AN UNTILLED FIELD IN AMERICAN EDUCATION
Agricultural education in this country has thus far been an attempt to
apply a knowledge of the laws of the so-called "natural" sciences to the
practical operations of the farm. Comparatively little attention has
been paid to the application of the principles of the "social" sciences
to the life of the farmer. All this is partly explained by the fact that
the natural sciences were fairly well developed when the needs of the
farmer called the scientist to work with and for the man behind the
plow, when a vanishing soil fertility summoned the chemist to the
service of the grain grower, when the improvement of breeds of stock and
races of plants began to appeal to the biologist. Moreover, these
practical applications of the physical and biological sciences are, and
always will be, a fundamental necessity in the agricultural question.
But in the farm problem we cannot afford to ignore the economic and
sociological phases. While it may be true that the practical success of
the individual farmer depends largely upon his business sense and his
technical education, it is folly to hope that the success of agriculture
as an industry and the influence of farmers as a class can be based
solely upon the ability of each farmer to raise a big crop and to sell
it to advantage. General intelligence, appreciation of the trend of
economic and social forces, capacity to co-operate, ability to voice his
needs and his rights, are just as vital acquirements for the farmer as
knowing how to make two blades of grass grow where but one grew before.
It finally comes to this, that the American farmer is obliged to study
the questions that confront him as a member of the industrial order and
as a factor in the social and political life of the nation, with as much
zeal and understanding as he is expected to show in the study of those
natural laws governing the soil and the crops and the animals that he
owns.
In this connection it is significant to note that farmers themselves are
already quite as interested in the social problems of their particular
calling and in the general economic and political questions of the day,
as they are in science applied to their business of tilling the soil.
Not necessarily that they minimize the latter, but they seem
instinctively to recognize that social forces may work them ill or work
them good according to the direction and power of those forces. This
statement is illustrated by the fact that the aims, purposes, labors,
and discussions of the great farmers' organizations like the Grange are
social in character, having to do with questions that are political,
economic, sociological.
When, however, we turn to those public educational agencies that are
intended to assist in the solution of the farm problem, we discover that
they are giving slight attention to the social side of the question. An
examination of the catalogues of the agricultural colleges, whether
separate institutions or colleges of state universities, reveals the
fact that, beyond elementary work in economics, in civics, and
occasionally in sociology, little opportunity is given students to study
the farm question from its social standpoint. With a few exceptions,
these institutions offer no courses whatever in rural social problems,
and even in these exceptional cases the work offered is hardly
commensurate with the importance of the subject. Nearly all our other
colleges and universities are subject to the same comment. The average
student of problems in economics and sociology and education gains on
conception whatever of the importance and character of the rural phases
of our industrial and social life.
It may be urged in explanation of this state of affairs that the liberal
study of the social sciences in our colleges and universities and
especially any large attention to the practical problems of economics
and sociology, is a comparatively recent thing. This is true and is a
good excuse. But it does not offer a reason why the social phases of
agriculture should be longer neglected. The purpose of this article is
less to criticize than to describe a situation and to urge the
timeliness of the large development, in the near future, of rural social
science.
At the outset the queries may arise, What is meant by rural social
science? and, What is there to be investigated and taught under such a
head? The answer to the first query has already been intimated. Rural
social science is the application of the principles of the social
sciences, especially of economics and sociology, to the problems that
confront the American farmer. As a reply to the second query there are
appended at the end of this chapter outlines of possible courses in
agricultural economics and rural sociology, which were prepared by the
writer for the exhibit in "rural economy" at the St. Louis exposition.
There are also subjects that have a political bearing, such as local
government in the country, and primary reform in rural communities,
which perhaps ought not to be omitted. So, too, various phases of home
life and of art might be touched upon. The subjects suggested and others
like them could be conveniently grouped into from two to a dozen
courses, as circumstances might require.
What classes of people may be expected to welcome and profit by
instruction of this character? (1) The farmers themselves. Assuming that
our agricultural colleges are designed, among other functions, to train
men and women to become influential farmers, no argument is necessary to
show how studies in rural social science may help qualify these students
for genuine leadership of their class of toilers. On the other hand, it
may be remarked that no subjects will better lend themselves to college
extension work than those named above. Lectures and lecture courses for
granges, farmers' clubs, farmers' institutes, etc., on such themes would
arouse the greatest interest. Correspondence and home study courses
along these lines would be fully as popular as those treating of soils
and crops. (2) Agricultural educators. The soil physicist or the
agricultural chemist will not be a less valuable specialist in his own
line, and he certainly will be a more useful member of the faculty of an
agricultural college, if he has an appreciative knowledge of the
farmer's social and economic status. This is even more true of men
called to administer agricultural education in any of its phases. (3)
Rural school administrators and the more progressive rural teachers. The
country school can never become truly a social and intellectual center
of the community until the rural educators understand the social
environment of the farmer. (4)Country clergymen. The vision of a
social-service church in the country will remain but a dream unless,
added to the possession of a heart for such work, the clergyman knows
the farm problem sufficiently to appreciate the broader phases of the
industrial and social life of his people. (5) Editors of farm papers,
and of the so-called "country" papers. Probably the editors of the
better class of agricultural papers are less in need of instruction such
as that suggested than is almost anyone else. Yet the same arguments
that now lead many young men aspiring to this class of journalism to
regard a course in scientific agriculture as a vestibule to their work
may well be used in urging a study of rural social science, especially
at a time when social and economic problems are pressing upon the
farmer. As for the country papers, the work of purveying local gossip
and stirring the party kettle too often obscures the tremendous
possibilities for a high-class service to the rural community which such
papers may render. No men, in the agricultural states at least, have
more real influence in their community than the trained, clean, manly,
country editors--and there is a multitude of such men. If as a class
they possessed also a wider appreciation of the farmer's industrial
difficulties and needs, hardly anyone could give better service to the
solution of the farm problem than could they. (6) Everybody else! That
is to say, the agricultural question is big enough and important enough
to be understood by educated people. The farmers are half our people.
Farming is our largest single industrial interest. The capital invested
in agriculture is four-fifths the capital invested in manufacturing and
railway transportation combined. Whether an individual has a special
interest in business, in economics, in education, or in religious
institutions, he ought to know the place of the farm and the farmer in
that question. No one can have a full appreciation of the social and
industrial life of the American people who is ignorant of the
agricultural status.
The natural place to begin work in rural social science is the
agricultural college. Future farmers and teachers of farmers are
supposed to be there. The subjects embraced are as important in solving
the farm problem as are biology, physics, or chemistry. No skilled
farmer or leader of farmers should be without some reasonably correct
notions of the principles that determine the position of agriculture in
the industrial world. A brief study of the elements of political
economy, of sociology, of civics, is not enough; no more than the study
of the elements of botany, of chemistry and of zoology is enough. The
specific problems of the farmer that are economic need elucidation
alongside the study of soils and crops, of plant-and stock-breeding. And
these economic topics should be thoroughly treated by men trained in
social science, and not incidentally by men whose chief interest is
technical agriculture.
The normal schools may well discuss the propriety of adding one or two
courses which bear on the social and economic situation of the rural
classes. While these schools do not now send out many teachers into
rural schools, they may do so under the system of centralized schools;
and in any event they furnish rural school administrators, as well as
instructors of rural teachers. There seems to be a growing sentiment
which demands of the school and of the teacher a closer touch with life
as it is actually lived. How can rural teachers learn to appreciate the
social function of the rural school, except they be taught?
Nor is there any reason why the theological seminaries, or at least the
institutions that prepare the men who become country clergymen, should
not cover some of the subjects suggested. If the ambition of some people
to see the country church a social and intellectual center is to be
realized, the minister must know the rural problem broadly. The same
arguments that impel the city pastor to become somewhat familiar with
the economic, social, and civic questions of the day hold with equal
force when applied to the necessary preparation for the rural ministry.
The universities may be called upon to train teachers and investigators
in rural social science for service in agricultural colleges, normal
schools, and theological seminaries. Moreover, there is no good reason
why any college or university graduate should not know more than he does
about the farm problem. There can be little doubt that the interest in
the farm question is very rapidly growing, and that the universities
will be but meeting a demand if they begin very soon to offer courses in
rural social science.
The arguments for rural social science rest, let us observe, not only
upon its direct aid to the farmers themselves, but upon its value as a
basis for that intelligent social service which preacher, teacher, and
editor may render the farming class. It is an essential underlying
condition for the successful federation of rural social forces. Indeed
it should in some degree be a part of the equipment of every educated
person.
It may not be out of place to add, in conclusion, that instruction in
rural social problems should be placed in the hands of men who are
thoroughly trained in social science as well as accurate, experienced,
and sympathetic observers of rural conditions. It would be mischievous
indeed if in the desire to be progressive any educational institution
should offer courses in rural social science which gave superficial or
erroneous ideas about the scientific principles involved, or which
encouraged in any degree whatever the notion that the farmer's business
and welfare are not vitally and forever bound up with the business and
welfare of all other classes.
OUTLINE FOR A BRIEF COURSE IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
I. Characteristics of the Agricultural Industry.
Dependence upon nature.
Capital and labor as applied to agriculture.
The laws of rent and of decreasing returns in agriculture.
Relation of agriculture to other industries and to the welfare of
mankind.
II. History of the Agricultural Industry.
In ancient times.
Status in Europe prior to the eighteenth century.
The struggle to maintain its standing after the advent of commerce
and manufacture.
In the United States.
The pioneer stage.
Development of commercial agriculture.
The new farming.
III. Present Status of the Farming Industry.
The world's food supply.
Agricultural resources of the United States.
Geographical factors.
Soils, climate, fertility, natural enemies, etc.
Statistics of farms, farm wealth, production, etc.
Leading sub-industries, cereals, stock, etc.
Distribution of production.
IV. The Agricultural Market.
Description of the market--local, domestic, foreign.
Mechanism of the market.
Banks and local exchange facilities.
Middlemen.
Boards of trade.
Prices of agricultural products.
Movements of prices.
Agricultural competition.
Depressions of agriculture.
Influence of "options."
Transportation of agricultural products.
Primary transportation--wagon roads and trolley lines.
Railroad and water transportation.
Facilities.
Rates.
Discriminations.
Delivery methods.
Incidents of the transportation system--elevators, etc.
Imperfect distribution of agricultural products.
Development of the market.
Increase of consumption of products--manufacture of farm products
as a factor.
The factor of choicer products.
The factor of better distribution of products.
The local market as a factor.
The foreign market as a factor.
V. Business Co-operation in Agriculture.
Historical sketch.
Present status.
Production.
Marketing.
Buying.
Miscellaneous business co-operation.
Difficulties and tendencies.
VI. Agriculture and Legislation.
Land laws and land policies of the United States.
Agriculture and the tariff.
Taxation and agriculture.
Food and dairy laws.
Government aid to agriculture.
VII. General Problems.
Agricultural labor.
Machinery and agriculture.
Interest rates, indebtedness, etc.
Tenant farming.
Large vs. small farming.
Business methods.
Immigration and agriculture.
OUTLINE FOR A BRIEF COURSE IN RURAL SOCIOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
1. Definitions.
2. Relation of the sociological to the economic, the technical, and the
scientific phases of agriculture.
Part I
THE RURAL SOCIAL STATUS
CHAPTER I
Movements of the Farm Population
1. Statistical survey.
2. The movement to the West.
History, causes.
3. The movement to the cities.
_a_) Growth of cities.
_b_) Depletion of rural population in certain localities.
4. Causes of the movement to the cities.
_a_) Industrial, social, and psychological causes.
5. Results of the movements of the farm population.
_a_) Results both good and bad.
_b_) Resume of industrial and social results.
CHAPTER II
Social Condition of the Rural Population
Nativity; color; illiteracy; families; health; temperance; crime;
morality; pauperism; defectives; insanity; etc.
CHAPTER III
The Social Psychology of Rural Life
1. Isolation and its results.
2. The farm home and its environment.
3. Traits of family life.
4. Traits of individual life.
CHAPTER IV
The Social Aspect of Current Agricultural Questions
1. Tenant farming.
2. Large vs. small farms.
3. Farm labor.
4. Irregular incomes.
5. Farm machinery.
6. Specialization in farming.
7. Immigration.
Part II
SOCIAL FACTORS IN RURAL PROGRESS
CHAPTER I
Means of Communication in Rural Districts
1. Importance and status of rural communication.
2. The new movements for better rural communication.
_a_) Highways.
_b_) Rural free mail delivery.
_c_) Rural telephone.
_d_) Interurban electric railways.
CHAPTER II
Farmers' Organizations
1. Value of.
2. Difficulties in organizing.
3. Forms that organizations may take.
4. History and work of farmers' organizations in the United States.
5. General deductions from study of farmers' organizations.
CHAPTER III
Rural Education
1. Distinction between rural and agricultural education.
2. The country school.
_a_) Its importance, organization, maintenance, instruction, and
supervision.
_b_) The rural school as a social center.
_c_) The township unit, the consolidated school, the centralized
school.
3. High-school privileges for rural pupils.
4. The rural library.
5. Other agencies for rural education.
CHAPTER IV
Means of Agricultural Education
1. Historical.
2. Research in agriculture.
3. Agricultural instruction to resident students.
_a_) Higher education in agriculture.
_b_) Secondary education in agriculture.
_c_) Primary education in agriculture.
4. Extension teaching in agriculture.
5. Miscellaneous agencies for agricultural education.
_a_) Farmers' societies.
_b_) The farm press.
_c_) The county paper.
_d_) Industrial departments of steam railways.
CHAPTER V
The Rural Church
1. Present status.
2. Difficulties in country church work.
3. The awakening in the rural church.
4. The institutional rural church.
5. The Y. M. C. A. in the country.
6. The rural Sunday school.
7. The rural social settlement.
CHAPTER VI
The Social Ideal for Agriculture
1. The importance of social agencies.
2. The preservation of the "American farmer" essential.
3. Relation of this ideal to our American civilization.
4. The federation or co-operation of rural social agencies.
CHAPTER XVII
FEDERATION FOR RURAL PROGRESS
It is almost trite to assert the need of the "socialization"--to use a
much-worked phrase--of the country. It is possible that this need is not
greater than in the cities, but it is different. Among no class of
people is individualism so rampant as among farmers. For more than a
century the American farmer led the freest possible social life. His
independence was his glory. But, when the day of co-operation dawned, he
found himself out of tune with the movement, was disinclined to join the
ranks of organized effort, and he prefers even yet his personal and
local independence to the truer freedom which can be secured only
through co-operative endeavor. Moreover, the social aspect of the rural
problem is important not merely because the farmer is slow to
co-operate. The farm problem is to be met by the activities of social
institutions.
We may say (assuming the home life, of course) that the church, the
school, and the farmers' organization are the great rural social
institutions. They are the forces now most efficient, and the ones that
promise to abide. This classification may appear to be a mere truism,
when we suggest that under the church should be placed all those
movements that have a distinctively religious motive, under the school
all those agencies that are primarily educational in design, and under
farmers' organizations those associations whose chief function is to
settle questions which concern the farmer as a business man and a
citizen. But the classification answers fairly well. It includes
practically every device that has been suggested for rural betterment.
There are two interesting facts about these rural institutions: (1) None
of them is doing a tithe of what it ought to be doing to help solve the
farm problem. The church is apparently just about holding its own,
though that is doubted by some observers. Rural schools are not, as a
rule, keeping pace with the demands being made upon them; comparatively
few students in the whole country are studying scientific agriculture.
Not one farmer in twenty belongs to a strong farmers' organization. (2)
All these institutions are awakening to the situation. Progress during
the last decade has been especially gratifying. Co-operative efforts
among farmers are more cautious, but more successful. The Grange has
nearly doubled its membership since 1890; and it, as well as other farm
organizations, has more real power than ever before. The rural-school
question is one of the liveliest topics today among farmers as well as
educators. Opportunities for agricultural education have had a marvelous
development within a decade. Discussion about rural church federation,
the rural institutional church, rural social settlements, and even
experiments in these lines are becoming noticeably frequent. The Young
Men's Christian Association has, its officers think, found the way to
reach the country young man.
The institutions which we have just discussed, together with the
improvement that comes from such physical agencies as assist quicker
communication (good wagon roads, telephones, rural mail delivery,
electric roads), constitute the social forces that are to be depended
upon in rural betterment. None can be spared or ignored. The function of
each must be understood and its importance recognized. To imagine that
substantial progress can result from the emphasis of any one agency to
the exclusion of any other is a mistake. To assert this is not to
quarrel with the statement we frequently hear nowadays that "the
_church_ should be the social and intellectual center of the
neighborhood;" or that "the _school_ should be the social and
intellectual center of the neighborhood;" or that "the _Grange_ should
be the social and intellectual center of the neighborhood." It is
fortunate that these statements have been made. They show an
appreciation of a function of these agencies that has been neglected.
The first item in rural social progress is that the country preacher,
the rural teacher, the country doctor, the country editor, the
agricultural editor, the agricultural college professor, and especially
the farmer himself, shall see the social need of the farm community. But
to assert, for instance, that the church shall be _the_ social center of
that community may lead to a partial and even to a fanatical view of
things. I would not restrain in the slightest the enthusiasm of any
pastor who wants to make his church occupy a central position in
community life, nor of the teacher who wants to bring her school into
relation with all the economic and social life of the farm, nor of the
leader of the farmers' organization who sees the good that may be done
through the social and intellectual training which his organization can
give. But if there is danger that the preacher in the pursuit of this
ideal, shall ignore the social function of the school and of the
farmers' organization, or that the teacher, or the farmer, or anybody
else who is interested, shall fail to see that there is a logical
division of labor among rural social forces, and that it is only the
intelligent and efficient and harmonious co-operation of all these
forces that will insure the best progress, then to such I appeal with
all the power at my command to recognize not only the breadth of the
whole movement, but to appreciate the limitations of their own special
interests. There are things that the church cannot do and should not
attempt to do. There are things the school cannot do and should not
attempt to do. Accepting our conventional division of social agencies,
we may say that efficient rural progress stands upon a tripod of forces,
and that balance can be maintained only when each is used in its proper
measure.
We reach now the heart of the topic, which is how these various social
forces may be brought into co-operation--a co-operation that is
intelligent and real. I would suggest, first of all, the encouragement
of all efforts along this line that are already under way. For
instance, there are scattered all over this country individual pastors
who are seeking to make their churches the social and intellectual
beacon-lights of the community. There are other individuals who are
endeavoring to apply the social-settlement idea to the needs of the
country. There are associations which attempt to bring together the
teachers and the school patrons for mutual discussion of educational
topics. In numerous instances the farmers' organizations include in
their membership the country pastor, the district school teacher and
perhaps the country doctor. In these and doubtless in other ways the
idea we are dealing with is being promulgated, and up to a certain point
this fact of promiscuous initiative is entirely satisfactory and
desirable. So long as the work is done it makes little difference who
does it. Every attempt to bring any of these agencies into closer touch
with the farm community is to be welcomed most heartily. But beyond a
certain limit this promiscuous work must be unsatisfactory. The efforts
and interests of any one social agency are bound to be partial. Indeed
the more effective such an agency is, the more partial it is likely to
be. Intensity is gained at the expense of breadth. The need for
federation exists in the desirability of securing both the intensity and
the breadth.
The precise method of securing this federation of effort is not easy to
foresee. It can be determined only by trial. It must be worked out in
harmony with varying conditions. Some very general plans at once suggest
themselves: (1) Let the agricultural college in each state take the lead
in the movement, acting not so much as an organization as a
clearing-house and a go-between. Let it direct conferences on the
subject, and seek to bring all who are interested in rural affairs into
touch and sympathy. (2) Have a "League for Rural Progress," made up of
representatives from the churches, the agricultural colleges, the
departments of public instruction, the farm press, various farmers'
organizations, etc. (3) Enlarge the "Hesperia movement," which now seeks
to secure co-operation between school and farmers' organization, by
including in it the church.
It may be of interest to note that this idea of a federation of rural
social forces is getting a foothold and has indeed already crystallized
into organization. A brief description of what has actually been done
will therefore not be out of place.
So far as the writer is aware, the first meeting based on the definite
idea of co-operation between school, church, and Grange was held at
Morris, Connecticut, in the summer of 1901 and was organized by Rev. F.
A. Holden, then pastor at Morris. This meeting was a very successful
local affair, held in connection with "Old Home Week" celebration.
Probably the first attempt to hold a similar meeting on a large scale
was the conference at the Agricultural College, Michigan, in February,
1902. It was a joint meeting of the Michigan Political Science
Association and the Agricultural College and farmers' institutes. The
practical initiative was taken by the Political Science Association
under the leadership of its secretary, Professor Henry C. Adams, who had
the cordial co-operation of President Snyder of the Agricultural College
and Professor C. D. Smith, then superintendent of farmers' institutes.
It was a notable gathering, and its promoters were rejoiced to see the
splendid attendance of farmers particularly; teachers and clergymen did
not attend as freely as might have been expected. The programme was a
strong one and included men of national reputation and topics covering a
wide range of interests.
The addresses were published in the _Michigan Farmers' Institute
Bulletin_ for 1901-02, and were also gathered into a publication of the
Michigan Political Science Association under the title _Social Problems
of the Farmer_.
The state of Rhode Island has organized on a permanent basis. In 1904
there was held in Kingston, at the College of Agriculture and Mechanic
Arts, a "Conference on Rural Progress." It was a one-day meeting, well
attended by representative farmers, clergymen, and educators. A
committee was appointed to discuss further procedure, and the next year
there was held in the halls of Brown University a two-days' conference.
The programme included addresses on: The Grange, The Country Church,
School Gardens, and several phases of practical agriculture. Among the
speakers were the assistant secretary of agriculture, Hon. N. J.
Bachelder, now Master of the National Grange, and Dr. Josiah Strong.
In the spring of 1906 there was organized "The Rhode Island League for
Rural Progress," which was constituted through representation from the
following organizations: State Board of Agriculture; Rhode Island
College of Agriculture; State Federation of Churches; State Grange;
State Association of School Superintendents; State League of Improvement
Societies; Washington County Agricultural Society; Newport Agricultural
Society; Rhode Island Horticultural Society; Newport Horticultural
Society; Rhode Island Poultry Association; Florists and Gardeners' Club;
Kingston Improvement Association.
This league held the Third Annual Conference on Rural Progress, April 10
and 11, 1906, the first day's session being at Brown University,
Providence, and the second day's at East Greenwich. Its fourth meeting
was held in Newport in March, 1907. In Rhode Island the idea lying back
of this conference has certainly approved itself to all who are
interested in rural matters.
The following is the constitution of the league:
CONSTITUTION
Rhode Island League for Rural Progress
I. NAME.--The name of this body shall be the "Rhode Island League
for Rural Progress."
II. OBJECT.--The object of the League shall be to secure the
co-operation of the various individuals, organizations, and
agencies which are working for any phase of rural advancement in
this state.
III. MEMBERSHIP.--Any organization interested in rural advancement,
which may desire to co-operate with the work of the League, may be
represented in the League.
Any individual in the state interested in rural progress may become
a member of the League upon the payment of one dollar annual fee.
IV. OFFICERS.--The administrative work of the League shall be
conducted by a council, to be composed of one delegate from each
organization represented in the League, to serve until superseded.
The council at the time of each annual conference shall choose from
among its members a president, a vice-president, and a
secretary-treasurer, and these officers shall act as an executive
committee.
V. MEETINGS.--The meetings of the League shall be held at the call
of the executive committee. There shall, however, be at least one
annual Conference on rural progress held under the auspices of the
League.
VI. FINANCES.--The funds necessary to forward the work of the
League may come from three sources:
_a_) Contributions made by organizations belonging to the League
and represented on the council, such contributions to be voluntary
and in such amount as the respective organizations may designate.
The council may, however, make up a schedule of desired
contributions from the various organizations and present it to the
different organizations.
_b_) Membership fees from individual members, $1.00 per year from
each member.
_c_) Private subscriptions.
Probably the first successful attempt to organize a permanent league for
rural progress was accomplished in 1904 through the efforts of Rev. G.
T. Nesmith, of Hebron, Ill. It was called "The McHenry County
Federation," and has held three annual meetings and seems to be on a
solid basis. Mr. Nesmith has endeavored to keep the purpose of the
league on a high plane by endeavoring to state clearly the object of the
federation, which is, "that the people of McHenry County might have
life, and have it more abundantly, and this life was not to be a narrow
life. It was the largest aggregate and highest symmetry of the sixfold
ends of individual and community action, viz., health, wealth,
knowledge, sociability, beauty, and righteousness." He also endeavored
to make it clear that "the federation does not seek to supplant the
other forces. It rather seeks to be a clearing-house of the ideas of all
the federated organizations; to be a mount of vision from which each may
look and get a complete vision of life; to be a fraternal bond which
shall link all together in common ties of sympathy, fellowship, and
co-operation."
The results thus far obtained are perhaps best described by quoting the
words of Mr. G. W. Conn, Jr., superintendent of schools of McHenry
County:
There is one noticeable omission in the constitution--a provision
for the proper financing of the federation. This is partially
explained by the fact that the federation has largely centered
about the county Teachers' Association and the county Farmers'
Institute, organizations that are supported in a financial way by
the county and the state appropriations. These appropriations, in
addition to some voluntary gifts, have been sufficient to meet the
necessary expenses of the meetings.
I think that I am safe in saying that the interest and also the
attendance has probably increased 100 per cent. at each session.
Each year has also seen a much larger percentage of our local men
and women helping out on the programme. It is a little early in its
history to expect much evidence of material results, but I believe
that results are already putting in an appearance, especially from
the esthetic standpoint. Without doubt more trees have been planted
about the country homes and along the country roadsides of this
county than in any two preceding years. In a great many places
roads have been cleaned. Refuse and weeds have been removed and
burned. Landscape gardening on a simple scale is putting in an
appearance in places where it was little expected. The naming of
farms is another feature that is rapidly growing. Boys' country
clubs are being formed and this year, for the first time, three of
these clubs met with the federation, had a banquet, and formed a
county organization.
Of course not all of these movements are rightfully to be
attributed to the direct influence of the county federation. The
public schools of the county have been largely instrumental in
stirring the public conscience to a livelier appreciation of the
beautiful. The regular observance of Arbor and Bird Days in our
schools has done much toward initiating this movement. However, the
federation has been the great factor in uniting otherwise
independent organizations into one large machine for stirring the
social consciousness and molding public sentiment. It has proved to
be an efficient association in at least three ways, in
co-ordinating our efforts, harmonizing our methods, and broadening
the field of operation.
The constitution of this league is given herewith in full:
1. NAME.--The name of this organization shall be, The McHenry
County Federation of Rural Forces.
2. OBJECT.--The object of the Federation is to gain a higher
symmetry and a larger aggregate of health, wealth, knowledge,
sociability, beauty, and righteousness to the citizens of McHenry
County.
3. ELEMENTS OF THE FEDERATION.--The Federation shall consist of the
following organizations: The Farmers' Institute, Teachers'
Association, Domestic Science Association, Pastors' Association,
Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the Young Men's Christian
Association.
4. MEMBERSHIP.--Any county organization may become a member of the
federation by recommendation of the Executive Committee.
5. OFFICERS.--The officers of the Federation shall consist of a
president, as many vice-presidents as there are component
organizations, a secretary-treasurer, and an Executive Committee.
6. COMMITTEES.--The Executive Committee shall be composed of the
president, the secretary-treasurer, and the presidents of the
component organizations.
There shall be an Auditing Committee and a Committee on
Resolutions, each consisting of three members and to be appointed
by the president.
The Nominating Committee shall consist of two members from each of
the component organizations and they shall be appointed by the
president.
7. DUTIES.--The Executive Committee shall select the date and fix
the place of every meeting. They shall also prepare the programme.
The presidents of the component organizations shall be _ex-officio_
vice-presidents of the Federation.
8. AUDITING.--All bills shall be paid by the treasurer after the
same have been countersigned by the Auditing Committee.
9. TERM OF OFFICE.--The terms of all officers shall be one year or
until their successors are elected.
10. HOW ELECTED.--All officers shall be elected by ballot.
The Massachusetts Conference for Town and Village Betterment has dealt
with some phases of the federation idea. Its object is "to contribute to
the formation of a strong, definite, and united purpose among the forces
working for the improvement of civic and social conditions in
Massachusetts, by bringing together all town and village improvement
societies, citizen's associations, civic clubs, and other organizations
interested in this purpose."
The Massachusetts Agricultural College, in celebrating the fortieth
anniversary of its opening to students, October 2, 1907, held a four
days' conference on rural progress. The programme covered nearly the
whole field of rural development and was made possible by the
co-operation of the State Board of Agriculture, the State Grange, the
Massachusetts Civic League, the Connecticut Valley Congregational Club,
the State Committee of the Y. M. C. A., the Western Massachusetts
Library Club, and the Head-Masters' Club of the Connecticut Valley. No
permanent organization was formed, but the general idea of federation of
rural social forces was fully emphasized and thoroughly appreciated.
An attempt was made in the spring of 1907 to bring together the various
elements of rural progress in all the New England states. Under the
initiative of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture there was
held in March, 1907, a New England Conference on Rural Progress. This
meeting was held very largely for the purpose of discovering the
sentiment among the leaders of New England agriculture with respect to
the desirability and practicability of federating on so large a scale.
In addition to the main meeting, the presidents of the agricultural
colleges of New England were called together in a special section, and
the same was true of the directors of the New England experiment
stations, the masters of the various state granges, the secretaries of
the various state boards of agriculture, and the leaders in the New
England Federation of Churches.
The idea of federation was clearly approved by the delegates present,
and a temporary organization was effected. It was voted to hold a
similar conference in Boston in the spring of 1908.
It is probably true that the first and most important step in bringing
about a federation of rural social forces is to educate all concerned to
the _desirability_ of such a federation--to sow the seeds of the idea.
So far as machinery is concerned it may not be necessary to form any new
organization. Indeed, what is chiefly necessary is a sort of
_clearing-house_ for an exchange of ideas and plans among all who are at
work on any phase of the rural social problem. There is need of a
central bureau that shall emphasize the necessity of a study of
agricultural economics and rural sociology, and press the value of
co-operation in the work of social progress in the country. There is
need that somewhere "tab" shall be kept on the whole rural social
movement. We need a directing force to assure a comprehensive view and
study of the whole rural problem. It is important that some
investigations should be carried on that are not likely to be taken up
by some other agency. It would be desirable to have a certain amount of
publication, and in various other ways to carry on a campaign of
education. Above all, it would be desirable to initiate local, state,
and national conferences pervaded by the spirit and purpose of securing
the hearty co-operation of all rural social forces, of all the
organizations that have any rural connection whatever, and of all
individuals who have the slightest genuine interest in any phase of the
farm problem.
Such a bureau should keep in constant touch with, secure the confidence
of, and supply appropriate literature to, country teachers, preachers,
editors, doctors, and business men, and, more than all, to intelligent
and progressive farmers. And let me add at this point, that it must be
fully understood that the work contemplated cannot possibly achieve
large success unless it is done _with_ the farmers, rather than _for_
the farmers. The problem is far from that of doing a missionary work for
a down-trodden and ignorant class. It is a much less heroic, a much more
commonplace task. It is simply carrying the idea of co-operation of
individuals a step farther, and endeavoring to secure the co-operation
of interests that have precisely the same goal, although traveling upon
different roads. The prime purpose of the movement is to bring the
specialist into close touch with the more general phases of the problem,
to secure breadth and wholeness, to assure well-balanced effort.
[NOTE.--A paper with the title of this chapter was read before the
American Civic Association in 1901, at Minneapolis. A portion of
the paper is retained here. The history of the development of the
idea of federation is brought down to the present time.]