MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
RESOLUTIONS THERETO, ADOPTED, JANUARY 9, 1895. 
Resolved by the Minnesota State Horticultural Society: 
(1) That the present method of apportioning the membership in 
the State Agricultural Society is unjust to the representative agri- 
cultural bodies of the state. 
(2) That the proper method of forming the State Agricultural So- 
ciety is by delegates from the various county and state societies, 
proportioned according to the number of members insaid societies. 
(3) That the following would be a just and reasonable basis of 
forming a State Agricultural Society: 
Each county agricultural society, the State Horticultural Society, 
the State Dairymen’s Society, the State Forestry Society, the State 
Bee-keepers’ Society and similar state organizations, shall be en- 
titled to one delegate to the annual meeting of said State Agricul- 
tural Society for each of its twenty-five members, provided, the re- 
quired annual membership fee in said societies shall not be less 
than one dollar. .These delegates may be represented by proxies. 
Life members in said State Agricultural Society to have all 
privileges they now enjoy. 
DISCUSSION. 
Pres. Underwood: If there are any of you who do not un- 
derstand this matter you can ask for an explanation. 
Mr. Brackett: What is the present method? 
Pres. Underwood: I believe the president of the State Hor- 
ticultural Society, the president of the State Dairymen’s Asso- 
ciation and three members from each county agricultural so- 
ciety are entitled to membership. Thereare also certain life 
members that are entitled to vote. 
Mr. Harris: Perhaps I am better acquainted with that asso- 
ciation than any one else here,as I served upon the board some 
twelve years, When they first established the agricultural 
society it was composed of two delegates from each county so- 
ciety. Then they began to have paid life members that had a 
right to vote, andsometimes it became necessary to go to quite 
a length to get a good man into the society. Then when they 
organized a few years ago, they found that the horticultural 
society had four votes. They found that the horticultural in- 
fluence was getting too strong against the horse influence, and 
they voted the horticultural representation down to one. We 
are entitled to but one vote, while the county agricultural so- 
cieties are entitled to three, and the dairy association to three 
and the bee-keepers’ and kindred organizations have but one 
vote, and as we are stronger than the whole society put to- 
gether, I think it is an unjust representation. They cut our 
vote down because our influence was against the horse. — 
