The development of the upper Kansas valley brought a number of farm leaders into the foreground, but the one who was most conspicuous of all, in advertising value certainly if not in influence upon agriculture, was T. C. Henry, real estate dealer of Abilene. The herd law had 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.

     According to his own story, he broke 500 acres of 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 soft, 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. . .

     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 22½ bushels per acre, which he sold at $1.05½, making a profit on the year's operations at $18,914, 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 off 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. [4]

     For the crop year 1875-1876, Henry expanded his operations. Early in June, 1875, he was advertising for teams to break 2,000 acres of 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. [5] 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 country." [6] 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. [7]

     Henry's operations for the crop year 1876--1877 were expanded further, one report stating that jointly with Dr. J. W. Morris of Salina he had purchased 10,600 acres in Dickinson county, 2,000 acres of which would be seeded in the fall. [8] 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. [9] 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. [10] On account of grasshoppers Henry advocated delay of planting until after a freeze which would kill the pests, otherwise growing wheat would be eaten off 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 I believe is likely to cause a proportionately weaker plant at maturity." [11]

     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." [12] A wet May and rust damage to wheat and summer-drouth 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 announce-

ment that he had contracted for another thousand acres of sod to be broken with a steam plow. [13]

     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. [14]

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 country . . . 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. . . . [15]

     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 of seed per acre at a cost of $1.00 and a cross-wise and a third harrowing, the three harrowings 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. [16]

     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 of 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. [17]

     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.

     In 1876 Henry issued the second number of Henry's Advertiser. With respect to wheat he added this year that:

Attention has only within the past two years, since the adoption of the herd law, been directed to our special advantages in this particular, and yet it is estimated that fully 800,000 bushels of 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. [18]

     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 of 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 of 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 T 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. [19]

     Whatever criticism may be directed at Henry's promotion tactics it is evident that he did not misrepresent the fundamentals of 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 of 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. . . . [20]

     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 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 anyone, and doubtless will displease man . But is not what we have written true? J. H. [21]

     The editor thought that the letter deserved serious attention as `J. H." was a prominent man and a practical farmer. Some what had 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 of 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. [22]

     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 of 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 of 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 of Joppa are as productive today, under a crude and primitive system of 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 drouth 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. . . ."

     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 of 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 grass hoppers,-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, pulverizing 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 roll 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 made a better average than most who were giving advice to Kansas farmers at that period. [23]

     There was one kick-back to this address and it came from Riley county, the easternmost of the four counties, which because of 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 of 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 of July, 187;, 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 of real estate activities throughout the West were not upon a plane of 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 of." [24] That he was ruthless with competitors seems probable. The National Land Company, the subsidiary of the Kansas Pacific Railway Company, 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." As a local rival in real estate the firm of Wemyss and Beal soon succumbed to Henry as had most of his other Abilene competitors, Henry buying them out. [26]

     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?" [27] 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. [28] 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 our private citizen may exert in the destiny

of a great State, was never more strikingly illustrated than in the case of T, C. Henry and wheat growing in Kansas. . . . [29]

     Although it was the Enterprise Kansas Gazette that had served as the medium for the criticism at the "Golden Belt" article, that paper, upon moving to Abilene was not critical of 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." [30] 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. [31] 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. [32]