LFrom the Michigan Farmer.] Caro, Sept. h, 1891. To the Editor of the Michigan Farmer; In reply to Mr. Butterfield's letter relative to reuiarks made by me in the Senate Chamber, I again iassert my language was misquoted. How easy it is for this to be done when we consider that he misquoted my language used -in the Michigan Farmer, namely: "And they never would have got the appropriation had Mr. Butterfield stated that two more professors would be added." This he refers to as the Senator's threat as to what would have been done had he known the board contemplated its recent action. The language used by me alluded to what the legislature would have done, and not me individually. I would like him to point out in what part of my letter I said I had no use for either the College or its work. Allow me to say I have no grudge against the College. It is probably doing educational work, but it is doïng what it was intended for, and what it professes to be, "an Agricultural College?" Inconnection with this I will ask a few questions: Is the president a practical agriculturist? Why is it necessary to ïave one professor to less than nine students? Cannot some of them each two branches? Why take nearly seven thousand dollars from he students and tnrn it into the general fund and then ask an appropriation of eight thousand dollars to pay these same students back for labor? Why have to buy grain for the stock on a farm of seven hundred acres, with, I think, not more than 25 head of cattle and less than 100 sheep? How much per diem, mileage, and expenses was paid the boarp for their efforts to get the appropriation through? Why ask an appropriation for a foundry? ís it to cast models of the grain and vegetables grown there? Why keep up a mechanical department, or teach the languages and astronomy? ís it necessary to understand those to be a successful agriculturist? ís it a fact that it is necessary to have a better education in order to be admitted to the College than most of our farmers can or do givt their children? The design of the institution is to afford thorough instruction in agriculture and the natural sciences connected therewith. Is this adhered to, or are we turning out lawyers, teachers and mechanics at an expense to the state of a hundred thousand dollars a year? The public wil! undoubtedly be pleased to learn that there was not two more professors added to the thirty-siXj now at the College, and that they are only assistants. The Michigan Farmer, I think, stated they were professors. If the Farmer was wrong then I admit I was not posted.