Boston UniversityOpenBU http://open.bu.eduTheses & Dissertations Dissertations and Theses (1964-2011)1972The Grange in Maine and NewHampshire, 1870-1940https://hdl.handle.net/2144/30683Boston UniversityBOSTON UNIVERSITY THE GRADUATE SCHOOL DISSERTATION THE GRM~GE IN Y~INE P~ NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1870-1940 by REXFORD BOOTH SHERHAN l . B. A. University of New Hampshire 1965 M. A. University of Maine 1967 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requi~ements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 1972 /1J h 'J llf vr ) Approved by :First Reader Professor of History Second Reader ii THE GRANGE IN }~INE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE 1870-1940 (Order No. ) Rexford Booth Sherman, Ph.D. Boston University Graduate School, 1972 Major Professor: Robert V. Bruce, Professor of History Historically speaking, the Grange has been treated as an essentially Hid>vestern phenomenon that flourished and died during the depression decade of the 1870's. The Grangers themselves are remembered chiefly for their crusades against the railroads and other corporate oppressors of the rural classes and as forerunners of the Populists and the Progressives of a later era. This interpretation is based largely on Solon Justus Buck's well-knmvn work, The Granger Novement. This dissertation develops a revisionist view, suggested by Dennis s. Nordin, which distinguishes between the Granger movement described by Buck and a later one, concentrated in New England, New York, Penn-sylvania and the eastern Hid~;vest during the period 1880-1920. Further-more it deals specifically with the Grange, or Patrons of Husbandry, rather than that class of agrarian protesters loosely labeled "Grangers" by Buck. The Grange proper was primarily a fraternal order whose chief mission was the social and intellectual advancement of farmers and their families, not attacks on business. The present :::tudy ex-strongest and probably most influential. iii The Granges in Haine and New Hampshire were established in 1873, six years after the founding of the Order by Oliver H. Kelley. In its first decade, the Grange in New Hampshire remained very small and weak; that in Maine achieved a large membership in its first three years, only to lose much of it by 1881. In the eighties, under capable and dedicated leaders, the Order was rebuilt and began growing. By 1900, the Haine and New Hampshire Granges \vere two of the four largest. New Hampshire reached its peak of 31,622 Grange members in 1921 and Maine its peak of 61,506 in 1922. Pomona Granges existed in every county of the two states and subordinate Granges could be found in a great majority of towns and cities. Hany towns had t\vo Granges or more. The New· England Patrons were not hostile tm.,rard railroads. Hhile opposing monopoly and the corrupt use of political power by business, they defended the capitalist system. The Maine Grange, \vhich spear-headed the Progressive Movement in that state, tended to be more agg~essive in its attack on corporate privilege, but neither State Grange fought big business \vith the zeal of the Hidwestern 11Grangers 11 or the Populists. The Granges in Haine and New Hampshire were concerned primarily with the decline of agriculture, the loss of rural population, and the deterioration cf the smJ.ll tm.;ns in the. i1ill counLcy of uortilcTn £~e~v- Englanc:, Tile Grange::; spOt1Sored discussions, meet.l::;:;s, agriculcural fairs, institutes, and experiments as means of helping farmers to adjust to changing competitive conditions. The Granges were also staunch iv supporters of the state agricultural colleges. They organized coopera-tives, including stores, in~urance companies, and variou~ buying schemes. In New Hampshire, only the Grange insurance companies were a success, but in Maine there were numerous examples of successful Grange enterprises, including stores, insurance companies, farmers' unions, Patrons' Cooperative Company, and various other ventures. Later farm organizations were to profit from Grange experience. The Grange and its members 'vorked actively with other farm associations, the state boards of agriculture, and the extension services. Yankee Patrons were active in pablic life. Many were elected to town, state and county office. Masters of the two State Granges were elected state governors. No farmers' parties appeared in New England, though the Greenbacks were strong in Haine for a few years. In the legislatures, the Granges worked to relieve the small towns from excessive property taxes. They also campaigned for greater state financing and control of local school systems and public roads, for > increased appropriations for the state colleges and boards of agri-culture, and various laws of specific importance to farmers. In the small towns, the Granges offered social outlets and entertainment~ They sponsored community improvements and generally did much to strengthen the social life of rural areas. During the years 1920-1940, the Granges tried to help farmars market their crops more efficiently. They also encouraged the growth of the Farm Bureau in which many Patrons were active members. The New England Granges at first opposed McNary-Haugenism and v and other interventions of the federal government in farm markets. They especially opposed the New Deal's first A.A.A. largely because local farmers did not benefit from it, but later did support government programs that helped New England agriculture. They eventually came to regard gov-ernment participation as necessary to the stability of farm markets. The Grange failed to reverse the decline of hill country agriculture and was unsuccessful in holding young people in the small towns. It did help !!lake life more pleasant and more re1:v-arding for those people 1:v-ho stayed behind. vi PREFACE Traditional histories have treated the Grangers and the Grange as essentially midwestern phenomena that flowered and died in the depres-sian of the 1870's. The Grangers themselves are remembered chiefly for their crusade against the railroads and the enactment of the famous "Granger laws." In brief, the Grangers are regarded as agrarian radi-cals whose demands for political, social, and economic reform anticipate the Populists and the Progressives of a later era. Most of this in-terpre,tation is based on Solon Justus Buck's well known study, The 1 Gran&er Movement. Confusion over this question arises from a failure to distinguish bet~Jeen the Gr~nge itself and the agrarian radicals whom Buck loosely describes as "Grangers." Not all Grangers were in fact members of the Grange, nor were the Granges themselves ahvays decisive or even in-terested in bringing about so-called "Granger" reforms. Secondly, the Grange itself was never particularly radical; it denounced communism and agrarianism and defended the capitalist order. 2 Contrary to the general view, it did not regard all corporations, even the railroads, as ruthless exploiters of the rural classes. ~~ere business and labor came in conflict, the Patrons of Husbandry, being businessmen themselves, 1solon Justus Buck, The Gran_ger Hovement: A Study of Agricultural, Organization and its Political, Economic, anj Social }0nifestations, 1870-1880 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913). -- 2"rn our noble Order there is no communism, no agrarianism." National Grange, "Declaration of Purpose." viii usually sided \vith. management. Though it did oppose the corrupting influence of big business on government and favored political reforms, these were not necessarily its greatest concern. The Grange was first and foremost a fraternal order whose self-described mission was the social and intellectual uplift of the rural classes. That, and not a war on the railroads, was its prime purpose, and therein lay its greatest success. Still another misconception is that the Grange simply died in 1880. The Granger movement, it is true, was over, and in the so-called "Granger states" of·the Midwest, the Grange itself had virtually col-lapsed, but the Grange was far from dead. Instead, its center of influence had shifted east\\Tard into a region where farmers were per-haps more conservative and less inclined to radical behavior than their Midwestern brethren. With painstaking care, a foundation was laid for a structure that has stood the test of time down to the present day., Thousands of new members were taken, and, by 1910, Grange membership exceeded three-quarters of a million. It was in New England, the "Gibraltar of the Grange;' where its strength and influence were greatest. Of late, some revisionist historians, including Dennis Nordin, have been taking a new look at the Grange and its historical signifi-cance. Nordin has concluded that there was not one, but two Granger movements in the nineteenth century. The first was the one described by Buck; the second occured in the period 1880-1900 and "displayed its ix greatest vigor in NeH England, New York, Pennsylvania, and the eastern Middle west. "3 Nordin's pioneering study rightly emphasizes the educational activi-ties of the Grange, but falls short in tHo respects. In the first place, his time period ends too quickly, for it was in the years 1900~1920 that the NeH England Granges reached the height of their poHer. Secondly, he focuses too narrowly on Fhe educational aspect. In NeH England, the Granges were active on all fronts. They organized cooperatives, supported the agricultural colleges, crusaded for tax reform, worked with exten-sion services, and very much more. Prominent Grange leaders held high· political office, several even being elected state governor. The Grange in N~'l England, !!loreover, '"as vPry active in promoting the growth of other major farm organizations, especially the Far~ Bureau. This dis-sertation will elaborate on this broader dimension of Grange activity in Maine and New Hampshire, the two Nev1 England states >vhere it played perhaps its most decisive role. Though all error of fact and interpretation are his, the writer wishes to acb1owledge with special thanks the numerous individuals who contributed ideast suggestions, and otherwise helped in the preparation of this study. To Professors Robert Bruce and Ernest Lm-1, I m-.re an unpayable debt for the hours they have spent reading the dissertation, · 3nennis S. Nordin, "A Revisionist Interpretation of the Patrons of Husbandry 1867-1900," The Historian, XXXII (August, 1970), 631. X Jl}aking correc tiqns and suggestions and~ in general, help it":.:; tq make a difficult job reHarding and pleasant. I am also especially indebted to :Mr. Clarence A. Day of Orono, }laine, whose books and letters have been of great value. :Much of the material presented here on the beginnings of the Farm Bureau and the Cooperative Extension Service in Maine was pro-vided by Hr. Day. Dr. James D. Shideler of the Agricultural History Center at the University of California at Davis offered valuable advice, as did Professor David Smith at the University of Haine. Others who deserve special mention are the late Scott Eastman, former Secretary of the New Hampshire Grange, National Grange Master John c. Scott, and Edwin C. Hadlock, also of the National Grange. John Page and Mrs. Norbert R. Lacy of the New Hampshire Historical Society helped in the preparation of my article for publication and also helped locate im-portant materials in that library. For their time and patience, I wish also to acknowledge the assistance rendered by the staffs of the Maine Historical Society, American Antiquarian Society, Boston Univer-sity Library, the stqte libraries of Maine, New Hampshire and Massa-chusetts, the National Grange Library in Washington, D.C., and the public libraries of Boston, and of Bangor, Portland, Presque Isle, Caribou and Houlton, Haine. Also special mention should be made of the staff of the Dartmouth College Archives. Very personal thanks go also to Mr. and Hrs. Robert Gorrie, Dr. and Mrs. Ram Singh, to my friend and counselor, Dr. Bhagwat Ahlmvalia, and finally to my parents, who have made this all possible. :xi Title Page Readers' Approval Page Abstract Preface Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: A RURAL ECONOMY IN DECLINE Chapter 2: GRANGE BEGINNINGS -- THE FIRST DECADE Chapter 3: GRANGE RENAISSANCE 1880-1920 Chapter 4: THE GRANGE AND THE FAR.'1ER Chapter 5: THE GRANGF. AND THE AG R HJJL TlJRAL COLLF.GES Chapter 6: THE GRANGE AND THE COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT i ii iii viii xii 1 39 68 94 117 145 Chapter 7: THE GRfu~GE IN PUBLIC LIFE 179 Chapter 8: THE HILL COUNTRY GRANGES IN THE PROGRESSIVE ERA 207 Chapter 9: THE GRANGE ON TAXATION 236 Chapter 10: RURAL YOUTH AND THE GRANGE Chapter 11: BUILDING BETTER ROADS Chapter 12: THE GRANGE BETWEEN THE WARS Bibliography Vita xii 273 312 345 387 402 CHAPTER 1 A RURAL ECON0~1Y IN DECLINE The decades immediately following the Civil War in America were years of expansion and momentous change. Between 1865 and 1910, ten new states were admitted to the Federal Union, while the purchase of Alaska in 1867 and the subsequent acquisition of possessions in the Caribbean and in the Pacific extended the sphere of American power far beyond the old continental boundaries. In roughly that same 1 interval, the population of the United States more than doubled. American gross national product rose from approximately $9 billion .... in 1869 to $55 billion in 1910~ Most Americans in 1860 were living on farms or in tiny rural communities where agriculture and allied trades formed the principal basis of economic activity~ Rising industry and growing cities, a phenomenon already a half century old, portended clearly the coming of a new age; America, nevertheless, remained largely dependent on her fields and forests. f . . d . 4 actur1ng 1n ustr1es. Lumber and food processing were her largest manu-Wheat, cotton, and timber exports produced 1u. S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonjal Times to 1957-(Hashington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1960), Series Al-3. 2rbid., Series Fl-5. 3Ibii., Series A 195-209. 4 Edward c. Kirkland, !-- History of American. Economic Life (3rd Edition, Ne,.,r York: Appleton Century Crofts, Inc., :1951), p. 290. 1 2 three-fourths of her foreign exchange earnings, while factory goods, especially cotton and woolen textiles, made up 60% of the I • 5 country s 1mports. Within only forty years, however, the scene changed dramatically. lVhereas in 1860 the United States had been primarily a provider of raw materials and foodstuffs, by the century's close she had become the world's foremost manufacturer of industrial goods. Her factories and industry were now the leading sources of wealth and employment. In 1860, the nation had been served by a patchwork system of railways whose usefulness was markedly compromised by varying track gauges, missing connections, and corporate quarreling. The transcontinental railway remained yet a dream. By 1910, however, railway and telegraph lines stretched across the land in every direction. Telephone poles dotted the landscape from New York to Omaha. A transcontinental telephone link was established in 1915. In the meantime, steamships and trans-oceanic cables had brought the markets o~ the world virtually to 7 America's door. 5Ibid., pp. 206-210, and George Rogers Taylor, The Trans-portation Revolution, 1815-1860 (Ne\v York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1951), pp. 449, 451. 6The census of 1900 shows: Value of Products Wages Paid Agriculture $4,4 71' 019,160 365,305,921 Manufacturing $13,014,278,498 2,328,691,250 Source: u. S. Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census, 1900, Agriculture, p. 158-159; Ibid., Manufacturing, Part I, p. xlvii. 7Kirk1and, pp. 391-395; George Rogers Taylor and Irene D. Neu, The American Railroad Network 1861-1890 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard · University Press, 1956), passim. 3 These advances in communication broke through the physical barriers that had isolated Americans and drew them together into a stronger and more interdependent national community. The urban trend, too, had been well established. A slight majority in 1910 still lived in rural places, but some time in the succeeding decade, the balance shifted decisively to the city~ America had made good her commitment to the age of science and technology. The American farmer shared in the general expansion of the postwar decades. With the coming of peace in 1865, millions of settlers moved west to take up new homesteads in the empty grasslands beyond the Missi-ssippi. Still others pressed into northern Maine and elsewhere to clear land for farms. By 1910, as a result, there were 4.4 million more farms ir. the ~.dted States tha<, there had been in 1865. Farm acreage int:.ceased by 411.6 million acres, and farm real estate values rose by 415%~ Of prime importance to the United States were the remarkable gains in farm output. By using modern methods, the American farmer each year succeeded in raising enormous crops, often in greater quantity than his markets could absorb at break-even prices. Great yields and rising consumer demand resulted in the tripling in value of America's farm product from $2.1 billion in 1860 to $6.4 billion in 1910~0 8Historica1 Statistics of the United States, Series Al95-209. 9rbid., Series K 1-7. 10rbid., Series K 139-149. 4 But despite his amazing achievements, the farmer fell behind. Farm income increased from $1.2 billion in 1860 to $3.0 billion in 1900, but the farmer's share of national income declined from 30.8% to 20.9%. In 1860, somewhat fewer than nineteen million persons, about three-fifths of the American population, lived on farms. In 1900, farm population totaled twenty-eight million, representing less than 11 half of the entire country. Hore and more, places of influence in national life were being taken by representatives of the ne>v urban interests. To an ever-lessening degree could the people of rural America rely on the force of numbers to make their voices heard. This new America could hardly dispense with the farmer, but in a consciousless and unrelenting manner, it seemed to be forcing upon him the status of political and social minority. Maine and New Hampshire in the postwar period clearly reflected the national trends. There, as in the nation, one encountered the general phenomenon of the persisting transformation of a rural, agrarian society into one essentially urban and industrial. New Hampshire, in fact·, marched ahead of the national averages. Even before the War of 1812, numerous communities in the state could boast of tanneries, fulling mills, iron and glass works, or even, in a dozen cases or more~ of tiny textile f~ctories. After 1820 large mills were built at Dover, Somersworth, Exeter, Nashua, Newmarket, Newport, and Hanchester. In 1838, the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company began erecting 11Fred A. Shannon, The Farmer's East Frontier: Agriculture 1860-1897 (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and \.Jinston, 1945), pp. 351-354. 12Norman W. Smith, "A Mature Frontier: The New Hampshire Economy, 1790-1850," Historical New Hamps:1iE~' XXIV. (Fall, .1969), 10-lL . . 5 at Manchester what was to become for a time the largest cotton textile factory in the world. Within twenty years that insignificant river hamlet grew into a city of 23,500 souls~3 and ranked with Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill among the prominent manufacturing centers of the ~1errimack Valley. By 1880, New Hampshire had entered the ranks of the industrial states. According to the Federal Census of that year, barely a third of the state's working force was employed in agriculture, while 4l-% were in industry, commerce, and the mechanical trades. New Hampshire's agri-cultural product equaled less than one-fifth the value of her industrial 14 output. Cotton textile manufacturing was easily New Hampshire's leading industry, but in addition her factories were turning out a remarkable variety of other goods. These included boots and shoes, conveyor belts, carriages, flour, hosiery and knitwear, railway cars and locomotives, malt and distilled liquors, industrial machinery, iron and steel forms, 13u. s. Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, III, Population, p. 97; Grace Holbrook Blood, Manchester on the Merrimack: The Story of a City (Manchester, New Hampshire: Lew A. Cummings Co., 1948), pp. 94, 102-104. 14 The exact data on employment reported by the Census was: Population, 10 years and over Total in all Occupational Classes Engaged in Agriculture Professional and Personal Services Trade and Transportation Manufacturing, Mechanical Trades, Mines 268,188 142,468 44,490 28,206 11,735 58,037 Concerning the value of output in manufacturing and in agriculture in New Hampshire,in 1880, the Census shows: l1anufacturing Agriculture $73,978,028 13,474,330 Source: Census Abstract in New Hompshire tgric~lture~ lOth Annual Report of the Board of Agriculture, 1880, pp. 241, 258. 6 paper, saddlery and harness, tin vlare, woolens, and mixed textiles. The Census lists 3,181 business establishments in New Hampshire in 1880 15 representing investment of $51,112,263. By 1890, investment in manu-facturing had increased by 55.3%, and the number of firms totaled 3,229~ 6 The industrialization of the Granite State vms parallelled by a steady increase in urban population. The Census shows that in 1880 30% of New Hampshire's population was living in tmms of 2, 500 or more. By 1910, the urban proportion had become 51.8%~7 The larger cities included the state capital of Concord, which besides a granite quarry and numerous shops and factories, possessed a large railroad facility with extensive freight yards, machine shops and warehouses, and the largest 18 passenger depot in northern New England. Manchester was the most populous, 15 U. S. Bureau of the Census, Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Report of Hanufactures, II, . 149. 16 U. S. Bureau of the Census, Rleventh Census of the United States, 1890, Report of Hanufactures, I, 58. 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 17 New Hampshire Population~ 1860-1940 Total 326~073 318,300 346,991 376,530 411,588 430~572 442,038 465,293 491,534 % Rural 77.9 73.8 70.0 60.7 53.3 48.2 43.5 41.3 42.4 % Urban 22.1 26.2 30.0 39.3 46.7 51.8 56.6 58.7 57.6 Source: U. S. Rureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census, 1940, Population, II, Part 4, p. 763; Historical Statistics of the United States, Series A 123-180. 18James 0. Lyford, ed., History of Concord, N.H •. (2 vo1s, Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1903), I, 613-666, II, 866-909. 7 followed by Nashua, Concord, Dover, Berlin, Portsmouth, Keene, and L . 19 acon1a. Dozens of towns and smaller cities in every county could boast of one or two mills. The more prominent included Newport, Rochester, Somersworth, Newmarket, Harrisville, }~rlboro, Franklin, Lebanon, and Claremont. In marked contrast was the fate of the rural districts of New Hampshire. In the years immediately after the Revolution, hundreds of settlers had moved into the hill country in a wave of immigration that reached its crest in the 1790's. In that decade, the state's population increased by 32%, but thereafter, as the frontier receded, the percentage increases became steadily smaller. In the 1840's, the trend momentarily reversed itself, only to resume its downward plunge after 1850. In the Civil War decade, the state experieaced a two percent loss, and at no time between 1850 and 1900 did decennial increases in population exceed thirty thousand~O Each Census after 1800 reveals a growing number of rural towns reporting population losses. Well before 1870 a majority of the towns had passed their population peak for the century. With few exceptions, only towns fortunate in having a factory or a railroad facility managed to ~eep moving ahead. Losses were particularly severe in the poorer farming districts. Forty-seven percent of the state's organized towns lost population in the 1850's, 73% in the 1860's, and 53% in the 1870's. 19Thirteenth Census, III, . 97. 20s . t m1 ttl, pp. 14-15. 8 Such gro\vth as did occur after 1860 could be found almost exclusively in urban centers. In the 1860's, for example, a decade of overall decrease for the state, the cities of Concord, Dover, Keene, Laconia, and Manchester each reported gains of over nine percent. Urban growth accounts for 72% of the state increase in the 1870's. Between 1870 and 1910, further-more, when the state grew by 34%, the urban increase was 169%~1 New Hampshire in 1880 had a well developed transportation system. Virtually every community of consequence enjoyed the services of at least one railroad. Few towns lay more than twenty miles from a station. The orientation of New Hampshire's principal railroads lay from south to north. Major lines ran up the Connecticut and Merrimack River valleys from connections in Massachusetts to junctions with other rail-roads \vhich extended northwest across VPrmont from Bellm-1s Falls, Wh.ite River Ju'J.ction, and Hoodsville. In the southeast, service was provided by the Boston . & Maine and Eastern railroads whose lines paralleled each other between their main terminals in Portland and Boston. Communities in the northern counties depended primarily on the ·crand Trunk and Portland & Ogdensburg roads, both of which main-tained terminals in Portland and provided connections with the West via Canadian lines. In addition, miles of branchlines and feeder railroads crisscrossed every county. In time, most of these companies 21Thirteenth Census, III, , 97; Harold Wilson, The Hill Country of l'lorthern l~e\v England: Its Social and Economic History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), p. 103. 9 were absorbed by the .Boston & Maine , and by 1895 only the Grand T k th 1 d . d . d d 22 run among e arger roa s rema1ne 1n epen ent. The pattern of change in Maine follmved a similar though slower tempo. Like Ne\v Hampshire, Maine in the late Nineteenth Century experienced the rapid growth of her cities and industry; but for the most part, this growth was concentrated largely in the central and southern sections of the state. There, conditions were roughly comparable to those in New Hampshire, with industrial centers seemingly growing at the expense of rural districts. Androscoggin County, though small in area, was heavily urbanized. Excellent farm land could be found throughout the county, and indeed, by .1900 Androscoggin was supporting many thriving dairy and fruit farms. The facts are, hmvever, that virtually all ·of the county's population gains between 1860 and 1910 can be explained by the phenomenal growth of the cities of Auburn and Lewiston. In that same period, over 50% of organized towns in the county shmved a loss each decade. Such, too, was the situation in neighboring Kennebec County, an even wealthier farm area. In that fifty-year period, Kennebec reported an overall loss of 165, while Augusta and Waterville, her two largest cities, grew by 12,680. Virtually the entire increase recorded for Cumberland 22The history of Ne\v Hampshire's railways is described in Ibid., pp. 34-40; George Pierce Baker, ~l'he Formation of the New England Rail-road Systems: A Study of Railroad Combination in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948), Chapters VI-XIII; Edward Chase Kirkland, Hen, Cities, and Transportation: A Study in New England History, 1820-1900 (2 vols., Cambridge, Hass.: Harvard University Press, 1948), pussi.Jn. 10 County can be explained by the growth of Portland and its suburb Hest-brook. In York County, Saco and Biddeford were the prime beneficiaries of population increase. The fact that in each case the cities were growing faster than the counties underscores the severity of the rural losses. Kennebec in the 1870's and again in the 1890's shmvs 80% of ~ its tmms losing residents; for York and Cumberland the 23 losses \vere nearly as severe. 23The following chart illustrates the urban trend in the more heavily urbanized counties in Maine in the period 1860-1900. The figures show the net increase or decrease of the given county and its largest cities. Bangor, a major lumber port in the lUneteenth Century, experienced certain loss in the 1870's largely due to a depression in the lumber industry. The major increase in the population of Penobscot County can be explained in part by the rise of the paper industry, which was centered around the towns of I:1illinocket and East Millinocket. Androscoggin Countl 1910 1900 1890 1880 1870 1860 Auburn 2,113 1,701 1,695 1,386 2,147 1, 1Lf2 Lewiston 22486 2~060 22618 52483 6 2 176 32840 Net Increase: Urban 5,599 3,761 4,313 8,869 8,323 4,022 Net Increase: County 5,680 5,274 3,926 9,176 6,140 Cumberland Countl Portland 8,426 13' 720 2,615 2,397 5, 072 5,526 Net Increase: County 11,325 9,740 10,690 1,662 6,430 3,947 Kennebec Countl Augusta 1,528 1,156 1,862 857 199 426 Waterville b.2_81 ~-1_370 2~435 -180 462 -616 Net Increase: Urban 3,509 3,526 4,297 677"" 671 -190 Net Increase: County 3,566 2,105 3,954 2,598 6,866 Penobscot Countl Bangor 2,953 2,747 2,247 -1,433 1,882 1,975 Net Increase: County 9,039 3,561 2,209 -4,674 2,419 9,642 York Countl Biddeford 934 1,702 1,792 2,369 933 3,254 Net Increase: County 3,614 2,046 572 2,083 -1,923 1,009 Sources: U. s. Bureau of the Census, Tenth Census, 1880, Vol. I, 64; Sixteenth Census, IT _, Part 3, p. 445. 11 For the tiny coastal counties that lay north of Portland, the situation was even more serious. Lumbering, fishing, shipping, and to a lesser extend farming were the principal economic activities. There being a scarcity of good farm land and hardly any industry to hold them, many people simply left for other parts when the older trades became depressed. Not until after 1920 did these counties begin to f 1 f f 1 . 1 ' d 1 . 24 recover rom near y orty years o a arml..ng popu ation ec J..nes. Overall, however, urbanization moved ahead more slowly in Maine than in New Hampshire. Little more than 20% _of her population was classified as urban in 1880. In 1910, despite very substantial urban growth, two-thirds of Maine folk still lived in rural areas. Even in 1940, rural dwellers in l1aine outnumbered their city fellows by a respectable majoriLy. 25 Industrialization was well advanced in southern Haine. This in part can be attributed to excellent transportation. Portland, Haine's 24These were specifically Lincoln, Knox, Hancock, Sagadahoc, and Washington Counties. Tenth Census, I, 0 64; U. s. Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census, 1920, I, Population, p. 160. 25 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Maine Population, 1860-1940 Total 628,279 626,915 648,936 661,086 694,466 742,371 768,014 797,423 847,226 %Rural -83.4% 79.0 77.4 71.9 66.5 64.7 61.0 59.7 59.5 %Urban 16.6% 21.0 22.6 28.1 33.5 35.3 39.0 40.3 40.5 Sources: Historical Statistics of the United States, Series A 123-180; Sixteenth Census, II, 3, p. 451. 12 largest and oldest city and a major Atlantic seaport, served as the hub of the state's railroads. A half dozen lines entered the city from different directions. The most important was the . Haine Central which operated separate main lines between Portland and Waterville, one running up the Androscoggin Valley through Auburn and Lewiston and the other via the Kennebec Valley by way of Augusta to Waterville. From Waterville, where the railroad kept its shops, the main line, now reduced to one, struck north to Newport and then west to the lumber city, Bangor. There it connected with the European & North American which continued on to Vanceboro. North of Bangor railroad service was severely limited. Only a half dozen towns in Aroostook County had d . 1' 26 1rect access to a 1ne. Most of northern Maine lay shrouded in wilderness. Waterfalls on the Saco, Androscoggin, and Kennebec Rivers turned mill wheels for scores of factories at Biddeford, Saco, Auburn, Lewiston, Brunswick, Augusta, Waterville, Skowhegan, and a dozen or more lesser towns. Many of these firms were of substantial size, employing hundreds of workers, but Maine nevertheless remained less dependent on industry than New Hampshire. In 1890, to compare, per capita investment in 26For information on the railroads of Maine, see the following: Baker, Chapter IX; Kirkland, passim; Edward C. Chase, Maine Railroads: A History of the Development of the Maine Railroad Slstem (Portland, Maine: The Southworth Press, 1926), passim. 13 manufacturing in Haine was $122 and in Nevl Hampshire $215. The per "t 1 f N H 1" I • d . 1 d . "1 1 27 cap1- a va ue o • e-v1 amps 11re s 1n us tr1a pro uc t Has s1m1 ar y greater. Industry in Maine, furthermore, tended to be more diversified and less concentrated. Though cotton textile manufacturing and heavy industry were of great importance in Haine, there were in addition scores of tiny factories located chiefly in rural areas that produced canned fruits 28 and vegetables, potato starch, and dairy products. The laggard pace of urbanization in Maine can be explained in a large way by the opening of Aroostook County for settlement. Between 1870 and 1910, Aroostook grew faster than Hain~'s largest cities. In the decade 1900-1910, Aroostook's gain was 22.8% compared to the urban rate 27The following data illustrate the relative importance of agri-culture, fishing, lumber, and manufacturing to the economies of Maine and Ne\v Hampshire in the year 1880. The comparison is made on the basis of the value of production of each industry. It suggests that New Hampshire was the more dependent of the two on manufacturing. Maine Ne\v HamEshire Agriculture $21,945,489 19.4% $13,474,330 14.7% Fishing 3,576,078 4.1 170,634 0.4 Lumber 7,933,868 6.9 3,842,012 4.1 Hanufacturing 792829,793 66.9 732978~012 80.8 $113,285,228 100.0% $91,464,988 100.0% Sources: Tenth Census, 1880, Report of Manufactures, II, _E1.l..! 125, 149; Ibid., Report of Agriculture, pp. 4-5; Ibid., Report of the Forests of North America, pp. 486-487; Eleventh Census, 1890, Report of the Fisheries, pp. 20-21. 28The Census lists the following as Haine's leading manufactures in 1890: Agricultural implements, boots and shoes, boxes, cotton goods, fruit and vegetable canning and preserves, canned and preserved fish, brooms, carriages and wagons, foundry and machine shop products, illuminating and he.ating gas, tanned and curried leather, lime and cement, lumber and mill products, paper, ships, and woolen goods. Eleventh Census, 1890, ReEort of Manufa~tures, I, . 438-444. 14 of 12.6%. Not one of Maine's six largest cities exceeded Aroostook's percentage gain in that decade. Between 1870 and 1910, the population of Aroostook increased by 152%, vlhile urban centers grew by only 107%~9 These data suggest rather strongly that many rural families from down-state counties chose to settle in Aroostook rather than move into town or out of state. This is, in fact, what many did. Agriculture in northern Ne'" England was vitally affected by the ·· Industrial Revolution. Until canals and railroads penetrated the interior, connnercial farming in Haine and New Hampshire was confined largely to the older, more densely settled tidewater area. With the sea close at hand, the farmer could ship his \vares to market at minimal cost aboard 29The Census makes it plain thai.: many rural towns in southern and central Haine were experiencing serious and persistent losses of population in the period 1870-1910; but in Aroostook and northern Penobscot County, it was just the opposite. Much of the growth in Penobscot County after 1900 is explained by the rise of the paper industry in Hillinocket; nevertheless tovms like Patten, which lay adjacent to the Aroostook boundary and which were primarily agricultural also shm>~ed important gains. On the oth.er hand, numerous Penobscot towns lying west of Bangor -- Corinna, Bradford, and others -- reported losses. Concerning the comparative rates of population increase in Aroostook County and urban places in Maine, the follmving data is relevant: Popula-tion of Aroostook County and Maine Urban Places % Increase % Increase Aroostook Urban Aroostook Urban 1870 29,609 131,744 31.5% 26.2% 1880 41,700 146,608 41.6 11.3 1890 49,585 185,725 18.9 26.7 1900 60,744 232,827 24.5 25.4 1910 74,644 262,248 22.8 12.6 Average Decennial Increase: Aroostook: 27.9% Urban: 20. 51~ Sources: Tenth Census, I, 64; Thirteenth Census, II, . 797; Sixteenth Census, II, 3, p. 451. 15 one of the numerous sailing craft that traded along the coast from Labra-dor to Florida. In the larger port towns such as Portland or Exeter, there \vas usually strong demand for firewood, milk, butter, meat, and fresh produce. Other markets of great value were the plantation islands of the West Indies where the Yankee farmer sold lumber, cattle, h h b 1 d i . 30 s eep, orses, arre staves, an prov s~ons. For the inland farmer, however, the opportunities for trade w·ere less numerous. The difficulty and excessive cost of highway transport made markets more than twenty miles distant inaccessible to all but a few commodities. These included potash, maple syrup, cheese, butter, salt meat, and a few other commodities of exceptionally high value that could be sold at a profit in spite of high shipping costs. Livestock, of course, could be driven many miles at little expense, and timber and poles could be floated down brooks and streams to the sea. But bulky, low-value items such as grain and hay, except in times of unusually high prices, rarely could be moved by wagon or horseback much beyond the boundary of the town where they were 31 grown. Because country roads were usually badly constructed and distances were extreme between upcountry settlements, the market for the produce of the inland farmer was for practical purposes limited to 30Percy Wells Bidwell and John I. Falcon r, History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-1860 (New York: Peter Smith, 1941), pp. 43-45, 135-137. 31Percy Bidwell, The Rural Economy of New England in the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1916), pp. 317, 326; Charles E. Clark, The Eastern Frontier The Settlement of Northern Ne\v England 1610-1763 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), pp. 230-231; 234-235. 16 his own village. And, since these villages were small and inhabited mostly by other farmers, there existed little opportunity for the farmer to sell anything. With no ready markets for large surplus, the farmer found little incentive for raising much more than enough to feed and clothe his family, to pay his taxes, and to trade at the country store for the few· essentials he could not provide for himself~2 In some ways, the tools and methods utilized by the subsistence farmer in 1800 were less advanced than those employed by Roman farmers two thousand years earlier. His tools were simple and of rude construction, consisting usually of a hoe, a shovel, hay fork, sickle, scythe, a hay rake, flails and an ax. For heavier work, he sometimes used an oxcart, 33 a plow, a harrow, and a chain for dragging out stumps and boulders. Most farm Hork vras done by hand, but oxen \vere used for rlm·ring and other difficult jobs. Fields were hardly more than forest clearings, badly cultivated, seldom manured, and often left with boulders and dead trees standing among the corn hills. Crops were meager and, not infrequently, barely sufficient to provide the family with a decent living. Though few actually starved, at times harvests failed and only roots, game, and other offerings of the forest kept the people alive. For livestock, the farmer kept a cow or two, his ox, some sheep, a few 32Bid\vell, pp. 331-333; Wilson, pp. 1-26; Percy Bidwell, "The Agricultural Revolution in Ne\v England," Ar:lerican Historical Revie'"' XXVL .(July 1921) . 683-702; Charles A. Danhof, ChanBe in Agriculture: The Northern United States, 1820-1870 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), pp. 2-4. 33Bidwell and Falconer, p. 123. 17 chickens, and a herd of razorback hogs which \vere allowed to run wild~ 4 Hills were generally selected as farm sites for a variety of sensible reasons. Hill farms were not subject to the disastrous floods that inundated interval lands in springtime. Upland forest cover con-sisted chiefly of softwoods which were easier to cut away. River land, though flatter and more fertile, was more difficult to clear. From his elevated clearing, a farmer could see his neighbors and exchange warni~gs in the event of fire or Indian attack:s The hill farms were not suited to large scale crop agriculture, but that hardly mattered to the subsistence farmer. , If his land was poor and his methods primitive, it was only because he lacked the incentive to do better. It made little sense to invest time and capital in the grov1ing of crops that could not be sold at a profit~ 6 Ir1 these circum-stances, he was content to work hard and to run his farm much the way his father and grandfather had before him. Technology and the rise of the factory town made subsistence farm-ing unnecessary and even impractical. Railroads opened the way to markets that previously had been barred to the inland farm by the high cost of transportation. New factories attracted hundreds of workers who in turn created valuable new markets for farm products. Whereas the older cities of Colonial lineage clustered near the sea, the newer towns 34Ibid., pp. 84-87, 107. 35 Wilson, pp. 124-127. 36Bidwell, pp. 687-689. 18 seemed to spring up at every convenient dam site, frequently many miles from the coast. Here the farmer found cash markets for his crops and employment for himself and his family. Factory-made clothes, tools, and other goods priced below what it cost the farmer himself to make them began appearing on store shelves. As this change continued, more and more farmers found it expedient to raise only what they intended to sell and to buy with their profits the things their families needed. For many farm families, there followed a distinct rise in living standards. Frame structures replaced old ramshackled sheds that had served as barns. Farmers painted their houses, trimmed the hedges near the roadside, put in a flower garden, and started a lawn just to make life a little cheerier. A newfangled stove took over the cooking chcrcs from tllc big stone fi:-cplacc. Uallpapcr for the sitting room, new furniture were things that helped lighten the drudgery of housework. But this new dependence on markets introduced an element of risk and uncertainty that had been largely absent when the farmer had relied on himself rather than on the whim of his indifferent customers for the essentials of life~ 7 His need to maximize profits forced the farmer to concern himself more closely with finding means to raise the efficiency of his farm operation. For the sake of survival in a highly competitive market, he had to innovate. He had to accept the necessity for change when it meant an opportunity to reduce production costs. 37The shift from subsistence to commercial agriculture in the northern United States is well described in Danhof, pp. 13-26. 19 Farmers in Haine and NeH Hampshire \vere somewhat laggard in making these improvements. In large part, this was caused by the fact that few hill country farms were suited for early reapers and culti-vators, which tended to be large, clumsy, and difficult to maneuver on small hillside fields. }breover, large scale crop farming of the sort that could justify large investment in equipment was rarely 38 significant in the hill country. In time, however, the changes did come. Lighter, more maneuverable equipment was designed with the needs of the small farm in mind. The rise of the dairy industry in southern and central New England and the beginning of crop farming in northern Maine made these investments both practical and essential. The·mowing machine was introduced in New England in 1855. Later came threshers, reapers, steel plows, disc harrows, sulky plows, wheeled horse rakes, hay tedders, manure spreaders, corn huskers, and seed planters. The cream separator and the silo appeared in the 1880's. Of great importance to farmers in Aroostook County was the invention of the winged-horse'hoe, a horse-dra~~ implement used to bury the potato seed and hill up the rows. Fertilizer-and-seed broadcasters are other examples of significant mechanized improvements that were brought to the New England farm in the late Nineteenth Century. These new machines, light weight and high geared, could be drawn with ease by draft horses. As a result, horses replaced 38\Hlson, pp. 137-138. 20 oxen as the prime form of animal power on farms in Haine and New 39 Hampshire in the years immediately after the Civil War. Trucks and 40 tractors, in turn, began displacing horses during the First World War. The new farm machines significantly lowered the costs of numerous operations~ 1 They also forced the farmer to make other improvements. Fields had to be cleared of rocks and other obstacles that might break or damage a piece of equipment. Fields on slopes too steep to permit the safe operation of equipment were abandoned or turned into pasture. Many farmers sold their hill farms and moved into the valleys where terrain was better suited to mechanized agriculture~2 For those unable or unwilling_to make the necessary adaptation, there remained the alternative of moving west or finding a city job. The subsistence farm 39 Nahum J. Bachelder, "Agriculture of New Hampshire,".in George Franklyn Willey, ed., State Builders: An Illustrated Historical and Bio-graphical Record of the State of New Hampshire at the Beginning of the THentieth Century (Hanchester, N. ll.: The New Hampshire Printing Corpora-tion, 1903), p. 124; Clarence A. Day, Farming in Haine 1860-1940 (Orono, Maine: University of Haine Press, 1963), ·p. 132; z. A. Gilbert, "Machinery in Corn Growing," in Agriculture of Haine, 27th Annual Report of the Secre-tary of the Maine Board of Agriculture, 1883, pp. 115-117; Joseph B. Walker, A Collection of Addresses and Papers ?repared for Various Occasions, 2 vols. (A bound assortment of paraphlets, speeches, and booklets which follows no general paging sequence), I, r • 237-240. 40 Day, pp. 178-179. 4~alker estimated that the moHing machine, the steel or chilled iron plow, improved harrowed, wheeled horse rake, hay tedder, and the manure spreader had reduced the cost of individual farm operations by 50%. Walker, p. 240. Gilbert states that various mechanized and other impro-ve-ments had reduced the cost of raising corn from 75 cents to a dollar a bushel to between 2-1/2 and 50 cents. Gilbert,p. 117. 42 Bachelder, p. 132. 21 had not disappeared by the end of the Nineteenth Century. Nevertheless, by 1900 and perhaps well before, the corrunercialization of agriculture in the hill country was virtually complete. The exact nature of that transformation must now be considered. Small-scale crop farming was of considerable importance in Maine and New Hampshire in the early Nineteenth Century. Corn, rye, wheat, buckwheat, and oats were the most popular crops. Some were raised for " market, but most were used as food on the farm where they were grown. Overall, per farm output of field crops was not large; New England depended heavily on other regions for its supply of grain. Once the Erie Canal and other trans-Appalachian canals and railroads began tapping the rich farmlands of western New York and later the Ohio Valley, many New England farmers found it impractical to compete even in local markets for the sale of grain. By the time of the Civil War, Genessee flour and western-grown grain had become standard staples in the hill country. Many farmers in Maine and New Hampshire found it cheaper to import western grain than . . h 1 43 to ra1se 1t t emse ves. For certain field crops, however, conditions in northern New England were ideal. Corn potatoes, and hops could be grown there almost as cheaply as in the west. Potatoes in particular thrived in the cold northern climate. Maine in the 1840's, long before the opening of Aroostook County, ranked second only to New York in the size of its crop. Even after Aroostook farmers began growing potatoes, very sizeable acreages were planted in the downstate counties. New Hampshire, \vhere 43wilson, p. 392. 22 Scotch-Irish immigrants in 1721 had introduced the potato to North America, planted about 25,000 acres of potatoes annually between 1860 44 and 1900. Corn was important mainly as animal feed with much of it after 1885 being fed as silage to dairy cattle. Many farmers in h M . 1 ld b . 45 sout ern a1ne a so so sweet corn to near y canner1es. Maine and New Hampshire are natural grass land states, and for many years hay ranked as the most valuable single crop raised on the majority of hill country farms. Though much of this crop farmers fed to their own animals, considerable quantities were sold to lumber camps and in big city markets. Haine farmers by 1880 were cutting a million tons of hay or more each season. This continued to be the average level of production until about 1925. Ne>-1 Hampshire 1 s annual hay crop was about half as great. In 1909, hay represented fifty percent of the total value of all New Hampshire farm crops. The value of the Maine crop was proportionately less, but it was substantially greater than that of most 46 other farm crops. Only with the onset of motor transport and the con-sequent loss of the big city markets did hay lose its high reiative importance on the New England farm. 44 Day, pp. 117, 131-135; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Crop Reporting Board, Potatoes: Estimates in Hundred-weights by States 1866-1953 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, June 1953), pp. 3, 28-29. 45 Day, pp. 7, 27, 28-35, 169, 283-284; Wilson, pp. 199, 215, 229, 301, 392. 46 Day, pp. 166-167; Wilson, p. 394; Thirteenth Census, Agriculture, pp. 736-737; z. A. Gilbert, "The Grass Crop and What to Do with It," in Maine State Board of Agriculture, 27th Report,·p. 43. 23 With its excellent hay crop and an abundance of good pasture land, the hill country was ideal for the raising of livestock, which remained a profitable farm industry in Haine and New Hampshire until after the Civil War. In Colonial times, great numbers of cattle, horses, sheep, and hogs had been exported to the West Indies. By 1800, cattle bred and reared on farms far up in the Connecticut Valley in Nev;r Hampshire were being driven to buyers in Quebec City, Boston, New York, and occasionally Philadelphia. Timothy Dwight writes of "the great multitude of neat cattle" that were fattened on pastures in Maine and New Hampshire. By far the most important market was the great abattoir at Brighton, Massachusetts, where cattle, sheep, hogs, and fowl were annually collected from all over New England for sale and slaughter. Western competition and tl1e rise of the dairy industry, with its promise uf greater profits, brought this trade to a virtual close in the 1860 1 s~ 7 The "sheep mania" 'vas easily the most important single development in agriculture in Haine and New Hampshire in the early Nineteenth Century. Sheep had been common on New England farms before 1800, but the animals tended to be small, long-legged, and narrow-bodied. Their coarse, dirty fleeces seldom exceeded three pounds at a shearing. The coming of the fine-wooled Herinos completely revolutionized the American sheep industry. A few animals were smuggled to America from Spain in 1802. Then, in 1809, the American Consul in Madrid, William Jervis, arranged for the shipment 47Bidwell and Falconer, pp. 108-109, 225-227, 396-399; Day, pp. 4-6, 53; Wilson, pp. 18, 45; Timothy Dwight, Travels in Ne\v England and New York, 4 vols. (London: William Baynes and Son, 182.3), IV, 187. 24 of four hundred Merinos. The sheep were landed at Boston in 1810 and driven overland to Jervis's farm in Heathersfield, Vermont. Rams from the Jervis flock were then sold to farmers all over Vermont. A small flock \vas taken by Jervis's brother Leonard of Claremont, New Hampshire, and still more were shipped to buyers in Maine and elsewhere in New Hampshire~ 8 During the \\far of 1812, wool prices rose significantly, touching .. off a short-lived Merino boom. When the War ended, however, massive imports of British cloth virtually destroyed the .~erican woolen textile indus try. Prices for domestic· \vool fell drastically, causing the Merino bubble to burst. Many fine animals were sold for butchering at a fraction of their original cost. In the 1820's, the woolen industry, now protected by a higr1 tariff, began to revive, and wiLl1 this :r.evival came a steady rise in the demand for fine ~ool. Once again hill country farmers turned their attention to sheep and, by 1830, wool sales were bringing excellent profits. Prices continued to rise until 1837~9 By 1840, the sheep industry in northern New England had acquired enormous proportions. Vermont led her sister states with 1,681,819. Maine had 642,264 sheep, and New Hampshire reported 617,390. Three towns in the Connecticut Valley each boasted flocks of over ten thousand, and many towns in both states had over a thousand apiece~0 48wilson, pp. 75-94; Clarence A. Day, History of Maine Agr2:_-culture (Orono, Haine: University of Haine Press, 1954), pp. 101-104. 49 rbid., pp. 104-114, 186-194; Bidwell and Falconer, pp. 217-223, 406-40' 50Wilson, pp. 78, 81 25 Western competition and rising production costs brought a steady reduction of sheep numbers in the hill country after 1850. By 1860, the sheep population of Maine and New Hampshire declined by 40%. During the Civil War higher prices for wool and mutton brought the industry a brief reprieve. In the late 1860's, however, the release of government stocks which had been accumulated during the war, and huge imports of wool from the West and Australia, simply drove the Ne'v England wool grower out of the market. Thousands of fine sheep were herded out of the hill country and sold at Brighton for as little as thirty cents a head~l The Merinos' day had passed. In their place appeared dual-purpose breeds Shropshires, Hampshires, Cotswolds, Cheviots, and Southdowns --valued as much for mutton as for their wool. Some farmers in Maine and Vermont continued raising fine-blood M~rinos as breeding stock. Pure-bred Merino rams, raised on New England pastures, were used as sires on flocks in places as far away as South Africa and New Zealand. But for most New England farmers, sheep raising had b·ecome a mere sideline. Many preferred not to bother with sheep at all. Sheep-killing dogs were a leading cause of the waning of the sheep industry in northern New England after 1870. Packs of dogs roamed the countryside killing and terrorizing entire flocks. Numerous farmers simply 52 sold their sheep rather than incur the expense of building dog-tight fences. 51Ibid., p. 86-87. 52Ibid., p. 189-190. 26 New Hamps"i1ire's sheep population by 1900 stood at 105,113; by 1920 it had been reduced to virtual insignificance. Sheep farming remained popular in Maine for somewhat longer. Substantial flocks were kept in Aroostook, and hundreds of sheep ·were pastured on tiny islands that lie just off the coast. Maine in 1900 reported 420,116, but· by 1920 only 119,000 were left~ 3 Outside competition brought significant alterations in the structure of hill country agriculture. Given the low cost of rail and sea trans-port, the New England farmer in most instances could not compete in the marketing of grain, wool, and other non-perishables which could be shipped long distances at cheap rates. Accordingly he turned to the growing of perishables and fancy goods such as honey and syrup. In the days before refrigerated transport, he enjoyed an obvious adv;mtage in the sale of fresh milk and produce in the big metropolitan markets. farming in Maine and New Hampshire tended to be more diversified than that outside New England. Hhereas farmers in the \-Jest and South usually specialized in growing one or two major crops such as wheat or cotton, those in the hill country raised a variety of products: hay, wool, milk, eggs, cream, berries, butter, apples, maple sugar, fresh vegetables, lumber, honey, firewood, potatoes, pork, and beef in varying measure and combination. But on most farms, greatest emphasis was put on milk or potatoes or some other activity with the others serving as supplements. Many dairy farmers kept fruit orchards or sold maple syrup. 53_Ibid., pp. 205-206; Day, Farming in Haine, pp. 44-45; Fourteenth Census, V, Agriculture, p. 573. 27 Others planted a few acres of beans or sweet corn which were sold under contract to the local cannery. The cutting of pulpwood or saw logs \vas an important winter activity on many upcountry farms. Farmers on the Maine cost owned sailing vessels. Some fished for lobster or haddock. Come winter they loaded their ships and sailed away on trading voyages that lasted into the spring. Dairy farming predominated throughout New Hampshire and in central and Southern Maine. Aroostook farmers, on the other hand, preferred potatoes and grain. Blueberries thrived in the \vilderness 54 barrens of Washington County. Commerical apple growing in Maine was concentrated in a belt that stretched across the central portions of the state covering Franklin, Oxford, Androscoggin, and Kennebec Counties. New Hampshire's largest apple crops ,,Tere gro~m i:1 its southe:!:"n counties:5 Crops for canning were the particular specialty of farmers in Oxford 56 County. Logging and pulping operations were most common in northern Maine and in Ne\v l~mpshire north of Lake Hinnepesaukee~ 7 The modern dairy industry in Maine and New Hampshire had its beginnings in the Civil War decade. In earlier times, commercial dairying was re5tricted to the few farms that happened to lie close to cities and large towns. :tvlos t farmers kept a cmv or two just to 54 Day, pp. 156-164. 55 rb~d., 7 99 ..... pp. ' ; Tenth Census; and Fourteenth Census, V, . 863. 56 Day, pp. 27-33; The Ne\v England Homestead, September 3, 1910, pp. 191, 193. 57W'l ~ son, pp. 242-243. 28 supply themselves with milk and butter. Not until the railroad pushed its way north did dairying attract much interest in the hill country. Cheese making was important in Haine and New Hampshire in the 1870's. A cheese factory was built in New Hampshire in 1866. The first in Haine began operating in 1871. Within the decades, dozens of factories were established all through the hill country, even in places as remote as Fort Fairfield and Houlton in Aroostook County. Though there are no estimates for New Hampshire, output of the Haine factories in 1879 was 773,365 pounds. In the same year, farm production of cheese amounted to 1.2 million pounds in Maine and 807,706 pounds . N H h" 58 . 1n ew amps 1re. Butter became of relatively greater importance as a dairy staple in northern New England after 1885. In 1883 there >vas but a single butter factory in the entire state of Haine, but in February 1884 the famous Turner Center Creamery opened its doors. A cooperative creamery was established at Epsom, New Hampshire, and another at Henniker in 1887. By 1900 there were over one hundred factories located in the two states with total output around ten million pounds. Sweet cream was sold as a valuable by-product. After 1900 rising demand and improved marketing facilities led to increasing distribution of fluid milk and a consequent 59 decrease in the amount diverted for manufacture into butter and cheese. 58Ibid., pp. 194-196; Day, pp. 47-52. 59 Ibid., pp. 56-62; Wilson, p •• l98. 29 Before 1900, the sale of fresh milk in Haine and New Hampshire was limited largely to local markets, with Boston milk distributors obtaining their supplies chiefly from farms in eastern Hassachusetts. When these supplies proved insufficient, dealers began tapping sources in southern New Hampshire and in Maine as far as Portland. By 1920, the Boston milk shed covered all of Vermont and New Hampshire and much of Maine lying south of the Penobscot. Dairying in 1920 was easily the m_?st important single source of farm income in New Hampshire. In Haine, only 60 potatoes were a more valuable cash crop. The problems of the dairy indus-try, then, were of the greatest concern to farm leaders in the two states. Commercial orcharding became an important farm industry in Haine and New Hampshire during the 1870's. Apples, long considered the standard New England fruit, \vere most important, but RT!lal.ler quantities of berries, pears, peaches, cranberries, and nuts were also raised for market. In the 1890's Maine farmers planted over a million trees giving the state four million in all by 1900. .Over the next two decades, the Maine harvest amounted to between two and seven million bushels annually, of which half was exported to England until the First World War. New Hampshire, in the same period, marketed about a million bushels of the 61 fruit each year. 60rbid., pp. 300-326; Day, pp. 63-64. 61 Ibid., pp. 91-116; Wilson, pp. 217-219; The New England Homestea~ October 27, 1900, p. 402. 30 Blueberries were the principal market crop of farmers downeast in Washington County, Maine. Some fruit was sold fresh, but most of it was packed in local canneries and shipped to customers all over the United States. By 1941, it had become a million-dollar-a-year industry~ 2 For many farmers in Maine and New Hampshire the woodlot provided a very substantial income. Railroads, until they converted to coal-burning locomotives, purchased wood for engine fuel, as well as ties and building materials. Christmas spruce abounded in many a back pasture. Maple sugar-making was a traditional farm activity. New Hampshire's maple product averaged around two million pounds a year between 1850 and 1900; Maine's was considerably less. The total value of farm forest products of New Hampshire was $2,296,265 in 1899 and $5,532,115 in 1919. For Maine, the estimates were $2,652,252 and $11,728,114~ 3 Market competition and the lure of outside opportunity put relentless pressure on the hill country farm. Thin soil and uneven terrain made it exceedingly difficult to adapt many farms for commercial agriculture. When the sheep industry failed, numerous back country farms were sold or abandoned simply because they could not be made to earn good profits. Many thousands of acres were allowed to grow up to bush. In 1880 there were 32,181 farms in New Hampshire and 64,309 in Maine. 62oay, pp. 156-164 63wilson, pp. 46-48, 231-236, 240-243; Fourteenth Census, V, . 882. 31 Twenty years later the totals had dropped by 3,195 and 5,534 respectively?4 A survey made by the New Hampshire Board of Agriculture revealed that there were 1,320 abandoned fanns Hith habitable buildings scattered around the state. 65 Hany more, of course, had no buildings at all. Bet\veen 1880 and 1900, acres of improved farm land in New Hampshire dropped by 54%, or 1.2 million acres, and property values depreciated by $4 million. Higher priced after 1900 brought some improvement in land values, but the steady shrinkage in improved farm acreage continued with hardly a pause. In 1920, 27% of New Hampshire's farm land was improved compared to 63% in 1865. Maine had a similar experience. In the period 1880 to 1900, one million acres of open farm land was ab'andoned in that state, a loss of 18%, which would have been signifi-cantly greater had it not been f0r the opening of new farms jn Aroostook County. With the exception of Aroostook, every county in Haine reported 64 Census of Farms in Maine and New Hampshire 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 New Hampshire 29,229 30,501 29,642 32,181 29,151 28,986 27,053 20,523 14,906 32,181 1850 - 1940 Maine 47,760 55' 698 59,804 64,309 62,013 58,964 60,016 48,227 39,006 38,980 Sources: Hilson, pp. 99, 347; u. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1Y49 (Washington, D. C.: U. s. Government Printing Office, 1949), pp. 614-615. 65 B~\v Hampshire Agriculture, Annual R~_port of the State Board of Agriculture, 1890, p. 471. 32 continuing decline in farm acreage and farm property values in each of three Censuses beginning in 1880. These losses persisted until 194o?6 Real estate values increased between 1900 and 1920, but half of this increase is explained by the appreciation of farm land in Aroostook and Penobscot Counties? 7 Such was the state of affairs throughout most of the hill country, but in northern Maine farming trends moved in precisely the opposite direction. At the very time that farming seemed on the wane in New Hampshire and in southern Maine, settlers by the hundreds were pouring into Aroostook and adjacent areas of Penobscot County. This migration coincided with the settlement of the w~stern plains; indeed, Aroostook ifr its physical character and historical development had much in common with the Western farm states. Aroostook soil, a deep gray-colored calcareous loam, is comparatively stone free. With proper management, it is capable of producing enormous field crops. Moreover, the terrain is well suited to the operation of farm machinery. Not surprisingly, therefore, Aroostook farms on the average have almost twice the investment in equipment of those in the downstate counties. In roost ways, Aroostook County crop yields compare 66Twelfth Census, V. Agriculture, pp. 692-694; Sixteenth Census, II, 3, p. 451. 67 In the 1910 decade, farm property values in Maine increased by $76 million, of which $36.5 million represents appreciated values in Aroostook and Penobscot Counties. In the next decade, the figures are $71.2 million and $39.3 million respectively. Fourteenth Census, Agri-culture, VI, Part 1, pp. 106-107. 33 favorably and often exceed those of other rich farming districts in the United States. With a growing season of less than one hundred days, corn and certain other crops do not fare tvell in Aroostook, but \vheat, buckwheat, rye, and especially potatoes thrive in the cool northern climate.· The hay harvest in Aroostook is the envy of farmers elsewhere in Maine. For these reasons and also because of the comparatively great distance to the metropolitan markets, Aroostook, like the western states, has been primarily a marketer of coarse, bulky, non-perishable foodstuffs? 8 The settling of Aroostook lagged behind the rest of New England. Until 1807, the only important town was Madawaska high up in the St. John River Valley. Most of the county remained unexplored and virtually uninhabited. But in that year Captain Joseph Houlton led a hardy band into the wilderness. A clearing was made in the vicinity of what is now Houlton Village. Some huts were buildrand in June the first potatoes were planted. It was a meager beginning. Five years afterward there were only four or five houses in the settlement. The summers of 1814 and 1815 were unusually cold, and then in 1816, the year of "eighteen hundred and froze to death," summer never came. Snow in June and heavy frosts in July and August killed all the crops leaving the villagers with little food for themselves or their animals through the terrible winter that follmved?9 68u. s. Department of Agriculture, Northeast Postwar Planning Committee, Nor~heast Agricultural Atlas (undated) p. A-9. 69 George H. Collins and Edward Wiggin, History of Aroostook (Presque Isle: The Star Herald Press) Part I, pp. 79, 91, 119. 34 In the 1820's, clearing was begun at several sites along the Aroostook River. Presque Isle was founded in 1828 and Caribou a fe\v years later. In 1828, the U. s. Army built the so-called Military Road from Lincoln to Houlton, a stretch some fifty miles long that for many years served as Aroostook's lifeline to the outside. Into the county rolled wagons loaded with hardware, groceries, and dry goods, while in the opposite direction moved shingles, buckwheat, and grass and clover seed. Lumber 70 was rafted down river to St. Johns, New Brunswick, for export. The county, nevertheless, grew very slowly. The Aroostook Har of 1838-9 brought a certain international renown, and the Army garrisons stationed at Houlton, Fort Fairfield, and Fort Kent provided limited 71 markets for local farmers. Yet in 1850, Aroostook, which is virtually as large as Masnachusetts, had only 12,529 inhabitants?2 In part the slow progress in Aroostook could be explained simply by the fact that it was little knmm even to farmers downstate. The state· government in the late 1850's made some effort to publicize the region. In 1861 and again in 1862, Ezekiel Holmes, the influential editor of The Maine Farmer, made exploring trips into Aroostook. His 73 findings were published by the state, but despite the publicity, the mass movement of settlers did not begin until after 1870. 70Ibid., pp. 12-37. 71Ibid., p. 55. 72 Tenth Census, I, , . 64. 73clarcnce A. Day, Ezekiel Holmes: Father of Maine Agriculture (Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 1968), pp. 135-142. 35 Several factors account for this development. The first were the very liberal terms under which a settler could purchase land from the state. For fifty cents an acre, a man could purchase upwards to two hundred acres, the price of which could be written off in part or entirely by building a road to his clearing. The purchaser agreed to start clearing his land within a year and to establish a residence there by the end of two. Once he had cleared fifteen acres and built a house, 74 he was given full title to the property. Another happening of major consequence was the building of the railroad to Houlton in 1870. Another line reached Caribou in 1876 and was subsequently extended down the Aroostook Valley to Presque Isle. Construction of the .Bangor & .. Aroostook began in 1893 and was virtually complete by 1900. The B & A opened large areas tu lumbering and farming and considerably shortened the rail distance between Aroostook points and 75 Bangor. The railroads made possible the export of pulp. potatoes, and other bulky products of Aroostook's farms and forests. Still another occurrence of major consequence was the rise of the potato starch industry in Aroostook in the 1870's. Potatoes, being a bulky, low-valued staple, could not be shipped out of the county and sold at a profit until after the railroads were built. Starch manufacture, 74The Haine Farmer, .. , June 5, 1885; "Information for Immigrants," Fort Fairfield Aurora, , December 11, 1875; Edward Wiggin, "Aroostook for the Young l1.an, 11 Agriculture of Maine, 27th Annual Report of the Naine Board of Agriculture, 1883, pp. 144-145. 75 Chase, pp. 121-127. 36 however, proved a practical way of converting potatoes into a more easily transportable commodity. Starch factories were built at Caribou and New Limerick in 1876, and by 1880 twenty were in operation. The county's total starch output in 1876 was 1,478 tons, but in 1881, factories in Fort Fairfield and Caribou along shipped 3,400 tons, or the 76 equivalent of 760,000 bushels of potatoes. Later, with improvement in transportation and better marketing arrangements, most of the Aroostook crop was shipped as fresh potatoes, but the starch industry remained an important outlet for surplus or sub-grade table stock. In the 1870's Aroostook's population grew by 41%, from 29,609 in 1870 to 41,700 in 1880. By 1910 Aroostoo~ with a population of 74,000, . . 77 was the third most populous county 1n the state. The Census of 1870 lists 3,209 farms in Aroostook a:u.d 133,()00 acres of cleared land. In 1900, Aroostook had 6,038 farms and 386,007 improved acres. The county's farm product rose in value from $1,845,608 in 1870 to $4,553,164 in 1900 and to $10,150,955 in 1910?8 Aroostook led the rest of the state in the 76 Day, Farming in Haine, pp. 129-131; Collins and Wiggin, pp. 69-79; The Maine Farmer, :· February 16, 1882; c. H. Ellis, History of Fort Fairfield(Fort Fairfield, Maine: No publisher given, 1894),pp. 164-170. 77Tenth Census, I, 64; Thirteenth Census, II, Population, p. 797. 78u. S. Bureau of the Census, Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, III, pp~ 170-171; Twelfth Census, V. Agriculture, Part I, p. 28; Thirteenth Census, VI, Agriculture, pp. 736-737. · Maine Ne\v Hampshire AROOSTOOK 1920 Per Farm Investment In: Equipment $552.33 463.34 1091.21 Fertilizer $160.69 20.76 839. 9'4 Source: Fourteenth Census, Agriculture, VI, P~t I, pp. 106-107, 124, 130. 37 growing of oats, wheat, and hay. In potato growing, Aroostook was 79 first in the country. Potatoes were to Aroostook what wheat was to Kansas. As the editor of The New England Homestead wrote: Aroostook folks "talk potatoes, read about them, dream about them, gossip about them, as well as eat them. Whether you are in the County on a railroad train, driving in a carriage, buying goods over the counter, getting your mail at the post office, or putting up at one of their best hotels, you hear nothing but potatoes, potatoes, POTATOEs."80 When the market was high, the Aroostook farmer painted his house, bought his wife new clothes, traded in the old picker, sent the boy off to college, and lived the high life during what was locally called a "ten dollar year." But when prices dropped and money became tight, ti1e Aroostook potato grower, ti1e railroads, the banks, and everyone else in the county who had a hand in the business suffered~l Aroostook stands out as the exception to the theme of agricultural decline in northern New England. There, agriculture was expanding, property values were rising, and farm numbers increasing. But elsewhere in the two-state region, the trend was reversed. This difference is suggested in the fact that in 1920, the average value of farms in Aroostook County was $11,535 compared to $5,609 for the entire state 79u. S. Department of Agriculture, Potatoes, pp. 28-29; Day, pp. 132-133. 80 The NeVl England Homestead, Harch-26, 1910; 81 Day, p. 136 38 and $5,782 for Hew Hampshire. Per acre investments in machinery and f ' 1 ' 1 1 · A k82 ert~ ~zer were a so muc greater ln roostoo • Presque Isle and Caribou in the 1880's and 1 90 1 s remind one of boom towns in the Dakotas and Kansas, but rural communities in New Hampshire and elsewhere in Haine were fighting to keep their people at home, to keep the farmer on his feet, and to defend a way of life in a world that threatened the values rural folk cherish. 82 Fourteenth Census, IV, Part I, pp. 106-107, 124, 130. CHAPTER 2 GRANGE BEGINNINGS -- THE FIRST DECADE The Grange rose to prominence in an era of great social stress. The Industrial Revolution had brought prosperity for sane, but for many others, only wretched misery. This paradox of want and hopelessness in a land that overflowed with nature's bounty furnished some explanation for the discontent that swirled beneath the surface. Private corporations rivaled even the national government in their influence over the country's life. Politicians and company officials made deals, frequently at society's expense, and yet the corruption that seemed to permeate public life fl.uli, the Congress down to the ntost lowly municipal council hardly stirred the national conscience. To business, government granted subsidies, monopoly privileges, tax con-cessions, tariff benefits, and police protection without extracting, in return, a due respect for the rights of society. These same public authorities showed only perfunctory concern for the welfare of the masses of humanity who crowded into dirty tenement slums. Politicians dispensed jobs, Christmas baskets, and other small favors in return for votes, but little was done to attack the root causes of poverty or to bring meaningful improvement in the lives of the underprivileged. F.actory operatives worked long, wearisome hours in dimly lit and badly ventilated shops, often at great personal risk, for mere subsistence wages. Those \vho complained were harassed or even dismissed. Those who boldly 39 40 took to the picket line brought upon themselves public censure and were treated as conspirators by employers and police alike. Financial panic and depression were but other symptoms of a society as yet imperfectly adjusted to the demands of an industrial age. Nowhere was unrest more evident than among the nation's farmers. The farmer looked out on a cruelly indifferent world which seemed to be conspiring to deny him his fair share of the wealth.·· Prices of farm commodities rose and fell unpredictably, while the prices paid by the far~mers themselves were fixed, not by the market, but by bankers and businessmen. Capricious markets, the lurking danger of blight and plague, and the general hardship of farm living deepened the farmer's sense of insecurity. During the great depression of the 1870's, when hardship struck many .f..mericans, the farmer found himself near the brir.k of ruin. In desperation, he turned to the Grange. The founder of the Grange was a government clerk named Oliver Hudson Kelley. A Bostonian by birth, Kelley as a youth had moved to Illinois where he worked variously as a reporter and a telegraph operator. In 1849, he bought a farm in Watasca County, Minnesota, and there settled down to a life of farming. Kelley soon became on of the more respected farmers in the Territory, but a crop failure in 1864 turned his mind to the possibilities fo :Federal employment. He went to Washington and managed to find a job in the neHly formed U, S. Department of Agriculture. Two years later, President Andrew Johnson sent him to the South to make a survey of agricultural conditions. It was during that tour that the thought of a national fraternity for farmers occurred to Kelley. Such 41 an organization, it seemed to him, could do much to help the farmer; at the same time, it would help in the soothing of angry feelings left by the war and years of sectional bickering. Soon after his return to Wash-ington, Kelley was given a clerkship in the Post Office. There his idea b . 1 egan to germ~nate. In Kelley's mind, educating the farmer and uplifting him socially and culturally stood out as basic goals. The Grange, as Kelley later named the order, was to be first and foremost a s'chool in which the farmer would be exposed to new ideas and impressed with the necessity and practicality of innovation in agriculture. But the Grange's role as an educator was by no means to be limited to the sphere of practical agri-2 culture, nor were its benefits to be reserved for the farmer alone. In a more general way, Kelley hoped that the Grange would provide the farmer and his family with an opportunity to broaden their intellectual horizons, and to inform themselves more intelligently on current issues. Above all, it would demonstrate the advantages of cooperation and working together. Finally, it meant an opportunity to get together with the neighbors every k .1 1 d ·2 wee or so, s~mp y to 1ave a goo t~me. Though Kelley surely recognized the potential benefits of business cooperation and was well aware of the economic 1solon J. Buck, "Oliver Hudson Kelley'', in Dictionary of American Biography, ~0 vols. New York: Scribner, 1928-44), X, 298; Charles M. Gardner, ·Tiw Grange, Friend of the Farmer: A Concise History of America's Oldest Farm Organization and the Only Rural Fraternity in the Horld (Hashington, D. C.: The National Grange, 1949), pp. 11-16. 2oliver Hudson Kelley, Orig:in and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States: A HJ:_s_~~~m 1866 to 1S73 (Philadelphia: J. A. Wagenseller, 1875), pp. 17-20, 22-26. 42 and social injustices that made farmers angry, there is little suggestion he conceived the Grange primarily as an engine of war to be used against 3 the hostile forces that stood arrayed before the farmer. Kelley, like many other early Grange leaders, was himself a Mason, and he took the Masonic Order as his blueprint for the Grange. Accordingly, Grange ritual and organization closely followed the Masonic design except that agricultural symbolism was used in the ceremony and regalia. Thus, as Kelley wrote, "The Order will secure to its members all the advantages of Hasonry, but while that is speculative, this will be operative, its main object being to encourage advances in all branches of agriculture."4 Kelley, on the urging of his niece, Caroline Hall, decided that women should be admitted to the Grange on the same footing as men with like privileges in voting and holding office~ Youths of age fourteen and over were also to be initiated with the hope of instilling "in them a fondness for rural life, and to prevent in a great measure so many of them flocking to the cities where all occupations are now crowded and at the same time depriving the country of that class of young men so much needed there."6 In naming the Order, Kelley after some deliberation chose to call it the "Patrons of Husbandry", while the individual lodges were to be 3william D. Barnes, "Oliver H. Kelley and the Genesis of the Grange," Agricultural History, XLI, {July,., 1967), 229-242. 4circular dated November 1, 1867, reproduced in Kelley, p. 38. 5rbid.; Gardner, p. 191. 6 Kelley, p. 39. 43 "granges". The term "grange" Kelley claimed he borrowed from the title of a novel, but the word itself is derived from the Anglo-Saxon "graunge" referring to the building situated on old English manorial estates of Chaucer's time where the grain paid as religious tithes was stored. Some-times it meant simply a farm of a group of farm buildings. Similar words 7 in Latin and Spanish carry the same connotation of granary or farm. Kelley's original scheme established a system of six degrees: the first four were to be conferred by the local, or subordinate, Granges, the fifth by the state Granges, and the sixth by the National Grange. In 1874, however, a degree was added for the district, or Pomona, Granges; thus Pomona became the fifth degree; Flora for the state Granges, the sixth; and Ceres for the National Grange, the seventh. Each degree honored some aspect of the harvest. The seasons of the year servVO different agricultural societies, see E. P. Mayo, "Hater-ville Agriculturally Considered," in Rev. Edwin Carey Whittemore, ed., The Centennial History of Haterville, Maine 1802-1902 (Haterville, Maine: Executive Committee of the Centennial Celebration, 1902), pp. 331-338; William Derry Lapham, Centennial History of Non.;ray 1 0:-:ford County, Maine 1768-1886 (Portland, Maine: Brown Thurston & Co., 1886), p. 305. 51 Farmers' clubs were very common in Maine, though rather less so in New Hampshire, in the years just after the Civil Har. It is not known exactly when the first appeared in Maine, but the Newport Farmers' Club reportedly held a fair in 1852. There is evidence, too, of a club in Bethel in 1854. By 1875 there were between seventy-five and one hundred clubs in M ' 26 b b bl h . N H h' 27 a1ne ut pro a y not more t an twenty 1n ew amps 1re. For the most part, these clubs were simply associations of farmers living in a particular town or village. Each was administered on a local basis and not as the subordinate unit in some larger county or state club. The county agri-cultural societies in Maine, on the suggestion of the State Board of Agri-culture, did extend financial support to clubs in their districts:8 Each cluo, however, elected its own officers and conducted its work pretty much as the members saw fit. The discussions at club meetings covered such topics as dairy cattle breeds, methods of curing hay, marketing, disease control, drainage, fruit growing, and the like. Members read essays on assigned topics. On special occasions, the club was treated to a talk by a member of the state board of agriculture or a professor from the agricultural college. Many clubs held short, day-long fairs; some maintained small libraries. In 1873 26 Day, Farming in Maine, pp. 181-183. 27u. S. Department of Agriculture, List of Agricultural Societies and farmers' Clubs, Established to Promote the Agricultural, Horticul-tural, and ~omological Interests on the Books o{ the Department of Agri-culture, July 4, 1876 (Hashington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1870), pp. 27-28, 39-40. 28samuel Lane Boardman, History of the Agriculture of Kennebec County, Maine (!~ew Yorl<.: 11. W. Blal~e & Co., 1892), p~ 15. 52 several clubs in Waldo County, }fuine, were operating cooperative cheese f . 29 actor1.es. The clubs had much to offer the farmer but little of interest for the rest of his family. The lack, moreover, of a coordinating state or county organization made them ineffective as organs of protest or as business cooperatives on levels higher than the community. These failings the Grange overcame, and eventually subordinate Granges replaced f t 1 b . 30 armers c u s J.n numerous towns. The state legislature, too , took the farmer's problems into considera-tion. In 1820, New Hampshire State Legislature established a Board of Agriculture whose task it was to receive, examine, and publish the annual reports of the agricultural societies. The same legislation provided for the payment to the societies of annual subsidies ranging in amount from two to three hundred dollars. The Board published but a single report. In 1828 the Legislature abruptly abolished it. The subsidies were con-31 tinued for a few years longer. Nearly fifty years later, in 1870, an act of the Legislature created a new State Board of Agriculture consisting of ten members all appointed by the Governor and each representing a different county. The Board elected 29 Simon Brown, "Farmers' Clubs as Educational Institutions," in Agriculture of Maine, 15th Annual Report of the Maine State Board of Agriculture, 1870, pp. 38-59o 30 J. S. Lang, ''Survey of Agriculture in Waldo County, Maine", in Agriculture of Hainc, 18th Annual Report of the Maine State Board of Agri-culture, 1873, p. 255; The Naine Farmer, April 24, 1880; The Maine Farmer, December 8, 1881. 31 True, p. 24. 53 a secretary who kept its records and acted in an executive capacity when the Board was not in session. Among its chief activities, the Board of Agriculture collected various data and articles concerning the condition and requirements of agriculture in New Hampshire. Throughout the year, individual members and the secretary traveled around the state holding farmers' institutes or speaking before Granges and farmers' clubs. The papers delivered at these meetings, along with other articles and findings f th B d bl . h d h . N H h. A · 1 32 o e oar , were pu ~s e every ot er year ~n ew amps ~re gr~cu ture. Maine made its first public appropriation for agricultural purposes in 1822 when the Legislature agreed to pay a small subsidy to the Lyceum in Gardiner for the support of a course in agriculture. These subsidies were· stopped in 1831, but beginning in 1836 the state paid annual subsidies to the agricultural societies in suppcrt of the For a time in the late 1830's Maine offered its farmers bounties for the growing of wheat and corn and, for some\vhat longer, a bounty on silk:3 Not until 1852, however, did the Legislature vote favorably for a board of agriculture. In its structure and the nature of its responsibilities, the Maine Board of Agriculture closely resembled the board later established in New Hampshire. The principal differences were that the Maine Board was larger and tl\at its members represented the agricultural societies rather than counties. As in New Hampshire, the }~ine Board of Agriculture elected a secretary and sent its members around the state to meet and talk with 32rb~d.' 2 24 26 u 11 1" 26 .... pp. , - ; wa ere la:::l: of appreciatior.. for Grange prir..ciples, lack of cooperative spirit, personal selfishness, nonpayment of dues, fail-ure of members to read parts assigned them, and the personal shortcomings of certain members;o Incompetent leaders failed to memorize the ritual;1 conducted meetings in a disorganized or dull manner, and in other ways failed to perform properly their official duties. Some Granges repeatedly 9New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings 2 3rd Annual Session, 1876, p. 12. 10Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 31. 11The New Hampshire State Grange Committee on Dormant Granges in 1914 listed three symptoms of dormancy: (1) officers reading the ritual work; (2) members failing to make the literary programs interesting; and (3) members failing to pay dues or to come to meetings. New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 41st Annual Session, 1914, p. 114. 72 reelected the same slate of officers, thus depriving other members of opportunity to hold office~ 2 Of crucial importance to the success of Grange meetings was the lecturer's hour. The failure of a lecturer to provide entertaining or informative programs could easily discourage attendance at the meetings and lead ultimately to the loss of members. As a report to the Maine State Grange stressed: "The importance of the office of lecturer is not appre-ciated by many of our ~bordinate Granges, and in many instances is filled by a member who is totally unfit for the position and does nothing except read his part in the initiation ceremonies ••• We recommend to all subordinate G h h . 1 . b f h. . . 1113 ranges t at t ey use extra care 1n se ect1ng mem ers or t 1s pos1t1on. The State Granges, in their efforts to strengthen the subordinates, tried first to set down standards of conducto Typical of such advice was that given by Maine State Master Thing, who described "The Good Patron" as someone who: a. Was prompt at every meeting b. Was arrayed in the proper attire c. Was impressed with the dignity of his position d. Never asked to be excused e. Gave cheerful obedience to his superiors 12New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 90. 13M · S G J 1 f P d' 8 h A 1 S . a1ne tate range,. ourna o rocee 1ngs, t nnua ess1on, 1881, p. 48. 73 f. Never allowed personal feelings to influence his vote for a candidate g. Never expressed uncharitable feelings when his wishes were not met h. Never divulged Grange matters to outsiders.14 Another Patron advised every Grange to o\vn a well-heated, well-lit hall, to meet on time, to be sure the work at meetings was laid out in advance to make them pass quickly, and to own a store as "the connecting link f6r 15 holding the Grange together." In 1884, Frederick Robie, the Master of the Maine State Grange, listed the following as keys to success: a. Regular attendance at Grange meetings b. The choice of well-qualified officers c. Members taking active parts in Grange programs d. The cultivating of good relationships and friendships by Grange members e. Support of Grange newspapers f. Every member a missionary seeking converts g. Cooperation in buying h. Organizing of Grange choirs and purchasing of song books i. Organizing a Pomona Grange in every county j~ Support of Grange insurance companies k. Reviving dormant Granges 1. Appointing special committees and preparing annual 16 programs at the beginning of each Grange year. 14Th n· . R l A 9 1879 e 1r1go ura , ugust , • 15The Dirigo Rural, February 16, lc 16 Day, pp. 19-20. 74 These broad suggestions served as a blueprint for action by the Maine State Grangeo In New Hampshire, the pattern varied only in detail and style. The State Granges, however, did not content themselves simply with these exhortations for self-improvement. They recognized the need for closer supervision of the lower Granges. More frequent visits to subor-dinates by state Grange officers became the rule in both states. In 1879 the Maine State Grange authorized its executive committee to visit Granges needing special encouragement. Brother Hunter, a committee member, it was reported, did "quiet, efficient, and faithful 'field work' ••• in Franklin and counties contiguous," while Brother Moody toured most of Waldo County in January and February and later, in December, the Granges in Sagadahoc. Brother Nelson. Ham, the third member, in October 1880 met at the Ht. Cutler 17 Grange in Hiram with patrons from Cornish, Baldwin, and Sebago: Beginning in 1878, the State Lecturers, who formerly had done little more than arrange the programs for the annual State Grange sessions, made speaking appearances at numerous Granges in Maine. This practice, which was inaugurated by Lecturer Nutter, was carried even further by his sue-cessor, C. H. Freeman of Veazie, who in 1883 presented ninety-two lectures. Daniel Thing, who became State Lecturer in 1884, gave 147 different addresses G . • b . h 18 to ranges ~n JUSt a out every county ~n t e state. Thing's wit and skill m a public speaker made him a favorite at Grange meetings. A patron from Buxton, commenting on Thing's ongoing tour of York County, said, "Brother 17Haine State Grange, 7th Session, p. 16. 18 Day, pp. 21-22. 75 Thing mixes rhetoric and gumption, half and half, a compound that is rapidly . . 1 . . "19 wax~ng ~n popu ar est~mat~ono State Master Robie, even after his elec-tion as Governor in 1882, was a regular speaker at meetings and picnics:o In New Hampshire, the Grange had tireless campaigners in Charles McDaniel, Nahum J. Bachelder, and Emri Hutchinson. Bachelder was State Grange Secretary during McDaniel's term as State Master, while Hutchinson was for many years a State Grange officer. Others labored zealously on .. behalf of the Grange, traveling many miles to meet with old Granges and to assist in the organization of new ones. Among them \vere John D. Lyman, C. C. Shaw, Alonzo Towle, and George Drakeo In time, the State Granges decided to sytematize the official visits and to make regular inspections of the Subordinate Granges. New Hampshire made the greatest strides in this direction, and eventually succeeded in organizing what was perhaps the most effective inspection system devised by any Grange in the country. Beginning in 1885, the state Grange deputies, whose duties previdusly had been devoted largely to organizing work, were directed to inspect the Granges located in their districts and to report their findings to the general 21 deputy. Apparently those first inspections proved very successful, although, as general deputy Hutchinson told the master in 1887, many Granges still had not been visited by a deputy or any other state officer in the course 19The Dirigo Rural, February 16, 1884. 20 Day, p. 22. 21New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1887, p. 33. 76 of the year. He urged that every subordinate in New Hampshire be subject to an annual inspection and further recommended that each Grange be visited by the state master and the general deputy alternately 22 every other year. Hutchinson's proposals were immediately adopted. So fruitful did these inspections become that in 1888, as membership neared 7,000, McDaniel remarked, "We are inclined to believe that our success here in real Grange work is due in a large degree to our annual . . 1123 J.nspectJ.ons. In 1869, when membership had passed 18,000, Nahum Bachelder, who had succeeded McDaniel as Master, praised the State Grange for what he called "one of the most comprehensive systems of deputy inspection ever prac-. d . . . 11 24 tJ.ce J.n any organJ.zatJ.on. The state had been divided into 25 dis-tricts of varying size, each containing a number of Subordin&tes. The district deputy was expected to visit and inspect every Grange in his dis-trict some time in the months of October and November. During his visit, the deputy was to observe the general condition of the Grange, note its size, the average attendance at meetings, and the condition of its books and regalia. The Grange was graded, and the results were reported each year . h S G P d' 25 l.n t e tate rauge rocee J.ngs. To encourage excellence, the State 22Ibid. 23New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 15th Annual Session, 1888, p. 37. 24New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedinzs, 23rd Annual Session, 1896, pp. 7-9. 25New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of.Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, pp. 11-12. 77 Grange awarded prizes to the Subordinates and Pomonas scoring highest on the inspection. Later, the inspections became more thorough. Grange programs and officers were scored on their knowledge of the ritual and 26 their general performanceo Maine developed its inspection system somewhat more slowly. As had been true in New Hampshire, Maine Grange deputies had been used largely in organizing new Granges. During the Robie administration, they were given additional duties, and somewhat later they began checking the records kept by the Subordinates7 7 Nevertheless, Maine continued to lag behind New Hampshireo In 1900, State Haster Obadiah Gardner, noting New Hampshire's highly efficient organization, urged the appointment of more district deputies and a general deputy. Gradually the inspections \vere impro·.red. Reports on the status of the loHer Granges bece.me m0re thorough and served to inform the State Grange of conditions within h 0 d . M . 28 t e r er 1n a1ne. 26Typical of these competitions was one held by the New Hampshire State Grange in 1926 for both Subordinate and Pomona Granges. In the Pomona contest, a Grange could earn upwards to 1900 points, of which 1300 were for officers' performance of ritual work. Scores of 100 points each were possible in six categories: master's knowledge of unwritten work; members' interest and conduct; the Grange's conduct of unwritten work; required literary work; Pomona's court; and collection of dues. Prizes were awarded to Granges winning the highest percentage of the total possible points. Similar scoring was worked out for the Subordinates. The National Grange Honthly, April 1926, p. 15. 27 Day, pp. 20, 29-30. 28Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 26th Annual Session, 1899, p. 33; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, p. 12. 78 Among the officers in the State Granges, it was the secretary 'v-ho kept closest check on the subordinates. Besides maintaining the state records, the secretary received and read reports from the lower Granges, making sure they were in order and made on the proper forms. Generally, the state secretaries held office for a very long time and thus provided a certain continuity in Grange affairs. Because of their lengthy terms in office, the secretaries, by virtue of their intimate knowledge of the· Grange and the state generally, exerted great influence in the higher councils of the Order:9 Some of the most capable secretaries of the New Hampshire Grange were Nahum J. Bachelder, Christopher Shaw, Emri Hutchinson, and especially George R. Drake of Pittsfield, who was elected in 1903 and finally retired in 1933~0 Eugene H. Libby of the Maine State Grange served from 1895 to 1919 and \vas succeeded by his 31 daughter, who continued in office for another quarter of a century. In other ways the State Granges also imposed strict discipline on the inferior Granges, particularly in matters pertaining to the ritual. In the opinion of high Grange officials, secret work provided "the cohesive strength of the Order." Excellence in degree work was encouraged 'through competition.· Drill teams Here trained and sent to the different Granges to examplify the ritual in each of the first four degrees. Out-29Evidence 0f the growing responsibility of the secretaries can be seen in the increasingly detailed reports that appear in the State Grange Proceedings after 1880. See also Day, pp. 20-21. 30rhe National Grange Monthly, J~riuary,.l934, p. 3, 5~ 31The National Grange Monthly, Hay,,l930, p. 14. 79 standing drill teams were invited to appear at the state Grange meetings, and on occasion, a team was accorded the rare honor of exemplifying a 32 degree before the National Grange. The State Granges insisted that the lower Granges conform to Grange law and to rulings made by superior Grange author.ities. Obadiah Gardner warned his fellow Patrons in 1898: No order or organization can exist long when its organic laws are disregarded or disobeyed. The safety, perpetuity, strength, and usefulness depend upon the faithfulness with which the members respect and obey the same.33 Though the offenses are not specified in the Grange Proceedings, Gardner himself in several instances found it necessary to suspend erring masters and to revoke the charters of certain wayward Subordinates because of their repeated and flagrant defiance of Grange ordinances?4 The State Granges took special pains to upgrade the quality of Grange programs. They did so by impressing on the lower Granges the need for selecting capable lecturers. But more than that, the state Granges took it upon themselves to advise subordinate lecturers, to provide them with ideas, and even to furnish the means of putting on an evening's entertain-ment. Often, for example, a talk by a State Grange officer would highlight a meeting. To enable them to make more frequent visits, the State Granges began paying their officers per diem allowances and other travel expenses. 32Maine State Grange, 27th Annual Session, p. 38. 33M · S G J 1 f P d' 25th A 1 a~ne tate range, ourna o rocee ~ngs, nnua Session, 1898, p. 9. 34Maine State Grange, 26th Session, pp. 8-9. 80 In 1884, the New Hampshire State Grange arranged for the Lecturer of the New Jersey State Grange to give a course of lectures to any Grange 35 willing to pay a ten dollar fee. In later years, the Maine State Grange 36 hired speakers from the National Grange to speak at field days. In 1909 the New Hampshire Grange set up a lecture bureau in Concord. Speakers were sent out on request by local Granges, the State Grange paying half the expense. In a period of three years, the bureau sponsored at leas~ one hundred lecture courses, but in 1913 it was abolished~ 7 Several times both State Granges set up reading courses. In 1887, a committee on reading and study appointed by the Maine State Grange recommended that a reading program be provided for subordinate Grange members. Another committee drew up a list of titles, including biographies, histories, novels, and other works which, as the corr.mittee suggested, "may 38 be profitably introduced into the literary exercises of the Grange." In 1894, each State Grange organized reading courses~9 The New Hampshire Grange, for example, printed a syllabus of readings arranged under the 35New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 11th Annual Session, 1884, pp. 18-19. 36Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 32nd Annual Session, 1905, p. 16. 37The National Grange Monthly, October 1910, p. 4; The Ne\v England Homestead, September 23, 1911, p. 14; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal cr Proceedings, 40th Annual Session, 1913, pp. 31-32. 38 Quoted in Day, pp. 22-23. 39 Ibid., p. 32; The New England Homestead, September 13, 1894, p. 63. 81 headings of political economy, history, literature, the origins of soils, botany, plant growth, entomology, and "magazine reading". Fifty-six Granges submitted names of their members who wanted to enroll~O The State Granges stimulated interest in creative writing by holding literary contests. New Hampshire, where there was great interest in literary work, in 1903 presented a six-volume set of the works of John Fiske as first prize to the author of an essay entitled "What are the 41 Cheapest Sources of Protein Available to the People?" And in 1906, the same Grange offered a portrait of the state master as a prize for 11 . 1 . k . h f h h. h d d. . 42 exce ence 1n 1terary war 1n eac o t e t 1rty-t ree eputy 1str1cts. From the offices of the State Grange lecturers flowed a steady stream of ideas for Christmas parties, Fourth of July celebrations, literary contests, and topics for discussion, all advanced in the hope of mn~ing Grange meetings more attractive and useful to the brethren. Lm.;er Grange lecturers were required to submit reports of their work and copies of their annual programs to the state lecturers for inspection. In New Hampshire, furthermore, the State Grange assigned specific topics for discussion, and a Grange failing to hold the discussion at the designated time was penalized in its inspection report. Literary work, which in some cases, at least, seems to have been a major stimulant of interest in 40New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, p. 24. 41New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 30th Annual Session, 1903, pp. 28-29. 42New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 33rd Annual Session, 1906, p. 58. 82 Grange life, included music, readings, recitations, essays, addresses, . 43 dramas, and tableaux. In 1894, W. W. Stetson. Lecturer of the Maine State Grange, wrote: "Among the items that have been reported by the lecturers as helping the Grange are: New books, cooperative stores, contests, topics for programs, visits of state officers, fairs, dis-cussions, peace, literary exercises, fraternal spirit, having a well-defined purpose, insurance, libraries, new members, general interest and enthusiasm, and admitting new members. 1144 Grange happenings were regularly publicized to keep the members and the public informed. At various times, each State Grange published its own official newspaper. The Dirigo Rural, which was published in Bangor, 45 served as the official organ of the Maine State Grange from 1874 to 1884. In 1896 and 1897 the New Hampshire State Grange sponsored the New Hampshire 46 Grange Reporter. In each case, heavy expense and inadequate support of 47 the brethren forced suspension of the newspaper. Not for many years afterward did the Maine Grange publish another paper. That was the Grange 43IbJ.·d.' 53 54 pp. - • 44Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 24. 45 Day, p. 9. Only two bound volumes of the Dirigo Rural exist today, both in the Bangor Public Library. Apparently the others were either lost or destroyed in the great fire which swept that city in 1911. 46A set of the New Hampshire Grange Reporters is kept at the New Hampshire State Library in Concord. 47 Day, p. 9. 83 Herald, which first appeared in August 1938 and which is still in 48 circulation today. The Granges generally found it cheaper and more expedient to rely on other newspapers. Grange events were regularly reported in several fam weeklies, including The Maine Farmer, The Ne>V England Homestead, the Organized Farmer of Uaine, and The Ne~v- England Farmer. Others, such as the Mirror and Farmer in Manchester, N. H., the Le~.;riston Heekly Journal, the Bangor Whig and Courier, and the Merrimack Journal, opened their columns,to Grange reporters, in some cases devoting entire sections to 49 Grange news. Various publications of the National Grange, such as the National Grange Monthly. first published in 1907, carried news and feature articles pertaining to the Granges in Maine and New Hampshire. ArU cles by 1 eading Grangers often appeared in newspapers and magazines. Nahum Bachelder, for one, made frequent contributions m The Granite Monthly and other journals. He also wrote a regular column for 'the Mirror and Farmer~0 Ziba Gilbert, W. W. Stetson, and Edward Wiggin ~n Maine were three more who wrote extensively for the Grange. The innovation of the Pomona Grange helped in many ways to strengthen the Order in Maine and New Hampshire. Kelley had made no provision for 48The Grange Herald is published monthly in Portland. 49 ' Maine State Grange, 16th Session, p. 21; Maine State Grange, 26th Session, p. 16; New Hampshire State Grange, 13th Session, p. 19. 50Nahum J. Bachelder, Reminiscences and Addresses (Andover, N.H.: Privately printed, 1930), pp. 62-64. 84 county or district Granges in his plans of organization. In the 1870's, however, the Subordinate Granges in several counties in Maine and New Hampshire organized County Councils primarily to facilitate their coopera-tive work. The Hillsboro County (N. H.) Council, formed in 1874, was expected "to facilitate the transaction of buying, selling, and shipping h h d h d . "51 for sue purposes as may seem for t e goo of t e Or er ••• In their organization, the Councils resembled the Pomona Granges that eventually replaced them. They did not, however, award degrees as did the Granges in the other echelons of the Grange hierarchy. Accordingly, the National Grange Constitution \vas amended in 1874 to provide that: there be established district or county granges in the fifth degree, not to exceed one in each county, composed of Hasters and past Masters of Subordinate Granges and their wives who are matrons, and such fourth degree members (not to exceed three froffi each Subordinate Grange) as may be elected thereto by the Subordinate Granges under such regulations as may be established by the State Granges.52 As for the duties of these new Granges, the National Grange decreed: Such District or County Granges shall have charge of the educational and business intesests of the Order in their respective districts; and shall encourage, strengthen and aid the Subordinate Granges represented therein.53 51Quoted in Kimball Webster, History of Hillsboro County Pomona Grange No. 1, Patrons of Husbandry of New Hampshire (Concord, N. H.; The Rumford Printing Company, 1909), p. 13. 52 Quoteq in Gardner, p. 357. 53 Quoted in Ibid. 85 Three Pomona Granges were organized in Maine in 1875, the first being Androscoggin No. 1~ 4 while the first in NeH Hampshire \vas Hillsboro County Pomona, chartered in 1883 as the successor to the old County Council~5 By 1910 th t t P . N H 1 . S 6 d 1 ' · M · S 7 ere Here Hen y omonas ~n eH amps ~re an t ~rty-two ~n a~ne. The Pomona Granges tended to be very large. Four Maine Pomonas in 1919 had over 2,000 members apiece. The Aroostook Pomona alone had 4,159 58 members. In Maine, it was not uncommon for as many as 500 people to attend the monthly Pomona meetings~9 Unlike the Subordinates, the Pomona Grang'es had no fixed place of residence. Instead, their meetings were held jointly each month with a different Subordinate in their district. The loHer Grange provided the hall, an audience, and usually a supper, Hhile the Pomona put on the program. Only those members who had been admitted to the fifth degree were permitted to participate in the Pomona's ritual work, but otherwise the meeting was 54 Day, p. 6. 55 Webster, pp. 40, 47. The history of another New Hampshire Pomona is given in George R. Drake, History of Eastern New Eampshire Pomona Grange with Sketches of Pomonas once in its Territory (Concord, N. H.: The Grange Publishing Co., 1903. 56New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 37th Annual Session, 1910, p. 41. 57Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 37th Annual Session, 1910, p. 17. York County Pomonas are discussed in detail in John Chick Murray, Histor1 of the Grange in York County, Comprising a History of each Pomona Grange from Its Organization to 1921 \vith Sketches of the Pomona Hasters (Sanford, Haine: The Averill Press, 1922). 58The National Grange Monthly, May 1919, p. 23. 59The National Grange Monthly, October 1926, p. 33. 86 open. Sometimes, too, the Pomonas held their meetings in to\ms where there were no granges at all, with the purpose of encouraging townspeople to organize a Grange of their own. The Pomonas encouraged members in the Subordinate Granges by offering advancement to a higher degree to those who excelled in the work of the first four degrees. By establishing high standards, the Pomonas also encouraged the Subordinates to improve their own work. And finally, the Pomonas provided additional training and experience for future 60 leaders in the State and National Granges. As a result of these general reforms, the Grange grew tremendously in Maine and New Hampshire after 1880. In 1883, George Wason, Master of the New Hampshire State Grange, reported the Grange's numerical strength had increased by twenty percent. Six dormant Granges had been revived, and six new Granges, including the Hillsboro Pomona, had been organized. This improvement brought a cheerful note in the Master's address. The Grange, h · d · · n d. . u61 e sa~ , ~s ~n a prosperous con ~t~on. The following year brought the addition of nine new subordinates and a gain of 350 members. Thirty-seven Granges each had over fifty members, and Amoskeag of Manchester had 182. By the end of the decade, the Grange was approaching 9,000~ 3 and in 1891, 60 Gardner, pp. 357-364; Murray, pp. 46-47. 61New Hampshire State Grange, Journal Of Proceedings, lOth Annual Session, 1883, p. 14. 62New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 11th Annual Session, 1884, p. 31-32. 63New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 17th Annual Session, 1890, pp. 22-23. 87 when Charles McDaniel handed the Master's gavel to Nahum Bachelder, the New Hampshire Grange had 132 active Subordinate Granges, 8 Pomonas, and membership of 9,870~ 4 Under Bachelder's strong leadership, the Grange nearly doubled its size within six years. In 1897, when its strength stood at 19,116~5the New England Homestead stated flatly: "This state presents the best organized body of farmers ever before known in the United States and very probably in the world."66 Bachelder stepped down in 1903, but his successor, H. 0. Hadley of Temple, carried the work forward. _By 1910, the Grange had become the largest and possibly the best disciplined organization in Ne\.Y Hampshire. Indeed, Ne\.Y Hampshire by that time had more Granges than it had towns. Many towns had two Granges or more, and one had five. Though the Grange was rooted deeply in rural districts, very large Subordinates flourished in the larger cities. Amoskeag Grange of Manchester and Capitol Grange of Concord, each with over 67 400 members, were the largest Subordinates in the state. The urban Granges were sometimes criticised because many of their members were not farmers, but this was also true of rural Granges. Indeed, despite the dictum of the National Grange which restricted membership to toilers in the soil, the New Hampshire Grange drew into its ranks persons 64New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891, pp. 35-38. 65New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, ·25th Annual Session, 1897, pp. 31-32. 66The New England Homestead, August 28, 1897, p. 203. 67 Ne\v Hampshire State Grange, 37th Session, p. 41. 88 from all classes. Eighteen thousand of its 30,000 members in 1910 were, to be sure, farmers or retired farmers. But 6,000 were from the professional, mercantile, and manufacturing classes, while the remainder were teachers, 68 students, and laborers. Capitol Grange had a particularly distinguished roll which included Senator Jacob Gallinger; James 0. Lyford, for many years Collector of the Port of Boston; the New Hampshire Secretary of State, Edward N •. Pearson; and other persons prominent in the public life 69 of the state. By widening the membership base, the Grange was able to draw on a variety of talents for ideas and leadership. Moreover, the admittance of persons from non-agricultural occupations recognized New Hampshire's increasingly urban character. The G-.:-ange, however, in spite of this urban constituency, stood solidly on a platform which demanded a squarer deal for the farmer and the rural community. With 12,000 voters in its ranks, and Subordinate and Pomona Granges located in nearly every voting district in the State, the Grange commanded the attention of public authorities?0 In Maine, the pattern was much the same. From a low of seven thousand in 1880, the Maine Grange in only three years surpassed the twelve thousand member record set in 1876?1 Through the remainder of the Robie era, the Grange continued its upward climb. Dozens of new Granges were organized, 68Richard Pattee, "The Grange in New Hampshire", in New Hampshire State Board of Agriculture, New Hampshire Agriculture, Annual Report, 1910-1912, p. 146. 69National Grange Official Organ, March 16, 1910, p. 7. 70 Pattee, p. 146. 71 Day, p. 6. 89 and others which had died or fallen to sleep were revived. In 1889, when R f P . k S M b h" d 16,444 7• 2 u us r~nce too over as tate aster, mem ers ~p stoo at For three years thereafter, the Grange seemed to pause, as though waiting to catch its breath. The depression of the 1890's brought such hardship in Maine that many farmers either quit the Grange or were dropped for not paying their dues. There was a slight gain in 1890~3 but in 1891 and again in 1892 the Grange suffered successive losses. Prince, who died in March 1891, was followed by Martin B. Hunt of Belmont, who in turn was 74 succeeded by Edward H. Wiggin of Presque Isle. Under Wiggin, the Grange regained momentum, and then in 1897, with Obadiah Gardner's installation as State Master, it hit racing stride. That year, according to the Proceedings, there were 243 Granges and 21 515 G b . h f M . 75 , range mem ers ~n t e state o a~ne. By 1900, the totals 76 had increased to 266 Granges and 25,729 members. Never, exclaimed the New England Homestead, had the Order in Maine "represented a more 77 real live membership than today." Membership increased by 4,300 72Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 16th Annual Session, 1889, pp. 26-27. 73u~· S G J 1 f P d" 17th A 1 S . &-~ne tate range, ourna o rocee ~ngs, nnua ess~on, 1890, pp. 23-24. 1897, 74 Day, pp. 6, 75M . s a~ne tate pp. 26-27. 27. Grange, Jo~rnal of Proceedings, 24th Annual Session, 76Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, p. 23. 77 The NeH· England Homestead, December 29, 1900, p. 687. 90 78 in 1901, and by 5,312 in 1902. In that record year of 1902, thirty-four G . d d t t d . d79 s . d new ranges were organ1ze an wen y-one ormants were revJ_ve • al. Gardner in his annual address: "In no state in the Union is the Grange more firmly established than in Haine."80 By 1907, the year of Gardner's resignation, the Grange in Maine had attained enormous proportions. There were 418 Subordinates, 26 Pomonas, and 56,544 members. Every county in the state had at least a thousand members and only three had fewer than 2,000. Penobscot stood in the lead with 7,126 , but very substantial bodies of Grangers existed in Aroostook, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Somerset, and Waldo Counties. Sixty Granges had over 200 members each; Turner Grange had nearly 600 and Houlton G 1 1,0008.1 range a most Nowhere is the rise of the Maine Grange better illustrated than in the history of Houlton Grange No. 16. That Grange had been organized on April 16, 1874 by Amasa K. Walker. At the start it had twenty-eight members; by the end of the year, there were fifty-five. A buyers' cooperative was organized but without much success. Soon the cooperative broke up, and people began dropping out. In 1875 the Grange met twenty-four times but did not increase in size. Ih 1876 membership started dropping, and by 1881 78Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 28th Annual Session, 1901, p. 48. 79Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 29th Annual Session, 1902, pp. 44-47. 80rbid., p. 9. 81Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 34th Annual Session, 1907, pp. 56-59. 91 it was down to twenty. So serious had the situation become, that a motion to close the Grange was defeated by but a single vote~2 For two more years, the Houlton Grange just managed to hold its own. Then under the skillful tutelage of its master, Francis Barnes, it began to revive. The meeting of the State Grange in Houlton village in 1884 gave the Subordinate a decided boost. A hall was erected in 83 1888, and by 1894 the Grange had sixty members. The opening of the Grange store in 1897 proved to be of decisive importance in the life of the Houlton Grange. The store sold all sorts of merchandise at substantial markdowns, but it was open only to Grange members. As the store business was enlarged, new members came into the Grange, many of them undoubtedly to gain the privilege of trading at 84 the Grange store. A new hall was built in 1898 to accrnmodate the new members. Within little more than twenty years, Houlton Grange had 1,106 members, making it the largest Subordinate Grange in the ~nited States~5 Similar success was recorded by Granges all over Maine, though most did not have stores. 82The Aroostook Times, April 23, 1874; Albert Merritt,"History of the Houlton Grange", clipping dated some time in April 1904, possibly from the Aroostook Pioneer, kept in scrapbook on Houlton Grange now held in the :Public Library, Houlton, Maine. 83rbid.; CoraM. Putnam, The Story of Houlton (Portland, Maine: Falmouth, Inc., 1958), pp. 197-198. 84M . 1. . ern.tt c ~pp~ng. 85rbid.; The Organized Farmer of Haine, July 22, 1920, p. 2. 92 Between 1910 and 1916, the rate of growth of the Granges in Maine and New Hampshire leveled off slightly. During the First World War, it declined slightly, but in 1919 once again the Grange began to grow. New Hampshire reached an all-time peak of 31,622 members in 1921. Maine attained its maximum the following year with a total of 61,506~6 Thus by 1900 the Grange had firmly established itself in New England. Maine ranked second only to New York in the amount of dues it paid the National Grange, while New Hampshire stood fourth, just behind Ohio. Very substantial Granges also existed in Vermont and Massachusetts. Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, and the other old Granger states, which had stood in the front rank in 1875, by 1900 were paying a mere fraction of the dues paid by the Eastern Granges. Iowa indeed had fewer Grange members than f h 1 P . M . 87 T • h some o t .e arger omonas ~n a~ne. • ~t was ~n t .. e East that the Grange held sway, and it was in New England, "the Gibraltar of the Grange~' where its influence was greatest. Not until the 1920's, with the emergence of the Farm Bureau, were the Granges in Maine and New Hampshire confronted by a serious rival. Nonetheless, even after the Farm Bureau e~erged as a power in its own right, the two organizations worked side by side in harmony, as allies in a common cause. For many years the Granges in New Hampshire and Haine were conspicuous in public life. The sturdy white Grange hall standing near the village 86New Hampshire Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 48th Annual Session, 1921, p. 34; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 49th Annual Session, 1922, p. 15. 87National Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 9th Annual Session, 1875, pp. 193-194; National Grange, Journal of froceedings, 37th Annual Session, 1903, pp. 26-27. 93 common, beside the town hall, the church, and the village school, reminded politicians and anyone else who cared to look that the farmer meant business when he talked about temperance, taxes, good roads, better schools, and rural improvement. CHAPTER 4 THE GRANGE AND THE FARMER The Grange was first and foremost dedicated to serving agriculture. Kelley himself had recognized the importance of educating the farmer and demonstrating to him the value of organization as being essential functions 1 of the Order. With these ends in mind, the National Grange had urged the brethren to: hasten the good time coming; to reduce our expenses, both individual and corporate; to buy less and pro-duce more, in order to make our farms self-sustaining; to diversify our crops and crop no more than we can cultivate; to condense the weight of our exports, selling less in the bushel and more in warp and woof; to systematize our work and calculate intelligently on the probabilities; to discountenance the mortgage system, the fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality and bankruptcy.2 The mission of the Grange was then, as one Maine Patron wrote, "to build up agriculture."3 Stated in the language of modern economists, the problem was to promote the use of scientific methods and good management as means of increa~ing productivity, reducing production costs, and thereby increasing profits. 1oliver Hudson Kelley, Origin and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States: A History from 1866 to 1875 (Ph;Lladelphia: J. A. Wagenseller, 1875), pp. 17-20. 2National Grange, "Declaration of :Purposes, in Charles M. Gardner, The Grange--Friend of the Farmer (Washington, D. C.: The National Grange, 1949), pp. 516-519. 3Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1887, p. 57. 94 95 For farmers in the hill country, hard pressed by competition and rising costs, the need for greater economic efficiency was especially acute. Except in northern Maine, there existed in New England no public domain where, for a pittance, ne\v farms could be purchased to replace old, worn-out acreage. Abandoned farms, to be sure, sold for very little, but the very cause of abandonment, their near worthlessness for commercial agriculture, seldom made purchase a sensible recourse. Instead, given the high value of prime farm land, the hill farmer had to get the most possible from each acre. The intensive use of fertilizers, machinery, and other "scientific" techniques was a means of raising crop yields. Stressing dairy farming, poultry, fruit growing, and market gar-dening were other ways of increasing the average value of farm output. For many farmers in Maine and New Hampshire, labor and taxes were the largest items of expense. In the decades just after the Civil War, 1 h . h f 11 h il f . . f . 1 4 rea estate taxes, w 1c e most eav y on armers, rose s1gn1 1cant y. Good farm hands had always been hard to find, but in Haine and New Hampshire, the steady exodus of young men from rural areas made for an ever-worsening labor shortage. Some farmers in the 1870's were complaining 5 that the hired man hardly earned his board. Even in 1914, after much farm work had become mechanized, the necessity to pay high wages, caused by 4Harold f. Wilson, The Hill Country of Northern New England: Its Social and Economic History 1790-1930 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), pp. 117~119. 5 L. J. Lucas, ''Changes in Our Farming'', in Sam. L. Boardman, ed., Abstract of Returns from the Agricultural Societies of Maine 1873 with Accompanying Papers (Augusta: Sprague, Owen, & Nash, 1873), p. 175. 96 "the almost universal preference of farm youth to abandon farm work," brought dissatisfaction among farmers in New Hampshire~ To minimize these costs, farmers found it imperative to raise yields per acre and, where practical, to make greater use of machinery as a substitute for labor. The Yankee farmer was criticized by his contemporaries for his excessive caution, superstition, and blind adherence to routine and habit in his work. Ziba A. Gilbert, a member of the Maine Board of Agriculture, wrote in 1873: "We are today trudging along the grooves of the past keeping the same stock, no more no less, cultivating the same acres, and growing the same kinds of products, growing less every year, and the owner of the land losing heart in the business. I say the agriculture of today does not essentially differ from that of twenty-five years ago, save only that we harvest less abundant crops from the same old acres."7 In a like way, Hoses Humphrey of the New Hampshire Board of Agriculture accused farmers there of plodding along in the ruts left by their ancestors~ And the editor of a Vermont newspaper took to task "ignorant farmers" 6Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 41st Annual Session, 1914, pp. 140-141. 7z. A. Gilbert, "Changes in Our Farming," in Agriculture of Haine, 18th Annual Report of the Maine State Board of Agriculture, 1873, pp. 7-8. 8Moses Humphrey, "Farmers' Mistakes," in Ne~v Hampshire Agriculture, 8th Annual Report of the New Hampshire State Board of Agriculture, 1878, p. 443. 97 Ignorant farmers are superstitious. They wean their calves when the calendar sign is in the stomach, so that the poor animals may not pine away over their meal and clover. They sell or cast av1ay the pig \vhose tail curls to the left. They consult the moon when to pack their pork. They plant their potatoes when the same lumi-nary is in the wane so that they may not run to tops. ~~en a cow or an ox has lost the cud, they make a new one for the animal instead of investigating the nature of the disease and applying the appropriate remedy. They throw a knife through the dew lap to cure a swollen bag9 when a milch cow has taken cold from exposure. Many farmers did indeed fail to make the most rational use of their economic resources, but it is quite misleading to conclude that farming in Maine and New Hampshire in the late nineteenth century was standing still. Though the forward motion may have been imperceptible to con-temporaries, there is plain evidence of progress in agriculture. It can be seen in the advercisemencs for seeders, mowing machines, and other implements which filled the columns of newspapers such as The Maine Farmer and The New England Homestead. New and improved models of an ever-growing variety of farm machinery appeared regularly on the market. Sulky plows, guano fertilizers, wire fencing, seed broadcasters were among the innova-tions which were attracting farmers' attention in the 1870's. Prodding by the dairy industry brought forth the silo, the milk separator, and even a primitive milking machine before 1900. Major farm inplement manufacturers 10 were located at Auburn, Maine, and Bellows Falls, Vermont. The \villing-9 Vermont Watchman and State Journal, February 3, 1875. 10 James 0. Adams, One Hundred Years of Rural Progress and Reports and Addresses Relative to the Centennial Exhibition 1376 (Concord, N.H.: Edw. A. Jenks, 1877), pp. 8-9; By the Stark Grange, "Labor Saving Tools," in New Hampshire Agriculture, 8th Annual Report, pp. 564-565. 98 ness of New England farmers to adjust to meet changing competitive circumstance can be seen in the rise of the dairy industry, truck garden.ing, and conunercial orcharding, and the coming of the sununer tourist industry, all ongoing developments in the hill country in the late nineteenth century. This is not to say that problems did not exist. Many farmers finished the year without a penny in profits to show for their effort. Town after town told the New Hampshire Board of Agriculture in 1873 that their farmers were making little or no money. The same was true in M . 11 a1.ne. But there were also numerous farmers in both states who were making a decent living and who were as progressive as farmers anywhere. Poor management was the root cause of the difficulty confronting many hill country farms. Some farmers were working land that never 12 should have been cleared in the first place. But more important, farmers simply did not know enough about their own business. Someone said of Maine farmers in the 1870's that they tended "to generalize too much, leaving many things we write and talk about too much vague and uncertain."13 Moses Humphrey, for many years President of the New Hampshire Board of Agriculture, described some of the "mistakes" farmers made. In the first place, he suggested, farmers needed more information as to the agricultural capabilities of New Hampshire. Presumably this meant accurate 11see Chapter 2. 12The New England Farmer, April 18, 1874. 13 Lucas, pp. 173-174. 99 data on weather, climate, and soils. He urged farmers to be more selective in their choice of seed; to take care in the breeding, selec-ting, and culling of farm animals; to arrange farm buildings for greatest utility; to protect manure so as to prevent its leaching by rain or snow; to keep accurate accounts; and to be more systematic in their work. Said Humphrey in conclusion: "The complaints that farming is a menial calling, and a hard lot for anyone, comes from those who 14 conduct their farming in a careless and thoughtless manner." This theme the Grange developed in its meetings and pronouncements. Concern for the farmer's backwardness recurs in the speeches and reports of Grange leaders. Nahum Bachelder told the New Hampshire State Grange in 1895: There is a serious lack of practical knowledge among the farmers here compared with the acquirements of people in other industries. He must recognize the fact more than ever before that land must be manured with brains as well as chemicals, and that a scanty infusion of this compound is frequently laid on New England soil, truths which at very heavy cost our community has begun to learn.l5 A committee of the Maine State Grange blamed "ignorance" for discourage-. f . 16 ment ~n arm~ng. More "systematic farming" was the ans\ver, meaning more cooperative work, greater use of machinery, a reduction in hand 14 Humphrey, pp. 443-444. 15New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, p. 19. 16M ' S G J 1 f P d' 16 h A 1 S . a1ne tate range, ourna o rocee 1ngs, t nnua ess1on, 1889' p. 41. 100 labor, better "regulation" of seeds, and the prevention of food adulteration~ 7 The Grange labored earnestly to make farmers aware of opportunities for improving their work. In this spirit, the New Hampshire State Grange resolved: That in order to improve our agriculture ••• we invite special attention to the dairy, the silo, the labor-saving implements, the rearing of horses, the destruction of sheep-killing dogs, the production of early lambs, of mutton and '·mol, the drainage of swamp lands, the scientific growing of timber upon lands worth little for cultivation or pasture and to the cultivation of fruit.l8 New Hampshire farmers were urged to take a close look at markets in b . . d .. d . 1 19 near y c1t1es an 1n ustr1a towns. They were advised to rotate crops and to cultivate the soil more thoroughly with the aim of "cultivating 20 less and better ••• " Farmers were warned that, given potential savings of between twenty and fifty percent in labor expenses, they simply "could not afford not to invest in more machinery." 21 Restoring the fertility of soils was yet another way of raising farm income: "Feed 17Maine State Grange, 14th Session, p. 57. 18New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 16th Annual Session. 1889, p. 43. 19New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 91. 20 The New England Homestead, May 8, 1897, p. 590. 2 ~1aine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 37th Annual Session, 1910, pp. 143-145. 101 22 the soil and it will feed you." And further, "a more thorough system of bookkeeping" \'laS needed to determine exactly what the costs of farm-ing were and how much of a return was being earned on investment:3 The Grange hall provided the principal forum of discussion and in-struction. Here the farmer came together with his neighbors to hear what they were doing, to trade ideas and criticism, to debate practical issues, and to listen to speakers and papers. These meetings covered a wide range of topics, though dairying seemed to be of special interest. The Hillsboro County Pomona, for example, whose territory contained many dairy farms, considered among others the following questions: "Milk: Its Production And Marketing"; "The Profit Of Making Butter As Compared With Selling Milk At The Door"; "The Production And Disposal Of Milk"; "The Milk Markets"; "The Silo And Ensilage"; and "Is It Expedient To Est.:.~lish 24 A Creamery In Hillsboro County?" Dairying was the principal farm industry in Saco, Maine, and it was the very first topic taken up by the local Grange. That same Grange later resolved that butter makers should be compelled to brand their products and have them inspected. It also urged the city to ban 22New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 32nd Annual Session, 1905, pp. 94-94. 23Ibid. 24Kimball Webster, History of Hillsboro County Pomona Grange No. 1, Patrons of Husbandry of New Hampshire (Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Printing Company, 1909), pp. 46-53. 102 the sale of milk from cows that had not been tested for tuberculosis~5 Even in Aroostook County, where dairying was a mere sideline, the subject still received the Granges' consideration. The Aroostook County Pomona, meeting at Caribou in June 1885, evinced interest in starting butter fac-tories~6 In December 1896, Northern Aroostook Pomona Grange agreed that 27 dairying was not receiving enough attention in the County. The feeding of corn silage to dairy cattle was a matter of growing interest to farmers in the 1880's. Silos appeared in the United States first around 1875. The first in Maine was built by Alonzo Libby of Sac-rappa in 1879. New Hampshire's first was erected in Sanbornton in 1881~ 8 Libby discussed the merits of feeding silage at a farmer's institute held at the Gorham Grange Hall in November 1883. His experience had shown that it did not pay for a farmer with a herd of only four or five to own a silo. For a herd of fifteen or more, however, there was great advantage in it. Libby put up one hundred and fifty tons of silage one winter, which saved him, he claimed, the feeding ?f thirty to forty tons of hay per week. Moreover, the herd's milk production had increased by three cans per week. Several prominent Maine Grangers, including Elisha Parkhurst 25Roy F. Fairfield, Sands, Spindles, and Steeples (Portland, Maine: House of Falmouth, 1956), pp. 414-415. 26The Aroostook Herald, June 25, 1885. 27The Star Herald, December 13, 1894. 28W.l 1 son, p. 199. 103 of Presque Isle and Rufus Prince of Turner, with Libby, were among the first in the state to feed silage~ 9 There was considerable interest, too, in butter making; numerous Granges devoted discussions to this topic. Eastern New Hampshire Pomona, meeting at Short Falls in February 1885, took up the question of coopera-tive butter factories. Shortly afterward, one of the brothers started a cooperative creamery in a building directly across the street from the 30 Grange hall. Similarly, Litchfield Grange of Litchfield, }~ine, in January 1884, listened to a talk about a cheese and butter factory that had recently been started in neighboring Winthrop. Soon there was a fac-tory in Litchfield~l The selecting of cattle breeds was of obvious importance to the husbandman. A typical manifestation of Grange concern can be seen in a debate on the comparative merits of dairy cattle breeds conducted by the Merrimack County Council at Warner, New Hampshire in December 1882. Nahum J. Bachelder, then a young farmer from East Andover, spoke in favor of Jerseys and noted the importance of breed choice in milk production. He was supported by others at the meeting who recognized that milk from Jerseys, with its high fat content, was best for making butter. On the other hand, those who sold fresh milk preferred Ayrshires and Dutch cattle 29 Clarence A. Day, Farming in Maine 1860-1940 (Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 1963), p. 59. 30George R. Drake, History of Eastern New Hampshire Pomona Grange with Sketches of Pomona Granges once in Its Territory (Concord, N. H.: The National Grange Publishing Company, 1910), p. 17. 31The Dirigo Rural, January 19, 1884. 104 which typically produced a high volume of low-fat milk. Additional points were made relative to the need for proper management, providing warm, clean barns, and butchering scrub cows~2 A similar meeting of the Kennebec County Pomona in 1880 debated beef as against dairy cattle. A. c. True of Litchfield felt that oxen paid more than dairy cows, since they could be sold for beef or used as draft animals. Daniel Thing of Mount Vernon noted that beef cattle required less labor, but two Jersey men stated flatly that they had made money selling butter:3 Among the countless other topics taken up by Granges in Maine and New Hampshire were such as: "Raising Corn"; "Fruit Culture And Its Gathering"; "Small Fruits"; "The Potato Beetle"; "How Best To Prepare The Products Of The Farm For Market"; "Deep And Shallow Plowing"; "Poultry Farming"; "Pears For nome Use And For Narket"; "Can The Bearing Year of F1.uit Trees Be Changed?"; "What Advantages Have Farmers Derived From Adopting New Machinery?"; "Does It Pay For New Hampshire To Invest In Commercial Fertil-izer?"; ".Raising, Harvesting, And Marketing Fruit."34 Aroostook County Grangers, not surprisingly, were most interested in field crops. Items appearing in programs of the Houlton Grange for 1903 and 1904 included: "How Can A Farmer Raise The Same Variety Of Potatoes Upon The Same Farm As Long As He Wishes And Keep Them In The Same Condition?"; 32Mirror and Farmer, December 21, 1882 33The Maine Farmer, July 10, 1880. 34 Drake, pp. 38-58; Webster, pp. 42-67; By The Town, History of Bedford, New Hampshire from 1737 (Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1903), pp. 558-560. 105 "Is It A Benefit To Harrow Grain In The Same Condition?"; "Is It A Bene-fit To Harrow Grain In The Spring After It Is Several Inches High?"; "Will It Pay To Harrow Wheat And Rye In The Spring?"; "Does It Pay To Sow Grain?"; "My Experience With Potatoes In 1902"; and "Which Crop Is Most 35 Important To Aroostook County?" From the beginning, the Granges and the state boards of agriculture saw mutual advantage in working closely together. Grange halls afforded convenient places for holding farmers' institutes. By offering light entertainment and a good supper, the local Grange, moreover, could be relied on to draw a good crowd. At the highest level, Grange support was a definite political asset when questions of appropriation and legisla-tion came before the Legislature. The Grange, with its lines of authority extending from the state to the local level, could be used conveniently as a means of arousing concern and farmer response to deal with a crisis, such as an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis. Conversely, cooperation with the state agency enabled the Grange to work more effectively in its efforts to improve agriculture and the conditions of rural life. The first Grange-sponsored farmers' institute in New Hampshire was held by the Weare Center Grange sometime in January 1874. The meeting, which was conducted by the Grange Master, was attended by the Board Secretary James 0. Adams and J. W. Sanborn, the Board representative from Grafton County. Sanborn, who also was superintendent of the farm maintained by the State College, presented a paper on "Grass and Irrigation." 35 Houlton Grange,"Annual Program", 1904 and 1905. 106 Other papers included: "Breeding Dairy Cattle From Thoroughbred Bulls And Native And Grade Bulls" and "The Gentle Treatment Of Farm Animals." 36 This practice of holding institutes became more general as the Granges acquired their own halls. The institutes met usually in the winter months when farmers had time on their hands. As a rule, the secretary of the board, accompanied by a member, would tour selected counties, making stops in several towns. Such a tour was led by Adams in January and February 1876. He and Emri Hutchinson of Milford, the latter a Granger, first visited the Barrington Grange, Hhere Adams talked about the fencing problem. Farmers in New Hampshire, according to the Secretary, were maintaining about $40 million worth of fencing at a cost of $400,000 annually. Half was in stone walls, which wasted space and served as a gathering place ~or weeds and vermin. The pair then moved on to Milford for a visit with Granite Grange No. 7, where Hutchinson himself was master. In his talk, Adams criticized farmers for making bad selections (buying the cheapest land rather than the best); wrong tillage (to0 little fertilizer on too much land; wrong kind of fertilizer wrongly applied, covered too deeply, and often placed where plant roots could reach it only with difficulty); the keeping of cull animals; and the poor feeding and mismanagement of live-stock. Farmers in many cases, said Adams, kept animals that were not paying 37 their keep. 36 NeH Hampshire Agriculture, 4th Annual Report of the New Hampshire State Board of Agriculture, 1874, pp. 113-115. 37New Hampshire Agriculture, 7th Annual Report of the New Hampshire State Board of Agriculture, 1877, pp. 26-31. 107 Later in February Adams and Board member Parker visited the farmers in Sullivan County, stopping in Charlestown and Newport. At the Charles-town meeting, Hhich was held in the Grange hall, Parker presented a statistical description of agriculture in the county; the rest of the meeting was devoted to the dairy question. On hand in the hall were 38 exhibits of winter wheat, Jersey butter, and white schonen oats. In 1885 and 1887, farmers' institutes were held in twenty-five towns and cities in New Hampshire, with the Grange reportedly being "of great assistance."39 And by 1894, the number had increased to fifty-one, most 40 of them meeting on the invitation of subordinate Granges. This continued to be the practice until the Board of Agriculture was abolished in 1913. Thereafter, the Farm Bureau gradually took over. There is less specific information about the work of the Haino:: Granges with the Maine Board of Agriculture, but it is evident that the same close working partnership existed. A factor in promoting harmony between the two groups was the fact . 41 that numerous Grangers sat as members of the Boards of Agriculture. In 108 two instances, moreover, powerful Grange leaders acted as Secretary: Ziba Gilbert in Maine and Nahum J. Bachelder in New Hampshire. Bachelder, in particular, made very effective use of the two associations. In 1888, for example, when he was secretary of both the Grange and the Board of Agriculture, he sent circulars to ~bordinate Granges proposing topics f d. . 42 or ~scuss~on. This practice continued until he resigned from the Board in 1913. In 1894, after Bachelder had become Master of the State Grange, G . tt t k 1 . h h B d f A · 1 43 a range comm~ ee was se up to war a ong w~t t e oar o gr~cu ture. In 1877, Secretary Adams of the New Hampshire Board of Agriculture invited the Granges to submit reports of discussions on assigned topics for publication in New Hampshire Agriculture. A random listing of the papers published in 1878 suggests the scope of Grange discussion-meetings: Hollis Grange, "Farm Machinery"; Claremont Grange, "Labor Saving Tools"; Union Grange, "Drainage"; Advance Grange, "Water for the Barn"; Uncannonuc Grange, "Renovation of Pastures"; Sutton Grange, "Domestic Animals"; Wyoming Grange, "Sheep"; Thornton Grange, "Devon Cattle"; Winnepesaukee Grange, "The Best Neat Stock For Us"; Highland Lake Grange, "The Morgan Horse"; Hudson Grange, "The Dairy";. and White Mountain Grange, "Education."44 Other Grange reports appeared in the 1879 and 1881 editions of New Hampshire 41wason, Charles McDaniel, Alonzo Towle, E. E. Bishop, Herbert 0. Hadley, Charles B. Hoyt, Joseph D. Roberts, and perhaps others. List prepared by the writer from New Hampshire Agriculture and various town historie 42New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 15th Annual Session, 1888, p. 37. 43New Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 140. 44New Hampshire Agriculture, 8th Annual Report of the Ne\..r Hampshire State Board of Agriculture, 1878, pp. 556-615. 109 Agriculture. Articles by promineDt Grangers regularly appeared in those reports and in Agriculture of Maine. The holding or cosponsoring of fairs was another popular Grange function. Such a fair was presented by the Grange in Horham, Maine, in October, 1878. The day-long fete offered a fine showing of Jersey cattle, purebred swine, poultry, fruit, and a draft ox trial~ 5 A two-day fair presented a year later by Cascade Grange of West Waterville made use of the Grange Hall for displays of fruit, vegetables, traces of corn, and a children's table. The Grange ladies had decorated the Hall with fruit and leaves. Downstairs, tables and chairs had been set up for the supper. Outside were pens and corrals for the holding of show animals. The first day was reserved for livestock judging; the second for oration d d . 1 46 an spee tr~a s. Grange fairs seem to have been especially popul~r in Waldo County, where in 1882 the Granges and farm societies cosponsored 47 fairs at South Branck, Dirigo, Prospect, and eight other towns. The Hancock Grange in New Hampshire held its first fair in 1881.48 In 1883, the Grange fair in Goffstown offered fine exhibitions of fruit, vegetables, "and other farm products, canned fruit, etc."49 Sunapee Lake Grange in South Newbury for many years has had an annual street fair; 45The Maine Farmer, October 26, 1878. 46The Dirigo Rural, November 1, 1879. 47 The Haine Farmer, November 2, 1882. 48william Wells Ha~.:rard, The History of Hancock, New Hampshire 1764-1889 (2 vols., Lowell, Mass.: Vox Populi Press, 1889), I, 245. 49George Plumber Hadley, History of the Tm,-rn of Goffstown, N.H., 1733-1920 (2 vols., Concord, N. H.: The Rumford Press, 1924), I, 469. 110 indeed, street fairs had become a Grange tradition all over the hill country by the turn of the century. Granges cooperated with the agricultural societies in the running of county and state fairs. At times, Grangers dominated the fair associations. The Grangers in northern Aroostook , for one, grew im-patient with the "village sharpers and horse jockeys" who put on the Northern Maine Fair at Presque Isle. Members of the.Pomona Grange were elected officers of the agricultural society and immediately pledged to make the fair a first-rate farm show~0 The state fairs were the concern of the state Granges. Thus in Augues 1878, Maine State Master Thing called on his fellow Grangers to "get out of the old rut for two or three days 11 and attend the big state fair at Portland: "Let 1 s have ourselves a grand Farmer 1 s Camp meeting.'' President of the State Agricultural Society, which operated the fair, was Rufus Prince, himself a Granger and later Haster of the State Grange. Special competitions and premiums were set aside for the Granges, and a section of the fair grounds was reserved as an area where Grangers could pitch their tents and stay for the whole fair, all for the price of one day's admission. Thing predicted "a sort of love feast where we can tell how the good father has prospered us in our efforts to provide bread for our households ••• a comparing of notes will alone be worth the whole cost of the trip." Unhappily only the Turner Grange, where Prince was a member, 51 turned out in force, but later state fairs, many of which were held at 50The Dirigo Rural, July 5, 1884. 51The Maine Farmer, August 31, 1878; The Maine Farmer, September 21, 1878 111 Lewiston, drew large crm,ds of Patrons. For about fifteen years, the New Hampshire State Grange conducted a big fair at Tilton. A wealthy townsman donated the use of the Franklin and Tilton Driving Track to the Grange Fair Association. The first year it was held, the fair made a small profit. Thereafter, the fair expanded, erecting new buildings, making improvements, and drawing larger and larger crowds. By 1894, it had become a truly impressive exposition. The driving track with its big grandstand stood at the center of the grounds, with other buildings and exhibits arranged around the periphery. The grounds were spacious and crowded '"ith things to do. A midway lined with booths, a merry-go-round, ferris wheel, pony rides, shooting galleries, and numerous eating establishments lay on one side of the track. A dental parlor on wheels offered immediate relief to the suffering. For a quarter, a man could buy a good square meal at the eating stand run by the ladies of the Wom~n's Christian Temperance Union. In the machinery tent, there were rows of plm-ls, mowers, the latest in farm equipment, and a full scale working model of a brand new creamery. Permanent stables located across the track housed the horses that came in for the trotting races. In other barns there were cattle, sheep swine, farm products, and exhibits of the housewife's artistry. Besides the exhibits, there were baseball games, horse racing, vaudeville acts, showing of livestock, and, on a special day, speeches by the Governor, the State Grange Master, and other dignitaries. During fair week, thousands of eager fair-goers, taking advantage of special excursion rates offered by the railroads, arrived at the Tilton station by the trainload. Even when it rained, 112 the fair managed to get big crowds~2 By 1900, however, patronage had fallen off significantly, and in that year it was discontinued~ 3 The State Granges, from time to time, appointed committees who drew up reports on matters of interest to the farmer. Each, moreover, had a permanent Cou~mittee on Agriculture which reported regularly to the state Grange at its annual session. Often these reports were long and detailed and contained valuable information and suggestions. The New Hampshire State Grange in 1884, for example, received detailed committee studies on forestry, land drainage, and silos and ensilage, all of which were printed in the Proceedings:4 The Haine State Grange in 1897 asked a committee to prepare designs, plans, and specifications for farm buildings, giving details as to the locations of the house, sheds, stables, 55 yards, lawns, and roads. In 1887, the Maine State Grange, hoping to encourage the livestock industry, urged that a stockyard be built somewhere along the ·Maine Central's main line, presumably somewhere near Waterville~6 Obadiah Gardner, 52New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 13th Annual Session, 1886, pp. 24-25; Lucy R. H. Cross, History of Northfield, New Hampshire 1780-1905 (Concord, N. H.: The Rumford Printing Co., 1905), pp. 189-190; George H. Moses, "The Grange Fair by Pen and Camera," The Grange Monthly, ~- October 1894 , pp. 262-274. --53New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, p. 9. 54New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 11th Annual Session, 1884, pp. 58-61. SSM . S G J 1 f P d. 24th A 1 S i aLne tate range, ourna o rocee Lngs, nnua ess on, 1897, p. 42. 56Maine State Grange, 14th Session, p. 69. 113 with the pame end in mind, in 1899 advised the farmers of :Maine to raise more dairy cattle, sheep, and beef. Maine, said Gardner, lacked sufficient stock to supply its own needs. Farmers "should be alert to these condi-t · d d · · f th · f k t t k d ,_ of them. 115 7 1ons an so 1vers1 y e1r arm war so as o a e a van~age And in 1901, the New Hampshire State Grange was urged to offer prizes for "those who produce the greatest amount of poultry of superior grade and quality."58 In every instance, the Grange sought to alert farmers to ne\V" markets and to ways of cutting costs. To these ends, farmers were implored to become more self-sufficient, to raise more and buy less of what they needed. The New Hampshire State Grange in 1891 called attention to the state's imports of corn, oats, shorts, cotton-seed meal, gluten cake, and oil cake, "our great money drainage."59 Said the Maine Stale Grange Committee on Agriculture: "Buy less and produce more in order to make our farms self-sustaining." Noting the high price of corn in 1901, it urged farmers to raise more of their own feed~0 And in 1897, The New Hampshire Grange Re-porter demanded a law forbidding the importing of corn from other states 57 .· Ma1ne State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 26th Annual Session, 1899, p. 9. 58New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 28th Annual Session, 1901, pp. 112-113. 59New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891, pp. 127-128. 60M · S G J 1 f p· d. 28th A 1 S . a1ne tate range, ourna o rocee 1ngs, nnua ess1on, 1901, p. 78. 114 except in seasons when New Hampshire farmers could not supply their own 61 needs. Sheep husbandry was advocated as ideal for hill country farms. Experience during the "sheep mania" earlier in the century seemed to prove the case, but for various reasons farmers chose. to· do otherwise. A most serious deterrent was the sheep-killing dog. Many farmers found sheep simply a bother and less rewarding than cattle. After a time, there were ever fewer farmers who knew anything about taking care of sheep in the first place. The Granges nevertheless took up the fight. In 1884, the New Hampshire State Grange asked Congress to encourage the domestic sheep industry by putting higher tariffs on wool. It also demanded that h II h d f d . 1 . . 1. . 1162 I t e state encourage t e ecrease o ogs w~t1~n 1ts ~m~ts. t con-tinued pleading for fewer dogs and more sheep. In 1911 and after, it was still imagining good profits from sheep raising, 63 but despite a higher tariff, stiff dog laws, and the joint efforts of the state government, the Granges, and the sheep associations, the sheep industry continued to decline until long after World War II. Beyond the offering of mere advice, the Grange also did some experimental work, though on a rather limited basis. In 1883 and 1884, the New Hampshire State Grange conducted field tests of several brands of fertilizer. The test results, showing the dollar return for each 61The New Hampshire Grange Reporter, January 1897. 62New Hampshire State Grange, 11th Session, p. 76. 63 Ne,., Hampshire State Grange, 22nd Session, p. 13; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 38th Annual Session, 1911, p. 78. 115 brand, were carefully tabulated and printed in the Proceedings and in 64 special pamphlets. In the spring of 1881, the Turner, Maine, Grange ran a sereis of experiments designed to determine methods of growing 65 corn at the lowest possible cost. In 1881 and 1882, equipment trials sponsored by the New Hampshire State Grange were held on farms in East Concord. The equipment tested included plows, tedders, hay rakes, and manure spreaders. These performance, likewise, were summarized in the P d . 66 rocee J.ngs. A tractor demonstration was conducted by the Merrimack County Pomona Grange and the County Farm Bureau in Penacook, New Hamp-shire, in 1917~ 7 And in 1911, the Granges in Maine cooperated with the Agronomy Department at the University of Maine in an experiment aimed at 68 selecting better seeds for corn and oats. The Grange alone was not responsible for the transformation under-gone by agriculture in the hill country of northern New England in the period under study. Most important were the pressures exerted by markets and competition of farmers in other states. The work of the state agencies, the federal government, the experiment stations, and the state colleges were all of obvious importance. But the Grange did make a difference. 64New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, lOth Annual Session, 1883, pp. 90-94. 65ziba A. Gilbert, "Machinery in Corn Growing", in Agriculture of Maine, 27th Annual Report, 1884, p.• 117. 66New Hampshire State Grange, lOth Session, p. 72. 67The New England Homestead, August 24, 1918, p. 136. 68The National Grange Monthly, August 1911, p.11. 116 Through its meetings and discussions, it taught the farmer the value of discussion and thinking in his work. No longer was Farmer Jones to be guided by rules followed by his forefathers. To survive in a highly competitive industry, he had to think, he had to accept the fact and necessity of change. The Grange helped him to become aware of what was going on around him and showed him ways to accommodate to life in a changing world. The advice the Grange offered was not always the best; but usually it was pretty good. By inspiring a willingness to learn a and to accept new ways of doing things, the Grange helped the farmer to help himself. CHAPTER 5 THE GRANGE AND THE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES Teaching the agriculturist better ways of farming. was, of course, a prime concern of the Grange, This it did through its meetings and field days, its experiments and demonstrations, and by encouraging the husband-· man to read books and agricultural newspapers. But the Grange recognized, too, the value of formal, institutionalized training for the farmers of the future. For. this reason, it took special interest in the welfare of the state agricultural colleges and experiment stations. Maine had been a pioneer in the field of agricultural education. From 1821 to 1831, the Gardiner Lyceum, aided by state subsidy, offered "courses of lectures on Mechanics and Agriculture." Directed by Dr. Ezekiel Holmes, the curriculum featured offerings in agricultural chemistry, the practical analysis of soils, and the anatomy and diseases of domestic animals. Holmes assembled a museum of natural history with specimens of minerals, insects, birds, shells, and plants native to Maine. A farm was purchased to enable the students to engage in practical work and to give poor boys an opportunity to earn some of their school expenses. Thus the curriculum at the Lyceum, with its emphasis on vocational train-ing, in certain ways foreshadowed the State College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts at Orono. Holmes resigned in 1829, and in 1831 the Lyceum 117 118 1 was closed after the Legislature declined to extend the usual subsidy. For thirty-five years, the cause of agricultural education hardly advanced in Maine and New Hampshire, but elsewhere important groundwork was being laid. In 1846, Yale University, at the suggestion of its great scientist Professor Benjamin Silliman, appointed John Pitkin Norton its first Professor of Agricultural ClemLstry and Animal and Vegetable Physi-ology. Norton set up an analytical laboratory which he used both as an instructional aid and for experimental and practical work of his own. Somewhat later, Norton became involved in the movement to establish agricultural colleges in the United States. Death in 1852 at the age of thirty cut short his career, but in 1857, Michigan founded the first such college in the country. And in 1862, Congress passed the famous }1orrill 2 "" Land-Grant College Act. The Morrill Act offered every state thirty thousand acres of public land for each senator and representative it had in Congress as a subsidy for the founding and support of a "college of agriculture and mechanic arts." Money raised from the sale of that land was to be invested in securities of the. United States or "other safe bonds" and placed in a perpetual fund ••• the capital of which shall remain foreven undiminished ••• and the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated ••• to the endowment; support and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall 1clarence A. Day, Ezekiel Holmes, Father of Maine Agriculture (Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 1968), pp. 24-40. 2 H. C. Knoblauch, E. M. Law, and W. P. Meyer, State Agricultural Experiment Stations, U. S. D. A. Misc •. Publication No. 904 (Hashington, P. C.: U. s. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 9~15. 119 be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts.3 None of the Federal subsidy could be spend for buildings or maintenance~ Maine's allotment under the l1orrill Act was 210,000 acres; New Hampshire's was 150,000 acres. President Lincoln signed the bill on J 1 2 1862 W'th' b th t h d d . 5 u y , • 1 1n a year, o sta es a accepte 1ts terms. Soon after the formal acceptances were made, there arose in both .. states a controversy as to where the agricultural colleges were to be located. Older classical institutions, Dartmouth in New Hampshire and Bowdoin in Maine, eager to share in the Federal windfall, bid vigorously for the privilege of establishing the new colleges on their own campuses. But fear that the older colleges, with their tradition of classical scholarship, might not respect the spirit of the Morrill Act, led finally to decisions to establish independent institutions under state supervision~ A site on Marsh Island near the village of Orono was selected for the Maine State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. Money raised by the towns of Orono and Oldtown enabled the college to buy a farm with two sets of farm buildings. An additional $14,000 contributed by the good citizens of Bangor helped pay the expense of repair and erecting a classroom building. That building was quickly put up, a faculty of two 3u: s., 12 Statutes, 503. 5Merritt Caldwell Fernald, History of the Maine State College and the University of Haine (Orono, Haine: University of Haine, 1916), pp. 9-16; No author specified, History of the University of New Hampshire 1866 ..... 19LI1 (Rochester, N.H.: The Record Press, 1941), pp. 8-11. 6 Ibid., PP• 9~12; ~ernald, pp. 17-23. 120 7 was hired, and on September 21, 1868, the college enrolled its first class. New Hampshire, on the other hand, decided to build its college in Hanover. That decision was prompted by the offer of Dartmouth College to share with the state an estate willed to it by David Culver, a well-to-do farmer from neighboring Lyme. The estate, which included a sum of money and Culver's old farm, was to be used, as the will specified, " ••• for the establishment and continuance in perpetuity of an agricultural college." As for the property, Culver had directed that it be used as "an experimental and model farm in the science of agriculture, horticulture, and botany by a practical and scientific superintendent under the direction of the 8 board of trustees." Additionally, Dartmouth was willing to share its campus, certain facilities, and faculty, an offer with great appeal to a Legislature steeped in the tradition of Yankee thrift. Still another factor influential in the choice of a Hanover campus was that its location near the state boundary would enable the college to draw students both from New Hampshire and Vermont, thus promising larger enrollment. This arrangement was formalized in an agreement signed by representatives of Dartmouth and the state in April 1868~ 10 That fall the college admitted a class of ten. 7rbid., pp. 23-25. 8J. B. Walker, Warren F. Daniel, and Greenleaf Clarke, "Report of the Legislative Committee made to the Legislature of 1886 on the Removal of the College of Agriculture and Mechanic ArLs from Hanover", in New Hampshire Agriculture, Report of the New Hampshire State Board of Agri-culture, 1887-1888, p. 263. 9rb'd 263 265 lOU i ' f N H h' 22 __ 1_., pp. ,... • n versJ.ty o ew amps 1re, p. • 121 For both state colleges, those first few years were a time of trial. Enrollments were low. The faculties, though dedicated and able, were small and inexperienced. This and the general reluctance of the people's repre-sentatives to provide the colleges with more than a bare subsistence made for a precarious existence. The farmers themselves could be blamed for some of these troubles. Many farmers had a low regard for scholarly endeavor-and college professors. They could see no sense in sending the boy off to college to learn some-thing he could learn just as well or better by staying right at home. Besides, what could some smart-alecky professor in a stiff collar possibly know about milking cows or plowing a field? "There is," said a report by the New Hampshire State Grange in 1883, "too much fear yet of book learning."11 For these farmers, then, the colleges seemed like an extravanance, an expensive luxury that brought higher taxes and no lasting good. Overcoming the hostility of the farmers themselves thus became the Grange's first great challenge. Repeatedly at their annual sessions, the State Granges urged farmers to let their sons and daughters go off to college. A college education, farmers were told, was as important to them as any other class: "The husbandman needs agricultural colleges as much as the commercial men their commercial colleges, or professional men their 12 classical schools and colleges." A college degree brought respect and 11New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, lOth Annual Session, 1883, pp. 51-52. 12M . S G J 1 f P di 5 h A 1 S . ~~a1ne tate range, ourna o · rocee ngs, · t nnua · ess1on, 1878, p. 35. 122 public esteem in a society that placed great value on formal credentials~3 And furthermore, the many graduates of the state colleges who did not become farmers carried with them, nevertheless, warm feelings of respect born of four years' association with agricultural students: "Each of these graduates, whatever his business of profession ••• will be an intelligent 14 friend of the farmers." The abuse showered on the colleges at times, to be sure, came from persons who knew little about them. As a Maine State Grange committee commented: "It will not take them [these uninformed critics] more than five minutes to tell all they know about the College, while they will spend half a day of ·their valuable time telling what they don 1 t know ••• Their chief argument is that 'it don 1 t amount to nothing. 11 ' 15 Yet it was alao !:rue that the nevmess of the .:tgricultural curriculutn gave .:1 certain justification to the doubts that were raised. There were no textbooks or lesson guides. Instructional aids were not readily available. Indeed, in 1882 the New Hampshire Grange mentioned that the College needed 16 a skeleton for its anatomy classes. Instructors, furthermore, had had no formal experience in teaching agricultural science. Thus the colleges 13New Hampshire State Grange , Journal of Proceedings, 5th Annual Session, 1878, p. 5. 14Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1887, p. 67, 15Maine State Grang~, Journal of Proceedings, 19th Annual Session, 1892, p. 44. 16 Nm-1 Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 9th Annual Session, 1882, p. 41. 123 had yet tb prove themselves. It was in this period of trial and experi-mentation that the support of the Grange was perhaps most valuable. For many farm youths, as the Haine State Grange candidly admitted, a college education offered an escape from farm life. Among the college students, the departments of agriculture were the least popular and most poorly patronized. "Hany boys and girls," one committee wrote, "see nothing 17 attractive about the farm; to them it means nothing but drudgery." Con-sequently, two out of three went into engineering, the arts and sciences, medicine, or law rather than into agriculture. Even as general enrollment increased, that of the agricultural divisions continued to lag. By 1892, for example, 36% of the living graduates of the Maine State College had become engineers, 30% were doctors, lawyers, and clergy, and the others were in agriculture or some related field. Similarly, less than 25% of 18 the New Hampshire graduates in 1892 were farmers. Yet the Granges never faltered in their determination to build up the schools of agriculture. Year after y_ear, students were urged to attend. Discussions and talks at Grange meetings probably helped to awaken a general interest. In 1888, Dean C. H. Pattee of the New Hampshire State College, who was himself a Granger, persuaded the State Grange to mail leaflets to all Subordinate and Pomona Granges in the state describing 17Maine State Grange, 14th Session, pp. 44-45. 18 Fernald, p. 91; University of New Hampshire, p. 67. 124 19 the college and its courses. The State College, moreover, offered a free h 1 h . t b f G · h 20 sc o ars 1p o one mem er o every range 1n t e state. Apparently this cooperative effort paid off. At one point, Pattee stated that half the entering college class had come as a result of Grange influence. In 1912, State Master Richard Pattee reported that a record number of students hold-21 ing Grange scholarships were attending the college. The Maine State Grange in 1917 set up a special fund from which money at low interest was loaned to needy students. The loan was repaid once the student had graduated or left school for some other reason. A similar fund was estab-lished by the New Hampshire Grange in 1926:2 The financial woes of the colleges in those first struggling years received sympathy from the Granges at a time when the colleges got very short shrift from the legislatures. So serious had the plight of the Maine State College become by 1876 that the State. Grange asked all members in the legislature to "use all honorable means in their power as legislators to raise our agricultural college out of embarrassment ••• so long as it shall 19New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 15th Annual Session, 1888, pp. 35-36. 20The New England Homestead, September 23, 1911, p. 275. 21New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 39th Annual Session, 1912, p. 15. 22Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 44th Annual Session, 1917, p. 48; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 57th Annual Session, 1930, pp. 92-93; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 53rd Annual Session, 1926, pp. 88-89. 125 23 be conducted in the interest of the fanner." The 1877 appropriation \vas raised from the previous $8,000 to $15,218, but in 1878 it was reduced to $6,500 and then in 1879, a year of great political turmoil in Maine, the . 1 d . . 11 24 Leg1s ature rna e no appropr1at1on at a • This and the refusal of the State Grange members to ratify resolutions calling for_more funds for the College brought a stern reprimand from Haster Daniel Thing: ''I believe the State Agricultural College is doing good work for the agriculture of Maine. It should be sustained and encouraged by an Order like ours, composed wholly of agriculturalists ••• It is a burning shame and disgrace that the Agricultural College should present itself each year at the doors of a legislature elected by farmers, a humble supplicant, begging a mere pittance from the thousands that are profligately flung about a rewards to par-tisan leaders."25 Thereafter, state funds were available in larger and more regular amounts. Nevertheless, the Grange remained dissatisfied, feeling that the College ought not to depend "for financial support upon the impulse and vagaries of public sentiment." It favored giving the college a permanent 26 endowment. Eventually something like that was done. In 1890, an act 23Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 3rd Annual Session, 1876, p. 28. 24 Clarence A. Day, "Grange Yesterdays" (unpubli::;hed, undated manu'"" script in the University of Maine Library, Orono, N&ine), pp. 14-15. 25Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 6th Annual Session, 1879, p. 8. 26 Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 84. 126 of the Legislature granted the College a permanent annual income of $15,000, which within ten years was raised to $25,000. Though the College, which by 1897 had become the University of Haine, remained subject, of course, to legislative oversight, this law did add an element of stabili-. f. . 1 ff . 27 ty to ~ts ~nanc~a a a~rs. The Granges took a keen interest in what was taught at the state colleges. At first, they held very strongly to the view that practical agriculture and engineering subjects should be the core of the college curriculum. The New Hampshire State Grange declared in 1881: "The Agricultur.a1 College should be strictly devoted to instruction in agri-28 culture and the mechanic arts." In 1894 it decided that the College might "best subserve the interests of our state by teaching of agriculture and mechanic arts without the unnecessary adornments of a thorough classical education."29 All of this echoed the Declaration of Purposes of the National Grange: "We especially advocate for our agricultural and industrial colleges that practical agriculture, domestic science, and all the arts which adorn the home to be taught in the course of study."30 ~earing unforeseeable consequences, the New Hampshire Grange until quite late 27 Clarence A. Day, F~rming in Maine 1860~1940 (Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 1963), p. 230. 28New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 8th Annual Session, 1881, p. 58. 29New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 20th Annual Session, 1893, p. 78. 30National Grange, "Declaration of Purposes", in Charles M. Gardner, The _Grange, Friend of the Farmer (Hashington, 1). C.: The National Grange, 1949), pp. 517-519. 127 steadfastly opposed raising the College to university status. In 1910, for example, it insisted that no change be made in the name of the college "that eliminates 'agriculture' from a prominent place."31 In every instance, the Granges made certain that the farmers were given a strong voice in the management of "their" colleges. To ensure that the farmers' interests were adequately safeguarded, the Granges demanded that representatives of agriculture be elected to the boards of trustees of the institutions. In 1880, the New Hampshire State Grange asked that no fewer than five practical farmers sit as 32 trustees. In the same year, the Maine State Grange asked that the statutes governing the State College be amended so as to "require that a majority of its board of trustees be men whose leading business shall be . 1 . 1 1" ''33 pract~ca agr~cu tura ~sts. · As a matter of course,prominent farmers, in certain cases Grangers, were made college trustees. George A. Wason of New Boston, Master of the New Hampshire State Grange from 1876 to 1882, served as trustee for almost twenty years, and for a time as president of the board. Wason seems to have been especially influential in the work of the board. His successor as Master, Charles McDaniel, likewise was a trustee; he and Wason personally supervised the moving of the College 31New Hampshire S.tate Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 37th Annual Session, 1910, p. 105; The New England Homestead, February 18, 1911, p. 271. 32 New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 7th Annual Session, 1880, p. 80. 33Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, ·7th Annual Session, 1880, p. 36. 128 from Hanover to Durham. Other Granger trustees were Albert DeMerritt of Durham, Henry W. Keyes of Haverhill, Jeremiah W. Sanborn of Gilmanton, Lucien Thompson of Durham, Edward K. Wason of Nashua, Andrew F. Felker of Meredith Center, John W. Press of Alstead, and probably others. Nahum J. Bachelder acted as president ex-officio in the two years- he was governor of the state. Later, in 1905, he was elected a trustee and served until 1914~4 Several prominent Maine Patrons were trustees of that state's college, including Daniel K. Thing, Elisha B. Parkhurst, Rutillus Alden, Rufus Prince, and Benjamin F. Briggs~5 ~ny faculty and staff members at both colleges were members of the Grange. C. H. Pattee, Dean of New Hampshire State for half a century, was in the Grange. So too were Walter Balentine, the first professor of agriculture at Maine State College, anG. the farm superintendent Gilbert 36 M. Gowell. These personal ties greatly strengthened the bonds of respect and understanding between the colleges and the Granges to their mutual benefit. In New Hampshire, great dissatisfaction arose over the contract with Dartmouth College. To be sure, Dartmouth had treated the New Hampshire College with the utmost generosity by lending it the use of facilities and faculty and by bestowing upon it the Culve~t legacy. There remained, nonetheless, a lurking suspicion of the older institution, eppecially among the farmers, who feared it was bent on dominat;tng and eventually 34 Information furnished the Hriter by Hr. Robert B. Stone, Assistant Reference Librarian, University of New Hampsh.ire. 35:oay, ''Grange Yesterdays", pp. 15, 39. 129 swallowing up the younger college to the detriment of the state's agricultural interests. As early as 1880, the Grange, 'vhich led the outcry, was demanding that the two institutions be separated. "The Agricultural College," the Grange resolved, "should be strictly devoted to instruction in agriculture and the mechanical arts and should be entirely disconnected from any other institution in the expenditure of funds. 1137 Sentiment in favor of moving the New Hampshire College grew stronger in the next few years, and in 1885 the Legislature itself took a look at the problem. A committee was appointed and asked to make a report. That report, though highly critical of the Hanover arrangement, nevertheless stopped short of 38 recommending a new campus. But the Grange 'vas not content to let matters rest. 39 Instead, it launched au investigation of its own. The Grange report, which in certain ways was more thorough than that made to the Legislature, contained a detailed indictment of Dartmouth and the general situation of the Hanover campus. In the first place, it argued that Dartmouth's sharing of Culver Hall, a classroom building erected in 1870 with the support of Culver money, betrayed the intent of the Culver will. That money was meant only for the support of the school of agriculture and not for the benefit of any other scholastic program. Secondly, Dartmouth, though entitled by law and agreement to elect four trustees to the board of the New Hampshire College, in fact was repre~ 37New Hampshire State Grange, 7th Session, p. 80. 38walker et al., p. 285. 39uni .. ~~r~ity.of New Hampshire, p. 80. 130 sented by six. For these reasons, it was felt that Dartmouth exercised 40 unwarranted influence over the life of the state college. This feeling was shared most emphatically by the body of the State Grange, who resolved that "the trustees of the New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts ••• shall not be, at the same time, trustees of Dartmouth College." 41 There were other difficulties, according to the Grange report. For one, it argued that the snobbery of the Dartmouth students had a demoralizing effect on the students in the agriculture courses and suggested that this might be a cause of low enrollment. Furthermore, Hanover, on New Hampshire's extreme western boundary, was not readily accessible to students living elsewhere in the state. A more central location, at Tilton, for example, was desirable. And finally, the college farm was entirely unsuitable for instructional purposes and poorly adapted for experimental work. The report said that the farm "is a sort of castle in the air ••• too much theory and too little of practical knowledge." There was need for a f-arm where soil and plant life were more representative of conditions in the state. For all these reasons, it concluded that the choice of the Hanover campus had been a mistake. It recommended, therefore, the complete 42 removal of the ins.titution to a new campus. The state was understandably reluctant to assume the cost of buil-ding a new college. It even rejected the offer of land and buildings 40New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of ~roceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1887, pp. 76~77. 41Ibid., p~ 100. 42 · ... ·Ibid., pp. 76 ...... 77. 131 d d b 1 h 1 . T "1 43 exten e y a wea t y gent eman ~n 1 ton. Then in 1890, Benjamin Thompson of Durham, a well-to-do and progressive farmer, died and left the state his farm and a sum of money, mostly in securities, on the under-standing that the estate be used for the benefit of the College of Agri-culture. Since the state did not need and could hardly affort two such colleges, acceptance of the Thompson bequest was made possible only by moving the State College at Hanover to Durham. At first there was some hesitation, but the State Grange threw its weight in the balance, urging the 44 state to make the move. When the Legislature met in the spring of 1891, a special House committee, chaired by State Grange Secretary John D. Lyman of Exeter (near Durham), drew up the necessary legislation. The bill passed both houses, and was signed by Governor Busiel on April 10, 1891. A year was spent preparing the new campus and moving the college's -:..aggage from Hanover. The new college at Durham opened its doors in September 1893~ 5 Hardly had the State College settled in Durham when new troubles arose. Only shortly before, the trustees had selected Charles A. Murkland as college president, passing up, among other candidates, Nahmu J. Bach-elder, the Master of the State Grange. Murkland, a young but talented academician, was seemingly well qualified for the post, but his background in liberal arts made him automatically suspect in the eyes of the Grangers. 43uniyersity of New Hampshire, pp. 82-82; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 17th Annual Sess~o?, 1890, pp. 66-67. 44rbid., p. 14. 45university of New Hampshire, pp. 84~94; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of l'roceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891, pp. 66-67. 132 It is not surprising, then, that Murkland found himself embroiled in a quarrel with the Grange almost as soon as he took office. In his inaugural speech, Murkland made some blunt statements concerning the school of agri-culture. He noted, not without justification, that the agricultural curriculum lacked system and structure, that it was still, in a sense, untried and in an evolutionary state. But then he went on to say that the school of agriculture, being but one of five departments in the college, should get no more than its fair share, or one-fifth, of the college appropriation~ 6 These blithe remarks enraged the Grangers. Bachelder, his feelings ruffled by the man who held the job he had wanted, declared: "The various acts of Congress and of the New Hampshire Legislature and the bequests of Messrs. Conant, Culver, and Benjamin Thompson, all express or imply the advancem~nt of agriculture to !>e the chief object of the instit•.1tion at 47 Durham." Said the State Grange Committee on Education: "The whole tenor of [Murkland's] address ••• treats with contempt all attempts at teaching any-48 thing practical in the agricultural or mechanical departments." In the Grange's opinion, the agricultural department deserved not one-fifth but four-fifths of the college funds: "All that we ask for the agricultural course is just what an honest use of the fund, according to the intent of h d . ..49 t e onors, requ~res. 46university of New Hampshire, pp. 107-109. 47New Hampshire State Grange, 20th Session, pp. 22-23. 48New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 129. 49New Hampshire State Grange, 20th Session, pp. 66-67. 133 Significantly, these views were not shared by Scammell Grange of Durham, whose membership included several of the faculty and two trustees of the collegeo Murkland, according to a circular prepared by Scammell Grange, had been the unanimous choice of the trustees and was approved by the faculty, students, and the townspeople of Durham. Furthermore, as the report pointed out, there was an established equality between the divisions of mechanic arts and agriculture. The anti-Murkland forces were accused of seeking to disrupt that balance?0 Murkland, seeing what a row the Grange could make, pointedly re-£rained from further outburst. The school of agriculture expanded steadily in the remaining years of Murkland's administration. The Thompson School of Agriculture for two-year students was founded in 1895. In 1901, on the urging of the State Grange, money was appropriated for the building of Morrill Hall which ever since has housed the classrooms, certain laboratories, and the administrative offices of the College of Agriculture and the State E . s . 51 xtens~on erv1ce. The State Grange admitted in 1894 that it had found no "undue iP-fluence ••• being used to divert students from the agricultural 52 course." In general what evidence can be found in relevant editions of the State Grange Proceedings suggests that the Grange remained on cordial terms with the college. It was not by accident perhaps, however, that 50university of New Hampshire, p. 115. 51New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, pp. 10-11; University of Nevl Hampshire, pp. 137-138. 52New Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 95. 134 53 Murkland chose to resign in 1903, the year Bachelder became governor. The Granges took great interest in the course curriculum, not merely for the benefit of future farmers, but for their wives too. Repeatedly the colleges were urged to offer instruction for coeds in domestic science and "all the arts which adorn the home." The New Ramp-shire State Grange resolved in 1891, '~e particularly endorse the idea of 54 coeducation in school and college." Girls, it advocated, should be ad-mitted to the college on an equal basis with boys and given practical in-struction "in the chemistry of cooking, or the art of house making; the making of marketable cheese or gilt-edged butter; home sanitation, and mechanical arts."55 In 1894, the New Hampshire Grange called for a "distinct Course" in domestic science for girls~ 6 These suggestions were reiterated year after year, until finally in 1913, the State Grange announced that in home economics had begun the State 57 courses at College. A similar course had been set up at the University of Maine in 1908?8 The offering of short courses in agriculture and related fields to individuals who for some reason could not enter the four-year program was another innovation backed by the Grange. Such a course was instituted at 53u · . f N H h' 107 164 n1vers1ty o e~v amps 1re, pp. - • 54 New Hampshire State Grange, 18th Session, p. 128. 55N ew Hampshire State Grange, 17th Session, pp. 82-83. 56N ew Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 95. 57N ew Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 40th Annual Session, 1913, p. 79. 58 150. Fernald, p. 135 the New Hampshire State College in 1895 and at the University of Maine in 1903. In each case, admission standards were not so stringent as for the general college. A student graduated in two years with an associate degree. Those who so elected and who could meet the requirements were allowed to go on in the four-year course. The two-year schools proved very popular, resulting in a decided increase in enrollment in the agri-cultural divisions of both colleges. Of the 133 students enrolled in agriculture at the New Hampshire College in 1911, for example, half were 59 in the two-year school. Both State Granges, in addition supported the holding of winter institutes open to farmers, without examination require-ments, to enable them to get some formal education that would not other-i h b .bl 60 w se ave een pass~ e. The Granges kept close watch on the physical needs of the colleges. Once these needs were assessed, the information was passed along to the legislatures, where the Granges stood in a powerful position to get action. In 1894, for example, the New Hampshire State Grange expressed concern that the college facilities be adequate to support the work of the agri-cultural department. It recommended, too, the founding of a dairy school "for scientific and practical instruction" connected with the College and the Experiment Station~ 1 It was the Grange, moreover, which pointed 59 Ibid., pp. 257-258; University of New Hampshire, pp. 120-189; New England Homestead, July 4, 1903, p. 3; New Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 24. 60New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 19th Annual Session, 1892, p. 73. 61New Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 50. 136 to the College's need of a building for the College of Agriculture. This, as mentioned earlier, led to the erection of Morrill Hall~ 2 Through the efforts of the Grange and its allies, the college in the course of time obtained appropriations for girls' dormitories, a creamery, and a poultry barn. In 1910, the State Grange handed the Legis-lature a long list of the college's needs, including a new engineering building, a certified milk room, a dairy bacteriological laboratory, an all-weather pig house, a tool and implement shed, and the elimination of the Boston & Maine grade crossing on Main Street in Durham?3 The following year, it asked for a new course in poultry science and an up-to-date 64 poultry establishment, without delay. And in 1914 the State Grange urged every subordinate and Pomona Grange in the state to make contributions for f d b d h b - f h 11 l"b 65 a un to e use to pure ase text ooKs or t e co ege ~ rary. In time, the agricultural departments of the two colleges themselves expanded into full-fledged colleges under university administration with separate departments of horticulture, dairy, animal husbandry, forestry, poultry science, and (at Maine) veterinary medicine. The expansion of curriculum was accompanied by physical growth. Dr. Fernald, in his history 62New Hampshire State Grange, 27th Session, pp. 10-11; New Hamp-shire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 28th Annual Session, 1901, p. 17. 63New Hampshire State Grange, 37th Session, pp. 71-"12. 64New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 38th Annual Session. 1911, pp. 71-72; Maine State Grange, 14th Session, p. 68. 65New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 41st Annual Session, 1914, p. 94. 137 of the University of Maine, writes: "Between July, 1907, and December, 1908, the following buildings had been finished or were nearing completion for agricultural purposes: The new agricultural building and stock judging pavilion, farmhouse of ten rooms, a piggery ••• , a wagon shed, an incubator cellar ••• , a brooder house ••• , a poultry fattening and killing house ••• , and . 66 several poultry colony houses of various types." With their elaborate facilities, their herds and flocks of fine cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, and poultry, and the latest farm equipment, the colleges of agriculture coutd ex-pose their students to the most modern developments in agricultural science. Closely related to the expansion of the state colleges was the develop-ment of the experiment stations. From the start, the Granges took the position that the colleges had a research, as well as an instructional, duty to ~erform. They recognized that the college farms offered excellent facilities for carrying on experimental work for the general benefit of farmers throughout the two states. The movement to establish experiment stations in the United States owes its inception to Samuel W. Johnson, a chemist, who "spent a lifetime searching for the most effective ways to institutionalize research in agriculture." A student and later associate of John Pitkin Norton at Yale, Johnson in 1854 visited an experiment station at Moeckern in Germany begun by the government of Saxony. That facility, which operated under government charter, received public support and carried on a wide-ranging program of scientific research. The Germany precedent greatly impressed 66 Fernald, pp. 258-259. 138 Johnson, and served as a prototype for the experiment stations later established in the United States~ 7 The first in hnerica was the Connecticut State Agricultural Ex-periment Station created in 1876 by an act of the state legislature and located on the campus of Wesleyan College at Middleton. That was eleven 68 years before the passage of the Hatch Act. Slowly the idea took shape. In Maine and New Hampshire, the import-ance of research in agriculture was well appreciated. From the beginning, the college farms were used for experimental work directed by the professors of agriculture and the farm superintendents. At Orono, for example, barely a year after the State College opened, the professor of agriculture began the systematic testing of the seventy or more species of potatoes then 69 grown in Maine to determine which made the best money crops. At the New Hampshire College at Hanover, various experiments were run in the 1870's to test the yields of various fertilizers and feeds?0 Interest in a state-supported expe~iment station was especially keen among the Grangers in Maine. In 1881, the State Grange Committee on Edu-cation suggested that the college farm be officially designated an ex-periment station: "Instead of insisting that the college domain be farmed for dollars and cents, we should provide the means and then insist that it 71 shall be conducted ;in a manner to benefit Maine agriculture as a whole." 1881, 67 Knoblauch, et al., pp. 14-17 68Ibid., p. 22. 69 Day, Farming in Maine, p. 120. 70u · · f N H 1 . 48 L nlverslty o ew ampsllre, pp. -7 ~aine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 8th Annual Sessio~, p. 38. 139 It recommended that the chemistry department of the college be utilized in setting up a control station where commercial fertilizers could be tested to ensure that their contents conformed to the analysis printed on the container labe1?2 The experiment station question became a topic for general discussion among the lower Granges. Kennebec County Pomona Grange in June 1882 listened to Daniel Thing read an essay on that subject?3 The following Harch, the Waldo County Pomona Grange resolved in favor of an experiment station for testing fertilizers, seeds, and feeds? 4 And in Febru-ary 1884, the Pomona in Aroostook County seconded the call and announced it would seek the election to the next legislature of men who would work for it?5 One Granger who made the Experiment Station his own cause was none other than State Master Frederick Robie. In 1882 Robie was elected Governor of Maine. At his inaugural in January, he suggested that the college farm at Orono be used as an experiment station under the direction of the professors of agriculture and chemistry and that bulletins and circulars be used to diffuse the fruits of its labors among the farmers of the 76 state. Eventually, in 1885, he signed legislation which created the Maine Fertilizer and Control Station "for the purpose of protection from frauds in commercial fertilizers and rom adulterations in foods, feeds, and seeds, and for the purpose of promoting fertilizer control. •• " A Granger, Ziba 72 Ibid. 73 The Maine Farmer, June 29, 1882. 74The Haine Farmer, March 8, 1883. 75The Dirigo Rural, February 19, 1884. 76Bangor Whig and Courier, January 5, 1883. 140 77 Gilbert, was appointed one of the station's managers. The Hatch Act of 1887 was but another milestone along the road of federal legislation enacted for the benefit of agriculture. Earlier mile-stones had included the Homestead Act, the Harrill Land-Grant College Act, and the law establishing the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The Hatch Act, which had the vigorous backing of the Granges, provided federal support for experiment stations "to be established under the direction of the colleges of agriculture in each State or Territory ••• " The payments to each state, amounting to $15,000 per annum, were subsequently increased by 78 later acts of Congress. As for the Congressional purpose, the law provided: ••. it shall be the object and duty of said experiment stations to conduct original researches or verify experiments on the physiology of plants and animals; the diseases to which they are severally subject, with the remedies for the same; the chemical composition of useful plants at their various stages of growth; the comparative advantages of rotative cropping as pur-sued under a varying series of crops; the capacity of new plants or trees for acclimation; the analysis of soils and water; the chemical composition of manures, natural or artificial, with experiments designed to test their comparative effects on crops of different kinds; the adaptation and value of grasses and forage plants; the composition and digestibility of different kinds of food for domestic animals; the scientific and economic questions involved in the production of butter and cheese, and such other researches or experiments bearing directly on the agricultural industry of the United States as may in each case be deemed advisable, having due regard to the varying conditions and needs of the respective States or Territories.79 77 78 Day, p. 244. Knoblauch et al., p. 52. 79 U. s., 24 Statutes, 440. 141 Once the Hatch Act was signed, the State Granges immediately pressed the states to take the federal offer. This acceptance came very quickly. The Maine Experiment Station simply took over the work and facilities of the station already being operated by the state at Orono. New Hampshire's Experiment Station originally was located in Hanover. The cornerstone was laid there in June 1887, in ceremonies conducted by the State Grange. Later, however, the Experiment Station was moved to Durham along with 80 the State College. The Granges, needless to say, took great interest in the work of the experiment stations. Farmers were advised to read the bulletins and, h 'bl . . 1 . 81 wen poss~ e, to v~s~t t1e stat~on. Subordinate Granges were urged to 82 submit problems for study by station personnel. Later, in Maine, with the support of the State Grange, a second experiment station was set up in 83 Presque Isle to meet the special needs of farmers in Aroostook County. Committees of Grangers worked closely with the experiment stations. The Maine Experiment Station in 1889 invited the Grange to send represen-tatives to advise on its \·wrk~4 Additionally, Grangers in both states sat as representatives on the boards of control of the stations. Whitman H. Jordan, the first director of the Maine Experiment Station, was a 80 Day, pp. 244-245; University of New Hampshire, p. 56. 81New Hampshire State Grange, 15th Session, p. 17. 82New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 16th Annual Session, 1889, p. 45. 83 Fernald, pp. 276-277. 84~1 · S G J 1 f P d' 16th A 1 S . ca~ne tate range, ourna o rocee ~ngs, nnua · ess~on, 1889' p. 61. 142 Grange member, as was his successor Charles D. Woods and the farm superintendent Gilbert M. Gow~ll. Grangers serving on the Council were 85 Nelson Ham, Isaac 0. Winslow, Otis Meader, and B. Halker McKeen. In New Hampshire, George A. Hasan and Nahum Bachelder likewise were on the d f C 1 f h . 86 Boar o ontro o t at stat~on. The Grange committees kept a close eye on the work and management of the experiment stations. In 1890, a committee of the New Hampshire Grange reported that the College and the Experiment Station were "working in unison with our farming interest." The report described the Station, its facilities, and its work in considerable detail~ 7 But in 1894, the Committee found great fault with the new station at Durham. The farm was "in exhausted condition." The cattle in the college dairy were "not equal to a pla~e in the ideal herd ~ve shoul0. picture for a state college." And finally, it complained that salaries at the Station were much too high: "The results shown us at the station ••• seemed totally inadequate to the 88 sum expended." By and large, however, the Granges and the experiment stations remained on good terms. A related development was the beginning of the college extension service. The Granges, in a fashion, had pioneered in this work by opening their meetings to speakers from the state colleges. In this way, 85 Day, "Grange Yesterdays", p. 39. 86Information provided by Mr. Stone of the University of New Hamp-shire Library. 87New Hampshire State Grange, 17th Session, p. 53. 88New Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 96. 143 stay-at-home farmers were given the chance to learn some of the things that were being taught at the university and an opportunity to ask the experts for advice. Both State Granges, furthermore, at one time or another, offered short courses in agricultural subjects, usually taught by college professors. In 1907, the University of Maine hired its first extension agent, who, as the State Grange reported, "is now devoting his whole time to the work of teaching the farmer." Sixty demonstration meetings were held 89 that year all over Maine, many in cooperation with local Granges. In 1910, the Maine State Grange urged the National Grange to support Federal funding of extension work?0 That same year, Richard Pattee of the New Hampshire State Grange stated that agricultural extension ought to be available in the Granite State. He urged state appropriations that would permit professors to meet the farmers on their farms and in their assemblies?1 The New Hampshire Extension Service was established by the state college in 1911?2 With the steady expansion of the facilities and enrollment of the colleges of agriculture, whatever dangers to their existence, real and imaginary, feared by the Grange apparently vanished. As this happened, 89Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 34th Annual Session, 1907, pp. 95-96. 90Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 37th Annual Session, 1910, p. 87. 91New Hampshire State Grange, 37th Session, p. 19. 92university of New Hampshire, p. 184. 144 the Grangers became less defensive and more willing to accept a broader concept of the colleges' public responsibilities. Their attitude came to be that the universities were public institutions meant not merely for farmers and mechanics but for all the people of the state. A report to the Haine State Grange in 1908 called the Ideal University "one where all the people can, if they so desire, receive instructions in the various d . d . "93 arts an ~n ustr1es. In 1911, the New Hampshire State Grange declared: "The New Hampshire College is manifestly a part of the public school system of the state and its work should be broad enough to include all the indus-94 tries in which the people of the state are engaged." And in 1923, that same body made no protest when the State Legislature formally decided to rename the institution the University of New Hampshire? 5 93M . s G J 1 f p d. 35th A 1 SA . a1ne tate range, ourna o rocee ~ngs, nnua cSS~on, 1908, pp. 123-124. 94New Hampshire State Grange, 38th Session, pp. 72-73. 95The New England Homestead, July 14, 1923. CHAPTER 6 THE GRANGE A1~ THE COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT The Grange worked tirelessly to awaken interest in cooperative effort in rural areas. It made this commitment in ringing terms in the Declaration of Purposes: We propose meeting together, talking together, working together, buying together, and in general, acting together for our mutual protection and advancement, as occasion may require.l Only in this way could farmers hope to deal on equal terms with the power-ful.organized interests that dominated the nation's economic and social life. As Dudley Chase told the New Hampshire State Grange at its titird annual session: "The greatest needs of the agric).llturalist are association, combination, and cooperation." 2 Joint business ventures by no means were the sum and end of the Grange's interest in a stronger association of farmers. Just as import-ant were its efforts to encourage political and social reform through cooperative action. Cooperation was seen as the best means of promoting 1National Grange, "Declaration of Purposes", in Charles M. Gardner, The Grange, Fri~nd of the Farmer (Washington, D. C.: The National Grange, 194.9)' pp. 517-519. 2New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 3rd Annual Session, 1876, pp. 8-9. 145 146 the general welfare of the rural community and not merely as a way to greater farm profits. Nevertheless business cooperatives did receive the attention of the Grange. In this important field, the Grange broke the trail later followed by more successful farm organizations. The principal targets of Grange cooperative activity were the brokers, processors, railroads, wholesalers, and retailers who acted as inter-mediaries between the farmer and his markets. To be sure, certain of these middlemen performed important services in arranging for the collec-tion, packaging, and distribution of farm products to the consumers in the quantity and quality desired. Horeover, in buying and storing large quantities of farm commodities,_ they assumed a financial risk that the farmers would othe~~ise have been obliged to bear. The farmers, however, remaineci convinced Lhat numerous middlemen were but parasites who collected fees for non-essential and at times non-existent services. One angry Haine farmer wrote: "We are under no obligation to patronize every lazy loafer that hangs out his shingle or rides around the country with a sewing machine in his uagon drumming up a trade 50% above the worth of it."3 By organizing his own marketing system, simplifying it, and operating it himself, the farmer hoped to "dispense with a surplus of middlemen,"4 and thus to cut his own costs. As it was, he saw most of what his cust-omers paid for food and clothing going for transportation, interest, 3The Haine Fpapers soliciting oru.:rs frulll 76 growers in the area. Some time later, a wool and lamb pool \vas organized by several Aroostook Granges. Instead of dickering individually with the wool buyers, members brought their wool in bags to a central point where it was taken in charge by the Grange representative, who arranged for its shipment and sale in the Boston market? 7 Queen City Grange in Bangor considered selling hay, the plan being to ship it to a commission house in Boston. By pooling their hay, members were expected to save something on t . d . . 78 ransportat1on an commJ.ssJ.ons. It is not clear if this idea worked 75The Organized Farmer of Maine, August 19, 1920, p. 6. 76The Presgue Isle Sunrise, February 23, 1876. 77The Dirigo Rural, July 5, 1884. 78The Dirigo Rural, February 2, 1884. 170 out. And in 1907, Houlton Grange sponsored a Cooperative Wool Exchange which sold members' wool to wholesalers based on competitive bids. Profits from the pool were distributed among members according to the 79 amount of wool each put into the pool. This slow start was hardly the fault of the State Grange. As a matter of fact, that Grange worked tirelessly to encourage more systema-tic marketing of farm produce. It was particularly interested in fruit marketing. The fruit growers usually negotiated individually with the buyers, each arranging his mv-n terms and conditions. Consequently, there was considerable disparity in the prices paid the various fruit farmers around the state. On top of that, lack of standards in grading, packaging, and inspecting was having an injurious effect on the reputa-tion of Maine-grown produce in markets out-of-state. The Grange warned the growers that their failure to unite let the buyers have things their h . h h d f d 11 . . 1 f. 80 own way, t us costLng t em t ousan s o o ars Ln potentLa pro Lts. The Grange was similarly interested in the marketing of potatoes, dairy products, and poultry. But putting together an effective marketing organization was much more difficult than opening a store or some other sort of buyers' cooperative. The latter might be organized on a local or county basis, but selling cooperatives required a more extensive base. For one thing, such a cooperative needed to secure control over a proportion of the 79 The New England Homestead, May 25, 1907. 80Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, p. 53; Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 34th Annual Session, 1907, pp. 68-69. 171 given commodity sufficiently large to enable it to put significant pressure on market prices. This often meant obtaining the coopera-tion of thousands of farmers. The problem of organizing a cooperative in these circumstances can be readily appreciated. To hold crops off a market threatened by oversupply required buildings and elevators to store the surplus. Since farm commodities tend to be bulky or perishable, the latter case requiring refrigeration, the costs of storage could be very great. Furthermore, the cooperative needed the financial means for loans or payments to farmers on the crops being stored for them. This was to enable farmers to pay debts and meet other short-term expenses in times when the markets could not immediately absorb their crops. Thus a marketing cooperative needed substantial fanancial resources just to get started. But more important, it needed the backing of the farmers themselves, which was not always easy to get. In Maine there was particularly strong interest in finding efficient means of disposing of potatoes. Potato ~arketing was a frequent topic of discussion by the Granges in Aroostook County. Aroostook Pomona, for example, took up the issue at a meeting in September, 1882. 81 Houlton Grange on February 25, 1900 discussed cooperative selling with "a good deal of enthusiasm." Some time later, there was a suggestion for forming a farm stock company to handle potatoes for the Houlton members, t.he feeling being that the farmers were not getting enough in the Boston market after deduction for commissions and transportation. The Aroostook 81The Maine Farmer, September 14, 1882. 172 Potato Growers' Association was organized at a meeting of the Aroostook and Penobscot Union Pomona Grange in Houlton on June 23, 1911. The leading officers in the Association were for the most part 82 Grangers, including Guy C. Porter, the Haster of the Houlton Grange. The Potato Growers' was essentially a shippers' organization which was expected to: (1) Establish conditions whereby anyone desiring might buy Aroostook potatoes true to name. (2) Develop old markets and find new ones for Aroostook products. (3) Ascertain crop conditions and supply information to members. (4) Secure pure potato seed at low prices. (5) Buy and sell or manufacture all kinds of supplies. (6) Buy and sell and consign all kinds of farm produce. (7) Arrange for the transport and handling of all producers' crops in the best possible manner. (8) OWn or lease and operate storage warehouses and packaging . 83 houses. The Potato Growers' Association did not live up to these grand expectations, but it was followed by organizations that carried the work forward. One was the Aroostook Federation of Farmers, founded in Feb-ruary, 1919 after a disastrous selling year when potato prices fell below the cost of production. Angered by the market's behavior and by 82Cl' . 1.pp1.ngs in Houlton Grange Scrapbook dated February 25, 1900 and May 4, 1911. 83Ibid. 173 the high price of fertilizer, the farmers decided to take action on their own. The Federation began buying and selling potatoes in the fall. It also went into the manufacture of fertilizers. Eventually the Federa-tion turned over its role as a potato-selling agent to the ill-fated Maine Growers' Association, but it continued to sell fertilizer. Big mixing plants were opened in Caribou and later in Stockton Springs, and for years afterwards, the Federation remained the biggest fertilizer dealer in Aroostook County. It was and remains a cooperative. Many Grangers undoubtedly belonged to it, but it was not so closely related to the 84 Grange as its predecessor had been. Most significant of all Grange endeavors in the cooperative field was the Maine Farmers' Union. In no way related to the National Farmers' Union, this group had its beginnings on Long Island, New Yor~. ThP~e in 1909 certain farmers proposed that the potato growers in Maine and New York cooperate in some form of marketing arrangement. A circular summarizing the proposals was sent out to Granges in the two states. The New Yorkers seem to have lost interest in the idea, but in Maine there was greater persistence. The Maine Commissioner of Agriculture hired the sales manager of the Long Island Potato Producers' Association and put him to work. The result was the forming of the Farmers' Union in 1911. 85 84 The New England Homestead, May 24, 1919, p. 8; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 47th Annual Session, 1920, pp. 125-126; Presque Isle Star-Herald, Mar~h 14, 1935. 85 The New England Homestead, August 3, 1912, pp. 78-79. 174 The Maine Farmers' Union was essentially a system of farmers' exchanges each of which was involved in buying and selling activities on behalf of its members. The Union's headquarters were in Waterville. Each local union or exchange was incorporated under the laws of Maine with $10,000 in capital. Stock was sold to raise money whenever the exchange needed it. Several exchanges owned storage warehouses, and the Union itself bought a big distributing house in Charlestown, Massachusetts, where produce was shipped for distribution in the Boston metropolitan area~6 The member exchanges controlled the parent union by electing repre-sentatives to a board of directors. Executive responsibility was vested in a manager whose duties were to: (1) Provide markets for products offered by locals. (2) Keep locals informed concerning market and crop conditions. (3) Obtain satisfactory railroad car service. (4) Buy all farm supplies, such as farm machinery, feed, and 87 fertilizers for the member exchanges. In brief, the State Farmers' Union acted as agent on behalf of the local exchanges. By 1917 there were 109 farmers' exchanges in Maine. Most were doing well, some were paying healthy dividends on their stock. Each sold a variety of things: grass seed, insecticide, blue vitriol, paints, oils, 86The National Grange Honthly, September, 1915, p. 3. 87The New England Homestead, August 3, 1912, pp. 78-79. 175 grease, roofing paper, groceries, sugar, ensilage cutters, silos, 88 and more. An exchange was in truth the farmer's one-stop supermarket. Though not officially connected with the State Grange, the Farmers' Union was nevertheless very much a Grange business. The Grange was heavily represented on the board of directors. Grangers owned some three-fourths of its stock. Numerous exchanges were owned by specific Granges. The Central Maine Cooperative Association, for one, \vas made .. up 89 of four Piscataquis County Granges. Green Hountain Pomona helped establish a store in Ellsworth. The New Sweden Grange Produce Company, founded in 1911, owned two potato houses and shipped potatoes for its members. The Company also sold fertilizer and grass seed at a "great saving."90 The Androscoggin Patrons' Cooperative Association in Auburn 91 also helped its members in shipping their potatoes~ Numerous Grangers bought shares to raise money used to build the Maine Farmers' Exchange in Lewiston in 1921. In the words of a Grange report, the Farmers' 92 Union was "simply the business end of the Grange." 88Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 44th Annual Session, 1917, p. 79. 89 rbid.; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 42nd Annual Session, 1915, pp. 89-91; Maine State Grange, Journal of PrEceedings, 43~d Annual Session, 1916, p. 79. 90The Ne\v England Homestead, August 10, 1912, p. 107; The National Grange Monthly, May, 1913, p. 8. 91The Nelv England Homestead, September 23, 1911, p. 273. 92Maine State Grange, 44th Session, p. 80. 176 On occasion, the Farmers' Union kept large quantities of apples in cold storage, selling them later in the season when prices went up. At other times, it was able to save its members as much as four dollars a ton on fertilizer and to obtain supplies of particular fertilizers that were otherwise not available. This it did by dealing directly with a big company in Baltimore. It also bought grain from an elevator in Oneida, New York, and flour in bulk from a wholesaler in Illinois~ 3 Farmers' Exchanges were organized in New Hampshire too, but there much of the work was done by the Farm Bureau. Exchanges were located in Sullivan, Rockingham, and Merrimack Counties, Eventually the Merrimack Farmers' Exchange of Concord and the Eastern States Farmers' Exchange of Wes~ Springfield, Massachusetts, emerged as the triumphant competitors, and eventually most of the exchanges were tal~en over by those two big . 94 cooperat1ves. This is not to say that the New Hampshire Grange 'vas inactive. As a matter of fact it was quite active in promoting the organization of other and more specialized farm organizations. Its work with the Farm Bureau will be considered in a later chapter. Many Grangers were directly involved in the founding of the State Horticultural Society. The same was true of the Granite State Dairymen's Association and the New Hamp-shire Sheep Breeders' Association~ 5 93 rhe National Grange Honthly, September, 1915, p. 3. 94Lawrence A. Carlisle, Farmers' Buying and Selling Organizations in New Hampshire (Concord, N. H.: State Department of Agriculture, 1922), pp. 7-13. 95New Hampshire Agriculture, 23rd Annual ·Report of the New Hampshire State Board of Agriculture, 1893-1894, pp. 338-339. 177 In 1921, the Grange took part in creating the New Hampshire Cooperative Marketing Association in Concord. First president of that association was State Grange Master Fred Rogers of Meriden. Its general manager was James C. Farmer, also prominent in the Grange. Farmer, who eventually became Lecturer of the National Grange, was one of the pioneers . h ' 1 1 k . f' ld ' N H h' 96 1n t e agr1cu tura mar et1ng 1e 1n ew amps 1re. The New England Milk Producers' Association, organized in 1911, worked closely with the Granges in trying to help farmers gain greater control over the marketing and pricing of dairy products. Richard Pattee, a two-term Master of the New Hampshire State Grange, acted as secretary of the Milk Producers' Association from its founding until his death in 1926. Pattee often spoke at Grange meetings on behalf of the Association. He himself wrote that getting farmers to join N.E.M.P.A. was easiest in towns where there 97 were active Granges. In these ways, the Grange found it more expedient to serve the farmer's specialized needs by encouraging these other farm organizations, reserving for itself the role of a fraternal and social organization, just as Kelley had envisioned at the beginning. This policy was summarized for the Maine State Grange in a report dated January 10, 1918. Said that document, the Grange "stands and will always stand for the great fundamen-tal principles of agriculture along educational lines. We believe that 96The National Grange Monthly, Marc~ 1921, p. 13; May, 1924, p. 21; January, 1926, p. 11. 97 Knapp, p. 410; New Hampshire Sta.te Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 24th Annual Session, 1897, pp. 19-20; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, -43rd Annual Session, 1916, p. 8. 178 the State Grange cannot do the work of the Farmers 1 Union, the Ne>v England Milk Producers' Association, the Fruit Growers' Association, or other allied organizations, but it will in the future, as it has in the past, educate its membership to enable them to organize for specific objects along agricultural lines."98 In Haine, as in New Hampshire, the Grange stood behind the other farmers' associations. Mention has already been made of N.E.}!.P.A., the Farmers' Union, and the Potato Growers' Association. Others worthy of mention include the Sweet Corn Growers, the Haine Fruit Growers' Exchange, and the Sheep and Wool Growers' Association~ 9 The Grange was the great mother of them all. From her sprang these numerous groups and societies. It was in the Grange, moreover, that farm leaders of a later generation received the training that enabled them to carry forward the work so nobly begun by that grand old lady. 98Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 45th Annual Session, 1918, p. 39. 99Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 46th Annual Session, 1919, p. 14; Maine State Grange, 49th Session, p. 113. CHAPTER 7 THE GRANGE IN PUBLIC LIFE The Granges fully appreciated the importance of direct political action as a means of achieving the social and economic goals set forth in their various proclamations. Only by actively participating in public life could farmers ensure the protection and advancement of their interests. The Declaration of Purposes, to be sure, forbade use of the Grange itself as a vehicle for strictly political ends. "No Grange," the proclamation read, "if true to its obligation, can discuss partisan or sectarian ques-tions, nor call political conventions, nor nominate candidates, nor even discuss their merits." But joining the Grange by no means absolved a member of his duty as a citizen. Each Patron was enjoined to "take a proper interest in the political life of his country." Each who was eligible was urged to join a political party and "to do all he can to put down bribery, corruption and trickery; to see that none but com-petent, faithful, and honest men, who will unflinchingly stand by our 1 interests are nominated for all positions of trust." Granges were at full liberty to discuss town warrants and legislation, to consider matters of taxation, education, roads, and indeed all issues of concern to the 1 National Grange, "Declaration of Purposes," in Charles M. Gardner, The Grange-- Friend of the Farmer (Washington~ D. C.: National Grange, 1949), pp. 516-518. 179 180 public. Grange ne\vspapers in Haine and Ne\v Hampshire, as a matter of fact, frequently carried articles, letters, and editorials which en-dorsed candidates for public office. The Grange Herald printed poli-tical advertisements of candidates running in the Maine state elections: In Maine and New Hampshire, ~any farmers apparently felt they had no real voice in politics. The Dirigo Rural complained in 1879, for example, that the major parties courted the farmer's favor but refused to allow him his share of public offices~ The Grange told farmers in clear language that if they wanted anything in politics, they would have to fight for it. It was not enough to sit comfortably in a Grange hall passing resolutions. Said New Hampshire State Master Charles McDaniel in 1886: You may 'whereas' and 'resolve' on paper until doomsday, and the returns will not pay for the paper and ink, but when you say to your candidate he cannot have your vote and you mean what you say, it will not be long before you will be recognize~ and better men will be placed before you for support.4 In Saco, Maine, where rural interests clashed with city politicos, the local Grange told its members to attend the mayoralty caucuses, to be certain that candidates sympathetic to the farmer were nominated: And 2The Grange Herald, August, 1938, p. 14. 3The Dirigo Rural, August 9, 1879. 4New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 13th Annual Session, 1886, p. 32. S~oy F. Fairfield, Sands, Spindles, and Steeples (Portland, Maine: House of Falmouth, 1956), p. 221. 181 in 1891, the Lecturer of the Maine State Grange, W. S. Stetson, called on the brethren to throv their influence into the elections, "to stand shoulder to shoulder where votes count the most," and thus to make cer-tain that candidates who could be counted on to stand with the farmer were put into public office~ Through its programs and activities, the Grange sought to inculcate a sense of civic responsibility. Ceremonies honoring the American flag were a regular feature of Grange meetings. National holidays were cele-brated with appropriate readings, skits, the singing of patriotic songs, and essays and speeches. Portraits of Washington, Lincoln, and other celebrated Americans adorned the walls of every Grange hall. Grange meetings were conducted in democratic fashion. Debates and discussions followed strictly parliamentary procedure. No question, however trifling, was brought to a conclusion without the proper sequence of motions and secondings. Every member was encouraged to speak his mind. Once discussion of a problem had ended, resolutions embodying the conclu-aons were submitted for the final decision of the members. An example of how meetings were conducted is contained in the records of the Saco Grange. The discussion involved plans for a clam supper. This is how the minutes of the meeting read: Voted, to have a "clam chowder" Thursday evening, February 18, if not stormy weather. Voted, if stormy Thursday evening, to have the chowder Friday evening. 6 Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891,, p. 32. 182 Voted, that a committee on clams and chm~der be appointed by the Master. Master appoints the Committee. Voted, to reconsider the vote whereby Thursday Evening was declared for the Clam Chowder. Voted, not to have it Tuesday Evening. 7 Voted, to have the chowder Honday Evening. Grange officers were nominated and elected in the usual democratic way. Committees appointed by the Haster supervised the various details of Grange work, just as was done in the legislatures. In this way, as Maine State Haster Robie remarked, the Grange prepared its members "for active participation in the town meetings, convention, and the legislature."8 There was no parallel in New England to the rise of Granger parties in the mid,.;rest in the 1870 1 s. Nor did the Populists or the Nonpartisan League find support among farmers in the hill country. Rather than organize third parties, farmers in Maine and New Hampshire, for the most part, preferred to stay with the Republican and Democratic parties. For a brief time, many farmers in Haine and a relative few in New Hampshire were active in the Greenback: movement, but as will be shown here shortly, farmers in the two states were by no means unanimously in favor of the Greenbackers. In the general course of history, it can be said with assurance that the Greenback episode was rather an exceptional occurence of short duration and no lasting political significance in Haine and New 7quoted in Fairfield, p. 196. 8 The Haine _Fa_EEJ.er, August 2!+, 1878; Maine State Grange, .:!_<;>~_1 of Proceedings} 15th Annual Session, 1888, p. 14. 183 Hampshire. Most farmers remained loyal to the old parties throughout the Greenback era; those Hho went over to the Greenback cause returned when the movement died. Robie in 1887 remarked that the farmers had been served well by the old parties and therefore had no need for forming one of their mvn? Hhen Granges first appeared in ,New England, it was widely suspected that the local farmers, like their Midwestern brethren, were actually or-ganizing political clubs. Some indeed saw in Grangerism the ghost of the old Know Nothing Party, which had flourished briefly in New Hampshire in the 1850's. This led in Ne\v Hampshire, as was noted earlier, to the nomination of a farmer for governor by the Republicans in 1874. The nominee McCutchins was narrowly defeated; not until 1902, with their nomination of Nahum Bachelder, did the New Hampshire Republicans again select a farmer to head their state ticket~0 In Maine, where in 1874 the Grange had made S\veeping gains, the Republicans at their fall convention 11 put together a platform which "bowed low-in the direction of the Grange." It should be noted here that the Democratic party was by no means moribund in either state. As a matter of record, that party cownanded a substantial following in both Haine and New Hampshire and often gave the Republicans a good fight at the polls. 9 Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1887, p. 23. 10 See Chapter 2. 11Richard A. Hebert, Modern Haine (2 vols., New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1951), I, 238. 184 It was in the late 1870's that the Greenback movement swept over the country. The party's advocacy of currency inflation as a means of raising commodity prices appealed very much to many fa~mers who, with men from other trades, joined by the thousands. Apparently Grangers in the West and South swelled the party's ranks. The National Grange, furthermore, came out squarely in favor of the remonetization. of silver; 2 but the New England Granges ·were not so sure. The Kennebec Journal stated that eastern farmers believed in "paying the debts of the country squarely and making d ld 1113 our money as goo as go • The New Hampshire State Grange, in fact, insisted that the dollar not be inflated and that all debts be honestly 'dl4 pal. • In retrospect, it is evident that the Greenback movement was of little significance in New Hampshire. A state party was organized and twice, in 1878 and 1880, held nominating conventions. Its gubernatorial choice each time ~vas not a farmer, but Warren G. Brown of \fuitefield, 15 the founder and president of the Brown Brothers Lumber Company. In 1878, when the currency controversy was reaching a frenzied pitch, the Republicans, fearing that votes might be lost to the Greenbackers, and 12N ' 1 G J 1 f P d' 11 h A 1 S . at1.ona range, ourna o rocee 1.ngs, t nnua ess1on, 1877, p. 69. 13The Kennebec Journal, June 17, 1874. 14New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 4th Annual Session, 1877, pp. 28-29. 15Ezra Scollay Stearns, Genealogical and Family History of the State of New Hampshire (4 vols., New York: Lewis Publishing Company, 1908), IV, 1558-1559. 185 thus give the election to the Democrats, decided to run a candidate who was >vell known in the rural to,ms. The man whom the Republicans nominated for governor was Natt C. Head of Hooksett, a member and one-16 time master of the Hooksett Grange. This gentleman, one biographer wri.tes, "is remembered as the 17 courteous, genial, generous Natt Head, the fri.end of everyone." Head had various connections with agriculture in New Hampshire. He had been a member and president of the State Agricultural Society. Thanks to his effort, furthermore, a farmers' convention, the first in the state's his-tory, had been held in Hanchester in 1868. He was also in the Grange, and seems to have been a frequent speaker at farmers' meetings around the state. Head himself was not a farmer but a businessman '"ho owned a brick and lum-her yard in Hooksett. He was a director of the First National Bank of Manchester, also the Suncook Valley Railroad. Besides his Grange affili-a tion, Head >'laS an Odd Fellow, a Free Mason, and indeed belonged to a number of societies and fraternal ordeLs. During the Civil War, despite his lack of prior military experience, Head had been appointed first the chief of staff of the state militia, then quartermaster general, inspector, and finally adjutant general in the state's military department. In the postwar period, he worked zealously on behalf of the ,.,.ar veterans and thus 16Hobart Pillsbury, New Hampshire: Resources, Attractions, and Its People: A Histor:.r (5 vols., New York: The Lewis Historical Company, Inc., 1927), II, 596-597. 17George H. Moses, New Hampshire Men: A Collection of Biographical Sketches with Portraits of Sons and Residents of the State who have becon~- knm,rrl in c._c:_::;~mercial 7 ~rof~_ssional a_~ Political Life (Concord, N.H.: The New Hampshire Publishing Company, 1893), p. 86. 186 ingratiated himself \vith the Grand Army of the Republic~·8 In brief, Natt Head was on good terms with just about everyone who counted for the Republicans at election time. And in fact the record indicates that Head was an ambitious politician, of not too savory character, whose chief concern \vas the winn;ing of public office. Head had been elected to the State Senate in 1875 but had been forced by a legal technicality to relinquish his seat. Convinced he had been cheated, Head ran the following year determined that nothing should spoil his chances, even if it cost a little money. It was in this spirit that he wrote a supporter in the neighboring to\-ln of Chester in March, 1876, exhorting him to do everything necessary to get votes. Head wrote: I understand Dana Sargent and his friends are at work night and day. I don't know many in your town and want you to help me out what you can. If )'I)U know any man that can use a little money to get roy name on the Democrats [illegible] tell me who he is and set him at work. Let him get his men. You can furnish him with stickers. Tell him to pay them after they have voted. That is the. way the others are going to do. I will furnish you the money. I don't want to get beat this year but shall unless we can get in some extra votes. They are going for me sharp.l9 How much money, if any, actually changed hands is not known, but Head won the election and went on to become President of the Senate. Head was an alcoholic and at one time seems to have got into some trouble with the Internal Revenue Service. Nevertheless, he had the political assets the party wanted, and despite the misgivings of some party men, including 18Jbid.; D. Hamilton Hurd, ed., History of Merrimack and Belknap Counties, l1e\,r Hampshire (Philadelphia: J. H. Le·dis & Co., 1885)pp. 385-388. 19New Hampshire Historical Society Collections, William E. Chandler fapers, Box No. 17, Natt Head to (?) Noyes, March 8, 1876. 187 20 William E. Chandler, the convention nominated him in September. Head won the election with no difficulty. Brown got fe\ver than 6,500 votes, a very weak showing indeed compared to the Greenback candidates in M . 21 aJ.ne. The Manchester Mirror and Farmer, whose editor, Clarke, \vas both a Granger and a Republican, called Head's election "a snatching of victory 22 from the j a\vS of defeat." The Greenback tide, which virtually inundated Maine, had been decisively turned back in New Hampshire. Never again was it to pose a political threat of any sort in the Granite State. As governor, Head did little for agriculture. His inaugural address flatly rejected Grange ideas on several issues. Head took special pains to remind his audience that less than 50% of the state's working popula-tiori was employed in agriculture. Though promising to "deal generously with any plan which has seemed calculated to advance iLs agricultural interests," Head had nothing concrete to offer his farmer supporters. In-stead, he recommended legislation that would encourage the development of water power, pr.omote the tourist industry, and increase the business of the railroads. Though the Grange was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of schooling in rural areas, Head, who himself had had no more than a common school education, eulogized the one-room schoolhouse and concluded that there was no requirement for special legislation. Tax reform was another item high on the Grange agenda. The Grange was deman-ding that new taxes be imposed on income, stocks, and securities, and on 20concord Daily Honitor, September 10, 1878. 21Pillsbury, pp. 596-597; Concord Daily ~onitor, November 9, 1878. 22 Manchester Mirror and Farmer, November 16, 1878. 188 industrial properties as a means of relieving the farmer of his almost oven.,rhelming burden of property taxes. Said Head: "Honey is moveable and sensitive and responds readily to invitation and encouragement." He was therefore opposed to taxing money or removing the exemptions on industry on the grounds that such action would be harMful to the state's 23 economy. The farmers had little to thank Head for when his term expired two years later; he could hardly be called a Granger governor. In Maine, the picture was far more complicated. There, as in New Hampshire, the state had been in the grip of a Republican oligarchy at the onset of the Grange epoch. At the party's head stood Nelson Dingley, a senator and former governor, who was in.addition the publisher of the 24 prestigious Lewiston Journal. The depression struck Maine a h~rd blo~.,r, though farmers there do not seem to have suffered any more than those in New Hampshire. The greater success of the Greenbackers in Maine may perhaps be ascribed in part to the fact that in Maine the rural population was significantly greater in numbers, but considerable credit for its achievement must go to Solon Chase of Turner. Chase became involved with the Greenbackers some time in 1874. That year, he began publishing a newspaper which espoused Greenback principles. For the next several years, Chase traveled all over Maine speaking to crowds of enthusiastic farmers. "Uncle Solon" would appear on a speaker's platform 23Manchester Mirror and Farmer, June 7, 1879. 24 Hebert, p. 230-237. 189 wearing overalls and hip boots and leading a yoke of oxen. He would then tell the crowd that "them steers" had cost him $100 a few years back, but now, with prices so low, he would be glad to get $50 for the pair. Having drawn a picture that any farmer could readily visualize, Chase would go on to explain how the farmers had been robbed by the bankers and businessmen and that the way out of the difficulty was for the government to issue millions of dollars in nonconvertible paper certificates. By pumping huge amounts of money into the economy, Chase would conclude, farm prices would b d . . d . t ld . h f 25 e r~ven up an prosper~ y wou once aga~n return to t e arm. There is no record of Chase's belonging to the Grange, though there was a large Grange in Turner. Nevertheless, he was the founder and spiritual father of the Greenback Party in Maine, though, curiously, not until 1882, when Greenbackerism had virtually died in Maine, did the party nominate him for office. The party fielded a gubernatorial candidate in 26 1877. That year it lost rather badly, but the election of 1878, perhaps the most exciting in Maine history, was fought squarely on the money issue, with nearly disastrous consequences for the Democratic party. The Greenback Convention, which met in Lewiston in June 1878, adopted a platform which called for the abolition of all bank issues; free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver; and the issuance of "full legalized tender paper in amounts sufficient to the wants of trade." It also de-nounced "the credit system which has made the industrial and commercial 25clarence A. Day, Farming in l1aine 1860-1940 (Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 1963), p. 36. 26 Hebert, p,. 240. 190 27 classes the slaves and drudges of the credit mongers of the world. 11 The Greenbacks picked Joseph L. Smith, a businessman from Orono, as their candidate for governor. The convention's decision to bypass Chase brought stern censure from the Kennebec Journal, which scolded the "politicians" for having selfishly turned aside "the man who struck the first blow for the 'cause' in Maine." It concluded: "The man \vho 'wore a No. 11 boot, \vith hayseed in his hair and brains in his head' (the boots and hayseed are open to doubt, but there is no question of brains) was 28 whipped." The elections that fall shook Maine to its political foundations. Two Greenbackers were elected to Congress. In the Legislature, the Repub-licans remained firmly in control of the Senate with twenty seats to the eleven taken by the Greenbackers. In the House, however, Hh~re thP Republicans managed to hold on with sixty-five seats, the Democrats were thoroughly shattered by the Greenback onslaught. The Greenbackers elected sixty-one; the Democrats only twenty-six, including ten who were known to be leaning in favor of easy money. The Democrats failed to win a single . h s 29 seat 1n t e enate. Most crucial was the race for governor. The Republican candidate had the largest vote, but the Greenbacker Smith, who was second, won enough votes to deny the Republicans a victory and thus threw the election into the Legislature. The Republicans, seeing they had no hope of winning, 27 The Kennebec Journal, .June 12, 1878. 28Ibid. 29The Kennebec Journal, September 18, 1878; Hebert, pp. 240-241. 191 gave their support to the Democrats; consequently the Democrat Garcelon, who had been a poor third, won the election~ 0 The battle was reopened the following year. This time the Repub-licans chose D. F. Davis, the Greenbackers renominated Smith, and Garcelon once again became the Democratic candidate. Davis won the election by a decisive majority, w'ith Smith again being second. Davis's victory seemed assured, when suddenly Garcelon announced that a number of towns had not fulfilled certain constitutional requirements in reporting their votes; consequently, said the Governor, certificates of election would not be sent to newly elected state officers. The Republicans were aghast. Memories of the 1876 Presidential election were fresh in people's minds, and suddenly the Republicans saw th~ir prize about to be snatched away. Rumors spread that Garcelon intended to throw out the returns and in this ~y keep himself and his supporters in office. As the crisis intensified, Garcelon, fearing an outbreak of civil war, called up the militia, which encamped on the lawns in front of the State House in Augusta. The Repub-licans in the meantime had taken their case to court. Fortunately for their side, a majority on the State Supreme Court were themselves Repub-licans. The Court validated the election results, over the Governor's protest. When the commander of the militia, who was also a Republican, stated that he would see to it that Davis was properly inaugurated, the crisis came to an end. 31 Davis was installed in office in January, 1880. 30.:! b ce ert, pp. 240-241. 31rbid., pp. 243-245. 192 The Maine State Grange assumed an outwardly neutral stance on the money question. Resolutions dealing with money are conspicuously absent from the State Grange Proceedings in those turbulent years. The most plausible explanation seems to be that the Grange was so sharply divided that it could not agree on what position to take; consequently it said nothing. Many Grangers did join the Greenback or Fusionist parties, the latter being renegade Republicans who espoused Greenback causes but pre-£erred to ally themselves with Democrats. Three State Grangers who were either Fusionists or Greenbackers were Daniel Thing, Martin B. Hunt, and Columbus Hayford. On the other hand, Frederick B. Robie, Rufus Prince, E. E. Parkhurst, and Edward F. Wiggin remained true to the Republican cause. Evidence of a Grange split on the money issue is suggested in the rivalry between Daniel Thing and Fredzrick Robie. Thing, who beca~~ State Master in 1878, had been a lifelong Republican and had held a variety of minor offices. From 1873 to 1878, he had served as a Kennebec County Commissioner, but in 1879, for some unknown reason, the party decided to give the job to someone else. Thing's conversion to Fusionism in part then can be explained by his annoyance at the way the Republicans had passed him over. Nevertheless, he publicly championed Greenback views, and in 1882 became the Fusionist-Democratic candidate for Congress in the Second D. . 32 1strJ.ct. His successor, Robie, on the other hand, was a Republican and a believer in hard currency. His election as State Master in 1881 can perhaps be interpreted as a victory of Grange conservatives. Though the 32The Dirigo Rural, August 9, 1879; Bangor Hhi~ and Courier, June 3, 1882. 193 Proceedings for 1881 make no allusion to money, Robie remarked in a speech to the Grange six years later that "a sound national currency are [sic) great national blessings, and ours are the best in the world." 33 The Greenback tide began to ebb in 1880. That fall, a coalition of Democrats and Fusionists elected Henry Plaisted, a Democrat from Bangor, the new governor. Disappointed by their showing in 1880, the Republicans were determined to leave nothing to chance in 1882. Convinced of the need to make a special appeal to voters in rural towns, they decided to nominate Robie for governor~4 c Robie, who as a young man had studied at medical college, was basically a businessman. For. a time, he had owned a publishing house in Portland. Later, he acquired interests in banks, railroads, and insurance •• He served ·with distinction in the Union Army during the Civil War and was discharged in 1865 with the rank of lieutenant colonel. From 1866 to 1873, he was a member of the Republican State Committee. He represented Gorham in the Legislature for several terms, and in 1872 and again in 1876 acted as speaker of the State House of Representatives. He was also, at different times, a State Senator and a member of the Governor's Council:s Despite his primary interest in business and politics, Robie maintained close ties with the soil. He lived on a big farm near Gorham village, 33Mine State Grange, 14th Session, p. 24. 34 Hebert, pp. 246-247. 35Hugh Davis McLellan, History of Gorham, Haine (Portland: Smith & Sale, 1903), p. 746; Biographical Review: Leading Citizens of Cumberland County, Haine (Boston: Biographical RevieH Publishing Co., 1896), pp. 19-23. 194 where, with the help of several hired men, he raised hay, a few acres of field crops, and some livestock. During the 1882 campaign, newspaper critics sneered at the Republicans' efforts to represent Robie as a farmer. Said one: "The pretense that he is a farmer is one of the things 36 to gull the flats." He was also accused of seeking election as State M f 1 1 . . 1 37 aster or pure y po 1t1ca reasons. Yet the record shows that Robie served his farmer constituents well. The Biddeford Union and Journal commented that Robie "has done and will continue to do more for the agri-cultural interests of our State than ony one of her citizens ••• the farmers of Haine ••• will delight to elect him in the coming fall their 'farmer 38 governor.'" Robie ran on a traditionally Republican platform which favored a protective tariff and enforcement of the state's prohibition laws and called gold and silver "the only full and legal tender authorized by the C . . "39 onst1tut1on. The Greenbackers had already nominated Chase by the time the Republicans held their convention, early in June. Later in the month, separate conven.tions had nominated Chase for governor and, among other 40 candidates, Thing for Congress. 3~oted in The Bangor Daily Commercial, August 12, 1882. 37The Bangor Daily Commercial, June 2, 1882. 38Quoted in Bangor Daily Wh~ and Courier, June 19, 1882. 39The Maine Farmer, June 15, 1882. 40Bangor Daily Hhir; and Courier, May 31, 1882; 'lhe Dan~or Daily Commercial, June 2, 1882; The Bangor Uaily Commercial, June 27, 1882. 195 The appearance of t\vo leading Grangers in the f:ield provoked some discussion. A member of the Queen City Grange in Bangor described Robie's candidacy as "the most convincing proof of our [Grange] influence upon the community ••• a recognition of our good judgment."41 Not all Grangers supported Robie. Both candidates were warned not to drag the Grange into politics. A "prominent Granger," according to the Rocklrod Opinion, stated that "[Robie's] connection with the Grange will not affect his vote either 42 way." But a letter from Granger J. H. Land of Haldo to the Dirigo Rural called the Robie nomination "a glorious opportunity" for the Patrons of Maine. Said Lang, "Don't let a name, a notion, a shade of political difference, or old bygones or prejudices, or party fealty, or lying deceit swerve your vote and voice from the Patrons' candidates and Patrons' . . l 1143 pr1nc1p es. The Democratic Bangor Daily Commereial declared that the 44 Dirigo's "Republicanizing" would not change ten Grange votes. But the Dirigo stuck by its guns: "Most assuredly, as men and women of prudence, we shall not repudiate one of our trusted brothers, whom we can make governor, because the Republicans want to help."45 Robie and Thing did not neglect their official Grange responsibilities that summer. Each candidate made the usual rounds of picnics and meetings, 41 Bangor \.Jhig and Courier, June 2 9, 1882. 42 Quoted in The Bangor Daily Commercial, June 24, 1882. 43 Quoted in Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, July 17, 1882. 44 The Bangor Daily Commercial, August 28, 1882. 45Quoted in Ba~or Daily ~~ig and Courie~, August 23, 1882. 196 making speeches, installing officers, leading the ritual, meeting the folks, and perhaps doing just a little politicking on the side. Robie, for example, early in July helped organize a Grange at Dexter. On the Fourth 46 of July, he spoke to tl1e Foxcroft Grange. In August, he met with the Kennebec County Pomona at the town hall in Manchester~? 'Later that month, he delivered a major address at a picnic sponsored by the Somerset Grange at Hayden's Lake in Madison. His speech for that occasion contained no political allusions, but, according to the Le>viston Journal, "the people thought none the less of him, however, for that and not a feH votes, not Republican, will be cast for him for Governor."48 The following week, Thing and Robie appeared together before a gathering of Penobscot Valley Grangers at Cedar Grove, near Bucksport. The Commercial accused Robie of using the occasion "to connect the Grand Old Party with the salvation of the Union." Thing's speech, on the other hand, said the Commercial, was well received despite partisan reports alleging the contrary~ 9 The voters handed the Republicans a resounding victory. Robie easily defeated Plaistead; Chase, with only 536 votes, received less than 2% of the total cast for Smith in 1878. In the Legislature, the Republicans won decisive majorities in both the House and the Senate. Thing was also beaten. 46The }1aine Farmer, July 6, 1882; The Maine Farmer, July 13, 1882. 47The Maine Farmer, August 10, 1882. 48Quoted in Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, August 28, 1882. 49The Bangor Daily Commercial, September 9, 1882. 197 The Greenbacks, who won only three seats in the Senate and sixteen in the 50 House, were completely routed. Hebert, in his history of Haine, concludes that Robie's position as State Grange Naster gave him "a very considerable 51 advantage.'' His victory marks the beginning of a thirty-year period of uninterrupted Republican rule in Maine~ 2 Unlike his contemporary, Natt Head, Robie did not turn his back on the farmer. A considerable portion of his inaugural address was devoted to agricultural matters. As governor, he secured legislative approval for the state experiment station at Orono; larger appropriations for the college of agriculture; an adulterated feeds law; more money for state fairs and farmers' institutes; and approval for the establishing of a normal school in 53 Gorham. The Gorham town historian, with ample reason, calls Robie "one of the most efficient and popular chief magistrates the State has ever had." 54 Grangers, in fact, could be found in every level of state and local government and in high position in either political party in both Haine and New Hampshire. Obadiah Gardner, Master of the Maine Grange from 1897 to 1907, ran unsuccessfully as the Democratic candidate for governor in 1908. Later, he was appointed to fill a seat in the u. S. Senate left 55 vacant by the death of Senator Frye. Nahum Bachelder in New Hampshire, 50The Maine Farmer, September 21, 1882. 51 Hebert, -· pp. 247-248. 52 Ibid. 53Bangor Daily ffi1ig and Courier, January 5, 1882. 54 McClellan, p. 746. 55The National Grange Monthly, March 1940, p. 14. 198 a Republican, was elected governor in 1902~6 But these individuals, including Robie, stand out among a much greater number of lesser known Grange members who served in numerous public offices: as selectmen, treasurers, school committeemen, and road agents in town government; in various county government offices; and as representatives, senators, and councilors on the state level. James E. Abbott of Hollis, }1aine, for one, a leader in the York County Grange and one-time Master of the Pomona, was superintendent of schools in that town for many years. He was also a select-man and in 1893 was sent to the Legislature~ 7 Frank S. Adams of Bowdoin, who eventually became State Master, served six years on the school board, . 1 d . 1895 h 1 d h L · 1 58 s~x years as se ectman, an ~n e too was e ecte to t e eg~s ature. Another prominent York County Patron, Frank Blanchard, a Democrat, who owned a big poultry and dairy farm near Lebanon, was several times a selectman. He was also town auditor, a party committeeman, and for a 59 while, deputy sheriff of York County. Columbus Hayford, one of the first farmers to settle in the Aroostook Valley, belonged to the Maysville Grange and at one time sat on the State Grange's Executive Committee. Hayford, for most of his life a Republican, was elected to the Legislature in 1878 56 See Chapter 8. 57 John Chick Murray, H~story of the Grange in York County (Sanford, Maine: The Averill Press, 1922), pp. 144-145. 58 The New England Homestead, January 22, 1898, p. 104. 59 Murray, pp. 144-145. F . . 60 as a us~on~st. 199 An admiring reporter called Hayford "one of those farmers of Aroostook, Hhom Daniel Stickney says, raises 30 head of cattle, 100 tons of hay, from 40 to 50 acres of crops, keeps 30 head of cattle, and yet 61 finds time to read and knows how to vote." Elisha B. Parkhurst, like Hayford, had moved to Haysville in the late 1850's and cut a farm out of the forest. Over the years, he built up a teamstering business between Presque Isle and Bangor. Later he built a starch factory, and then he went into the potato seed trade. Before the end of the century, Parkhurst was shipping high grade seed potatoes to farmers all across the United States. He also owned a big farm supply store in Presque Isle. Parkhurst, a staunch Republican, was elected to the Legislature in 1877 and 1878, and later 62 served a term in the State Senate. Rufus Prince, who became State Master in 1889, remained true to the Republican cause till the day he died. His public offices included selectman, school committeeman, town moderator, county commissioner, commissioner for the probate courts, one term on the 63 Governor's Council and several others in both houses of the Legislature. In New Hampshire, names of politically active Grange members include that of Joseph B. Clarke, the editor and publisher of several Hanchester 60The Haine Farmer, October 12, 1878; Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, Augusf 24, 1882. 61Ibid. 62Harriet B. Coe, Haine: Resources, Attractions, and Its People: A Histo.ry (5 vols., Ne\v York: The Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1928) v, 147-148. 63Georgia Drew Herrill, ed., History of Androscoggin County, Maine (Boston: W. A. Ferguson, 1891), pp. 838-839. 200 newspapers, who was a prominent Republican and also an active member of the Amoskeag and the State 64 Granges. David M. Clough, the first Treasurer of the State Grange, leading Democrat 65 was a in the 1870's. John D. Lyman of Exeter, long-time State Grange officer, \vas a very active Republican. Lyman, who previously and aftenvards held various town offices, was in 1873 elected New Hampshire's Secretary of State. He also represented Exeter in the Legislature several times? 6 A dedicated party worker, Lyman was not one to undervalue his services. In October, 1878, he wrote to William Chandler, the party's chief, asking that he be recommended for the t f S . f h C f th N H h' D' · 67 pos o uperv1sor o t e ensus or e ew amps 1re 1str1ct. When the job was given to someone else, Lyman wrote Chandler an angry letter bemoaning the party's ingratitude: "It is pretty hard for one who has for forty years (for I commenced at 16) devoted so much of this time, energy, and money to his party to be refused when for the first time he asks a petty office from the United States."68 Some years afterwards, Lyman again wrote Chandler seeking support for his election as Speaker of the House of Representatives: 64Maurice D. Clarke, Manchester: A Brief Record of Its Past and A Picture of Its Present (Manchester, N. H.: J. B. Clarke, 1875), pp. 392-395. 65 66 Stearns, p. 1687. Moses, p. 61. 67 Chandler Papers, Box No. 18, John D. Lyman to W. E. Chandler, October 28, 1879. 68Ibid., John D. Lyman toW. E. Chandler, December 15, 1879. 201 My election would be good party policy ••• I know no reason why such men as myself should be almost perpetually ex-cluded from such positions ••• God knows that no man in or out of this state was ever truer to the party in all and every position than I have been and surely few have served it longer with greater zeal. I hope there is to be a day of judgment, and I want to be there and before almighty God to face those who have basely lied about me.69 But once again luck turned her face away, and Lyman's opponent, Frank G. Clarke of Peterboro, won the position. Q~stopher Shaw, the first Secretary of the New Hampshire State Grange, was the representative from l1ilford in 1875 and 1876?0 Lucien Thompson of Durham, a member of Scammell Grange, was at various times town supervisor, treasurer, moderator, justice of the peace, and notary public. Thompson was elected to the Legislature in 1886 and to the State Senate in 1893, \vhere he was appointed to the committees on agriculture d d . 71 an e ucat~on. Charles McDaniel, Bachelder's immediate predecessor as State Master, was an active Democrat and held many public offices, including selectman, overseer of the poor, town treasurer, and chairman of the school committee. He was in the Legislature rep-resenting Springfield in 1868 and 72 in 1891, and in 1894 was defeated in a bid for Congress. Other Grangers who might be cited for their activity in public life include Herbert 0. 69 Chandler Papers, Box No. 27, J. D. Lyman toW. E. Chandler, December 31, 1890. 70 Stearns, I, 43-44. 71Everett S. Stackpole and Lucien Thompson, History of the Town of Durham, New Hampshire (2 vols., published by the Town, no date), II, 319-320. 72 H. H. Metcalf, "Three Representative Farmers", The Granite Monthly, October, 1896, p. 227. 202 Hadley, Fred Rogers, George R. Drake, and James W. Farmer. But the Grange was not content simply with seeing its members in elected office. It realized that farmers who were in politics had to organize themselves into an effective voting bloc so as to make their numbers count. Accordingly, it set about the task of organizing a farmers' lobby and appointed itself a guardian of the farmer's interest. In 1889, for example, the Hew Hampshire State Grange appointed a committee of three to represent the interests of agriculture before the Governor's Council. Since the Council had to approve appointment of various state officers, including trustees of the State College and members of the Board of Agri-culture, the Grange's interest can be readily understood?3 It was in the legislatures, hawever, where the Grange fought its hardest battles and ultimately proved itself a formidable political force. The Granges took the keenest interest in what transpired in legislative chambers. At their annual sessions, the State Granges took up numerous legislative matters. In his annual addr.ess, the state master outlined the position he felt the Grange should take on the various issues. His recommendations were then referred to appropriate committees for further study. The principal standing committees were those on agriculture, transportation, state college, and education, a1nong others. The committees drew up their reports and pres en ted recouunendations of their ov.'Tl, which were then put into resolutions and decided by the vote Of the general body. Resolutions which were approved and required action by the Legis-73 New llampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 16th Annual Sessio~, 1889, p. 74. 203 lature were then transmitted to the Grange legislative committee. !he legislative committee took up residence in the state capital for the duration of the legislative session. There it carefully monitored all legislative activity. It drew up billq of its own. Committee members and other Grangers too appeared as witnesses at hearings. Often the committee tried to organize state representatives who happened to be farmers into an informal club or caucus. Sometimes committee members were themselves legislators, which provided an even closer liaison between the Grange and the legislature. An idea of how the Granges operated can be seen in the activity of the New Hampshire State Grange at the legislative session of 1891. Among the legislators who showed up irt Concord that spring were none other than the State Master, Charles McDaniel, and State Lecturer Lyman, both of whom were appointed to the Committee on Agriculture. Lyman later reported, "We were by no means bashful in asking legislation for the farmer.'' According to him, every bill reported out of that .committee, except "one small one," was passed by the House. He and McDaniel organized a "farmers' council" among House members, which, in Lyman's words, "formed the basis for aggressive work." Measures of interest to agriculture which were enacted that year included a law establishing a state cattle commission; a pure feeds bill; an act to prevent the injuring and killing of livestock by dogs; acceptance of the Thompson bequest; and removal of the State College 74 to Durham. 74 New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891, pp. 11, 25-26. 204 The Grange returned to the battle in 1895. At that session, members of the Legislative Committee appeared before the House Committee on Agri-culture as advocates of stronger state action to combat the spread of bovine tuberculosis. The Grange Committee chairman testified at hearings held by the House Conmlittee on Banks in opposition to a ·proposed reduc-tion in the state tax on savings bank deposits. Two laws supported by the Grange were approved: one exempted young livestock from taxation; the other, secured only "after a long contest", was the so-called "Leach" bill, 75 which made significant changes in the curriculum of the State College. In Maine, the Grange worked in essentially the same way. At the 1907 session of the Legislature, eighteen Grange members can be positively .d if. d . h H d · h S 76 ~ ent J.e J.n t e ouse an one ~n t e enate. Quite possibly there were more. Apparently the Grange got just about everything it wanted from the Legislature that year. In its report, the Legislative Committee listed "a few of the things that the Grange has stood for and been chiefly instrumental in bringing about." These were: 1. Creation of the State Board of Assessors 2. A tax on collateral inheritances 3. Provision for better roads 4. Laws guaranteeing the purity of seeds and feedstuffs 5. An increased tax on "quasi corporations" 75 New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, p. 81. 76Howard Owen, Biographical Sketches of the Members of the Senate and House of Itcpresentativ~s of 11aine for 1907 (Augusta, Maine: N.P., 1907), pp. 15-49. 205 6. A law to improve telephone service. 7. Long-term financial aid to improve rural schools. 8. The initiative and referendum? 7 As the Grange strengthened its hold on rural districts, it became louder and more insistent in its relations with the legislatures. In 1910, for example, Haine State Master C. s. Stetson sent a c:Lrcular 1 1 . 1 k" f h" . . . 78 etter to every state eg1s ator as 1ng or 1s v1ews on certa1n 1ssues, much the way the American Farm Bureau was later to conduct its relations with Congress. Even in the twenties, when Grange membership began dropping off, it nevertheless retained considerable po\ver in the leg:Lslatures. Thus, of the 182 members of both houses of the Maine Legislature when it met :Ln 1929: fifty-five were Grangers, among them the State Master, the Overseer, and a former State Lecturer. That year, in fact, the Granger-legislators organized a Legislat:Lve Grange which held a few meetings at 79 a local Subordinate Grange hall. Thus the Grange emerged as a powerful, well-organized, and determined champion of rural interests at a time when the urban-industrial sector seemingly had become the ascendant pol:Ltical force. In an era when wealth and population were concentrating in urban areas, the Granges believed it imperative that rural districts should control the state legislatures. Overburdened by taxes and lacking the 206 resources to provide schools, roads, and other essential services, the small towns turned to the states for help. On the legislature, too, de-pended the state colleges, farmers' institutes, state boards of agri-culture, fairs, and much more deemed vital to the interests of agricultu~e. In brief, rural leaders, including the Grange, looked to the legislatures to preserve the rural community and to defend a \vay of life seemingly threatened by a rising industrial society. The Grange roused its rural followers from their slumber, warned them of v7hat was at stake, and led its forces off to war. CHAPTER 8 THE HILL COUNTRY GRANGES IN THE PROGRESSIVE ERA Railroads, of course, had been the great bugbear of the midwestern Grangers. It is a mistake, however, to conclude that the Grange itself was the uncompromising enemy of big business or large corporations. In their Declaration of Purposes, the Patrons stated: "We are not enemies of railroads, navigable and irrigating canals, nor of any corporations that will advance our industrial interests." What the Grange opposed was "such spirit and management of any corporation or enterprise as tends to oppress the people and rob them of their just profits.••1 It was not the Grange' policy to harass or destroy big business, but merely to impose restraints on its activity where the public interest required. Opposition to railroads was not a distinctive feature of the Order in New England: This is not to say that grounds for complaint did not exist. There is considerable evidence that rebating, pass-giving, and the other sorts of discrimination that irked Grangers elsewhere were widespread in northern New England. The early Proceedin~ of the New Hampshire State Grange contain vaguely worded condemnations of the "vicious systems of 1National Grange, "Declaration of Purposes", in Charles M. Gardner, The Grange-- Friend of the Farmer (Washington, D. C.: National Grange, 1949), pp. 516-518. 2The Naine Farmer, February 28, 1880. 207 208 3 transportation and commerce in and between the several states," but no specific charges against railroads operating within the state. Indeed, the Granges themselves were the beneficiaries of discrimination of a sort. Every year, the railroads routinely permitted Grangers to travel to and from their annual sessions at special reduced fares. Resolutions thanking the railroads for their generosity were regularly adopted by unanimous vote at the close of each meeting. Agitation for stronger regulation of the railroads did break out in New Hampshire in the late 1870's. A board of railroad commissioners had existed since 1844, but it did little more than publish annual reports. Its legal authority was virtually non-existent~ The Grange joined the cry, but it was by no means alone. Petitions demanding a new railroad law poured into the Legislature, not solely from farmers and Grangers, but also from merchants, manufacturers, hotel owners, and others who suffered for the benefit of provileged giants, such as the Amoskeag Corporation, which successfully blackmailed the railroads into giving them rebates~ The state elections of 1882 brought to the State House a governor, Samuel Bell of Keene, who was firmly committed to the idea of a railroad law. In his inaugural address in June 1883, Governor Bell made special 3New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 4th Annual Session, 1877, p. 49. 4Edward C. Kirkland, Men 2 Cities, and Transportation: A Study in New Eng;land History 1820-1890 (2 vols., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948), I, 275. 5 State of New Hampshire, Journals of the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives, June Session, 1883; pp. 390-391. 209 mention of the railroad problem. The Legislature obliged him by passing t\vo lmvs, both of which the governor promptly signed~ The new legislation, which strongly resembled the famous Granger laws enacted by the legislatures in several midwestern states only a few years before, established a Rail-road Commission with extensive legal powers. The Commission could subpoena records, require testimony by railroad officials, disallow rates, conduct investigations, issue orders, and impose penalties for violations. The Legislature also authorized the new Commission to approve charters and franchises? The State Grange, it is true, had favored a railroad law. In an article printed in New Hampshire Agriculture, a Grange member, Charles B. Coffin, had called attention to the fact that New Hampshire was one of the few states that as yet had no such law. Coffin especially advocated the delegating of the legislative power for granting charters to a commission as a means of combating corruption among legislators themselves, who, he believed, were frequently bribed by parties seeking franchises~ Yet in 1883, the New Hampshire Grange had fewer than 4,000 members and simply lacked the strength to offer much more than verbal support. The law itself was in fact written, not by Grangers, but by lawyers employed by the railroads, 6rbid. 7 Laws of the State of New Ham_Eshire, Passed June Session, 1883, Chap. 100, "An Act Providing for the Establishment of Railroad Corporations by General Law"; Ibid., Chap. 101, "An Act To Establish a Board of Railroad Commissioners.-.. ---8 Charles A. Coffin, "The Future of Ne\v Hampshire", in New Hampshire ~~riculturet lOth Annual ~eport of the State Board of Agriculture, 1880, p. 173. 210 who themselves wanted an end to the competitive confusion which enabled Amoskeag to extort special favors? The Grange, indeed, spoke suspiciously of the law, which purportedly had been "introduced in the interests of the people." Farmers were urged to ponder the measures to be certain they would benefit. In the meantime, a Committee on Transportation was appointed to keep the brethren informed and alert;o The New Hampshire Grange evinced no special concern over the gradual takeover of the state's railroads by the Boston & Maine. The Boston & Maine's lease of the Concord & Montreal in 1895 gave it a virtual monopoly, yet the Grange, far from denouncing these developments, seemed in fact to wel-come them. The Committee on Transportation coumtented: "Not withstanding a trembling anxiety and fear at what seemed to be a great centralization of pmver ••• He have realized thus far only economy,. acco~mode1tions, v Hampshire Gran8e Reporter, February, 1910. 212 the vanguard of the Progressive drive for electoral reform. These differences erupted into bitter conflict vlhich, for a time, sharply divided and nearly split the National Grange into opposing factions. Bachelder's twin roles as Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture and State Grange ~laster made him the most influential spokesman for agri-culture in New Hampshire for almost two decades. Bachelder owned a large farm in East Andover and was widely recognized as one of the most success-ful dairy men in the state. It is not to be denied that Bachelder greatly contributed to the advance of agriculture. Much of the credit for the spectacular growth of the Grange in New Hampshire after 1880 properly be-longs to him. As Secretary for the Board of Agriculture, Bachelder was chiefly responsible for getting the state actively involved in the pro-motion of the summer tourist trade, which by 1900 had become a multimillion dollar industry. He had also conducted a successful campaign to eradicate 14 bovine tuberculosis, despite the bitter opposition of many farmers. As State Master, he was a strong advocate of state aid for education and rural roads. But it must also be said that Bachelder was an extremely ambitious man who eagerly sought public office and enjoyed the use of power. More than anything else, Nahum Bachelder wanted to be governor of New Hampshire. Only once between 1860 and 1900 had a Democrat been elected governor of the state. That had been James B. Watson of Manchester in 1874. Every other governor had been a Republican. The Republicans, furthermore, 14Nahum J. Bachelder, Reminiscences and Addresses (Andover, N. H.: Privately Printed, 1930), pp-. 19, 25-28; The New England Homestead, November 25, 1905, p. 538. 213 controlled the Governor's Council and the State Senate, though in the House of Representatives, they sometimes encountered substantial Democratic oppo-sition. Of the various individuals whom the Republicans had nominated for governor, only one, Luther McCutchins, had been a farmer; the others were all lawyers or businessmen, mostly associated with railroads. Prior to 1895, the corporate influence had been mitigated somewhat by competition within the business community and especially among the railroads, who were vying for power. But once the Boston & Maine had beaten its rivals and emerged as the dominant economic force in the state, that competition ended. From that year forward, the Republican Party became the virtual ward of the Boston & Maine Railroad. No one who aspired to state office as a Republican candidate could seriously expect nomination without the prior approval of the Railroad. Brother Bachelder knew that as well as anyone. The man who ruled the Republican Party from behind the scenes was the president of the Railroad, Lucius M. Tuttle. In New Hampshire, Tuttle's chief lieutenants were Frank S. Streeter, a prominent corporate lawyer and 15 the Railroad's general counsel, and Henry M. Putney, the publisher of the Manchester Mirror and other newspapers. Putney, it so happened, was Chair-man of the Railroad Commission, and it was his responsibility to make sure that the Commission did nothing \vhich might injure or embarrass the Rail-road or Mr. Tuttle;. Bachelder \vas married to Putney's sister, and fre-16 quently wrote editorials and articles for Putney's newspapers. 15Henry Harrison Metcalf, One Thousand New Hampshire Notables (Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Printing Co., 1919), p. 45. 16Boston Sunday Journal, May 17, 1903. 214 New Hampshire's electoral laws permitted delegates to a nominating convention to transfer their voting rights, thus permitting them to vote by proxy. It was this loophole which enabled the Railroad to control the Republican conventions. Prior to the convention, Streeter, Putney, and sometimes others of Tuttle's henchmen would meet, often ·in the big Concord railroad station. There, they would go down the list of prospective candidates, deciding which were acceptable to the Railroad. Putney and Streeter then purchased or in some other way acquired proxies sufficient for it to ensure that these individuals were nominated:7 The Railroad routinely sent free passes to every legislator and senator. Since the state did not pay them a travel allowance, the pass meant a great deal, especially to legislators who were not well-to-do. In the opening days of the legislative session, Putney took up residence in what became known as the "railroad room" of the Eagle Hotel, just across the street from the State House. According to Winston Churchill, Putney's word was law. He decided who was to be elected speaker of the House and what legislators were to sit on the key committees. He arranged the nomina-tion of senators and members of the Governor's Council, it being the Council which approved nominations to the Railroad Commission. The Railroad had its supporters in the House, though sometimes it lost control. When feeling was running high in the House in favor of a bill the Railroad opposed, Putney's strategy was to let the bill pass and then kill it 17Hobart Pillsbury, New Hampshire: Resources, Attractions: A History (5 vols., New York: The Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1927), III, 730-731. 215 quietly in the Senate. In this way, the Railroad could be certain that 18 its interests were well protected. Thus it \vas perhaps not by chance that nothing the Railroad might have found offensive was brought forward at the State Grange's annual session, except an occasional demand that the lm.;s prohibiting pass-giving 19 be strengthened. Bachelder himself certainly gave no cause for offense; indeed, he had nothing but praise. Thus in 1900, he remarked that the .. Grange had "no good reason" to complain about the railroads in New Hampshire. The public, said Bachelder, had "the best acconunodations in railroads and otherwise ••• it has been fairly dealt with." Rates and fares, he concluded, 20 were reportedly as low as any in the country. That he could have reached such a conclusion at a time when many Yankee farmers were convinced that the railroads charged rates which gave their western competitors an un-fair advantage does seem a little surprising. Exactly why Bachelder decided to run for office in 1902 is not clearly evident. He himself writes in his Reminiscences that the sugges-tion had been often made that a farmer ought to be elected governor, and that his name "was frequently coupled with the suggestion." While dis-claiming any insatiable yearning for the office, Bachelder admitted, 18 Boston Sunday Journal, May 17, 1903; New Hampshire Historical Society Collections, Box No. 40, H. E. Chandler to Frank S. Streeter, November 12, 1902. 19New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, p~ 41. 20New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedj,ngs, 27th Annual Session, 1900, p. 105. 216 nevertheless, he was interested. In his book, he writes: I recollect talking with Gen. Frank S. Streeter in regard to the matter. He expressed neither approval nor disapproval of the proposition, but said, facetiously of course, that he could see but one advantage in being Governor and that was that it filled out the line on one's tombstone better than it would otherwise appear.21 Bachelder himself, the~ admitted having gone to Streeter in observance of the time-worn ritual of seeking the Railroad's approval. Evidently the Railroad offered no objection, and Bachelder received the unanimous endorsement of the Republican Convention whin it met in Phoenix Hall in Concord in September. His platform, among other things, called for a generous program of state road-building, protection of the state's forests, d. 11 1 d" · f h h"b" · · 1122 an a comp ete ~scuss~on o t e pro ~ ~t~on ~ssue. Bachelder's opponent, Henry F. Hollis of Concord, >vas a brigl>t: young lawyer, who earlier had been defeated in a bid for Congress. In 1902, Hollis was also Chairman of the Democratic State Committee73 Hollis, facing nearly impossible odds, made a spirited effort to catch Bachelder. He carried his campaign to the four corners of the state, making some sixty speeches in all. Bachelder, on the other hand, spent most of his time out-side the state on Grange business and made only four speeches in the entire campaign7 4 Hollis's effort, however, was of no avail. Bachelder was well-known all over Ne~.;r Hampshire and, in addition, had the unofficial backing 21 Bachelder, p. 30. 22concord Evening Monitor, September 17, 1902. 23 Metcalf, p. 81. 24 Bachelder, p. 30. 217 of the Grange. An editorial in the Concord Evening Honitor_ commented: When Mr. Bachelder began his labors of building up the State, Mr. Hollis >vas a school boy. And, from a careful study of his career in politics, it is a fair conclusion that he is a school boy now. [As a candidate for Congress] he dispensed panic with a lavish hand upon the stump .•• [as Party Chairman] he drafted a platform so stuffed with Populism that any Populist could reasonably bring action against him for political larceny. 25 It is singularly ironic that the opponent of the State Grange Master should be accused of Populist tendencies. Hollis, the editorial continued, "commits to memory a speech in collegetic French, quotes learnedly from abstruse works in sociology, talks billingsgate to city audiences, and de-ludes himself that rum sellers are going to elect him."26 The election most certainly left Hollis with no delusions; Bachelder trounced him 27 soundly. Bachelder, his enemies alle~ed some years later, had been promised the governorship by the Railroad, and he in turn had served the Railroad 28 "well and faithfully." That may >.rell be stretching the facts, but it is certainly true that Bachelder did nothing to alarm Mr. Tuttle. In his inaugural, he had words of praise for the Railroad's largesse: "The consolidations ••• have been of great advantage to our people, especially those of sparsely settled sections, who have accommodations and rates that could not have been afforded them if the roads had not been united and were obliged to bear the expense and depend upon the earnings of independent 25 Concord Evening Monitor, October 26, 1902. 27 Concord Evening Honitor, November 5, 1902. 28 Charles H. Burkett, "Chaos in the National Grange," The Ne>v England Homestead, March 12, 1910, p. 413. 218 operation." He claimed no knowledge of any corporation vlhich was not performing its public duty satisfactorily:9 His speech made no recommenda-tions for higher taxes on corporations. Perhaps the biggest controversy which confronted the Bachelder admini-stration concerned the state's prohibition law. Enacted in 1855, the law had rarely been enforced and was widely regarded as a farce. Alcoholic beverages could be readily obtained in virtually every town. Bars flour-. h d 1 . h 1 . . 30 ~s e open y ~n t e arge c~t~es. In Maine, whose own law dated from 1854, much the same situation prevailed. There the Grange remained rigidly opposed to repeal or even modification of the law. It consistently fought to prevent the question from being resubmitted for popular approval. It repeatedly demanded that the state enforce the law with all means at its disposal:1 The Grange in New Hampshire, ho\vever, while being tempera-mentally aligned with the temperance view, called the law a fake and suggested that new legislation was needed. Indeed, Bachelder himself formulated the Grange position, in part, .apparently because he felt that relaxing the law would be beneficial to the inns and hotels and other bli h h . h d . 32 esta s ments w ~c catere to summer tour~sts. These views he reiterated 29state Of New Hampshire, Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, 1903, pp. 27, 33. 30Pillsbury, pp. 702-704. 31Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 26th Annual Session, 1899, p. 55; Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 29th Annual Session, 1902, p. 31; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 30th Annual Session, 1903, p. 125. 32New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 29th Annual Session, 1902, p. 24. 219 . h' . 133 1n 1s 1naugura • During his administration, the old law was repealed and replaced by an act which granted each town the option of deciding for itself whether to permit trafficking in liquor:4 The very year Bachelder became governor, the town of Croydon elected and sent to the legislature a young man by the name of ~inston Churchill. Already known for his literary accomplishments, Churchill soon found himself something of a celebrity in the society of the capital. Bachelder, for some reason, was attracted to Churchill and made him a colonel on his staff. Churchill's job was to put on a uniform and appear as the governor's representative at social functions. The position was purely ceremonial, and Churchill soon became bored. His boredom turned to anger, however, when it suddenly occurred to him that Bachelder was little more than a front man for the Railroad. The man who ran the state, it seemed to Chur-35 chill, was not Bachelder, but Henry M. Putney. As a legislator, Churchill later reported, he witnessed at first hand the way in which the Railroad lobby operated. Soon after his election, Churchill had received a free B & M pass in the mail, which he promptly threw away. During the session, he discovered a paid lobby of legislators who readily did the Railroad's bidding. On three different occasions, bills proposed by Churchill were defeated, each time, he was convinced, by the opposition of Putney. One bill proposed the abolition of toll bridges 33 Journal of the House of Representatives, p. 29. 34 Bachelder, p. 30. 35 Boston Sunday Journal, May 17, 1903; Warren I. Titus, Winston Churchill (New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1963), p. 63. 220 across the Connecticut River. The state was to maintain all the bridges and also to build some new ones. Churchill heard that Bachelder favored the bill, though there is no indication that Bachelder made such a commit-ment to Churchill personally. The bill passed the Legislature, but was then vetoed by the governor. Enraged by what he considered a breach of faith, Churchill concluded that it was the pronounced opposition of Putney that had in fact made Bachelder change his mind. Churchill introduced another bill calling for a $50,000 road appropriation. He was immediately attacked as an "aristocrat of the boulevards" and accused of wanting to turn the state into an automobile race track. The attack was led by Put-ney's Mirror. The governor's friends put forward a bill for a $10,000 appropriation. Bachelder's bill passed, and Churchill's was beaten. In still another instance, Churchill drew up legislation asking that the state spend a generous sum for an exhibition at the St. Louis Exposition. Bachelder as State Master had in fact supported·such a measure and, indeed, apparently favored the bill. It passed ~he House, but was defeated in the Senate apparently in retaliation for Bachelder's veto of a law for estab-lishing a state sanitorium. Churchill, however, remained convinced that Putney and therefore the Railroad had actually been responsible for losing the bill~6 Churchill's accusations may not always have been justified, but 36 Boston Sunday Journal, May 17, 1903. 221 his irritation at the Railroad's meddling in state government rested on sure foundations. That confrontation in the Legislature in 1903 became the inspiration for Churchill's famous novel Coniston in which he sought to expose the machinations of the Railroad to public view~ 7 As for Bachelder, it is perhaps going too far to accuse him, as Churchill did, of being nothing but a marionette dangling from Putney's hands, but it is certain that the governor did nothing to challenge the Railroad's hege-many. Some years later, a critic of the former governor wrote: "I know how tactfully and how skillfully he [Bachelder] worked with political con-trol of the state. Did he protest against the railroad domination of the state? Not he. He quietly accepted the honor of Governor, and took his medicine as calmly, as unprotesting as an ordinary clerk in the employ 38 of the railway company." The stirring of Progressive sentiment in New Hampshire began in this general period. Bachelder's successor, Governor Jordan, was similarly identified with the machine and was nominated and elected with no great difficulty. But in the election year 1906, the old guard politicos found themselves under attack by some brash young men, led by Winston Churchill, who were determined to kick the Railroad out of Concord. In July, 1906, Churchill and his followers, many of whom were recent graduates of Dartmouth College, founded what they called the Lincoln Republican Club of New Ramp-shire. The Lincoln Republicans demanded a wholesale political cleanup and most specifically an end to machine rule. They demanded laws prohibiting 37T. 1.tus, p. 67. 38 Burkett, p. 413. 222 the giving of passes to legislators and other state officers; direct elec-tion of the Railroad Commission; and an impartial valuation of the Rail-road's property for purposes of taxation. They also asked for a corrupt practices act; a la\v requiring that lobbyists be registered; and a special commission to study and revise the state's tax laws?9 As a delegate to the Republican convension in 1904, Churchill had helped in the renomination of Theodore Roosevelt. His activities in the Legislature had won for him considerable renown. And with Churchill at their head, the Lincoln Republicans set out to capture the Republican nomination. Churchill set off on a whirlwind tour of the state which lasted into September, sometimes giving tvm or more speeches in a single day. At one point, he collapsed from sheer exhaustion and was forced to stop his campaigning for a rest. His theme He promised that, if elected governor, he would use all his power to break the power of the machine. He specifically promised to replace Henry Putney, "the head and front of the machine," whose term as Railroad Commissioner was d . 40 ue to exp1.re. The New Hampshire press was mostly critical, but the Churchill campaign attracted wide and sympathetic interest from the national press. His speeches were reported by the Associated Press. The Boston Herald published a series of articles covering the campaign, and several 39Titus, p. 65; New Hampshire Historical Society Collections, Box marked "Politics," Lincoln Republican Voters of New Hampshire, "Declaration of Principles," July 16, 1906. 40 The Boston Herald, August 3, 1906. 223 magazines carried feature stories describing Churchill's war against "bossism."41 On September 19, the Republicans gathered in Concord for what Hobart Pillsbury calls "the most political convention in the history of New Hampshire." 42 Three candidates besides Churchill appeared in the ring. Putney's preference was former Senator Charles H. Greenleaf, a wealthy hotel owner, while his chief opponent, Rosencranz W. Pillsbury, owner of the Manchester Union, was put forward as the "antimachine candidate." The third man, backed by U. S. Senator Jacob Gallinger, was a }mnchester clothier named Charles M. Floyd. The progressives, of course, supported Churchill. After a few ballots, Greenleaf and Pillsbury found themselves deadlocked; finally, a deal was worked out, with Putney's apparent consent. Pillsbury threw his support to Floyd, who was nominated on the ninth ballot, in which, inci-43 dentally, three more votes were cast than there were delegates. Floyd won in the general election, but it is obvious that Churchill greatly alarme4 the old machine politicians. In 1907, the Legislature finally outlawed pass-giving. It also enacted laws prohibiting proxy voting at political conventions. In 1908, the direct primary replaced the i . . 44 nom nat~ng convent~on. In all the controversy over Railroad rule, the Grange remained con-spicuously silent. Bachelder had retired as State Master in 1903, to be replaced by H. 0. Hadley of Temple, who loyally carried on in the Bachelder 41T. ~tus, p. 65. 42Pillsbury, p. 710 43Ibid., pp. 710-711. 44 Ibid., pp. 713, 733. 224 tradition. In Hadley's speeches, one finds no outraged attack on the machine, no bitter protest of the Railroad's meddling in state politics, no shrill cries for reform, no complaint that the Railroad was not paying its share of taxes, in brief, very little that reflects the spirit of the Lincoln Republicans. The State Grange had previously endorsed the direct election of U. S. Senators. It had also been instrumental in securing the state's Australian 45 ballot law. But whereas the Maine Grange as early as 1894 had endorsed 46 "the ultimate enfranchisement of '"oman," the New Hampshire Grange, just tvm years before, had rejected a resolution which. declared: "Our expressions and observations in the Grange have taught us that sex should no longer 47 define the limit of suffrage." Bachelder in 1902 pr anised that the Grange would n.ot oppose suffrage once 'qc:nen made Clear the)T ~·:anted the ballot, but not until 1911, a year after Bachelder had been ousted as National Grange Haster, did the New Hampshire Grange unequivocally endorse ratification of "a Constitutional amendment, conferring upon women the same political rights that men enjoy."48 45New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings 2 12th Annual Session, 1885, p. 20; New Hampshire State Grange, }_ournal of Proceedings, 16th Annual Session, 1889, p. 14; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 26th Annual Session, 1899, p. 127. 46Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 89. 47New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 19th Annual Session, 1892, p. 93. 48New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 38th Annual Session, 1911, p. 96. 225 The State Grange did not oppose a primary law. In 1897, in fact, it insisted that a stand be taken against political corruption:9 and in 1899, it favored "comprehensive caucus laws to govern our primaries."50 When finally the direct primary bill was brought up, the Grange did · Sl b h . . h l G h support 1.t, ut t e po1.nt 1.s tat t1e range was not among t e prime movers in this crusade for political reform. It was a follower, not a leader. It did support a corrupt practices law, but here again it was simply following the lead of others. On some issues, the Grange took what for a Progressive would be a decidedly backward view. In the matter of initiative and referendum, State Haster Pattee in 1910 urged that the Grange study the issues cautiously. Apparently, it was his fear that these devices could not be trusted in the hands of the many foreign people \vho were c:::-ov:ding the larger towns and cities:' 2 knendments providing for initiative and referendum were submitted to the State Constitutional Convention when it met in 1912. A polling of the New Hampshire Granges brought the pew England Homestead to conclude that the reform "does not seem to be of much interest to the Granges or the 49~ew Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 24th Annual Session, 1897, p. 97. 50New Hampshire State Grange, 26th Session, p. 128. 51New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 34th Annual Session, 1907, p. 52Richard Pattee, "The Grange in New Hampshire", New Hampshire Agri-culture, Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1910-1912, pp. 64-66. 53 people of the state." 226 The amendments \vere not ratified~4 By 1908 the Progressive movement had gone into full gear in New Hampshire. That year the Democrats put forward Clarence c. Carr, an attorney from Bachelder 1 s own town of Andover, who ran on a platform vlhich borrowed heavily from the Lincoln Republican Hanifesto of 1906. The Demo-crats declared: "We oppose Republican extravagance, the Boston & Haine Rail-road in politics and transportation, and its domination of the state. " 5.5 Carr was beaten by the Republican Quimby, but the way had been cleared for the next Progressive candidate. In 1910, the Republican machine was challenged by a bright and determined young man, Robert Bass of Peterboro, who was destined to lead New Hampshire down the path blazed by Robert La~ollette in Wisconsin. Bass as a state senator had introduced the direct primary law of 1908. Ironically that very law enabled him to win the nomination. Running in the primary in 1910, he handily defeated the machine's candidate by a margin of two to one, and went on to beat Clarence Carr in the general elec-tion, thus becoming the first New England governor to be nominated through h di . 56 t e rect pr~mary. Bass presented the Legislature with a list of detailed proposals. 53The Ne\v England Homestead, July 6, 1912, p. 12. 54New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 39th Annual Session, 1912, pp. 64-65. 55New Hampshire Historical Society Collections, Box marked "N. H. Politics", Pamphlet for Carr Campaign. 56 James T. Hale, Compiler, "Preliminary Inventory to the Papers of Robert P. Bass," Dartmouth College Archives, 1961, p. 1. 227 Eleven of the thirteen major pieces of legislation he asked for were passed. The old Railroad Commission was replaced by the Public Service Commission, which was given full powers to regulate all public utilities. A permanent Tax Commission was established. The other reforms included a corrupt practices act, child labor law, and laws concerning food inspec-tion, workmen's compensation, and factory safety. The state's forest reserves were enlarged, reflecting Bass's strong support of conservation, and finally the Sixteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was approved. Bass, in his brief two-year term, left a record of accomplishment unequaled b h N H h. 57 y any ot er ew amps lre governor. The Grange was also active in that session. The Legislative Commi-ttee, including Pattee, met in Concord early that y.ear. It helped defeat an attempt to rename the State College the Unive~sity of New Hampshire. It asked for and got a state bounty for the killing of hedgehogs. A tax bill introduced by the State Grange Secretary, George Drake, who repre-sented Pittsfi~ld, exempted ~ortgages loaned at less than 5% from the state tax, its purpose being to encourage investment in farms. The Grange fought unsuccessfully to force the passage of a law which would have pre-vented export of power to users outside the state; but it succeeded in persuading the Legislature to give the new Public Service Commission 58 authority to regulate the power industry. 57 Ibid., pp. 1-3. 58Ne\v Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 38th Annual Session, 1911, pp. 64, 66-67. 228 On other matters, the Grange worked 'vith political allies. These included its defense of a state law which prohibited shipping liquor into "dry" towns from towns where the sale of liquor was permitted. A large appropriation for public schools \vhich the Grange requested was readily granted. The Grange also supported passage of the corrupt prac-tices law. "Never," declared Pattee, "was the power of the Grange exer-cised and recognized as it was before the Legislature last winter."59 In Haine the Grange was a much more aggressive advocate of political reform. There the Grange stood in the vanguard of the Progressive ad-vance. There, too, existed the problem of excessive interference in gov-ernment by business, though in Haine the lumber and power companies shared the stage with the railroads. State Master Gardner called trusts and monopoly "enemies to the best interests of the people, and a sure menace to 60 our form of government." The Grange set out "to purge the ballot box of d h b "61 any suggestion of corruption and to stamp upon frau w ere it may e. In 1901 the Grange proposed a law 'vhich would punish anyone offering or accepting a bribe with the intent of nullifying or suspending the en-62 forcement of a law. In 1903, it asked that corporations be required to provide the state with more complete financial reports of their operations~3 In 1908, State Master Stetson suggested that the records of "public service 59 Ibid., pp. 66-67. 60:Maine State Grange, 26th Session, p. 12. 6\iaine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 28th Annual Session, 1901, p. 110. 62Ibid. 63 The New England Hom~stead, December 26, 1903, p. 574. • 229 corporations and trusts protected by tariff laws of their own writing" should be opened for public scrutiny~ 4 The following year, he \varned far-mers to keep a look out for crooked stock salesmen who were traveling around the state, promoting fraudulent securities, and filling the mails with misleading advertising, all of which, in Stetson's words, threatened "the pauperizing of hundreds of our businessmen, mechanics, farmers, 65 widows, and orphans." As in New Hampshire, the Republican Party in Maine was the virtual handmaid of the big corporations. Old guard politicians representing business dominated the nominating conventions, selecting the presiding officers and the standing committee, and writing the platforms. The platforms, according to Seth Dennett, one of the founders of the Order in Maine, spoke out bravely on national issues, but offered nothing concrete on matters that affected the state. Controversial resolutions originating on the convention floor were shunted to the committee on resolutions where they were buried. Dennett concluded: "Thus the meetings of the delegates of the Republican Party, selected from Republicans and by Republicans in every town in the state have been merely ratification meetings and not state conventions at all." The conventions were ''controlled absolutely and autocratically" by the railroads, the wildlands owners, and the 64 Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 35th Annual Session, 1908, pp. 31-32. 65 Maine State Grange, .Journal of Proceedings, 36th Annual Session, 1909, pp. 46-49. 230 1 b. . 66 ot er 1g corporat1ons. The legislators themselves were criticised also for low competence and a tendency to bow to the wishes of the corporate overlords. Stetson in 1908 described certain legislators who made the mistake of allowing themselves to be persuaded that the sessions of this body are held at the Augusta House instead of the State House. This misconception has led them to spend much of their time in a certain "upper room" at the Haldorf Astoria of the capital. These long hours have been shortened by smok-ing sweet fumes, drinking sv;eet tea, and listening to disinter-ested instruction on land values and the philanthropies of pub-lic service corporations. \~en only the elect are present, they are told how many million soldiers are sent to our northeastern 67 border to protect women and children from New Brunswick caribou. Several years later, Stetson complained that the Legislature was too d . ld d 1' 1 . . d . b '11 68 large an umne y an spent too 1tt e t11ne cons1 er1ng 1 s. In 1905, the State Grange and State Federation of Labor presented petitions to the Legislature asking that a constitutional amendment pro-viding for initiative and referendum be submitted for the voters' approval. The necessary legislation was not approved that session, but in December, the State Grange repeated its demand for those reforms. The drive was begun anew in 1907, with the Granges and the State Referendum League campaigning for the election of representatives and senators favoring reform. This effort, as one scholar has written, "was greatly strengthened 66 Eastern Weekly Argus, March 20, 1907. 67Maine State Grange, 35th Session, p~ 24. 68Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 15th Annual Se~sion, 1913, pp. 51-53. 231 69 by the political support of the Grange." The Legislature approved the bills, and the amendment was submitted to the voters. The Grange there-upon conducted meetings and circulated brochures aimed at educating the public as to the significance of the issue. The amendment was approved by a majority in every county and officially became part of the state const~tution in 190s?0 Agitation for a direct primary law began in 1909 with the Grange again leading the way. Stetson called the primary the only alternative to boss rule, "the most vicious product of the methods used in administer-ing our government," and asked the Granges to work together to secure that .· 71 reform. Though both parties endor·sed the idea, as did the governor in his annual address of 1911, two bills which were introduced at the 1911 legislative session were defeated. T~e Grange then turned to the weapons it had already helped forge. It secured enough signatures to submit the primary bill to a referendum. The law was approved in the referendum held in September, 1911. The state's first primary election was held on June 17, 1912?2 Thus it seems that the Granges in Maine and New Hampshire, w·hile sharing a common interest in the v1elfare of rural society, did not march ahmys at the same pace. \1hereas the Maine Grange put itself squarely at the head of the reform movement, the New Hampshire Grange seemed more 69Maine State Grange, Journal of :Proceedings, 32nd Annual Session, 1905, pp. 108-109; J. William Black, "Maine's Experience with the Initia-tive and Referendum", The Annals, American Acaderay of Political and Social Science, XLIII (September, 1912), 163-166. 70 Black, pp. 163-166. 71Maine State Grange, 36th Session, pp. 43-45. 72 Black, pp. 174-175. 232 willing to adjust, to accept the status quo, to compromise with big business and its political supporters. This is not to call the New Hampshire Grange reactionary or a mere puppet. Like their brethren in Maine, the New Hampshire Patrons were forthright and insistent in the demands for educational reform, for better roads, for anything that seemed essential to the welfare of the small towns. Nevertheless, it was much less an activist in political affairs. The differences are illustrated in the controversy that plagued the National Grange in the later years of Bachelder's administration. Bachelder became the National Master in 1905. In 1909, his regime came under sharp attack from a group of State Granges, including the Maine State Grange. Bachelder was accused of seeking to perpetuate himself in office by his ~anipulation of its electoral machinery. Huch of the controversy concerns Grange politics which need only passing mention here. States with large Grange memberships, such as New York and Haine, wanted representation in the National Grange on ·the basis of membership. As it was, twenty states, whose total membership barely equaled Ne,., York's, had forty representatives, while New York had only two. Bachelder was also accused of deliberately retarding the growth of the Grange so as to secure his own position. Charges of financial mismanagement were also levied, and finally Bachelder was accused of using the Grange for his own political purposes. But more concretely, the insurgents criticized the Bachelder regime for its failure to lobby harder in Congress for 233 73 parcel post and similar measures. Obadiah Gardner and Clement S. Stetson led the fight against Bachelder. In 1909, the Maine State Grange withdrew its support of Bach-elder's National Grange Monthly, announcing instead that henceforth the Michigan Patron, published by the Michigan State Grange, would be its 74 official organ. In the spring of 1910, the leaders of the insurgent Granges, including Haine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Hashington, met in Atlantic City, where they formed what was planned to be a permanent 75 organization of "progressive Granges." Significantly (and not unpredictably) Richard Pattee of the New Hampshire Grange spoke in defense of the National Grange officers? 6 The insurgent Granges pressed their attack, and finally, 77 in 1910, Bachelder was ousted. His successor was Oliver Wilson of Iowa. The controversy continued for some years afterwards. In November, 1913, the hostile factions clashed when the National Grange met in Manchester, 78 New Hanpshire, but in spite of all, the progressive Granges decided not to leave the N~tional Grange. 73 Burkett, p. 413; The New England Homestead, February 12, 1910, p. 233; The New England Homestead, February 19, 1910, p. 281; The New ~ngland Homestead, April 30, 1918, p. 668; Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, .37th Ann~a1 Session, 1910, pp. 28-29. 74Maine State Grange, 36th Session, p. 101. 75Maine State Grange, 37th Session, pp. 28-29. 76New Hampshire State Grange, 37th Session, pp. 11-12. 77 The NeH England Homestead, February 25, 1911, p. 502. 78Maine Rural Life, December 13, 1913, p. 363. 234 Bachelder had also come under attack at home for his management of the Board of Agriculture. The New Hampshire Board was criticized for its inefficiency. Bachelder was accused of subordinating the needs of New Hampshire agriculture to the promotion of the summer recreation industry, d 1 t h . 1 1. . 1 b . . 79 an a so o 1s persona po 1t1ca a m1t1on. Finally ~n 1913, the Legislature abolished the Board and replaced it with a new Department of Agriculture, in spite of the apparent opposition of the Grange, which 80 earlier in fact had defeated a similar reorganization plan. The Governor and Council conferred with the Grange Legislative Committee on the matter. When the Governor evinced "a fixed and unmoveable purpose to create a commissioner of agriculture," the Grange backed dmvn, but insisted that h 1 b . d . . . b . d81 t e aw e rewr1tten an certa1n prov1s1ons e 1nserte • The reasons for the ~overnor's insistence on the bill can perhaps be explained purely in terms of politics. The Governor, Samuel Felker, was a Democrat, and it seems likely that he was motivated in part at least by a wish to get rid of Bachelder. Whatever the facts, the Board ,.,as abolished and Andrew I. Felker, the State Grange Overseer (but no relative of the governor) was appointed Commissioner by the Governor and Council. Brother Bachelder was sent into permanent retirement. In the ~regressive Era, the hill country Granges were confronted by the array of powerful societal and economic forces that were shaping 79 The New England Homestead, November 21, 1910, p. 493. 80New Hampshire State Grange, 38th Session, pp. 66-67. 81New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 40th Annual Session, 1913, pp. 67-68. 235 twentieth century America. Hhatever success ,.,as registered in their legislative battles, it had become evident that the Granges would soon have to adjust to the new circumstances. In New Hampshire, that stage had already been reached by 1900. There the Grange worked with in a predominantly industrial society in which urban interests had the upper hand. Rather than resist, the New Hampshire Grange tried to adjust to what fate had decreed by seeking accommodation with the railroads and other corporate interests as the best means of advancing the cause of agriculture and the small town. In Maine, the picture was not so well focussed. There the rural electorate enjoyed a numerical majority and the advantage of such an alliance was less obvious. Though Populism nev8r gained· a. handhold in New England, in Maine the Grange leaned in that direction with its attacks on monopoly, its fight for political reform, its uncompromising stand on temperance, in brief, its more purely agrarian outlook. As time >vould show, however, the urban tide was moving ahead in Haine. There, too, the Grange would find that its own mission depended ultimately on the willingness of its rural constituency to come to terms with this new America. CHAPTER 9 THE GRANGE ON TAXATION Next to the weather, probably nothing griped the hill country farmer quite so much as his taxes. Though few people like taxes, for farmers living in Maine and New Hampshire, taxes were not merely an annoyance, but a serious economic burden. A survey taken by the Ne\v Hampshire Board of Agriculture in 1873 drew the nearly unanimous response that taxes were too high. ·· In Atkinson and Candia, excessive taxation \vas blamed for lovJ farm profits. A respondent from Danville called taxes a great burden, while another, writing from Tamworth, claimed: "No class is so oppressed by taxes l as the farmer." In Maine, where property contributed 98% of the public revenue, sharply falling farm prices had made the load well-nigh unbearable~ Elsewhere across the United States, farmers were raising their voices in protest. Virtually every State Grange in the Midwest passed resolutions sometime during the seventies demanding relief and tax reform? Under the constitutions and laws of Maine and New Hampshire, po11 and property taxes were the primary sources of state, county, and local 1New Hampshire Agriculture, 4th Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1873, pp. 419-523. 2 Fred Eugene Jewett, A Financial History of Maine (Ne\v York: Columbia University Press, 1937), p.12l. 3 Solon Justus Buck, The Granger }fovement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1913), p. 105. 236 237 revenues. In each state, ultimate authority for raising and spending tax, money ,,,as vested in the legislature~ The basic unit of local government was the town, 'vhich also was treated as an assessment district for purposes of taxation. County government in Maine and New Hampshire developed somewhat later, and, com-pared with county government elsewhere, had rather restricted functions. In Maine and New Hampshire, local government took three forms each of which used a slightly different procedure for administering the tax function. Cities with charters usually elected or appointed a full-time assessor. Incorporated towns sometimes elected a board of assessors, though just as often the job of assessing property was done by the selectmen. In Maine, there was a simplified form of town government called the plantation where instead of selectmen, the town assessors served as the chief officers. The third category was the unincorporated town, 'vhich usually had a popu-lation of under two hundred. Here the functions of government were performed entirely by the state and the county; a state officer assessed and collected taxes; there was no local government. In New Hampshire, the great majority were incorporated towns and chartered cities, but in lfuine, on the other hand, unincorporated towns, some 8,057,000 acres in area, covered 42% of the state. In 1931, there were in Maine 20 cities, 433 towns, 65 plantations, and 361 unincorporated towns~ 4Jewett, p. 107; Maurice H. Robinson,~ History of Taxation in New Hampshire (Publications of the American Economic Associations, 3rd Series, III, No. 3, August, 1902), p. 194. 5 Jewett, p. 108. 238 In each state, county and town governments derived their legal authority from the legislature. Although townspeople at their annual town meetings were able to elect officers and vote on a number of matters, in fact, the limits of local authority were determined by acts of the legis-lature, which told the towns ho\v much money they could or had to spend and how the money might be raised. Towns could not borrow without the prior approval of the state. Thus it was really the elected representatives in the legislatures, not the townspeople, who decided what the towns could or could not do. In this way, for example, state laws required towns to provide schools, highways, and meeting houses, and to provide for the poor. The townspeople might debate as to where a school should be built and how many erasers to buy, but they had no choice in the matter of providing a school. Frequently, state lmv determined hmv much mcney a town had to . . 1 bl' . 6 ra~se to meet part~cu ar o ~gat~ons. Until state boards of equalization were established late in the nine-teenth century, the legislature itself apportioned the state tax among the towns and counties. When the law makers decided to make an appropriation, an apportionment committee of the house of representatives, using property inventories submitted by town officers, determined the proportionate part of the state's total valuation which was located in each town. That per-centage was used to determine how much each town and county was to be assessed. Each town and county was then required to raise the sum assigned it by the legislature? 6Robinson, pp. 194-196. 7Ibid., pp. 144-146; Jewett, pp. 109-111. 239 In the towns, either the selectmen or the town assessors ,.,ere assigned the duty of rating the estates and collecting taxes. Sometimes the law stipulated that part of the money should be raised from a tax on polls. In New Hampshire in 1890, males between the ages of twenty-one and seventy, except insane persons and paupers, were required to pay a poll tax equal to the tax on $100 valuation in the town where the poll was taxed. Disabled veterans of the Civil War could be exempted at the discretion of the select-men. In Maine, the law prescribed that a poll tax of not more than $3.00 be levied on every male over twenty-one for state, county, and local usage, and that an equal sum might be assessed for roads. One half of the towns in Maine assessed polls of $1.00 to $2.50, while the remainder collected 8 a $3.00 tax. Assessors or selectmen determined what property was subject to tax-ation, determined its value, and made the assessment. Under the law in both states, all property, whether real or personal, was subject to taxation, but in reality, personal property was rarely taxed. This meant, for example, that stocks, bonds, and other forms of monied property usually escaped. In addition, not all real property was taxed at its full value, and some was not taxed at all. Some property might be assessed at 100% of its value, while other might ce for half or even less. State laws authorized town officers to exempt paupers, blind, and insane people. Other lmvs, enacted in the 1860's and subsequently broadened, permitted municipalities to exempt industrial properties for up to ten years. Frequently, too, businessmen 8 Report of the Special Tax Commission of Haine, 1890, pp. 39-40. 240 were granted abatements, especially after they threatened to take their factories somewhere else if the relief were not granted. Granting of exemptions and abatements to privileged citizens necessarily threw the burden of public expense on property not so privileged? Farm real estate was most vulnerable to taxation. It could not be easily concealed from public view, and in many small towns, this and forest land formed the only taxable wealth. As a rule, farm and rural properties were assessed higher than that in towns, cities, and villages. In an earlier day, when farming had been prosperous and land was a sure indicator of a man's wealth, a tax on land was reasonable and fair, but in the years after the Civil War, it became less so for t\vo reasons. One was the fact that an ever-increasing percentage of the economic wealth of Maine and New Ramp-shire was represented by stocks, bonds, bank deposits, and by monied in-comes -- salaries, wages, and interest payments. Secondly, due to the waning prosperity of agriculture, farm values had shrunk, and were no longer a reliable index of a man's economic standing. A man might work hard all his life only to find in the end he was worth less than when he had started. As Obadiah Gardner remarked on one occasion: "Rather a de-pressing picture for a man (who by his industry and thrift has done all these things) as he passes down the declivity of life to find that in spite of all his efforts he has lost ground and his property has become less valuable than when he started life."10 9 Jewett, pp. 116, 120; Robinson, p. 108. 10Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 26th Annual Session, 1899, p. 11. 241 Thus, in the first place, shrinking farm incomes indicated a lessen-ing ability to pay, yet assessments seldom reflected the reduced value of the property. Gardner contended that many farms in Maine would not sell for their assessed value. A point repeatedly stressed by the Grange was 11 that property should be assessed at its true market value. As urban and industrial properties were appreciating, it was only fair that their owners should be obliged to pay higher taxes, while the farmer, whose capital was depreciating and whose profits were dwindling, should pay less. Popular pressure for tax reform became especially strong in the de-pression decade of the 1870's, coming not only from farmers but also mer-chants and other property owners who suffered under the inequitable system. In December, 1873, the very week the New Hampshire State Grange was organized, a big farmers' convention was held in Manchester at which the tax issue re-. d . . 12 ce1ve prom1nent attent1on. The state Republican platform, harkening to the Grangers' plea, contained mention of the need for reform~3 That summer, the State Grange made up its mind to force the legislature to do something. Blank petitions were sent out to the Subordinate Granges along with requests for signatures in support of the legislature's creating a special commission to look into the tax question. Numerous petitions from Granges poured 11New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 15th Annual Session, 1888, p. 34. 12The Farmers' Cabinet, December 17, 1873. 13The Mirror and American, January 9, 1874. 242 into the legislature;4 which readily responded by appointing the commission. According to the law, the special com1nission \vas to "codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to taxation and exemptions therefrom and to recommend such alterations as they find necessary to establish an equal f . 1115 system o taxat1on. The commission did indeed conclude that the exist-ing system was defective and that the tax laws failed ''to accomplish the important purposes of a well-adjusted system of taxation, inasmuch as they fail to operate upon the taxation with that equality and uniformity without h . h h "1 k . h. f h bl" d . . . 1116 w 1c t ey must necessar1 y wor m1sc 1e to t e pu 1c an 1nJust1ce. But the con~ission went on to decide that meaningful change could not be accomplished without so radically altering the tax structure that the public would oppose it. Consequently, it made no recommendations for 1 . 1 . t" 17 eg1s at1ve ac 1on. Plainly the public was not satisfied and certainly not the Grange. The State Grange in 1877 insisted that taxation be "equalized," and in 1878, State Master Dudley Chase expressed the opinion that railways, bonds, express and insurance companies should be compelled to pay more. Chase complained that tax exemptions which favored money lenders and millionaires thrust an unequal responsibility for public expense on the merchant, farmer, and mechanic~ 14state of Ne\v Hampshire, Journals of the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives, June Session, 1874, pp. 392, 461, 637. 15Quoted in Robinson, p. 91. 16Quotcd in Ibid. 17Ibid., pp. 91-92. 18New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 4th Annual Session, 1877, pp. 28-29; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceed-ings, Sth Annual Session, 1878, pp. 8-9. 243 Pla~nly too, the Jegislature was less than pleased with the work of the first conuuission for in July 1877 it created another conunission 1\vhose duty it shall be to carefully examine into the sources from which the state derives its revenue and ascertain and report whether or not all classes or property are equally taxed under the present laws; also to recommend to the next legislature, if possible, some plan of legislation by which the town and city may be relieved to some extend from what is known as the state tax and also to seek now sources of revenue."19 This commission did its work more diligently. After studying the problem carefully, it drew up a series of bills, most of which were approved by the __!egislature7° In the first place, a state board of equalization was created whose duty it was to apportion state taxes among the cities and towns and to administer the railroad and other corporate taxes. Forwerly, these duties had been shared by the conunittee on apportionment of the house of repre-sentatives and the state supreme court. Secondly, it required that the secretary of state furnish selectmen or assessors of every town and city with blank inventory sheets on or before March 1 of every year. These blanks were then to be distributed to the taxpayers, who were required to give full information concerning "the classes in gross and the amount thereof of each class of his property and estate and the value of such classes, his personal property and estate liable to taxation and such further information as will enable selectmen or assessors to assess such property at its true value." The completed inventory, signed under oath, had to be returned to 19quoted in Robinson, p. 92. 20Ibid., p. 93. 244 town officers no later than April 15. The making of false statements on the inventory was made subject to the penalties for perjury. Corporations were subject to the same regulations, and furthermore the principal officer of every bank or corporation was required to furnish a true account of all 21 shares or deposits, their value, and whether such shares were mortgaged. As a matter of practical fact, the listing law seems to have made little improvement in the efficiency of the tax collecting machinery. In 1878, the year before the law took effect, collections were $4,138,000; in 1879, they increased to $15,607,999; but by 1884 they had fallen to $8,400,000 and finally in 1894 dropped to $5,987,998, these sums being the total 22 collected for use by all three levels of government on the property tax. The threat of serious penalty seems to have made no impression on the honesty or faithfulness with which collectors and taxpayers regarded the law. Tax officers were anxious to keep valuation down so as to reduce the share of the state tax their towns had to pay. Taxpayers listed in their inventories only what they chose to list, that presumably being property that could not easily be hidden from public scrutiny. Nahu.ru Bachelder blamed the situation on lax enforcement of the law and "the elasti.city of the conscience of the individual when subscribing to the statement required." Great inequalities occurred, he said, because certain taxpayers had "pull" 23 with the assessors. In numerous cases, the voters had only themselves to 21 b. 1 ~., pp. 93-94, 146-148. 22Ibid., p. 98. 23New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 28th Annual Session, 1901, p. 15. 245 24 blame for electing officials who failed to perform their duties properly. It was suggested that farming tovms appoint six men, tvm to accompany each 1 h d]_. d h. . 25 se ectman as e lS assesslng. The State Grange demanded that the law be repealed and that land be inspected by an impartial appraiser 26 "instead of constituting every man a judge of the value of his own property." In Maine, too, a movement for tax reform sprouted up in the early 1870's, though the Grange itself does not seem to have become a prominent •' participant until somevJhat later. Until 1865, the state of Haine had derived its revenues from three major sources: the property tax, a tax on state banks, and the sale of public land. With the creation of the national bank-ing system, most of the state banks in Maine gave up their charters, thus drying up one source of state revenue. By 1870, Maine's public domain had been virtually exhausted, and as a result, property remained as the only major taxable resource. In 1870, 98% of the state's money came from that source. With the onslaught of the depression, the burden on property be-came so intolerable that Governor Dingley in 1873 and again in 1874 pleaded with the legislature to provide some sort of relief. Dingley's views that the inequalities and injustices of the existing structure should be removed were reiterated by each of his successors, including Frederick Robie, until finally in 1889 Governor Burleigh was directed by the legis-24Nmv Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 24th Annual Session, 1897, p. 57. 25New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 99. 26Ibid. 246 lature to appoint a conunission to study Maine's tax system and to compare it with those of other states~ 7 Governor Burleigh had told the legislature previously that ''farmers pay an undue share of the general taxes," but, strange to say, not one of the commission members was a farmer. The Grange, therefore, decided to appoint a committee of its own, consisting of Rufus Prince and R. W. Ellis, who were to appear before the state commissioa "as often as may be necessary" to present the views of the farmers. In the meantime, the Grange's per-manent Committee on Taxation presented three resolutions, all of which were adopted. One insisted that mortgaged property not be double taxed. As things stood, both the mortgage and the mortgaged property were taxed, so the mortgagee, who ultimately paid both, was taxed for twice the actual value of his property. In the Grange's vie~v, the J.ender ought tc be taxed on his interest in the mortgaged property, while the borrower should be obliged to pay only on that property which had been reJeased or had· not been covered by the mortgage. A second resolution urged enactment of a listing law similar to ones already in force in New Hampshire, Vermont, and several other states. The third called on the Subordinate Granges to . . h 1 . 1 f 1. . 1 28 pet~t~on t e eg~s ature or a ~st~ng aw. In its report, the special commission emphasized the need for reforms which would bring greater equality in the distribution of taxes. While rejecting an income tax as impractical and umwrkable, the Commission went 27 Report of the Special Tax Commission of Maine, pp. 12-15. 28Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedil:gs, 16th Annual Session, 1889, pp. 20-24. 247 on to make a number of important proposals. Like the Grange, it favored a listing law and an end to the double taxing of mortgages. In addition, it favored fixing the poll tax at the uniform rate of $2.00, plus $2.00 additional for the road tax. It suggested that ne\v or increased taxes be levied against street railways, dogs, collateral inheritances, railroads, sleeping cars, and the gross rather than the net premiums of insurance and trust companies. Perhaps most important was its proposal that there be established a state board of assessors, consisU_ng of three members of whom no more than two were to be of the same political party and each to be elected by the legislature for a six-year term. It was to be the duty of the board of assessors to equalize the state tax anongthe various classes of property and among the towns. It should have the power to summon and instruct town assessors and to compel them to bring their accounts. finally, the board of assessors was to administer the taxes on railroads and b k d f 1 f d b h d '129 an s, a uty ormer y per orme y t e governor an counc~ • When the State Grange met at Lewiston in December, 1890, Prince re-ported that he and Ellis had gone before the commission with the view that "We are as farmers bearing unjust burdens. At the same time, others who should assist in supporting the government are nearly or quite exempt from these duties." Among those who escaped,, according to Prince, were the railroads, the telephone and telegraph companies, the ice industry, the timberland owners, and others "who are living on salaries or receiving 29 Repo_r.t of the Special Tax Commission of Haine, pp. 35-51. 248 from other sources large incomes whose taxes are merely nominal."JO The Grange endorsed the commission's recommendations, including its pro-posal for the board of assessors. Further, it voted that Rufus Prince and three others should represent the Grange before the legislature, and that at least one of the four should be present in the state capital h 1 h 1 . 1 . . 31 t roug out t e eg1s at1ve sess1on. Prince's committee \vent to work. A circular letter was sent out to the Subordinate Granges asking them to send delegates to appear at the legislative hearings. Though only a few Granges actually sent delegates, many others sent petitions. Prince, Wiggin, and others from the State Grange appeared at the hearings, prompting the observation that the Grange was leading the fight for the listing bill. Opposition was intense, and eventually the listing bill was defeateJ by a tie vote in Lhe senate. 32 Ultimately only the dog tax and the board of assessors were salvaged. In one respect, at least, creation of the board of assessors repre-sented a Grange victory of sorts, if for no other reason than that Granger Hall C. Burleigh was appointed one of the three assessors. In the mean-time, the Grange launched a vigorous crusade on behalf of the listing bill. Copies were forwarded to every Grange in the state. The state lecturer and county deputies devoted much of their time while visiting the lower Granges to discussions of the tax question. But for all its efforts, the Grange found that many Patrons were indifferent, while differences of opinion 30M · S G J 1 f P d" 17 h A 1 S . a1ne tate range, ourna o rocee 1ngs, t nnua ess1on, 1890, pp. 11-12. 31rbid., p. 42. 32 Jewett, pp. 121-122. 249 made it difficult to get the united support of the farmers. At the same time, the Grange discovered that there were Patrons of Husbandry in the legislature itself who were "pronounced in their opposition" to equalization~ 3 As the 1893 legislative session came up, the Grange decided simply to concentrate its effort on securing passage of that listing law. Copies of the proposed law were sent to the lower Granges, accompanied by blank petitions seeking signatures in its support. At the same time, Grange officers pointedly discussed the bill as they made their rounds. Patrons were asked to vote only for legislators who supported it. As the Grange Executive Committee reported: "We have vwrked as quietly as possible in order not to alarm our opponents in the State to greater opposition ••• We think we can claim in the House of Representatives a majority in favor 34 of tax reform." Among the legislators who took their seats that year were five prominent Patrons, two in the House and three in the Senate, f f h b f . S G . 35 our o w om were mem ers o 1mportant tate range comm1ttees. The Grange received the important backing of the Governor, who told the legislators they should pass laws relieving industry and agriculture of unjust taxes. As had been predicted, the listing bill was reported favorably in the House where it passed by a good majority, but in the Senate it was defeated in a tie vote. As if to compensate, the Legislature did approve 33Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 19th Annual Session, 1892, pp. 27-28. 34Ibid. 35 Clarence A. Day, "Grange Yesterdays" (unpublished manuscript kept at the University of Maine in Orono), P• 43. 250 a tax on collateral inheritances, increased the taxes on loans, trusts, banks, and railroads, and finally, enlarged the powers of the state board 36 of assessors. The listing bill was brought up and defeated in 1895 and still again in 1898, prompting Gardner, on the last occasion, to denounce traitorous Grangers, whom he blamed for the bill's defe~t. Said Gardner, victory was certain, had it not been "for the opposition of those who are called Patrons of Husbandry who produced all sorts of arguments to prove what a great calamity it would be to take any action that tend to more equally distribute the burden of taxation."37 For all the justice implicit in the Grange's opinion that property was not fairly taxed, it was not uniformly correct in implying that cor-porate property escaped completely. As a matter of fact, by 1900, both states were receiving a goodly income from taxes on railroads, savings banks, and insurance companies. New Hampshire in 1842 began taxing rail-roads 1% of their capital stock within the state. Agents of the railroads were required to inform the state treasur.er how many shares were owned in each town and by whom. The money paid into the state was split between the state and the towns, with most going to the towns. Of the amount 'vhich was returned to the towns, one-fourth went to towns in which the physical property of railroads was actually located, while the remainder was distributed among the towns in which the railroads' shareholders resided, a practice tending 36Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 15. 37Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, p. 13; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 25th Annual Session, 1898, p. 14. 251 to favor towns or cities in which there were banks or other institutions holding large blocks of railroad stock. In 1860, the law was amended to require the treasurers of the railroads to keep lists of the names and addresses of their stockholders. In 1867, new legislation was passed which stipulated that railroads should be taxed on their capital stock at a rate 38 equal to that on other property. In a certain respect, these early laws did not work fairly· for the simple reason that stock was assessed at its market rate rather than according to the amount actually invested in the road. The commission of 1878 declared that railroad taxes ought to be based on "capital expended" on the original investment, whether cash or borrowed capital and any other imp~ovement, and not on the market value of the stock. The legislature accordingly enacted a law which impose~ a tax on the actual value oi the road, rolling stock, and equipment of the railroads, with the rate and value to be determined by the board of equalization. In 1854, the rail-road tax produced $61,590; in 1868, $203,284; between 1870 and 1890, an average of $190,000 yearly; and in 1910, $455,719. 39 ~aine, too, had taxed her railroads almost from the beginning. A law of 1845 provided that all railroad property, other than tracks anti road-bed, should be taxed as real estate, while shares were taxed as the personal property of their owners. In 1873 and 1874, Governor Dingley urged the imposing of new taxes on the railroads, and in 1874 a law was enacted which 38R b. o ~nson, p. 112. 39 rbid.; Report of the State Treasurer of the State of New Hampshire, 1910, pp-:---z;:-5. 252 required that the railroads report annually to the governor and council the cash value of their roads. The amount of property already subject to tax was deducted from the total, and against the remainder was lefied a 1-1/2% tax. Money so raised was returned to the towns. At first the railroads refused to pay up, but court action and a final decision by the f d h . 1" 40 state supreme court orce t elr comp lance. The Grange, however, remained dissatisfied with the way things stood. In 1890, it called for the imposition of a tax on the physical assets of the railroads in Maine, including their franchises, rolling stock, fixtures, roadways, land buildings at cash value. It specifically urged that the towns be allowed to tax railroad property, while interstate railways, it said, should be assessed on that proportion of their property that lay 41 within the state. Then in 1892, it suggested that railroads be required to pay a graduated tax on their gross earnings per mile, with the rate 42 increasing according to a scale. As a matter of fact, just such a tax was adopted in .1893, though it is not clear just how much may be justly credited to the influence of the Grange itself. The act of 1893 required the railroads to pay a tax of one-fourth of 1% on earnings of $1,500 per mile or less, with the rate increasing by a similar percentage for each additional $750 of earnings. Between 1893 and 1927, the law was little-changed except for increases in rates. The Maine railroad tax in 1890 was 40 Jewett, pp. 160-161. 41Maine State Grange, 17th Session, p. 42. 42Maine State Grange, 19th Session, p. 41. 253 $106,000; $292,000 in 1901; and $998,000 in 1916.43 The steady increase in the railroad tax, according to The Ne\v Eng_land Homestead., came "largely through the efforts of the Patrons of the Pine Tree State."44 Savings banks and insurance companies were also made subject to a state tax. Beginning in 1864, for example, savings banks in New Hampshire were required to pay a tax of three-fourths of 1% on their deposits. The rate was increased to 1% in 1869 and was made to include both the capital stock and deposits on which interest was paid. In 1898, the state realized $383,396 and an additional $11,860 from a tax on trusts. In Maine, taxes were imposed on savings banks beginning in 1872 and on trusts in 1883, and by 1900 these two had likewise become an important source of state revenue. Both states also taxed insurance, telephone, and express companies~5 Thus it is quite misleading to think that real estate took the entire brunt. In Maine, the state mill tax had dropped sharply from 6 mills in 1870 to 2.75 mills in 1890. This had happened, despite increased state expenditures, precisely because the state had adopted a nt.nnber of new taxes, including those on savings banks, railroads, telegraph and telephone; in-surance, and building and loan companies. By 1890, property was supplying only 55% of the revenue taken in by the state. And furthermore, since one mill of the state tax was returned each year as a school subsidy, the state 43 Jewett, pp. 162-165; appendixes "B" and "E". 44 The New England Homestead, February 5, 1906, p. 140. 45 Jewett, pp. 138-155; Robinson, pp. 116-123; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 25th Annual Session, 1898, p. 12. 254 tax in Haine in 1900 \vas really only 1. 75 mills ~ 6 ;r,n New Hampshire, the picture \vas essentially the same. In 1898, for example, when the state's expenses totaled $401,658, most was covered by revenue from the taxes on railroads, savings banks, trust, and insurance companies. In the words of Nahum Bachelder: "The state tax burdens no one individually, certainly 47 not the farmers." In both states, a considerable amount of money was in fact returned to the towns from the railroad taxes and i.n various subsidies. In 1899, for example, the rural towns of New Hampshire received more from the state in the form of grants and other payments than they paid in taxes, the differ-. h . f b . $163,383. 48 ence 1n t e1r avor e1ng In 1900, according to a Grange re-port, 155 to\vns in New Hampshire received $188,744 from the state, while 100 towns and unincorporated places pai.d the state only $25>353. In that year, $348,947 was returned to the towns from the railroad tax~9 In Maine, the small towns paid but 29% of the state mill tax and yet received 67% of the proceeds. The average rate per poll was $3.99 in the cities, but 1 88 . h 50 on y ¢ 1n t e towns. 46 Jewett, p. 121. 47New Hampshire State Grange, 25th Session, p. 12. 48New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 26th Annual Session, 1899, pp. 18-19o 49 New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, pp. 13-14. 50 . Ma1ne State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 28th Annual Session, 1901, p. 93. 255 In Haine, the Grange's unrewarded battle on behalf of the listing bill prompted it to turn in other directions, mostly, it seems, in res-ponse to rising pressure from its own ranks which demanded that the Grange take a more forceful stand on the general issue of reform. In 1898, the Grange Committee on Taxation handed down a ringing challenge to the Patrons of Maine, saying: That this organization which is of the farmers and for the farmers, and the only one '\vhich they have in the state that alone represents their interests, should consider this subject, not only consider it, but discuss its meaning and take some active and energetic measures to equalize the burdens ••• It is not enough for us to return home to our 20,000 constituents and say we passed resolutions condemning this or that, advising some measures for relief. They have asked bread of this organization too many times, and been given the pebble's laudation, to be satisfied with a repetition.51 In 1899, the Committee on Taxation and Legislation urged the Grange to consider readjustment of the systems of taxation affecting real and per-sonal property, railroads, express companies, wild lands, Pullman cars~ 52 electric light and heat companies, in short, all classes of property. The Legislature's failure to take action that met the approval of the Grange drew the censure of State Master Gardner, who said: It might not be in accordance with facts to charge that our law-makers have failed to take up the question practically [his emphasis] and without fear, favor, or personal bias, administer to the demands of the public and the guarantees of the constitution of our State, yet the results from the legislative effort 51Maine State Grange, 25th Session, p. 48. 52Maine State Grange, ~th Session, p. 60. 256 almost seem to prove neglect, insincerity, or some other cause equally conclusive for undesirable results.53 Gardner went on to conclude; "I£ the Legislature fails in this important duty, the people know it is because of the winning influence of those people who profit by forcing their neighbors and other citizens of the State, to pay that which just protection of citizenship says, they them-selves should pay."54 Apparently this advice all had some effect. The Grange presented the Legislature in 1901 with a comprehensive program for tax reform. The eleven proposals offered that session by the Grange Committee on Taxation and Legislation were: 1. That the rate on steam railroads be increased. 2. That the basis of taxation applying to electric railroads be changed and the rate increased. 3. That Pullman cars be taxed on gross receipts. 4. That the tax on telephone and telegraph companies be increased. 5. That -trusts be taxed on interest-bearing deposits. 6, That rates on out-of-state insurance companies doing business in Maine be increased. 7. That collateral inheritance taxes be increased and levied according to a graduated scale. 8. That wildlands in unincorporated areas be classified by them-selves and taxed at a higher rate. 53Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings; 27th Annual Session, 1900, pp. 15-16. 54rhid. l. 257 9. That a tax be levied on special and private acts of the legislature. 10. That an annual tax be levied on certain classes of corporations. 11. That "foreign corporations" be taxed. 55 Apparently, the Grange had prepared the way for those bills. Accor-ding to Gardner, Speaker of the House J. L. Manley had come to him earlier in the year and stated that the railroads (for whom lianley was a lobbyist) would not oppose a general revision of the tax laws, providing that they were treated no differently from other corporations. Manley kept his word, and most of the Grange program was adopted, with the result that the taxes on corporations increased substantially. The railroads, for example, which had been taxed $174,840 in 1900, were obliged to pay $292,000 in 1901. A franchise tax was levied against corporations, and new taxes were imposed on trusts, insurance firms, and others. According to Gardner, no tax bills were enacted except those presented by the Grange committee~ 6 The most significant omission in the reforms of 1901 was the bill which would have increased the tax on wildlands. The '\vildlands," so-called, were the millions of acres of unincorporated forest land which covered much of northern Maine. Originally part of the public domain which Maine had inherited from Massachusetts, most had been sold or given away by the state by 1870. Their chief value lay in the great forests from which were cut the logs used for lumber and as pulpwood by the state's growing paper industry. l1ost of the land had been acquired by companies or individuals interested in marketing the timber. Most of it was also uninhabited and 55 Ibid., p. 37. 56Maine State Grange, 28th Session, pp. 22-23. 258 visited only occasionally by logging crews, surveyor~, and hunters. At various times in the history o£ Maine, the timber land~ had been the ob-ject of wild speculation that sent prices sky high only to tumble . . 1 d d 57 prec~pltous y ownwar • The wildlands which lay in unincorporated towns were assessed and taxed by the state, usually at rates far below those prevailing in the organized towns. In 1908, for example, the rate in the organized towns of Maine was a little over twenty mills, while the wildlands were assessed for less than two. Moreover, like corporate properties, the wildlands were not 58 taxed at their full market value. It was the judgment of the Grange that the wildlands owners should be compelled to pay a higher tax for the general benefit of the state. In 1890, State Haster Prince called the Grange's attention to the sizeable acreage of ti.uberlanc! in ~!ainc '"hich, he said, paid "merely a nominal tax." A report made to the Grange that year made reference to "our present imbecile law" and insisted that unincorporated plantations oug;ht to be taxed "at a rate substantially equal to that paid 59 on an average by the towns and cities of the state." In 1901, the State Grange Committee on Taxation made note of the fact that the wildlands were being bought up by corporations, and it recommended that taxes on those 57F . . d. . or an lnterestlng lscusslon David C. Smith, "Haine and its Public eastern Frontier", in David H. Ellis, ment: Essays in llon(_)r of Paul Hallace University Press, 1968), pp. 113-140. of Maine's public land policies see Domain; Land Disposal on the North-ed., The Frontier in American Develop-Gates (Ithaca and London: Cornell 58 Report of the Maine Tax Commission, 1908, p. 13. 59 Maine State Grange, 17th Session, pp. 11-12. 259 1 d b . d h h . . d 1 60 an s e 1ncrease to mate t e1r 1ncrease va ue. The Grange's vie>v was substantiated by statistics. According to the state assessors' report of 1905, there were 9,053,933 acres of timber-land in Maine, the value of which the state calculated at $28,980,612 and on which a tax of $79,698 had been assessed. According to Gardner, if the timberlands had been assessed at the same rate as other property in Maine, using the value set by the state, the tax would have been $579,612. Yet the timberlands were worth four times their assessed value. In Aroostook 61 County, for example, land being sold at $5.00 an acre was assessed at $2.00. In 1908, the Maine Tax Con~ission reached a similar conclusion in a report which stated wildlands owners were fully able to pay more taxes. Over the pre~eding ten years, timber lands had increased in value by 120%, while in the incorporated towns, the increase had been slightly less than 15%. Despite this, wildlands were assessed less than two mills, \vhile the other 62 property paid over twenty. The Grange and its allies, however, were obliged to struggle for years before the desired result was achieved. Whenever a bill for higher taxes was presented, the wildlands owners and their lawyers descended on the Legislature with cash and arguments that such a tax was unconstitutional and also damaging to the best interests of the state. On one occasion, Gardner accused the timbermen of spending $12,000 to defeat a bill. A plan 60Maine State Grange, 28th Session, p. 97. 61Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 32nd Annual Session, 1905, pp. 20-24, 74-75. 62 Report of the Haine Tax Conunissian, p. ·13. 260 to secure a cpnstitutional amendment expressly authorizing the tax was given up when it became plain that the Grange could not get the two-thirds majority in both houses needed for passage. Gardner told farmers to exer-cise greater care henceforth in the choice of senators, since it was the Senate where such bills usually came to an untimely end in the hands of corporate interests '\vho stand like a stone to head off any popular move-ment." He also accused a member of the state board of assessors, who happened to be also treasurer of a company \vhich 11 1 understand" was controlled by International Paper Corporation, of working collusively with the . 63 paper J.nterests. In 1909, the Grange was thwarted in an attempt to gain legislative approval of bills which would have taxed wildlands for schools and roads, but the legislature tha~ year did approve creatio& cf the Maine Forestry District, largely for the purpose of fighting forest fires. To defray the expense of hiring forest rangers and fire wardens and setting up an efficient fire fighting organization, the state assessed the wildlands owners a tax of 1-1/2 mills on their property. That tax was increas.ed to 1-3/4 mills in 1919 and to 2-1/2 mills in 1921.64 Apparently also a sizeable tax was finally laid against the wildlands for other purposes beginning in 1916. The tax brought the state $245,000 in 1916 and $440,000 in 1920. 65 63Maine State Grange, 32nd Session, p. 22. 64 Jewett, p. 127; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 36th Annual Session, 1909, p. 91. 65 Jewett, Appendix E. 261 From 1900 onward, expenditures of state government increased enor-mously, though an ever-lessening percentage \·las raised by the mill tax. In 1900, for example, state expenses in New Hampshire amounted to about $750,000 of which half was raised from the state tax, the rest coming mostly from railroad and other taxes paid by corporations. In 1937, the state spent $29,000,000 while the state tax of $1,500,000 supplied but l/12th of the state's revenue intake. By that year, gasoline taxes, first imposed in 1923, were the most important contributor, yielding $3,500,000 a year. Corporate taxes yielded another $1,500,000; death taxes, $700,000; and the school tax, $200,000. Sales by the state's recently established chain of package stores earned another million, as did receipts from pari-mutual betting at the Salem horse track. The federal government con-66 tributed another $3,000,000. But while, as the facts indicate, state government had become pro-gressively less burdensome to the property owner, there still remained the problem of local taxes. This was the real problem, as it had been for a long time. In 1889, property in Maine was assessed fifteen mills on the dollar, of which less than three were taken by the state, the rest being spent by county and local government, mostly the latter. In 1900, property taxes in Maine totaled $7,148,000, of \vhich $908,000 went to the state, $455,000 to the counties, and the rest, or $5,875,000 was taken by the municipalities. In 1932, when the gross levy on property was $28,301,000 , 66nouglas W. Orr, "Taxation in New Hampshire Since 1900," in Thorsten V. Kalejarvi, ed., The Problem of Taxation in New Hampshire, Bulletin of the University of New Hampshire, XXX, No. 2, October, 1938, pp. 9-12. 262 the shares accruing to state, county, and local governments were $5,682,000, $1,568,000, and $21,051,000 respectively. In the same period, 1900-1932, there \V"as a drastic increase in the average property tax, from 21.70 mills in 1902 to 34.63 mills in 1920 and 46.56 mills in 1935, in the midst of the depression. In New Hampshire, the same general situation prevailed~ 7 The preponderant importance of property taxes to the municipal govern-ments can be explained mainly by the fact that for many small towns, real property was the only taxable resource sufficient to provide the money required. The other was simply the fact that the towns were restricted by the law. They could tax only what the legislature said they could tax. As population in remote rural districts dwindled, the per capita cost of providing social service's necessarily increased. Children living in iso-lated areas had to be bussed to school. Roads, too, had to be repaireq and plowed for the convenience of the small number of families, usually no more than subsistence farmers, who lived several miles from the village center. Providing such services for only a few taxpayers imposed great 68 expense on the small towns. Furthermore, the towns could not cut expenses quite so easily as the state or federal governments because many of their expenditures were fixed by state law. In this way, for example, towns were obligated to transport students living beyond a certain distance from schools; to furnish books and school supplies in an amount stipulated by state law; to pay a share 67 Jewett, p. 129. 68see H. c. Wood•wrth, Land Utiliza~ion in Nevl Hampshire, Part I, N. H. Experimentation Station, Bulletin 298, June, 1937. 263 of the salaries and expenses of the district superintendent; to pay tuition for its children attending high school; to appropriate sums fixed by law to maintain certain classes of roads; to care for the poor in a proper manner; and so on. In these circumstances, it became very difficult for the towns to economize. In times of stress, they had to turn to the 1 . 1 f f 1. f f . . bl. . 69 eg~s atures or money or or re ~e rom var~ous o ~gat~ons. To offset some town expenses, the state over a period of years agreed to subsidize schools, roads, and certain other services. Money from certain state taxes, as has been previously noted, was paid directly to the towns. In some cases, however, such benefits were enjoyed by a privileged few. The New Hampshire railroad tax, for example, benefited only towns in which railroad stock was held or Hhere the railroads had property. This discrimination the NeH Hampshire Grange asked the legis-70 lature to correct. We find the Granges calling on the state to assume more and more of the burdens of local government, such as the expense of 71 caring for pau~ers. Despite the subsidies and grants, the cost of local government continued rising after the turn of the century, and indeed accelerated in the 1920's and especially in the 1930's. One cause of inequalities in taxation on the local level was the exemptions granted businessmen. State laws permitted towns to grant such 69 Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 57th Annual Session, 1930, p. 120-121. 70New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 38th Annual Session, 1911, p. 16. 71Maine State Grange, 28th Session, pp. 109-110. 264 exemptions for up to ten years. Many towns, furthermore, offered tax abatements as inducements to businessmen to stay on after the exemption period had expired. The effect of such a policy was, of course, to force other property holders to pay higher taxes. The Granges attacked the exemption laws bitterly for their "manifest injustice" and as a "species of class legislation."72 The New Hampshire Grange resolved in 1888 that selectmen ought to assess farm property at its true value and not higher 73 than that of manufacturers' and other property. Despite the protests, the practice was continued into the next cen-tury. In 1915, the New Hampshire legislature modified that state's law by withdrawing the right of the tovms to exempt payment of state taxes. That modification seems to have made little difference, for in the years just after the World War, the amount of exempted industrial property in-creased enormously, from just $2,086,000 in 1916 to $20.652,000 in 1920. Alarmed by the extent to which the towns and cities had abused the privilege, the legislature repealed the law in 1923, only to reinstate it once more in 1928. The special tax commission of 1928 stated in its report to the legislature that such exemptions were of dubious value and urged that it . 74 again repeal the law. The Haine Grange asked that the laws governing the 72New Hampshire State Grange, 17th Session, p. 59; NeH Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 101. 73New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 15th Annual Session, 1888, p. 58. 74 Report of the Nev7 Hampshire Recessed Tax Commission of 1927-1928, pp. 6, 14. 265 exemptions of churches and similar institutions be reviewed. 75 In 1928, it asked that the state revise the exemption lmvs and favored legislation which would have forbade municipalities to exempt property on grounds of . b "1" 76 ~na ~ ~ty to pay. And in 1930, it suggested that only property specifically 77 used for educational, religious, or charitable purposes be tax exempt. As real estate taxes became increasingly burdensome, not unnaturally thoughts turned to other means of raising revenue. Inevitably, the income tax question came forward. The matter of taxing incomes was, of course, also a national issue. Such a tax had been imposed by the Congress in 1863, re-duced in 1870, and abolished finally in 1872 by a Supreme Court ruling. During the Populist era and after, the income tax gained great momentum and triumphed finally with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the C . . 78 onst1tut1on. The states lagged behind. In 1889, North Carolina and Virginia each had income tax laws, and Pennsylvania taxed the income of private 79 bankers and brokers. Most states, however, including Maine and New Hampshire, relied on other taxes. Though complaints that wealth was not paying its share of the tax frequently appeared in Grange Proceedings, specific mention of income tax is 75 The New England Homestead, December 19, 1925, p. 3. 76Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 55th Annual Session, 1928, pp. 65-66. 77Maine State Grange, 57th Session, p. 106. 78sidney Ratner, knerican Taxation: Its History as a Social Force in Democracy (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1942), pp. 104, 127-128, 134, 144-145, 324-325. 79 Report of the Special Tax Commission of Haine, pp. 35-37. 266 not conunon until around 1910. In 1884, the Dirigo Rural published an editorial by Daniel Thing advocating an income tax as a supplement to the tariff, but here the reference was obviously to a federal and not a state income tax~0 A few years later at the 1887 session of the Maine State Grange, Thing complained that real estate \vas overtaxed while "money pays nothing like its just proportion of taxes."81 The New Hampshire Grange lobbied vigorously to get the legislature to ratify the federal income tax amendment, but the bill, which was intro-82 duced by a Granger, was killed by a tie vote in the senate. Eventually, of course, New Hampshire was overridden by the majority decision of the other states. In 1916, Maine State Master Thompson told the Grange it should consider a state income tax~3 A few years later, Thompson, noting the Grange 1 s long advocacy of taxing monied wealth, callecl an irtcome tax 84 "the next step." In that same year, Herbert Sawyer of the New Hampshire State Grange declared that property taxes were too high, that New Ramp-shire for too long had been a haven for tax dodgers, and that so long as 80The Dirigo Rural, January 12, 1884. 8\iaine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1887, pp. 31-32. 82New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 37th Annual Session, 1910, p. 17; New Hampshire State Grange, 38th Session, pp. 66-67. 83Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 43rd Annual Session, 1916, p. 40. 84M · S G J 1 f P d . !. 7th A J S . a1ne tate range, ourna o rocee 1ngs, f nnua. ess1on, 1920, pp. 38-40. 267 incomes were exempt, real property would have to pay the bills~5 Only four years before, Sawyer's predecessor, Fred A. Rogers of Meriden, had stated that farm property and homes were taxed to the limit. Rogers supported a 86 "more equitable system of income and ingeritance taxes." Near the end of the decade, the Recess Tax Commission appointed by the governor of New Hampshire by direction of the Legisiature did recommend corporate and personal income taxes, among others, as a means of shifting 87 $1,500,000 in taxes from the "overtaxed" to the "undertaxed." The Legis-lature, however, would do no more than enact taxes on gas and electric il . . 88 ut ~t~es. It was during the 'thirties that pressure for an income tax was exerted most powerfully by the Grange, especially in Maine. The reason for this is not hard to imagine. As a result of unemployment and general destitution, states and municipalities incurred great expense for public relief. Public debts increased enormously. New Hampshire's state debt, which had amounted 89 to only $1,145,000 in 1900, by 1937 had mushroomed to $14,300,000. As the depression grew worse, taxes became increasingly difficult to collect. On the state level, much of the expense was borne by other taxes, but in the 85New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 47th Annual Session, 1920, p. 14. 86The New England Homestead, December 20, 1919, p. 2. 87 Report of the NeH· Hampshire Recessed Tax Commission, p. 8. 88 Harold Fisher Hilson, The Hill Count_El of Northern New England: Its Social and Economic History 1790-1830 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), p. 355.-89 Orr, pp. 11-12. 268 tmvns, as had always been the case, it was property that took the biggest blow. A study made by the Agricultural Experiment Station at Orono re-vealed that farm property in Maine in 1933 was in fact assessed lovJer than other real estate. Of the 424 farms surveyed, 276 or 65% were assessed 90 at less than 60% of their full value. But that figure taken by itself is extremely misleading. In the first place, the assessing had been done during the First World War or shortly after, when farm values and profits had been relatively high. In brief, the assessments bore no logical re-lation to economic conditions in the early 1930's, when market values and farm incomes had dropped drastically. Secondly, of course, taxes were in 91 no way related to the farmers' ability to pay. A report made by one of the faculty at the University of New Hampshire in 1937 stated that the current tax i:J. many towns Has confiscatory: es-pecially where it applied to timber, since it absorbed all possible profits. For the farmers, whose earnings were meager, taxes were a major expense and bl . d h h b d . . . 92 o ~ge t em to carry a eavy ur en 1n proport~on to earn~ngs. Though relief came from federal sources, the states and especially the towns were desperately hard-pressed. In this context, the Grange's fight for the in-come tax can be best understood. In 1930, the Haine State Grange approved a resolution \vhich mentioned that the present tax system in Haine was built on visible property, though 90 Je\vett, p. 135. 91 Harry vJ. Wood\vorth, "The Farmer and Taxation", in Kalejarvi, pp. 32-35. 92 Ibid. 269 the state's constitution did permit the taxing of other property, including stocks and bonds. It demanded that taxes be levied against intangible 93 wealth so as to provide relief to homes and to the towns. The following year, the Grange declared it to be the duty of the Legislature to adopt methods for assessing and taxing intangibles and personal property and directed its Committee on Taxation to prepare a suitable bill. At the 1931 legislative session, the Grange worked hard for approval of an income tax amendment to the state constitution, but was "beaten all along the line 94 by wealth." The Grange's irritation with law makers is evident in the remarks of one Patron who declared that farmers ought to take back the power to nominate from the "power crowd" and "put the fear of God into the hearts of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate so that they will appoint on the taxation com.1nittee a farmer or two who is neither a stockholder [n]or a gum shoer for the power trust or one of the sugar 95 boys, so-called." In the meantime, both Granges were_ working hard to keep their members and the public informed on the nature and significance of the tax issue. The New Hampshire State Grange inspired the members of 19 Pomona Granges and 103 Subordinates to take part in a group study of the tax system of that state. Individual Granges submitted detailed analyses of taxable 93Maine State Grange, 57th Session, pp. 131-132. 94Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 58th Annual Session, 1931, pp. 123-124. 95Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 59th Annual Session, 1932, p. 74. 270 property, "ays of improving tax laws, and also presented reviews in depth 96 of the financial histories of ninety-eight cities and tovms. The Maine State Grange's Committee on Agricultural Extension in the summer of 1933 helped prepare and organize material which was used in some six thousand lectures presented around the state in the winter of 1933-34. The meet-ings were designed to help farmers and others understand the tax situation better. The Grange worked with the state auditor, the state tax assessor, 97 and the chief engineer in the highway department. The Grange resumed its fight in the L.egislature in 1935. This time, bills for the income tax amendment and a limited sales tax were drafted by the Grange Committee on Taxation and introduced by representatives and sena-tors friendly to the cause. But "the bogies of new taxes," as the Grange called it, brought defeat to both, though the Grange remained confident of ultimate success. At its December session, the State Grange adopted a resolution which urged new taxes on liquor, tobacco, cosmetics, and ad-mission to places of amusement. The Executive and Taxation committees were instructed to prepare more bills for the next legislature with the explicit proviso that whatever money was raised from the new taxes be used 98 to reduce the property tax. 96New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 60th Annual Session, 1933, pp. 89-91. 97Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 62nd Annual Session, 1935., pp. 115-116. 98Maine State Grange, 62nd Session, pp. 126-127, 160-161. 271 In 1937 the Grange appeared to move a step caoser to victory. This time a majority in the House voted in favor of the income tax, but in the waning hours of the session, it reversed its position after a fifteen to fourteen majority in the Senate voted to kill both income and selective 99 sales tax. Convinced by that outcome that only a referendum could win the battle, the Grange decided to take its case to the people. The Execu-tive Committee \vas authorized to initiate the movement toward a referendum. Joining forces with the Maine Federation of Labor, the Grange worked fever-ishly to secure enough signatures to put the question to a referendum. Much to its disappointment, the requisite number of signatures could not be found, and the whole idea had to be discarded. State Master Ardine Richardson blamed the outcome on the effective opposition of "powerful groups", public indifference, and on sniping attacks led from ~·lithin by small nt!mbers of 100 Grangers who had tried to discredit the State Grange's program. Though Richardson promised to carry the battle forward, it was not un-til 1951 that the state tax was abolished and not until the 1960's that even a limited sales tax \von approval. Maine still does not have an income tax. In New Hampshire, the Grange worked with the Farm Bureau for the same end and with the same result. In April 1938, the two organizations cosponsored 99Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 64th Annual Session, 1937, pp. 48-49, 137. lOO.!h..~ ... Grange Her_9-l_~, August, 1938, p. 4; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 65th Annual Session, 1938, pp. 25-26; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 66th Annual Session, 1939, p. 56. 272 a tax conference in Concord which considered what recommendations should be made to the upcoming constitutional convention. The conference reached four conclusions: 1. Real property was excessively taxed. 2. State costs should be reduced. 3. The constitution of the state should be amended so as to permit graduated income and inheritance taxes and an excise tax. 4. Money raised from these new taxes should be used to ease the 101 burden on real property. The Grange and the Farm Bureau took their proposals to the convention, but 102 to no avail. Ne\v Hampshire even in 1972 has neither a sales nor an income tax. The property owner still pays the bill. The struggle for tax equalization brought the r,ranges into direct con-flict with other powerful interests. The Granges' struggle was hampered somewhat by the indifference and even the opposition of certain of its own members, but their ultimate failure to achieve complete equalization and especially alleviation of the burden on real estate must be viewed as a con-sequence of their inability to force the rest of society to pay a greater share of the costs of government. Unable to win complete victory, the Granges were obliged to be satisfied with compromise, The general reduction in state property taxes and increased state expenditures for services in the small towns brought the rural property owner some relief, but that was as much as the Granges could get. 101The New England Homestead, April 22, 1938, p. 12. 102 The New England Homestead, June 4, 1938, p. B. CHAPTER 10 RURAL YOUTH Ai'l"D THE GRANGE The future of the hill country clearly lay with its young people. In its efforts to revitalize rural society nothing was more important to the Grange than persuading boys and girls to remain in a small town once they had grown up. Yet for so many youngsters the hard and seemingly unrewarded life of the farmer had no appeal. To a lad who had sweated and toiled in a sweltering hayloft and walked for hours behind his father's oxen, there was nothing idyllic nor romantic in the existence of the yeoman farmer. He could earn more in less time by taking a comfortable job in an office or a factory. Nor could the bleak social milie'.l of the small town compare with the glitter and excitementt as well as the con-venience, of city life. As young people drifted away, the rural communi-ties lost the imagination and vitality that new generations of leaders could offer. The Grange was acutely aware of the problem and its con-sequences, and took upon itself the responsibility of convincing young people that life in the country could be as meaningful and rewarding as it could anywhere else. In this way, the Grange anticipated the suggestion made by Theodore Roosevelt and the Country Life Commission that something 1 be done to create a compelling desire in farm children to stay at home. 1 U. s. Congress, Senate, ReEort of the Country Life Commission, 60th Congress, 2nd Session, S. Document No. 705 (1909), pp. 21-22. 273 274 The Grange took special pains to include youngsters in its activities. On founder Kelley's personal suggestion, children aged fourteen and over 2 were accepted as full members. For the young, there were parties and programs which featured dancing, singing, and games. Choirs, bands, lit-erary and drama groups were open to those of an artistic or literary bent. 3 Some Granges even sponsored basketball teams. In the warm months, children might accompany their parents on Grange picnics and outings. There were also the Grange fairs. During the 1920's, Juvenile Granges were organized in Maine and New Hampshire. The Juvenile Granges were open to youngsters under fourteen. They were supervised by matrons in the parent Subordinate and were organized in much the same way. Each had its own officers, a ritual, and a regular schedule of meetings~ Beginning around 1910, boys' anu girls' clubs, the forerunners of the Four H movement, appeared in small towns in Maine and New Hampshire. With the help and advice of the state and later the county extension services, club members worked on various projects. Some raised sheep, 2oliver Hudson Kelley, Origin and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States: A History from 1866 to 1873 (Philadelphia: J. A. Wagenseller, 1875), p. 39. 3 Presque Isle Star-Herald, January 8, 1931; The Haine Farmer, August 24, 1878. 4The National Grange Monthly, Hay, 1924, p. 2; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 56th Annual Session, 1929, pp. 16-17; Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 60th Annual Sessi<_2,£, 1933, pp. 118-119; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 58th Annual Session, 1931, pp. 57-58. others potatoes, and so on. 275 5 For the girls, there were homemakers' clubs. The Granges took a serious interest in the work of the clubs. Teenage Grangers were of course eligible to participate in club activities. Adult Patrons volunteered as advisors. Clubs were sometimes permitted to use Grange halls for their meetings, and the Granges frequently devoted portions of their own programs to the presentation of demonstrations by club mem-bers. As further encouragement, Granges awarded prizes for outstanding 6 work. During the 1920's, the Four H clubs reached maturity, so that by 1930, hundreds of youngsters were at work on their projects with the active encouragement and cooperation of the extension services, the Farm Bureau, 7 and the Grange. It was in public education, however, where the Grange's work was perhaps illOSt important. The Decla:rat.ion of rurposes states: "l~e shall advance the cause of education among ourselves and for our children by 8 all j.ust means within our power." The Grange's involvement was motivated in part by its belief that the poor quality of rural education was a prime 5New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 38th Annual Session, 1911, p. 83; Agriculture of Maine, lOth' Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Haine, 1910, p. 256. 6Ibid.; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 41st ~nnual Session, 1914, p. 60; }1aine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 44th Annual Session, 1916, pp. 27-28; Haine State Grange, Journal of Pro-ceed~ngs, 48th Annual Sessio_n, 1921, p. 108. 7 Clarence A. Day, Farming in Maine (Orono, }faine: University of Maine Press), pp. 272-275. 8National Grange, "Declaration of Purposes", in Charles M. Gardner, The Grange--Friend of the Farmer (Washington, D. C.: The National Grange, 1949), pp. 517-519. 276 cause for the desertion of the rural towns. A report to the Ne'v Ramp-shire Grange in 1890 commented: "No other cause is operating so con-tinuously to depopulate these sections as the [lack of] proper school 9 advantages." C. 0. Purinton, a one-time Lecturer of the Maine State Grange, wrote that more efficient country schools were needed if the 10 country were to be repopulated and developed, These Grange views were seconded by the findings of the Country Life Commission which showed that farm people frequently moved into town to find better schools for their children~1 Compulsory education had existed in Maine and New Hampshire since early colonial times. Statutes enacted during the eighteenth century had required that New Hampshire towns with fifty families support a school-master, while those having one hundred families or more had to provide a 12 grammar school. Similarly in Maine, a law promulgated in 1789 by the Massachusetts General Court provided that a reading and writing school be maintained for six months in a town of fifty families and for twelve months where there were one hundred families. In towns of two hundred families, there was to be a grammar school whose instruction was to include Greek and Latin. The compulsory education laws were reenacted and broadened 9New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 17th Annual Session, 1890, pp. 92-93. 10The Nati~nal Grange Monthly, October, 1914, p. 7. 11Report __ of the Country Life Commission, pp. 21-22. 12charles E.Clark, The Eastern Frontier--The Settlement of Northern Ne\v England 1610-1763 (New-York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1.970), pp. 327-328. 277 after Maine became a state. At first, towns were notorious for ignoring the education laws, especially in frontier areas where the settlers were too busy clearing land and building homes to give much thought to school-ing;3 As settlements matured, these lapses became less serious, and certainly by 1820, elementary schools could be found in virtually every organized town in Maine and New Hampshire. For the most part, the state legislatures left nearly all the res-ponsibility for schools to the towns, providing they raised the minimum appropriations required by state law. The legislative role was confined almost exclusively to the enactment of laws which simply outlined in broad language what the towns were required to do. By mid-century, both Maine and New Hampshire had state school superintendents, but their duties were limited mostly to making inspections and filing annual reports. Townships were subdivided into school districts, each of which was administered by an agent or committee elected by the resident voters. Under the law, school districts were regarded as corporations. District school officers hired and fired teachers, maintained the schoolhouse and other property, saw that firewood was purchased, and in fact exercised 13Ava Harriet Chadbourne, ed., Readings in the History of Education in Maine: A Collection of Sources and Readings Concerning the History of ~aine and the Development of Educational Theory and Practice (Bangor, Maine: Burr Press, 1932), p. 99. 14Richard A. Hebert, Modern Maine (2 vols., New York: Lewis His-torical Publishing Company, 1951), I, . 364. 278 almost complete control over their own schools~5 Sometimes the town itself elected a school committee or school superintendent, whose duties included the certification, hiring, and dismissal of teachers, the holding of annual school examinations, and the choosing of textbooks. Sometimes this responsibility was exercised by the selectmen, but in most cases, the authority of the municipal government over the school districts was . d . d" i . 16 restr1cte to prov1 1ng appropr at1ons. In part, the reason for districting was the problem of getting chil-dren to school. Settlement in a rural town might be scattered over an area of forty square miles. Since schools had to be located within walk-ing distance of the homes of the children who attended, a town might be obltged to maintain as many as twenty-five different schools. People steeped in the tradition of local self-government wanted 'Co ivere kept open for just fourteen children~9 The loss of taxpaying residents forced towns to raise taxes and reduce school expenditures. The higher taxes were necessary to defray overhead costs of providing and maintaining a schoolhouse, so that very little remained to pay more than the most essential operating expenses. In these circumstances, buildings deteriorated. Even ln wealthier dis-tricts, the tiny one-room school could be a forlorn and dismal sight, unpainted and weatherbeaten, wind whistling between loosely fitted boards, standing lonely and unattended in some weedy lot or beside a sandpit. A report to the New Hampshire State Grange described schools which were built in the most unattractive and desolate regions and kept in rundown condition, with broken windows, dilapidated outhouse, "the most forlorn and unattractive building." The report concluded: "We fail to realize 20 the effect of beauty on the development and formation of character." A committee appointed by the Maine State Grange which visited a number of rural schools reported seeing buildings with dirty windows, muddy floors, paper and dust everJ'Vhere, privies without doors standing within ten 18otis F. R. Waite, History of the Town of Claremo]lt, N. H. from 1764 to 1894 (Manchester, N. H.: Clark Co., 1895), p. 135. 19u• h 99 .u1S op, p. • 20 New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 28th Annual Session, 1901, p. 107. 281 feet of the schoolhouse, and a conunon water dipper. One of that committee remarked: "I saw school buildings in which it is a disgrace to compel a human being to spend five hours a day, five days a week, and expect to d 1 lf . . . "21 eve op se -respect1ng c1t1zens • One authority has written: ••• in spite of all the good that be easily found in Ne\v Hampshire school house conditions during a great part of the nineteenth century, thousands of her child-ren through the years spend miserable and unhealthful hours in unsanitary and poor school buildings Hhich · stood as cross roads monuments to the spirit of local self-government.22 Another writer concluded: "The little, remote one-room rural school is inefficient, unsanitary, and poorly adapted to community needs."23 Still another shortcoming of the rural school was the quality of the instruction it offered. Teachers in rural schools tended to be inexperienced young women whose own education rarely extended beyond high school. A survey made in 1893 of the Maine public schools revealed that the average teacher was under twenty-five and had no more than a common school education. Only 10% were reported to be graduates of a high school or normal school. Many teachers, according to that survey, were "in-d b . " d 1 k d k 1 d f h. . . 1 24 ere i ly 1gnorant an ac e any now e ge o teac 1ng pr1nc1p es. 21Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedin~, 44th Annual Session, 1917, p. 85. 22B· h 86 1s op, p. • 23 . Mary L. Dann, "The Passing of the Ragged Beggar," The New England Homestead, September 7, 1912, pp. 192-193. 24 Hebert, p. 374. 282 Teachers were selected and certified by local school authorities. Not infrequently, an applicant's fitness depended not on her professional capabilities, but on her personality or even a possible family relation-ship. Nahum Bachelder, who was himself at one time superintendent of schools in Andover, New Hampshire, tells the story of a young lady who applied for a teaching position in one of the district schools. The school superintendent at the time was one of the town's leading lawyers, John M. Shirley. The girl needed a teaching certificate and in consequence appeared before Shirley for an examination. Shirley asked several questions to test the girl's teaching qualifications, none of which she could answer. Finally he asked her how the potato crop was faring in her own town of Danbury. She replied instantly that it was excellent. "You'll do," said Shirley, and handed her the certificate75 Teaching in a country school was no job for the timid or faint of heart. Schools were usually ungraded. A young girl might confront a classroom of children ranging in age from five to twenty and of widely varying abilities and interests. Equipped with little more than her own limited knmvledge and powers of persuasion, she had to maintain discipline and educate this unwieldy and often unruly group in a term of perhaps not more than eight weeks. Her work was made more difficult by lack of blackboards, maps, reference books, and up-to-date 25Nahum Bachelder, Reminiscences and Addresses (Andover, N. H.: Privately Printed, 1930), pp. 12-13. 283 26 texts. There were no other teachers to talk to, and no principal or superintendent to offer advice or assistance when trouble arose. There is record of a small district school in Weare, New Hampshire, which over a brief period saw a steady procession of men teachers enter and leave, each one being bodily thrown out by the bigge·st boys in the class. Finally a teacher was hired who threatened to whale the day-lights out of the troublemakers, and with that the school settled down h . b . f 1 . 27 to t e ser1ous us1ness o earn1ng. A school marm, it has been written, needed "more executive ability, more organizing power, a wider range of knowledge, more teaching ability, more governing, more tact, and more genius" than any who taught in graded schools in the city. As reward for such unusual talents, rural towns offered the princely salary of perhaps $5.00 per week, while those in 28 more affluent circumstances might go as high as $7.00. Since school sessions seldom ran more than sixteen weeks and usually less, a teacher who cleared over $100 a year could consider herself fortunate. Because the pay was so meager, many young teachers just starting out took jobs in one-room schools just for enough experience to get them better paying jobs in the municipal schools. 26The National Grange Monthly, October, 1914, p. 14; Prof. J. W. Sanborn, "The Relation of State to Rural Schools", in _Agriculture of Maine, 2nd Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Mai~, 1903, p. 155. 27Little, pp. 349-350. 28Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedi~s, 23rd Annual Session, 1896, pp. 55-56; Maine State Grange, ~ournal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, p. 57. 284 The Granges maintained that it was essential that only competent teachers be assigned to rural schools. Too often, teachers were young, untrained, mentally ''unstable,'' and incapable of teaching such "practical" subjects as home economics, nature study, agriculture, and manual training:9 "We contend," declared some Haine Patrons, "that rural schools have as competent teachers as have any and should not be used as practice 30 rooms." Others denounced "the prevailing opinion that anything can .. 31 teach these small schools so low prices and cheap teachers are secured." The New Hampshire State Grange called on school boards to discard the 32 notion that the same training for dishwashers was good enough for teachers. Teachers, said the Grange, should be paid higher salaries because "in 33 school work, as in all other work, we get just what we pay for." The Haine State Grange in 1894 asked that teachers be given a "stable tenure of office" and be subject to dismissal only for incompetence and not because of the "spleen of a clique or personal prejudice of an individua1."34 And in 1910, that same Grange insisted that teachers be paid "at least 29 Dann, p. 192. 30Maine State Grange, 27th Session, p. 57. 3~aine State Grange, 23rd Session, p. 55. 32New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 24th Annual Session, 1897, p. 83. 33M ' St G J 1 f P d' 37tl A 1 S . a1ne ate range, ourna o rocee 1ngs, 1 nnua. ess1on, 1910, p. 135. 34Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 98. 285 1 . · wage" and · t · bl 35 a 1v1ng g1ven as secure enure as poss1 e. It followed that the Grange was especially interested in the training and certification of teachers. Prior to the Civil War neither legislature made special provision for teacher training. Occasionally summer training institutes were held in certain counties· for teachers who wanted to attend. Other than these, there was no formal, institu-tionalized training for teachers. Maine's first teachers' college was Farmington Normal School, founded in 1863 and followed in 1867 by Eastern Maine Normal School at Castine~6 In 1870 the New Hampshire Legislature made provision for Plymouth Normal School on condition that it cause no 37 expense to the state. By 1900, there were three more normal schools in Mai~e;8 but New Hampshire still had only its school at Plymouth. The State Granges kept a close eye on the needs and progress of the normal schools. In 1888, for example, the Nevil Hampshire Grange asked the Legislature to provide the Plymouth Normal School with a $50,000 appropriation~9 The Maine State Grange under Frederick Robie played an important role in securing the legislature's approval for a normal school 40 which was established in Robie's own town of Gorham. In February, 1902, Aroostook Pomona, a Grange ·.vith "a lively interest in all educational 35Maine State Grange, 37th Session, p. 136. 36 Hebert, p. 369. 37B· h 68 1s op, p. • 38 Hebert, p. 369. 39New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 15th Annual Session, 1888, p. 104. 40 Hebert, p. 371; Hugh Davis McLellan, Historx of Gorham, Maine (Portland: Smith & Sale, 1903), p. 243. 286 matters," demanded that a normal school be opened in Presque Isle to 41 supply teachers for the schools of Aroostook County. Past State Master Wiggin, a member and officer in that Pomona, brought the matter to the attention of the State Grange, which agreed to lobby for the school at the next L . 1 42 eg~s ature. The Legislature was agreeable to the whole idea and gave its approval of the new school in 1903~3 The New Hampshire Grange became concerned when it became evident that Plymouth Normal was not expanding fast enough to keep up with the demand for good teachers. In 1900, 150 girls were enrolled of whom 40 44 graduated that year. Bachelder in 1901 appointed a committee of three which he asked to visit the school and "report on its condition at every annual session."45 Following its first inspection, the committee re-d 1 Pl h d f " , d . . "46 porte t 1at ymout was rea y or eru.arge upportui.nt.~..es. Its report in 1904 stated that the school was too small, and that further, it was so far away from southern New Hampshire that many girls preferred to take their training in Massachusetts. The facilities at Plymouth needed enlargement, and finally, the state needed more teachers than. one 41 The New England Homestead, February 8, 1902, p. 207. 42M · S G J 1 f P d' 29 h A 1 S . a~ne tate range, ourna o rocee ~ngs, t nnua ess~on, 1902, pp. 126-127. 43 Hebert, p. 371. 44New Hampshire State Grange, 28th Annual Session, p. 116. 45Ibid. 46N H . . S G J 1 f P d. 29 h A 1 ew ampsh~re tate range, ourna o rocee ~ngs, t nnua Session, 1902, pp. 102. 287 school could provide~ 7 In 1905, it was suggested that the Grange cooperate Hith the New Hampshire Federation of Women's Clubs in raising scholarships for girls wanting to attend the institution, and the 48 suggestion that a second normal school be built was repeated. Finally in 1908 the legislature agreed to build a normal school at 49 Keene. In 1910, the Grange asked for the construction of a dormitory and school building at the new school. It was also suggested that the Granges establish an education fund to finance the education of needy so students who would agree to teach for a time in a rural school. Some years later, State Master Herbert Sawyer urged that the state pay partial tuition for fifty students a year at the normal schools providing each 1 d h f f d . . h 151 woul consent to teac or two years a ter gra uatlon ln a one-room sc oo • The Granges concerned themselves too ~vith the curricula in the common schools. In general, their view was that too often the education presented in the small rural schools did not adequately prepare children for later life. Pupils studied by memorizing facts and lessons. They 47New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 31st Annual Session, 1904, pp. 69-70. 48New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 32nd Annual Session, 1905, p. 74. 49New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 35th Annual Session, 1908, p. 42. 50New, Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 37th Annual Sessio~, 1910, pp. 76-77. 51New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings 2 49th Annual Session, 1922, p. 13. 288 were not taught to think. Rather than reasoning out arithmetic prob-1 h . 1 . d h 1 . 52 ems, t ey s~mp y comm~tte t e so ut~ons to memory. Much subject matter had little or no relevance to the world in which the children actually lived. They learned about lions and elephants, and studied about Greece, England, and other faraway places, but knew nothing about the history and geography of Maine or New Hampshire. Teachers were criticized for failing to teach children to speak correctly and defend themselves orally or in writing. More attention needed to be devoted to h. 53 penmans ~p. The Granges argued that a common school education should equip children with skills and knowledge that could be put to practical use in everyday life. They should learn accounting and other simple business skills. By studying physiology, they would learn the importance of diet, 54 cleanliness, and exercise to good health. Rather than reviewing at length the history and manners of the ancient Romans, it was essential they be taught the history of their own state and so learn to appreciate h h . h. h 1 h . 55 t e er~tage w ~c was proper y t e~rs. They should be introduced to 52Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 54th Annual Session, 1927, pp. 59-61. 53n. H. Knowlton, "The Practical Education needed by Farmers", in Agriculture of Maine, 28th Annual Report of the Board of Agriculture of the State of Maine, 1884, p. 74. 54rbid., p. 77; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 25th Annual ses-sion, 1898, p. 61. 55Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 40th Annual Session, 1913, p. 127; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 25th Annual Session, 1898, pp. 9-10. 289 the study of nature and learn to identify the plants and animals they saw in everyday life. In most children's books, according to the New Hampshire State Grange, the heroes were typically lawyers, merchants, and doctors, but "never the prosperous, happy farmer." Textbooks failed to extol the charms of country living. Children should know more "of what is part of their lives in New Hainpshire and less about petty towns and mounts of Europe, Asia, and Africa."56 Bachelder was convinced that children could gain more of positive value from cultivating fruit trees, working in a school garden, and other practical work than from memorizing the oratory of Burke or the names of the highest peaks in the Rocky M , 57 ··~oun ta1ns. Thus the conclusion of the Grange seemed to be.: "Pupils 58 must study things more, and, if necessary, books less." The Granges, especially in Maine, felt that grammar-school children ought to be introduced to the study of agricultural science. In his inaugural speech, Governor Robie suggested that textbooks "on the elementary principles of agriculture" be included in the common-school curriculum~ 9 Robie's idea was discussed at length by the State Grange, which finally 56New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, pp. 86-88. 57New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 27. 58Maine State Grange, 21st Session, p. 73. 59The Bangor Hhig and Courier, January 5, 1883. 290 60 in 1889 asked a special committee to locate a suitable text. In the spring of 1890, the Grange arranged for the publication of such a book, and the following December it resolved: "Our legislature is requested to adopt some measure providing for the addition of the subject, the prin-61 ciples of agriculture, to the course of studies for our common schools." Evidently the legislature was not willing to go quite so far, for some years later, the Grange asked that courses in agriculture be made manda-62 tory in both rural and urban schools. In 1910, it suggested that the h .' f . 1 b . 63 Lstory o agrLcu ture e gLven as a course. In New Hampshire, the Grange did not work to such an extreme, but Bachelder in 1894 did mention that in Belgium, a country approximately the size of New Hampshire, "numerous courses in agriculture" were offered in normal and primary 64 schools. The Grange \vent on to stress the importance of preparing pupils in the common schools for more advanced study in agriculture at 65 the high school and college level. 60Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1887, p. 74; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 16th Annual Session, 1889, p. 42. 6~aine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 14th Annual Session, 1890, pp. 35-37. 62Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 35th Annual Session, 1908, p. 141. 63~·1aine State Grange, 37th Session, p. 139. 64New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, p. 23. 65Ibid., p. 122. 291 The Grange's interest in vocational training naturally drew its attention to the potentialities of the public high school. Though a public school had opened in Portsmouth as early as 1830, secondary edu-cation in Maine and Neo;v Hampshire before the Civil War vms provided al-most exclusively by provate academies. Not until the 1870's did high h 1 . . . f. b . . h 66 sc oo s appear 1n s1gn1 J..cant num ers J..n eJ..t er state. In 1873 the Maine legislature approved a law by which the state offered to pay half the cost of instruction to any town electing to establish a free high school. To take advantage of the state's offer, some towns took over local academies which were in financial distress and only too happy to 67 be rescued. Free high schools were founded in New Hampshire at about the.same time, not with state assistance, but, as in the case of Simmons Free High School in Warner, through the generosity of wealthy bc.ne-factors. From 1888 to 1919, there was a phenomenal increase in high h 1 . N H h' 68 sc oo s J..n ew amps 1re. What especially concerned the Granges was the rural high school, which necessarily imposed heavy expense on towns already overburdened with school taxes. Maine did provide state aid, but New Hampshire did not do so until somewhat later. For that reason, high school students in New Hampshire often had to pay their own tuition, an expense their parents were not always willing or able to meet. In 1890 the New Hampshire State 66Hishop, pp. ~2-83; Hebert, p. 365. 67 Chadbourne, p. 99. 68Bishop, p. 83; Walter Harriman, The History of Warner, New Hamp-shire for One Hundred and Forty-Four Years (Concord, N.H.: The Republican Press Association, 1879), P?• 410-415. 292 Grange urged that a free public high school be established in every 69 town which would prepare boys for the state college. In 1900 it de-manded that the state assume responsibility for extending high sohool privileges to children living in rural areas?0 An appropriate bill was drawn up and presented to the state's lawmakers. Several Patrons sat on the committee which reported the bill. The la>v required the state and towns to bear all costs of tuition in public schools, thus allowing stu-dents to attend free. 71 The bill was readily approved, and the following year, the state high school subsidy was substantially increased?2 As high schooling became more readily available, the Grange worked actively to promote vocational training. A report made to the Maine State Grange in 1910 advocated that "handiv10rk" be taught in the common schools anc! manual training be given in the high schools to ennble "dull students" to become self-supporting and respected citizens. It suggested that high schools be equipped with gardens where the vocational students ld . . 1 . . 73 cou rece1ve pract1ca 1nstruct1on. In a similar vein, Richard Pattee of the New Hampshire State Grange commented that "school training for the future should be along educational, economic, and sociological lines." 69New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 17th Annual Session, 1890, p. 92. 70New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Session, 1900, p. 118. 71New· Hampshire State Grange, 28th Session, 1901, p. 17, 105. 72B· h 83 ;t,S op, p. • 73Maine State Grange, 37th Session, pp. 128, 140-141. 293 The Grange, Pattee said, would "not be content until school rooms are fitted with cookstoves, as \vell as blackboards, and garden plots beside playgrounds, until teachers can teach the chemistry of food and soils as well as music and drav1ing." 74 To enable teachers to cope with such a curriculum, it was necessary that special preparation be given by the normal schools. Thus in 1908, the Committee on Agriculture of the Maine State Grange suggested that graduates of normal schools be prepared to teach agricultural subjects. To prepare them for this work, it recomm-ended that the department of agriculture conduct one or more institutes 75 every year at each normal school. And in 1913, the New Hampshire Grange Committee on Education announced that practical courses in agriculture, woodworking, music, sewing, cooking, and the theory and practice of . . b . -f d b . 1 . • 76 teacn~ng were e~ng or ere at otn norma scnooLs. At iZeene Normal, there was instruction in nature study and the principles of agricul-77 ture, supplemented by the use of a greenhouse. Vocational training \vas introduced in the Auburn school system on an experimental basis in 1907o The program was conceived for the benefit of students who were not planning to go beyond high school. The course offerings included typing, shorthand, cooking, agriculture, and 74Richard Pattee, "The Grange.in New Hampshire", in New Hampshire Agriculture, Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1910-1912, p. 147. 75Maine State Grange, 35th Session, pp. 137-139. 76New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 40th Annual Session, 1913, p. 77. 77New Hampshire State Grange, 38th Session, p. 69. 294 h . 1 b" 78 mec anlca su Jects. In 1912, the state began subsidizing vocational education in the high schools. By 1915 thirteen high schools were receiving state support for agricultural courses; twenty-three high schools had state-aided courses in home economics?9 In Ne\v Hampshire by 1914, fifty-eight of the state's ninety-eight high schools were offer-ing one and in some instances as many as three courses in the practical arts. Featured in the agriculture courses were such topics as soil exami-nation, testing new seed, raising staple feed crops, horticulture, stock feeding, and farm mechanics. In the domestic arts, girls were taught canning and preserving of foods, farm and household sanitation, cookery, sewing, and household design and decoration, Thus special emphasis vms given to homemaking and farming, "the two oldest and most fundamental f 11 h . 1180 o a uman occupatlons. Vocational training was given a decided boost by federal support 81 n1ade available under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. In 1921, twenty-one high schools in Maine offered instruction in agricultural science. Farmers were told by the Grange in blunt terms to either get their youngsters enrolled "or quit complaining that our boys and girls are being educated away from the farm." 82 78Hebert, pp. 376-377. 79Maine State Grange,44th Session,l916,pp.55-56, 80New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Annual Report, 1914, pp. 218-220 •. 81Alfred Charles True, A History of ASEicultural Education in the United States 1785-1928 (Washington, D.C.: U. S, Government Printing Office, 1929), pp. 370-371. 82M · S G J 1 f d 48 1 alne tate range, ourna o Procee ings, t Annual Session, 1921, p. 59. 295 Interesting and relevant in ... :,..~..s context is the story of the agricultural course at ~-~~ Academy in Maine. The school hired a teacher in 1919 to give a part-time instruction in farm science. A full course was begun in 1922, and in 1923, the academy hired Theodore Curtis of Freeport, a graduate of the state college, to teach full-time. Curtis, incidentally, joined the local Grange and later was elected its lecturer. At first, farmers were a little suspicious of him, but eventually Curti_~ succeeded in winning their confidence. Soon they started coming around for advice. The course was supported by federal funds. The academy reportedly had one of the best-equipped farm departments of any high .83 school in the state. The Granges realized that it vlas at the conununity level where reform ~:ould have to 9egin. Indifference, ignoranr::e, and the C'nnv:i.ct:i.on that schooling which had been good enough for one generation was all right for the next, constituted a major obstacle~4 In fact,members of a Pomona Grange in Maine at a meeting held some time in 1917 discussed the question, "How could our grandparents live to the age of three score 85 and ten, while using the conunon drinking cup and towel?" How the Penobscot Grangers resolved that issue is not known, but it is certain 83 Vinal A. Houghton, ed., The Story of an Old New England Town, History of Lee, Maine (Hilton, Maine: Nelson Print, 1926), pp. 50-52. 84a. A. Brmvn, "Uplift of Rural Schools", in New Hampshir~r_:!:_culture, Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1912-1913, pp. 40-41. 85west Penobscot Pomona Grange No. 23, Yearbook 1917 (Bangor, Maine: The Farbish Printing Co., 1917), p. 22-.--296 that most Grangers were of the conviction that the time had come to discard the "common drinking cup" and all that it symbolized. Much of the difficulty, according to Maine State Haster VJiggin, was caused by "extremely faulty" relations between communities and their schools. Parents, he said, ought to visit schools while they were in session to gain an impression of "the dreary and univiting appearance of 86 many rural schools." Grangers should work to create a sense of community pride and interest in the appearance of the school and the work being 87 done there. Parents were told to cooperate more fully with teachers and to refrain from criticizing teachers in front of their children~8 Patrons were urged to attend school meetings, to observe greater care in the selection of school officials, to encourage teachers, and to demand "convenient appliances and decent surroundings in and about the schoo1."89 The New Hampshire State Grange asked its matrons to take special heed of the needs and deficiencies of rural schools "to the end that there prevail pleasanter environments, closer attention to the laws of sanitation, and 90 a higher degree of culture." Granges discussed school problems in their meetings and on occasion presented special programs of exhibits arranged 8 6M · S G J l f P d . 2 3 d A 1 S . a1ne tate range, ourna. o rocee 1ngs, r nnua ess1on, 1896, pp. 13-14. 87Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedi~gs, 25th Annual Session, 1898, pp. 61-62. 88New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, p. 86. 89New Hampshire State Grange, 28th Session, pp. 106-107. 90 New· Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, p. 132. 297 b h d '1 91 y teac ers an pupl s. Some Granges went to work themselves. On a Saturday, the members would meet at the school. The men painted and chipped on the outside, mended broken windows, and cleared and graded the school yard. Inside the women and younger children painted the wood work, installed curtains, hung wall paper, and gave the schoolhouse a 1 h 1 . 92 t oroug c ean1ng out. There were Grangers who themselves had been or were teachers and superintendents. Patrons were frequently members of school conunittees. Charles l1cDaniel and Nahum Bachelder as young men had taught in district 93 schools. C. 0. Purinton was teacher and finally superin~endent for some twenty years in the public schools of Bowdoin, l1aine~ 4 A leading York County Granger, E. Abbott of Hollis, was for many years a teacher and h 1 . d 95 sc oo super1nten ent. And W. S. Stetson, perhaps the most distinguished lecturer in the history of the Maine State Grange, was nationally recog-nized as a progressive educator and a gifted school adroinistrator~ 6 91Haine State Grange, 37th Session, p. 50, 92Maine State Grange, 25th Session, p. 63. 93 Bachelder, pp. 11-13 ; H. H. Metcalf,"Three Representative Farmers", The Granite Monthly, October, 1896, pp. 226-230. 94The National Grange Monthly, August, 1914, p. 9. 95John Chick Murray, History of the Grange in York Count:z (Sanford, Maine; The Averill Press, 1922), pp. 144-145. 96 George Thomas Little, ed., Genealogical and Family History of the State of Haine (4 vols., New York: Lewis l?ublishing Co., 1907), I, 197-199. 298 But the towns themselves could go only so far on their own. The facts were that numerous small towns simply could not afford to pay for good schools, in spite of the fact that their tax rates were 97 frequently double or more those of the cities and wealthier towns. In Maine in 1890, for example, Portland residents were paying an average of 85 cents per $1,000 of valuation in school taxes; in Bath, the rate was 92 cents; but in the towns of Oakland and Prescott, the rates were $19.00 and $11.28 respectively?8 Yet despite the heavy expenses forced on the rural taxpayer, their teachers were paid less and their children received a poorer education than their city fellows. Municipalities spent far more than the towns per student. Manchester, New Hampshire, in 1890 was spending $14.76 per student; but in Rocking-ham County, excluding the shire town of Exeter, the average was $7.)0. In Merrimack County, the city of Concord could afford to pay $15.26, while in the farm towns, school expenses averaged $8.15, dropping in some cases to as little as $4.00.99 Maine State Haster Hunt called school taxes "one of the most unequal and unjust burdens which the rur:al 11 d b 11100 towns are ca e upon to ear. What the Granges insisted was "that our rural towns be put more nearly upon an equality as to school 97New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 23rd Annual Session, 1896, p. 75. 98 Maine State Grange, 17th Session, p. 10. 99New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 17th Annual Session, 1890, p. 90. lOOM · S G 17 l S . 10 a1ne tate range, t1 ess1o~, p. • 299 d . ..101 e ucat1on. In their view, children in the country had an equal right to a good education as any, and it was the duty of the state to pay some of the cost of their schooling. In the first place, the Granges demanded that the independent school districts be abolished, and that, Hhere possible, town schools 102 be consolidated to allow for more efficient use of school funds. The district system was abolished in New Hampshire in 1886, and h 1 . M . 103 somew at ater 1n a1ne. In New Hampshire, as a result, the total number of districts dropped from 2,010 in 1880 to 267 in 1889.104 Towns were urged to join together to form supervisory unions which would enable them to afford the services of professional school super-. d 105 1nten ents. The New Hampshire State Grange reconunended that the h lf h 1 f . d h' db h . 106 state pay a t e sa ary o super1nten ents 1re y sue un1ons, and in fact, legislation was secured in 1899 Hhich made just such a 101Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891, p. so. 102Ne\v Hampshire State Grange, 17th Session, p. 92; W. W. Holman, "The Needs of Our Rural Schools", Haine Rural Life, August 9, 1913, pp. 91, 96. 103 . New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891, p. 91; Hebert, p. 373. 104B· h 53 1s op, p. • l0~1 ' St t G J 1 f P d' 14th A 1 S . • a1ne a e range, ourna o rocee 1ngs, nnua ess1on, 1887, p. 75. 106New Hampshire State Grange, 25th Session, p. 117. 300 i . 107 prov s~on. 108 A similar view was expressed by the Maine State Grange. Employing full-time superintendents was justified on the grounds that school systems required expert, businesslike administration under full-time supervisors~09 In 1913, the New Hampshire State Grange came out 110 in favor of compulsory supervision of public schools. Ultimately_ it was the intention of the Grange that the schools be brought directly under the supervision of state agencies through paid professional educators who would establish and enforce uniform high stand-ards throughout the state. Too often local school boards simply lacked the expertise and were motivated too much by political influences to do an effective job. W. s. Stetson told the Maine State Grange in 1892 that the"state lacked an efficient system of education and that consequently a 111 considerable amount of money was being wasted. In Maine no one did more to revolutionize public education than Stetson himself. A native of Greene, Stetson had attended various academies in Maine and later grad~ated from Monmouth College in Illinois. At the age of fifteen, Stetson had taught in a district school in Maine. Later, he held successive teaching positions in various schools in Illinois where 107Laws of New Hampshire, Chap. 171, Sessions Laws of 1899. 108 1 · S G J 1 f P d. 26th A 1 S i t a~ne tate range, ourna .. o rocee ~ngs, nnua ess on, 1899, pp. 48-49. 109Maine State Grange, 37th Sessioni p. 128. llON H 1 · S t G J 1 f P d. 40th A 1 ew amps ~re ta e range, ourna o. rocee lngs, nnua Session, 1913, p. 80. 111.1 b 1: e ert, p. 375.-301 he eventually became the superintendent of schools in a large town. Returning to Maine in 1884, he was appointed a principal and finally superintendent in the Auburn school system. In 1895 he was made state superintendent of public instruction, and under his imaginative leader-ship, drastic changes \vere wrought in the public schools of Maine. On his suggestion, the legislature provided for the certification of teachers by the state. Teacher cand.idates who passed an examination administered by Stetson's department were given a certificate which was kept on file in the state house and made them eligible to teach in an~ public school in the state without further examination by the local school boards. Stetson prepared course and class plans for teachers and made numerous suggestions as to technique, choice of books, and so on. Another Stetson innovation was the organizing of school improvement leagues in the communities themselves. The leagues, made up of parents and adults, many of whom were quite probably Grangers, worked together on various . h d i f' h . h 1 112 projects to 1mprove t e appearance an equ pment o t e1r sc oo s. Stetson wrote and lectured extensively all over the United States and was certainly one of the outstanding educators of his tlme~13 Most important to the Grange, however, was increased financial support from the state. There was ample precedent for this. In colonial times, grants of townships almost ahv-ays contained the proviso that one 114 lot or section be set aside to support education. After she became a 112 George Thomas Little, pp. 197-199. 113H b e ert, 374-375. 114 Clark, pp. 327-328. 302 state, Haine donated entire townships from the public domain she had inherited from Hassachusetts, for the support of various academies. Huch of that land, however, lay in areas so remote that even today they . l f 1 115 are Wlt1out a trace o sett ement. In 1833, the Haine Legislature levied a tax for the support of education and in 1872 enacted a mill 116 tax for the same purpose. In 1823, the New Hampshire legislature had appropriated funds for a state college. When the college idea was dis-carded, that money was set aside as a literary fund for the benefit of 117 the schools. In neither case was the state contribution large; by far the greatest expense was shouldered by the towns. The Grange proposed that for purposes of taxation a state be regar-ded as one large school district in which citizens could be taxed 118 equally. It 'vas unfair, the Granges argued, that the minority of children \vho lived in municipal districts should receive the best educa-tion, especially in situations where parents paid little or no school 119 taxes. Whatever investment a town made in a child's education was lost when the child grew up and decided to move elsewhere~20 In this way cities such as Manchester or Lewiston reaped the benefit but incurred none of the expense of educating of rural folk who came to work in their offices and factories. In the Grange's opinion, it was only right that these 115 116 117 Hebert, p. 365. Chadbourne, p. 99. Bishop, p. 43. 118New Hampshire State Grange, 17th Session, p. 92. 119New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 11th Annual Session, 1884, p~ 72. 120New Hampshire State Grange, 24th Session, p. 21. 303 wealthier towns be obliged to pay some of the expense of educating l 'ld . 1 121 c11 ren 1n rura areas. The Haine State Grange, while opposing public assistance to parochial schools, in 1893 asked the legislature to do something to equalize school taxes, but their bill was beaten, according to State M W • • b II • • f h . 1 . 11122 . aster 1gg1n, y oppos1t1on rom t e cap1ta 1sts. In New Ramp-shire, the Grange gave the school question its highest priority. In the summer of 1897, a bill supported by the Grange, the state superintendent of education, the state teachers' association, and an informal union of the farmers and mechanics who were serving in the legislature, was de-feated by the adverse report of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yet so much public interest was aroused by the agitation for the bill that the Grange was confident of future success. Bachelder r~omised to make h b . . h 1 . 1 . . 123 t e su Ject a prom1nent one at t e next eg1s at1ve sess1on. A.special connnittee was set up by the State 'Grange at its session in December, 1898, and directed to present the legislature a bill b d . G . 124 em o y1ng range v1ews. That committee did its work well, and that year, legislation was enacted, "largely through Grange influence," which afterward became known as the "Grange School Law." The act provided a 121Maine State Grange, 18th Session, p. 50. 122Mal·ne State G J 1 f P d' 20th A · 1 c i range, ourna o rocee l.ng§_~ - nnua . oess on, 1893, p. 16; Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 21st Annual Session, 1894, pp. 13, 66. 123 New Hampshire State Grange, 24th Session, pp. 21, 103-104. 124New Hampshire State Grang~, Journal of Proceedin[?s, 25th Annual Session, 1898, pp. 13, 116-118. 304 $25,000 appropriation for school aid, three-fourths of which was to be paid as subsidies to tmvns having the least taxable property per·scholar. The remaining money was set aside to pay the salaries of superintendents appointed by towns which formed supervisory unions~25 Sixty-two towns • d • d • h f • f b 1 I ' 126 rece~ve state a~ ~n t e ~rst year o t e aw s operat~on. While justifiably pleased by its success, the Grange was not ready to let matters rest. In 1900 it called on the legislature to enforce the 127 compulsory attendance provision of the state law. In response, the legislature empowered the state superintendent of education and his depu-ties to enforce the truancy laws. As a result, hundreds of children who formerly had worked in the mills were obliged to attend schoo1~28 Three years after the passage of the Grange law, Bachelder told the State Grange that its immediate effect had been to enable towns to increase. teachers' salaries and to extend their .school terms by up to eight weeks. Some towns, whom Bachelder severely condemned, instead of using the state subsidy to supplement their own school appropriations, in fact used it as an excuse for reducing their own expenditures to the legal minimum set by state law. These towns, however, apparently were 125Laws of New Hampshire, Chap. 171, Session Laws of 1899; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 26th Annual Session, 1899, p. 13; The New England Homestead, March 25, 1899, p. 384. 126New Hampshire State Grange, 26th Session, p. 13. lZlN H l · S G 27 h S . 118 ew amps11re tate range, t ess1on, p. • 128New Hampshire State Grange, 28th Session, pp. 105-106. .. 129 except1.ons. 305 In 1904, the Grange drafted legislation asking that the state double the school appropriation by increasing it by $25,000. Though the bill was carefully drawn up, it did not have the full support of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who held the bill in his committee until just tHo days before the session was due to end. Then he told the Grange it could have $10,000 or nothing. Angered by what State Naster Hadley called "one-man rule" in the legislature, the 130 Grange had little choice but to accept those terms. Not to be.discuraged, the Grange in 1907 asked that the legis-lature guarantee the state's payment of equalization and supervisory f . d f 131 costs or a per1.o o ten years. In 1909, the Grange succeeded in getting the legislature to modify the law of 1899 and to grant a subsldy amounting this time to $80,000. Under the law, state aid was appor-tioned among toe towns according to property valuation and the length of time the schools remained in session.. Towns whose valuation ranged between $2,000 and $3,000 per pupil received $1.75 per school week for every twenty-five students, and an additional $2.00 per week for each teacher who was the graduate of a normal school. Towns having higher valuation were paid proportionately less according to a fixed 129New Hampshire State Grange, 29th Session, p. 23. 130N H h' S G 32 d S . 19 21 ew amps 1.re tate range, n ess1on, pp. - • 131New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of :Proceedings, 34th Annual Session, 1907, pp. 17-18. 306 132 scale. Within a year, the Grange could report that most towns were keeping their schools open for thirty weeks or more, and that there had been general improvement in the quality of school work~33 In 1911, the legislature appropriated even more school money, causing the Grangers to "rejoice in the liberality of the legislature. 11134 Thus in New Hampshire the state steadily enlarged its share of school costs. Nevertheless, administrative responsibility remained largely with the towns. Despite increased state aid, many schools in the poorer districts were sadly neglected. A study prepared by a special cormnission appointed by the governor described remote hill towns which had become virtual retreats into which incompetents and persons of low mentality had drifted for years. Drunkenness, immorality, feeble-mindedness, and insanity were so prevalent in these cas8s that the towns-people, in the commission's view, simply could not be trusted to manage their schools properly. Sixteen percent of the state's school children lived in districts which could not afford to hire a superintendent. Th . . . d d . . . b 1- • • 135 e s~tuat~on requ~re ~rect ~ntervent~on y state autttor~t~es. "Our school children," that report concluded, "are legally, socially, and 136 economically wards of the state." 132Laws of New HamEshir~, Chap. l33New Hampshire State Grange, 134N ew Hampshire State Grange, 136 115, Session Laws of 1909. 37th Session, pp. 78-79. 38th Session, p. 66. 135Bishop, pp. 99-101. Quoted in Ibid., p. 102. 307 The legislature, with the complete approval and support of the Grange, responded by drastically revamping the state's entire school system. A Board of Education, consisting of five members and the governor e~-officio, was created and given "the same pmvers of manage-ment, supervision, and direction over all public schools as the directors f d · b · · "137 A . . . d b h o or ~nary us~ness corporat~ons. comm~ss~oner, appo~nte y t e board, was to exercise professional supervision over the department's activities. The commissioner was given broad and definite powers. He could organize supervisory unions and appoint superintendents. He could prescribe professional qualifications of teachers and superintendents. In unorganized towns, the commissioner himself assessed and collected school taxes. Somewhat later, legislation was enacted which gave the board the power to alter school curricula and affect other details of school management. The law of 1919 required tmvns to raise at least $3.50 per $1,000 in valuation for school purposes. In towns where a $5.00 assessment was found insufficient to maintain elementary schools or to buy textbooks, the state was to provide the additional funds. To help defray the expenses of the board of education, each school district was required to pay the state $2.00 per pupil. A substantial appropria-d d 1 . h h 1 . 1 . 138 tion was provi e a ong w~t t e eg~s at~on. The school law of 1919 was the culminating victory in the Hew Hampshire Grange's crusade for better rural schools. 1371aws of New Ham2shire, Chap. 106, Session Laws of 1919. 138Ibid. 308 In Naine, the cause of improved rural schooling had already been \vell advanced by H. S. Stetson. As in New Hampshire, the Grange fought to remove what it felt was an excessive and unfair burden on the small towns by increasing the state school tax. In 1905 it failed to obtain the legislature's approval for a doubling of the state mill tax and also the state tax on wildlands, apparently due to the opposition of large corporate interests which would have been required tb pay much of the 139 increase. Two years later, however, the mill tax was increased, and by 1917, the state had amassed a very substantial school fund from taxes on savings banks, trusts, general banks, a state mill tax, and interest on the fund itself. From that fund, the state distributed aid amounting 140 to $11.83 per student to help towns and cities defray their school costs. Yet the increase in state aid haJ. not been an um,ti.xed blessing. Though the state paid approximately half the total cost of elementary education in Maine, the money was unevenly divided. Some towns and cities got more state aid than they needed, while others, though taxing them-selves heavily, got less and therefore were obliged to be content with inferior schools. Towns of low valuation assessed themselves at a higher ~ate than the wealthier communities, yet their per student and per teacher expenditures were much lower. Portland's property tax in 1910 was 13911 · S G J 1 f P di 32 d A 1 S . · a1ne tate range, ourna o rocee ngs, n nnua ess1on, 1905, pp. 72-73. 140Maine State Grange, 44th Session, pp. 70-71. 141n. Halker HcKeen, "The Mission of the Grange in Maine", Haine Rural Life, December 13, 1913, p. 366. · 309 3.7 mills, from which the city raised approximately $14.00 per ::;tudent; in addition, she received $4.50 per student in state aid. The small Aroostook town of St. Agatha with a 3.8 mill tax could raise only $1.57 per pupil, yet state aid amounted to only twenty cents. It is not surprising then that Portland could afford to pay male teachers $155 per 142 month, while the most St. Agatha could pay was $20, In 1917 Portland received $17.42 per student from the state; Lewiston, $23.44; and Bidde~ ford, $26.97. On the other hand, such towns as Bancroft and Vienna were getting as little as $6.51.134 Under the law, school aid was distributed to the towns two-thirds in proportion to the number of persons between the ages of five and d h . d d . 1 . 144 h G d twenty-one an one-t 1r accor 1ng to va uat1on, T e range argue that a more equitable basis for distribution schocl fund ~Jculd be the total number of days and fractional days school was in session times the total number of scholars. This "aggregate attendance" plan, the Grange argued, would be fairer to the poorer towns and at the same time would be an incentive to increase school attendance and lengthen the school year. Four times, the Grange introduced "aggregate attendance" bills in the legislature, and each time they were defeated by the organized 142The New England Homestead, May 21, 1910, p. 740. 143Maine State Grange, 44th Session, pp. 70-71, 144Ibid. 145Haine State Grange, Journal of :Proceedings, 41st Annual Session, p. 65. . . . f h . . 146 oppos1t1on o t e c1t1es. 310 By 1923, the state was in fact paying rural towns about $100,000 a year in school aid;47 but the Grange was still not happy. As late as 1936, it was complaining that Haine spent less per pupil than any other state north of the Uason-Dixon line:48 Valid as the Grange's complaints may have been, it is equally evi-dent that by 1925, there had been innneasurable improvement in the quality of rural schooling in both Maine and New Hampshire. Between 1919 and 1926, there was a very substantial increase in the number of New Hlmp-shire school teachers having normal school or college school training and an equally significant decline in those with no formal training what-149 soever. Teachers' salaries were also substantially greater than they had been twenty years before, even when allowances are made for price changes. In 1923, the averate teacher in Maine received an annual sal-ary of $727 and in New Hampshire, $690. In many schools health projects were underway. Children were receiving free medical examinations and dental care. Seven hundred schools in Maine were serving hot lunches. Toilets and other sanitary facilities were inspected and certified by the state. Many one-room schools had been closed where enrollment had 146Ibid., p. 46; The Organized Farmer of Maine, January 13, 1921, p. 2; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 42nd Annual Session, 1915, pp. 29-30; Maine State Grange, 44th Session, p. 73. 147 Helen N. Upson, "Rural School in Ne\v England--A Study of Country Schools", The NeH England Homestead, Harch 3, 1923, p. 54. 148H • s G J 1 f p d. . 63 d A 1 s . •\alne tate range, ourna o rocee J.ngs, r nnua ess1,on, 1936, p. 91. 149 Bishop, p. 122. 311 fallen below a number which justified keeping them open. All schools were graded. In a consolidated school, the average teacher had perhaps four classes. Horeover, she had the companionship of other teachers, thus ending the loneliness and unhappiness she had been forced to endure 150 in the one-room school. Classroom attendance had also· improved notice-ably. According to New Hampshire State ~laster Sawyer, in 1923, all but 130 of the state's school children were in school for thirty-six weeks 151 per year. This evident progress must stand as an enduring monument to the persistence and foresight of the Patrons of Husbandry. With all the progress that had occurred in rural education by 1930, the battle was not a total victory. For families who remained in the small towns, the higher quality of rural schools brought great benefit, but still young people left home, as they had for over a century. Better educated than before, they could compete for jobs on more equal terms with the graduates of big city schools. Small towns could not provide the same economic opportunities offered by their big urban rivals. Thus, rural America marched ahead, but urban America marched even faster. 150upson, p. 54; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Pro-ceedings, 5?nd Annual Session, 1925, p. 89. 151New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 50th Annunl Session, p. 20. CHAPTER 11 BUILDING BETTER ROADS The importance of transportation in the social and economic life of the hill country can hardly be overstressed. For a family living high on some hillside or in a lonely valley, the little dirt road nearby was its only link to the world. For the farmer, the cost of shipping freight was crucial to his survival in the market place. Cheap and con-venient travel was likewise vital to the summer tourist trade. Next to schools and taxes, no issue so concerned the Granges in Maine and New Hampshire as the transportation question. The railroads were of obvious importance, but by and large they gave the Granges no grounds for serious complaint. Though there had been some grumbling about stock watering and excessive rates earlier~ not until just before the- First World War did the Granges in either state complain loudly about railroad policies. As a rule, the Granges were concerned with relatively minor matters such as demurrage, the adequacy of car ser-vice, and other details, rather than with issues of policy. In general, relations with the railroads remained cordial, and in one significant \~ew Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, lOth Annual Session, 1883, p. 20; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, lSth~nual Session, 1891, pp. 150-151. 312 313 instance, the Grange in Haine assisted at the birth of a new railroad. Though the rest of New England was adequately served by railroads, Aroostook County until 1893 had but two short lines. One, which connec-ted Houlton with another railroad in New Brunswick, had been built in 1871. The other, built in 1876, ran down the Aroostook Valley from Presque Isle to Caribou and then east into New Bruns~vick where it too connected \vith a Canadian road. From these Aroostook towns, rail traffic \vas sent via the New Brunswick lines to Vanceboro, just inside the Maine border, where it was turned over to the Maine Central, formerly the European & North American Railroad for movement to the Bangor interchange and points south. The building of the Canadian Pacific from Megantic, Quebec, through Brownsville to the Maine Central's Mattm.;ramkeag terminal opened a direct route to the west~ but '·las of little use to fa!'rr.8rs in Aroostook who wanted to ship their products into southern New England and elsewhere along the Atlantic seaboard. Furthermore, many acres of prime farm land r.emained uncleared simply for lack of economical means for moving farm and timber products to market. What Aroostook County needed and wanted was, first of all, a more direct connection with Bangor, and secondly, a system which would open the unexploited wilderness to settlement. A movement to build such a railroad got underway in the 1880's, thanks to the energy and foresight of t'vo prominent Aroostook businessmen. One was FrankLin W. Cram, '.;rho, 2Edward E. Chase, Maine Railroads: A Historv of the Development of the Maine Railroad Svstem (Portland, Haine: The Southworth ,Press, 1926), pp. 121-127. 314 being a railroader, concerned himself with the technical aspects of the project. The other, Albert Burleigh from Houlton, was chiefly a pro-3 moter. Since folks in Aroostook \vere mostly farmers, Burleigh quite sensibly decided to enlist the Grange in his cause. In December, 1890, Burleigh \vas invited to speak at a meeting of the Aroostook Pomona Grange held in the Caribou Grange hall. Evidently Burleigh 1 s remarks were \vell received, for that very evening, the Pomona voted to petition the legislature for a railroad charter. It instructed 4 the master, Edward F. Wiggin, to bring the matter before the State Grange. A local editor expressed his delight: "We are pleased to see that Aroos-took Pomona Grange ••• has inaugurated a movement which will, we hope, result in giving our county a direct line of railroad. ''5 Soon afterwards, Subordinate Granges in Aroostook were asked to secure the necessary signatures on the petitions requesting the Railroad 6 Commission for a charter. The State Grange, whose annual session came near the end of the month, readily endorsed "the Burleigh scheme," and a committee was set up to present the Grange's views to the Railroad Committee of"the legislature? No significant opposition came forward, and in 3John William White, "The Bangor and Aroostook Railroad--The County It Serves And The People Who Built It" (unpublished master's thesis, University of Maine, Orono, 1952), pp. 1-30. 4 Ibid., 5Ibid. p. 30, 138-139; The Aroostook Republican, December 31, 1890. 6Ibid. 7v · S G J 1 f P di 19tl A 1 S i ·~aloe tate range, ourna o rocee ngs! 1 nnua es~, 1892, p. 53. 315 february, 1891, the Railroad Commission, acting under a recently enacted law, approved the charter of the Bangor & Aroostook Railroad. Shortly thereafter, the legislature authorized the County to loan the railroad upwards to $500,000 to help the company finance the initial costs of construction~ The work of the Grange drew well-deserved applause from the press. The Bangor Daily Commercial gave the farmers and especially the Grange full credit for "without their aggressive movement last fall .. the Bangor businessmen would not have had sufficient courage to commence their cooperative project."9 With the railroad charter in hand, the Grange turned to the task of persuading Aroostook voters to approve the railroad loan. Once again, the railroad question was taken up before Grange gatherings at which Burleigh was usually the featured speaker. At a pu'ullc meeting helv Hampshire chartered turnpikes with the idea of creating a major system of trunkline routes through the instrument of private enterprise. A number of turnpikes were laid out. Eventually all went bankrupt or for some other reason went out of business and their property reverted to the contr.ol of the towns 38 through which the turnpikes passed. Few towns possessed anything quite so official as a full-time high-way department. Rather than being a year-round responsibility, highway work was restricted usually to a few days of volunteer labor sometime early in the spring. At their town meetings in March, the voters elected a surveyor, or road agent, whose job it was to oversee the public roads. In selecting candidates for that office, voters seem to have been only marginally concerned about professional qualifications, FP-w road agents had any formal training in highway engineering. So far as most towns were concerned, the road agent's chief responsibility was to hold his expenditures down and to do no more than was absolutely necessary to keep the roads open and passable. To defray road costs, the towns assessed a road tax which could be paid either in money or in labor. Since money was usually hard to come by, most preferred to pay their tax by working a few days on the road. So come one fine spring day, when the thaw had passed and the roads \vere dry and mud-free, the surveyor would call out all the able-bodied men for 38F d . J W d re er1c • oo , the Same through England, Co., 1919), pp. 211-248. The Turnpikes of New England and Evolution of Virginia, and l~~nd (Boston: Marshall Jones 325 the annual road day. Some men brought teams and plov1s; others came with hoes, rakes, axes, and other hand tools. The road surface was plowed and harrmved. Rocks were thrown to the side and wheel ruts and potholes were filled with dirt, which turned to mud and washed away come the first good rain. Bushes along the roadside were cut back. The road was scraped and packed hard, and with that, the mencalled it a day. The facts seem to be that in most circumstances road day was treated as something of a holiday, an occasion for the boys to get together for fun, some good drinking, and incidentally to work on the roads. That the town road-maintenance programs left something to be desired was all too obvious to the Granges. Maine State Grange Lecturer Daniel Thing in 1884 made an long and tortuous inspection tour of various Granges just as spring roe~d repairs were in full swing, Thing '·n:-cte: People along the way are busy repairing the roads and in many cases if a premium was offered for the roughest, worst, most expensive job, there >vould be a sharp competition. When men spend half a day with full crew and team to fill the road with coarse gravel, tough sods, why can't they learn to put a spike tooth harrow and use it until the sods are completely torn and pulverised, the soil packed , the driveway hard and smooth and the road repaired for ten or twenty years. If anything needs reforming, it is country road making. 39 A like observation was contained in a report to the NeH Hampshire State Grange in 1890, which complained that too often political jealousies became the dominant influence in decisions affecting public roads: 39The Dirigo Rural, August 2, 1884. 326 The old party and school jealousies that have run riot in the past, making it impossible for local authorities to do satisfactory work with the power they have at their command, and as they generally have new men in command every year, each one with an idea that he knows best hmv to repair roads, the results are three gutter roads, one in the middle for water, and one on either side in spots for looks, with eight or ten inch sluices from the top of the hills, and water bars that not only destroy our horses, but help to make mankind profane.40 Many towns in areas of low population density had many more miles of road than they needed or could afford to keep up. Not infrequently a town would be obliged to keep open a road several miles in length merely for the convenience of the one or two families who lived along it. As people moved away and property values fell, the burden of taxation necessarily grew heavier on those who stayed behind. Yet despite higher tax rates, poorer towns simply lacked the economic resources to provide for their roads. Between 1865 and 1900, total road mileage in Maine increased, but the physical condition of the roads did not improve. A historian has written of Naine's roads in this period: "They increased in number, but ruts, mire, and dust made them impractical for heavy hauling, or even comfortable riding in horse-drawn vehicles."41 A report made to the New Hampshire State Grange in 1895 estimated that 60% of the existing mileage in many towns was sufficient for their needs; the rest could just 40New Hampshire State Grange, .Journal of Proceedings, 17th Annual Session, 1890, p. 94. 41Richard A. Heber~, Modern Maine (2 vols., New York: Lewis His-torical Publishing Company, Inc., 1951), I, , 602. 327 as well be abandoned and the money so saved used to improve the roads 42 which were necessary. That roads Here essential to the farmer and to the rural community Has obvious to the Granges. Better roads \vould substantially reduce trans-portation costs and in this way improve profits and increase farm property 43 values. Improved high\vays \vould also stimulate the summer tourist trade~4 As things stood, in the words of one }1aine Granger, "present systems are defective."45 Money was being spent for no purpose. It was estimated 46 that half of New Hampshire's annual road tax \-las was ted. Obadiah Gard-ner, speaking in 1898, claimed that though $20 million Has spent every year on roads in Maine, the roads were usually no better after than before 47 the. money was expended. In the past, Americans had encouraged railroads, but neglected their highways; now it was imperative thac the latter be . h h" h . . 48 g1ven t e 1g er pr1or1ty. 42New Hampshire State Grange, 22nd Session, p. 85. 43Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 18th Annual Session, 1891, p. 18; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 22nd Annual Session, 1895, p. 60. 44New Hampshire State Grange, 21st Session, pp. 136-137. 45Maine State Grange, 18th Session, p. 18. 46NeH Hampshire State Grange, 17th ~ession, pp. 93-94. 47Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 25th Annual Session, 1898, p. 15. 48New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 16th Annual Session, 1889, pp. 84-85. 328 It was obvious to the Granges that the towns themselves should take a more enlightened view tow·ard the road problem. New Hampshire Grangers were called on to unite to persuade towns to keep their roads open the 49 year around. Townspeople were advised to exercise greater care in selec-ting road agents and to cast a critical eye on the vlOrk these public officials did. Highway maintenance was no job for an amateur; instead it should be left strictly in the hands of a few competent individuals 50 who remained on the job throughout the year. The Herrimack County Pomona Grange, meeting in Bosca\ven on June 5, 1896, heard speakers express the unanimous view that "road agents should be taken out of politics. 1151 Business principles, not politics, the Grange insisted, should be the 52 controlling influence in the management of town roads. To equip road agents with technical skills, the New Hampshire State Grange suggested that either the board of agriculture of the state colleges offer special i . . d b "ld" d . 53 nst1tutes 1n roa u1 1ng an malntenance. In their effort to improve the efficiency of town road programs, the Granges called for the end of the labor tax. Instead, they argued, taxes should be paid in money which would be used to pay for the support 49 Ibid. 50Ne\v Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 23rd Annual Session, 1896, p. 79. 51the New Hap-!J2Shire Grange Reporter, July, 1912. 52New Hampshire State Grange, 23rd Session, p. 79. 53 Nevi Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 25th Annual Session, 1898, pp. 13-14. 329 of permanent town highway departments under full-time road commissioners~4 In New Hampshire, the labor tax, \vhich Nahum Bachelder described as "high-way robbery, "55 was abolished in 1893~6 Maine followed a fe\( years later? 7 The Granges freely offered suggestions as to ways in which roads might be improved. New Hampshire's Charles HcDaniel thought the state should offer prizes for competition in road building and repairing?8 At a meeting held in August, 1882, the Waldo County Grange Council discussed "Building and Repair of Roads" and reached several conclusions, namely, that the present system of roadmaking was defective; that there was excessive mileage of country roads; that road agents were often incompetent, delin-quent, and even dishonest; and that the techniques used in scraping roads were unwise~9 A report prepared by the New Hampshire State Grange's Commi-ttee on Good Roads urged that all precaution be taken to ensure that road beds were adequately drained; that drainage ditches were well-built and kept clean of debris; and that owners of abutting property be pro-h .b. d f h . h . d 60 ~ ~te rom t row~ng tras ~n roa s. Some Haine Grangers felt that use 54Maine State Grange, 22nd Session, p. 81. 55New Hampshire State Grange, l~th Session, pp. 14-15, 72. 56New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 20th Annual Session, 1893, p. 79. 57 Hebert, pp. 603-604. 58New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 13th Annual Session, 1886, p. 13. 59The Maine Farmer, August 24, 1882. 60New Hampshire State Grange, 23rd Session, pp. 79-80. 330 of the "king split-log" drag would solve the problem of repairing dirt 61 roads. Some Granges even offered road agents their personal services. In the fall of 1915, Keenborough Grange of Brent~·mod, New Hampshire, brought together its members and other townspeople for a day of work on the town's roads under the supervision of the road commissioner. While the men worked, the ladies put together a "bountiful" repast as re~'lard for their labors? 2 The following year, State 11aster Adams announced a "Grange Road Day" to be held in late September on a day when Grangers 63 were expected to turn out for a day of road work. Yet it was plain that the tovms could go only so far in helping themselves. For one, the poorer towns could not pay the whole bill alone. Moreover, there was need for a coordinated system of state and regional highways which most logically fell within the purview of the state and national governments. And finally, the legislatures alone possessed the power to compel towns to meet satisfactorily their responsibility of providing well-built roads for the public's use. One innovation which favorably impressed the New Hampshire Grange ·as a plausible solution to the need for improved transport in rural areas was the interurban trolley. Being of lighter construction, the interurbans could be built more cheaply and subsist on less traffic than steam 61Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 34th Annual Session, 1907, p. 123. 62The New England Homestead, January 1, 1916, p. 14. 63New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 43rd Annual Session, 1916, p. 12; The New England Homestead, September 9, 1911, p. 20. 331 railroads, and therefore in certain circumstances could be operated for profit in areas where there was insufficient traffic to justify building a railroad. At the same time, trolleys were immeasurably more efficient and more comfortable than any country road. Gliding over steel rails was certainly preferable to bumping along a dirt road. Apparently with such thoughts in mind, a committee of the New Ramp-shire State Grange in 1891 urged the legislature to encourage the trolley interests and sternly rebuked the railroads for their opposition. It especially advocated building trolley lines into scenic areas as "an added 64 attraction to the summer boarders." Between 1895 and 1898, approximately 100 miles of street railway were constructed in New Hampshire. As this mileage increased, the State Grange became somewhat more cautious,, warn-ing that care shculd be taken that the electric roads not be o'.7ere:x:tended~5 It called on the legislature to approve charters for street car fran-chises only where there Has likely to be paying traffic~6 How much the Grange's alarm was influenced, if at all, by Bachelder 1 s mm \vish to stay on friendly terms with the Boston & Maine (which predictably used its influence in Concord to defeat charters of electric roads that seemingly threatened it) cannot be determined. Yet the Grange's warning of the consequences of overconstruction proved all too accurate. By 1910, 64 New Hampshire State Grange, 18th Session, p. 110; New Hampshire State Grange, 21st Sessi alJtomol-'iJ e lobby which, he said, had brought "a powerful and persistent influence to bear, not only to secure government aid, federal and state, for road improvement, but to determine the policy. of road improvement to be adop-ted."95 Richard Pattee in New Hampshire criticized the state's tendency to exaggerate the importance of automobile boulevards and to minimize the necessity for rural road improvements. The rights of residents, he argued, should take precedent over "the pleasure visitor."96 93 604. Hebert, P• 94M . a1ne State Grange, 40th Session, pp. 106-107. 95M . a1ne State Grange, 37th Session, p. 70. 96Nc\v Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 38th Annual Session, 1911, p. 17. 339 To be sure, the automobile \·las not an unmitigated evil. Indeed, the New Hampshire Grange conceded that automobiles had benefited rural areas: "These modern conveniences bring tens of thousands of dollars to rural New Hampshire homes and {also bd.ng] purchasers and improvers of New Hamp-shire's abandoned farms." 97 Yet it warned the state not to move to quickly in committing itself to this newfangled contraption: "It is time to recog-nize that a new set of conditions has come about with the use of power vehicles and it is well to go slow in new road enterprises until the road makers and tax adjusters catch up." The state's money should be spent for widening and straightening country roads, building iron and concrete bridges, and cutting away bushes from the roadside~ 8 Instead of building concrete roads so that millionaires might travel through the state at their ease, the state should develop market roads to facilitate the move-99 ment of farm products to market. Most people, according to the Maine Grange, did not want automobile speedways, but safe, gravel-topped roads, with proper underlying drainage and wide enough to permit two vehicles 100 to pass one another. The farmers were told: "The good road you need is the road from your farm to the nearest railroad station and this road the state so far refuses to build."lOl 97New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 35th Annual Session, 1908, p. 43. 98New Hampshire State Grange, 37th Session, p. 82. 99 Ne\v Hampshire State· Grange, 38th Session, pp. 86-87. 100Maine State Grange, 40th Session, PP·. 106-107. 101Maine State Grange, 41st Session, p. 49. 340 Financing \vas the most crucial aspect of the highway program. So long as property remained the prime source of tax revenues, the Granges remained rigidly opposed to any program which threatened to increase prop-erty taxes. Clement Stetson complained that in Haine the farmers, who owned 58% of the state's taxable property, were paying for the upkeep of 92% f . d 102 'o o ~ ts roa s. A few years later, his successor warned that Maine was spending more than it could afford for roads:03 Fears of higher property assessments were undoubtedly also the reason why the Granges initially opposed increasing the states 1 debts for high\vay purposes. In their view, the states should undertake no more than they could afford to pay for out of current revenues without raising the tax rate. "Pay-as-you-go" was the best policy in the opinion of the Grange. New Hampshire had floated a million dollar bond issue in 1910, with the Grange offering no objection. But then in 1913 the legislature decided to borrow a second million. So suddenly was the legislation introduced and passed that the Grange was caught totally by surprise. Convinced that the bill had been hastily drawn up, it urged the governor to veto it, which he did and thus, in the Grange's words, "stopped the steal for the time being."104 Maine's first million dollar bond issue, financed entirely by a mill tax on all property, was marketed in 1917~05 102 The Ne\v England Homestead, August 9, 1913, p. 88. lOJM · S G 43 d S . 39 40 a~ne tate range, r ess~on, pp. - • 104New Hampshire State Grange, 40th Session, pp. 46-47; The National Grange Monthly, June, 1913, p. 5. 105Maine State Grange, 43rd Session, p. 96; Hebert, p. 605. 341 From the Grange's standJ?oint, it seemed only just that highvay UE!ers should be obliged to pay for their upkeep. Even before 1900, the New Hampshire State Grange had suggested levying a tax on bicycles for h . 1 106 . 1g 1way purposes. Later, it advocated registration fees based on the . f b '1 . 107 capac1ty o automo 1 e eng1nes. In 1911, the Maine State Grange's Legislative Committee introduced and secured approval of a bill which imposed registration fees on motor vehicles and required drivers to bu~ 1 . 108 1censes. Similar legislation was obtained in Ne\v Hampshire, but until after the First World War, property remained the primary source of highway revenue. In 1921, 80% of Ne\v Hampshire's highway fund was derived from 109 the property tax. During the twenties, the picture changed radically. Easily the most impor·tant development was a massive ir-Lc:rco.se ir: federal spending. The Grange had long favored a federal highway program, arguing that roads were just as vital to the national economy as the harbors and waterways on which the national government spent millions of dollars annually for improvements~10 Not until 1916, however, did the federal government 106N ew Hampshire State 107New Hampshire State 108M . S G a1ne tate range, 109New Hampshire State 110M . S G a1ne tate range, 40th Session, pp. t, 7-50; New Hampshire State Grange, 35th December 3, 1904, p. 517. Grange, 23rd Session, p. 89. Grange, 37th Session, p. 82. 38th Session, p. 47. Grange, 48th Session, p. 45. 31st Session, pp. 25-26; Maine State Grange, Hampshire State Grange, 31st Session; Ne\v Session, p. 79; The New England Homestead, 342 commit itself. Additional federal money was made available in 1921, but it \vas the act of 1924 under which the national government embarked on a nation-wide program to establish a national highway system and to assist the states in upgrading their own systems. By the end of the decade, federal funds accounted for about one-fifth of the total· highway budgets in both Maine and New Hampshire. In 1923, New Hampshire levied its first gasoline tax; Maine followed soon afterwards, and by 1930 users fees, including the gasoline taxes, had become the primary sources of state 111 highway funds. As property was relieved of the highway burden, the Granges relaxed their opposition to massive highway spending. Herbert Sawyer in New Hampshire, for example, in 1923 urged that the state proceed as rapidly as possible with the completion of high\vay trunk lines and 112 cross-state roads. When more money was needed, the Granges simply d h 1 . b . dll3 suggeste t at gaso ~ne taxes e ~ncrease • New Hampshire by 1926 had over 1,400 miles of improved roads, and 114 Maine had subs~antially more, including almost 400 miles of paved road. But \vhile there had been obviously great improvement since the beginning of the century, there were still.®any miles of unimproved country road. 111 Bureau of Public Roads, p. 5; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 53rd Annual Session, 1926, p. 18; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedin~ 57th Session, 1930, pp. 72-73, 74. 112New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 59th Annual Session, 1923, pp. 17-18. 113uaine State Grange, 57th Session, pp. 73-74; The New England Homestead, April 16, 1927, p. 4. 114M · S G 57 h S . 73 a~ne tate range, t ess~.~, p. . • 343 According to a report by the State Grange Lecturer in 1935, Maine had 12,000 miles of dirt and mud roads, leaving many communities still "stuck d 11115 in the mu • Under the New Deal, various federal programs did provide some assistance for upgrading country roads, especially those on R.F.D. routes~16 but even in 1940, the Granges were still continuing their clamor 117 for more mas&ive attention to the plight of the lowly country road. Clearly the great ;increase in state spending on highways, especially in rural areas, owes something to the Grange. More state money had become available for local roads. Town high~vay departments were more competent and did more professional work. Better roads dre~,; rural people closer together. For a family living on an improved road, a visit to the neighbors or even friends in the next town no longer meant struggling through mud and rocks. On hard-surfaced roads, a trip jnto town to pick up some grain or to deliver the milk became mere routine. But it is per-fectly evident that the greatest force behind the better road movement came from the motorists and the automobile lobby. Despite the pleadings of the Grange, the Farm Bureau, and other rural organizations, by far the greatest amount of money was spent, not for local or "farm-to-market" roads, but for hard-surfaced highways designed to accommodate an ever-growing fleet of motor vehicles. Even after the Second Worl~ War, when Maine 115Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 62nd Annual Session, 1935, p. 39. 116The t~ew E::_g_land Homestead, September 14, 1935, p. 10. 117The Grange Herald, October, 1938, p. 4. 344 and New Hampshire had been crisscrossed by cement and asphalt high\vays, many hundreds of miles of country road rema~ned rutted and mudbound. 345 CHAPTER 12 THE GRANGE BET\·lEEN THE HARS five years after the Armistice, the Granges in Maine and New Hamp-shire celebrated their fiftieth anniversaries. During the war, when many brethren departed for the fighting front, the Grange had seemed to slump, but with the return of peace, once again it began to grow. New Hampshire reached her peak of 31,622 members in 1921, while Maine did so a year later with 61,506. Over the next few years, membership declined so per-sistently that by 1929 Maine had fallen to 53,684 and New Hampshire to 1 28,792. These losses, however should not cloud the fact that the Grange still retained a very substantial following. Furthermore, more than half a century of service to rural America made the Grange the oldest and in some ways perhaps the most respected farm organization in the United States. During World War I, hill country farmers responded patriotically to their government's call to grow more food. In the summer of 1917, . farmers in Maine increased their plantings of potatoes by 30%, oats and barley by 20%, field corn and beans by 40%, garden vegetables by 100%, 1Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceeding_§, 49th Annu-'11 Session, 1922, p. 15; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 56th ~nnual Session, 1929, p. 17; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 48th Annual Session, 1921, p. 25; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceeding;s, 56th Annual Session, 1929, p. 51. 346 and \vheat by 300%.2 That surruner, school children in New Hampshire planted 20,000 gardens, while vocational agricultural students in various high 3 schools raised beans and corn. Dairy, apple, and poultry growers also worked feverishly to meet the demand for their products. Commercial cheese-making, which had virtually disappeared in the hill country in the eighties, was revived temporarily when farmers in Warner, Dunbarton, and other New Hampshire towns found they could make good money selling special varieties to local Greeks, Italians, and others who could no longer get 4 cheese from their homelands. Higher prices, however, did not bring higher profits. Farmers had to pay more for grain, fertilizer, and transporta-tion. Labor was scarce "or not to be had," and even in those prosperous 5 times, the average New England farmer had a hard time making ends meet. When the war ended, opportunities opened for the export of American farm products to the famine-stricken countries of Europe. The Maine State Grange called on farmers for "another supreme effort to keep the world supplied with food." Local farmers were _urged to look into the possibility of selling breeding stock as replacements for animals killed during the 2The New EnglandHomestead, August 4, 1917, p. 11; Agriculture of Maine, 16th Annual Report of_ the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1917, p. 5. 3The New England Homestead, September 22, 1917, p. 10. 4The New England Homestead, October 6, 1917, p. 18. 5The New England Homestead, January 19, 1918, p. 18; The New England Homestead, March 9, 1918, p. 19. 347 6 war. With its export industries lying in ruins, Europe could finance her American trade only by borrowing from the United States government, So long as demand remained strong and American dollars continued to move overseas, Ahlerican farmers could keep up their exporting, but in July, 1920, the government ended the foreign credits. Argentine beef, Canadian wheat, Australian wool and lamb, and Danish milk products were entering the world market in vast quantitiies, The revival of European agriculture and finally the closing of the overseas markets by protective tariffs finally forced the American farmer to look homeward. Suddenly huge sup-plies of grain, corn, pork, and cotton were dumped onto the American market, Unable to absorb this enormous and growing surplus, the domestic commodity markets virtually collapsed. Prices hurtled downward, while at the same time farm help remained expensive, taxes v?ere high, a:1.d farmers owed heavy debts incurred during the expansion years of the war. In the summer of 1920, the railroads increased their rates so much that by fall, many farmers were finding they could save money by not shipping 7 their crops, For the hill country farmer, things at first were not so bad, Fall-ing grain prices were a windfall for dairy and poultry growers who imported feed from the west. The prices of eggs, milk, potatoes, cheese, poultry, and apples held steady or went even higher. With costs nearly constant 6Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 44th Annual Session~ 1917, pp. 98-99; Naine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 45th Annual Session, 1918, p. 32. 7 James H. Shideler, Farm Crisis 1919-192~. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1957), pp. 1-75, 348 or falling, the real incone of New England farmers actually increased at a time when farmers elsewhere were in serious trouble. Said The New Eng-land Homestead: "Good generous crops \vith good prices in some lines and with only fair returns in others summarized 1920 for our New England farmers." 8 As had been true for many years, agriculture in Maine and New Hampshire was largely diversified. Host farmers earned something from cows, poultry, hay, potatoes, berries, and garden produce. A smaller num-ber kept sheep or pigs and made maple products. Some took in tourists or su~er boarders; others sold produce from roadside vegetable stands. Overall, dairy and potatoes were the leading farm industries. Dairying predominated in southern and central Maine and throughout Ne\v Hampshire, \vhi.le in northern Haine, the potato, of course, was king. During the twenties, commercial poultry raising emerged as New Hampshire's second most valuable farm industry, and by 1940, eggs and baby chicks from 9 hatcheries in the Granit~ State were being shipped all over the country. During the twenties and early thirties, the number of farms and the acreage of improved farmland continued to decline. Motor vehicles in growing numbers appeared in farmyards. As of January 1, 1922, there were 200 tractors in New Hampshire, and farm trucks were much in evidence. In Maine by 1940, motor vehicles on farms included 25,540 cars, 13,118tractors, 8 The New England Hverful nevl ally in the Farm Bureau. The rise of the Farm Bureau came in response to the growth of county cooperative extension work and the beginning of the county agent movement in the United States. It was Dr. Seaman A. Knapp, a scientist in the U.S. ~epartment of Agriculture, who brought the extension concept to life. In 1902, Knapp had been sent into Texas and Loui.siana as a Special Agent 16The Ne\v En~Lmd l]_?mestead, December 8, 1934, p. 10. 352 for the Promotion of Agriculture in the South, to help farmers improve their rice crops. On the basis of that experience, Knapp concluded that the best way to persuade farmers to accept new methods and ideas was through practical demonstrations. Teaching, Knapp argued, should be by doing and not just by talking. Ideas should be tailored to meet the needs of the individual farmer. Conditions at experiment stations were not al-ways typical of those on the average farm. Furthermore, farmers often did not bother to read scientific bulletins sent out by the stations. Rather than lecturing or leading tours of research farms, trained agri-cultural specialists should show the farmer what to do right on his own farm. Knapp's theory thus carried a big step further the work already begun by the agricultural societies, the farmers' institutes, and the Grange. In 1903, Knapp Has put in charge of the Department's co0perative demonstra-tion work, and in 1906, Smith County, Texas, became the first in the nation 17 to hire a county agent. The coun~y agent was first of all a leader, a teacher trained in agriculture. "They are to agriculture what the teacher is to school. 1118 At first, the agent worked with individual farmers, visiting their farms, offering advice, and putting on demonstrations. As demand for the agent's services increased, however, some organization became necessary to permit more effective utilization of his time. Farm Bureaus were the answer. 17 Joseph Cannon Bailey, Sea~~m A. Knapp--Schoolma_ster of American ~griculture (Ne\v York: Columbia University Press, 1945), pp. 133-243. 18n. Styles Bridges, "The County Farm Bureau and Its Work", The Granite Monthly, April, 1923, pp. 597-598. 353 Through the Farm Bureau, the farmers in a corrununity could get together under the agent's supervision and try to work out local problems. The function of the county Farm Bureaus was "to bring to the farmer of the county through cooperation with the extension department of the college and the government, the latest methods in efficient production by means f d . d d . h . h d . . . 1119 o emonstratlons con ucte ln t e varlous met o s ln corrununltles. The Bureaus also offered the agents moral support and in some states~ d . H h. 'b d h · 1 · 20 inclu lng New amps lre, contrl ute to t elr sa arles. Farmers and businessmen in Broome County, New York, organized the first Farm Bureau in 1911. Subsequently the movement spread to the other states, reaching New Hampshire in 1913. On March 22 of that year, a few farmers met in Newport, organized the Sullivan County Farm Bureau, and 21 hired 11a county expert." The Cheshire County Farm Bureau was formed a year later. Some time in 1915, a special corrunittee appointed by the Hereimach Pomona Grange met with the director of the state extension ser-vice and helped set up the Nerrimack County Farm Bureau. One of that corrunittee, George M. Putnam, a fruit and dairy farmer from Contoocook, 1 d h C B 'd 22 was e ecte t e ounty ureau presl ent. By December 15, 1916, what 19The Ne\v E1~_land Homestead, January 12, 1924, p. 3; The Organized Farmer of Maine, September 30, 1920, p. 6. 20 Gladys Baker, The Cou~~gent (Chicago: University of Chi~ago Press, 1930), pp. 154-157, 21orville Merton Kile, The Farm Bureau Through Three Decades (Balti-more, Md.: The Haverly Press, 194 8), pp. 37-40; Nc\v Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 40th Annual Session, 1913, p. 90, 22 The New England Homestead, 11nrch 23, 1929, p. 12. 354 were then called County Farmers' Associations had been established in every other New Hampshire county. On that day was organized the Federated County Farmers' Associations of New Hampshire. Roy D. Hunter of Claremont was made president, to be succeeded only a year later by George Putnam, who continued in office until the year before his death on February 9, 1951. In February, 1919, Putnam met in Ithaca, New York, with delegates from other state bureaus and helped estab~ lish the American Farm Bureau Federation. Though the County and State Farmers' Associations were in fact Farm Bureaus, it was not until April 15, 1924, that the New Hampshire Farm Bureau received 23 its present name. Under Putnam's strong leadership, the New Hampshire Farm Bureau grew· so rapidly that within a short time it riva.led even the Grange in numbers and influence. No one since Nahum Bachelder has made such an imprint on the agriculture of New Hampshire as George ~utnam. Besides his work in the Farm Bureau, Putnam was active in a number of other organizations: president of several cooperatives, treasurer of the Granite State Dairymen's Association, a director of the New England Milk Producers Association, president of the Farm Bureau Mutual Life Insurance Company, and twenty-six years a member of the board of directors of the American Farm Bureau 23 The Ne.w England Homestead, March 29, 1919, pp.l, 18. J. Gray Estes, Fifty Years of Org~nized Effort -- New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federati-oi1 19l:S-:-lSI65 (Concord, N.H.: New Hampshire :Farm Bureau, n.d.), pp. 4-5. 355 federation. A belayed and widely respected figure, "Uncle George" became a legend in his mvn time. The New Hampshire Farm Bureau today is a livingniemorial to that unusual man. 24 Extension work was, of course, a major phase of the Farm Bureau's activity in New Hampshire. Eventually, three agents were assigned to each county to supervise the three major types of extension work, agriculture, home economics, and youth clubs. In 1922, Farm Bureaus and county agents put on 2200 demonstrations for New Hampshire farmers. In 1923, the Farm Bureau cooperated with the extension services in projects involving soil, crop, and livestock improvement, farm manage-ment, youth clubs, clothing, health and business cooperation. Special demonstrations helped prove the value of lime in neutralizing the highly acidic condition of New Hampshire's soil. Field trials were held to show farmers what productivity gains they could expect from using certified potato seed. For the fruit growers, agents gave demonstrations in the spraying, pruning, grafting, and fertilizing of trees and the packing of fruit. Another demonstration emphasized the value of putting top dressing on hay fields. 25 But the New Hampshire Farm Bureau by no means restricted its activity to extension 'vork. Putnam and other Farm Bureau leaders helped 24_rbid., p.20. Tl~.~NC\·7 England li_o~estead, Harch 23, 1929, pp. 7, 12-13; New· Hampshire farm Bureau Federation, ComlUittee on Publications, Ten Years of Orr;anized Effort -- Ne1v Hampshire farm Bureau federation Tf§T5..:.-i§2.sr (Co-;cord, i~.H.: New Ha.mpsi~he Farm Uureau, n.d.), p.5. 25 Bridges, pp. 597-599. 356 organize a number of remarkably successful cooperatives, including the Merrimack Farmers' Exchange, Concord Dairy, Inc., Hanchester Dairy Co-op, Producers 1 Dairy, New Harr.pshire Cooperative Marketing Association, Agricultural Services, Lnc., and the Farm Bureau Hutual Insurance Company. Like the Grange, the Bureau lobbied actively in the legislature, where some of its influence can be attributed to the fact that a number of important political figures were themselves members of the Farm Bureau. Frank Knox, publisher of the Hanchester Union and future Secretary of the Navy, for example, was the first vice-president of the Bureau-sponsored New Hampshire Harketing Associa .... tion. John G. Winant was on the Farro Bureau's first legislative com-mittee. During his tenure in the house and senate and later fo:::-three terms as governor, Winant proved to be a valuable ally of the Farm Bureau. Former Governor Robert Bass, who was particularly interested in forestry extension, worked on a tax study committee for the Bureau. And Styles Bridges began his .public~ career in New Hampshire as executive secretary of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau Fed-. 26 erat~on. The Farro Bureau got started a little more slowly in Maine, largely because the same sort of work \vas already being done in that state by the General Board of Education. Cumberland County was the 26 Estes, pp. 6,9. 357 'fir~t in Maine to receiye an agent. By 1914, as the Grange itself reported, demonstration Hark was being done in nine Maine counties, while county agents were at work in six~7 11aine 1 s first Farm Bureau was formed in Ellsworth, Hancock County, on October 27, 1917. Later that year, other bureaus appeared in Kennebec and York Counties, wh;Ue a fourth \vas organized to serve both Androscoggin and Sagadahoc. The Haine State Farm Bureau Federation was organized in 1919, and by 1920, every county in Haine had a Farm Bureau. 28 Unlike its New Hampshire counterpart, the Farm Bureau in Haine did no more than cooperate with the state college and the depart-ment of agriculture in the work of the extension service. Its function was strictly educational; it never engaged in com.rnPrcial or politicRl activity, and furthermore, never affiliated with the American Farm Bureau Federation. As in New Hampshire, membership in the Maine Farm Bureau was on a family rather than .(as in the Grange) an in-dividual basis. Dues were a dollar a year, with some of that money being used in each county to print a monthly Farm Bureau News. In 1922, h d 13 000 b. .. 29 the Maine Farm Bureau a , mem ers •. Somerset County illustrates well the work of the Farm Bureau in Maine. In 1916, when that county hired its first agricultural agent, there was not a single Farm Bureau anywhere in Haine. Most of the 27The Ne\v En~nd H'?mestead, Hay 17, 1919, p. 3; Maine State Grange, Journal _of Procee~dings, 4b~ Annual Session, 1914, pp. 131--134. 28 Clarence A. Day to the writer, Hay 6, 1971, 29 rbid.; Maine State Grange, 49th Session, pp. 113-114. 358 agent's work \·~as done with individual farmers, but some. group meetings were held, and eventually it was decided some sort of county organization was needed. The Somerset County Farm Bureau was formally organized on August 3, 1918, with J.B. LaBree of Cambridge as president. Hembership, initially 250, increased to 204 in 1920 and 887 in 1922. From that year onward, as was true of state and even national Farm Bureaus, membership tended to fluctuate some-h . 11 30 w at errat1ca y. In Somerset County, the Bureau worked closely with the county agent in setting up community projects under local leaders. The first projects were in crops,dairying, hogs, poultry and youth groups. In 1921, after the county hired a home demonstration agent, a \'lomen' s branch was set up in the Farm Bureau with leaders in clothing, food, and household management. The Bureau sponsored field days and automobile tours. A newspaper was begun in 1921. 31 One might have predicted that the rise of the Farm Bureau \vould have brought innnediate conflict with the Grange, but the truth is just the contrary. From the start, the Grange displayed a motherly sort of affection for the fledgling Bureaus, offering them encourage-ment and support whenever needed. New Hampshire State Master Wesley 30 {Somerset County Farm Bureau], Ten Years of Extension and Farm Bureau Work in Somerset County 1918-1929 (n.p., 1929), pp. 1-2. 31Ibid., pp. 1,...,4. 359 Ao many years as Secretary of the Nmv Hampshire Grange, was also an of~ 44 ficer in the Hillsboro County Farm Bureau. E.A. Flansbury, the first agricultural agent assigned to Strafford County, had belonged G . l" Y k b £ . N H h · 4 5 to a range 1n ~ew or state e ore com1ng to ew amps J.re. The first vice-president of the Kennebec Co 1.mty, a dairy farv.>.er naf'1P-d D.C. Foster, was at various times master of the East Kennebec Pomona 46 and Cushnoc Granges. In the late thirties, Haine State Master F. Ardine Richardson was also a county forestry leader and a member of the executive committee of the Franklin County Farm Bureau. Simul-taneously, the president of the State Farm Bureau Federation, C. Hen-ry Holman, was master of Mystic Valley Grange in East Dixfield.47 In· 41nay to writer, May 6, 1971. 42The New England Homestead, Harch 23, 1929, p. 21. 43The National Grange Monthly, February, 1922, p. 5. 44 Nev Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 66th·An-nual Sessio~ 1939, p. 23. 45Tlle Ne\v Eng1.::m_::! Homestea~, July 28, 1917, p. 16. 46 The New England Homestead, February 2, 1918, p. 12. 47 The Grange Herald, April, 1940, p. ~. 362 1941, the Maine State Grange Committee on Agriculture stated that the Grange and the Farm Bureau had "the very best of relationships." 48 In New Hampshire, where both organizations were politically active, the same harmony prevailed. At the 1923 session of the state legis-lature, for example, the Grange and the Farm Bureau backed the same bills, and while, as Herbert Sawyer remarked, it was' difficult to allocate the proper credit, each could "be thankful for benefits received."49 During the Depression, the State Farm Bureau organized the New Hampshire Agricultural Conference, which was a coalition of the principal farm organizations in the state, including, besides the Farm Bureau, the Grange, the Granite State Dairymen, the Horti-cultural Society, the Sheep Breeders' Association, the Poultry Growers, and the New Hampshire Beef Producers. First chairman of 50 the conference \.Jas Arthur McDaniel, the Master of the· State Grange. The New England Homestead reported in 1941 that Farm Bureau Presi-dent Putnam and State Grange Haster William Neal "see eye to eye on 51 practically all pertinent legislative questions." Far from being enemies, the Grange and the Farm Bureau were allies in a common cause. At the base of the farm crisis lay the problem of chronic surplus 48Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 67th Annual Session, 1940, pp. 93-94. 49 Ncw Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 50th Annual Session, 1923, p. 22. 50Estes, p. 4. New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 62nd ~nnual Session, 1935, p. 27. 51TheNew . England Homestead, April 19, 1941, p. 14. 363 and overproduction, and in Ne\v England, it was the milk and potato industries which suffered the most. Adjusting to consumer demand was no easy task for the farmer, and yet the essentially inelastic char-acter of the commodity markets meant that imperfectly matched supply and demand resulted in highly erratic price behavior. Even a slight surplus could bring prices tumbling dowmvard, while shortages pro-duced the opposite reaction. A farmer could not control production by simply throwing a switch and layi~g off help. If he happened to plant corn in the spring only to discover in July that cor~ would not sell well in September, he could not switch suddenly to soybeans. Dairy cows could not be shut on and off; either they had to be milk~d every day or dried up. Furthermore, in the absence of government con-trol or effective farm cooperatives, it was virtually impossible to control farm output. As the New Hampshi~e Commissioner of Agriculture wrote: "No board of directors can shift overnight the crop systems and animals growing on six million farms."52 In New England, the problem of locally-grown surplus \vas com-pounded by a mounting flood of produce from other farming regions. Butter, cheese, eggs, meat, fresh fruit and vegetables were shipped into New England from as far away as California. In 1921, for example, 52New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, 1923-24, pp. 88-89. 364 the Boston metropolitan area received produce frorn thirty-nine dif-ferent states, with only a fraction coming from within New England. Though Maine dominated the potato market, Idaho and New York were tough competitors. Only 12% of the city's butter came from New England dairies, New Hampshire's being less than one-half of 1%. Ten million pounds was imported from Illinois alone. Two-thirds of the city's cheese came from New York and Hisconsin. Of the 2,927 carloads of apples delivered that year in Boston, 78 arrived from New Hampshire, 637 from Maine, and 707 from Hashington State. Despite the growing importance of poultry on New England farms, Boston bought most of her eggs from farmers elsewhere. New Hampshire provided less than one-tenth of the 39,000,000 pounds of fresh poultry marketed in the h b . . 1021 53 u c~ty ~n _, • Grocers and restaurant m·mers in Maine and New Hampshire, furthermore, preferred to buy provisions through Boston wholesalers, simply because local farmers could not provide quality produce in the g.uantity their businesses required. 54 There were several reasons why outside competitors could chal-lenge the New England farmer right in his own markets. For one, Western faxms, being of greater size and for other reasons had lower production costs and could ship in large enough quantities to take 53 Report of the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, 1921-22. pp. 60-63. 54Maine Rural Life, July 12, 1913, pp. 47-48. 365 advantage of car lot railroad rates. By comparison, the average output of the New England farm was not as large. Local produce tended to come in small lots which \vere expensive to handle, since dealers could not make as much on produce that had to be graded and repacked into other containers. Shipments from the west came pregraded and packaged, thus enormously reducing the wholesalers' handling costs. Western farm cooperatives also spent a lot of money for advertising and took greater care in preparing their produce for 55 market. With hundreds of rail cars rolling into New England every day, it became evident that the New England farmer would have to think about marketing and how to deal with his competitors. The Granges were very much aware of what New England's com-petitors were doing. The Maine State Grange's Committee on Co-operation, for example, wondered why Illinois sold four ~imes and Iowa and Minnesota each five times as many eggs in Boston as Maine did.56 The New Hampshire Grange advised farmers to take care that their produce was carefully graded, attractively packaged, and of first class quality. At its 1916 session, the same body urged the creation of a State Bureau of Markets within the State Department of Agriculture. The necessary legislation was secured the following 55New Hampshire DeEartment of Agriculture, 1921-22, p. 64; New Hampshire Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 55th Annual Session, 1928, pp. 33-34. 56Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 53rd Annual Session, 1926, p. 66. 366 year, along with an apple-grading law. Both bills had been \vritten 57 by the Grange. Hampered at first by insufficient funds, the Uew Hampshire Bureau of Markets gradually secured sufficient funds to support the state marketing agent, a stenographer and three market reporters. A market reporting system had been set up, and summaries of important market 58 news were mailed in a weekly bulletin to farmers all over the state. With the joint participation of the Grange and the Farm Bureau, the Bureau of Markets in 1921 organized the New Hampshire Cooperative Marketing Association. Two of the Association's top officers were State Grange Overseer James c. Farmer and Past Master Fred Rogers. The Association rnanaged a number of cooperative marketing ventures. It sponsored "egg circles" which graded, packed, and marketed eggs for members. It also sold potatoes, beans, hay and maple syrup. To rescue beleaguered sheepmen, the Association bought_40,000 pounds of wool and had it manufactured and sold as blankets, men's suiting, and automobile robes. 59 One of the outstanding figures in the marketing field in New Hampshire in those first years was James C. Farmer of South Newbury. A poultry and vegetable farmer who made his living peddling produce 57 New Hampshire State Grange , J ou r_n-'a_J_. _o.c_f_P.;..;r_o_c_e._e_d_J.._· n__..,g'-s~,_4_l~s_t ___ A_n_n_u_a:-:-l Session, 1914, p. 83; Ne\v Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 4-z.th·A.;;-nual Session, 1917, p. 71. 58New Hampsh-ire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 45th Annual Session, 1918, p. 69; New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, 1921-1922_, pp. -~.6-4 7. 59 Ib~d., 65 E P 9 .._ p. ; stes, • ; The National Grange Monthly, September, 1929, p. 13. 367 to summer boarders living around Lake Sunapee, Farmer was a frequent speaker at farmers' institutes. He joined Sunapee Lake Grange in Newbury, serving as'master in 1910, 1911, and 1913. In 1912, he was made a State Grange deputy. From that date, he rose rapidly in the State Grange until 1922 when he was elected State Master. In 1926 Farmer became the National Grange Lecturer, serving in that post for twenty years, longer than anyone else in the history of the Grange. Farmer was appointed to the advisory board of the State Department of Agriculture in 1915, and in July, 1918, was hired as Ne\v Hampshire 1 s 60 first state marketing agent. In his marketing post, Farmer proved "especially adept at pub-licity work," and worked hard to promote the sale of Ne-w Hampshire farm products to the state's own consumers. "Home Marketing and Home Consumption" was his slogan. In his words, "We must sell New Hampshire to everyone." Farmer himself organized the Bureau's reporting system. To attract public attention, he suggested that state farm products be marketed under such special brand names as "Just Laid" eggs, "Wool Warm" blankets, "Just Right" apples and 61 "Mealey Hhite" potatoes. Farmer left the Bureau in August, 1920, to join the Eastern 60 The National Grange Monthly, January, 1926, p. 11; Henry Harrison Matcalf-(ed.), One Thousand New Hampshire Notables (Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Printing Co., 1919), p. 302. 61New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, 1921-1922, pp. 46-50. 368 States Farmers Exchange as a potato specialist, but throughout his years as State Master, he kept an eye on the marketing scene. Begin-ning in 1923, the State Grange sponsored an annual tour of the Boston market to let farmers see for themselves what happened in "the Boston metropolitan food mill." On the Twelfth Annual Tour, held October 26-27, 1936, the Grangers visited the Brighton stockyards, the New England Dress Meat and Hool Company, the North Packing Company, the fish pier, several commercial warehouses, the terminal market in Cambridge, Hood Company's milk plant, a restaurant commissary, and the warehouse and bakery of First National Stores.62 For awhile during the thirties, the State Grange sent out quarterly market digests to the lm.;rer Granges. In their meetings, the Granges talked about the 63 milk control law, potato marketing, and so on. The Grange in Maine took a similar interest in farm marketing. As early as 1900, its Committee on Cooperation suggested that the state establish a bureau of information which would provide farmers 64 with information concerning crop conditions at home and abroad. In 1905, the Grange decided to support the Pomological Society's campaign 62 The New England Homestead, November 21, 1936, p. 2. 63New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 6lst Annual Session, 1934, p. 93. ---64Haine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 27th Annual Ses~, 1900, p. 53. 369 f f . 1 . 1 65 b . or a ru~t mar(et~ng aw, ut ~t was not until 1914 that the legislature saw fit to approve a Maine Bureau of Markets. 66 Finally in 1928, Maine, stimulated by the Grange, enacted a comprehensive farm marketing law, containing these major provisions: 1. That the commissioner of agriculture establish grades and standards for Maine farm products offered for sale. 2~ That the commissioner select or design brands, trademarks, or labels identifying agricultural products according to those grades and standards. 3. That the department of agriculture be responsible for dis-tributing pertinent information concerning labeling and standards. 4. That it should be unlawful to use the official trademark without a permit. 5. That it would become the duty of the commissioner to inspect products carrying the state label to ensure that the proper 67 sta~1dards had been met. Though the law was not compulsory, farmers could not take advantage of the state's marketing program, including the trademarks, without first accepting its terms. Ultimately it was hoped that consumers would learn to identify the Maine labels with quality farm produce and thus be persuaded to buy more Maine products. Apparently, the state did not 65Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceeding~, 32nd Annual Session, 1905, p. 97. 66 Day, p. 215. 67Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 54th Annual Session, 1927' pp. 49-51. 370 move fast enough to make use of the new law, for in 1934, the Grange's Committee on Agriculture was complaining that Maine lagged behind the rest of New England in its use of advertising. 68 Finally in 1935, the State Development Commission organized "State-of-Mainers, Incorpor-ated," an agency devoted to promoting and advertising Maine products. For its trademark, State-of-Hainers adopted a special color scheme. Boxes, cartons, potato bags, and even freight cars were painted red, white, and blue, Hith "State of Maine Products" written across in big, bold letters. Since then, th~ red, white and blue colors have gained national recognition as representing products from Maine. 69 Though times were hard in the twenties, the coming of the Great Depression brought the hill farmer to the eige of ruin. Sharply falling prices brought great reductions in the value of crops and livestock. In 1931, New Hampshire's apple crop fell 27% below the value of the 1930 crop; potatoes dropped by 49%, maple products by 47'X, hay by 16%. Pigs, which had gone for $15.20 a head in 1930, sold on the average for $8.90 in 1932. Sheep were $9.40 and $4.50 respectively. The total value of New Hampshire's crops fell from $21,270,000 in 1929, to $18,158,000 in 1930, and then to $9,369,000 in 1932. Prices improved in 1933 and continued to do so until 1937, but the situation nevertheless remained critical. Farm real estate 68M . a~ne State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 6lst Annual Session, 1934, p. 81. 69Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedingsz 62nd Annual Session 2 1935, pp. 164-165. 371 depreciated in New Hampshire by over $10,000,000 between 1930 and 1935. Rising taxes on falling real estate, "vicious competitive" practices in the farm markets, and lmv consumer purchasing pmver re-sulting from long years of massive unemployment were major causes of f d. 7Cl. arm ~stress. The Grange, too, was hard hit. Though new members continued to come in, an even greater number dropped out or were suspended for not paying dues. With their revenues sharply reduced, the Granges them-selves went temporarily into the red. For a while, they, like so many others, were obliged to live off their savings. By 1936, Grange membership had fallen to its lowest level since the first years of the 71 century. The Grange in Ashland, Maine, had even lost its hall through foreclosure. 72 Though everyone suffered to some degree, the greatest distress was felt by the milk and potato farmers. For years, farm leaders had sought desperately to alleviate their suffering. The New England Milk Producers Association had struggled without much success to bring some order to the chaotic milk market. The Granges too had joined 70Report o.f the New Hampshire D~part,uent o~iculture, 1931-1932, pp. 53, 59; _Report of the New Hampshire Department of Agricul ture~J-193~ pp. 12-13; Report of the Ne\,1 Hampshire D~artment of Agriculture, 1935-1936, p. 11. -71Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 63rd Annual Session, 1936, p. 23; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 6lst Ann~~l Sessio~, 1934, pp. 62-63. 72 Presque Isle Star-Herald, January 1, 1931. 372 the search for a remedy. In 1921, for example, the Ne1v Hampshire State Grange called for a tariff which would discourage the import 73 of Canadian and Danish dairy products. The Granges demanded tighter controls on the sale of oleomargarine, "filled milk" and other "bogus" dairy products. Chain stores were accused of selling milk at cost simply to attract customers. As the milk surplus continued building up, specially designed railroad cars threatened an invasion of even 74 more milk from New York, Canada and the Midwest. Prices began picking up in 1929. By the end of that year, profits from fluid milk had increased an average of four cents per hundred-weight, giving rise to predictions of a bright future for the dairy industry. As might have been predicted, hmvever, more cmvs were brought into production, and within a year and a half, the market was again flooded. By the fall of 1931, the price paid Ne-.;.1 Hampshire f f .lk h d d d h b 1 h f d . 75 armers or ml a roppe tree cents e ow t e cost o- pro uctlon. The Granges at first were convinced that the farmers should try to solve the problem by themselves. The Maine State Grange opposed any price fixing scheme, believing that doing so might reduce consumption. New Hampshire farmers 1vere told they should organize and thus prevent 73Ne1v Hampshire State Grange, 48th Session, p. 65. 74Agricu1ture of Maine, 22nd Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1925, p. 9. 75Maine State Grange, 56th Session, 1929, p. 113; New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, 1931-1932, p. 41, 59. 373 movement of surplus into the already overflowing Boston n1arket. 76 The situation became so serious that the governors of the six New England states decided to intervene. A special board was set up to study the problem. The result was the creation of New England Dairies, Incorporated, in May, 1932. Not itself a cooperative, New England Dairies acted simply as the bargaining agent for the New England dairy cooperatives which chose to work with it. Representatives of the agency were supposed to meet with the processors in an effort to negotiate better prices, but unfortunately, it did not work. Some cooperatives would not work \vith New England Dairies. Many farmers also apparently decided to go their own way, and as a result, New England Dairies was able to get control of only a Slf1all fractio:1 of the region's milk supply. With large supplies of milk readily available, the producers simply refused to negotiate,. and eventually Ne\v England Dairies simply broke down. The farmers had only them-selves to blame for that result. 77 The State Granges had endorsed the New England Dairies, with the N H h . G k' f' ' 1 'b · 78 ew amps ~re range even ma ~ng a ~nanc~a contr~ ut~on. But when 76Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedi~gs, 55th Annual SessioE-L 1931, p. 99; New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 58th Annual Session, 1931, p. 86. 77Harold Fisher Wilson, The Hill Country of Northern New England: Its Social and EconomicJlistory, 1790-1930 (Ncv.r York: Columbia University Press, 1936), pp. 343-345; New llamr_shire Department of Agriculture, 1931-1932, p. 41; Ne\·1 Hampshire State Grange, 6Jrd Session, pp. 114-115. 78New Hampshire State Grange, 58th Session, p. 92; New Hampshire State Grange, 59th Sessi££, p. 104. 374 the voluntary effort did not succeed, and the crisis got worse, the Granges began demanding government intervention. In December, 1933, the New Hampshire State Grange urged the state to regulate the sale and distribution of milk. Vermont had already established a milk con-trol board which had helped greatly in stabilizing local markets. 79 Such legislation was enacted by the legislatures in Maine and New Hampshire after some hard lobbying by the Grange, the Farm Bureau, and h d . . . 80 t e state a~ry assoc~at~on. Under the Maine law, the Milk Control Board was given the "power to supervise, regulate and control11 the distribution of milk within the state. After investigation and public hearing, it could fix minimum wholesale and retail prices 11 to be charged for milk distributed for sale ,.;rithin the state for fluid con-sumption.1181 The New Hampshire milk control law was declared uncon-stitutional by the state supreme court in the fall of 1937. A new law was then drawn up designed to satisfy the court's objections. Under the Nev1 Hampshire law, the Milk Control Board could fix both maximum and minimum prices, thus in effect making the milk industry a public utility. 82 In the meantime, the federal government had been asked to bring an end to the near chaos in the Boston milk market where farmers in Dec-ember, 1933, were being paid less than t>vo cents a quart. The Agri-79New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 60th Annual Session, 1933, p. 33; New Hampshire State Grange, 61st Session, p. 34. 80 Estes, pp. 11-13; Day, pp. 74-75; Maine State Grange, 63rd Session, p. 65; New Hampshire State Grange, 62ncl Session, p. 2s-:--81Quoted in Day, p. 74. 82New HampshireState Grange, Journal of Pror.eedings, 60th Annual Session, 1937, pp. 127-128" 375 cultural Adjustment Administration negotiated a contract with the milk companies on behalf of the producers which fixed the price and amount of milk that might be sold in the metropolitan area for fluid consump-tion. The federal milk order was nullified by a court decision in 1935, but a second contract, authorized by a law approved by Congress in 1937, stood the test. Though the Boston market continued to be plagued by chronic uncertainty, the federal orders brought a measure of stability, and as a result generally better prices. 83 The potato men were just as badly off. For years, the Grange had worried about what to do for Aroostook. In 1914, when consumers were buying potatoes for thirty cents a bushel and farmers were getting seven, the State Grange called on the President of the United States to order an investigation to find out why the farmers were not getting paid more. 1920, another year of low prices, prompted the Grange to 11 f b ' 84 Eff ' ca or a one-year ern argo on potato 1mports. orts to organ1ze an effective marketing organization were unsuccessful, largely through lack of cooperation from the growers. Mention has been made earlier of the Aroostook Federation of Farmers. Federation began selling potatoes for its members in 1919, but in 1923, its marketing operation was taken over by the Maine Potato Exchange. The Exchange held potatos in storage for its members, to prevent the market from get~ ting overloaded. By releasing the crop a few carloads at a time instead 83 Day, pp. 73-74. 84Maine State Grange, 41st Sess.~on, pp. 82 .... 83; Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 47th· Annual Session, 1920, p. 43. 376 of dumping it on the market all at once, the exchange managed to keep the market in balance and to get good prices for members in 1923. Nineteen twenty-four, however, was a bumper year, and despite the frantic efforts of the exchange, prices were very bad. Angered by the low prices, farmers began blaming their troubles on the exchange. It proved futile to point out that the exchange had not planted the bumper crop, or that prices might have gone lower had it not managed to hold back the shipments. In September, 1925, the growers voted 85 to junk the exchange. Smaller crops brought much improved prices in 1926. For a few more years, the market held up, but after 193~ a succession of monstrous crops followed one after the other. The 1931 crop sold for $12,000,000, 86 compared to $30,000,000 the year before. In 1934, the Maine farmers who raised one-seventh of the total American crop, took a $48,000,000 loss. Several thousand carloads were trucked to ports on Penobscot Bay and shipped by coastal steamer to New York for sale at ruinous . 87 pr1ces. With Aroostook facing ruin, a mass meeting of potato growers was held in Presque Isle early in 1935. Past State }hster Harry Crawford, who chaired the meeting, summed up the problem in plain language: 85Day, pp. 150-151; The New England Homestead, August 1, 1925, pp. 3,7; The NeH England Homestead, September 12, 1925, p. 3. 86Naine State Grange, 58th Session, p. 89. 87]:1 r<::.~que Isl_e _ _§__t:_~r-HeE}~ January 24, 1935; Maine State Grange, 6lst Session, p. 78. 377 Ihe pioneer spirit with its abounding faith and personal in-dependence is what haq made Aroostook great. It should be appreciated and cherished, but it should also be recognized that it has prevented effective cooperation and made this section, of all America, the most difficult in \vhich to in .... traduce any plan for mutual action· • 88 Just how a "plan for mutual action" might work was not certain, but 89 one thing was clear: "Something had to be done!" The Grange favored an embargo on imports of starches and starch derivatives \vhich com-90 peted with potatoes in the knerican markets, but it was evident that something more drastic was needed. At its spring session, the legislature passed a Potato Branding law, under which growers were taxed one cent per barrel to be used for advertising purposes. A new potato cooperative, Maine Potato Growers, Incorporated, had been organized a few years by the Maine Extension Service, with cooperation from some growers. In its first seasons, MPG had not much support, but in 1935, it was reorganized and by 1937 sales exceeded $1,000,000. Purchase of surplus by govern-ment agencies also helped strengthen the market. Prices were sharply higher in 1935 ($1.80, compared to $.45 in 1934) and went even higher in 1936. For the rest of the decade prices remained uncertain, though 11 h b . f h d . 91 genera y muc etter than ~n the worst years o · t e epress~on. At first, the New England Granges remained frankly suspicious of the New Deal and especially of the college professors who seemed to be 88 Presque-Isle Star-Herald, February 7, 1935. 89 Ibid. 90Mainc State Grange, 62nd Session, pp." 165-166. 91 rbid., pp. 133-134; Maine State Grange, 63rd Session_, p.65; Day, pp. 152-155. 378 taking over the gQvernment. Traditionally, Yankee farmers had op~ posed government aid to agriculture, believing the farmers ~hould solve their own problems. In 1919, Maine State Haster Thompson had said: "The farmer should resent and resist any paternal patronizing attempt 92 to put him in a separate caste or class. 11 In the t'venties, during the McNary-Haugen controversy, Thompson called government fixing of farm-· 11 prices a "dangerous remedy. Agriculture, he said, should stand on its own feet, and "nature will take care of it."93 The Granges in Maine and New Hampshire stood adamantly opposed to the HcNary-Haugen bill and to the substitute "export debenture" plan devised by the National Grange, "the so-called farm relief measures." Price-fixing of that sort, the Granges warned, could benefit only farmers who 94 raised wheat, corn and cotton. When the first McNary-Haugen bill went down to defeat in the House, The New England Homestead rejoiced that "no tears are shed by farmers, unless possibly in the $400 per acre 95 corn belt." When the bill came up for a second time, only one New England Senator voted in favor, and another Yankee farmer, Calvin Coolidge, gave it his presidential veto.96 The Maine Grange reacted -with the same repugnance to the Federal Farm Board, set up under the 92Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 46th Annual Session, 1919, p. 20. 93Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 50th Annual Session, 1923' p. 31. 94Maine State Grange, Journal of Proceeding~ 52nd Annual Session, 1925, p. 71; Maine State Grange, 53rd Scssio~, pp. 22-23. 95 The New England Homestead, July 10, 1925, p. 2. 96 The New England Homestead, February 19, 1927, p. 15; John D. Hicks and Theodore Saloutos, .:!;'>vc:~tiet.h \_en tury Populism--Agricul t13-ral Discontent in the Middle \vest 1900-193SI (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1951), pp. 380-399. Hoover Administration, The State Haster called it "the most gigantic 97 experiment ;i.n socializing an industry in the history of the world." Predictably, the Granges insisted, at first, that farmers help themselves in the struggle against the Depression. John Hammond, Haster of the New Hampshire State Grange, called government interference in the markets "unsound and unwise"; instead, the best policy was ''sane and orderly marketing through cooperative agencies. 1198 The Haine Grange urged all Americans to buy only goods produced in the United States and manufactured by American workmen. 99 The Agricultural Adjustment Administration was exceedingly un-popular in New England, mainly because it did not help the farmers there very much. Host of the benefits went to farmers in the south, the west, and the corn belt. At the same time, the process;i.ng tax fell hard on New England textile manufacturers and the many farmers who did custom butchering. By December, 1934, New Hampshire had been taxed $1,571,700 to support the A.A.A. and received just $31,500 in payments. Haine paid more and received even less. As of December, 1935, her con-tribution to the government program totaled $3,411,145 and benefits a 100 mere $5,974,88. Since the government subsidized wheat and corn, a further result was an increase in grain prices in New England. New 97Maine State Grange, 59th Session, pp. 78-79. 98New Hampshire State Grange, 59th Session, p. 34. 99Haine State Grange, 59th Session, p. 113. 100 Ne>V H~p1pshire Department of Agriculture, 1933-1934, p. 176; Maine State Grange, 62nd Session, p. 35. ' 380 Hampshire State Naster Arthur }tcDaniel called the processing tax J.mj ust and blamed it for retarding business recovery in New Hampshire. 101 far~ mers in Belfast, ~~aine, blamed the A.A.A. for increasing grain pricen: "Whatever the A.A.A. may do for the south and the west, it is making a hardship in the east."102 The views of the Maine Grange echo the sen-timents of its New Hampshire brethren: There is absolutely no justification in levying a processing tax upon the Maine people for the purpose of aiding the Western corn grower and hog grower and Southern cotton growers, and we are facing additional taxes in order that some of the phantas-magorical hallucinations based on the theoretical vagaries may be tried out upon us. We ha0e been in the nation's experimental laboratory for many months.l 3 It was not true, of course, that the New Deal had bypassed New England entirely. In 1934, for example, the Civil Works Administration paid most of the expense of remodeling the school house in Montville and several other small Maine communities. 104 In the spring of 1937, a Civilian Conservation Corps crew made a survey of 140,000 acres of pulpwood land in the northern counties of New Hampshire and Vermont. 105 Numerous c.c.c. camps were located throughout the hill country. The federal Surplus Commodities Corporation bought apples, squashes, potatoes, and milk from New Hampshire and Maine farmers. In the fall of 1938, the federal government bought great quantities of timber felled by the hurricane which would otherwise have been left on the ground to 101New Hampshire State Grange, 6lst Session, p. 37. 102The New England Homestead, Narch 3, 1934, p. 41. 103Maine State Grange, 62nd Session, p. 35. 104 The New f::_nglancl Homestead, January 20, 1934, 1?• 17. 105Th~~ew England Homestead, April 10, 1937, p. 17. 381 t 106 ro • Hill farmers received substantial payments under the federal 107 soil conservation program. The Granges might lament that "the spirit of l?aternalism has become instilled in American life to the extent that it is _sapping the economic life blood of the nation," but they plainly had no objection to the spending of federal money in New England. In fact, they seemed to feel that the government should be reminded that New England wanted her share. In a resolution adopted at its 1934 session, the Grange asked Governor Styles Bridges to notify the federal government "that we expect financial assistance for our different units of gov-ernment in the same proportion to that given other states in the Union. 11108 On a later occasion, it urged the goverr.~ent to buy more su~pl~s nilk 109 and to speed up soil bank payments. This is not to accuse the Granges of hypocrisy, for it is plain that in those desperate times, their single goal was to find something to keep their farmers above water. They were not interested in finespun arguments; they just wanted help. As the New Hampshire Commissioner of Agriculture wrote: "The great bulk of our agricultural people are going to be appreciative of any effort which will give parity in the market place regardless of whether it comes by premeditated control of production, control of 106New Hampshire State Grange, §6th Session, p. 28; T~e_New England Homestead, April 23, 1938,p. 12; The Ne~-1 England Homestead, December 2, 1939' p. 10. 107 The New Eng_land Homes_!:eaE_, January 16, 1937, p. 9; New ~Iampshire Department of Agricultur~, 1937-1938, p. 103. 108New Hampshire State Grange, 6lst Session, 1934, p. 34; Maine State Grange, 66th Session, p. 80. 109 New Hampshire State Grange, 65th Session, p. 137. 382 k t . b t f th Al . ht ullO mar e 1ng, or y an ac o e m1g y. Not only were the Granges eager to see local farmers take advan~ tage of new federal programs, they, in fact, \vere also directly res-ponsible for bringing the Rural Electrification Administt·ation to north-ern New England. For years, the Granges had recognized the value of electricity in rural living. As early as 1896, for example, the New Hampshire State Grange noted that electric lights had been introduced in many small towns; it predicted that eventually farm houses would 111 share in the new miracle of electricity. In the twenties, the New Hampshire Grange had cooperated with the power companies and the state university in establishing a rural electrification depot at the New Hampshire Experiment Station. There studies were conducted to determine the feasibility of extending power into thinly populated rural areas. Later, similar studies were initiated in Maine and by the New England Council, and by 1927, according to The- New England Home-stead, electricity was being used more generally on farms in New England than elsewhere in the country.112 A great majority of farms, however, did not have power, mainly because the power companies believed they could not earn profits by stringing lines in areas of low population density. 110New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, 1933-1934, p. 177. 111New Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings. 23rd Annual Session, 1896, p. 81. 112 The New England Homestead, June 30, 1927, p. 2; The New Eng-land Homestead, April 13, 1936, p. 9. 383 In New Hampshire, the Farm Bureau and the power companies worked out a plan for financing rural po,ver lines. Under the Farm Bureau's plan, customers along a proposed route agreed to pay the company a fixed amount each month, regardless of how much power was used, for five years. In that time, the monthly payments, which ranged between $18 and $24 per month, were expected to cover the cost of installation. Naturally, the companies did not start work on the lines until enough customers had signed up. The plan worked so well that by 1936, two-thirds of the state had been electrified. Most of the unelectri-fied farms lay in areas so isolated that the average cost of instal-lation far exceeded the miniraum fixed rate under the Farm Bureau's plan. It was here that the Grange and the Rural Electrification Ad . . t. . 113 m1n1stra 1on came 1n. At its December, 1937 session, the New Hampshire State Grange appointed a standing committee on rural electrification. A year or so later, State Master William Neal personally invited a represen-tative of the R.E.A. to make a survey of areas in New Hampshire that were as yet without power. In the summer of 1939, a Grange bill which authorized the organizing of electrical cooperatives was enacted by the legislature over the strenuous objection of the power companies. With that law in hand, the State Grange proceeded to or~ ganize the New Hampshire Rural Electrical Cooperative with Neal as 113The New England Homestead, February 4, 1928,·p. 4; The New England llomestead, Han:h 4, 1933, p. 21; The New Ertgland Homes~ead, January1s:J.936, p. 12. 384 president. In October,l939, the company received a $382,000 loan from the R. E. A. The first poles \vere set into place in Pece.mber, and by 1941, thanks to the Grange and the federal government, power had been exM tended to about 5,000 homes. E:lght out of ten farms now had power, as compared to five out of ten in 1934. 114 Maine, being a larger state, moved not quite as fast. In 1935, 27,000 farms in that state were without electrical power. That year, the State Lecturer called on the Grange to "ally itself with a program 115 that will bring light and power." In the summer of 1937, an R.E.A. project was begun in Kingman, Maine. A line sixty-two miles long was built. A year later, the state applied for $150,000 in loans, and in ·December, the Grange Committee on Rural Electrification reported that the state's program was moving at full speed. Finally in 1941 the Maine State Grange itself organized an electric cooperative. By Nov-ember, 56% of Haine' s farms v1ere using electricity. 116 As war clouds began to gather in Europe, the sun seemed to break over the New England countryside. After years of hardship, the farm 114New Hampshire State Grange, 64th Session, p. 115; New Hampshire State Grange, 65th Sessio1~, p. 115; New Hampshire State Grange, 66th Session, p. 28; The New England Homestead, February 25, 1939, p. 13; James D. Squires, The Granite State of the United States: A History of New Hampshire from 1623 to the Present (4 vols. New York: The American Historical Company, 1956), Vol. II, pp. 715-717. 115Maine State Grange, 62nd Session, pp. 33, 65. 116 The Nc\v England IIonestead, June 19, 1937, p. 10; The New England Homestead, November 29, 1941; Maine State Grange, 65th Session, pp.l09-110. 385 econo~y was still a little shaky, but it was ey~dent that the cris~s had passed. Consumer demand was picking up. Government programs and better marketing organizations had brought greater stability to the commodity markets. The Grange too had weathered the worst. Old members were coming back. New ones were joining. In 1939, Maine Master Richardson reported "an avalanch of organizations." Fourteen new Granges were organized that year, and three that had gone dormant were brought back to life. A radio station in Bangor was offering a weekly program de-voted to Grange news and activities. By 1941, membership had climbed 117 to 48,233. In New Hampshire, too,the rolls were growing. A new Grange was organized in Nashua, and by 1941, statewide membership Wati approaching 28,000.118 The Grange had stood the test. The Grange had not accomplished all it had set out to do. The retrenchment of agriculture in the hill country, which had begun before the Civil War, continued with the return of peace in 1945. Every year there were fewer farms. Young people were still leaving for the glamor and opportunity of city life. In that sense, the Grange seemed to have lost the battle. Yet for those who stayed in the towns and small villages, or on the farm, life had improved. Farmers were better educated. Not a few had earned degrees from the state colleges. Others 117xaine State Grange, 66th Session, pp. 13, 50-51; Maine State Grange, 68th Session, p. 19. 118NeH Hampshire State Grange, Journal of Proceedings, 68th Ann.~~ Session, 1941, p. 18; The New England Homestead, July 15, 1939, p. 11. 386 had taken vocational agr~cultural courses ~n their high qchools. House~ wives knew more about cooking, sanitation, and the way to keep a home healthy and happy. Electric lights, telephones, good roads, good schools, rural mail delivery, postal banks, parcel post, the automobile, the farm truck so much had come about in seventy years. The Grange had not been alone in the work, but surely it had made a difference. So far as the Grange was defeated, it was by forces beyond its control by the relentless grm.;rth of the twentieth century American industrial state. So far as the Grange succeeded, it was in bringing to farms and villages the technology, the knowledge, and much else that this new America could offer. To a thousand tiny hill towns, the Grange gave something of laughter, life, and hope in a difficult age. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, James 0. One Hundred Years of Rural Pro~ress and Reports and Addresses Relative to the Centennial Exhibition 1876. Concord, N. H.: Edw. A. Jenks, 1877. Bachelder, Nahum J. Reminiscences and Addresses. East Andover, N.H.: Privately Printed, 1930. Bailey, Joseph Cannon. Seaman S. Knapp -- Schoolmaster of American Agriculture. NeH York: Columbia University Press, 1945. Baker; George Pierce. The Formation of the Ne\v England Railroad Systems: A Study of Railroad Combination in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949. Baker, Gladys. The Cou~--~~nt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. Bid>vell, Percy Wells. Rural Economy of New England at the Be'2-_nning of the Nineteenth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1916. _______ , and Falconer, John I. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States 1620-1860. New York: Peter Smith, 1941. Biographical Review: Leading Citizens of Cumberland County, }1aine. Boston: Biographical Review Publishing Co., 1896. Bishop, Eugene Aldred. The Development of a State School System: New Hampshire. New York City: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1930. Blood, Grace Holbrook. Manchester on the Merrimack The Story of a Ci~. Manchester, N. H.: Lew A. Cummings Co., 1948. Boardman, Samuel Lane. Risto~ the Agriculture of Kennebec County, Maine. New York: H. H. Blake & Co., 1892. Bm·lles, E. C. An Album of the Executive and Legislative Departments of Maine. Bethel, Maine: News Publishing Co., 1901. Brown, David Arthur. Th~_I1istory of Penacook, N. H., from its First Settle-ment in 1734 uD to 1900. Concord, N. H.: The Rumford Press, 1904. 387 388 Buck, Solon J. The Granger Movement: A Study of Agricultural Organization and its Political, Economic and Social Manifestations, 1870-1880. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913. Buxton, Willis G. Historv of Boscm-Ien-Hebster, Fifty Years 1883-1933. Penacook, N.H.: W.B. Ramsey, Co., 1934. Carlisle, Lawrence A. Farmers' Buying and Selli~g Organizations in Concord, N.H.: State Department of Agriculture, New Hampshire. 1922. Carter, Rev. N.F., and Fowler, T.L. History of Pembroke~ N.H., 1730-1895. 2 vols. Concord, N.H.: Republican Press Assn., 1895. Chadbourne, Ava Harriet (ed.) Readings in the Historv of Education in Maine. A Collection of Sources and Readings Concerning the History of Maine and Development of Educational Theory and Practice. Bangor, Me.: Burr Press, 1932. Chase, Edv1ard E. Haine Railroads. A History of the Development of ~~~--~=-------~~~~~~~----~--~--~----~ the Haine Railroad System. Portland, He.: The Southworth Press, 1926. Chase, Henry (ed.) Representative Hen of Maine. Portland, Me.: Child, The Lakeside Press, 1893. William H. History of the To\.JTI of Cornish, New Hampshire, Gene8logical Record, 1763-1910. 2 vols. Concord, N.H.: Rumford Press, n.d. with The Clarke, Charles E. The Eastern Frontier: 'rhe Settlement of Northern New England 1610-1763. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970. Clarke, Maurice D. Hanchester. A Brief Record of its Past and a Picture of its Present. Manchester, N.H.: J.B. Clarke, 1875. Cochrane, W.R. History of the Town of Antrim, New Hampshire, From its Earliest Settlement to June 22, 1877. Hanchester, N.H.: Hirror-stream Printing Press, 1880. Coe, Harriet B. Maine: Resources, Attractions, and its People: A His-tory. 4 vols. New York: The Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc., 1928. Cogswell, Leander W. History of the Tov.Til of Henniker, Herrimack County, N.H., 1735-1880. Concord, N.H.: Republican Press Assn., 1880. Cross, Lucy R.H. History of Northfield, New Hampshire, 1780-1905, Con-cord, N.H.: The Rumford Printing Co., 1905. 389 Danhof, Clarence H. 1820-1870. Chan~e in Agriculture: The Northern United States Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Day, Clarence A. Ezekiel Holmes, Father of Maine Agriculture. Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 1968 . --------~~---=-. Farming in Maine 1860-1940. Orono, Maine: University Maine Press, 1963 . . History of Haine M;riculture 1640-1860. Orono, Haine: ----------------~ University of Maine Press, 1954. Drake, George R. History of Eastern New Hampshire Pomona Grange with Sketches of Pomonas Once in its Territory. Concord, N.H.: The National Grange Publishing Co., 1910. Dunnack, Henry E. Rural Life in Maine. Augusta, He.: Charles E. Nash & Sons, 1928. Dwight, Timothy. Travels in New England and New York. 4 vols. London: William Baynes and Son, 1823. Ellis, C.H. History of Fort Fairfield. Fort Fairfield, Me.: n.p.~ 1894. Estes, J. Gray. Fifty Years of Organized Effort --New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation, 1915-1965. Concord, N.H.: New Hampshire Farm Bureau, n.d. Fairfield, Roy F. Sands, Spindles, and Steeples. Portland, He.: House of Falmouth, 1946. Fernald, Merritt Caldwell. History of the Haine State College and the University of Maine. Orono, He.: University of Haine Press, 1916. Fitts, James Hill. History of Newfields, N.H., 1638-1911. Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1912. Fogg, Alonzo J. Statistical Gazetteer of New Hampshire. Concord, N.H.: D.L. Burnsey Bookseller & Publisher, 1874. Gardner, Charles H. The Grange -- Friend of the Farmer: A Concise Reference History of America's Oldest Farm Organization and the Only Rural Fraternity in the v!orld. 1-Jashington, D.C.: The National Grange, 1949. Hadley, George Plumer. 1920. 2 vols. History of the Town of Goffsto~1, N.H., 1733-Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1924. 390 Harriman, ·Halter. The History of Harner, New Hampshire, for One Hundred and Forty-Four Years. Concord, N.H.: The Republican Press, 1879. Hayward, William Willis. The History of Hancock, NevT Hampshire. 2 vols. Lowell, Mass.: Vox Populi Press, 1889. Hebert, Richard A. Modern Maine: Its Historic Background, People, and Resources. 2 vols. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1951. Hicks, John D., and Saloutos, Theodore. Twentieth Century Populism. Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West 1900-1939. Lincoln Hilton, George W., and Due, John F. in America. Stanford, Cal.: The Electric Interurban Railways Stanford University Press, 1960. History of the Town of Bedford, Ne\v Hampshire, from 1737. Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1903. History of the Town of New London, Merrimack County, New Hampshire, 1779-1894. Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1899. History of Penobscot County, Maine, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches. Cleveland: Williams, Chase & Co., n.d. History of the University of New Hampshire 1866-1941. Rochester, N.H.: The Record Press, 1941. History of Hashington, N.H. from the First Settlement to the Present Time. Claremont, N.H.: Claremont Manufacturing Co., 1886. Hodgkins, Theodore Roosevelt. Brief Biographies [sic] Maine: A Biographical Dictionary of vJho Is VJho in l:·iaine. Lewiston, Me.: Lewiston Journal Co., 1928. Horton, Guy Bertram. A History of the Grange in Vermont. Montpelier, Vt.: Capital City Press, 1926. Houghton, Vinal A. (ed). The Story of an Old Ne\v England Tovm. His-tory of an Old Nt::'v England Town. History of Lee, Naine. Wilton, Me.: Nelson Print, 1926. Hurd, D. Hamilton (ed). History of Belknap and Nerrimack Counties, New Hampshire. Philadelphia: J.H. Lewis & Co., 1886. History of Cheshire and Sullivan Counties, New Hampshire. Philadelphia: J.W. Lewis & Co., 1886. 391 --------~~~~~~-----· History of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. Philadelphia: J.W. Lewis & Co., 1885. Jackson, James R. Historv of Littleton, N.H. 3 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1905. Jewett, Fred Eugene. A Financial History of Haine. Ne'v York: Columbia University Press, 1937. Kalejarvi, Thorsten V. (ed). The Problem of Taxation in New Hampshire, Bulletin of the University of New Ham:Jshire, X.,'U, October, 1938. Kelley, Oliver Hudson. Origin and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandrv in the United States: A Historv from 1866 to 1873. Philadelphia: J.A. Wagenseller, 1875. Kingsbury, Henry D. and Deyo, Simeon L., (eds). Illustrated History of Kennebec County, Maine. Ne-v1York: H.W. Blake & Co., 1892. Kile, Orville Herton. The Farm Bureau Through Three Decades. Baltimore: The Waverly Press, 1948. Kirkland, Edward C. A History of 0meYican Economic Life. 3rd edition. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1960. Men, Cities and Transportation -- A Study in New England History 1820-1890. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-sity Press, 1948. Knapp, Joseph G. The Rise of Americ?n Cooperative Enterprise 1620-1920. Danville, Ill. : The Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1969. Knoblauch, H.C., Law, E.M., and Heyer, W.P. State Agricultural Ex-periment Stations. U.S.D.A. Misc. Publication No.904. Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Gove=nment Printing Office, 1962. Lapham, William Berry. Centennial History of Norway, Oxford County, Maine, 1768-1886 includin~ an Account of the Early Grants and Purchases. Sketches of the Grantees, Early Settlers, and Promin-ent Residents, etc. with Genealogical Registers and an Appendix. Portland, He.: Brown Thurston & Co., 1886. Little, George Thomas (ed). G~neological and Family History of the State of Maine, 4 vols. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1907. Little, William. History of Heare, New Hampshire, 1735-1888. Lowell, Mass.: S.W. Ruse & Co., 1838. Livermore, Abiel Abbot and Putnam, Sewall. History of the Tmvn of Hilton, Hillsborough County, N.H. Lowell, Mass.: Marden and Rowell, 1888. 392 Lord, C. C. Life and Times in Hopkinton, N.H. Concord, N.H.: The Republican Free Press Assn., 1890. Lyford, James Otis (ed.). History of Concord, N.H. 2 vols. Concord, N.H.: Rumford Press, 1903. History of the Town of Canterbury, NeH Hamp-shire, 1727-1912. 2 vols. Concord, N.H.: Rumford Press, 1919. McLellan, Hugh Davis. History of Gorham, Maine. Portland,He.: Smith and Sale, 1903. McDuffie, Franklin. History of the Town of Rochester, New Hampshire from 1722 to 1890. 2 vols. Manchester, N.H.: The John B. Clarke Company, 1892. Merrill, Georgia Drew (ed.). One Thousand Ne-.;v- Hampshire Notables. Con-cord, N.H.: The Rumford Printing Co., 1919. Moore, J. Bailey. History of the Town_of Candi~, Rockingham N.H., From its First Settlement to the Present Time. N.H.: Geo. W. Browne, 1893. County, Manchester, Moses, George H. !:J~2l __ _Ha_I!1_1?._shire Men: A Collecti_<2_I!_..E..r __ J,3iog_r~_E_l_lic_:_a._!_ Sketches with Portraits of Sons and Residents of the State VJho Have Become Kno;m in Commercial, Professional and Po_litical Life. Concord, N.H.: The New Hampshire Publishing Co., 1893. Mower, Walter Lindley. ~istory of the Town of Greene, Androscoggin County, Haine, 1775 to 1900 \vith Some Hatter Extending to a Later Date. Auburn, Ne.: Merrill & Averill Co., 1938. Murrary, John Chick. History of the Grange in York County comprising a History of Each Subordinate Grange -- A History of Each Pomona Grange from its Organization to 1921 with Sketches of the Pomona Nasters. Sanford, He.: _The Averill Press, 1922. Musgrove, Richard W. History of the Town of Bristol, Grafton County, New Hampshire. 2 vols. Bristol, N.H. R.W. Musgrove, 1905. New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation. Ten Years of Organized Effort. Concord, N.H.: Committee on Publication, New Hampshire Farm Bureau, n.d. Nordin, Dennis S. A Preliminary List of References for the History of the Granger Novernent. Davis, Cal.: Agricultural History Center, University of California, November, 1967. Paine, Arthur Elijah. The Granger Hovcment in Illinois. Urbana: Uni-versity of Illinois Press, 1904. Owen, Howard. ~iocraphical Sketches of the Hembers of the Senate and House of Representatives of Maine for 1907. k1zusta, Me.: n.p., 1907. 393 Parker, Edward E. History of Brookline, Formerlv Roby, Hillsborough County, N.H., with Tables of Family·Records and Genealogies. Published by the town, n.d. I Pillsbury, Hobart. New Hamushire -- Resources, Attractions, and Its People: A History. New York: The Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc., 1927. Poole, H.A. and G. H. History of Poland (:0faine). Illustrated. Embracing A Period of Over A Century. Mechanic Falls, He.: Poole Brothers Publishers, 1890. Pomeroy, Bilia W. and Smith, Mary E. History of Hont Vernon, New· Hamp-shire. n.p., n.d. Putnam, Cora H. The Story of Houlton. Portland, He.: House of Falmouth, Inc., 1958. Ramsdell, George A. The History of Hilford, N.H. Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1903. Ratner, Sidney. American Taxation: Its History as a Social Force in Democracy. New York: 1-J.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1942. Robinson, Maurice H. A History of Taxation in Ne>v Ho.mps:1ire. rut:ica-tions of the American Economic Association. 3rd Series, III, No.3, 1902. New York: Hac Nillan Co., August, 1902. Robinson, William Lewis. The Grange, 1867-1964. First Century of Service and Evolution. VJashington, D.C.: The National Grange, 1966. Sawyer, Rev. Roland D. The History of Kensington, New Hampshire, 1663 to 1945. Farmington, Me.: The Knowlton and NcLeary Co., 1946. Shannon, Fred A. The Farmer's Last Frontier, 1860-1940. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Hinston, 1945. Shideler, James H. Farm Crisis, 1919-1923. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1957. Somers, A.N. History of Lancaster, N.H. Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Press, 1968. [Somerset County Farm Bureau]. Ten Years of Extension and Farm Bureau Work in Somerset County, 1918-1928. n.p., 1929. 394 Squires, James D. The Granite State of the United States: of New Hampshire from 1623 to the Present. 4 vols. The American Historical Company, 1956. A History Ne>..r York: Stackpole, Everett S. and Thompson, Lucien. History of the Tovm of Durham, New Hampshire (Oyster River Plantation) Hith Genealogical Notes. 2 vols. Published by the Town, n.d. Stearns, Ezra M. History of Pl;~outh, N.H. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: University Press, 1906. Stearns, Ezra Scollay. New Hampshire. Genealogical and Family History of the State of 4 vols. New York: Lewis Publishing Co., 1908. Taylor, Carl C. The Farmers' Movement, 1620-1920. New York: American Book Company, 1953. Taylor, George Rogers. The Transportation Revolution, 1815-1860. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Hinston, 1951. Titus, Harren I. Winston Churchill. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1963. True, Alfred Charles. A History of Agricultural Education in the U.S. 1785-1928. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1929. Waite, Otis F.R. to 1894. History of the Town of Claremont, N.H., from 1764 Manchester, N.H.: Clark Co., 1895. Walker, Francis A. A Compendium of the Ninth Census (June 1, 1870). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1872. Halker, Joseph B. Twenty Years with the New Hampshire Board of Agri-culture. An Historical Address. Manchester, N.H.: John B. Clarke, 1890. A Collection of Addresses and Papers Prepared for Various Occasions. 2 vols. Concord, N.H.: n.p., 1897. Webster, Kimball. History of Hillsborough Cou~ Pomona Grange No. 1, Patrons of Husbandry of New Hampshire. Concord, N.H.: The Rumford Printing Co., 1909. History of Hudson, N.H. Manchester, N.H.: Granite S~ate Publishing Co., 1913. Whittemore, Rev. Edvlin Carey (ed.). The Centennial History of Water-ville, Haine, 1802-1902. Haterville, He.: Executive Committee of the Centennial Celebration, 1902. 395 Wiggin, Edward and Collins, George H. History of Aroostook. Pres-que Isle, Me.: The Star-Herald Press, 1922. Willey, George Franklyn (ed.). State Builders: An Illustrated His-torical and Bio~ranhical Record cf the State of ~;ew H.::nnpshire at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century. Manchester, N.H.: The New Hampshire Printing Corp., 1903. l.Jilson, Harold Fisher. The Hill Country of Northern New England: Its Social and Economic History, 1790-1930. New York: Columbia University Press, 1936. Winther, Oscar Osburn. West 1865-1900. The Transportation Frontier -- Trans-Mississippi New York: Holt, Rinehart and Hinston, 1964. Wood, Frederic J. The Turnpikes of Ne~v England and Evolution of the Same Through England, Virginia and Haryland. Boston: Harshall . Jones Company, 1919. Articles Barnes, VJilliam D. "Oliver H. Kelley ancl the Genesi.s of the Grange: A Reappraisal," Agricultural History, XLI (July, 196 7), 229-242. Bemis, Edward vJ. "Cooperation in New England," Publications of the American Economic Association, I (November, 1886). Bidwell, Percy. "The Agricultural Revolution in New England," AlJ!er-ican Historical Review, XXVI (July, 1921), 683-702. Black, J. William. "Maine's Experience with the Initiative and Referendum," The Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, XLIII (September, 1912), 159-178. Bridges, H. Styles. "The County Farm Bureau and Its Work," The Granite }Ionthly, December, 1923, pp. 597-600. Brown, George V. "National Grange Affairs as Vie\ved by a Subordinate Grange Haster," The Aroostook Patron, Hay, 1910, p. 1. Brown, H.A. "Uplift of Rural Schools," New Hampshire As;ricultural Annual of the State Board of Agricultm·e, 1912-1913, pp. 40-42. Brown, Simon. "Farmers' Clubs As Educ<1tional Institutions," Agriculture of Haine. 15th Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1870, pp. 38-59. 396 Burkett, Charles William. "Bachelderism and the Grange," The New England Homestead, April 2, 1910, p. 413. "Chaos in the National Grange," The New England Homestead, March 12, 1910, p. 413. Butterfield, Kenyon L. "The Grange," The Forum, April, 1900, pp. 230-242. Campbell, Charles A. "The Grange, Its Hork and Ideals," Ne>v England Hagazine, April, 1919, pp. 184-191. Dann, Hary L. "The Passing of the Ragged Beggar," The Neu England Homestead, September 7, 1912, p. 193. Drake, George R. "Business Cooperation in New Hampshire," The New England Homestead, July 23, 1910, p. 74. Foster, Florence J. "The Grange ari.d the Co-Operative Enterprises in New England," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, IV (Harch, 1894), 794-805. "The Farm Bureau, What it is and How it Operates," The Organized Farmer of Haine, September 30, 1920, p. 6. Gilbert, Z.A. "Hachinery in Corn Grm.,ring," Agriculture o(_Maine. 27th Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, l[SJ-1893, pp. 36-45. "The Grass Crop and vJhat to do with it," Agriculture of Haine. 27th Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1883, pp. 13-23. Goodall, D.H. "Agriculture in New Hampshire," New Hampshire Agriculture. 22nd Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1892-1893, pp. 36-45. "Great Power of the Farm Bureau," The New England Homestead, May 17, 1919, p. 3. Holmes, W. W. "The Needs of Our Rural Schools;'' Haine Rural Life, August, 1913, pp. 91,96. Knowlton, D.H. "The Practical Education Needed by Farmers," Agriculture of }faine, 28th Annual Report of the State Board of A~riculture, 1884, pp. 71-80. Lang, John w. 1'The Grange in Waldo County," The Haine Farmer, November, 1882. 397 "Survey of Agriculture in Haldo County, 11 Agriculture of Haine. 17th Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1873, pp. 165-293. Hetcalf, Henry. "The New Hampshire State Grange," The Granite Honthly, December, 1921, pp. 517-526. "Representative Agriculturalists," The Granite Honthly, October, 1896, pp. 226-230. Moses, George H. "The Grange Fair by Pen and Camera," The Granite Honthly, October, 1894, pp. 262-274. McKeen, B. Walker. "The Hission of the Grange in Haine," Haine Rural Life, December 13, 1913, pp. 365-366. Nordin, Dennis S. "A Revisionist Interpretation of the Patrons of Husbandry, 11 The Historian, XXXII (August, 1970), 630-643. Pattee, Richard. "The Grange in New Hampshire," New Hampshire Agri-culture. Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1910-1912, pp. 145-149. Putnam, George. "The Farm Bureau," The Granite Monthly_, Hay, 1920, pp. 187-191. Sanborn, Prof. J.W. "The Relation of State to Rural Schools," Agricul-ture of Maine. 2nd Annual Report of the Commissioner of Azri-culture, 1903, pp. 149-157. Sherman, Rexford. "The New Hampshire Grange 1873-1893," Historical New Hampshire, XXVI (Spring, 1971), 3-25. Smith, David C. "Haine and Its Public Domain: Land Disposal on the North-eastern Frontier," in David M. Ellis (ed.). The Frontier in Amer-can Development -- Essays in Honor of Paul Hallace Gates. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1969, pp. 113-140. Smith, Norman W. "A Mature Frontier: The New Hampshire Economy 1790-1850," Historical New Hampshire, XXIV (Fall, 1969), 3-19. Stearns, Henry Baily. "The Farmers' Cooperative Movement," The Granite Nonthly, April, 1924, pp. 208-212. Stetson, C[lement] S. "Rural School in New England -- A Study of Country Schools," The New England Homestead, Harch 3, 1923, p. 54. Upson, Helen N. "Grange Halls in Haine," The National Grange Monthly, April, 1912, p. 6. 398 Wasson, Samuel. "A Survey of Hancock County," Agriculture of Haine. 21st Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1877, pp. 189-273. Wiggin, Edward. "Aroostook for the Young Man," A~riculture of Haine. 27th Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1883, PP• 137-158. Wildey, Rev. John Erastus. "New Boston: An Historical and Business Sketch," The Granite Monthly, April, 1897, pp. 211-241. Newspapers and Periodicals Aroostook County Farm Bureau News Aroostook Herald The Aroostook Patron The Aroostook Republican ~roostook Valley Sunrise Bangor Daily Commercial Bangor Daily Netvs Bangor Daily Hhig and Courier Boston Daily Journal Boston Herald Cheshire Republican Concord Daily Honitor The Dirigo Rural Exeter News-Letter The Farmers' Cabinet Fort Fairfield Aurora The Grange Herald The Lewiston h'eekly Journal 399 The Maine Farmer Mirror and American The National Grange Honthly NEtional Grange Quarterly Bulletin The New England Homestead Ne1v Hampshire Grange Journal New Hampshire Grange Reporter The North Star The Organized Farmer of Haine Presque Isle Star-Herald Presque Isle Sunrise Weekly Star Argus Government Reports -- State of Haine Agriculture of Naine. Annual Reports of the State Board of Agricul-ture, 1870-1901. Agriculture of Maine. Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Agricul-ture, 1902-1941. Report of the Maine 'fax Commission, 1908. Waterville, He.: Sentinel Publishing Co., 1908. Report of the Special Tax Commission of Maine Appointed Under the Resolve of the Legislature, 1890. Augusta: Burleigh & Flynt, 1890. Government Reports -- State of New Hampshire Journals of the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, 1874, 1881, 1883, 1903. NeH Hampshire Agriculture. Reports of the State Board of Agriculture, 1870-19i2. 400 Reports of the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, 1913-1941. Reports of the New Hampshire Railroad Commission, 1910. Reports of the New Hampshire Recessed Tax Commission of 1927-28, 1928. Reeorts of the New Hampshire State Treasurer, 1898, 1900,·1906, 1910. Government Reports -- United States Bureau of the Census. Census Reports, 1860-1940. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960 . ·---• Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1907, 1910, 1915, 1922~ 1939, 1941, 1949. Congress, Senate. Report of the Country Life Com~-~sion~ 60th Congress, 2nd Session, S.Document No. 705, 19C9. Department of Agriculture. List of the Agricultural, Horticultural, and Pomological Societies, Farmers' Clubs, etc. on the Books of the Department of Agriculture, July 1, 1870, Together with the Name of the ?resident and Secretary of Each. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1870. List of Agricultural Clubs, Societies, and Farmers' Clubs Established to Promote the Agricultural, Horti-cultural, and Pomological Interests of the Farmer on the Books of the Department of Agriculture, July 4, 1876. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1876. Bureau of Public Roads and the New Hamp-shire State HighHay Department, Report of the Survey of Trans-portation on the State Highways of New Hampshire. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1927 . . Northeast Postwar Planning Committee, ------------~----~--~~~ Northeast Agricultural Atlas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, n.d. •. 401 Interstate Commerce Cow~ission. New England Divisions, 66 ICC 196, 1922. Grange Reports Maine State Grange. Journals of Proceedings, 1874-1941. ------------------· Rosters, 1900-1941. National Grange. Journal of Proceedings, 1875, 1882, 1894, 1903, 1911. New Hampshire State Grange. Journal of Proceedings, 1874-1941. Rosters, 1900-1941. Unpublished Materials Day, Clarence A. "Grange Yesterdays." Kept at the University of Haine Library, Orono, Me., n.d. Hale, James T. "Preliminary Inventory to the Papers of Robert P. Bass." Dartmouth College Archives, 1961. "Houlton Grange Scrapbook." Corey Library, Houlton, He., n.d. Sargent, Walter.· "History of Warner Grange." 1922. Snowman, Mary. "History of Caribou." In Public Library, Caribou, Me. White, John Hilliam. "The Bangor and Aroostook Railroad, The County it Services and the People Who Built it." M.A. Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, 1952. White, Stella King. "Early History of Caribou, Maine, 1843-1895." In Public Library, Caribou, He., n.d. Manuscripts Clarence E. Carr Papers, Dartmouth College Archives. Hilliam E. Chandler Papers, New· Hampshire Historical Society Archives. Frank S. Streeter Papers, Dartmouth College Archieves. •. 402 Vita

The granger movement in Illinois

Abstract

Extracted data

The granger movement in Illinois

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items