CONCLUSION.
We have now covered the work of the Salvation Army social movement in
its different branches. We have described the work, the extent and the
management of each department. We have also considered the criticisms
and objections to which each department is open, and we have attempted
to estimate the value of each department to society. We have arrived at
the conclusion that the work of the Industrial Department, leaving out
the Industrial Colony, is a practical, deserving and successful effort
to put unfortunate men once more on their feet, at no expense to the
public, saving a slight embarrassment to those already engaged in the
salvage and second hand business; that the Army lodging house is the
best so far offered for the housing of the lower homeless class,
although not entirely satisfactory; that the Slum Work is good, but
limited in its scope, owing to the religious sentiment attached, and the
mental inferiority of its workers; that the Rescue Work is about the
best of its kind; and that good work is being done in other directions,
such as the prison work, the employment bureaux and the children's work.
On the other hand, we have found that the two Industrial Colonies and
three Farm Colonies are not successful enough to warrant any additional
expenditure on them or on any new colonies. This is due to the fact that
the class most needing help in the cities is not the class to succeed on
the land, and to the fact that men are more successful as pioneers on
the land, when they are scattered and left to rely on themselves, having
experienced farmers as neighbors, than when they are grouped closely
together in one colony. Also there is nothing in favor of heavy
expenditure for Christmas dinners, since the same amount of money can be
put to better advantage in other ways.
But, having reached these conclusions regarding the separate departments
of the Army social work, what about the movement as a whole? The
critics have advanced a good many objections against the Army. Some of
these objections relating to special departments and not to the Army as
a whole, we have already dealt with in our discussion of those separate
departments. There remain six principal objections:
1. That the organization is narrow and not willing to cooperate with
other organizations.
2. That the highly centralized military form of government is likely to
lead to disastrous consequences.
3. That the Army, in its financial dealings, does not take the public
sufficiently into its confidence.
4. That the Army collects funds, on the strength of its social work, and
applies these funds to religious propaganda.
5. That there is a lack of accuracy in its reports of work accomplished.
6. That the Army, as an organization, has become more of an end in
itself, than a means to an end.
Regarding the first objection, the narrowness and lack of cooperation,
we think there is a good deal of truth in it. The Army has made a great
success as an organization, and the work of its founder and his
assistants is one of the most remarkable achievements of the age. Things
apparently impossible have been accomplished, and obstacles apparently
unsurmountable have been overcome. The result is a self-confidence and
assurance, amounting in many cases to bigotry. The members of the
organization look upon it as especially favored by God, and as above any
other organization. Hence, we find many of the leaders far from humble
in their bearings, whatever their profession may be, and entirely
uninclined to cooperate with other organizations. This fact has been
brought to the foreground of late years in England and America by a
certain amount of antagonism between the Army and the Charity
Organization Society, the Army claiming that it can do its work along
its own lines and get along without any alliance with the Society, and
the latter claiming that much economy would result if the Army would
unite its efforts along social lines with the Charity Organization
Society. The controversy cannot be discussed here, but it seems a pity
that some sort of union cannot be entered into in which both
organizations would be represented in a manner satisfactory to both. One
great difficulty, evidently, is the religious element in the social work
of the Army, which tends to prejudice the Charity Organization Society
in some degree against the Army, and tends to keep the Army aloof from
any organization considered secular. However, we find many leading
officers in both organizations with friendly feeling, and there is hope
that the time will come, when the controversy will be at an end.
Coming to the second objection, that the highly centralized military
form of government of the Army is likely to lead to disastrous
consequences, we think that, if continued, this form of government must
indeed lead to disaster. It is evident that this might happen in
different ways. In an organization held together by one man or by one
idea, disintegration would tend to take place in the one case by the
failure or death of the leader, and in the other case by the expansion
of the idea. The Army is held together by both the man and the idea, and
we need not turn away from its own history to get examples of this
disintegration in both ways. Take the first bond of union, the man of
striking, hypnotic personality. Since the very inception of the
movement, time after time, men who have gained influence in the Army,
have separated from its ranks and started a movement of their own of
more or less formidable dimensions. The instance most applicable here is
that of the division which took place a few years ago in the United
States. At that time the Army in this country had been very successful
under the leadership of one of General Booth's sons, Ballington Booth
and his wife, Maud, the latter especially being a most attractive and
talented personality and gifted, persuasive speaker. Mr. and Mrs.
Ballington Booth were flattered by attention from all sides, and by the
worship of the soldiers and officers under them. Orders came from
General William Booth, commanding them to give up their leadership in
the United States and take control of some other country. But they had
no idea of giving up their position in this country, and, elated by
success, confidently announced their leadership of a new movement, the
Volunteers of America, which is still in existence. While the other
element, that of the expansion of the idea, showed itself at this time
in a revolt against the narrow, despotic methods of General William
Booth, the main element in this division was that of personality. Taking
up the second bond of union, that of the central, controlling idea and
purpose, we find the whole movement at the present time is tending to
disintegrate through the expansion of this idea. This is shown by the
continual departure of men from the ranks of the Army, who see that its
methods and machinery are too cramped for their efforts, and also by the
different attitude of the remaining members towards the movement itself
and its leader General William Booth.
It is possible, however, that there will gradually be effected a change
in the form of government of the army which will allow for enlargement
and differentiation within the movement itself. General Booth, the sole
head of the movement, cannot live much longer, and at his death, changes
already threatening will demand attention. He has maintained a
remarkable control over his world-wide following, in spite of numerous
outbreaks and dangerous splits, and has legally arranged with great
care, we are told, the succession to follow him. But that there will
ever be a second General Booth, or that there could be a series of
General Booths, able to hold the organization as he has, is incredible.
We have talked with leading officers of his Army on this subject and
find that they too, are looking for changes. The fact that the social
work is having such a remarkable growth, while the spiritual work is
apparently unable to hold its own, is in itself a feature demanding a
change. The Army of industrial and social officers and employees will
not be bound by the same ties to the General as his former Army of
spiritual officers and soldiers. The latter were possessed with an
emotional, fanatical enthusiasm which blinded them to everything save
the service of their much adored General. The former have a different
outlook on life. They are the new Army, a result of tendencies inherent
in the growth of the movement. They look at humanity and individuals
from other standpoints than that of the salvation of the soul. The
material side of society, with its institutions of business, and
practical forms of charitable relief, occupies a large amount of their
attention. This has already led to considerable differentiation of
government and control. Take, for example, the corporation, "The
Industrial Homes Company" controlling eighty-four industrial
institutions in the United States, and managed by a board of directors
in New York City. This example is opening the way toward a future
government by a board of some sort for other departments of the Army,
and in time for the spiritual department, and then the further step of
representation of members on these boards will not be far distant. At
any rate we see reason for hoping that, while other improvements are
taking place, the government of the Army will not be a handicap to the
movement.
By the third objection, that the Army in its financial dealings does not
take the public sufficiently into its confidence, is meant that complete
records of detailed expenditure are not issued. The public provides for
a large part of the income of the Army, and it has a right to know just
how and where that income is spent. The man and woman who is being
continually confronted by a lassie on the street with a little box for
the receipt of contributions, after contributing again and again, is
likely to ask the question, just where is this money going; and it would
be of advantage to the Army itself, if it would issue a more definite
statement of the use to which it puts public money. Some people are
satisfied with the general report that "the Army is doing good," but
there are many who would contribute more largely, if they knew directly
for what they were contributing. In reply to this criticism, the Army
states that it deposits regularly with the state authorities a
statement showing the disposition and state of the finances of its
corporations, such as "The Reliance Trading Company" and "The Salvation
Army Industrial Homes Company."
The Army also issues every year a balance sheet which shows its assets
and liabilities on a large scale. But this is not sufficient. The
ordinary person can receive no light from either the statement deposited
with the state authorities or the yearly balance sheet published by the
Army. In fact, although the Army uses the services of an expert
accountant in getting out this balance sheet, for all that the public
knows, it may be using the funds entrusted to it in any way it wishes.
This should be remedied by a regular statement, clearly revealing the
disposition of every cent donated.
A discussion of the preceding objection leads us to the fourth
objection, that the Army collects funds on the strength of its social
work, and applies these funds to the carrying on of its religious
propaganda.[97] The Army denies this, but admits that there is a good
deal of money collected for the general work, there being no specific
object implied when it is collected, other than a statement of the
various departments in which the Army is working, and of their extent.
Of course, the social work comes in for strong presentation on the
statement, but the money not being collected for any one object, the
Army is at liberty to apply it to any branch of its work whether
spiritual or social. This again shows the need of greater definiteness
and accuracy in the Army's report to the public.
A fifth objection is the lack of accuracy shown by the Army in its
reports of work accomplished.[98] This has special reference to the
statistics published by the Army, and is a good criticism. At different
times and in different parts of the world, statistics are given out,
which seems to emanate from no one authority, which are often
contradictory, and which create confusion in the mind of the person
wishing to get at the facts. As a result of a good deal of recent
criticism on this point, all future statistics of the Army in the United
States are to come from one point only, are to be in charge of an
expert, and no publication of statistics is to be allowed without the
consent of the National Headquarters.
The sixth and last objection is a very important one and one which has
been seen in the history of organizations without number, viz: that the
organization tends to become an end in itself, instead of a means to an
end. This objection is also allied to a former one regarding a lack of
cooperation on the part of the Army with other organizations. More and
more an organization, formed as is the Army, feels complete in itself,
and works continually for its own interests and its own glory. In a
large number of instances the objective point that was once humanity and
the glory of God tends to become the advancement of the Army. While
feeling that this objection is a serious one, it still cannot be
considered as anything but unavoidable, considering the government and
general character of the movement. If it were possible for the Army to
be governed locally, and to some extent, nationally by boards, a part of
whose membership represented the public, we believe that the tendency to
advance its own interest would be diminished. Study out the workings and
control of this organization, and it is found a machine, ever seeking to
increase its power and field of work. If this machine could be
controlled to some extent by the public which feeds it, it might be kept
as a useful servant, but otherwise, in spite of the great service which
it does society to-day, the tendency to get away from its object and to
become an object itself, will be more and more dangerous.
In conclusion, then, we find that these objections advanced by the
critics are not without foundation, and while some may be more
tendencies than actualities, it lies with the organization to guard
itself from them. We have found the Army an efficient worker along
several lines, and society owes it a considerable debt for past service
and lessons learned from it. Hence it would be a great pity for its
efficiency as a great public servant to be lessened by a lack of
publicity regarding its finance, or by a narrow, self-centered policy,
or by a too centralized form of government. Some of the Army leaders are
men of great hearts and strong minds, and it is to be hoped that,
whenever in the future, the opportunity offers to make a beneficial
change of policy in its duty toward the public or toward its sister
organizations engaged in charitable work or in its own internal
administration, that these leaders will stand firmly for what they
believe, and demand the necessary change.
FOOTNOTES:
[97] See the "S. A. and the Public," Ch. 5.
[98] See the "Social Relief Work of the S. A.," p. 4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
American Journal of Sociology, Volume III.
Besant, Sir Walter,
The Farm and the City,
Contemporary Review, 72-792.
Booth, Bramwell,
I. A Day with the Salvation Army,
S. A. Press, London, 1904.
II. Illustrated Interviews,
S. A. Press, London, 1905.
Booth, Charles,
Life and Labor of the People,
The Macmillan Co., New York, 1899.
Booth, Commander Eva,
Where Shadows Lengthen,
S. A. Press, New York, 1906.
Booth, Florence E.
A Peep into My Letter Bag,
S. A. Press, London, 1905.
Booth, William,
I. In Darkest England, and the Way Out,
S. A. Press, London, 1890.
II. Social Service in the Salvation Army,
S. A. Press, London, 1903.
III. The Doctrines of the Salvation Army,
S. A. Press, London.
IV. The Why and Wherefore of the Rules and Regulations
of the Salvation Army,
S. A. Press, London.
V. Orders and Regulations for Field Officers,
S. A. Press, London.
Booth-Tucker, Commander,
I. William Booth, Life of
S. A. Press, New York, 1898.
II. The Salvation Army in the United States,
S. A. Press, New York, 1899.
III. Social Relief Work of the Salvation Army in the
United States,
S. A. Press, New York, 1900.
IV. Our Future Pauper Policy in America,
S. A. Press, New York, 1898.
V. Prairie Homes for City Poor,
S. A. Press, New York, 1899.
VI. A Review of the Salvation Army Land Colony in California,
S. A. Press, New York, 1903.
Coates, Thomas F. G.
The Prophet of the Poor,
E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1906.
Dawson, William Harbutt,
The German Workman,
Chas. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1906.
Devine, Edward T.,
The Principles of Relief,
The Macmillan Co., New York, 1905.
Hadleigh,
The Salvation Army Colony,
S. A. Press, London, 1904.
Haggard, H. Rider,
The Poor and the Land,
Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1905.
Higgins, Mrs. Catherine,
Love's Laborings in Sorrow's Soil,
S. A. Press, New York, 1904.
Huxley, T. H.,
Social Diseases and Worse Remedies,
The Macmillan Co., New York, 1891.
Manson, John,
The Salvation Army and the Public,
E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1906.
Precipices: A Sketch of Salvation Army Social Work,
S. A. Press, London, 1904.
Report of Committee of Fifteen,
The Social Evil,
G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1902.
Report of the Departmental Committee, Appointed to Consider
Mr. Rider Haggard's Report on Agricultural Settlements in
British Colonies.
Wyman & Sons, London, 1906.
Riis, Jacob A.,
I. How the Other Half Lives,
Chas. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1902.
II. The Children of the Poor,
Chas. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1902.
III. A Ten Years' War,
Houghton, Mifflin & Co., New York, 1900.
IV. The Peril and Preservation of the Home,
Geo. W. Jacobs' & Co., Philadelphia, 1903.
Ruskin, John,
Sesame and Lillies,
Donohue, Hernneberry and Co., Chicago.
Seager, Henry Rogers,
Introduction to Economics,
Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1908.
Selected Papers on the Social Work of the Salvation Army,
S. A. Press, London, 1907.
Solenberger, Edwin D.,
The Social Relief Work of the Salvation Army,
Byron & Willard Co., Minneapolis, 1906.
Swan, Annie S.,
The Outsiders,
S. A. Press, London, 1905.
Warner, Amos G.,
American Charities,
T. J. Crowell & Co., New York, 1894.
VITA.
The author of this dissertation, Edwin Gifford Lamb, was born in London,
England, December 22, 1878. He attended private schools in that city and
then spent three years in Northwestern Canada without schooling. After
this he went to California where he prepared for college in the
preparatory department of the University of the Pacific. He became a
citizen of the United States as soon as eligible and graduated from
Leland Stanford Junior University in 1904, with the degree of A. B. In
the year 1904-'05, he was a student at Union Theological Seminary and
Columbia University. During the year 1905-'06, he held a scholarship in
Sociology at Columbia University. At this institution he studied under
Professors F. H. Giddings, John B. Clark, H. R. Seager, H. L. Moore, J.
Dewey, F. J. E. Woodbridge and W. P. Montague. Since that time he has
been an instructor in the Harström School, Norwalk, Connecticut.
Transcriber's Note:
Inconsistent hyphenation and capitalization have been left as in the
original text. The same is true for inconsistent abbreviations for U. S.
states and inconsistent placement of footnote markers.
CHAP. III. (in the original text) has been changed to CHAPTER III. for
consistency.
Punctuation has been standardized. Spelling mistakes have been
corrected, except for the items listed below, which have not been
changed.
The book seems to use fl., rather than ff., as an abbreviation that
refers to the pages following a number.
This book refers twice to the title "Sesame and Lillies." In other
sources, that title is sometimes spelled as "Sesame and Lilies."
On the list of "Examples of Salvation Army Hotel Lodgers," under No. 3,
the city name Pittsburgh is misspelled as Pittsburg in the original
text.