DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

REPORT OF SECRETARY.

FARMERS' INSTITUTES.

Under the supervision of Deputy Secretary Hamilton, the Farmers' Institute system of the State has reached a condition of development never before attained, and which is scarcely second to that of any other state in the Union. Under the former system the local manager arranged the dates and places for the institutes of his county without reference to those of adjoining counties, and it was repeatedly the case that it was necessary to transport speakers and essayists from one end of the State to the other for the purpose of attending a few institutes, often at an additional expense greater, than that of holding a single institute.

Under the present system the State has been divided into three institute districts, and a corps of speakers and institute workers assigned to each; dates have been arranged with special reference to the ready and rapid passage of speakers from one institute and county to another, and, in some cases, the dates and places have been so arranged that the same speaker may attend two institutes during the same day.

Under the former system the expenses of the institute varied with the tact and economy of the local manager, ranging from $22.50 to $85.00 per institute. Under the present plan this expense has been made equal and the number of institutes at the same time considerably increased in the face of a decreased appropriation.

The different counties of the State have been arranged into three districts, and the time for the institutes apportioned among them as shown by the following list, the number of days assigned to each county being shown by the second line in each column:

This apportionment gives 99 days of institute to the first district and 100 days each to the second and third districts, and is obtained from the following basis: All counties having not more than 1,000 farms have been assigned two days of institutes each; counties having more than 1,000 and not more than 1,500 have been assigned three days of institutes, and those having more than 1,500 farms have been assigned an additional day of institute for each 1,500 farms or fractional part thereof, the advantage of the system of apportionment being that each county is assured a share of the institute fund proportioned to its size and agricultural importance.

Taking the previous year as a basis, it was found that the local institute managers averaged $6.54 per day in local expenses, such as hall rent, janitors, printing, etc. In order to secure them against possible contingencies, this amount was increased to $9.00 per day of institute, and each local member allotted that amount for each day of institute assigned to his county. Under the former system of management it was found that some local members would expend

more in local expenses than others did in the total expenses of the institute. The plan adopted prevents this error, and ensures all a fair and proportionate share of the institute fund.

The list of institute speakers, with their topics, shows that the Department has as its assistants in the institute work, 150 speakers and essayists who are prepared to discuss nearly 800 topics, given in Bulletin No. 14 of the Department. Many of these have been on the institute force of our State from its early organization until the present time, and are fully competent to successfully carry on the work.

The amount appropriated for this work is not only far behind the needs of our farmers, but also behind that provided by other states having little or no greater agricultural importance than Pennsylvania. New York appropriates $15,000 annually, and several of our western states make annual appropriations which are, proportionately, far in excess of our own.

I would strongly recommend that this appropriation should at least be doubled, as I firmly believe that the State cannot do better in the present depressed condition of agriculture than to give her farmers the opportunity of learning economical and improved methods of agriculture, and that it is mainly by lowering the cost of their products that they will be able to compete with other countries more favorably situated as to the cost of land and crop producing facilities; and I trust that the day is not far distant when the Department will, through liberal appropriations and an economical insti tute system, be able to hold a farmers' institute in each township in the State.

The result of the past year's work continues to prove that it should be the policy of the Department to reach a class of farmers to whom the institute must be taken, and that in order to do this to the best advantage, the institutes must be held at points distant from railway stations and wherever a suitable hall can be obtained. It will not do to measure the benefits arising from institutes by the number in attendance, for, if this standard of measurement is adopted, the decision will be in favor of central points at which the attendance is by the more advanced class of our farmers, who are least in need of the aid which the State has extended to their class. In the future it will be the aim of the Department to reach that class who will not go any considerable distance to attend institutes, even though this course may cause a falling off in the number who attend.

For further and more definite information in relation to the institute system of the Department, I would refer you to the statistics furnished by Prof. John Hamilton in another portion of this report, and I would especially ask attention to that portion of the report which refers to the institute as a means of education for the farmers

of the State, believing, as I do, that their great want at the present time is a more thorough education in the line of their profession and in the direction of cheaper production, rather than an increase of their present crops.

LAWS RELATING TO FOOD AND FOOD PRODUCTS.

The act creating the Department of Agriculture places under my care the enforcement of "all laws designed to prevent fraud or adulteration in the preparation, manufacture or sale of articles of food, the inspection, sale and transportation of agricultural products or imitations thereof, and all laws relating to diseases of domestic animals, and to the manufacture and inspection of commercial ferti lizers "

This provision includes the following acts:

1. Act of May 21, 1885: "For the protection of the public health and to prevent the adulteration of dairy products and fraud in the sale thereof."

2. Act of June 26, 1895: "To provide against the adulteration of food and providing for the enforcement thereof."

3. Act of June 11, 1891: "To prevent the adulteration of cider vinegar, regulating the sale of vinegar made wholly from apples, grapes and other fruits; prohibiting the manufacture and sale of vinegar made from certain ingredients injurious to health and providing penalties for the same."

4. The act of July 5, 1895: "To enlarge the duties of the State Food Commissioner, authorizing him to enforce all laws against the adulteration or impurities in vinegar, jellies, cider, evaporated apples and all apple products and all unlawful labeling in the State of Pennsylvania."

5. Act of June 8, 1891: "An act to prevent fraud in the sale of lard and providing penalties for the violation thereof."

6. Act of June 9, 1895: “An act to prohibit the adulteration of milk by the addition of so-called preservatives."

In carrying these laws into effect, the State has been divided into districts, and a competent agent of the Department placed in charge of each. The same agent has been made use of for the enforcement of all laws, and the result has clearly proven the correctness of my statement of last year that the Department acting as a unit, can carry a number of such laws into effect more economically than if the