KanColl: The Kansas
Historical Quarterlies

The Soft Winter Wheat Boom
and the Agricultural Development
of the Upper Kansas River Valley
Second Installment

by James C. Malin

February, 1943 (Vol. 12, No. 1), pages 58 to 91.
Transcribed by lhn;
digitized with permission of the Kansas State Historical Society.


     THE development of the upper Kansas Valley brought a number farm leaders into the foreground, but the one who was most conspicuous all, in advertising value certainly if not in influence upon agriculture, was T. C. Henry, real estate dealer Abilene. [1] The herd law bad become effective in Saline and Dickinson counties April 8 and 12, 1872, respectively, the way was open for cheap farming without the expense of building fences around growing crops. In the fall of 1873, Henry embarked upon winter wheat growing as a part of his real-estate promotion activities. [2] According to his own story, he broke 500 acres sod along the Kansas Pacific railway east of Abilene, using six-yoke ox teams pulling 20-inch Moline plows:

     In August the Seed, the Early Red May, or Little Red May, a st, amber-colored, small, symmetrical berry, was broadcasted on the sod and covered by common Scotch harrows, drawn by ox-teams. . . . My processes were purposely primitive and inexpensive, merely adequate for an example . . . .

     He claimed that his field was like an oasis during the crop year 1873-1874 and that the yield was nearly twenty bushels per acre. [3] He harvested the crop with two Marsh harvesters and a Weyhrich header. It was one of those dry years when the wheat ripened suddenly and the purchase of the header, he said, was urged upon him by the local implement dealer. [4] The whole cropping operation was done on a contract basis, because Henry did all his farming from his real estate office in Abilene.

     For the crop year, 1874-1875, Henry broke 600 or more acres of



sod in the Smoky Hill bottoms and was reported to have sown some 1,200 acres of fall wheat.' The local paper described the tract land as beginning at the stockyards east of Abilene and extending four miles eastward toward Detroit and lying on the north side of the Kansas Pacific railroad and between it and the Valley wagon road. The wheat field itself began one mile east town and was three miles in length. An Osage orange fence had been planted around the land, with cross fences each half mile, in all twelve miles of hedge. When the threshing was done and the wheat marketed Henry announced the yield at 28,800 bushels, or 222 bushels per acre, which he sold at $1.052, making a profit on the year's operations at $18,974, besides leaving on hand straw worth $1,500 for stock feed. At this time he explained somewhat his methods, taking the view that by burning of the stubble three crops could be raised on one plowing of the land; "two years ago [fall of 1873] I put in 500 acres pursuing the foregoing method." By this he meant that in 1873 the sod was broken and the first crop planted; and in 1874 the second crop was planted without plowing; and in 1875 likewise. [6]

     For the crop year 1875-1876, Henry expanded his operations. Early in June, 1875, he was advertising for teams to break 2,000 acres sod by August 1, at $3.00 per acre. The record is not clear how many acres were planted, but by August 21 he was reported to have started sowing his 1,300-acre field. [7] A news story in the spring of 1876 related that the crop of 1874 had yielded 24 bushels; 1875, 34 bushels; and in 1876 the prospect was 5-7 bushels better than 1875; and finally, that the,wheat on the old ground, the third successive crop, was best of all without plowing. This three-year record, the article concluded, "proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that wheat can be raised on new land, old land, or any other land in this county." [8] Threshing reports tempered the optimism of May prospects giving the yield at about 20 bushels per acre, which was three bushels above the harvest-time estimate and fifteen less than four weeks before harvest. [9]


Henry's operations for the crop year 1876-1877 were expanded further, one report stating that jointly with Dr. J. W. Morris Salina he had purchased 10,600 acres in Dickinson county, 2,000 acres of which would be seeded in the fall. [10] Another report explained that he had entered into partnership with Philadelphia capitalists for 10,000 acres in each of three counties, Dickinson, Ellsworth, and Russell. [11] A visitor to Henry's wheat land east of Abilene described spring operations for expansion there; twenty plows in operation, mostly drawn by four-mule teams, but some by oxen, breaking 1,500 acres of new land making a wheat tract of 2,800 acres in one body, and besides this, Henry had several separate fields. [12] On account of grasshoppers Henry advocated delay of planting until after a freeze which would kill the pests, otherwise growing wheat would be eaten as rapidly as it came up. This would mean that planting would be so late probably that the crop would not make a fall growth, in which case he favored very late planting that would not sprout until spring. He did not expect hopper damage in the spring. In the meantime farmers should plow as much land as possible and later plant the seed as deeply as possible. In February, 1877, he began reviewing the situation, the results confirming his early advice, as the drilled fields planted late were little injured and were only then coming through the ground, if up at all,

it is certain now that the chances for a crop from late sown wheat are very greatly increased by the use of the drill. . . . The fact that wheat was sown late and has a small growth by spring, does not militate against the probability of a full crop. A large growth in the fall is only desirable to prevent winter-killing. Too large a growth in the fall 3 believe is likely to cause a proportionately weaker plant at maturity [13]

     The first spring menace was the northward migration of ducks and geese that overran the wheat fields the beginning of April, but they only stopped to feed in transit. The grasshoppers hatched out in force and threatened to destroy everything green. All kinds of devices were resorted to for killing them, Henry using two different kinds of machines. He was always an optimist and under this threat bought fields from discouraged farmers which later were reported as making a fair crop. There was no point, however, in minimizing the extent of damage and even under the disguise of a real estate promoter's tactics, it was evident that Henry lost much wheat,


the press commenting on the large acreage of corn Henry was planting-a wheat king, boss real estate agent and "we can't tell what else." [14] A wet May and rust damage to wheat and summer-drought damage to corn visited Henry's fields as well as others during the summer of 1877, but did not modify his course. A new stage of expansion was forecast in an announcement that he had contracted for another thousand acres of sod to be broken with a steam plow. [15]

By the spring of 1875 Henry was ready to launch publicly in a big way his real estate promotion campaign based primarily on what he called his system of winter wheat growing. His promotion pamphlet was published under the title Henry's Advertiser. [16]

     The system of agriculture and the variety of crops best adapted to our climate and soil, while of course not thoroughly determined, are pretty nearly ascertained. Winter Wheat will doubtless be the great staple of our county. . . . one consideration essential to a successful crop, viz., a vigorous growth. in the fall, which is nearly always insured by early sowing. Though we have but little rain or snow in the winter, the cold is not sufficiently intense to kill it by frost or heaving. Proper treatment during the month of March, with its dry winds, will remove the only peril. . . [17]

     His system was designed particularly for exploiting raw land; sod breaking from May 10 to July 10 at a cost of $3.00 per acre; harrowing lengthwise; broadcasting after August 20 five pecks seed per acre at a cost of $1.00 and a cross-wise and a third harrowing, the three: harrowing at $1.00 per acre. If the crop was a failure, he recommended replanting in the spring to spring wheat, oats, barley or corn without harrowing or plowing. The harvest costs, by header or reaper, he said, could be met by $2.00 per acre; threshing at nine cents per bushel or $1.80 per acre for a 20-bushel crop; and hauling not over three miles to market at two cents per bushel or 40 cents per acre. The total cost of the crop, according to this calculation, was $9.20 per acre. The seven-year average for the winter-wheat crop had been above 20 bushels, so said his pamphlet, which sold at a seven-year average price of 85 cents per bushel, or $17.00 per acre. The net profit on the year's operation was figured, therefore, at $7.80 per acre which was more than the


cash price for the land in Dickinson county. The second crop could be prepared for $3.75 per acre instead of $5.00 per acre. [18]

     With respect to corn he declared that:

     Our observation and experience do not justify the assertion that we can grow corn as successfully as on the prairies east of the Mississippi. [The difficulty solely is] . . . that some years there sets in from the south a hot wind during July which, unless interrupted by seasonable rains, continues to blow until the top the growing corn is blasted. And yet we State it as our deliberate conviction that there is no point in the whole Mississippi Valley where the culture and growth of corn is so profitable. and remunerative as here in Dickinson county.
Probably, on an average, we have had a failure more or less complete in Dickinson county once in every three years. [19]

     As an alternative procedure instead of hiring the farming done, Henry suggested that land could be rented, the owner receiving one-third of the crop. He assured prospective land buyers also that resale of improved land could be made at an advance of $5.00 per acre.

     umber of Henry's Advertiser. With respect to wheat he added this year that:

     t two years, since the adoption the herd law, been directed to our special advantages in this particular, and yet it is estimated that fully 800,000 bushels wheat were harvested the past season in Dickinson county. The acreage now sown is not exceeded by any county in the State, and is fully forty per cent greater, and the prospect twenty-five per cent better than at this time last year. [20]

     These two issues of Henry's Advertiser are conclusive on several points; the sales promotion was directed especially at speculative buyers of land to be farmed by "sidewalk" and absentee methods; the tillage methods proposed were not abreast the best practices of the community, but as executed under his supervision were probably better than much of the farming of the community because of his superior equipment in machinery and supervision of his contractors. As suggested in his reminiscences, only the minimum in both labor and machinery was expended. The only type of leadership in evidence was in rapidity sales and breaking of sod.

     Henry's real estate pamphlet, Henry's Advertiser, was reissued in an edition of 1878 and without much change in content from the first two editions. He still advocated broadcasting and harrowing in of wheat, but omitted part of the original optimistic statement concerning corn, but still insisted on "our deliberate conviction"


concerning the profitableness of corn production, qualified this time by an admission of a corn failure every five rather than every three years as originally stated.

     The ubiquitous subject of Kansas climate was the theme of T. C. Henry's Fourth of July address in 1876 and he took the occasion to challenge tactfully the popular assumption that climate was changing, both the desert theory and increasing rainfall theory:

     I have been persuaded for some years that there has been within the knowledge of white men no perceptible increase in the rainfall of this part of the State. To be sure I am aware of what is claimed in this particular-that the planting of trees and the opening of farms does and has affected this operation of nature. While the influence of settlements probably does and probably will tend to increase the rainfall, I most strenuously deny that we have any evidence of such a change as yet. . . . The same Streams and the same rainfall, the Same grasses and the same animals that exist today on the plains existed then-[before the coming of settlement]

     After reviewing year by year the stage of water in the Smoky Hill river, the floods beginning with the great flood of 1844, he concluded:

     My point is that the climatic conditions which characterize our county today, have prevailed for a long time past and probably will continue for a long time to come in the future, and that therefore any successful system of farming which our present experience may evolve is likely to prove available and serviceable for some considerable time hereafter. [21]

     Whatever criticism may be directed at Henry's promotion tactics it is evident that he did not misrepresent the fundamentals climate, and he was sound on the insistence that agriculture must be adapted to environment rather than the reverse. Although the year 1877 turned out to be unfavorable for crops, it proved to be Henry's great moment. Whether by accident or a stroke of genius, he arranged with the New York Herald, probably with the cooperation of the Kansas Pacific railroad, to have a correspondent visit the valley in the early summer when the wheat was at its best. Every real estate man knew that there was no more inviting place than Kansas in late May or early June and that few Easterners could resist a good land salesman under such favorable circumstances. The Herald correspondent came, saw, and wrote, June 15, according to the best standards of real estate promotion. Henry had planned his big field to extend from Detroit west to Abilene, a solid expanse of wheat on both sides of the Kansas Pacific track. This became the central idea of the Herald article and inspired the


name, "The Golden Belt," for the valley: "The Golden Belt covers the broad Valley of the Kansas, the mouths of the Republican and Solomon, and the valleys of the Saline and Smoky Hill."

     Describing Henry's field as the largest east of the Rockies, the writer continued:

     There is not a foot of fence on Mr. Henry's four mile wheat field. The railroad runs through its whole extent. Riding in a Silver palace car one of the most impressive sights that meets the eye of the traveller through this State is this mammoth field solid miles of grain, shining in the sunlight, ripening for the harvest, bending to the breeze and waving to and fro like a sea of molten gold. . . [22]

     He may have been somewhat excited when he wrote this paragraph, but he had seen Kansas in early June, and after the harvest had turned out badly even a seasoned old settler was moved to come to his defense pleading this as an extenuating circumstance.

     "The Golden Belt" article stirred local people to an interesting discussion of farm planning. "J. H." wrote the Enterprise Kansas Gazette, admitting that Henry's crop for 1874 and 1875 paid big profits.

but if Mr. Henry will publish his experience in wheat raising for 1876 and 1877, we presume to say no one will be induced to venture in the "speculation" of wheat raising. Will Mr. Jacob Augustine, "agent for K. P. R. W. Co., with headquarters at Mansfield, Ohio," relate his experience in wheat raising in this county? "Rev. Dr. Jno. Hall bought a section of land two years ago," so says the N. Y. Herald-in this county. Doctor, please give us the facts, and your profits from raising wheat for the last two years.
     The one idea of wheat raising, together with all the attendant evils of machinery, to the almost total exclusion of stock raising, is fast bringing our county to the verge of bankruptcy. This is no mere assertion; it can be proven by facts. If it is desired we will give you the total valuation of property as returned by the assessors, and the amount of our county's indebtedness as recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds. Our indebtedness now is nearly equal to one-fourth of our valuation. This may appall you but let the facts be faced, and the sooner the better. Truth will harm no one. Farmers, beware where you are drifting! Too much land and machinery will ruin you financially-destroy your credit at home and abroad. Heretofore we have been looking forward to waving fields of golden grain and a rich harvest.
     Contemplate now the situation! Our county literally covered over with machinery, and our Recorder's office fast filling up with mortgages.
     This is not calculated to please any one, and doubtless will displease many. But is not what we have written true? J. H. [23]


     The editor thought that the letter deserved serious attention as "J. H." was a prominent man and a practical farmer. Some wheat lead been planted twice, some early fields had made 20 to 30 bushels per acre but the county average was less than half a crop. If a farmer was out of debt, he could stand it, but in a specialized wheat country, failure was serious because machinery was purchased on credit. By contrast he pointed out that when crops failed in Ohio a farmer could live on buckwheat cakes, but he was not in debt for machinery:

     Mortgages and high rates of interest are playing the deuce with the people of Kansas, as also of some other new states. If our farmers will diversify their crops-not depend almost entirely upon wheat alone and raise more cattle, sheep and horses, they will ultimately become prosperous and independent. The next issue contained two letters in reply and another editorial in the same vein as the first, but the editor made a point of explaining that he did not mean that this was not a good county, only that success required prudence and management; too many wanted to be rich in a year or two; crops might come five six years, but that sixth year would cramp the farmer who depended entirely upon wheat., "A. F." wrote that the wheat discussion was "true and timely" and would do good "by inducing many farmers to diversify their crops."

     Letter writer "B." was a newcomer, without capital, who had come to Kansas under the impression that here he could make $1,000 to $1,200 go further than anywhere else. If "J. H.'s" letter was true, then he could not buy land, if it was not safe to go in debt, plus implements, improvements and a year's living expenses, and that sum was not sufficient to buy stock and meet living expenses until the stock was ready for market. If "J. H.'s" letter was true then there must be something wrong either with the country or the farmers. He asked "J. H." to reply whether he should leave and save himself from failure; certainly "B." would write his friends not to come to Kansas.

     A somewhat similar exchange was taking place in The Kansas Farmer, one man declaring he could take a 160-acre farm in Kansas and make himself independently rich growing wheat; to which the editor replied "that wheat alone, as a specialty would bankrupt him in eight years or sooner." The editor of the Gazette reprinted the exchange with comment agreeing with The Kansas Farmer. The reply of "J. H." to "B." indulged in satire which was in bad taste,


lacked clarity and did both himself and his subject an injustice as he was making a point of real significance. He maintained that the country had no more drawbacks than any new country; a diversified agriculture was slow but sure; and that a man who could not buy stock and wait for maturity could not buy land, teams, seed and machinery, and wait to raise a crop; the real difficulty was trying to farm without capital-it was not the country nor the farmer-farming on credit and speculation on a single crop to pay obligations meant ruin. [24]

     During the following winter Henry was invited to speak at the Farmers' Institute held by the Kansas State Agricultural College and among other things probably framed his address on "Kansas Wheat Culture" with a view to answering some of the criticism the summer. Four years earlier the profitable culture of wheat had been almost universally questioned; yet it had become the leading industry of the state; "in proportion to the capital employed, we stand unrivaled in the world"; and if prospects materialized Kansas would excel every other state. It was important, he thought, "that such experiences as we can command shall be secured for immediate service." The soil of the winter-wheat area of Kansas, he maintained, was the best east the Sierras and probably was not excelled anywhere in the world and there was no reason why "we may not prolong the growth and culture of that cereal indefinitely. The famous wheat plains Joppa are as productive today, under a crude and primitive system culture, as they were eighteen centuries ago." He propounded the question, however, why with natural conditions so favorable, was not wheat production more successful. The explanation of this was the object of his paper.

     Henry was convinced that the difficulty did not lie in varieties. The Early May was the variety best adapted to Kansas. The Amber had done better because it was a few days earlier than May, but had not been sufficiently tested. The Fultz met all requirements except it was late in maturing and consequently was subject to drought and rust in extremely dry or wet summers: "I do not advise much further experimentation in new varieties. We have a sufficient number already introduced that are adapted to our soil and climate. of . of . of ."

     He shared the mistaken idea rather generally held that the seed should be rotated between low to high ground, between clay and sandy soils, in order to prevent deterioration. He challenged the


tradition of exhaustion of the soil, especially emphasizing the Genessee valley of New York where he argued that the difficulty was the climatic change resulting from cutting the timber and the introduction of insect pests and disease. He was familiar with Liebig's experimentation with soil chemistry. As an aside he revealed that he was already attracted by the Plains and by irrigation, emphasizing that the world's greatest wheat regions were those with arid climates and porous soils. It is significant that he recognized that the Plains soils were porous and of a texture different from those of the East, although it is evident that he did not understand the origin of the soil which accounted for the difference-"I am confident that the plains are naturally the best wheat lands in America, if water in some shape can be given them. . . ."

     Henry was of the opinion that Kansas had not yet employed generally the best procedures in wheat culture that might be drawn from existing experience. The program he outlined differed, however, only in a few details from the one presented in 1875. For new land, break sod between mid-May and June 25, harrow twice, drill and harrow. He preferred the drill for sod only because it scattered the seed more evenly than broadcasting but objected to buying a drill if the farmer did not already have one. For the second year, he advised plowing, as early after harvest as possible, but not more than two inches deeper than the Sod had been broken, otherwise wild soil would be turned up. He would harrow to kill weeds before drilling, but again he minimized the drill, although adding a second advantage to be gained by its use on older land that the drill furrow gave some protection to the growing plant against the weather hazards winter. On old ground he advocated deep plowing every second or third year, and early, to allow time to settle. He would sow wheat directly into the stubble of spring barley ground if it had been spring plowed, and into corn ground among standing stalks, if reasonably free of weeds. He entered a definite objection to deep drilling of wheat, insisting that wheat by its nature was essentially a surface rooted plant.

     It was probable that the discussion of the preceding summer called out the special emphasis on drills, and the advice not to buy one if a farmer was short of capital and not to go into debt for agricultural machinery, a practice too common among Kansas farmers:

     Talk about bonds, land payments, the currency, low prices, or grasshoppers, -none of them, nor all of them, have dragged our people so deeply into debt as "improved" farm machinery sold on time.


     With respect to harvesting suggestions, Henry had nothing in particular to offer. He commented that the header would probably be used a long time in western Kansas, but eventually the self-binder would prove the best, but he pointed out that the Eastern practice of cutting green did not work in Kansas as the grain dried out too quickly and shriveled, except in wet seasons.

     Among insect enemies of Kansas agriculture he placed chinch bugs first, and emphasized that the breeding of these pests in late maturing wheat was the principal objection against spring wheat. The best spring wheat was Odessa and he would use it only to replant winter wheat. He was planting a thousand acres that year. In listing causes of failures of crops he admitted that some were providential, but insisted that careless culture was responsible for more losses than grasshoppers. In wheat culture "the chief trouble is in securing a stand of vigorous plants-to get safely through until spring." To establish such a vigorous plant before cold weather required early plowing, pulverization of the surface, a compact seed bed, early seeding by drilling east and west. March was emphasized as the critical period for the wheat crop. He disapproved harrowing or rolling at that time as they smoothed the surface leaving it more exposed than otherwise to high winds, two or three days of which blew the wheat out of the ground root and all. In March, he advised, leave the wheat strictly alone, but plant early next time. Henry concluded that while the best practices evolved from experience coincided closely with the findings of science, such knowledge would save much of the loss in time, money, and effort necessary to arrive at such goals. With the benefit of sixty-five years of hindsight it is evident that Henry made a number of errors of judgment in this address, most conspicuously in respect to varieties and harvesting machines, and he did not realize some of the possibilities of tillage machinery developments, but he made a better average than most who were giving advice to Kansas farmers at that period. [25]

     There was one kick-back on this address and it came from Riley county, the easternmost of the four counties, which because its topography was committed largely to become a part of the bluestem


pasture region. The Nationalist, Manhattan, on January 25, asserted that "We are satisfied, however, that a large majority the farmers in this section have lost money on wheat, taking year in and year out."

     Most contemporary comments upon Henry's operations during these years were complimentary. In a measure, of course, this was in keeping with the prevailing boom spirit and local pride, which seemed by common consent to limit public controversy to other fields. As set out in his Advertiser, the divergence of Henry's farming practices from the recognized best standards did not elicit general comment and neither did his real estate advertising methods and the stripping methods of farming, and the tales of extraordinary profits presented to entice immigration and absentee investment in Kansas wheat land. Only the discussion July, 1877, seems to provide an exception. Probably there can be no determination with any exactness of the extent to which absentee farming resulted from his efforts, or whether there was more of this type of speculation in this area than in others which did not come under his influence. The prevailing methods real estate activities throughout the West were not upon a plane ethics high enough to make Henry's appear conspicuously reprehensible by contrast. In a friendly, but somewhat facetious article, the Junction City Union had commented, probably with accuracy, that "Strangers should call on him. He will take them in as gently as any man we know ." [26] That he was ruthless with competitors seems probable. The National Land Company, the subsidiary of the Kansas Pacific Railway Co., published a warning in 1878 that Henry had no authority to represent the company, and that all business should be transacted with R. J. Wemyss, the secretary-treasurer. [27]8 As a local rival in real estate the firm Wemyss and Beal soon succumbed to Henry as had most of his other Abilene competitors, Henry buying them out. [28]

     Eulogistic contemporary comment appeared frequently in the press during the wheat-boom period, especially in the home town paper. On one occasion of his absence on a visit to the East the Chronicle observed that "Abilene does not seem like itself when Mr. H. is away, and take from Abilene what he has done for her and


where would Abilene be?" [29] of course such praise would have had more force if the announcement had not appeared three weeks later that Henry no longer owned an interest in the Chronicle. [30] But the tone of the paper was essentially the same a year later in the New Year's boom article summarizing four years of city growth, including Henry's holdings: The Henry House, a portion of the Masonic block, his new residence (costing $10,000-$12,000), the finest in the state, and other residence property. His chief claim to gratitude was, however, his contribution to agriculture:

To his enterprise and genius are we largely indebted for our growth. It was he who demonstrated that Kansas is a wheat growing State. Four years ago Kansas was known abroad as a great corn State, but thanks to the experiments made by Mr. H. our State is now the banner wheat State of the nation. The immense influence one private citizen may exert in the destiny of a great State, was never more striking [sic] illustrated than in the case of T. C. Henry and wheat growing in Kansas. . . [31]

     Although it was the Enterprise Kansas Gazette that had served as the medium for the criticism directed at the "Golden Belt" article, that paper, upon moving to Abilene was not critical the county's most conspicuous citizen. The editor was somewhat more restrained, however, in assigning credit with respect to winter wheat growing, claiming only that "Hon. T. C. Henry was the first man in Kansas who engaged in the growing of winter wheat, on a large scale." [32] There is no question that in part the favorable press he enjoyed was because he always made good copy in any town where he might make the most casual business visit. Also, he had a way of bringing a wide range of persons into his orbit in such a manner as to place them under a certain obligation to him. For example, he personally conducted the representative of the Junction City Union on a tour of the county, and had G. W. Martin, editor of the Union, write a pamphlet on the resources and prospects of Dickinson county. [33]

     Henry's significance in the period probably does not lie exactly in any of the features commented upon in the contemporary press, but rather in his capacity and his aggressiveness in expressing the spirit of his time. Even on such points as his theory that there was no change in climate he was flexible enough not to make it an issue. In these respects he is


like so many who are noted as leaders only because of an ability to make themselves heard above the voices of others who were trying, but less successfully, to say much the same thing. It was only natural, however, that at this point in his career he should be drawn into politics. In 1876 he was mentioned for congress, in 1877 he was chairman of the Dickinson county Republican committee, in 1878 he was boomed for lieutenant governor and was elected state senator, and in 1880 he was an unsuccessful candidate for nomination as governor. After the election he was chosen president of the State Fair Association. Politics turned out to have been only a passing episode, the main trend of his Kansas career being already determined. [34]


     Among those whose interest lay primarily in general farming there were a few, but only a few, who kept up the mixed farming (grain and livestock) agitation through the wheat-boom period. Conspicuous in this little group was Pr. E. M. Shelton at the Kansas State Agricultural College who condemned in scathing terms "that slovenly, scourging system, called `pioneer farming."' [35] T. Dunlap of Willowdale, in Dickinson county, was a frequent newspaper correspondent who insisted that "the only way to make farming a success in Dickinson county is to raise hogs or sheep, or both, in connection with the small grains." [36]

     It was not until the disastrous years 1879, 1880, and 1881, however, with their droughts, wind and extremes of temperature that diversification again became conspicuous. The stress on livestock then went So far in some quarters as to become a livestock boom and illustrates again the cyclic swing excesses. In Saline county in 1880 it was said that:

     Were it not for the hogs and cattle that our farmers are now selling, there would be very little money in this county to do business with. Our friends in the country can now realize that there are other sources of wealth than the growing of wheat. Corn put into hogs always commands a fair price, and is never a complete failure. This year will be referred to by those advocating mixed farming. [37]


     The comment of the same paper two weeks later illustrates how the stress on livestock as a part of a mixed-farming program easily became advocacy for a substitution of livestock for wheat:

     The raising of stock must soon take the place of grain growing in this part of Kansas, and the sooner the farmers take bold of this great interest the better for them. Sheep and cattle will put more money in your pocket than wheat growing. [38]


     This emphasis upon diversification placed additional stress upon the grass problem, which had worried the better farmers coming from the timbered East where grasses were not nature's own soil covering. It was generally assumed that the native grasses, bluestem, grama and buffalo, could not stand pasturing and tame grasses would have to be cultivated as in the humid climates. The fallacy of this "good farming" assumption was one of the most difficult illusions to dispel in the sub-humid West where grass was just as much nature's covering for this region as timber had been for the humid climate, and all that the native grasses required to survive was fair odds. But pending the learning this lesson the hard way in the school of experience, the best farmers spent money and labor and exhortation on futile efforts to grow clover, timothy, bluegrass and orchard grass. In spite the reports for over a decade that buffalo and grama grass were being replaced by tall grasses, a tour of farms around Junction City in 1882 revealed buffalo grass and two years later it was pointed out that Fremont in 1843 had found that buffalo grass gave way to tall grass about the site of Abilene. In 1887 Pr. W. A. Kellerman called attention to the fact that buffalo grass was growing on the college campus at Manhattan within sight his laboratory, and he doubted whether the native Kansas flora was changing, but urged the importance of scientific study and records as a means of a more certain determination of trends. [39]

     Out of the experimentation with tame grasses, however, one momentous discovery was made in alfalfa, but because the secret inoculation of the soil had not been discovered, the full significance of this crop was not realized until later. Introduced into Kansas


from the Pacific coast, probably in 1868, [40] the importation seed was given public notice in 1875 at Junction City where it was hailed as a drought-resisting grass. [41] Later in the spring upon boasting that the alfalfa was eighteen inches high, the Burlington Independent, in real or pretended ignorance made inquiry:

     We have noticed the following paragraph in no less than 20 exchanges: "Junction City has alfalfa eighteen inches high." Some them we verily believe have published it two or three times. Now who cares? What of it? Is it a world wonder? Is it a scientific or religious discovery? What is Junction City going to do with it? Will it likely prove contagious? Does it resemble warts? Will it taste in whiskey? IS Junction City any happier? When did the city have it? Did it hurt her very bad? Who was the attending physician? What is alfalfa anyhow? [42]


     With the extremes of weather, 1879-1881, a sheep boom became conspicuous and in addition to a number of farmers who raised sheep a number of business men in Abilene invested during 1880. [43] Range sheep were brought in in large numbers from Colorado, New Mexico and other points west. [44] Well bred sheep of both fine wool and mutton types were imported from the East, but most emphasis was on wool. [45] Many difficulties presented themselves: Inexperience, poor quality of animals, diseases, dogs and as one editor put it, the tariff was a greater worry than the sheep. [46] The general interest in sheep resulted in the organization of the Kansas Wool Growers' Association in 1881. [47] The sheep boom ran its course but did not become a fully accepted business for this particular area, the upper Kansas Valley.

     The cattle business was represented in a substantial manner throughout the decade of the 1870,s, stemming from the Cherokee and Texas cattle beginnings of the 1860,s. The most noted enterprise was the Durham Park ranch in northern Marion county owned by Albert Crane and son of Chicago, the land holdings being first


assembled during 1872 including the old Moore ranch. [48] In the 1880,s there were eight sections in one body and 560 acres in three detached pieces. [49] Apparently the original plan operations was to use Texans as a foundation for growing grade cattle on a large scale. In line with this plan, the ranch was stocked with 3,000 Texas cattle, and several car loads Illinois cattle were shipped in during 1873 including 28 pedigreed Shorthorn bulls and 19 cows. [50] One report said that the cost of purebreds was so high that Crane decided to produce his own animals, and that soon the objective shifted to the growing of purebreds as the primary activity of the ranch. [51] At any rate, beginning in the summer of 1873 Crane made annual trips to England to buy breeding stock and bought also English stock by way of Canada and Kentucky. [52] The first catalogue was issued in 1874, listing 31 bulls and 61 cows and notices of other catalogues have been found for 1877, 1882, and the dispersal catalogue of 1884. [53]

     Sales of purebred cattle were made to many Kansas stockmen and thus became one of the important factors in the Kansas Shorthorn breeding industry. In 1877 a news story told of the shipment two cows and their calves to England, the first of the growing return stream of Shorthorn blood to its mother soil. Crane specialized in Bates and Booth strains which were the fashion the day and were reaching fantastic boom proportions, but many his earlier animals were roans and whites. [54]

     The ranch was under the immediate direction of Albert Crane's son, Daniel W. Crane, who was referred to as joint owner with his father. [55] The management of the ranch was under three successive men associated with "the Major," as the son was known. First was Louis A. Reed who remained from 1873 to 1876 when he went into business for himself. [56] Next came William Watson, probably 1876


1878, when he bought a 160-acre farm near Junction City to devote himself to raising Berkshire hogs, but within about a year moved on to another venture. Before coming to Kansas he was supposed to have had cattle experience in Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, California and Oregon. [57] The third was William Hallowell, 1878 to 1884. He had been with the National Live Stock Journal, Chicago, and after the Crane ranch was closed went to manage the T. W. Harvey herds at Turlington, Neb. It was thought that he might "feel a little awkward for a while, among the Angus, the Holsteins, and Jerseys." [58]

     Hallowell was an enthusiastic advocate of the Shorthorn as a dairy as well as a beef breed, and was invited to present his views February 5, 1880, at the first institute held at Manhattan under the auspices of the Central Kansas Breeders' Association. The text of his address has not been found but W. Marlatt Manhattan reported it. Hallowell maintained that the milking Shorthorn was equal to the Jersey for butter and to any or all other breeds for both butter and cheese: "The production of beef and milk in a high degree of excellence is not incompatible." All the early Shorthorn strains in England were good milkers, but, he argued that in America, and especially in the West, milking qualities had been largely bred out in favor of beef. To build up a milking Shorthorn herd for dual purposes, he emphasized the importation of English milking strains, although there were some approved milking strains in the United States. O. W. Bell and Marlatt, both leading breeders in the Manhattan area, supported Hallowell. [59]

     In addition to cattle the Crane ranch devoted much attention to Berkshire hogs, and experimented extensively with tame grasses, bluegrass first, but near the end of the history of the ranch, with orchard grass, at the instance of Shelton of the agricultural college.

     The closing out of the ranch occurred in 1884 when the land was sold to an Abilene group supposedly at $15.00 per acre to be broken up into farms. [60] The herd was sold likewise to the same group and dispersed at a public auction at Abilene, June 18. The sale was a disappointment, badly attended, and the cattle in poor condition so the average price was only $150.40. [61] The only specific reason given for closing the ranch was the untimely death of


Crane's son, but details are not available. [62] The more fundamental reason for the break-up of this and other ranches containing wheat land was the development of the area with the resulting rise in land prices and the anticipation of higher profits as wheat farms. Some went during the boom period of the late 1870,s and others, as in the case of Durham Park, with the resumption of the wheat boom in the mid-1880's.

     Other big ranch or stock farm enterprises of the 1870's were the Springdale ranch of Charles E. Alioth (1871-1879) upon which the town of Herington was founded in 1884; A. W. Callen's ranch (1870-?) on Lime creek and three others in which he owned an interest; and the Geraldine stock farm (1870-?) of Huston Brothers on upper Lyon's creek. In Saline county was the Thomas H. Cavanaugh Highland stock farm where Hereford cattle, Cotswold sheep and Berkshire hogs were raised. In the vicinity Manhattan and Junction City there were a number of substantial stock farms engaged in raising one or more lines of pure bred animals; cattle, hogs, horses. In the Junction City region were the Seven Springs farm of Charles H. Murphy; the McGee farm; the Riverside farm of R. M. Miller; the H. H. Whiting farm; the B. E. Fullington farm; the Elmwood farm of C. M. Gifford. Near Manhattan were the Blue valley ranch of W. P. Higginbottom; the Montrose stock farm of C. E. Allen; the Bluemont farm of W. Marlatt, and General Casement's farm with grazing land across the Blue river in Pottawatomie county which was fenced for pasture in 1880.

     Among the livestock breeders, comparatively few appear to have given much attention to adaptability to environment. There were several breeds of each type of livestock represented in the region, each with its ardent followers. Among the sheep, were Merino, Cotswold, Shropshire, Hampshire, Oxford Down, and Leicester. The Merino was the favorite as wool rather than mutton was the principal objective. [63] Among the hogs mentioned most frequently were the Berkshire, Poland China, and Chester White, with the Berkshire apparently the most favored, a breed introduced into Geary county in 1871. [64] Among cattle were Shorthorn, Hereford,


Angus, and Devon. The Shorthorn was clearly the leader, the Angus receiving attention in the early 1880's, but the Hereford did not come into his own for the range trade until the 1880's. [65] Among horses were Norman and Clydesdale, mentioned most frequently for work stock, but the issue as between horses and mules for farm work was not discussed. [66] For the most part the best discussions available that reflect opinions respecting the relative merits the different breeds were those held at the farmers' institutes. [67]


     The career of T. C. Henry fitted into the prevailing regional trends. As a leader in the wheat boom, his agricultural interests had been concentrated largely in wheat, but in 1877 he was credited with the largest orchard in that part of Kansas. "The Golden Belt" article had listed other crops besides winter wheat; 300 acres of spring wheat; 300 acres of barley; 300 acres corn, and 100 acres of oats. With these crops and 3,000 acres winter wheat, his farming operations supposedly covered 4,000 acres that year. Probably, if not almost, certainly, a part this diversification was imposed upon him by the winter killing his wheat. During the winter of 1877-1878 he engaged in a partnership operation with William Vandermark for feeding 5,000 sheep, [68] and thereafter turned more definitely toward the livestock interest.

     The available descriptions of Henry's business ventures suggest that he resorted to two types of partnerships, or business arrangements, formal or informal in character. The one was employed as a means of securing capital both locally and from the East to finance his operations. The other was an arrangement by which he secured in the minority partners active managers in his several enterprises instead of hired agent-managers.

     Theoretically at least, a sense of responsibility should have been derived from such an ownership interest. Henry's contribution in such cases was the financing and the general direction of the business. Some of his early wheat operations were of the first type, [69] but the sheep-feeding project appears


to have been of the second type as well as his real estate partnerships in which the minority partner carried on the routine work of the real estate of office. [70] In later years both devices were more frequently employed, or at least notices of them found their way more frequently into the newspapers. [71] With the severe drought of 1879 and 1880 he expanded extensively into livestock. In 1881 he fenced all of a section northwest Abilene to provide pasture to supplement bottom corn land. At the same time a partnership with Bronson was announced for a sheep ranch, 500 head of Merinos to be shipped in from New York to improve the local flock. [72] During the same summer, in cooperation with the firm of Harbottle and Cooper, Cherokee cattle were purchased in the Indian territory to be driven to Abilene in September for resale to farmers on one-year credit at 10 percent interest. [73]

     As Henry had led the wheat boom, now he became a spokesman for the livestock boom of the early 1880's. Before the Central Kansas Stock Breeders' Association at Manhattan, February 1, 1882, he delivered an address on "The Stock Interests in Western Kansas."

     I apprehend that some, possibly many, of the propositions I shall advance on this occasion will subject me to criticism. . . . But I believe we are just upon the threshold of an era of substantial growth and real prosperity. We are wiser: drouths, grasshoppers, chinch-bugs and winds have taught us,how much, and what, let us see.
By western Kansas, I mean that portion of the state west from Fort Riley. The attempt to sustain a population, then, wholly or mainly by grain-growing alone, must be conceded, I am sure, after a ten year's effort, to be unsuccessful. Only so far as the system of farming adopted is auxiliary to the stock interests, can it be commended. . . . The newspaper, the railway and free homesteads are powerful agencies in building up a state now; but even more mighty is the withering, scorching, south wind. The former have more or less wittingly decoyed thousands and tens thousands of honest, earnest people into a determined effort to settle the plains of western Kansas; and the latter has as steadily blasted their hopes and wrested their fortunes. No industry, no energy, no enterprise can ever make it possible for an average 160 acres in western Kansas to yield such a support as American civilization demands for a family. The soil is fertile, and the climate unobjectionable; but the rainfall is insufficient to sustain general farming. Nor has


there been any material increase in the annual rainfall; . . . but so long as the Rocky Mountains border us on the west, so long will the natural humidity of the atmosphere be lessened.
If ever any general climatic changes occur in our State, it will be effected by some great organic law wholly outside of any merely human agency. I conclude, therefore, that the present physical phenomena of the plains and prairies of Kansas will continue practically unchanged, and every successfully organized industry must be conformed to them. Here and there among the eastern counties of western Kansas, where the chemical constituents of the soil are particularly favorable, wheat growing may be made profitable. Even in such counties it should be a subordinate crop, and in al] others wholly abandoned. Dry winters, late spring frosts, hot winds, chinch-bugs, and, occasionally, grasshoppers, involve risks which no prudent farmer will confront. Corn is a safer crop, and its culture may be pushed further west. . . . Rye is very valuable, particularly for winter grazing. Oats, barley, and millet do well in a "wet year."
Confident, therefore, that stock growing must be the leading and almost sole industry of western Kansas, I purpose directing the balance of this essay to the consideration of such measures as will, in my opinion, most wisely protect and advance that interest.
First.-Preserve our native grasses. . . . No artificial grass has yet been supplied which can be relied upon as a substitute for them. They appear late in the spring, and they frost early in the fall; but they are bulky, abundant and nutritious. At any rate, they are all we have, all we are likely to have, and if once destroyed our plains would be a desert indeed.
Second.-- Repeal the homestead and pre-emption laws. No further good can be accomplished by continuing in existence laws which result in harm to their beneficiaries, and embarrass the operation of a class of industries naturally adapted to the State. If this cannot be effected, then abridge the term of occupancy, and thus expedite the facility of procuring title in fee, with a view to the more rapid absorption of territory by the stock interest.
Third.-Repeal the timber-culture act. . . . Probably no more practically absurd law was ever enacted in Congress, Save, possibly, that other "timber law," which proposes, by a compound astonishing inconsistencies, to "protect" American lumber by cutting down American timber.
Again, the public domain should pass as soon as possible or practicable into the hands of private owners. . . . The public lands should be appraised in solid sections, and offered for sale under the direction of the General Land Department. The general government would secure a large fund, and the revenues of the State be largely augmented.
But when stock men are obliged to purchase the range, and pay ]and tax, the situation is reversed. They will then be sure to insist upon controlling and grazing their own territory. To do this peaceably and profitably, sooner or later they will be forced to fence. Large bodies may be enclosed, in which several parties can join. A law can be enforced requiring suitable gateways to be placed at regular intervals.
But some may urge, why agitate these sweeping changes now? The stock interests do not demand them. Possibly not, at least just yet. If the ratio which has marked the increase of the live stock interests of this State the past


two years is maintained the next ten, every acre of grass on the prairies and on the plains will be consumed. Within half that time every available watering place Will be struggled for. Sheep men and cattle men will battle for range, and conflicting interests embroil the whole territory. [74]

     Henry pressed to be worried lest his livestock address would arouse hostility, but again he was voicing largely the current trend of opinion. Although differing from Henry on some points, J. W. Robson wrote to the Abilene Chronicle, gently but firmly, taking him to task for not having said such things earlier:

     Agricultural booms, and specialties, has been our bane in this State of Kansas. Had every settler in Kansas located on a 160-acre farm been satisfied with eighty acres of arable land, and this planted with various crops, leaving the remaining eighty acres in native grass, for the pasturage of cattle and sheep, we would have been in a sound financial condition today, and our families would have been living in comfort and luxury. [But] Ah, friend Henry, that terrible epidemic "wheat on the brain" prostrated the farmer financially, and blasted his hopes. . . .

     On the subject of native grasses Robson agreed with Henry, but, he continued, what benefactors Henry and the old settlers would have been if they had always advised new comers to plow only half, but they lacked that foresight. of course the farmer suffered also from other evils, according to Robson; unfriendly legislation, railroad monopolies, and trade combinations. Robson challenged Henry's Views on climate, tame grasses and land legislation. He thought favorable changes in climate were to be expected, but admitted that in spite of the fact that the subject had been the leading topic of discussion in 1871-1875, they knew nothing about it. He still had faith that growing of tame grasses would yet be successful. These differences were not such as to arouse much controversy, but the issue of public land legislation involved traditions that stirred deep-seated emotions. Robson argued that the land laws were the only legislation enacted in twenty-five years which favored the producing classes and he denounced the proposed repeal as an unpatriotic move that would deprive every landless citizen of his birthright. [75]

     The Topeka Commonwealth became a sort of clearing house for discussion of Henry's views. The editor challenged Henry's dictum that grain raising in Dickinson county and westward did not pay and farmers should turn immediately to stock raising, warning failure because blooded cattle needed grain and only Texas cattle could live exclusively on prairie grass and creek water. One the


hobbies of the Commonwealth was irrigation of a large part of the country west of Larned and Hays, and therefore, the editor protested Henry's proposal for a change in the land laws that would permit disposal of government land in large tracts for stock raising and urged the railroads not to dispose of their lands in that manner either until irrigation had been given a fair trial. The successful adaptation of agriculture to the eastern half of Kansas had been achieved, but in his opinion "the true value" of the land to the westward had not yet been "even approximately ascertained." [76]

     An editorial of the Atchison Champion was reprinted challenging Henry's drawing of an isothermal line north and south through mid-Kansas and instead indicating a diagonal line from southeast to northwest through the southwestern corner of Sumner county and the northwestern corner of Decatur county, but qualifying even such a line because there were exceptions on both sides of it. The Champion disagreed with Henry's contention that 160 acres was not sufficient to support a family according to American standards. [77] A Larned correspondent of the Topeka Daily Capital emphasized the recent settlement of the extreme west, much not over five years, mentioned the large Volume of production as recorded in the statistics of the state board of agriculture, disagreed with Henry that it was good only for stock but held that the farmers would learn also that it did not pay to depend entirely on wheat. [78]

     Henry replied that he did not intend his address to be interpreted as presented in these criticisms: "I did not draw an absolute isothermal line. I cannot, nor can anyone else. The climatic differences are too imperceptibly defined for that, as I said." He insisted that he did not say that grain did not pay in Dickinson county, only that the system of farming must be progressively different, a combination of grain and livestock, as agriculture proceeded westward into regions of lessening rainfall. As respects the 160-acre farm, he admitted that he should have made an exception of Dickinson and other eastern counties of the west half of the state, and intended it that way. As applied to the country further west, he challenged the Commonwealth's irrigation program as impracticable and repeated his opinion "that campaigns of experiment ought to end," and "remunerative industries . . . adapted to the natural conditions of the plains . . . should be fostered." [79]


     The outcome of the discussion thus far had been to force Henry to restate his position in more exact language which excepted the central Kansas counties and in effect narrowed the discussion to country further west, the High Plains in particular. The Saline County Journal was not disposed to let Henry off with these explanations suggesting that maybe he had attempted to farm on too large a scale "for the knowledge he had of wheat growing. The same years that Henry failed many a `small farmer' in the same section made money raising wheat. We firmly believe that the western portion of Kansas is just as good a wheat growing country as can be found anywhere, and is as suitable for agriculture all kinds as any country. . . . [Crop failures are liable to happen anywhere] but he who will take 80 or 160 acres and farm well will flourish as well as any farmer in the wide world, as well as any person who has the same amount invested as our farmer in any other business." [80]

     In his own style, Henry carried out his new policies with vigor. With M. D. Herington he bought 10,000 acres of pasture land; with Robert Chapin of New York, 12,000 acres; and supposedly in his own right 16,000 acres more; all from the Missouri Pacific railroad (M. K. and T. land grant) in Riley, Wabaunsee, Dickinson and Morris counties. [81] Later he was reported as president of a New York syndicate that had purchased all remaining M. K. and T. lands .82 The reason given for the earlier acquisitions was that "They will be held for grazing purposes, Mr. Henry's theory being that such lands may be required in the immediate future to meet the rapidly developing demands of stockmen." In connection with the later purchase, the announcement was made of the opening offices at different points for resale of the lands, and much this land was assembled by stockmen in conjunction with small holdings and fenced into large pastures in the bluestem-pasture region. A newspaper correspondent, interviewing Henry on the sale of these lands, reported that they were being offered to settlers at $3.00 to $5.00 per acre on twenty-years time at seven percent interest, the first payment being due only after two years. Henry was reported also to be advancing money to settlers for the purchase of livestock, the borrower proving his intentions by having built a house and dug a well and by actually living on the farm.


     Another project was a livestock farm established under the name Henry and Warner. They purchased purebred Shorthorn and Hereford bulls with a view to carrying on an experiment to determine the relative merits of the two breeds grown under the same conditions. [83] Later the same year Henry was reported to be organizing a horse raising corporation with a $50,000 capital, to operate on 5,000 acres of land in southeastern Dickinson county, overrunning into Morris county. They proposed to specialize in Clydesdales. [84] The project does not seem to have materialized. Apparently Henry's initial livestock enterprise did not turn out as well as his beginnings in raising wheat, and a new type boom was arising in the West-irrigation. Henry's interest in irrigation had cropped out casually in his earlier public addresses, especially his "Wheat Culture" address of 1878, but his livestock address of 1882 had challenged it as applied to the Plains. In March, 1883, the announcement was made that he would transfer his residence and interests to Denver, leaving at the end of the month. [85]

     This announcement drew a parting tribute from J. W. Robson:

     It was his abiding faith in Dickinson County and his indomitable energy that induced thousands of intelligent and industrious men with their families to settle on these fertile plains. . . . And we are confident that the old homesteaders, as they plow their fields or gather the golden grain, will gratefully remember his many acts of kindness and words of sympathy and encouragement during the dark days of early settlement. . . .
The energy of my friend was wonderful, the amount of mental work which he performed was only known to his most intimate friends. His ideas of work were exacting. He knew nothing of mere office hours; an idea struck him and he immediately inspired it with life and vim, and it had to go till it accomplished the full fruition which he expected.
The question arises in my mind, as I write these lines, upon whom will his mantle fall. Where among all our fellow citizens will we find a man possessed with the Same business tact, courage, open-handed generosity and honesty of purpose? I am afraid we will not see his like again, but if we look over our County which he served So well and did so much to develop its resources, and increase its wealth; when We gaze upon the beautiful city of the plains which he built up and beautified more than any other man, we will always have reminders of the great work which he performed in our midst. . . [86]

     Seemingly Henry had lost his touch and as so ten happened with men who made a measure of success in relatively small enter-


prises, he overexpanded, became involved in financial difficulties, and in lawsuits which challenged even his business integrity. [87]

     He did not escape altogether from criticism by local people. G. W. Martin of the Junction City Union, after reviewing the lawsuits of 1885 remarked that "Henry is known as a rattler . . ." and in 1893 commented that "the original wheat boomer Kansas, is in bad luck again. . . . In many respects Henry is a remarkable man but with his success he has had so much trouble as to suggest of the lack of a balance wheel in his make up." [88]

     Evaluation of T. C. Henry's career requires much more perspective than can be derived from the history of Abilene alone. Was community building on the frontier dependent for success upon a strong man or was success the product of the rank and file of the people and the operation of natural forces? Studies of a variety frontier communities reveal a substantial number of instances where one man or one group seemed to have been a directing and stabilizing force through early years. Early Junction City was dominated largely by Streeter and Strickler, merchants; Great Bend by E. R. Moses, merchant and miller; Stafford by the Larabee mills; and Kinsley by R. E. Edwards, merchant and stockman. Even a substantial list of illustrations does not constitute pro, however, of a strong-man theory. No personality or succession them could establish a town and community where none was meant to be. Conversely, a community with natural advantages probably would develop without any such stimulus. Communities dominated for a greater or lesser time by some individual sometimes found it a serious handicap. The influence for better or worse was dependent upon the long-range soundness of the strong man, and on whether that influence was wielded broadly in the public interest or narrowly for selfish exploitation. The strong-man theory is made to appear more attractive by reason of the fact that where he received general approval, the praise bestowed upon him is usually a matter of voluminous record colored by the optimism the local booster spirit


and frequently by his control of the newspaper. When a strong man betrayed his community, except for the immediate outcry, there was no occasion or means for perpetuating his infamy or bad judgment. A short memory was an advantage when a community wished to attract settlers. Many promoters blew up before they could qualify as strong men and these casualties must be charged against the theory. Many prospered for a time along with the community and in a period of depression found they were overextended and were liquidated-if honest, with the least possible losses to their creditors, and if dishonest, their collapse ended in scandal. Some moved to other fields of activity on the assumption that they had outgrown their community and among such removals the casualty list was frequently high. A few remained permanently with their people, sharing prosperity and adversity together, the community benefiting in the long run, even when highly critical of their taskmaster who saw them through at a price when the going was rough, or even when no price was exacted and the private fortune was largely dissipated for the community welfare. The most important conclusion to be drawn is that no simple and universal formula can be discovered which explains history. Human behavior provides too many variables in addition to the uncertainties of natural forces. T. C. Henry did not illustrate either possible extreme: temporary exploiter or permanent resident. Although suggesting that he showed a certain lack of balance, G. W. Martin had given him credit as "the original wheat boomer of Kansas" and as serving as an example in the disastrous fall of 1874 by sowing wheat among the grasshoppers -it was "more than a real estate advertisement. It proved to be a great stroke in restoring confidence," and even to his own surprise his courage was rewarded by "a monstrous crop" in 1875. [89] As respects the speculative exploitation of land, an Eastern investigator recognized it as being more extensive along the Kansas Pacific than along the Santa Fe railroad, but attributed the difference to the land policies of the railroad. [90]

     Robson's evaluation in 1883, although a graceful tribute on the occasion of Henry's departure from Abilene, was scarcely to be taken as the verdict of history. Abilene's future did not depend upon any one man either then or earlier. The relative eclipse Abilene by Salina was not because Henry had gone, but because Salina's position in central Kansas was more strategic with respect to the winter-wheat region and the development of the


milling industry. It is quite possible that Henry realized this as early as 1883 and that this fact entered into his decision to try his fortune elsewhere. So far as adaptation of agriculture to the Plains is concerned, the verdict on Henry's Kansas career is failure-he followed boom after boom, wheat, livestock, irrigation, and in the last-named phase he abandoned Kansas without seeing his enterprise through to a stabilization upon the basis of an approximate or substantial adjustment to environment. He was first and last, primarily and essentially a speculator. This fact became clearer as the years passed. The regime hard-winter wheat, lister tillage and other adjustments, occurred during his lifetime-he died in 1914-but in them he had no part.


     In the early 1870's consideration of the varieties of wheat grown had not gone much beyond the sowing of the sorts to which the farmers had been accustomed in the East and to making a choice between the spring and fall types. Later in the 1870's the winter wheat boom was based on the st varieties and it was these that gave Kansas its first reputation as a wheat state. There were two groups of these wheats, the white and the red, and within each group were many varieties, some of which differed little from each other. As winter wheat became a major money crop the problem of varieties came to occupy a place of increasing importance in farm planning. The diversity of opinion and the duration of the debate over adaptability, without arriving at a conclusion, are indicative of the precarious position of all these varieties in the Kansas environment.

     At the opening of the 1870's the named varieties of winter wheat grown in the upper Kansas river valley included White Bluestem, Michigan White, Red or Early (Little) May, Red Amber, Red Lancaster, and Mediterranean Red. [91] of these, the Early May received the widest endorsement. Because of confusion in nomenclature it is possible that the actual number of varieties were fewer than these names indicate. [92] On the other hand, there were probably varieties sown that are not in this enumeration. In the present discussion the enumeration of varieties grown during the 1870's is presented in the chronological sequence in which they were mentioned in the press, except for those which proved to be major contenders for honors and they are treated separately.


     In 1872 when the Early May had failed the complaint was made that the wheat available for local milling at Junction City had been limited to inferior spring wheats, much of it Black Sea and California rice wheat. [93] In Dickinson county the local editor recommended that each farmer decide for himself what variety he planted. [94] The United States Department of Agriculture had sent seed samples, the most promising of the white wheats being Rappahannock. [95] A white variety known as Diehl was reported as being grown in Geary county as early as 1872. [96] Mediterranean wheat planted in the fall of 1875 was advertised for seed wheat the following year in Saline county. [97] Jennings White wheat was introduced into Dickinson county apparently in the fall of 1875. Two years later, the white wheats were reported as badly rusted except the Jennings White which was said to be a rust-free variety. [98] In 1878 Geary county was represented at the Lawrence fair by ten varieties of wheat; among them were Red Velvet, Tappahannock, Jennings White, Clawson, Fultz, Red Chaff, May, and Odessa. [99] Egyptian wheat was reported in Dickinson county in 1878 and in 1879 and in the fall of the latter year one of the wheat kings of the county, R. J. Wemyss, planted six varieties: Walker, Clawson, White [?], Odessa, Fultz, and Red May, but staked about half his acreage on the Red May. [100] In 1879 Orange was mentioned and in 1880 varieties added to the list included White Genesee (White Bluestem), Golden Chaff, and Treadwell. [101] The fall of 1879 and 1880 Amber was mentioned, in 1880 Bulgarian, and in 1881 Oregon, Rappahannock and Russian. [102]

     Some varieties enjoyed a substantial following and were sometimes hailed for a season as the solution of the wheat problem. Odessa or grass wheat was a variety, probably Russian in origin, which there were several importations, and varying strains. The United States Department of Agriculture distributed it as early as


1865, [103] but no record has been found of its introduction into Kansas or its spread. The first mention found of it in the upper Kansas valley was that D. D. Baird raised a crop in 1874 in Dickinson county, but the record is not clear whether as a spring or fall wheat. One of its peculiarities was that it seemed to produce well in either capacity: "As a fall wheat it yielded, this past season [1877], from twenty to thirty bushels per acre, in this neighborhood. As a spring wheat it yielded from twelve to twenty-seven bushels. . . . I [Baird] have been growing this wheat every year since 1874 [four crops], and I have never known it damaged seriously by rust, chinch bug, worms, or, in fact anything else." [104]

     As a spring variety Odessa was mentioned as the favorite in Dickinson in 1876 and 1877, [105] a position it maintained rather generally in the central and northern wheat counties in 1880, 1881, 1882, when spring wheat all but disappeared in Kansas. [106] The spring wheat matured late making it a victim of mid-summer heat and drought, and of chinch bugs. Furthermore, the ripening and harvest of the wheat caused the bugs to migrate to the corn fields..

     Fultz, frequently known as Bluestem in the Ohio Valley, was selected in 1862 from a field of Lancaster (Mediterranean) wheat in Pennsylvania and by 1871 was being distributed by the United State Department of Agriculture. [107] The first reference to it in the upper Kansas valley dated its introduction from 1874. It was planted by B. F. Bailey in Geary county that year and was introduced by J. S. Hollinger into Liberty township, Dickinson county, the same year, taking the prizes at the county fair in 1875 and 1877. [108] For the most part it was still receiving favorable mention in the early 1880. [109] but on occasion it was condemned. [110]

     Walker was an old variety of red winter wheat in the eastern part the United States, but the story of the westward spread this sort seems not to be known. [111] It was introduced into north Dickin-


son county in 1875 and the claim was made that not even in 1877 did it fail to make a crop. [112]

     Clawson, a white winter wheat, probably was introduced into Dickinson county under that name in 1877 by John Taylor. [113] This type of wheat was known under a variety of names, Golden Chaff, Soules, White Russian, Seneca and its more modern version Goldcoin. The Clawson strain originated in Seneca county, New York, in 1865. As it was distributed by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1874 the strain might have come to several points in Kansas that year or later. [114] Taylor and Henry introduced the seed, privately, from New York.

     Nearly every variety of wheat had its champions, few showing themselves so outstanding or distinctive as to acquire a general following. As J. S. Hollinger and John Taylor were outstanding farmers in Liberty township, the former devoted especially to Fultz and the latter to Clawson, [115] the farmer of lesser standing might well have been confused. It is evident that the leading larger farmers hedged against wheat losses by planting more than one variety. C. H. Lebold, at Abilene, planted 80 acres of Fultz and 40 acres each of Lancaster, Egyptian and May. [116] John Taylor planted both Clawson and Fultz in 1878 but by 1882 had abandoned Clawson, using Fultz as the principal variety and Russian as a second. [117] J. S. Hollinger, at Chapman, had 700 acres in 1879 divided among Fultz (best), Amber, Orange, Red Clawson and White Clawson. [118] In the two eastern counties, Riley and Geary, as livestock became the more conspicuous interest, the debate over wheat varieties was less prominent, but by 1880 in Dickinson and Saline counties the adverse crop conditions of the late 1870's caused the rivalry of varieties to become an absorbing subject. "Wheat is King" had become the slogan, and J. W. Robson, a farmer who conducted an agricultural column in the Chronicle during a part of the period, presented his Views

     Wheat is king in the county of Dickinson. It covers a larger area than any other cereal. And it excites more anxious thought from the time the seed is


put in the ground till it is hauled to the elevator, than any other product of the farm. This anxiety is not confined to the farmer alone. The mechanic, the merchant, the banker and the railroad corporations, all feel it and daily give expressions to the feeling in the shape of anxious enquiry: "Is the wheat crop a failure this year?"
We answer yes! and however paradoxical it may seem we also answer no; it is not a failure. Permit us to explain.
Farmers who sowed a large acreage of Fultz and Egyptian wheat, are today chewing the cud of bitter disappointment. What is left the Egyptian variety looks very sick indeed, as sick as the owner. And the Fultz variety is severely winter killed, and will only produce a partial crop. And yet we indulge the hope that the refreshing shower of today will better its present condition considerably.
And yet the wheat crop is not a failure. Every field of Walker, Early May, Orange, White Genesee, (or white bluestem as it is called by many) and Golden Chaff which we have seen within the last fortnight gives promise of a large yield.
The Walker wheat was introduced into North Dickinson in 1875 and it has never failed to produce a crop, not even in 1877.
The Early May failed in 1872, and partially failed in 1877. This is a standard variety, and always finds a ready market. The millers prefer it to any other kind.
The White Genesee was nearly a total failure in 1877, but with the exception of that year it has been a success for thirteen years. This and the two preceding varieties should be more extensively grown in the future, instead of those kinds producing a larger and finer berry, but which have proved a delusion and a snare to many of our brother farmers this year.
The Orange is a good wheat but it has one bad fault: it shells badly in the harvesting.
If the Treadwell wheat has passed safely through the winter we hope those who have made a specialty of this variety will report. Now is the time to take notes, and to decide Which varieties we shall sow next fall.
We have decided already and our decision is in favor of Walker, Early May and White Genesee. The Fultz Shall never again obtain a foothold on our homestead. But this is only our opinion, brother farmers give us yours. [119]

     The condemnation of Fultz by Robson brought out a defense by John Trott of Crystal valley who insisted his Fultz beat his Bluestem by six bushels and also his neighbors' May and Walker. In April, 1880, the Salina Journal conducted a survey, reporting data on farmer opinion of wheat prospects. Most growers had two or more varieties. of 45 farmers interviewed five did not specify varieties. Amber wheat was rated best or equal to the best by three, fair by four and a failure by one. Fultz was rated best by two, fair by four, and a failure by three. Odessa was rated best by two, fair by five, and a failure by one. Oregon was rated best by two. Russian was mentioned only once and then as the best six


varieties grown. The Red (Early or Little) May had the best, but it did not have a clear record, and was reported inferior to two or more rival varieties by eight of the 35 farmers naming it in their reports; five rated it equal to the best; twelve rated it the best of two or more competing named varieties, and ten raised only May. [120] In 1881 the Chronicle reprinted the recommendation a writer in The Kansas Farmer that wheat growers divide their sowing on a 3-3-2 ratio; white wheat (Bluestem, Genesee and Rappahannock), May and one other. [121]

     The Kansas State Board of Agriculture inaugurated in 1879 a policy of reports on the condition of winter wheat by counties and in 1880, 1881, 1882 and 1884 most of the reports commented upon varieties. These state-wide surveys afford a basis for comparison with the four counties which are the subject of this study. The most frequently and favorably mentioned were May, Fultz and Odessa (as a winter wheat), and others, listed with moderate frequency, were Mediterranean (Lancaster), Bluestem, Genesee, Walker, Treadwell, Oregon, Amber, and Clawson. In 1881 the quarterly reports indicated that, on a state-wide basis, Early May was still the favorite, Fultz second, Odessa still conspicuous, but the field was widely divided. In 1883 the range was May, Fultz and Walker in the top positions, among the st wheats, but not necessarily in that order in the several counties. Hard wheat was conspicuous in the reports for 1882, and still more so in 1884, but the st wheats predominated with leading opinion divided among May, Fultz, Amber, Oregon, and Zimmerman. In 1883 one farmer was hedging on the basis two-thirds May and one-third Russian. [122]

     The experimentation and discussion of the wheat problem had turned on the st varieties, and T. C. Henry argued in 1878, "I do not advise much further experimentation in new varieties. We have a sufficient number already introduced that are adapted to our soil and climate." [123] He was depending at that time primarily upon the Early May, not realizing that unforeseen developments in the next few years would prove him not only wrong, but even make his declaration a bit ridiculous.

(Part III to be Published in the May Issue)


1. Cf. Malin, James C., "Beginnings of Winter Wheat Production..," The Kansas Historical Quarterly, v. X (August, 1941), pp. 227-259, at pp. 255-259.
2. T. C. Henry, "The Story of a Fenceless Winter-Wheat Field," Kansas Historical Collections, v. IX, pp. 502-506. Although Henry was inaccurate in some of his dates. the local newspapers corroborate this date 1873 as his beginning. See Abilene Chronicle, May 26, 1876.
3. Reported as 24 bushels per acre in ibid., and 19 bushels in the Ottawa Republican, February 17, 1876.
4. Henry, loc. cit., v. IX, p. 504. The fact of using these machines was reported in the Junction City Union, June 20. 1874, but without the name of the header or the explanation why he used the header. these latter points appearing only in the reminiscences.
5. Ibid., September 19, 1874.
6. Ibid., May 9, September 19, 1874; Abilene Chronicle articles reprinted in the Western Home Journal, Lawrence, June 10, 1875, and Ottawa Republican, February 17, 1876. (The issues of the Chronicle containing these articles have not been preserved.) These four accounts differ as to the wheat acreage giving respectively 1,100. 1,200, 1,300, 1,200. In the last of these he claimed that the yield on his first crop of 1874 was 19 bushels and that it sold for 90 cents. Cf. Footnote 3.
7. Junction City Union, June 5, August 21, 1875.
8. Abilene Chronicle, May 26, 1876.
9. Ibid., July 21. 1876.
10. Salina Herald, May 13, 1876.
11. Abilene Chronicle, July 21, 1876; Salina Herald, August 12, 1876. 12. Abilene Chronicle, May 26, 1876.
13. Ibid., September 22, 1876; February 2, 1877. 14. The Kansas Gazette, Enterprise, April 6, 20, May 4, 18, 1877; Abilene Chronicle, May 11, 1877.
15. Salina Herald, June 23, 1877. Like so many newspaper stories there is no means of verification to determine whether any sod was actually broken by steam power.
16. Henry's Advertiser, Dickinson county, Kansas. T. C. Henry, Publisher, Abilene, Kan., Spring Edition, 1875. Vol. 1, No. 1. It is reasonably certain that this is the first such publication issued by Henry. The next year when the edition of 1876 was issued the Abilene Chronicle, April 28, 1876, referred to it as the second number.
17. Henry's Advertiser, p. 3.
18. Ibid., pp. 4, 5. 19. Ibid., p. 5.
20. Abilene Chronicle, April 28, May 5, 1876.
21. Ibid., July 14, 1876.
22. The Herald article was reprinted in the Abilene Chronicle, July 6, 1877. The Kansas Pacific railway adopted the name. "Golden Belt Route" in its advertisements. -Abilene Chronicle, August 10, 1877; Salina Herald, August 11, 1877.
23. Enterprise Kansas Gazette, July 13, 1877.
24. Ibid., July 27, 1577.
25. The address was delivered at Manhattan January 17, 1878, and was printed in summary and in full in many Kansas papers. One the newspaper services reprinted it on its patent pages for the weeklies. Of course the Abilene Chronicle printed it in full, February 1, 1878, and the Valley Republican, Kinsley, Edwards county. had it in its patent outside February 2, 1878. The Industrialist, Manhattan, the college paper, printed it in full January 19, 1878. Henry did not discuss soil fertilization and crop rotation as each subject would require a separate paper, and Kansas soil showed no signs of exhaustion. Good crops were always obtained by rotation with corn, but he suggested the possibilities of a Yankee summer fallow.
26. Junction City Union, April 3, 1875. An interesting Easterner's view of "Kansas Farmers and Illinois Dairymen" is to be found in The Atlantic Monthly, v. XLIV (December, 1879), pp. 717-725. It referred mostly to the Santa Fe railroad territory and expressed the conclusion that probably there was more large scale speculation in land along the Kansas Pacific railway than along the Santa Fe, but attributed the difference to the land policies of the two roads.
27. Abilene Chronicle, February 22, 1878.
28. Ibid., April 4, 1879.
29. Ibid., March 8, 1878.
30. Enterprise Kansas Gazette, March 29, 1878. 31. Abilene Chronicle, January 3, 1879.
32. Abilene Gazette, January 10, 1879.
33. Junction City Union, May 9, 1874; Enterprise Kansas Gazette, February 1, 1878. In similar fashion he showed the Topeka Commonwealth correspondent around and furnished him with material.-The Daily Commonwealth, August 29, 1882.
34. Salina Journal, April 6, 1876; Enterprise Kansas Gazette, September 28, 1877; Abilene Gazette, May 10, September 6, November 8, 1878; May 8, August 20, 27, November 26. 1880.
35. The Industrialist, Manhattan, January 11, 1877. At the Farmers' Institute conducted at the college, livestock problems occupied a prominent place.-The Nationalist, Manhattan, January 25, 1878; February 7, 1879. The fact must be recognized, however, that the college was influenced somewhat by the prevailing point of view of the livestock counties in which it was located, rather than by the wheat counties to the westward.
36. Abilene Chronicle, May 18, 1877. William Vandermark advocated sheep feeding as a means of utilizing cheap corn and hay in Dickinson county, but he represented the sheep specialization interest rather than general farming.-Ibid., February 8, 1878.
37. Salina Herald, January 10, 1880.
38. Ibid., January 24, 1880. Many advocated mixed farming during 1881 and 1882 and some of the most significant are listed here.-Abilene Chronicle, June 17, 1881; Salina Herald, July 16, 1881; January 21, 1882; Nationalist, Manhattan, May 5, 1881, in comment upon the herd law counties to the west of Riley county.
39. Junction City Union, September 9, 1882; June 7, 1884; Industrialist, Manhattan, February 26, 1887.
40. H. W. D'Oyle, ed. and comp., Alfalfa in Kansas (Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture for the Quarter Ending June, 1916), pp. 11-13.
41. Junction City Union, March 27, 1875.
42. Ibid., June 5, 26, 1875.
43. Abilene Chronicle, February 18, 1881.
44. Ibid., July 15, 1881; January 4, 1884; Marion Record, November 4, 1881; Junction City Union, December 22, 1883.
45. Abilene Gazette, June 6, 1879; Nationalist, Manhattan, July 8, 1880; Junction City Union, November 17, 24, 1877; August 12, 1882; Abilene Chronicle, May 4, 1877; May 12, August 25, 1882.
46. Nationalist, Manhattan, April 7, 1881; Abilene Chronicle, April 1, 1881, dogs and scab; Marion Record, January 14, 1881, dogs; Abilene Gazette, December 31. 1880, tariff; Junction City Union, June 14, 1884, tariff.
47. The Breeder's Gazette, Chicago, v. I (January 26, 1882), p. 199.
48. Marion Record, September 7. 1872; March 1, August 9, 1873, from the Atchison Champion. David I. Day, "Memories of the Crane Ranch," and "More Crane Ranch Memories," Milking Shorthorn Journal, Chicago, May, June, 1941.
49. Atlas, Marion County, . . (Chicago, The Davy Map and Atlas Co., 1885). The newspaper stories ten gave the size as 10,000 acres.
50. Marion Record, March 1, August 9, 1873; January 5, 1883.
51. Ibid., January 3, 1883; Salina Herald, February 19, 1876, from Salina Register.
52. Marion Record, August 9, 1873; May 7, 1875; April 28. 1876; April 6, September 14, November 2, 1877.
53. Ibid., July 11, 1874; April 6, 1877; The Breeder's Gazette, Chicago, v. I (March 2, 1882), p. 332; Kansas City (Mo.) Live-stock Indicator, May 29, June 26, 1884. No copy of any these catalogues has been found.
54. Abilene Chronicle, November 23, 1877; July 12, 1878; Marion Record, January 5, 1883.
55. Ibid., August 9, December 6, 1873; April 28, 1876; January 26, 1877; Junction City Union, August 11, 1877; June 22, October 26, 1878.
56. Marion Record, August 9, 1873; June 9, 30, 1876. There may have been a fourth, between Reed and Watson, but contemporary records are inadequate at that point.
57. Junction City Union, June 22, October 26, 1878; September 13, 1879. 58. Ibid., June 22, 1878; Kansas City (Mo.) Live-stock Indicator, June 5, 1884. 59. Nationalist, Manhattan, January 30, February 13, 1880.
60. Abilene Chronicle, January 18, 1884; Marion Record, February 8, 1884.
61. Kansas City (Mo.) Live-stock Indicator, May 29, June 26. 1884.
62. Marion County Democrat, Marion, July 5, 1883, from The Farmers' Review. The death of a son, George, who was buried at Marion, was recorded by the Marion Record, March 31, 1882, but this hardly seems to account for the sale because it was the son Daniel who had been identified with Durham Park, and no notice his death has been found.
63. Saline County Journal, Salina, March 14, April 18, 1878; Abilene Gazette, March 21, June 6, 1879; Junction City Union, April 30, 1870;' November 17, 1877. August 12, 26, 1881; Abilene Chronicle, October 20, 1876; March 11, 1881; June 16, August 25, 1882; Manhattan Nationalist, October 12, 1877; January 26, 1878; July 8, 1880.
64. Saline County Journal, Salina, March 14, April 18, 1878; Junction City Union, March 18, May 6, 1876; May 18, 1878; February 8, May 3, 1879; Manhattan Nationalist, May 7, 1880; Marion Record, April 13, 1872.
65. Abilene Chronicle, June 30, 1882; Abilene Gazette, February 28, 1879; February 16, 23, 1883; July 4, 1884. Saline County Journal, Salina,, March 14, April 18, 1878; Junction City Union, March 18, May 6, 1876; June 30, 1877; April 19, 1879; Manhattan Nationalist, February 7, 1879; May 7, 1880; Manhattan Industrialist, May 3, 1884; Kansas City (Mo.) Live-stock Indicator, March 6, 1884.
66. Junction City Union, March 30, October 26, December 7. 1878; Abilene Gazette, December 2, 1881.
67. Manhattan Nationalist, January 4, 25, 1878; February 7, 1879; February 6, 1880; February 17, 1881.
68. Enterprise Kansas Gazette, January 11, 1878.
69. Salina Herald, May 13, 1876; Abilene Chronicle, July 21, 1876; Enterprise, Kansas Gazette, March 29. 1878.
70. Ibid., August 30, 1878.
71. The details of the methods used in financing Henry's operations would require a separate treatment, and constitute a revealing picture of the informalities with which business was transacted. The history of western development cannot be at all complete until a variety of samples, of which Henry would be only one, can be studied in detail to reconstruct the amazing processes employed in financing such enterprises. A convenient introduction is to be found in the opinions of federal judges in the litigation cited in Footnote 87.
72. Abilene Chronicle, July 8, 1881.
73. Ibid., August 5, 1881.
74. The Industrialist, Manhattan, February 4. 1882.
75. Abilene Chronicle, March 3, 1882.
76. The Commonwealth, Topeka, February 3, 1882. The address had been printed in full, February 2.
77. Ibid., February 4, 1882.
78. Topeka Daily Capital, February 10, 1832.
79. The Commonwealth. February 7, 1882.
80. Saline County Journal, Salina, February 16, 1882.
81. Abilene Chronicle, May 26, 1882.
82. Chase County Leader, Cottonwood Falls, November 23, 1882.
83. Abilene Chronicle, June 30, 1882. 84. Ibid., December 22, 1882.
85. Ibid., March 9, 16, 30, July 27, 1883.
86. Ibid., March 16, 1883.
87. Litigation arising out of T. C. Henry's financial difficulties as heard in the United states Circuit Court is found in T. C. Henry v Travellers Insurance Company, 33 Federal Reporter (1887) 132-143; 34 Federal Reporter (1888) 258, 259; 35 Federal Reporter (1888) 15; 42 Federal Reporter (1890) 363-372; 45 Federal Reporter (1891) 299-303. Litigation in Colorado found its way to the Colorado supreme Court, 26 Pacific Reporter (1891) 321.
References to Henry's financial difficulties and litigation in Kansas and elsewhere appeared in the local press: Abilene Chronicle, August 29, 1884; Abilene Gazette, October 24, 1884; Kansas City (Mo.) Live-stock Indicator, September 3, 1885; Junction City Union, September 5, October 10, 1885; Abilene Reflector, October 8, 1885; August 17, 1893, from the Kansas City Gazette.
The matters at issue in these suits lie outside the scope of this particular study and this reference is only what seems essential to the present purpose and is not to be interpreted as passing judgment upon any of the parties to the controversy.
88. Junction City Union, September 5, 1885; Abilene Reflector, August 17, 1893, from the Kansas City Gazette, with which Martin had become associated after leaving the Union.
89. Abilene Reflector, August 17, 1893, from the Kansas City Gazette.
90. Unsigned, The Atlantic Monthly, v. XLIV (December, 1879), pp. 717-725.
91. J. C. Malin, "Beginnings of Winter Wheat Production . . . ," The Kansas Historical Quarterly, v. X, p. 247.
92. J. Allen Clark, et al., "Classification of American wheat varieties," U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 1074, (1922), hereafter cited as Clark. "Wheat varieties."
93. Junction City Union, August 30, 1873; Abilene Chronicle, May 7, 1880.
94. Ibid., October 3, 1872.
95. J. K. Hudson, "Essay on Grains," Transactions of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture . . . 1872, pp. 274-283 at pp. 277, 278.
96. Junction City Union, August 15, 1874.-Grown by John P. Meader.
97. Salina Herald, September 16, 1876.
98. Junction City Union, July 14, 1877; Abilene Chronicle, September 13, 1878.
99. Junction City Union, September 14, 1878.
100. Abilene Gazette, June 21, 1878; Junction City Union, November 1. 1879.
101. Abilene Gazette, June 6, 1879; Abilene Chronicle, May 7, 1880.
102. Abilene Gazette, June 6, 1879; Abilene Chronicle, September 3. 1880; Quarterly Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, March 31, 1880; Salina Herald, August 13, 1881; August 3, 1882; Abilene Chronicle, April 15, 1881. It was explained. however, that Bluestem, Genesee and Rappahannock were the same variety by a different name (Chronicle, September 16, 1881, from The Kansas Farmer).
103. Clark, "Wheat varieties," pp. 107, 108.
104. Abilene Chronicle, January 4, 1878. A favorite variety: Chronicle, February 9, 1877. A spring or fall wheat: Junction City Union, November 17, 1877; Chronicle, January 4, 1878. A rust-free wheat: Chronicle, January 4, 1878. Rusting badly: Chronicle; July 5, 1878. A chinch bug-free wheat: Nationalist, Manhattan, February 1, 1878.
105. Abilene Chronicle, February 9, July 20, 1877.
106. Second and Third Quarterly Reports . . . 1880; First and Third Quarterly Reports . . . 1881; Third Quarterly Report . . . 1882, Kansas State Board of Agriculture.
107. Clark, "Wheat varieties," pp. 83-85. A number of varieties wheat were known as Bluestem.
108. Junction City Union, July 20, 1878; Abilene Gazette, June 30, 1876; Abilene Chronicle, January 14, June 9, 1876; June 29, August 3, October 19, 1877; June 14, 1878.
109. Ibid., June 6, 1879; May 21, 1880; Salina Herald, August 28, 1880; July 30, 1881.
110. Abilene Chronicle, May 7, 1880. J. W. Robson condemned it severely on the ground that it winter-killed badly. In 1882, however, a favorable year, he reported Fultz in very fine condition.-Ibid., June 23, 1882.
111. Clark, "Wheat varieties," p. 77.
112. J. W. Robson, in the Abilene Chronicle, May 7, 1880.
113. In ibid., June 14, 1878. T. C. Henry claimed in 1904 that he introduced it, but the contemporary record credits the introduction to Taylor.-T. C. Henry, "The Story of a Fenceless Winter-Wheat Field," Kansas Historical Collections, v. IX, pp. 502-506 at p. 506.
There was a red variety of Clawson which was raised, but usually Clawson seems to have been the white type.-Abilene Gazette, June 6. 1879.
114. Clark, "Wheat Varieties," pp. 100-102.
115. Abilene Chronicle, June 6, 1879. The farms of both men were visited and described.
116. Abilene Gazette, June 21, 1878.
117. Ibid., June 6, 1879; June 23, 1882.
118. Ibid., June 6, 1879.
119. The Commonwealth, Topeka. May 9, 1880, from Abilene Chronicle, May 7, 1880.
120. Saline County Journal, Salina, April 29, 1880.
121. Abilene Chronicle, September 16, 1881.
122. Abilene Gazette, October 12, 1883.
123. T. C. Henry, "Kansas Wheat Culture," a paper read before the Farmers' Institute at Manhattan, January 17, 1878.-Abilene Chronicle, February 1, 1878.

Go to previous article     Go to next article     Go to cover page for this issue     Go to KHQ main page