state Convention—industrial education. 267 
tlieir education are subjected to a comparatively heavy expense 
for board and lodging. It is manifestly good economy to reduce 
this period of expense to its minimum. Few farmers would feel 
like paying five dollars a week for the board of their sons while 
learning to plow or sow. These manual operations can be learned 
better and cheaper at home. It is evident that whatever time is 
spent in manual labor must be added to the time during which the 
student is on expense lor his board. One thing at a time is the 
best economy. Necessity knows no law, and there may be cases 
in which the only alternatives are ignorance or an education se¬ 
cured under disadvantages. Under such circumstances there can 
be no question as to the proper course—the education must be 
secured at any reasonable outlay of time and money, but such ex¬ 
ceptional cases do not afford the basis upon which to found a general 
rule.* 
Agricultural colleges cannot afford young farmers a place in 
which to serve out the years of their apprenticeship. Their aim 
is higher; it is to place scientific principles within the reach of 
the great body of farmers, first by instructing young men and 
women who are to follow the profession; and, secondly, by secur¬ 
ing to the agricultural community the advantage to be derived 
from a series of careful and exact experiments, conducted by 
competent scientific men. This latter benefit is by no means the 
least that can be conferred, as it gives even those who cannot 
attend the instruction given within its walls the material benefits 
of the investigations there carried on. We must not then 
*Since writing the above I have read the address of Professor Goldwin Smith of Cornell 
•University, which he delivered before the Trades Union Congress of Sheffield, last summer, 
from which 1 extract the follow paragraph bearing upon this subject: 
“ Mr. Cornell had a scheme very much at heart for the combination of manual labor with un¬ 
iversity education. That scheme has not borne as much fruit as I expected. It has not 
failed, but it has succeeded in a less measure than its founder hoped. The reason of its par¬ 
tial failure is not that there is any feeling whatever against the combination. Whatever may 
be the faults of our society in the New World, labor there is sincerely honored; there is no 
man in the highest society of the United States or Canada who does not feel proud of having 
sprung from the ranks oflabor, and glad to point to it as his escutcheon. At Cornell Uni¬ 
versity I have had students at my history lectures in their working dress, and when they 
have taken honors at the university I have observed with pleasure that they were greeted by 
their fellow students with enthusiastic applause. The reason why the scheme did not suc- 
•ceed to the full extent intended is simply this, that you cannot, except in very rare instances, 
effectually combine hard manual with intellectual labor. Labor of all kinds draws upon the 
same fund of nervous energy, and when you have exhauste d yourself by working with the 
Lands you need recreation. You cannot pass to the superior work of the brain. 
