to assume the office of instructors; also a considerable equipment, which could be utilized in the work of practical instruction as well as of experimentation.

Aside from the two hundred and forty-nine acres of excellent land, this equipment consisted, in part, of a fine farm house and barn, a chemical laboratory (occupying the site of the present dairy hall); a very full assortment of

agricultural implements; cattle, sheep, hogs, horses, harnesses, wagons, etc.; a well and a water system.

As for instructors, the presence, at the beginning, of such specialists-already identified with the college of agriculture as well as the experiment station-as Professors Willet M. Hays, Samuel B. Green, Otto Lugger, David N. Harper, and Olaf Schwartzkopff, was in verity of more advantage to the school than a large endowment. These gentlemen accepted with enthusiasm the new responsibilities laid upon them by the establishment of the school; and to their quick comprehension of the needs of the situation, and the thoroughly practical way in which they addressed themselves to the work, must be mainly attributed the almost instantanesuccess which followed. We have Dr. Northrop's word for it that "instruction in

ous

agriculture was offered at the opening of the college in 1869." A comparison of the relative progress of such instruction, during the twenty years following and including that date, and during the twenty years beginning with 1888, affords a very interesting illustration of the superiority of the new ideas represented by these instructors, over the old ideas of agricultural education.

To the buildings already existing on the experiment farm, the regents added a single one, designed to afford under one roof "the conveniences of educational, culinary, and dormitory service," at a cost of about $40,000. It had dormitory accommodations for thirty-five persons. In this building the school was opened, October 18th, 1888, with eighteen students; a number increased, however, during the term, to fortyseven. This building, by the way, is still in use (1910) under the name of the "Home" building. Its prominent sign, declaring it to be the "School of Agriculture, University of Minnesota," evokes no little amusement among visitors, as they compare it with the statelier structures of the group of twenty-five now sharing the honor of housing the school.

The conditions under which the work of the school was begun are well described by Dean Liggett, in an address delivered at the thirteenth annual commencement, March 21st, 1902:

"There was a well-defined purpose, enforced by much enthusiasm, but that purpose was to start a school of agriculture, and was not backed by any clear and comprehensive knowledge of what a school of agriculture should be. There were no precedents. Agricultural education was in a most chaotic condition. There were many theories, and some so-called 'agricultural colleges' had been maintained for some years previous, but as a rule they taught very little agriculture. Likewise there were no text books; and no one had formulated a practical curricalum for a school of agriculture of a high-school grade. It was evident that the work must be experimental. A two-years' course was laid out, and instruction commenced. As we look at this course now, we see there was but little agricul

ture in it, and this was, under the conditions just rehearsed, to be expected. There was difficulty in securing experienced teachers (or, to put it more accurately, there were no experienced teachers), and this added much to the difficulties to be overcome. It is true that two members of the faculty were graduates of agricultural colleges, and the school perhaps owes more to them than to any others for an early infusion of agriculture into the course of study. Professors Hays and Green were persistent and successful

advocates of agricultural education in fact as well as in name, and to them is due the highest praise for their splendid work in laying the foundations of the agricultural work of the school."

The instructors engaged, and the course of study arranged, under the conditions so described, are shown by the following list, copied from one of the earliest announcements of the school:

W. W. Pendergast, Principal-Physics, Physical Geography.

H. W. Brewster, A. B., Assistant Principal. -Mathematics.

C. R. Aldrich, Manual Training.