41 



as listeners or as questioners. There can l)e no iloul)t, however, that an institute to 

 do the most goofl must be one which trains and cU'velops the tah>nt of the peoph' of the 

 locality, enabling them to help each other. However capabli' a speaker from the 

 college may be. he often lacks the knowledge of local conditions neces.sary to make his 

 advice of the highest value. 



The numbers of institutes held from 1881 to 1904 are as follows: 1881-82, 6; 1882-83, 

 5; 1883-84, 7; 1884-85. 6; 1885-86, (i; 1880-87, 8; 1887-88, 8; 1888-89, 10; 1889-90, 8; 

 1890-91, 11; 1891-92, 11; 1892-93, 10; 1893-94, 17; 1894-95. 22; 1895-96, 22; 1896-97, 

 19; 1897-98, 29: 1898-99. 62; 1899-1900. 134; 1900-1901. 15<i: 1901-2, 102; 1902-3, 

 88; 1903-4, 58: 1904-5, 55. 



KENTUCKY. 



The commissioner of agriculture of Kentucky in 1887, in his report to the governor, 

 states "that farmers' institutes are on the increase in Kentucky. These institutes, like 

 those organized by the educators of our youth, are directly in line of rapid and sub- 

 stantial progress." 



Previous to 1895 the commissioner of agriculture of Kentucky was appointed by the 

 governor. He was not allowed any assistance whatever in conducting his bureau 

 and only $2,000 was appropriated for all of the expenses of the department, except 

 salaries and the printing of the biennial reports. The $2,000 as well as the salaries and 

 the cost of printing were drawn from the general funds of the State. As a result far- 

 mers' institutes as separate organizations were difficult to maintain. The commis- 

 sioner accordingly was compelled to hold his institutes in connection with the State 

 fair meetings or those of other agricultural and horticultural organizations. The work 

 so far as the department of agriculture was concerned was therefore necessarily con- 

 ducted under difficulties that limited its extent as well as affected its efficiency. 



The first commissioner of agriculture chosen by the people was elected in November, 

 1895. Under the new constitution the newly-elected commissioner was allowed an 

 appropriation of $13,000 for the running of the department, and an assistant was fur- 

 nished at a salary of $1,200 a year. All salaries of the department, however, and the 

 cost of printing the biennial reports, as well as all other exi:)enses of the bureau, came 

 out of this fund. Mr. Moore, who was the first commissioner elected by the people, 

 was enabled from this increased appropriation to widen the scope of the work of the 

 dej^artment by holding farmers' institutes. Institutes accordingly were held in sev- 

 eral of the counties of the State that year and a considerable number of farmers' clubs 

 were organized. The work thus begun would no doubt have proved very fruitful, as 

 the people were just beginning to manifest an interest in it, but during the latter part 

 of that administration there occurred a political upheaval that practically destroyed 

 all the work of institute organization that had been accomplished. The farmers' clubs 

 went to pieces and the farmers of the State generally lost interest in agricultural 

 improvement. 



This state of affairs continued up to the beginning of the next administration, Sep- 

 tember, 1900, when Colonel Nail, the new commissioner, using the remnants of the 

 clubs as a nucleus, began the work of reorganization. Some difficulty was encountered 

 in securing the interest of the people in the movement, but after a good deal of effort 

 more than twenty clubs were organized and the holding of institutes was begun. Some 

 very successful meetings were held in the various counties and they were attended 

 with good results. During the session of the legislature of 1902 the law governing this 

 bureau was changed, but, fortunately, the change did not materially affect the institute 

 work. By this act a labor inspector, with an assistant, were added to the department, 

 as well as the administration of the child-labor law. The salaries of these inspectors 

 were directed to be paid from the annual ai^propriation of $13,000, but to offset this the 

 legislature had the cost of j^rinting the biennial reports removed from this appropria- 

 tion and charged to the general fund, thus preserving the amount that had annually 

 been appropriated to the farmers' institute work unimpaired. 



