STEPHEN LINCOLN GOODALE. 
 
 Secretary Maine Board of Agriculture from 1S56 to 1873. 
 
STEPHEN LINCOLN GOODALE 
 
 HIS LIFE WORK IN BEHALF OF 
 
 MAIINE AGRICULTURE. 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Maine Board of Agriculture, State House, 
 Augusta, January 20, 1898, by 
 
 SAflUEL L. BOARDflAN, Ex=Secretary. 
 
Stephen L. Goodale was born in South Berwick, August 14, 1S15. His father 
 was Enoch Goodale. In 1S16 the family settled in Saco, where Stephen spent his 
 subsequent life. His father engaged in business and erected the building on Main 
 street where C. L. Percy’s drug store is now located; here he sold books and 
 chemicals. From his earliest youth Stephen Goodale was surrounded by a scien - 
 tific atmosphere, and brought into contact with the physicians and teachers who 
 visited his father’s store. He entered Thornton Academy in March, 182S, and con- 
 tinued his studies there until 1831. Among his classmates were some who after- 
 ward became distinguished, among them, Hon. George F. Shepley, United States 
 circuit judge, John Shepley, Thomas M. Hayes and the late Captain R. F. C. Hart- 
 ley. Instead of going to college, as most of his classmates did, he followed his 
 peculiar bent and went into business with his father. In 1837 the store was relin- 
 quished to him, and he continued to conduct the business then until 1855, carrying 
 on meantime special studies connected with pharmacy and agriculture. He 
 married in Bangor, September 23, 1838, Prudence Aiken Nourse. In 1841 he bought 
 the place on North street, Saco, where he resided until his death. The extensive 
 grounds he devoted to scientific horticulture and arboriculture, and he had one of 
 the finest collections of trees and shrubs in the State. For forty years he carried 
 on experiments in the application of science to plant life, agriculture, forestry, 
 fruit and flower culture, and artificial fertilizers. He was Secretary of the State 
 Board of Agriculture from 1856 to 1872, and was the author of a number of scientific 
 treatises. For ten years he was Trustee, for ten Vice-President, and for more than 
 twenty years President of the Saco and Biddeford Savings Institution. He was 
 one of the seven men who incorporated York Institute in 1867, only two of whom 
 survive. He retained his interest in Thornton Academy and was a member of its 
 alumni association. He leaves five children : Prof. George Lincoln Goodale, 
 Director of the Botanic Garden of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; Miss 
 Caroline Hopkins Goodale, Benjamin Nourse Goodale and Dr. Walter Temple 
 Goodale, Bowdoin College, 1874, of Saco; and Alfred Montgomery Goodale, Uni- 
 versity of Maine, 1875, Superintendent of the Boston Manufacturing Company, 
 Waltham, Mass. A large number of friends were present at the funeral of Stephen 
 L. Goodale, Sunday, November 8. The last rites were performed at 1.30 P. M., at 
 the residence on North street, and the interment was at Laurel Hill. Rev. Philip 
 H. Moore conducted the funeral service, which was simple, without any singing. 
 There was a great many beautiful flowers in the room when the service was held. 
 Among those present were representatives of most of Saco’s prominent families, 
 and many business men. 
 
STEPHEN LINCOLN GOODALE: 
 
 His Life-Work in Behalf of Maine Agriculture. 
 
 By Samuel L. Boardman, Ex-Secretary. 
 
 It has been a pious and reverent custom for the people of 
 all nations, for societies, associations and individuals to perpet- 
 uate the characters and eulogize the heroic deeds of the soldiers, 
 statesmen, poets, philosophers, inventors and philanthropists 
 of all ages. The custom is one that appeals to the finest human 
 sentiment, and finds a response in the heart of humanity. But 
 while doing honor to the more conspicuous, why overlook the 
 less noticed? If the great soldier deserves an eulogy for deeds 
 that have cost thousands of human lives, why not the benefactor 
 whose life has led him along more quiet paths, and whose 
 triumphs have been those in the peaceful fields of agriculture 
 rather than upon the field of carnage? Those who have 
 devoted their lives to the improvement of the agriculture of a 
 nation or state, deserve well of their fellows. If we may 
 believe with Farmer Washington — for that Washington was 
 a real farmer there can be no question — writing to William 
 Pearce, whom he wished to secure for an overseer of his estates, 
 in October, 1793, he says: “As I am never sparing, with 
 proper economy, in furnishing my farms with any and every 
 kind of tool and implement that is calculated to do good and 
 neat work, I not only authorize you to bring the kind of 
 ploughs you were speaking to me about, but any others the 
 utility of which you have proved from your own experience — 
 particularly a kind of hand rake which Mr. Stuart tells me are 
 used on the eastern shore of Maryland in lieu of hoes for corn, 
 at a certain stage of its growth; and a scythe and cradle dif- 
 ferent from those used with us, and with which the grain is laid 
 much better. In short I shall begrudge no reasonable expense 
 that will contribute to the improvement and neatness of my 
 farms — for nothing pleases me more than to see them in good 
 order, and everything trim, handsome and thriving about 
 
 
them — nor nothing hurts me more than to find them otherwise, 
 and the tools and implements laying wherever they were last 
 used, exposed to injuries from rain and sun;” or if we 
 believe with this great man and good farmer that “agri- 
 culture is the most healthful, most useful and most noble 
 employment of man;” or if we accept with Farmer Webster — 
 for the great expounder of the constitution was a practical 
 farmer — amid all the perplexities and cares of state at Wash- 
 ington throughout his public career Webster did not write a 
 letter to his head farmer, John Taylor, that he did not talk about 
 oxen and steers, telling him how to feed them, tell him what 
 fields to plow, when to kill the hogs, and to have all the tools 
 ready for spring’s work — if we accept with him the fact that 
 “agriculture, manufactures and commerce stand together like 
 pillars in a cluster the greatest in the center and that greatest 
 agriculture; for without agriculture we should not have manu- 
 factures and we could not have commerce;” or if we believe 
 with another philosopher — for philosophers and business men 
 often teach farmers sound practical truths — that old English 
 wit, scholar, poet and preacher, Dean Swift, that the man who 
 can make two ears of corn or two< blades of grass to grow on 
 the spot where only one grew before, would deserve better of 
 mankind and render more essential service to the country than 
 the whole race of politicians put together — if we believe all 
 these, then it must be true that farmers are among the real 
 benefactors of the race, and that those who have devoted their 
 lives to its improvement, or have given us better methods, or 
 more economical- processes of cultivation, or improved tools 
 and machines, are among the civilizers of the world whose 
 lives and deeds are worthy or perpetuation. Hence it is fitting 
 that this State Board of Agriculture should reverence the 
 memory of one who was its secretary for a far longer term than 
 has ever fallen to the part of any preceding or succeeding 
 official, and whose life work in behalf of Maine agriculture was 
 conspicuous for its high character, its scientific value and its 
 practical worth — Stephen Lincoln Goodale, who died in Saco, 
 
 November 5, 1897, at the age of eighty-two years. 
 
 We may better comprehend the conditions under which Mr. 
 Goodale begun his long official service in connection with 
 Maine agriculture, if we first glance at a few facts and dates 
 leading up to his commencement of that work. 
 
 
The first recognition of agriculture by the laws of this State 
 is found to have been in 1832. There had been organized 
 effort in its behalf forty-five years earlier than this, in 1787, 
 but at this later date, 1832, we find the first legal recognition 
 and encouragement of practical farming by the State. And it 
 is by no means a slight compliment to the men who framed that 
 early law, that almost its exact language was retained in our 
 statutes down to its modification under new conditions at so 
 recent a date as 1852. The main feature of this early law was 
 the payment of a State bounty to agricultural societies which 
 was to be offered in premiums “for introducing or improving 
 any breed of useful cattle or animals, or any tools or implements 
 of husbandry or manufacture; introducing, raising or preserv- 
 ing any valuable trees, shrubs or plants; or, in any way, 
 encouraging or advancing any of the branches or departments 
 of agriculture, horticulture or manufactures.” 
 
 The movement which secured the passage of this act origi- 
 nated in this grand old county of Kennebec. Indeed, tell me, 
 pray, what movement for the benefit of the agriculture of the 
 State of Maine was ever started in those early days, that did not 
 originate in this very spot? When there were but three agri- 
 cultural societies in all North America, one of them was down 
 here in the woods of Maine in old Pondtown, (now Winthrop) ; 
 when but three agricultural journals were sending the light of 
 intelligent farming over the United States one of them was 
 brightly burning in old Kennebec, in the pages of the Farmers’ 
 and Mechanics’ Journal, published at Gardiner five years before 
 the establishment of any other agricultural newspaper in 
 Maine; forty years before Justin S. Morrill had thought out 
 his congressional endowment grant in aid of colleges for agri- 
 cultural and mechanical education, a college had been char- 
 tered by the State of Maine, located down here in old Kenne- 
 bec, which was giving a practical and scientific education to 
 our young farmers and mechanics along the exact lines of the 
 Jdorrill land grant colleges; when farmers all over the country 
 were threshing grain with flails, a Winthrop farmer invented 
 the first power threshing machine ever used in North America; 
 when more than half of our country was made up of woods 
 and the great western desert, Winthrop farmers were sending 
 to the Black Sea for seed wheat, and when farmers generally 
 
6 
 
 were breeding, feeding and milking ordinary cattle and keep- 
 ing scrubby sheep and common hogs, the farmers of Hallowed 
 and Winthrop were importing and introducing Shorthorn, 
 Hereford and Jersey cattle, Dishley sheep and Messenger 
 horses. 
 
 “Hold up,” said the captain of a Spanish vessel in the Eng- j 
 lish Channel, to his crew, devoutly crossing himself the while, 
 “here is where the heroes of the invincible Armada under the 
 Duke of Medina Sidonia, perished beneath the waters, 200 
 years ago.” So we, my friends, in historic old Kennebec, 
 cradle of improved farming in the eastern part of the continent 
 of North America, may well stop a moment to pay a word of 
 eulogy to those pioneers of agricultural progress in the New ' 
 World who 1 accomplished so much for Maine farming and 
 Maine farmers. Benjamin and Charles Vaughan, Samuel and 
 Elijah Wood, William Richards, and — noblest Roman of them 
 all — Ezekiel Holmes. Standing a hundred years from some 
 of them, let us hope that some one standing a hundred years 
 from us, will not forget their services to American husbandry. 
 
 Between 1850 and 1852 the statute which was in force, pro- 
 vided that no person to whom a premium was awarded by any 
 of the twenty-six then existing agricultural societies in the 
 State, should be paid such premium until he had first “delivered 
 to the society, a statement in writing, specifying the kind and 
 quantity of dressing put upon the land, the course pursued in | 
 cultivating the same, the kind of soil cultivated, with such other 
 circumstances as may be considered useful.” If the premium 
 was on stock, the party to whom it was awarded was obliged - 
 to make a similar statement of “the breed or stock, and of the i 
 advantages thereof for labor, the dairy or fattening, or any j 
 other purposes, together with the mode and expense of rearing 
 or treating the same as compared with the usual methods, with 
 any other useful remarks.” The Secretary of State was author- 1 
 ized to transmit these statements, and the reports of the award- 
 ing committees to the legislature to be submitted to a com- 
 mittee on agriculture, which was given permission to publish , 
 extracts from the same, “and such essays relative to the^ subject 
 as they may think adapted to the advancement of agriculture 
 and horticulture.” This was the beginning of the publication 
 of our annual volume of reports on the agriculture of the State. 
 
7 
 
 Previous to the year 1856, at which date the reports of the 
 secretary of the board of agriculture begun to be published, 
 there had been issued four volumes, containing the transactions 
 of these societies for the years 1850 to' 1855, inclusive. These 
 volumes contain reports of committees, statements of exhib- 
 itors and the addresses given at the agricultural fairs. For a 
 period long before the recognition of agriculture by the State, 
 one of the main features of the cattle shows was the annual 
 address. And what a feature it was! The occasion gave 
 opportunity for clergymen, editors and politicians to speak to 
 large audiences of farmers, and many of these addresses con- 
 tained excellent advice and sound information for their hearers. 
 It cannot be doubted that the intellectual part of the cattle 
 show embraced in the annual, address was a great agency in 
 the mental improvement of the farmer at a time when agricul- 
 tural papers were few, and when there were no free agricultural 
 reports as now. I often wonder if our farmers, to-day, prize 
 the government and State reports and bulletins, as highly as 
 they ought, and I also often think that the experimental has so 
 taken the place of the practical, that our farm methods in actual 
 practice, are far below what they should be. I believe if we 
 need any change in our agriculture to-day, it is in something 
 that will make better farmers and better farming — for there is, 
 even in this age of colleges, boards of agriculture and experi- 
 ment stations, too much poor farming. But the annual 
 address! It has had its day, and so far as I know is now only 
 recognized by two agricultural societies in this section of the 
 country — that of the old Essex society in Massachusetts, and 
 the old Kennebec — parent of all the cattle shows in the State — 
 ini Maine. Far be the day when the custom shall have been 
 abandoned by either. 
 
 An act of the legislature approved by Gov. John Hubbard 
 April 23, 1852, created a state board of agriculture consisting 
 of one member from each of the incorporated agricultural 
 societies in the State. This organization had its origin in a 
 “legislative farmers’ club” which for several winters had been 
 kept up among the members of the State legislature during 
 its annual sessions, the discussions of which were published in 
 the columns of the Maine Farmer. But there is no record in 
 any of the published volumes of the agriculture of Maine pre- 
 
8 
 
 vious to 1856, that it ever held a meeting, or that it ever had 
 any members. Yet by law it was to consist of one member 
 from each local society, and was to hold an annual meeting 
 on the third Wednesday of January annually — as it has been 
 held ever since. The board did, however, hold a meeting in 
 1853, as empowered by the act, which was in fact almost the 
 only power conferred upon it. Yet it charged the board to 
 devise and recommend to the county societies, and to the 
 farmers of the State, “facts, discoveries, improvements,” etc., 
 while it made no appropriation for carrying on the work. 
 
 Dr. Ezekiel Holmes, the real father and master of our 
 enlightened, intelligent, progressive agriculture — in whose 
 praise too much can hardly be said — was chosen first secretary 
 of the board. Another meeting was held in 1854, the only 
 record of which is that a report was made “recommending the 
 introduction of the study of agriculture in our common schools; 
 that a text book for the purpose be adopted, and that a profes- 
 sorship of agricultural chemistry be established in connection 
 with the then proposed normal school.” Thus early did the 
 farmers of Maine go upon record in behalf of agricultural edu- 
 cation. In 1855 the annual meeting was held in accordance 
 with the statute. This meeting resulted in the reorganization 
 of the board of agriculture; the adoption of a plan for more 
 fully defining the powers and duties of county agricultural and 
 horticultural societies, and the organization of the State Agricul- 
 tural Society — measures which were submitted to the legisla- 
 ture for legal approval. As reorganized the act establishing 
 a board of agriculture provided for one member from each 
 incorporated local agricultural society in the State, the mem- 
 bership of which should be divided into three classes — those 
 holding terms for one, two and three years respectively; and 
 the act carried an appropriation of $1,700 annually for defray- 
 ing its expenses and provisions, the salary of the secretary 
 being $800 per annum. 
 
 No record of the meetings of the board is published in vol- 
 umes which are entitled “Agriculture of Maine,” and were 
 edited by the secretary of the board between 1850 and 1856, 
 and one has to search the files of the Maine Farmer newspaper 
 for what facts can be found regarding its doings. It is pre- 
 sumed, however, that Mr. Goodale was a member of this orig- 
 
9 
 
 inal board. The first meeting of the reorganized board did not 
 take place until 1856, at which time it consisted of twenty-three 
 members — one from each of the local agricultural societies in 
 the State. But two of the original members of that board are 
 now living, Calvin Chamberlain of Foxcroft, and Hon. 
 Charles J. Gilman of Brunswick. The member from the York 
 county society was Stephen L. Goodale of Saco, and that 
 gentleman was chosen secretary. 
 
 Mr. Goodale was at that time forty-one years of age, and 
 was at the very height of his mental and physical powers. He 
 was not a college man, but was not without a peculiar fitness 
 by natural tastes and education for that part of his life work 
 upon which he so late entered — for at the present day, when 
 men have made fortunes in business and retired at forty-five, 
 it would seem a late age tO' be entering upon a new profession 
 at forty-one. Aside from three years’ study in the famous 
 Thornton academy, Mr. Goodale had the benefit of practical 
 training in a book store and apothecary shop. Thus he was 
 surrounded by books and chemicals and was brought into con- 
 tact with physicians, teachers and thoughtful, studious men. 
 At the age of twenty-two he had mastered all branches of the 
 business and succeeded his father in full control of the estab- 
 lishment. His chemical and botanical studies needed in phar- 
 macy, he extended and applied to gardening, plant growth and 
 crop production. Inheriting a love for the open; air and the 
 work of the florist, gardener and farmer, he made himself 
 acquainted with all the details of practical agriculture and 
 advanced horticulture as then carried on. 
 
 In 1840 or 1841, he established a garden and nursery on the 
 place which he then purchased in Saco, (to which town his 
 father removed when he was an infant), and where he ever after- 
 ward made his home. He early became interested in the work 
 of the York County Agricultural Society and had published, 
 in a pamphlet of its proceedings, a few years before becoming 
 secretary of the board, an essay on grapes and grape culture in 
 Maine — a subject with which horticulturists and gardeners 
 were then experimenting with to a considerable extent. 
 
 These were the natural tastes and .acquirements which Mr. 
 Goodale brought to the discharge of his duties when called to 
 the position of secretary of our board of agriculture. Wishing 
 
10 
 
 to more fully equip himself for his new office, one of his first 
 acts was to issue to the farmers of the State in the spring- of 
 1856, a circular letter making inquiries regarding the agricul- 
 tural practices among farmers in all the counties. Massachu- 
 setts had two years before established a board of agriculture 
 of which Mr. Charles L. Flint had been made secretary, and 
 in Mr. Flint’s first report was a similar circular letter embracing 
 similar questions to those which Mr. Goodale had asked the 
 Maine farmers, and upon which he wanted facts and experi- 
 ences. It is no disparagement to the latter gentleman that 
 he based some of his thirty questions — as one will see from 
 examining the two lists — upon those of Mr. Flint. Mr. 
 Goodale wanted information from all sources that would assist 
 him in his work and he went to good sources for it. In the 
 very first interview that I ever had with Mr. Goodale which 
 was in his library at Saco, two years after he was chosen secre- 
 tary, he remarked to me that the only way to reach and help 
 the farmers of Maine was by first knowing what they were 
 doing and what they wanted, then one would know intelligently 
 how to meet those wants. This could be done by two methods 
 — that of sending them questions to answer; and that of visit- 
 ing them at their farms and homes both in summer and winter, 
 studying their methods, seeing their practices, noting their 
 errors, and by this means preparing one’s self to suggest 
 improvements, correct errors and lead them to a better way. 
 
 That very year the first agricultural excursion I ever made 
 was in company with Mr. Goodale and at his invitation. We 
 went by team through portions of Kennebec, Somerset, Frank- 
 lin and Oxford counties visiting farms and orchards, observing 
 stock and gardens and making constant notes. I owe to him 
 my first inspiration for a desire to visit and study farms, which 
 ini the course of the next five years led me into every county 
 and more than half the towns in Maine; and it is to him that 
 I am indebted for my first knowledge of Arthur Young, Sir 
 John Sinclair, James F. W. Johnston, John C. Loudon and 
 William Cobbett — those writers of later English agriculture, 
 and of M. de Lavergne, that eminent Frenchman who wrote 
 the best treatise on the rural economy of Great Britain ever 
 published. The method employed by Mr. Goodale of sending 
 out questions on all sorts of farm topics to be answered by 
 
1 1 
 
 farmers themselves has never been improved upon as a means 
 of obtaining practical knowledge of real farming, and it is the 
 same method that is now employed in so successful a manner 
 by the present secretary of the board. 
 
 Mr. Goodale’s, first report was a model of excellence and 
 reached a high level in practical and scientific value. One who 
 loves husbandry can read it to-day as he would read the 
 Georgies of Virgil, again and again, without becoming tired. 
 It is the only agricultural publication in this State, possibly in 
 any state, that ever went into a second edition — the first, hav- 
 ing been inadequate to supply the calls for it from our farmers. 
 It presented a somewhat minute survey of the condition of our 
 farming and of individual practices among the best farmers of 
 more than forty years ago, that is profitable to read to-day, 
 showing as it does many good old customs from which we have 
 departed to our loss. Subsequent reports were devoted to 
 more special subjects, this one having been evidently designed 
 to lay the foundation for a broad general knowledge of the agri- 
 culture of the State. 
 
 The report for 1857 shows that changes had been made in 
 the statute creating the board, which reduced the number of 
 members to one from each county, instead of one from each 
 society, — there having been then but fourteen counties in the 
 State — and had also made the Governor and Secretary of State 
 ex-officio members. This last feature was patterned after the 
 Massachusetts law, but while their statute remains unchanged 
 to this day, the Governor and Secretary of State being members 
 ex-officio', our law having this provision remained in force but 
 one year. During that year Hannibal Hamlin, President 
 Lincoln’s vice president, was president of the board. As some 
 of the members had been chosen by the societies after the 
 change in the law, the board of 1857 was made up of fourteen 
 members termed “statute members” — one from each county — 
 with eight “honorary members,” who were entitled to sit with 
 the board but received no pay. These “honorary members” 
 served but a single year, and had no successors. 
 
 As a young fellow I remember very well the meetings of the 
 board at that early date. It held one session annually of 
 two weeks’ duration. The room assigned to its use for meet- 
 ings was in the north basement, under the present office of the 
 
12 
 
 land agent. On the opposite side of the narrow stairway was 
 an offensive water-closet. The sanitary arrangements of the 
 State House were then so defective that to reach the main 
 room of the board was anything but agreeable. Mr. Goodale’s 
 private office was what is now committee room No. 16 — a small, 
 poorly lighted box, under the senate chamber in the northeast 
 corner of the north wing. In the large room where the meet- 
 ings were held was a continuous table on three sides, with a 
 raised platform and desk on the remaining side or end, for the 
 president. In the center of the hollow square thus formed was 
 the secretary’s desk, while upon the outside of the tables were 
 the members’ seats, assigned by counties. A special messen- 
 ger was in attendance upon the room and the members during 
 the sessions of the board. What would those old members of 
 the board in its earlier days think, could they now revisit our 
 new State House and find the agricultural department occupy- 
 ing one of the largest and most attractive rooms in the building? 
 Surely, they would believe that the farmers were being made 
 of and appreciated as they never were in the days when its 
 meetings were held in an unattractive room down cellar. 
 
 The board was a deliberative, dignified body, and in the rules 
 adopted for its government were the following: 
 
 “When a member speaks, he shall rise and address the presi- 
 dent. 
 
 “No member shall interrupt another while speaking, except 
 to call to order, or to correct a mistake. 
 
 “When a member makes a motion he shall put the same in 
 writing if requested by the president. 
 
 “When a motion is made and seconded, it shall be received 
 and considered by the board but not otherwise.” 
 
 Papers were read three several times, the same as with bills 
 and resolves in the House of Representatives. They were first 
 read by the individual member and accepted by the board; on 
 another day they were read or partially read by the secretary, 
 discussed, criticised or amended; and finally, read a third time 
 by title and adopted — so that when published they went before 
 the farmers of the State as the deliberate, unanimous and offi- 
 cial opinion of the board of agriculture. In the work of sug- 
 gesting changes, or correcting the views, language or opinions 
 of the members in their papers, the ripe judgment and good 
 
13 
 
 scholarship of Mr. Goodale was laid under heavy contribution. 
 There was rarely a paper presented that he did not improve, 
 and when it went to the public in print some of the members 
 were, no doubt, surprised to find how able and valuable an 
 essay they could write. Members were assigned subjects at 
 one session upon which they were to prepare papers during 
 the interim to be presented at the opening of the succeeding 
 session. Thus their work was in a nature continuous through- 
 out the year, and when the annual meeting assembled the 
 reports or papers were called for, these papers forming the 
 programme of the meeting. Mr. Goodale was not a public 
 speaker — he could read a manuscript, but he could not make a 
 speech. He took little part himself in the proceedings of the 
 board meetings, his best quality being that of a good listener. 
 After the papers had been read and discussed, however, the 
 faces of all members were turned toward Mr. Goodale for his 
 opinion. A brief remark from him often punctured the strong- 
 est argument in a long paper; while a brief commendation 
 showed that the essay read had contained few errors. 
 
 In his report for 1857 Mr. Goodale gave an account of the 
 agriculture of Aroostook county which he had that year visited. 
 At Houlton he saw on Mr. Cary’s farm thirty acres of wheat 
 sown April 17-12, which was the last of July full in milk, free 
 from the midge and promising a heavy yield. The growing he 
 said, was as rich as that in Orange county, N. Y., “Nor can I 
 conceive sufficient reason,” he says, “why Aroostook butter and 
 cheese may not be profitably exported to large extent, and by 
 the application of proper skill in manufacturing be made to 
 rival that of Orange county and command as good a price.” 
 If that suggestion had been only followed — what a garden the 
 garden of Maine would have been to-day! 
 
 In 1858 the board consisted of twenty-three members; in 
 1859 °f twenty-six, and in i860 of twenty-seven — but in 1861 
 a change in the law was again made which limited representa- 
 tion to one member from each county, sixteen, which law 
 remained unchanged for a period of ten years. 
 
 In the report for 1858 Mr. Goodale took up the subject of 
 the dairy and obstacles to fruit culture; in 1859, the grasses, 
 and in i860 appeared that original and profound work “The 
 Principles of Breeding,” or glimpses at the physiological laws 
 
14 
 
 involved in the reproduction and improvement of domestic 
 animals. This was published at Boston in 1861 as a separate 
 volume, and was one of the first treatises on that important 
 subject ever published in the United States. It was for several 
 years used as a text-book at some of the State agricultural col- 
 leges, and is to-day regarded as a standard work. I prize 
 among my choicest books a finely bound copy of this work 
 with an autograph presentation from the author. 
 
 As I go over in review the work of these years there are 
 many things to which I would like to refer, showing Mr. Good- 
 ale’s wide and far reaching interest in the agricultural prob- 
 lems of that time, if the same would not overburden this 
 address — but one thing must be glanced at. 
 
 Hon. Justin S. Morrill, then a representative in Congress, 
 from Vermont, had introduced in the lower house of Congress 
 December 14, 1857, a bill authorizing a donation of public 
 lands by the general government to the several states for the 
 purpose of endowing colleges to encourage agriculture and 
 mechanic arts, (which became a law in 1862) and at the sug- 
 gestion of Mr. Goodale resolutions were passed by our board 
 of agriculture at its next meeting, expressing that the passage 
 of such a bill would have “a most auspicious influence upon 
 the agricultural interest of our State,” and earnestly appealing 
 to the agricultural societies of the State and farmers generally 
 to at once petition Congress for the passage of such bill, and 
 urging the press of the State to aid in creating a public spirit 
 in its support. 
 
 It is commendable to the legislature of Maine that it inaugu- 
 rated a scientific survey of the State in i860, and carried it on 
 for two years while the State and country were suffering from 
 the first throes of the great rebellion. From the fact that the 
 reports of this survey were published in the annual agricultural 
 volume, the space given to the work of the board for those 
 years is very much less than for any other volumes of the entire 
 series. But Mr. Goodale carried on his studies and investiga- 
 tions with the same care and thoroughness as in other years. 
 In 1861 his work was given to the subject of marine manures, 
 with special reference to fish offal and its use; in 1862 he 
 devoted still more time to the subject of Maine dairying and 
 discussed the matter of the ‘‘farmers’ college” — that was what 
 
15 
 
 Mr. Goodale called it — which was to be established under the 
 Morrill endowment act of July 2, 1862. Mr. Goodale’s remarks 
 in the volume for this year upon the prospects and duties of 
 the farmer in view of a gigantic rebellion of two years’ dura- 
 tion which had threatened our national existence are noble 
 and commendable. “Our sons and our brothers,” he says, 
 “have exchanged the harvest field for the battle ground. In 
 place of the plow and the scythe, they handle the musket and 
 the sword. And we who remain, although we share not their 
 perils and hardships, have not less weighty responsibilities rest- 
 ing upon us. * * Those thousand and more regiments in 
 
 the field, from being producers have come to be consumers. 
 Every man of them must be fed and clothed — fed and clothed 
 from the productions of the earth. While we would trust, with 
 undoubting confidence, that the Great Ruler of nations will do 
 all things well and crown the right with victory, it behooves 
 us to strain every nerve and muscle, to put forth every energy 
 and faculty to secure the end desired. We who go not to the 
 battlefield, must do our utmost to support those who do, as 
 well as those who must always be cared for at home. We must 
 lay our plans for the coming season so that every hour of the 
 time, and all the means at command, be employed to the best 
 advantage. Cherish those organizations by which so much 
 has been accomplished, and which, if ever useful at all, are more 
 useful now than ever. Help one another. Encourage one 
 another. Be of good cheer.” These are but a few crystallized 
 sentences from several pages of an appeal to our farmers in 
 time of war, as noble in its way as any that ever emanated 
 from a leader to his forces on the eve of conflict. 
 
 The subject of the State College received a great deal of 
 attention, and to it Mr. Goodale devoted many pages of his 
 annual reports. His writings upon the subject of agricultural 
 education had much to do in determining the character of the 
 new institution. Besides this, he wrote most excellent treatises 
 upon questions of uppermost importance to the agriculture of 
 Maine, or that were being debated by leaders of agriculture in 
 other states. Among these were the manufacture of cheese; 
 fruit culture — an exhaustive treatise including descriptions of 
 varieties adapted to Maine; beet roots as a source of sugar; 
 
i6 
 
 influence of forests on climate; the cattle plague; cultivation of 
 the hop; chemistry of manures; wheat culture, and culture of 
 the potato. No hasty or superficial work was put into any of 
 these papers. They are each able, comprehensive, and treated 
 with special reference to the conditions of Maine agriculture. 
 They evince the result of wide reading, close study and a clear 
 comprehension of the adaptability of our agricultural resources 
 and the spirit of our farmers, that had only been gained through 
 accurate observation of our needs and how their requirements 
 could be met. In all this work Mr. Goodale was nothing if 
 not thorough, devoted and conservative — in no case was he 
 over-enthusiastic upon any subject, and in few instances only 
 was he mistaken. 
 
 The years 1869 and 1870 were conspicuous for more marked 
 changes in our agricultural institutions than any which occurred 
 during Mr. Goodale’s entire term as secretary. 
 
 For some time previous to the first named date there had 
 been a growing feeling on the part of leading members of the 
 board that in two particulars at least, changes should be made. 
 Down to this time the board had held one session annually of 
 two weeks, at the State House. It was a very unusual occur- 
 rence for farmers in general to attend its meetings. A few of the 
 farmer members of the legislature sometimes went down stairs 
 to the board room for a half hour, but generally they preferred 
 to be present at the legislature or were obliged to attend the 
 committee hearings. Other members of the legislature would 
 occasionally look in upon its meetings, but it was frequently 
 the case that they ridiculed its proceedings and belittled their 
 value and influence. There were good reasons for taking its 
 meetings away from the State House, and there were better 
 reasons, why, if farmers would not come to its meetings its 
 officers should carry their meetings to the farmers. 
 
 There had been at different times during the existence of the 
 board rumors that the legislature was likely to abolish it 
 entirely — as was done one year in Connecticut when its legis- 
 lature abolished the board in that state. And the attendance 
 of representatives at one of its rather dull, formal meetings 
 would be likely not to strengthen their support of its legal 
 existence. Hence, if for no other reason than to get the board 
 
1 7 
 
 out from under unfavorable State House influence, it was an 
 advisable thing to make a change in the nature of its meetings. 
 Moreover there was a conviction on the part of a few members, 
 led by the secretary himself, that there was need that new life 
 should be introduced into the personnel of the board; that 
 while the practical side of the farming interest was well repre- 
 sented among its members, a new element, the scientific, should 
 be introduced to give higher character to its deliberations and 
 more authority to its published proceedings. The establish- 
 ment of the State College, which had opened its doors to its 
 first class the year previous, strengthened this feeling. If the 
 college was to teach scientific farming it was necessary that the 
 board should represent that element which promised to be an 
 essential feature of the agriculture of the future — the scientific. 
 Consequently as a result of several conferences of committees 
 of the board, a bill was formulated, which became a law March 
 i, 1869, entitled “An act to secure harmony of action between 
 the board of agriculture and the State College of Agriculture 
 and the Mechanic Arts.” The title of this bill was an erroneous 
 one. There had never been any friction or want of harmony 
 between the two bodies, as the title implied. But the fear of 
 some was that the college would supersede the board as the 
 medium of official agriculture before the people, and that it 
 was necessary to prepare the way for this expected change. 
 Although Mr. Goodale had been a previous member of the 
 board of trustees of the college, and although no man in the 
 State had been so much consulted or advised with regarding 
 its establishment, curriculum and policy, the first line of the 
 new act made the secretary of the board of agriculture, “ex- 
 officio, a trustee of the college.” Other provisions of the act 
 were that in addition to the county members of the board, the 
 governor should appoint five members at large (two of whom 
 were to be members of the faculty of the college); and instead 
 of one session a year there were to be two sessions of not exceed- 
 ing four days each, “one of which was to be held within such 
 convenient distance of the State College as would enable the 
 attendance of students and faculty in order that they might 
 have the advantages of the addresses and discussions before the 
 board, the other to be held at such time and place as the board 
 might determine.” 
 
As will be readily understood this act made a radical change 
 in the character and individuality of the board as well as in the 
 policy which had governed it for fifteen years. There were 
 those who opposed the change both among the members of the 
 board and the farmers at large. And this opposition was more 
 manifest when, among the executive appointees under the new 
 law creating members at large were two professors from Bow- 
 doin College and two from Waterville College. There were 
 proper and good reasons why the faculty of the State College 
 should have representation upon the board under the “har- 
 mony” law, but no good reason why four members represent- 
 ing the old classical colleges should have a place. This last 
 has ever been regarded as a mistake, and the plan met 
 with much opposition, and was one of the most unsatisfactory 
 laws which had ever been presented to the farmers of Maine. 
 Mr. Goodale had strongly insisted that the new college should 
 be a college for farmers, and he had planned the manual labor 
 requirement which made it obligatory for each student to work 
 three hours a day for five days in the week — the labor to be as 
 far as possible educational — but there could be no necessity 
 that in a statute governing the board of agriculture four of its 
 members should be taken from the old-school classical colleges. 
 The opposition to this change in the law, however, gradually 
 disappeared, the liberal college members were discontinued, 
 and as the workings of the law became better understood as the 
 years went on the wisdom of uniting the board of agriculture 
 and the State College became more apparent and did effective 
 service for both, until, in course of time conditions and public 
 sentiment had so changed that it was deemed wise to dissolve 
 the ex-officio relation of the secretary of the board to the 
 college. 
 
 The first session of the board of agriculture under the new 
 law, was held at Orono, with a public convention at Bangor, 
 and from that the two meetings a year naturally came to be 
 called the winter and autumn meetings. 
 
 During 1870-1872 they were held at Lewiston, Foxcroft, 
 Farmington, Lincoln, Paris and Skowhegan. There were 
 some advantages that followed this change in the work of the 
 board. It brought to its meetings a class of speakers from 
 
19 
 
 other states who ranked high as agricultural teachers; it carried 
 those meetings into towns that had never had the advantages 
 of them before, and by the attendance at the meetings of the 
 faculty and students of the State College, it advertised the col- 
 lege throughout the State, and secured more friends for it than 
 could have been done in any other manner. The language of 
 the new law was that one of the two meetings a year should be 
 held at Orono, or so near, that the students of the college could 
 attend, that they might have the benefit of the lectures and dis- 
 cussions. This section of the law became construed that wher- 
 ever the students could be taken free, through the liberality of 
 railroad officials in granting them transportation, was in such 
 nearness to Orono that they could attend. Under this interpre- 
 tation of the law, they went across the State — from Alfred in 
 York county to Houlton in Aroostook, to attend the meetings 
 of the board, and wherever they went made champions for the 
 college. From this custom has been evolved the annual 
 encampments of the now University students held annually in 
 different parts of the State. 
 
 This change in the meetings of the board brought another 
 change in the work of the secretary. Instead of so much 
 original work in the preparation of papers or treatises for the 
 annual volume, the bulk of the same was made up of the papers 
 and lectures given at the meetings which required very little 
 editing. Hence the annual reports were more composite in 
 character and in some respects less valuable than in case of the 
 carefully thought out, labored treatises, such as Mr. Goodale 
 had given us in the earlier years of his secretaryship. These 
 meetings also foreshadowed the branch meetings of a subse- 
 quent date and the farmers’ institutes of to-day — and the 
 farmers of the State could no more go back to the two meet- 
 ings a year of the board, now that they are having forty-seven 
 institutes in a year, than the travelling public could go back to 
 the stage coach in their business trips from Augusta to Port- 
 land by way of South West Bend in Durham. 
 
 Among the distinguished speakers from out of Maine who 
 addressed these conventions of the board during the later years 
 of Mr. Goodale’s secretaryship were Dr. George B. Loring of 
 Massachusetts; Dr. Henry Boynton of Vermont; Hon. Simon 
 
20 
 
 Brown, editor of the New England Farmer; Hon. T. S. Gold, 
 secretary of the Connecticut board of agriculture; O. S. Bliss 
 of Vermont; X. A. Willard, John Stanton Gould and Harris 
 Lewis of New York; Hon. J. B. Walker of New Hampshire 
 and Alexander Hyde of Massachusetts. But three of these, I 
 believe, are now living. It was the plan then to arrange the 
 strongest speakers for the winter meetings, at which more 
 farmers were usually present than at the autumn meetings, and 
 to depend upon home talent and members of the board for the 
 fall sessions. The plan inaugurated under Mr. Goodale’s 
 management, of obtaining distinguished and prominent agri- 
 cultural teachers from out of the State for the chief meetings 
 of the year, has been continued through all the different admin- 
 istrations of the board to the present day. 
 
 At the annual meeting of the board held at Winthrop in Jan- 
 uary, 1873, another gentleman was elected secretary in place of 
 Mr. Goodale, who had served continuously in that office for 
 seventeen years, and was at that time fifty-eight years of age. 
 
 I was acquainted personally with Mr. Goodale during fifteen 
 years of his term as secretary, and for ten years of the term 
 knew him intimately. I became his assistant in 1865, did much 
 of the editing of the contributed matter in his reports, read his 
 proofs and carried on a frequent and close correspondence with 
 him. Hence I came to understand him well and from being 
 so much with him to see much of his private life and was able 
 to judge of his character. For his friendship, assistance and 
 encouragement in my early professional life I owe him a debt 
 of gratitude which I have always gratefully acknowledged, and 
 which I have never been able, nor can ever expect to repay. 
 
 Mr. Goodale was a constant and unremitting worker, and 
 during the years of his secretaryship was also interested in 
 many other and business matters. Indeed, it seems now, as I 
 recall it, that, many as were his duties as secretary of the board, 
 and thorough as was the honest, conscientious work which he 
 put into their performance — they were but a small part of what 
 he accomplished, year by year. He was a careful and active 
 business man interested in many affairs. During his term as 
 secretary he managed the most extensive nursery in the State; 
 was severally vice president and president of one of the largest 
 
21 
 
 savings banks in Maine (which, during the last years of his 
 management of its affairs had deposits of more than $1,500,000); 
 was chemist, president and manager of the Cumberland Bone 
 Company, and for ten years a trustee of the State College. 
 Each of these varied interests demanded his close attention — 
 no one of them was attended to second hand — he was person- 
 ally responsible in each case, and the responsibility was faith- 
 fully discharged. In all the affairs of the State College; in 
 much of the work of the scientific survey of the State; in the 
 wide and diversified interests of our agriculture as represented 
 by the board and the agricultural societies; in the minute work 
 required as chemist of the Cumberland Bone Company, when 
 that company was at the height of its business in the manufac- 
 ture of superphosphate in Maine; in the oversight of his large 
 nursery and thriving store; in the care pertaining to the affairs 
 of his bank, especially regarding the safe placing of its funds — 
 in all these matters, sufficient it would seem to occupy the time 
 and effort of two men — Mr. Goodale was never found wanting. 
 
 In addition to these public duties Mr. Goodale was a great 
 general reader and a close student; he made several journeys 
 to other states to investigate their methods of agriculture and 
 study special lines of farming adapted to our conditions, to fit 
 himself for his work in connection with our own agriculture, 
 and he was constantly making experiments in chemistry, in 
 plant culture, in artificial fertilization; and beside this carried 
 on an extensive correspondence with eminent agriculturists, 
 not only in our own country, but abroad. And this was long 
 before the days of stenography in private use, or the dictation 
 of correspondence to a typewriter. Among his foreign cor- 
 respondents were Sir J. Bennett Lawes and Dr. Augustus 
 Voelcker — who came over from Germany to be chemist to the 
 Royal Agricultural Society of England. I remember of his 
 once calling my attention to an error in the published results of 
 a chemical analysis made by Dr. Voelcker, and telling me 
 there was an error in his analysis or an error in the printing. 
 In a letter to Dr. Voelcker he pointed out the error, and 
 received a reply from that great chemist in which he said there 
 was a typographical error in the table which was not discovered 
 until a part of the edition had been printed, and it was a copy 
 
22 
 
 of the journal of the Royal Society containing the error that 
 had got over to America, and had fallen under the eye of the 
 critical and accurate chemist way down here in Maine. He 
 explained the error and his correction agreed with Mr. Good- 
 ale’s interpretation of the matter. 
 
 Mr. Goodale was a man of great physical endurance as well 
 as large mental reserve, or he could never have accomplished 
 the amount of work which he did. He was a man of medium 
 height, of stout frame and of extremely full habit. He smoked 
 almost constantly when at work, as he told me “to keep down 
 his flesh.” Mr. Goodale was a very silent man. He talked but 
 little; he rarely entered into what we might term general con- 
 versation, and he seldom smiled. When he laughed, he 
 laughed heartily, but this was something very foreign to his 
 habit. I have no doubt that a deafness which affected him 
 somewhat for many years, previous to his retirement from 
 public office, contributed somewhat to this personal reserve. 
 Although he did not “wear his heart upon his sleeve,” he had 
 one as big as his great frame and as tender as that of woman, 
 when one got at it, and it didn’t take long to find it when 
 human sympathy or friendly aid were needed. His splendid 
 service in behalf of our agriculture was based upon his interest 
 in and endeavors to promote the welfare of our agriculture 
 and our farmers. He loved botany and chemistry, trees, plants 
 and flowers long before he had any thought of devoting his 
 life to agriculture, and he loved them for themselves, for what 
 they taught him, and for the pleasures they brought into his 
 life. This being the case it may be said in truth that his interest 
 in agriculture never ceased; his love for these things never left 
 him. 
 
 The general results of Mr. Goodale’s life-work are treasured 
 for the future in the sixteen volumes of our Maine reports which 
 he edited, and so large a part of which is the work of his own 
 brain and hand. They are good reading for any day in the 
 year even now, to the farmer who would improve his methods 
 and get down to a better understanding of the nature-forces 
 and agencies with which he has to do. No subject which Mr. 
 Goodale touched was ever half done — thorough work put into 
 whatever matter he had in hand. His judgment was most 
 
23 
 
 excellent — hence his advice was sought on many matters of 
 interest to Maine agriculture. He was, with the late Gail Bor- 
 den, interested in the condensed milk process and in 1863 
 assisted in starting a condensed milk factory at Farmington 
 Falls, which, however, only operated for a short time. He 
 experimented in the matter of beef extract, and had mastered 
 the Liebig process as early as the great German chemist him- 
 self. He also gave great study to artificial fertilization, the 
 use of fish as a nitrogenous agent in commercial fertilizers, and 
 the hybridization of fruits. These matters were side affairs, so 
 to speak, or mere incidents to fill up the spare moments of his 
 active life. 
 
 In his domestic relations Mr. Goodale was most happy. His 
 wife, an accomplished and beautiful woman, died in 1885. 
 How many times has he praised her to me, telling me she was 
 “ten times the man that he was” and that all he had been in life 
 he owed to her. Five children survive Mr. Goodale to inherit 
 an honored name. 
 
 It is now more than forty years since Mr. Goodale was chosen 
 secretary of the board of agriculture, and twenty-five since he 
 gave up his office to another. During the nearly half cen- 
 tury of the existence of the board, many changes have come to 
 its officers and its methods. The tenure of office in recent 
 years has been much shorter with officials than it was in the 
 earlier period of its history. These changes are the inevitable 
 result of all human concerns. But if with them there is an 
 improvement in methods making for the common good, we 
 who play our little parts for a few years and then go into 
 obscurity, ought not to be unwilling that the obscurity shall 
 overtake us. As to the common good there can be no divided 
 opinion regarding that. From a single meeting of the board, 
 each year, which hardly no one but official members attended 
 and which was always held in the same place, to fifty meetings 
 a year held all over the State is a change in the methods and 
 work of the board of agriculture which no one would now be 
 willing to abandon. 
 
 In his introduction to the beautiful and pathetic “Story of 
 Ida,” John Ruskin has well said: “The lives we need to have 
 written for us are of the people whom the world has not thought 
 
3 0 
 
 2 098687400 
 
 24 
 
 of — far less heard of” — who have done the greater part of its 
 useful work. Surely the life of Mr. Goodale must come into 
 this class of persons. He wrought that the work of the 
 farmers’ hands might be more intelligently guided, and the toil 
 of his fields, directed by higher intelligence, be productive of 
 results which should bring larger crops, greater profits, a 
 keener enjoyment of the wonderful and varied forms of nature 
 and higher intellectual happiness. In his life, and others like 
 his, how true is the lesson so charmingly expressed by our own 
 Whittier: 
 
 “Give fools tlieir gold and knaves their power, 
 
 Let fortune’s bubbles rise or fall— 
 
 Who sows a field, or trains a flower, 
 
 Or plants a tree, is more than all.”