that the experimental farm that is now, or should be, connected with each of these institutions, might be at its service and under the general management of the superintendent of the main station. There is reason to believe that the directors of these colleges would cheerfully have them constituted as experimental stations under the direction of the department, and thus help to make it really national-the head of a vast system that should ramify through all parts of the land.

It is repeatedly urged that our Government is niggardly in respect of agriculture. The charge is certainly not warranted: for, while there has been an unfortunate disposition in Congress to make light of the department, there is a due and proper appreciation of the importance of agriculture, as of all other industrial pursuits, and I am satisfied that there would be no difficulty in obtaining munificent Congressional support for a department that should, by its working, earn the respect of the people at large. The liberal land grants made for the establishment of agricultural colleges, and the large edition of 300,000 copies of the agricultural report that is ordered, abundantly testify to the readiness to help on the part of Congress; while the development, under Congressional aid, of the Signal Bureau, and of the Fish Commission, both of which should really have emanated from the department, attests its liberal spirit. Government encouragement is more needed in a new country like our own than in the more settled countries of Europe, and twenty times the present appropriation to the department would not be extravagant were it efficiently organized on a broader basis.

With the different State Agricultural Colleges, and the State Agricultural Societies, or Boards, we have every advantage for building up a National Bureau of Agriculture worthy of the country and its vast productive interests, and on a thoroughly economical basis, such as that of Prussia, for instance.

In studying how this improvement can best be brought about, I have become more and more satisfied that we need a national body that shall be representative, and at the same time have jurisdiction over the department; and I am, therefore, in favor of some such bill as that which has already been introduced by Mr. Fort, of Illinois, to establish a National Board of Agriculture. It was read twice at the last session of Congress, and is now before the House Committee on Agriculture. There are fourteen sections in the bill, and its principal features are, that the board shall consist of one member from each State or Territory, to be appointed by the President upon nomination of the State Board or Society, or, upon recommendation of the Governor, where no such board or society exists. The Commissioner of Agriculture shall be a member of said board, and have the same vote and privileges as the other members, except as to mileage and per diem pay. The board shall meet once a year, on the second Monday in January, in the department building, to consult and deliberate as to the best means of promoting the interests of agriculture and increasing its productions. The board is given power to investigate the operations of the department, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning the same. By or before the third Monday of February each year, the Commissioner is required to lay before said board a full and detailed statement of the operations of the department in the past year, including expenditures; also to carry out the suggestions of the National Board as to the operations of the following year.

With a stepping-stone like this, there would be some hope of the reorganization and improvement of the department in the lines I have indicated. Three principal objects would be attained by such a National Board. It would serve, 1st, to bring the department into more intimate connection with the different State organizations created for similar objects, and thus secure for it greater efficiency, popularity and support. 2d. It would relieve the Commissioner from much responsibility. 3d. And in my judgment, most important of all, it would serve to secure the appointment of rep

resentative men. For the President would doubtless be glad of its opinion expressed by resolution, or otherwise, as to the fitness of any man it might indicate.

The House Committee on Agriculture is now considering the question of making the Commissioner a Cabinet officer; but the efficiency of the department will not be increased by simply adding to the position and dignity of its head, without likewise reorganizing it as a whole. Whether or not agriculture should have a voice in the cabinet counsels any more than other of our great industries, is a matter of opinion; but there can be no question about reorganization. The Bureau should either be enlarged in the direction I have indicated with a supervisory board, or merged into a Department of Industry to be represented in the Cabinet, something after the plan proposed by Senator Windom, of Minnesota, in a bill introduced two years since, or after the plan of the French Government. At present it is an anomaly. There is much to be said in favor of elevating and broadening the scope of the department so that it shall be represented in the Cabinet by a Secretary who, with all the other Cabinet officers, will be expected to change with each administration; but the assistant secretary, who should occupy a similar position to the assistant secretaries in other departments, would, like them, be apt to remain from one administration to another, so that the retention of administrative experience would be insured, which is not the case at present.

The question I would ask, gentlemen, in concluding, is: In how far, and in what way, can a body such as you have just organized, help to bring about the needed reform? In other words, what is to be the scope and sphere of the organization? The failure of the United States Agricultural Society, and the languishing condition of the National Agricultural Congress, seem to indicate that there is no field for a national agricultural society, so-called, unless it tread in a different path. Those bodies organized with as much enthusiasm and promise of success as this one has, and I have watched and studied with interest, the progress, or rather retrogression, of the last named, since its meeting in St. Louis in 1872, which was honored by the presence of distinguished men like the late Commodore Maury, and which gave every promise of usefulness. Those societies undertook to do that which the vast extent and the diversified climate and products of our country render impracticable. For men who will put their hands in their own pockets and travel thousands of miles for the object of discussing the advancement of the general agricultural public, are few and far between. The Royal Agricultural Society of England, which you would pattern after, owes its success, as we have seen, to conditions that do not obtain in America. Annual fairs of a national character that shall exhibit the products of a country so vast as ours, are essentially impracticable; while you cannot expect to do so well the special work performed by other existing national organizations, as of pomologists, nurserymen, grape-growers, stock-breeders, wool-growers, dairymen, poultrymen, bee-keepers, etc. Nor can you expect, it seems to me, to do effectually the work of gathering statistics, making returns, and the other routine work for which the State Societies have been organized and the Government Bureau was created. In what direction ought we then to labor? There are three principal means by which we can build up a powerful, influential, and independent organization. These are by meetings for the discussion of subjects of national importance; by encouraging original and scientific observations and researches, either by supporting committees specially appointed there for, or by the offer of prizes for the best essay on the subject it is desired to investi gate; and, lastly, by the publication of a journal of proceedings and special memoirs. The society can most succeed in advancing agriculture, and will be most likely to make its influence felt in bringing about needed reforms, by the publication of well digested reports and memoirs than by any other means, provided it admits only the

best and most meritorious essays and papers, and excludes, through the medium of a competent publishing committee, everything of indifferent value.

We must bear constantly in mind that the press is the great power of the day, and that science is the hand-maid of successful agriculture.

But words are things, and a small drop of ink

Falling, like dew, upon a thought produces

That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.-BYRON.

Let us endeavor and determine to do our utmost to make the work of the Society creditable and effectual in promoting the objects for which it has been conceived; to make it a power in the land for the good and advancement of agriculture; to encourage the membership of the purest and ablest men, and keep in the background all who have selfish objects to promote. By so doing, only, can we hope to steer clear of the rocks on which our predecessors have foundered; to earn the respect and support of earnest men throughout the length and breadth of our land; to influence Congress in wise legislation respecting agriculture; to help produce, in the words of good King Brobdignag to Lemuel Gulliver, "two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before."

THE DAIRY-ITS PROFITS AND PROSPECTS.

LECTURE

Delivered at the Organization of the American Agricultural Association,
December, 1879.

BY

HON. X. A. WILLARD,

OF LITTLE FALLS, NEW YORK.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN :—

I have been invited to make a few remarks to-day upon the dairy-an industry that has grown into vast proportions in several States, and is constantly increasing its dimensions.

It has, perhaps, made more rapid progress of late than any branch of agriculture that can be named. It embraces a wide range of labor, requiring great diversity in the exercise of skill and intellect. First, knowledge as to the nature of milk and its treatment in various relations; its manufacture into many different products and their care and preservation, and back of this the great arts of breeding; the management of dairy cattle both in health and disease; the production of their food, and all the details concerning the best use to which special feeding crops may be put. These it is important to understand to insure the largest success. There is no farm industry that has been so well organized. The co-operative factories extend in an almost unbroken line from Maine to California; they can scarcely number less to-day than 5,000, each factory sweeping a circle of influence on a radius of from two to three miles, and through which many thousands of dairymen are held by strong pecuniary bonds.

I cannot better illustrate the magnitude of the associated system than by referring to its operation in the State of New York. In 1874 New York had 1,139 of these cooperative factories, at which more than 23,000 farmers were delivering the milk of 308,352 cows. As the factories of New York have been considerably increased since 1874, it is estimated that at least 30,000 farmers and 30,000 farms are now identified with this interest. By having a complete list of factories every co-operative dairyman could be reached in a few days through the factory managers.

The dairy conventions, which, for sixteen years, have had remarkable sway, are an outgrowth of the co-operative system. These have stimulated inquiry and a desire for improvement, which may be said to mark a new era in this branch of industry. The discussions and experiments of dairymen have so sharpened the intellect that there is now no class of men so critical, so exacting, or who can weigh a speaker's words with more precision, than those who gather at these conventions. Mere eloquence is of little avail with these men unless it be crowded with stubborn facts and suggestions that may at once be applied to business and turned to good account. They have carried the co-operative system into the marketing of their products, and now Dairy Boards of Trade are established in the chief centres of the interior, where prices for goods are manipulated with a shrewdness gathered from a knowledge of

values in the markets of the world. At Little Falls more than 25,000,000 pounds of cheese from the factories annually change hands. At the Utica Board as much more.

We have at the International Dairy fair a fit representation of this vast industryan exhibition, both in magnitude and excellence, never before equalled. it represents not only the goods but the appliances which have revolutionized the business and placed American dairying in the front rank among the nations of the world. Here also may be found the great merchants identified with its commerce-liberal and enterprising who are at the wheels of the produce trade, moving and distributing over the world American dairy goods to the value of hundreds of millions of dollars. In discussing matters pertaining to the dairy, not the least important question to be considered is its profits and future prospects.

For the last twenty years, or up to 1879, dairying of all kinds has been very remunerative; in fact, so uniform have been its profits that the gains could be calculated with great accuracy and certainty months in advance of the crop. We had a foreign market for all our surplus; our goods were wanted at fair prices by one of the wealthiest nations on the globe. England imports annually of butter and cheese to the value of $75,000,000. English merchants assured us they could dispose of an unlimited quantity of our cheese at fair prices, providing it had plenty of quality; and so we sailed on in fancied security.

Near the close of 1878, however, it became evident that the American surplus, together with the English production, had reached the limits of ordinary consumption. It may be well to more clearly define this in figures: The annual consumption of cheese in England, as stated by Morton and other statisticians, is 504,000,000 pounds; the British make has been estimated at 312,000,000, and is now, according to Prof. Sheldon, 282,000,000, leaving 222,000,000 pounds as the annual amount required to fill the English demand for free consumption.

Now, let us see how nearly this has been reached. For the year ending Dec. 31, 1878, our cheese exports, the largest ever made, amounted to 134,000,000 pounds, while the Canadian exports during the same time were about 42,000,000 pounds. The import of cheese into England from Holland, and other countries on the Continent, as stated by Sheldon, is not far from 64,000,000 pounds, and these three items foot up 240,000,000 pounds, or 18,000,000 pounds more than is ordinarily required in Britain.

I am not sure that the real prosperity of American dairying is at present to be promoted by high prices. Low prices mean the reduction of the make in England, and an outlet for an increased exportation from America. If we can lay down American cheese of fine quality in London or Liverpool below the cost of English production, cheese dairying there must be abandoned, and in that event there will be room for an increased export from America of 282,000,000 pounds to supply the demand of her markets. It may seem hard for us to urge this point against our brother dairymen across the water, but in the end it must come to that. We must either arrest the spread of our cheese-making interest or find new markets, or press out English productions. But even should cheese-making be abandoned in the States, Canada and Australia would, in a short time, occupy the ground now held by us, and the wiping out of English dairying would only be a little delayed. I do not see how it is possible to maintain high prices under an increased production.

I know there are many dairymen in the Eastern and Middle States who complain that no money has been made in dairying at last Summer's prices, and they doubtless speak the truth from a standpoint of their own experience, but I cannot believe that it is necessarily so. It is a humiliating thing to acknowledge, and yet is a fact susceptible of proof, that the mass of dairymen have not improved the milking qualities of their herds during a long period of high prices, but on the other hand they have al