1891.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— No. 4. 313 



Analysis of Table No. 1. 



Let us analyze this table. As Suffolk County has no 

 farmers to speak of who gain their living solely by farm- 

 ing, it is supposed to have no representation on the Board, 

 although it should be borne in mind that it pays one-third of 

 the State taxes. We will, however, let the delegates from 

 the old Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Horticultural, and 

 the Bay State societies, three in all, stand for Suffolk 

 County. This leaves thirty-five to represent the other 

 counties of the State. Based on the number of farmers, 

 Dukes and Nantucket counties would not be entitled to a 

 single delegate, whereas they now have two. Worcester 

 County now has nine delegates, and is entitled to a little 

 over seven. Bristol County has one where it should have 

 three, and Norfolk County, with almost 2,000 farmers, has 

 no representative on the Board. The only county fairly 

 represented is Berkshire, which, with 3,000 fanners, has 

 three delegates. I submit whether the Board as now con- 

 stituted is a fairly representative body of the farmers of the 

 State, based upon their numbers. 



Distribution of State Bounty. 



Let us now consider for a moment how the money given 

 by the State is distributed among the counties through the 

 agricultural societies ; and for this purpose I present Table 

 No. 2. 



