The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1886-06-23
THE MONEY.

/ - N 49, =
North Carolina has been %appropria-
ting to it's own use the sum Of $500
a year, amounting in the aggregate
(not counting intefest) to $4,000.
This money belongs to the farmers
and mechanics Of North Carolina,
and it's use, as NOW applied, is in di-
rect conflict WITH the purpose and
condition upohw which the grant
from which the fund accrues was
made. The fimsy pretense OF justi-
fcatlon for this use of money which
does not belong to the University is,
that there is an agricultural col
lege" in connection with and a part
of it. 1t is SO stated at least in the
catalogue of the University, where
the so-called college is seen Tin the
catalogue for the first time after II
years of incubation. A long, very
long Matching period for such a lit
tie chicken. We have, without, how
ever, intending any disrespect to
the gentlemen who preside over the
University, pronounced the assertion
that there is an agricultural college
at Chapel Hill, in the sense intended
by Congress or the State, when the
land donation was accepted, a sham
and a dishonest p%retense. Let us
see. The act Of Congress prescribes
that the land scrip shall be used for
the establishment of colleges where
agricultural and mechanical instruc-
ton shall be the Leading features, and
so also the act of the North Carolina
Legislature accepting the grant pro-
vides. Have we such a college at
Chapel Hill? Have we, or have we
had during these eleven years one
single student within the walls Of
the University who is being, or has
been, especially instructed and train
ed for work on the farm or in the
shop? We hazard the assertion
that there hasn't been, and is not
one, and we don't hazard much in
doing so. There are farmers sons
there, doubtless, and mechanics
sons, perhaps, as there have been in
other years, and they hear lectures
IN chemistry, botany, entomology,
and on other subjects directly or in
directly connected with the farm,
as they probably did years ago, and
as is done in I'LL first-class colleges,
before the agricultural college was
heard of, or dreamed of: Agricul-
rural instruction proper is not given
simply because it can't be. A boy
can't be taught how to pillow, to
plant, to SOW or to reap, without the
ground to do it on nor the nipple
ments to do it with. AS we'll under
take to teach astronomy without a
map Of the heavens, or the heavens
themselves, as to train boys for the
farm or the shop without a farm or
a shop.
The founders Of the agricultural
college in Mississippi, one of the most
successful of the IL institutions of
the kind in the Union, did not be-
lieve IN mere theoretical instruction
alone when they began their splen-
did work. They believed that the
training Of head and hand should 90
together to make the fully equipped
farmer. In the history of the pro-
gress of the college they say:
at seems that a large class of peo-
pie desire the young men of the
State to combine labor with theo-
retical instruction, and this is cor
rect when boys are to be educated
for farm life. This training should
be in connection with a farm, were
Industrious habits already obtained
may be preserved, or given to those
not having them. Study for four
years without the habit Of manual
labor creates a Discrimination fr
work, and tends to separate brain
work and manual labor, giving dis
credit to the latter. The development
Of our agricultural interests necessi-
tates that theory and practice go
together in the education of the
farmer. 2.a. t.ast ..I.. a.ss} +.
This is pretty good authority,
coming, as it does, from men who
have achieved a national reputation
as agricultural teachers, if authority,
were needed to enforce a truth SO
patent to every thinking, sensible
man. tI @{jf fG5tT t5tE.Hf-5 fk-
But the gentlemen who have>
charge of the University at Chapel
Hill seem to think that they can
conduct an agricultural college, or
something which they call an agricul-
tural college, without a farm, pillow,
a hoe or seed IN plapt Thnvy coon, 70