The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1877-1885, 1881-01-27
The Agricultural Department.

ftoo lengthy to be given eutIrel from
CoI T.. l.. Polk, ex-Commi.sloner OF
Agriculture. addressed In reply to q
from Rev. W. NJ. Kennedy, OF Mag
noIia. We take pleasure in printing It,
because it sustains the position all along
taken by the Farmer N Mechdn'c
that the Department was being crlp-
pied, and m~ismanaged. We trust that
our former friends, Messrs. Newsome,
Worth, King. Kennedy, and perhaps
two dozen others who wrote us last
summer to that they were no
longer friendly to us, and to stop their
subscriptions, will now see the injustice
IF their action, and the injury they may
have inflicted upon us and our paper
biz their influence with their neighbors
We did not reply to their letters at the
time. for the reason that we are not
one of that kind. We endeavor to give
our subscribers the worth o ftheir money
in ne,cs and if they be not satisfied
with our opinions (which OF course are
often faulty aud mistaken) we can only
regret it, but will never urge any man
to continue taking a paper he doesn't
like.
Had this not been our fixed rule, we
might have written TO the gentlemen re-
ferred to, and assured them that our
cepsure of certain features of the De
nartment were not anything near SO
severe as we had heard from Commls-
sioner Polk, and members OF the Board,
both of the present Board, and OF the
old Board. We have letters now IN o.
possession to back up our assertions
and should we chose t o disclose private
conversations, We might astonish our
friends aforesaid. Instead OF 50 doing,
we preferred to pursue a steadiast
course. speaking plainly, currylng favor
with no one, but seeking to do justice
towards all. 1t is true that by 50 doing
we lost the goodwill of friends both
known and unknown, whose friendship
we valued. But the error was not Gu
our side. We we're one of the Editors
Of the first paper that spoke out III ia
yor of an Agricultural Department
when Col. Polk introduced the subject
ia the AnsoaiaD. We wrote many ar
ticles at various times in its favor. As
a member of the Legislature, We gave
it all the influence we possessed Al
terwards for three years at a merely
nominal salary ,less han the generality
of clerks in the city,, we worked assld
uouslv to popularize the Department,
to set forth its advantages. and W hold
the efforts Of Gov. Vance, Co. Polk,
Professor Kerr, DR.. Ledoux, and the
others in their several branches. Alas.
700, in the weakness of nature, desiring
not to censure our friends we overlook
ed many things that were reckless, un-
wise, extravaganza, ETC., etc. = as
the expenditure of 5000, Or there
abouts. in getting out y small speci-
mems of marble; the misuse of Du-
mont's advertising pamphlets, OF winch
10, 90 copies were printed at the ex.
pepse of the State, and were then boxed
up and shipped to Charlotte, whence
they were finally sold to the paper-ma'
ker on private account h extrava-
gance IN printing. etc, etc.
However. these thing belong to the
past. Let it suffice that We have al
wavs been a friend Of the Department
uproperiy mundged-and have written
md SPOKEN more in its favor than any
man in the State, unless 1t were Co.
Polk; and have received nothing what
soever In return-nOt even the credit OF
having a:ted conscientiously. Still, as
we said. that is not our concern.
COL. PCLh > LEAIEr.
In replying to the ~interro2atory of
Mr.. Kennedy, Col Polk strongly and
earnestly advocates the continuance Of
the Department, and praises its work.
He is aware though, how extensive is
the public disappointment under the
fact that nearly four years have elapsed,
with an expenditure of $40, 900 a year.,
without greater results. He naturally
hesitates to criticize a Department
wherein for three years he Was Chief
Executive; but he mildly mentions a
few of the reasons as follows :
Secondly, you ask what have
been the causes of the evident decline
in the Department for the last eighteen
or twenty months Z?
Your question being somewhat gem
eral, | I'M left to infer, that from your
stand point as a special correspondent
you allude to the withdrawal of the
correspondence and publications of the
Department, and am supported in the
inference by the same direct question
from hundreds throughout the State.
| can give you facts but shall not at
tempt to explain them. The Legisla
ture OF 1879, without troubling to as
certain the character or amount Of work
to be performed in the Department,
passed what is known as the Fee Bill.
ia which it was enacted that no monies
belonging to the fund of the Depart
ment should be appropriated for clerk
hire. This of curse intended to apply
to all branches of the Department, but
was made to apply really only to the
office of the Commissioner. As one Of
the special correspondents, it IS need
less to say to you that the enormous
amount Of work - be performed IN
that office required increase rather thar
reduction OF the clerical force. My
only clerk was taken from me, which
necessarily closed ms regular CORES
pondeace with the farmers and others
interested in the work and who lived
in every township in the State. b,
the action of the Board. at its meeting
in April, 1879, the By Laws were re
vlsed and tbs Department was divided
into three sub-departments, viz The
sub-department OF the Commissioner.
the sub.departmest OF the State Chem
ist, and the sub-department Of the
Geologist each Of the officers named
being placed in charge of his respective
sub, department. 1t was further order
ed that The publication OF monthly re
ports bv the Commissioner be dis
pensed with, but at a subsequent meet
ing permission was granted him to re-