THE FARM COLONIES OF THE SALVATION ARMY.
So many times has the cry been raised "back to the land!", so optimistic
have so many reformers become over the hope that the population could be
diverted from the city to the country, and so loudly have certain
enthusiasts prophesied a surely successful issue to colonizing
enterprises, that the Salvation Army colonies form a very interesting
and profitable field of investigation. What is needed is an experiment
that will prove or disprove the prophesied success of taking the people
back to the land. Once that is proved, with the great Northwest of
America almost untouched, with immense tracts of good land in Africa and
other continents, and with the United States about to open up millions
of acres of land, made fertile by means of irrigation, we shall be ready
to act and get rid of the surplus city population. But first we must
have the proof, and the question before us is whether the Salvation Army
has sufficiently proved the case.
The matter was agitated before the English Government to such an extent
in 1905 that the Rhodes Trustees, contributing sufficient funds to cover
the expense, the Secretary of State for the Colonies nominated Mr. Rider
Haggard, the novelist, to visit the United States and inspect the three
Salvation Army colonies there, to make a report on the same, and to
include in this report any practical suggestions which might occur to
him. The following words were used in the letter of commission: "It
appears to the Secretary of State that if these experiments are found to
be successful, some analogous system might to great advantage be applied
in transferring the urban population of the United Kingdom to different
parts of the United Kingdom."[57]
Mr. Haggard visited the three colonies in the United States, and made a
report to the English Government, favoring strongly the movement, and
recommending that the Government take it up, provide the capital and
utilize all ready existing organizations, such as the Salvation Army, in
carrying out its scheme. The matter was referred by the Government to
the Departmental Committee, who, after reviewing it and looking into the
question in 1906, issued a long report in which they discountenanced Mr.
Haggard's scheme on the ground that:
1. It was better for settlers from England to be scattered about
with experienced farmers as neighbors than to be placed in a number
together.
2. The Salvation Army or any similar organization was not a
desirable management for a colony dependent on money advanced by the
Imperial Government.
3. That Ft. Romie and Ft. Amity, the American farm colonies of the
Salvation Army, were not precedents upon which a large scheme of
colonization could be based.[58]
The Committee gave reasons for arriving at the above conclusions, into
which, for the present, we need not enter, but their conclusions are
suggestive, and may be borne in mind while we make our study of the
subject.
Gen. Booth, in his plans as outlined in "Darkest England," provided for
three main divisions of the work for the unemployed poor, viz., the City
Colony, the Country Colony and the Over-sea Colony, signifying by these
terms the City Industrial Work, the Country Industrial Colony, and the
Farm Colony.[59] The last named was to be on a larger scale on some
Colonial territory of England. This division has tended to persist in
the United States, and this country has been the field for special
experiments along this line. There are three Colonies in the United
States: Fort Herrick, situated near Cleveland, Ohio; Fort Amity,
situated in Southeast Colorado, and Ft. Romie, which is located at
Soledad in the Salinas Valley, California. At first there was no
differentiation between these Colonies, but latterly, the Colony at Ft.
Herrick, the smallest of the three, has been managed as an Industrial
Colony, and the other two have continued as regular Farm Colonies. The
plan of "Commander" Booth-Tucker, in charge of the Salvation Army in the
United States from 1896 until 1904, and the originator of these
Colonies, was, in brief, as he states it, to take the waste labor in
families, and place it upon the waste land by means of waste capital,
and thereby to convert this trinity of waste into a unity of
production.[60] His waste labor was the family struggling in the crowded
city; his waste land, the large tracts of public land about to be opened
up by irrigation; and his waste capital, if such a term can be used, was
the capital lying idle, or at least, making 2-1/2 or 3 per cent., when
according to his estimate, it could yield 5 per cent. The principles
which he laid down were as follows:
1. There must be sufficiency of capital.
2. The land must be carefully selected and laid out.
3. The colonists must be well selected.
4. There must be able supervision.
5. The principle of home ownership must be followed.
6. God must be recognized.
From our investigations at Ft. Romie and Ft. Amity, we arrived at the
conclusion that No. 4 and No. 6 were the only ones thoroughly carried
out; that there was a weakness in the amount of capital (Prin. No. 1);
that an unfortunate selection of land was made (Prin. No. 2); that the
successful colonists did not entirely represent the class from which we
should wish them to be taken (Prin. No. 3); and that ownership gave way
largely to a system of renting-out by the Army (Prin. No. 5). For
verification of this, see the typical cases at the end of the chapter.
Commander Booth-Tucker advanced the argument, which is sound, to the
effect that, when entire families were taken from the city and placed
on the land, the tendency to return to the city would be overcome. It
has been the experience of philanthropists, that when single men and
women were transferred from the city to the country, they always tended
to return, the reason being due to an acquired fondness of the
individual for intimate association with his fellows,[61] but when a man
has his wife and children, together with a plot of land and a home which
he may call his own, the attraction toward the city is overcome, by a
stronger one which keeps him where he is. Of course, this would answer
for the one generation only.
Leaving out the small colony at Ft. Herrick, Ohio, which was changed to
an Industrial Colony, and which is considered in the chapter on the
Industrial Work, let us examine more closely the Farm Colonies at Ft.
Amity, Col., and Ft. Romie, Cal. The larger enterprise was set on foot
in Colorado, in 1898, where a tract of 2,000 acres was secured at a cost
of $46,000.00. In this year, fourteen families were brought from Chicago
and placed on the bare, unimproved prairie, where, however, there was
abundant water supply carried by a large irrigation company. These
colonists were all family men with two exceptions, and nine of the heads
of families had either been on farms or had worked on farms in the
past.[62] They were in narrow circumstances financially, and the
transportation expenses of all except one of these families were paid by
the Army. With this migration as a basis, the number of colonists was
greatly increased by families from different cities and also from the
surrounding country, until in 1905, there were thirty-eight families.
Several were brought to the Colony as experienced men to act as
pace-setters for the others.[63] Some came with a small amount of
capital.
Owing to the fact that the land was covered by a heavy sod which needed
considerable working, no crops were raised the first year, and only
fair crops the second. During the first year, the colonists were
supported by cash loans which were charged against them. After the first
two years, crops were good[64], and the outlook was promising, in spite
of certain insect pests, but after about seven years a great difficulty
showed itself. The land on which the Colony was located was alkali land,
and bottom land, without any drainage. The result of constant irrigation
was that the alkali rose to the surface in larger and larger quantities,
until no good crop could be raised. The only salvation was to drain the
land and thus rid it of the blighting alkali. This meant an expense of
from $30.00 to $40.00 an acre. At the present time draining is being
rapidly pushed forward and is proving very beneficial, but it can be
easily seen what a discouragement the alkali has proved to the
colonists, and what an additional expense is laid upon them and the
Colony; an expense which it will take years of good crops to
overcome.[65]
Up to 1905, about eighteen families, not satisfied with the results
obtained, had moved away, and their places had been filled by others. A
very few of the departing families moved because of ill-health; some
thought that they could do better elsewhere as farmers; some even had
considerable money as a result of their holdings in the Colony[66].
Since 1905, there has been a good deal of changing, and at present a
large part of the Colony land is rented out by the Army to settlers;
some being from the country, and some from the city[67]. A small number
of the old pioneer colonists still remain and have done well with their
holdings in spite of all difficulties.[68]
The Army stated in 1905, that the financial standing of this Colony
showed a net loss to the Army of $23,111.50, and a gain to the colonists
of $37,943.77. It considered its loss a cheap price for the experience
gained, but thought that it had erred in giving the colonists too
liberal terms.[69] By this time the loss to the Army is considerably
greater, owing to the increased expense of drainage.[70]
At the present time (January, 1908), the population of this Colony is
about 200. Nearly all the land is occupied in one way or another, either
by colonists who own, or partially own, their land, or by renters, who
are also called colonists. Several homes are vacant, but it is expected
that they will be filled by renters before the Spring season opens. The
little village consists of several stores, a blacksmith shop, a
substantial railroad depot, a post office, a small hotel and a school
house. A good many of the homes are built of stone, quarried on the
Colony, and present a good appearance. Up on the higher land is situated
a large stone structure, built by the colonists at an expense to the
Army of $18,000.00, and first used as an orphanage, then as a
sanitorium, and now abandoned. Irrigation ditches with a good flow of
water are in evidence, and preparations for draining the land are under
way. That this is necessary is forced upon us by the many white patches
scattered here and there where the water, having evaporated, has left
the destructive alkali salt on the surface of the ground.
When we come to consider the other Farm Colony, Ft. Romie, situated at
Soledad, Cal., in the beautiful Salinas Valley, we receive a more
favorable impression, although we find that the Colony here has had many
difficulties with which to contend. The Colony is smaller than that at
Ft. Amity, but the land is better. The original 500 acres has been
increased by the addition of a lease of 150 acres with the option of
buying. In the year 1898, eighteen families were taken from the poor of
San Francisco and placed upon the Colony, but unforeseen conditions
prevailed, and, as a result, but one of these families remains
to-day.[71] The great mistake was made of settling colonists upon land
which needed irrigation, before that irrigation was provided. This
mistake was brought out the more vividly, in that the three first years
of the Colony's existence were years of drought, bringing evil to most
parts of the State, and especially to that land which, like the Colony
land, only received a slight rain-fall at best. The result of the first
years of this experiment, then, was an abandoning of the land by the
colonists, and a loss to the Army of $27,000.00.
The experiment was continued, however, but with very different
conditions. An excellent irrigation system was established, and a new
lot of settlers brought to the Colony; not, this time, from the city,
but from the surrounding country. These people were poor, but accustomed
to the land. The result, as might be expected this time, was more
favorable. It was stated in 1905 that no colonists had left since
1901.[72] In May, 1903, there were nineteen families ranged according to
nationality as follows:--Thirteen American; Two Scandinavian; One Finn;
One German-Swiss; One Dutch and one Italian. There are now twenty-five
families, and about one hundred and forty-five persons on the Colony.
The nucleus of a town is to be seen with two or three stores, a
blacksmith shop, and a good sized Town Hall. Near the Colony is a school
house with an attendance of about fifty children, most of them being
colonists' children.
An irrigation plant has been established and is now owned and worked by
the colonists, formed in a joint-stock company. The colonists raise
beets, potatoes, alfalfa, fruits of different kinds, and stock. A large
part of their income is derived from the dairying industry. They ship
their cream to a creamery at Salinas, about twenty-five miles distant.
Much could be said about the healthy appearance and happy life of the
members of this Colony, but as they have not been brought from the
unhealthy, squalid misery of the city, this is not of so much interest.
The women work in the vegetable gardens and with the stock, as well as
in the home; and the older children help their parents.
Along the lines of co-operation, in both colonies there are interesting
features. At stated intervals, the colonists meet in the form of a
Farmers' Club, and discuss questions relative to the success of their
individual farms and to the Colony as a whole. They also have lecturers
come from a distance to address them on the latest phases of
horticulture, agriculture, fertilization and irrigation. The colonists
also embark in business enterprises like the stock company formed in the
California Colony for the control and management of the irrigation
plant. In this plant, one of the colonists is engineer, and another the
superintendent of water supply. Another important institution of this
same Colony is the Rochdale store, which does most of the retail
business in the Colony. This store, in its management and organization,
follows the co-operative Rochdale system, which has attained strength in
England and is growing in the United States. The store is incorporated
in the State of California as a co-operative corporation, and holds a
membership in the State Rochdale Wholesale Co. It has already extended
beyond the limits of the Colony and counts among its members others than
colonists. The colonists also take active interest in local affairs of
all kinds. In one colony, the rural mail carrier is a colonist, and the
school teacher the wife of a colonist. At Ft. Amity, a colonist is now
sheriff of the County for the second time.
Social and religious life is also fostered in the Colonies. A variety of
religious sects is represented, and no compulsion is exercised towards
any one of them. At Ft. Romie the Army has an organized corps, which
holds meetings once in the week and once on Sunday, also having a
Sunday school for the children. At Ft. Amity similar conditions prevail.
On both colonies a good moral influence is found and there are no evil
surroundings; hence in neither colony is there a local officer of the
law. In the contract which every colonist signs on taking his land there
is a temperance clause to this effect:
"And party of the second part hereby agrees to and with party of the
first part that, in consideration of the benefits derived from this
contract, he will not bargain, sell, barter or trade upon said land
any intoxicating liquors, or otherwise dispose of as beverages any
intoxicants, at any place upon said premises or any part thereof, or
permit the selling of the same, or any illegal traffic or any act or
acts prohibited by law."
The same clause goes on to provide for the return of the land to the
Army in case of its being violated.
From this brief description it is seen that much of the success of these
colonies must rest on the management. The manager must be large-hearted
and broad-minded. He must be supervisor, instructor, moderator,
counsellor and friend. The Army has been very fortunate in placing fit
men in these positions, and if in other things it had been equally
fortunate, its colonies would have made a better showing.
As regards the financial methods of the Army in dealing with the
colonists, the following extract from a memorandum of information issued
by the Ft. Romie Colony, California, gives typical information.
1. Land: Twenty acres of land are sold to each colonist. The price of
unimproved land at this date, 1904, is $100.00 per acre. This price,
however, is liable to be increased at any time.[73]
2. Buildings: Houses, barns and other buildings are constructed by the
colonists. Materials are furnished in quantities by the Army according
to the size of the colonist's family, somewhat after the following
schedule. For a family with one or two small children, a two-room
house, about 14×24 outside measurement, for which we appropriate not
over $125.00. This is to include a small barn or shed for horses, cows,
etc. For a family with three or four small children, a three-room house
about 18×24, costing with barn, etc., not over $175.00. For a larger
family, perhaps a four or five-room house, limiting the appropriation
for the same to $225.00. Colonists can suit themselves as to the style
of the house, but must satisfy the manager that it can be erected within
the limits of the appropriation named. The colonist can add to the size
of the house as he gets on his financial feet.
3. Terms: On land breaking and other permanent land improvements, the
colonists are given 20 years' time. The principal and interest are
payable in installments each year.
4. Outfit: To colonists unable to purchase them, the Army furnishes the
necessary implements and stock, consisting of the following: Team of
horses, cow, hogs, chicken, seed, etc., secured by chattel mortgage. The
interest on outfit and loans is fixed at 6 per cent. It is expected that
the principal and interest will be repaid in installments each year. All
outfits and loans are to be repaid within five years.[74]
We have briefly outlined the most prominent features of the Farm
Colonies, but the final questions now arise, is the movement sound; what
does it signify, and what development does the future hold for it? For
one thing we must not be led astray by the statements of the Army. The
continued existence of the colonies, in the face of great difficulties,
through the term of eight or nine years they have been carried on, is
not in itself an argument for the soundness of the movement. From ocean
to ocean and throughout the world, the Army has advertised its success
in colonizing enterprises, and hence it had a set purpose in maintaining
and continuing its colonies, even though they should be failures from
our point of view, and even though they should not fulfil the purpose
originally intended by the Army itself. As has been remarked with regard
to the industrial colonies, so here, we would emphasize the fact that
the Army has no need to fear acknowledgement that the colonies have not
been successful, because it has other credit upon which to depend for
its reputation for usefulness. After looking at it from all sides, we
come to the conclusion that the two experiments considered in these
pages do not justify an extension of this work. This conclusion is based
on several reasons:
1. Many of the successful colonists are not men who needed help the
most, and many are not from the City at all.
2. The colonies have been, and are, an undue expense to the
organization.
3. The same amount of energy and money would be more beneficial to
the unemployed if used along other lines.
4. The principles advanced as essential by the originators of the
movement were only partially carried out.[75]
Our first reason is based partly on personal investigation, and partly
on the statements of the Army itself.[76] There are, as will be seen
from examples given, certain places where families from the city without
previous experience have made a success of the colonies, but these are
greatly in the minority[77]. If, in the case of the California Colony at
Fort Romie, when seventeen out of the original number of families taken
from the city, left on account of the lack of water, the next group of
settlers had again been chosen from the city, after water had been
secured, a more conclusive experiment would have resulted, but instead,
the second group were, "farmers by profession."[78] This looks as though
the Army itself at that time doubted the ability of the city families to
succeed on the land. At any rate, the fact that the majority of the
families at the present time on the colonies are not from the city at
all, shows that, as an experiment of removing the surplus population of
the city to the country, the colonies are a failure. But further, when
we take the minority, the families now in the colonies who came from the
city, we find that, in most cases, they are not people who needed help
the most, and those who have succeeded on the colonies, have succeeded
because of elements in their character which would have led them to
succeed in the long run anywhere, with favorable environment. In this
case then, the only advantage in taking these people from the city was
to leave more room there for somebody else, and this is not much of an
advantage, since that "somebody else" is quite likely to come from the
country to the city, and thus not be one of the city's submerged ones at
all. Again, if, as we have just stated, men succeed in the country
because of the same elements of character which would lead them to
succeed anywhere, then the reason for their failing to succeed in the
city would lie in an unfavorable environment, and to change their
environment, it is not necessary to carry on a system of paternalistic
colonies. This leads us to the question of assisted emigration, which we
will discuss in connection with our third objection to the colonies.
As regards the second reason, that of undue expense, Mr. Haggard in
1905, found a loss to the Army of $50,000. While, since that time, in
the case of the California Colony, there has been no further loss, yet
in the case of the colony in Colorado, there has been much expenditure
which should be added to the original loss. The Army states that it has
been too liberal in its dealings with its colonists, but we note that,
in spite of its liberality, there has been a constant tendency for the
colonists to leave, hoping to do better elsewhere.[79] The Army might
reply that this is no argument, and that the fact that they were able to
leave with funds on hand was in itself a proof of liberality on the
Army's part, but to prove the success of its experiment, it must show
that those who have left have done better elsewhere, and not drifted
back once more to the city. The Army might further state that in future
a better selection of land might be made, and that other unfavorable
things might be avoided, but we are dealing here with these two colonies
and not future experiments. As regards such, there would always be
unforeseen difficulties of every kind.[80]
Coming to the third reason for our conclusion, the reason that money
might be expended in other ways with greater advantage to the
unemployed, and with greater relief to the congestion of cities, we
refer again to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee
appointed by the English government to consider Commissioner Haggard's
report.[81] In their report they recommend a system of emigration from
the city to the English possessions, such as Canada, aided by the
government, in preference to the system of colonization. With this we
agree. A man once transported from the city and then thrown on his own
resources in a favorable rural environment, will be more likely to
succeed than a man who is taken out with a number of others to form a
colony. The man left to his own resources will rise to the occasion, as
so many have done in both Canada and the United States, who have
migrated from city to country and made successful farmers and citizens,
while, on the other hand, the man who feels dependent on an
organization, which is responsible to the public for his success, and
its own, will blame it for his own lack of efficiency. The Army itself
claims a successful work done along the lines of emigration. In 1905,
through the agency of the Army, 2,500 men were sent out from London to
Canada. This number has since increased every year until in 1907 over
15,000 men were sent out. Many other emigration societies have been very
successful in this work.[82] The emigrants sent out with some
assistance, in many cases, gain new ambitions in life and make
pronounced successes on the new soil. As regards the cost, the following
quotation may be submitted. "The cost of emigration to Canada from
England does not amount to more than £10 a head, and some of the
societies, especially those maintained by women, seem to be successful
in securing repayment of at least a part of the money advanced. In other
words, $300,000.00, which Mr. Rider Haggard assumes as a necessary sum
for forming a colony of 1,500 families, would enable at least 6,000
families to go out as emigrants."[83] With regard to conditions in the
large cities of the United States and other countries, we believe that
the same arguments would apply, and that, in every case, assisted
emigration will be found far more feasible and beneficial than any
system of colonization. Again, for reasons already given, in addition to
there being six thousand families aided by emigration, for the same sum
as fifteen hundred families could be by colonization, the relief given
would be far preferable. In other words, emigration has been proved
successful, while colonization has not.
Coming back to the conclusions reached by Mr. Haggard on his
recommendations to the English government: Mr. Haggard, after stating
that the two experiments, outside of a slight failure of finance, seemed
to him to be eminently successful, says that, given certain requisites,
"It will, I consider, be strange if success is not attained even in
the case of poor persons taken from the cities, provided that they
are suited in character, the victims of misfortune and circumstances
rather than of vice, having had some acquaintance or connection with
the land in their past life, and having also an earnest desire to
raise themselves and their children in the world."
Now two of the "requisites" he mentions are, "that the land should be
cheap as well as suitable" and "that markets also with accessibility
and convenience of location should be borne in mind," two rather
difficult requisites to be found together. Again, in the above quotation
he lays down other provisos; among these being one that the people
selected should have had some acquaintance or connection with the land
in their past lives, a rather indefinite proviso in itself, but, from a
list of poor men out of work or in irregular or casual employment in
London and the other large cities in England in 1901 and 1906, compiled
by Mr. Wilson Fox, we find that out of a total of 8,793 such men, ninety
per cent were town born.[84] We also find in New York City in the spring
of 1908, that out of a total of 185 destitute men, about eighty per cent
were town born.[85] That then leaves ten per cent in the case of England
and twenty per cent in the case of New York City from which to select or
choose the ones needed for a colonizing enterprise.
Mr. Fox has also shown in his investigations:
1. That the countrymen who migrate to London are mainly the best youth
of the villages.
2. That the incomers usually get the pick of the posts, especially
outdoor trades.
3. Country immigrants do not to any considerable extent directly recruit
the town unemployed who are, in the main, the sediment deposited at the
bottom of the scale, as the physique and power of application of the
town population tends to deteriorate.[86]
The conclusion is then, that it would be difficult to get the men
according to Mr. Haggard's requirements, and difficult to get the land
according to his requirements, and even if such were obtained, for
reasons already stated there is no justification for a large colonizing
enterprise in the two experiments described in this chapter.
Examples of Colonists taken from Ft. Amity by the author in January,
1908.
No. 1.
Elderly man. Widower. Had three grown-up children in the Colony at
various times. Had one son a colonist with farm of his own. Was not a
Salvationist. Came from Chicago where he was a tailor. Had a farm near
the railroad depot which he considered valuable. Had two small houses.
Rented one. Raised alfalfa. Was sole agent for a coal company. Claimed
he made $1,500.00 last year, mostly in the coal business. Said draining
now being done on the Colony was very expensive. Considered the Colony a
good thing.
No. 2.
Middle aged man. Married. One child. Had experience in the country
before coming to the Colony. Had forty acres of Colony land which he had
rented, and which he wished to sell at $106.00 per acre. Had mostly
worked for the railroad in the station office. Wished to leave the
Colony. Said he could not raise a vegetable garden owing to alkali and
insect pests.
No. 3.
A new man. About thirty years old. One year out from Chicago, where he
worked at different trades. Had wife and one child. Rented a house on
the Colony and worked in one of the Colony stores. Had no money saved
and saw no immediate chance of betterment. Liked the country better than
the city, because his wife had better health.
No. 4.
Young married man. No children. Son of a Colonist and married to a
daughter of a Colonist, whose father was sheriff of the County. Had good
looking cottage and barns. Was doing well.
No. 5.
About fifty years old. Salvation Army officer. In the Colony six years.
Had son twenty-one, and together they worked a farm of sixty acres. He
owned twenty and rented forty. His life was despaired of by the doctors,
but he was enjoying good health at time of interview. Doing well
financially.
No. 6.
About forty-five. Original Colonist. Married. Had four children. Came
from Chicago, where he was a carpenter. Owned land in the Colony which
he rented out. Ran a hardware store in the Colony and was partner in the
Colony bank. Had property valued at $5,000.00. Had no capital when he
came to the Colony.
No. 7.
About forty-eight years old. Original Colonist. Married and had nine
children. Was railroad clerk in Chicago at $12.00 per week. Owned a
corner lot on the town site where he ran a grocery store. Had property
in Chicago worth $1,000.00 when he came to the Colony. Was worth
$8,000.00 at time of interview.
No. 8.
A farmer, from surrounding country, induced by Colony management to
invest in Colony land and tract as a "pace-setter" to the other
colonists. Thus secured forty acres at $70.00 per acre. Had introduced
the sheep industry. Bought up young lambs in Mexico, fattened them, and
sold at a profit. Had been two years on the Colony. Made $5,000.00 net,
per year. Had four thousand sheep.
No. 9.
Middle aged man. Married. Original colonist. Was expressman in Chicago,
but previous to coming to the Colony had to leave family and go to work
in the woods while the wife worked. Had taken out a government homestead
outside of the Colony. Gave up his holdings on the Colony and was
working as farm boss for a neighboring farmer while his wife ran a
boarding house.
No. 10.
Scotchman. About fifty years old. Married. Had five children. In the
Colony for six years. Arrived there with $25.00. Was carpenter in
Chicago. Was worth $1,000.00 when interviewed. Was arranging to sell his
holdings and go away, as he thought he could do better elsewhere.
No. 11.
About forty-five years old. Belonged to the Army. Married. One child.
Came from Baltimore, Md., where he worked as a teamster. The Army paid
family's fare to the Colony. Made a failure of his holding on the Colony
and was making a bare living by running the Colony hotel and doing
teaming. His failure was due to alkali and insect pests. His wife was
sick before coming, but became better and was evidently the more
efficient member of the partnership.
No. 12.
Thirty-five years old. Married. Two children. Brother of Army officer
and son of example No. 1. In the Colony eight years. Used to be
street-car conductor in Chicago. Gave up one holding in the Colony on
account of alkali and took another, where he was doing well at time of
interview.
No. 13.
About forty years old. Married. Came from the country. Rented a house on
the Colony and worked as a section-hand on the railroad.
FOOTNOTES:
[57] "The Poor and the Land." Introduction, p. VI.
[58] "Report of Departmental Committee," pp. 8, 9, 10.
[59] "William Booth," p. 83.
[60] "The S. A. in the U. S.," p. 15.
[61] See Giddings' "Principles of Sociology," p. 291.
[62] "The Poor and the Land," p. 75.
[63] See example No. 8 at the end of the chapter, p. 115.
[64] About this time, Mr. Curtis, describing the colony in the Chicago
Record, said "There is no neater group of houses in Colorado, and no
more contented community in the world. Nearly every one has written to
friends urging them to join the next colony that comes out, and thus I
judge they are enthusiastic over their success and the pleasures they
enjoy."
[65] See principle No. 2, p. 101.
[66] "The Poor and the Land," p. 78.
[67] See principle No. 5, p. 101.
[68] See several examples at the end of this chapter, p. 137.
[69] "The Poor and the Land," p. 82.
[70] See principle No. 1, p. 101.
[71] "The Poor and the Land," p. 39.
[72] See Pamphlet, "Review of Salvation Army Land Colony in California."
[73] The price of land at Ft. Amity would be different, and there, too,
the Army sometimes rents to the colonists an additional acreage.
[74] "Memorandum of Information Respecting the Salvation Army Colony at
Ft. Romie, California."
[75] For these principles see p. 101 of this chapter.
[76] See "The Poor and the Land," p. 40 and fl.
[77] See examples at end of chapter.
[78] See "The Poor and the Land," p. 47.
[79] See the "Poor and the Land," p. 82.
[80] See "Report of Departmental Committee," p. 14 and fl.
[81] _Ibid._
[82] Mr. John Manson in his book "The Salvation Army and the Public," p.
133 and following, states that in this work the Army has merely acted
the part of a business agency. We think that he has ground for this
statement, but we also think that the Army would be far more useful
along these lines than an ordinary business agency.
[83] See Report of Departmental Committee, p. 6.
[84] See Report of Departmental Committee, p. 3.
[85] See tables p. 98 of this book.
[86] See Report of Departmental Committee, p. 30.