The Chickasaw messenger. (Okolona, Miss.) 1880-1900, 1888-06-28
.NMEkENT ANpAanEMEDLARLh.

7 dor We venture 70 inquire
i. DO You oppose agricultural
education
I 2. Would your opposition to
+ the A. 4 M. College apply equally
to all Agricultural Colleges and
Experiment stationsS
3. Or, is your opposition based
on defects in the organization or
in the management Of our Collegel
4. If there are merely defects,
are they inherent or remediable !
We have answered these ques-
tions so often. we scarcely expect
ed they would be directly pro-
pounded by one Of our regular ex-
changes, but since the Beacon de-
parts from the usual custom Of the
papers defending the colleges, by
asserting its belief in our candor,
instead Of impugning our motives,
charging US with prejudice and de-
nouncing us as malicious, we will
answer in detail.
We are not opposed to the edu-
cution of the agricultural classes.
Indeed we are in favor Of giving
them every advantage which is
offered to other people. With the
idea that special training in an
agricultural college would improve
the condition Of the farmers ofthis
State, we were an enthusiastic ad-
vocate of the establishment of the
/ A. & NJ. But the practical opera
ton ofthe Institution has not met
public expectation. Agricultural
education" at our A. 4 NJ. has not
made more and better farmers, but
on the contrary has educated our
boys out Of the ranks OF producers
into those Of consumers. But you
ssk would we debar the farmers
son from choosing profession and
require him to remain at the plow
handlesY 7 Certainly not, but when
experience shows that only 2 out
of p graduates 20 back to the
farm, the A. & M. as a farmers IN
stitution is a costly failure. The
same number attending any other
high school would have done as
much, and hence there is no good
reason why the college should be
kept up at such heavy expense to
the peoplel On the other hand, the
college is erowded>with the sons of
professional and business men,
who do not expect to become agri-
culturalists. Then you ask, would
We refuse these young men the
"technical training" in scientific
agriculture, which is claimed to be
taught at eur A. 4 NJ Well, if
they never put it to any practical
utility, where is the good sense in
keeping up an institution, to dis
seminate a theoryY And if they
are desirous Of obtaining such in
formation only to add to their store
of knowledge they are perfectly
able 10 pay for it and ought to be
required to do 1t. Our observa-
ton, and the experience of this
State demonstrates, that the "aG IL
eultr -al education" promulgated
at our A. & II. College for eight
years past at cost to the tax-pay-
ers of more than s40O, 900 has not
improved the agricultural interest
of the State. Indeed the value of
lands adjoining the college farm
deprecated twenty-five per cent in
four years, after technical train
ing and scientific farming, which
cost about So TO get back 81, was
introduced, as shown by the as
sessment roll ofan honored mem-
Der Of the Board of Trr tees. No,
we are not opposed to the educa-
tioR of the agricnlturalists, but we
are opposed to an agricultural
education, which costs the people
Of the State mole than s25, 900 for
every scientifically educated farm
er, who has the nerve to attempt
to put into practical operation,
what he learned at the college.
And we undertake to say, that
with the same character Of land
and stock, and the same amount of
means to make crop, there are
] L l. ri