66 RURAL RECONSTRUCTION 



the two " North Americas " alone, in which a substantial earnest 

 has already been garnered, but also elsewhere. The movement of 

 course raises the much debated question of State aid, a form of 

 encouragement which has come to be greatly abused. Giving 

 State aid for purposes of business, or at all coming near it, is, of 

 course, a most deceptive assistance and should on all grounds be 

 avoided. But there is no suggestion of that in this movement. The 

 State or community aid given is all given for purposes of instruction ; 

 and in that province it may be taken to be not only the prerogative, 

 but the distinct duty of the community, to lend assistance and take 

 the initiative. The object to be attained is that of getting hold of 

 the individual, as constituting the sole means of raising the practice 

 of national farming, in the hands of men scattered over a wide 

 country engaged in specifically practical work, with scarcely any 

 means of profiting by instruction en masse. There is only the 

 community to undertake such a task. And very rightly we see the 

 American authorities make it their endeavour to throw the work, 

 once the ground is prepared, more and more into the hands of 

 farmers themselves, even where they still consider themselves bound 

 to supply assistance with funds. There is no reliance, no permanent 

 reliance, upon a Development Fund in this ; no spoon-feeding such 

 as we see abundantly practised in the quest of " votes " by some 

 Continental Governments ; no paying part of the purchase price of 

 fertilisers, feeding stuffs and machinery, such as we have witnessed 

 in Ireland under a generous Department. It is teaching, followed 

 by the admonition : " Having been taught, fend for yourselves ! ' 



As for results, there are large figures to show to what extent 

 county agents — who appear to have displayed considerable zeal as 

 well as judgment — have been successful in cultivating the ground 

 allotted to them. Still confining myself to the United States, they 

 had in 1918 paid more than half a million farm visits, directly 

 reaching 305,489 farmers — which shows what an important part of 

 their work such private visiting is held to stand for. The average 

 number of such visits per county agent was 435. In addition there 

 had been more than a million and a quarter of farmers coming to 

 consult agents on their receiving days, that is, an average of 1,108 

 per agent, which marks an increase on the figure for the preceding 

 year of 238, when that figure in itself represented an increase of 223 

 on the preceding year, 1916. The agents collectively had contributed 

 86,565 articles dealing with some agricultural subject or other to 

 the Farm Bureau News. They had written 1,636,512 letters to 

 individual farmers, that is, an average of 1,419 per agent. That 



