The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1886-07-28
LIBERAL

DR.. Kemp P. Battle, the President
of the State University, delivered an
Grafton at the commencemeht Of the
University of South Carolina some
weeksa ago, which isveryKighly COM
plimented by the CHARLESTON NeWs
and Courier and other journals. From
the extracts we have/seep quoted, it
is in the main a very excellent dis
course, and shows thought and study.
1t is also progressive, showing that
the author lives in the present,
not in the past We agree entirely
with him when he says, speaking OF
practical education: "The mere
knowledge of books does not make
true education. There must be the
proper combination Of the practical
and theoretical" And again: 1t is
of the utmost Importance for the
good of our State (this looks as it he
had reference to North Carolina)
that the advocates Of book education
and Of hand education shall come to-
gether and pull together" He pro-
claims himselfa believer in and advo-
cate of industrial schools as n of
the pressing needs of the times, and
thinks that industrial training should
be taught in all the schools from the
kindergarten to the University. He
is correct in this, but he adds that
the State cannot teach all the trades
in all the schools, and when it
cannot teach all the trades, to teach
any without teaching all would be
to discriminate and would be unfair
and unjust. That is to say, that
while the Doctor believes in indus
trial education he insists on having
it on a grand scale or not at all.
Carry this line of argument to its
legitimate conclusion and it would
extinguish the University, for it does
not fit a man for all the trades, nor
for any Of them, the course mapped
out there being such as prepares
students for the higher professions,
so called. 1t discriminates against
the farmer and the farmers son, the
tradesman and the tradesman's son.
He announces himself, if cor
correctly quoted, as opposed to the
education Of young men for the
farm exclusively, having reference,
we suppose, to the system of educa-
ton pursued in the agricultural col
leges proper. If he means that he
is opposed to combining the educa-
ton of young men intending to fol-
low the calling of the farmer to mere
instruction bearing upon the farm,
we agree with him, for their educa-
t on ought to take a wider range
than that, but we do not think that
is what he meant. We think he is
opposed to the strictly agricultural
college where the Stealing feature Of
instruction shall be to train scholars
especially for work on the farm,
other studies being incidental. He
would subordinate the instruction
for the farm and make it incidental
to the courses a. prescribed in the
universities and colleges, as he is
nov doing with his agricultural
annex to the University. In this
his theory is at least consistent with
his practice, whether we, or the
farmers whose money is being used
under the pretense of keeping up an
agricultural college, agree with him
or not. But neither his theory nor
practice is consistent with the law
under which the University gets the
use Of $500 a year, now expended
ostensibly in conducting an agricul-
tural college without any agricul-
turaI students Or agricultural append
ages-an agricultural college in print,
simply, but not in fact.