Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1878-10-30
Board OF Agriculture.


While no important action has been
taken by the legislature, during the week,
there have been several bills introduced
bearing upon the law now ia force.
First is one to abolish the board. Con-
corning this there can be no two opinions;
it is action against the board and the law
creating it, and proposes nothing in its
stead to serve or foster Vermonts largest
interest. Another bill proposes to abolish
the board, and in its place have Secreta
~ of Agriculture whose salary shall be
$1,000 per annum and his expenses, who
shall hold meetings, and may employ such
assistance as he sees fit in carrying on the
meetings, and during the two years of his
Office shall hold ut least one meeting in
each town in the state, and the whole ex.
pense shall not exceed $4,000 per annum
This bill docs not contemplate the print
ing of any report. In examining the pro-
visions of this bill, we find that its author
is not opposed to the present bill on ac-
count of its expense. as he proposes the
same amount as is now expended under
the present law-except in printing the
report, which he evidently considers not
worth printing at the necessary cost. On
this point there will, of. course, be two
opinions.
Another bill introduced is identical with
this, except that it fixes the seer etary's
salary at $1,000 per annum. Still an
other bill provides for board of one
member from each congressional district,
whose salary shall be 5000 dollars per
annum and expenses, whose duty it shall
be to hold three or may hold five meetings
in each county during the year, of which
the entire expense shall not exceed $1,000
per annum. This bill makes forty-two
meetings imperative, or seventy may be
held, though we do not understand that
the length of meeting is named in the
act. The practice of the present board, as
our readers know, has been to hold a two
days meeting, which they have thought
the most profitable.
As the expense in each of the last three
bills named is the same for the working
part of the board, as in the present law,
the question can only arise on which of
these promises the most benefit, and as
we intimated last week, the publishing of
report is distinctive feature and means
of usefulness, and the question of its val
ue and cost should be separately consider
ed; also it might be we'll to consider
whether the plan adopted by Massachu-
sets last year would probably be sue
cess. To our mind the law ms it now
stands has been successful in furnishing
profitable meetings at the lowest cost
likely 10 be reached in accomplishing the
same amount of good, and our advice to
the friends of the board is, not to divide
your strength on SO many different bills,
which can only weaken your cause, take
valuable time, and, by presenting so many
and divers questions of how to do it, rem
den much more likely the success of the
bill abolshing the whole thing
To those who claim to be economists,
and discover in the Board of Agrcul-
ture only extravaganza outlay and needless
expense and urge this as the grounds of
their action, we might say word. The
entire cost of the board since its creation
seven years ago, in all actual and inciden-
tai expenses, has been in round numbers
thirty thousand dollars. 1t is in this di
rection only that they find need of re-
trenchment, when our militia costs us in
time of peace almost an equal amount in
q single gar.
From what we have seen of the work
ing of the board we believe its work has
been economically done, and the results
beneficial largely beyond what the board
has cost. Whether the report is considered
by farmers 10 be valuable, and worth what
it COSTS may be determined by following
for single year the action of Massachu-
sets in furnishing it to the farmers at
its actual cost.