The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1903-03-10

JLC pOO1 OO4 bO1AOAS
wornout fields, and use it to lessen the taxes OH
the wealth of the State.
There is but one redeeming feature in the en-
tire act. We are informed by a member Of the
Committee on Appropriation that this additional
$4,000 was asked for especially for the upbuildlng
of the Agricultural Department of the College.
The Board of Trustees should apply it for that
purpose. The Agricultural Department of the
College should have it's fair and just proportion
of the appropriations that are made by the State
and National Governments for the promotion
alike of agricultural and mechanical education;
then if there be a surplus from this fertilizer tax
on the poverty of the farmers, it should be APP
piled exclusively to the help of the class from
whose hard earnings it is wrung. 1t is unjust
and whatever the action of the Board of Agrlcul-
ture we shall protest against ito lay on the
farmers of the State, and the poorest class of
farmers moreover, the burden of educating textile
and mechanical workers.
In other words, we believe that the great work
that the agricultural department of the College
is doing should receive all possible encourage
ment, and that the State Board of Agriculture
should devote to it every cent that can be spared
from its surplus funds, (not neglecting, of course,
the necessary experimental, veterinary and entO-
biological work., but we also believe that this fer
tilizer tax appropriation to the College should be
used exclusively to, supplement and extend the
work of its agricultural division. The mechanics
and cotton manufacturers of North Carolina have
no right to ask that the farmer alone bear the
burden of maintaining schools to build up their
powerful and prosperous interests.
The agricultural branch of the College needs
a larger teaching force and a larger share of the
State and national appropriations. The marked
disparity between the amounts expended on the
mechanical and agricultural departments could
have been excused a few years ago, but with the
great increase in the number of agricultural
studcnts-from II two years ago to 1913 now, we
are told-a change is imperatively demanded. In
fact, were there not two years a full professor of
agriculture and an assistant professor of agricul-
ture, a full professor of horticulture and an as
sistant professor of horticulture? And is not the
agricultural teaching force smaller to-day, if we
except the officers of the Agricultural Depart
ment-their expenses not being paid by the Col
lege?
We are confident that our position will not be
misunderstood No Institution in North Carolina
is dearer to The Progressive Farmer than the
A.. Il M. College. This paper was the pioneer in
the fight for it's establishment, and it's founder
and first editor possibly did more than any other
man to hasten its erection. We know that it's
mechanical and textile departments are doing a
great work for the State, and we earnestly desire
their prosperity and expansion-but not at the
sole expense of the farmer. They are properly
the care of the whole people, and it is class leg
islatiOn of the worst form to saddle the expense
of maintenance on the farmers alone. We re-
peat that whatever fertilizer tax surplus comes
from the farmers whose lands require the purchase
of fertilizers before a living can be wrung from
an unwilling soil, should be applied exclusively
for the beneft-the education and general up
building-Of the class from which it is taken.