32 



managers of farmers' institutes in the States i)f Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin, and after 

 considering the institute work of these T'tates were of the opinion that Indiana was in as 

 good a shape to commence the work of holding farmers' institutes as some of these States 

 were when they began their work, and they advised the holding of at least one institute 

 in each county in the State between the date of their report (January, 1888) and 

 March 1, and advised that the members of the State board of agriculture take charge of 

 the work in their several districts and see that institutes are held. The recommenda- 

 tions of the committee were adopted and the l)oard was instructed "to provide for a 

 series of farmers' institutes to be held during the coming year, one such meeting to be 

 held in each member's district." 



At the annual meeting of the State board in January, 1889, R. M. Lockhart, chair- 

 man of a special committee of three appointed for the purpose of formulating a plan l)y 

 which the work could be started in different parts of the State, reported that the com- 

 mittee had prepared what they conceived to be the best plan for immediate work and 

 had it pulilished in the Indiana Farmer, advising that at least one institute be held 

 in each district between January, the date of the board meeting, and the fu-st of the 

 following April. He also stated for the committee, "We are glad to be able to report 

 that a number of very interesting institutes have been held in the State." 



In the report of 1888 the secretary of the State board, in speaking of the farmers' 

 institutes in Indiana, stated that — 



Several institutes were held in different parts of the State during 1887 which, from 

 reports sul)mitted to the l)oard of agriculture, were failures thruout as regards attend- 

 ance. During the year 1888 just closed, however, success has crowned the efforts of 

 workers in this field and notably different results have obtained in a very large number 

 of places where institutes have been held. In many instances the institute has been 

 maintained thruout the two days set apart for holding these meetings, and large crowds 

 have come together in response to the call to hear addresses l^y learned gentlemen 

 selected to conduct these institutes. * * * Among the institutes held programs 

 were received at the office by the secretary of the board of agriculture from Rockville, 

 Parke County; Peru, Miami County; Princeton, Gibson County; Laporte, Laporte 

 County; Plainfield, Hendricks County; Franklin, Johnson County, and Anderson, 

 Madison County. 



The annual reports of the State board of agriculture contain accounts of but four 

 institutes up to this time — the meetings at Columbus and Crawfordsville in 1882, and 

 at Franklin and Anderson in 1888. The two first institutes were held under the 

 direct control of the State board of agriculture. The Johnson County institute and 

 the Madison County institute were under the joint auspices of the State board and 

 local agricultural associations. 



In 1887 a number of district meetings were held under the direction of R. M. Lock- 

 hart — one at La Grange February 14, another the next day (Wednesday) at Sycamore 

 Corners, on Thursday at Kendallville, on Friday at Angolia, and at Waterloo on Sat- 

 urday. The speakers at these metings were Professor Webster, of Purdue L^niversity, 

 John B. Conner, editor of the Indiana Farmer, and Judge Robert W. McBride. 



Mr. Lockhart reports that during 1887 he aided in organizing the institutes in twenty- 

 two counties. In addition to these there were eleven others held at the following 

 points: Goshen, South Bend, Laporte, Warsaw, Columl)ia City, Fort Wayne, Peru, 

 Kokomo, Anderson, Muncie, and Richmond. 



These early institutes were less like schools than farmers' institutes of the present 

 day. Altho held in an irregular, somewhat spasmodic and very incomplete way, they 

 doubtless did much to interest the people of the State in practical discussions on topics 

 of everyday interest to farmers. \\'ith no public funds to draw upon, with no author- 

 ized and centralized control of the work, and dependent almost wholly upon local 

 initiative, only a few favored localities could be expected to take an interest, and con- 

 sequently receive the Ix'nefits of the work. The seed, however, was l^eing sown in 

 fruitful soil, as the later developments of the institutes revealed. 



