78 



amount was used from the appropriation made to the board for its ordinary expenses in 

 order to meet the traveling expenses of the lecturers. 



Among the influences at work during this period in the direction of institute devel- 

 opment was the interest taken in the movement by the Pennsylvania State College. 

 In 1882 this institution held a farmers' institute at the college, continuing from January 

 J 7 to 27. The course consisted of 40 lectures given by the college professors, aided by 

 specialists who were secured from outside to present certain important agricultural 

 specialties. No charge was made for the instruction given or for the use of the pul)lic 

 rooms of the college. These annual institutes were held for three years. At the end 

 of this period they were discontinued, owing to the fact that the attendance was found 

 to be largely local, and the maintenance of the course disarranged the work of the insti- 

 tution to an extent that was not. in the judgment of its officers, justified by the results. 



From that time until the present, however, the State college and the experiment 

 station have continued to contribute lecturers each year from the college faculty and 

 the station force for institute work. For several years from three to five members of 

 the institution were continuously in the field during the institute season. For a por- 

 tion of this time the college and station bore all of the expenses of their members 

 employed in the institute work, Init after appropriations began to be received by the 

 State Iward of agriculture for institute purposes that board paid the hotel and traveling 

 expenses of the lecturers, their salaries as instructors in the college and station being 

 continued by the institution while engaged in institute work. 



By act of assembly of 1885 the legislature granted an appropriation of §1,000 to the 

 State board of agriculture for the actual and necessary expenses of holding farmers' 

 institutes. This appropriation, tho small, was of great assistance to institute work. 

 It enabled the board to pay the expenses of all of the lecturers and in some instances 

 to add a slight compensation for service. In 1887 the legislature increased the annual 

 appropriation to S!o,000. As a consequence, the number of institutes was correspond- 

 ingly increased, until in 1890 sixty-live were reported as having been held during that 

 year. 



In 1891 the appropriation for institute purposes was still further increased to $7,000 

 per year, and during that year the number of institutes held was 84. Sixty-two of 

 the sixty-seven counties of the State now had representatives on the board of agri- 

 culture. 



The institute work continued under the direction of the State board of agriculture, 

 as has been stated, iintil the creation of the department of agriculture, under an act 

 approved March 13, 1895. The institutes of the winter of 1894-95 were therefore the 

 last that were conducted imder the old system. One hundred and forty-eight were 

 held during that year. 



Under the old system the control and direction were entirely in the hands of the 

 local members of the board of agriculture, and the appropriation by the State was dis- 

 tributed by the secretary among the counties in accordance with a pro rata distribu- 

 tion arranged by a committee of the board. The apportionment for the year 1894-95 

 gave to each county $65 and then 2 cents per farm additional. The local manager 

 selected the dates for his institutes and secured such aid as in his judgment the cir- 

 cumstances required, and paid this help out of the funds in his hands which had been 

 contributed by the State. It resulted in some counties having as many as six insti- 

 tutes while others with proportionately the same funds held but one. There was also 

 an interference in the dates for holding meetings, this matter being largely left to the 

 local managers. There could consequently be little uniformity of action, and con- 

 siderable difficulty was often experienced in securing desirable speakers for meetings 

 owing to this conflict in time. There was also the criticisms made by other agricul- 

 tural organizations in the counties that in many cases they had no voice in the arrange- 

 ment and direction of these institutes. Their members accordingly held aloof because 

 they felt that they were to a degree ignored. 



