The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1889-03-26

SIS, 600 in 1888 for buildings and i'm
provements, and the Experiment Sta
| ton gets the Hatch fund. The colored
industrial and agricultural fairs re-
ceive $500 from the Board and 81, 900
regularly from the State. The total
appropriations for agriculture in 1886
were $45, 200.
South Carolina taxes each ton Of
fertilizers sold in the State twenty-five
cents, the proceeds Of which, about
S25, 600 annually, are wholly devoted
to the Board Of Agriculture, which
also does the work of a fish commits
sion, although not much has been
done lately in this line. The last
Legislature appropriated $4,000 for
the establishment Of agricultural ex-
pertinent stations, and the State Agri-
cultural Society receives $1,000 an
nually. Thus, while the State appro-
PIRATES over $500, 600 for all purposes,
not one Del cent of this amount, is
regularly devoted to promoting agri-
culture, exclusive of the revenue from
the fertilizer tax, which the farmers
pay in addition to the State taxes.
The last Virginia Legislature
created a Board of Agriculture and
increased the regular appropriation
from 1000 to $500 OO, placing the
work of immigration and labor Stats
tics in it's charge. 1t also imposes a
license of $40 on all fertilizer brands,
which money is to be paid into the
State treasury and will make the de-
partment self-sustaining.
In Georgia the tax of fifty cents per
ton on commercial fertilizers brings
$75, 900 annually into the State
Treasury, but the State devotes only
$780, 200 for agricultural purposes,
of which $4,000 is for the depart
partment of agriculture, $1,000 for
fertilizer inspection, and 5000 for
the State chemist.
The Alabama Department of Agri-
culture, with a commissioner and two
clerks, is maintained by a tax of fifty
cents per ton on commercial fertili-
zers amounting to about $25, 900 an
nually. 1t should be noted that the
whole of this fund, which is practi-
cally paid by the farmer, is used for
the promotion of agriculture instead
of a considerable part OF it being paid
back into the State treasury, as is the
case in some States. The State Agri.
cultural Society receives $4,000 an
nually.
The last Legislature in Florida made
total appropriations of $4O5, 900, but
of this the only part for the promotion
of agriculture was $500 for build
ings at the agricultural College.
However, under the new constitution
of the State, which went into effect
fully on January l, 1889, a commits
sioner of agriculture is established,
but his duties are not yet prescribed
The Farmers Alliance, the only effec-
tive agricultural organization in the
State, proposes to see that this Office
is properly supported.
Mississippi has done little or moth
ing for her agriculture, although little
else than an agricultural State, and
has only five million out of thirty
million acres under cultivation. There
is a State Horticultural Society which
receives NO aid, but a State Board of
Agriculture, a cattle commission or
anything of that kind is unknown.
The State has given about $3.50, 900
to equip its Agricultural College at
Starkville, in addition to the United
States fund. The latter amounts to
1927, 900 and is divided bet the
white and negro colleges giving each
an income of $4,000.
Arkansas has given $l3, 900 an
nually for the next two years for it's
Industrial University and Agricul-
tural College at Fayetteville.~
Tennessee gives ST, 900 annually for
its commission of agriculture and
mines.
Maryland has done little for agri-
cultural purposes, the last Legislature
appropriating only Sc, 600, the whole
of which went to the Agricultural
College.
Texas has established a commission
of agriculture, insurance, statistics and
history, the agricultural branch
thereof receiving $3.50 annually.
West Virginia has done nothing in
this direction, but a more liberal spirit
is now manifest.
Delaware has a State Board of
Agriculture in charge of it's Agricul-
tural Society, which receives $500 for.
farmers Institutes.