The Social Work of the Salvation Army

by Edwin Gifford Lamb

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.