59 



it would cost us in the consolidated schools, to have Ijuilt the schoolhouse and still 

 save money. We consider all the items of cost in other things, and now, in the name 

 of common sense, let us consider them also in this. 



Tait Butler, of North Carolina, presented the following paper: 



INSTITUTE LECTURERS. 



Reference to the published pnjceedings of this association reveals the fact that at 

 every annual nieetiiig tiiree or more members have discussed the question of insti- 

 tute workers. Morcuvur, e\en ])eft)re your pntgramme cioinniittee assigned the dis- 

 cussion of this subject to me it was the most troublesome one with which 1 have 

 had to deal as an institute director. Afterwards of course it became d()ul)ly so, and 

 then when I read the discussions in the published proceedings of your jirevious 

 meetings, and came to realize liow thoroughly the lield had been covered, my diffi- 

 culties in relation to this important (juestion became thrice niagnitied and increased. 

 In short, after thinking a great deal about this subject, as all institute directors must, 

 and then reading the thoughts of others expressed at previous meetings of this asso- 

 ciation, I could not but feel deei)ly the force of the trite jjlirase, "There is nothing new 

 underthesuii;" at least I am very certain there is nothing new in what I have to offer in 

 this paper. But even an old question, though worn threatlbare by jiast discussions, which 

 is of such vital interest to the permanent sut'ce.-^sof farmers' institute work, and which 

 has not yet been solved, is worthy of further consideration, ^lark you, I emphasize 

 the statements that ( 1 ) this is the most important (juestion confronting those engaged 

 in directing farmers' institute work, and (2 ) it is yet unsolved. In fact, I do not think 

 we have yet made much progress in its solution. The partial solution indicated by 

 the optimistic reports of directors in certain States and provinces seem to me at best, 

 when taken at their full face value, as merely a short and unsatisfactory truce with 

 a ditticulty which certainly yet remains to Ije met and overcome before the institute 

 work can l)e said to I)e on anything like a sound and satisfactory basis. 



3Iethods, as they relate to organization, advertising, the manner of conducting 

 institutes, etc., liave been of great importance and uuich progress has been made 

 toward the solution oi the problems involved, but all are secondary to the necessity 

 for supplying suitable institute lecturers. A lack of interest in the institutes on 

 the part of farmers is sometimes complained of; but really the wonder is not that 

 the farmers have taken little interest, but that they have taken as much interest as 

 they have, when we consider the sort of material that has sometimes been given 

 them by would-be institute lecturers. It seems to me we have been too much con- 

 cerned with the work of getting out a large attendance to devote sufficient attention 

 to the more imjiortant matter of furnishing those wlio did come out with the right 

 sort of information in an acceptable form. By far is it better to have twenty-tive 

 farmers carry away from an institute something of real value to them and to have 

 them favorably impressed with the knowledge and practical good sense of all the 

 lecturers than to have two hundred go away with a lack of respect for the judgment 

 of the lecturers, no matter how thoroughly they may have been entertained by 

 music, declamations, and other side-show attractions. 



The purpose of this discussion is, no doubt, to aid, if possible, in solving the diffi- 

 culty of supplying an adequate number of the right sort of institute lecturers. The 

 question naturally arises, therefore. What is the right sort of institute lecturer? The 

 diversity of opinion regarding this question is great and the standard is by no means 

 well defined. Not infrequently institute directors and institute audiences express the 

 idea that the so-called scientific men are not wanted, but that the demand is for real, 

 practical farmers for institute lecturers. Personally I do not care where the institute 

 lecturer comes from, and I do not believe institute audiences do either. At least, if 

 they do to any great extent, I believe institute directors are largely responsible for the 

 fact. The demands of institute audiences are in a measure the result of education — 

 they are largely what we have made them. At first the institute lecturers were largely 

 drawn from among college and station men, and now the tendency is to the other 

 extreme — to the so-called practical farmer. This is unfortunate, for if either class 

 was to have been employed exclusively or to a highly preponderating extent the 

 order should have been reversed. The farmer should have preceded instead of fol- 

 lowed the college and station men. But the most serious mistake was in trying to 

 do a large part of the institute work with college and station workers. To supply 

 the demand it became necessary to employ all the college and station force when 

 not more than one out of ten college or station or any other class of men is a suitable 

 institute lecturer, a,nd the other nine never should have been taken for institute 

 work. Because a man is a great scientist or a careful and skilled investigator is no 



