{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39814/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39814","id":"gutenberg_39814","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39814","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Churches -- Montana -- Beaverhead County","Churches -- New Mexico -- Union County","Churches -- South Dakota -- Hughes County","Churches -- Wycoming -- Sheridan County","Social surveys -- United States"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive and the Gooogle Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHURCH ON THE CHANGING FRONTIER\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration: BIG HOLE RIVER, MONTANA]\n\n\n\n\n  COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS SURVEYS\n\n  TOWN AND COUNTRY DEPARTMENT\n  EDMUND DES. BRUNNER, Director\n\n\n  THE CHURCH ON THE CHANGING FRONTIER\n\n  A STUDY OF THE HOMESTEADER AND HIS CHURCH\n\n\n  BY HELEN O. BELKNAP\n\n\n  WITH ILLUSTRATIONS\n  MAPS AND CHARTS\n\n\n  NEW YORK\n  GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1922,\n  BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY\n\n  PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe Committee on Social and Religious Surveys was organized in January,\n1921. Its aim is to combine the scientific method with the religious\nmotive. The Committee conducts and publishes studies and surveys, and\npromotes conferences for their consideration. It cooeperates with other\nsocial and religious agencies, but is itself an independent organization.\n\nThe Committee is composed of: John. R. Mott, Chairman; Ernest D. Burton,\nSecretary; Raymond B. Fosdick, Treasurer; James L. Barton and W. H. P.\nFaunce. Galen M. Fisher is Associate Executive Secretary. The offices are\nat 111 Fifth Avenue, New York City.\n\nIn the field of town and country the Committee sought first of all to\nconserve some of the results of the surveys made by the Interchurch World\nMovement. In order to verify some of these surveys, it carried on field\nstudies, described later, along regional lines worked out by Dr. Warren H.\nWilson[1] and adopted by the Interchurch World Movement. These regions\nare:\n\nI. Colonial States: All of New England, New York, Pennsylvania and New\nJersey.\n\nII. The South: All the States south of Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio\nRiver east of the Mississippi, including Louisiana.\n\nIII. The Southern Highlands Section: This section comprises about 250\ncounties in \"The back yards of eight Southern States.\"\n\nIV. The Middle West: The States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois,\nWisconsin, Iowa and northern Missouri.\n\nV. Northwest: Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and eastern Montana.\n\nVI. Prairie: Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska.\n\nVII. Southwest: Southern Missouri, Arkansas and Texas.\n\nVIII. Range or Mountain: Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Idaho,\nWyoming, Nevada and western Montana.\n\nThe Director of the Town and Country Survey Department for the Interchurch\nWorld Movement was Edmund deS. Brunner. He is likewise the Director of\nthis Department for the Committee on Social and Religious Surveys.\n\nThe original surveys were conducted under the supervision of the\nfollowing:\n\nBeaverhead County--Rev. Charles T. Greenway, State Survey Supervisor of\nthe Interchurch World Movement for Montana. The County Leader was Rev.\nThomas W. Bennett.\n\nHughes County--Mr. C. O. Bemies, State Survey Supervisor of the\nInterchurch World Movement for South Dakota. The County Survey Leader was\nRev. H. H. Gunderson.\n\nSheridan County--Mr. A. G. Alderman, State Survey Supervisor of the\nInterchurch World Movement for Wyoming and Utah. The County Survey Leader\nwas Rev. M. DeWitt Long, D.D.\n\nUnion County--Rev. H. R. Mills, State Survey Supervisor of the Interchurch\nWorld Movement for New Mexico. The County Survey Leader was Professor A.\nL. England.\n\nIn the spring of 1921 the field worker, Miss Helen Belknap, of the\nCommittee on Social and Religious Surveys, visited these counties,\nverified the results of the survey work previously done, and secured\nadditional information not included in the original study.\n\nSpecial acknowledgment should be made to the ministers, county officers\nand others in these counties for their helpful cooeperation and assistance\nin the successful completion of the survey.\n\nThe statistical and graphical editor of this volume was Mr. A. H.\nRichardson of the Chief Statistician's Division of the American Telephone\nand Telegraph Company, formerly connected with the Russell Sage\nFoundation.\n\nThe technical advisor was Mr. H. N. Morse of the Presbyterian Board of\nHome Missions, who was also associate director of the Town and Country\nSurvey in the Interchurch World Movement.\n\nValuable help was given by the Home Missions Council; by the Council of\nWomen for Home Missions through their sub-Committee on Town and Country,\nand by a Committee appointed jointly by the Home Missions Council and the\nFederal Council of Churches for the purpose of cooeperating with the\nCommittee on Social and Religious Surveys in endeavoring to translate the\nresults of the survey into action. The members of this Joint Committee on\nUtilizing Surveys are:\n\n_Representing the Federal Council of Churches_\n\n  Anna Clark                    C. N. Lathrop\n  Roy B. Guild                  U. L. Mackey\n  A. E. Holt                    A. E. Roberts\n  F. Ernest Johnson             Fred B. Smith\n               Charles E. Schaeffer\n\n_Representing the Home Missions Council and the Council of Women for Home\nMissions_\n\n             L. C. Barnes, Chairman\n           Rodney W. Roundy, Secretary\n  Alfred W. Anthony             Rolvix Harlan\n  Mrs. Fred S. Bennett          R. A. Hutchison\n  C. A. Brooks                  Florence E. Quinlan\n  C. E. Burton                  W. P. Shriver\n  A. E. Cory                    Paul L. Vogt\n  David D. Forsyth              Warren H. Wilson\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nTHE POINT OF VIEW\n\n\nThis book is a study of the work of Protestant city, town and country\nchurches in four counties on the Range. It discusses the effect on the\nChurch of the changing conditions in the Rocky Mountain States, and the\ntask of the Church in ministering to the situation which exists to-day.\nThis survey, therefore, does not attempt to deal directly with the\nspiritual effect of any church upon the life of individuals or groups.\nSuch results are not measurable by the foot rule of statistics or by\nsurvey methods. It is possible, however, to weigh the concrete\naccomplishments of churches. These actual achievements are their fruits\nand \"by their fruits ye shall know them.\"\n\nThe four counties studied in this book are Beaverhead in Montana, Sheridan\nin Wyoming, Union in New Mexico and Hughes in South Dakota. Many\nconsiderations entered into their choice. For one thing, it must be borne\nin mind that this book, while complete in itself, is also part of a larger\nwhole. From among the one thousand county surveys completed or nearly\ncompleted by the Interchurch World Movement, twenty-six of those made in\nthe nine most representative rural regions of America were selected for\nintensive study. In this way it was hoped to obtain a bird's-eye view of\nthe religious situation as it exists in the more rural areas of the United\nStates. All the counties selected were chosen with the idea that they were\nfair specimens of what was to be found throughout the area of which they\nare a part.\n\nIn selecting the counties an effort was made to discover those which were\ntypical, not merely from a statistical viewpoint, but also from the social\nand religious problems they represented. For example, the four counties\ndescribed in this pamphlet were chosen because they are representative of\nlarge sections throughout the Range area.\n\nIt is recognized that there are reasons why exception may be taken to the\nchoice of counties. No area is completely typical of every situation. A\ncareful study of these counties, however, leads to the conclusion that\nthey are fair specimens of the region they are intended to represent.\n\nAll these studies have been made from the point of view of the Church,\nrecognizing, however, that social and economic conditions affect its life.\nFor instance, it is evident that various racial groups influence church\nlife differently. Germans and Swedes usually favor liturgical\ndenominations; the Scotch incline to the non-liturgical. Again, if there\nis economic pressure and heavy debt, the Church faces spiritual handicaps,\nand needs a peculiar type of ministry. Because of the importance of social\nand economic factors in the life of the Church the opening chapters of\nthis book are occupied with a description of these factors. At first\nglance some of these facts may appear irrelevant, but upon closer\nobservation they will be found to have a bearing upon the main theme--the\nproblem of the Church.\n\nNaturally the greatest amount of time and study has been devoted to the\nchurches themselves; their history, equipment and finances; their members,\nservices and church organizations; their Sunday schools, young people's\nsocieties and community programs, have all been carefully investigated and\nevaluated.\n\nIntensive investigation has been limited to the distinctly rural areas and\nto those centers of population which have less than five thousand\ninhabitants. In the case of towns larger than this an effort has been made\nto measure the service of such towns to the surrounding countryside, but\nnot to study each church and community in detail.\n\nThe material in this book presents a composite picture of the religious\nconditions within these four counties. Certain major problems, which were\nfound with more or less frequency in all four counties, are discussed, and\nall available information from any of the counties has been utilized. The\nopening pages of the book, however, summarize the conditions within each\ncounty. While this method has obvious drawbacks it is felt that the\nadvantages outweigh them, and that this treatment is the best suited to\nbring out the peculiar conditions existing throughout this area. The\nappendices present the methodology of the survey and the definitions\nemployed. They also include in tabular form the major facts of each county\nas revealed by the investigation. These appendices are intended especially\nto meet the needs of church executives and students of sociology who\ndesire to carry investigation further than is possible in the type of\npresentation used for the main portion of the book.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAPTER                                       PAGE\n\n     I THE RANGE COUNTRY                          19\n\n    II ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL TENDENCIES             40\n\n   III WHAT OF THE CHURCH?                        56\n\n    IV THE CHURCH DOLLAR                          71\n\n     V TO MEASURE CHURCH EFFECTIVENESS            77\n\n    VI THE PREACHERS' GOINGS AND COMINGS          90\n\n   VII NEGRO AND INDIAN WORK                      96\n\n  VIII NON-PROTESTANT WORK                        98\n\n    IX SEEING IT WHOLE                           102\n\n\n  APPENDICES\n\n   I METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS                 121\n\n  II TABLES                                      125\n\n\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS, MAPS AND CHARTS\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS\n\n  BIG HOLE RIVER, MONTANA                   _Frontispiece_\n\n                                                     PAGE.\n\n  THE TOWN LOCK-UP                                      23\n\n  LONELINESS IN UNION COUNTY                            25\n\n  AFTER SOME YEARS                                      25\n\n  TWO COMMUNITY CENTERS                                 27\n\n  A SPANISH-AMERICAN TYPE AND A TYPICAL ADOBE HOUSE\n  IN NEW MEXICO                                         31\n\n  WHERE MAIN STREET MIGHT HAVE RUN                      33\n\n  A WYOMING RANCH                                       35\n\n  A MONTANA MINING CAMP                                 36\n\n  WHEN OIL IS FOUND                                     37\n\n  A FARM BUREAU DEMONSTRATION                           41\n\n  A HOME DEMONSTRATION AGENT                            42\n\n  A TRUCK FARM IN HUGHES COUNTY                         44\n\n  FRUITS OF THE EARTH                                   45\n\n  UP-TO-DATE REAPING ON THE PLAINS                      47\n\n  WISDOM IS JUSTIFIED                                   49\n\n  CAMPING IN SHERIDAN COUNTY                            51\n\n  A FRONTIER CELEBRATION                                53\n\n  A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS                             57\n\n  NO ROOM FOR BOTH                                      58\n\n  EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND PARISH HOUSE                     64\n\n  A NEGLECTED OUTPOST OF CHRISTIANITY                   75\n\n  NOT A STORE BUT A CHURCH                              78\n\n  A CASE OF COOePERATION                                 80\n\n  HAPPY LITTLE PICNICKERS                               85\n\n  A GOOD TIME WAS HAD BY ALL                            85\n\n  PROGRAM OF A COMMUNITY RALLY                          88\n\n  A PARSONAGE BUT NO CHURCH                             94\n\n  AN OASIS IN THE DESERT                                98\n\n  WATERING HER GARDEN                                  103\n\n  A COMMUNITY RENDEZVOUS                               104\n\n  \"MARY, CALL THE CATTLE HOME!\"                        106\n\n  WAITING AT THE CHURCH                                107\n\n  HITTING THE TRAIL                                    108\n\n  THE FAMILY MANSION                                   110\n\n  A REAL COMMUNITY HOUSE                               114\n\n  A CHURCH THAT SERVES THE COMMUNITY                   115\n\n\nMAPS\n\n  MONTANA AND WYOMING                                   20\n\n  SOUTH DAKOTA AND NEW MEXICO                           22\n\n  CHURCH AND COMMUNITY MAP OF HUGHES COUNTY,\n  SOUTH DAKOTA                                       54-55\n\n  COMMUNITY MAP OF SHERIDAN COUNTY, WYOMING             59\n\n  MAP SHOWING CHURCHES AND PARISH BOUNDARIES OF\n  SHERIDAN COUNTY                                       59\n\n  CHURCH AND COMMUNITY MAP OF BEAVERHEAD COUNTY         60\n\n  MAP SHOWING CHURCHES AND PARISH BOUNDARIES OF\n  UNION COUNTY, NEW MEXICO                              61\n\n  COMMUNITY MAP OF UNION COUNTY, NEW MEXICO             62\n\n  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND PARISHES, UNION\n  COUNTY, NEW MEXICO                                    99\n\n\nCHARTS\n\n     I ANALYSIS OF PROTESTANT CHURCH MEMBERS            66\n\n    II CHURCHES GAINING IN MEMBERSHIP                   67\n\n   III ACTIVE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP                         69\n\n    IV CHURCHES WITH LESS THAN 50 MEMBERS               69\n\n     V RELATION OF SIZE OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP TO GAIN    70\n\n    VI THE CHURCH DOLLAR                                72\n\n   VII FREQUENCY OF CHURCH SERVICES                     79\n\n  VIII NUMBER OF PASTORS DURING PAST TEN YEARS          91\n\n    IX RESIDENCE OF THE MINISTERS                       93\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHURCH ON THE CHANGING FRONTIER\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nThe Range Country\n\n\nA vast expanse of endlessly stretching plains, dun-colored table-lands,\nmysterious buttes against a far horizon, and \"always the tremendous,\nalmost incredible distances\"--this is the typical Range country. There are\na sweep to it and a breadth, and such heavens over the earth! In the East,\nunless some crimson sunset attracts indifferent eyes, the sky makes less\nof the picture than the earth. But this is sky country.\n\nRoughly, the Range area comprises the states between the Middle West and\nthe Far West, and includes a wide variety of landscape. Contained in this\npicturesque area are eight states with parts of others, a million square\nmiles over which are spread four million people about a third less than\nare crowded into New York City. The four counties here studied, each in a\ndifferent state, provide fair samples of a great deal of the country.\nBeaverhead County, in Montana, and Sheridan County, in Wyoming, are not\nfar distant one from the other. Both are partly mountainous, rugged in\ncontour, with wide valleys rimmed by mountains, and miles of undulating\nrange land and low-lying hills traced by rivers. This is the country where\n\"the smoke goes straight up and the latch-string still hangs on the\noutside of the old-timer's cabin,\" where still the \"sage-hen clucks to her\nyoung at the water-hole in the coulee ... with lazy grace, the eagle\nswings to his nest in the lofty pinnacle and the prairie dog stands at his\ndoor and chatters.\"\n\nBeaverhead is in the extreme southwestern corner of Montana, slightly\nnorthwest of Yellowstone Park and straight south from Butte. It is bounded\nby Rocky Mountain ranges on the west, south and northwest. On the south\nand west it faces the State of Idaho. The county is well drained and\nwatered by the two principal rivers, the Big Hole and Beaverhead, and by\ntheir tributaries, and here, too, the Missouri River has its source.\nBeaverhead County embraces 5,657 square miles or 3,620,480 acres. Of\nthis area, 1,365,000 acres are included in the Beaverhead National Forest\nReserve scattered over the north, west and southern parts of the county. A\nsmall part of the Madison National Forest also extends into the county on\nthe west. The altitude at Monida, in the southern part of the county, is\nabout 6,500 feet above sea level.\n\n[Illustration: MONTANA AND WYOMING\n\nLocating Beaverhead and Sheridan Counties.]\n\nThe Wyoming county, Sheridan, lies in the extreme north central section of\nthe state, about 110 miles east of Yellowstone Park, Montana forming its\nnorthern boundary. Sheridan is about 100 miles long and thirty miles wide,\nthe total area being 2,574 square miles, or 1,647,360 acres, less than\nhalf the area of the Montana county, Beaverhead. The Big Horn Forest\nReserve covers 383,493 acres of Sheridan County. Rivers and creeks are\nnumerous, the chief ones being Tongue River, Powder River and Big Goose,\nPrairie Dog and Clear Creeks. The city of Sheridan, the county seat, has\nan altitude of 3,737 feet above sea level.\n\nThe other two counties, Union in New Mexico and Hughes in South Dakota,\nconsist largely of plain lands. Union lies in the northeastern corner of\nthe state of New Mexico, with three states, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas,\nto the north and east of her. Union included 5,370 square miles, or\n3,436,800 acres, at the time this survey was made. About one-sixth of the\nsouthwestern part of Union County has, however, been added to part of Mora\nCounty, to the southwest, to form a new county named Harding which was\nformally inaugurated on June 14th, 1921. The land consists mainly of dry,\nlevel plains and mesas, although there are some mountains and isolated\nhills or buttes. Aside from the mountainous area, which is wooded, there\nare scarcely any trees with the exception of a few along the larger creeks\nand those cultivated around ranch houses. The northwestern corner of the\ncounty is the most mountainous. The county is drained chiefly by Ute\nCreek, flowing southeast through the western and southwestern sections\ninto the Canadian River, and in the northern part by the beautiful\nCimarron. There are a number of small streams, but many are dry during a\nlarge part of the year. Union has exhilarating, bracing air and radiant\nsunshine.\n\n[Illustration: SOUTH DAKOTA AND NEW MEXICO\n\nLocating Hughes and Union Counties.]\n\nHughes is a small county almost exactly in the center of the State of\nSouth Dakota. It has the shape of a right-angled triangle with the\nMissouri River forming its hypothenuse from the northwest to the southeast\ncorner. It covers 485,760 acres of high and rolling prairie, with river\nand creek bluffs and bottom lands. Several creeks and small rivers flow\ndirectly through Hughes, and it is on the whole one of the best-watered\ncounties in South Dakota. Pierre, the county seat, is the capital of the\nstate.\n\n\nEarly Days on the Frontier\n\nThe story of these counties is bound up with the discovery and subsequent\nhistory of the West. It is, as Viola Paradise says, \"the story of Indians\nand early explorers; of hunters and fur traders in the days not so very\nlong ago when the bison ranged the prairies; then of a few ranchmen,\nscattered at great distances; of great herds of cattle and sheep,\nsucceeding the wild buffaloes; and of the famous cowboy; then of the\ncoming of the dry farmer with his hated fences; and of the crowding out of\nthe open range cattlemen and the substitution of the homesteader.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE TOWN LOCK-UP\n\nThis primitive jail at Bannock, once chosen as the capital of Montana, has\nheld some rough characters in its time, but is now abandoned.]\n\nIt was at Two Forks, in Beaverhead County, near what is now the village of\nArmstead, that Lewis and Clark, at a critical point in their expedition,\nwere met and befriended by the Shoshones, the tribe of their Indian girl\nguide, Sacajawea.[2] This was on August 17, 1805. White fur traders soon\nfollowed in the track of this famous expedition, and after them came Jason\nand Sidney Lee, in 1834, the first missionaries to reach Montana.\n\nThe next landmark in the county's history is the \"gold strike\" on\nGrasshopper Creek, in 1862. News of the find spread like wild-fire. Miners\nrushed to the creek and set up their tents, shacks and log cabins. Unlike\nRome, this first town of Montana, called Bannock, was built in a single\nnight. Soon after the gold seekers had settled down to work in earnest,\nthe road agents, a well-organized gang of \"roughs\" from all over the West,\nbegan to rob the stage-coaches travelling between Bannock and Virginia\nCity. \"Innocent\" was their pass-word; mustaches, beards and neckties tied\nwith a sailor's knot, their sign of membership. After a succession of\nminers, homeward bound with their gold-dust, had dropped from sight, never\nto be heard of again, those who remained decided to elect a sheriff. Their\nchoice fell upon a certain Henry Plummer, who was also sheriff of Virginia\nCity. Plummer, however, never seemed to arrest the right man, a\ncircumstance which was explained later when it was discovered that he was\nthe chief of the gang of road agents. The funeral of a miner who had died\nof mountain fever, the first man for some time to die from a natural\ncause, gave the community the opportunity to organize secretly the\n\"Vigilantes,\" and finally to round up the road agents, either hanging them\nor giving them warning to leave the country.\n\nMontana was established as a territory in 1864, Bannock becoming the first\ncapital, and in the sane year the first county seat of Beaverhead County.\nThe capital was removed to Virginia City in 1865, but not until 1882 did\nDillon become the county seat. The boundaries of Beaverhead changed very\nlittle until 1911, when 938 square miles of Madison County, 600,320 acres\nin all, were annexed. Men began settling on the land west of Bannock as\nearly as 1862; stock men mainly with herds. A few farmers also began to\ntake up choice bits of land along the rivers. The railroad, then the Utah\nNorthern, entered from the south in 1879. As it was being built, tent\ntowns were established every fifty miles. One of these towns was never\nmoved and grew into the present town of Dillon.\n\nThe first attempt to open up to the white man the land along the Powder\nand Lower Tongue Rivers, in what is now Sheridan County, was made by\nGeneral Patrick E. Conner on August 29, 1865, and was eminently\nsuccessful. He attacked the Arapahoe Indians with a force of 250 regular\nsoldiers and successfully routed seven hundred warriors. The next effort\nended, however, in disaster. On the twenty-first day of December, 1866, at\na point on Sheridan's southern boundary now known as Massacre Hill,\neighty-two officers and men sacrificed their lives to the hostile Sioux\nand Cheyennes in attempting to open a road across the country from Fort\nLaramie to Montana.\n\n[Illustration: LONELINESS IN UNION COUNTY\n\nThe black spot in the center of this not very attractive picture is a\nsquatter's hut.]\n\n[Illustration: AFTER SOME YEARS\n\nIn contrast with the top picture is this one of an attractive farmhouse\nwhich shows what can be done on the plains of New Mexico.]\n\nThe first claim ever taken up in this region was in 1878, on Little Goose\nCreek, near Big Horn, and the first irrigation ditch was constructed the\nnext year. Big Horn was laid out in 1880, and the first store opened. The\nfirst newspaper in the county was the Big Horn _Sentinel_, and the first\nagricultural fair was held in Big Horn in 1885. The first cabin was built\non the present site of Sheridan City in 1878. Sheridan was laid out in\n1882 and incorporated as a city in 1884. Until 1881, the territory\ncontained in Johnson and Sheridan Counties was unorganized and had no\ncounty government, but lay within the jurisdiction of Carbon County\ncourts. It became Johnson County in 1881. In 1887 it was divided by\npopular vote, the northern portion being named Sheridan County in memory\nof the gallant General Phil Sheridan, whose army, in the 1881 expedition,\ncamped on the site of Sheridan City.\n\nUnion County, in centuries past the camping grounds of vanished tribes, is\nnow white man's country, but it did not become so until the Santa Fe trail\nopened the great Southwest. With the Rabbit Ear Mountains to guide\nsettlers the old trail came across Union County, untravelled until 1822,\nand finally, two years later, the first wagons crept slowly westward,\nfacing in that pioneer mood now become historic the hardships of climate\nand the perils of hostile redskins. In Union County the story survives of\na massacre by Indians, which accounts for the tardy white settlements in\nthis region.\n\nIn 1870, there were about a dozen homes of white settlers in the whole\narea. The railroad, in 1887-88, encouraged development which began with\nClayton a year later. In February, 1893, the Territorial Legislature\nincorporated into Union County parts of Colfax, Mora and San Miguel. The\noriginal boundaries of Union County were not changed until 1903, when 265\nsquare miles were added to Quay County. Beginning in the northern part of\nthe county and gradually working southwards, stockmen took up claims close\nto water and used public land for grazing. Up to about 1900, most of the\nterritory remained open range land in which cattle were raised on a large\nscale, but since that time, it has gradually been homesteaded.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration: TWO COMMUNITY CENTERS\n\nThe local store and the school of De Grey community, Hughes County, S. D.,\nthe only meeting places for widely scattered \"neighbors.\"]\n\nThe section around Pierre, in Hughes County, was the oldest settlement in\nthe State of South Dakota. Fort Pierre, across the river from Pierre, was\nestablished in 1817, and there was continuous settlement after that. At\nthe conclusion of the Red Cloud War of 1866-68, the Laramie Treaty with\nthe Sioux Indians established a great Sioux reservation embracing all the\nland west of Missouri, from the Niobrara River on the south to the Cannon\nBall River on the north and northwest, to the Yellowstone. This\nreservation lay unbroken until 1876, the year when the Indians surrendered\nthe Black Hills. When the gold rush to the Black Hills began, Fort Pierre\nwas the nearest settled point and the traffic center. Because the railroad\nhad no right of way through the reservation, the line could not be\nextended to the Black Hills.\n\nThe first permanent American settlement in Hughes County was made in 1873,\nwhen Thomas L. Riggs established the Congregational Indian Mission at\nOahe, where he still continues a church. When the railway reached Pierre\nin 1881, there came the first \"boom\" in the history of the county. All\nsorts and conditions of people took up half sections, and Hughes County\nwas almost homesteaded between the years 1881 and 1883. The second boom\ncame in the years 1899-91, later followed by a reaction and slump. About\nthe year 1903, Pierre was selected as the State capital. All sorts of\nefforts were made to steal the honor for some other town until in 1905 a\nbill provided for a capitol building at Pierre which was completed in\n1913. The railway began in 1906 to extend to the Black Hills. Thereafter,\nuntil 1910, all the region west of Missouri was settled, and practically\nall of these new settlers came through Pierre. In 1911 the construction\nwas finished, people were out of work, and there came another slump. There\nwas also a drought during the period 1911-12-13.\n\n\nTransportation and Roads\n\nThere is practically no competition between railroads in any of these\ncounties. Each has one main line running through it, along which are\nlocated the county seat and other smaller centers. Beaverhead has the\nOregon Short Line; Sheridan the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Hughes the\nChicago & Northwestern; and Union the Colorado & Southern. Three counties\nalso have small sections of branch lines, and Sheridan has twelve miles of\ntrolley line giving city service, and reaching all but one of the mining\ncamps to the north of Sheridan City. None of these counties has really\nadequate train service. The distance from markets thus becomes an acute\nproblem in certain parts of all four counties, but especially in\nBeaverhead, Sheridan and Union on account of their greater distances.\n\nEach county has at least one good stretch of road. A large proportion of\nthe crossroads have never been improved. Many of them are only trails.\nBeaverhead has 2,365 miles of roads, of which 1,500 miles are improved and\n865 are unimproved. Approximately $278,147.00 has been spent on roads in\nthe last five years. The combined length of public roads in Sheridan\nCounty is 796 miles. Five miles are hard-surfaced, five are red shale,\nseventeen are gravel, 150 are State Highway and 410 are legally\nestablished traveled roads, sixty-six feet wide and dragged when\nnecessary. There are also 200 miles of unimproved roads known as\n\"feeders.\" During the last five years, approximately $310,000.00 has been\nspent on county roads, not including the amount spent on State roads. Both\nSheridan and Beaverhead are fortunate in their location on highways\nleading to Yellowstone Park; Beaverhead is on the Western Park-to-Park\nhighway, and Sheridan is on the Custer Battlefield highway.\n\nDuring the past four years roads in Union County have improved. The\nColorado to Gulf highway from Galveston to Denver, enters the county at\nTexline and continues for seventy-five miles to the Colfax County line\nnorthwest of Des Moines. This is graded road and it is maintained partly\nby the Federal Government, which pays 50 per cent., and partly by the\nState and county which pay 25 per cent. each. There are 180 miles of State\nhighways in the county for which the State and county each pay 50 per\ncent. Two Federal Aid projects are also under way in the county at\npresent. Something over 650 miles of roads are maintained by the county,\nand there are about 2,000 miles of community roads which are dependent\nupon local care.\n\nThe total road mileage of Hughes County is 978, with no hard-surfaced but\nwith four miles of gravel roads, and 175 miles of other improved roads.\nThere are also 799 miles of unimproved road. Forty-five miles of highway\nhave been built by the State between Pierre and Harrold and are maintained\nby the county.\n\n\nThe People\n\nAll these counties were settled chiefly by homesteaders who came from all\nover the United States, but chiefly from the Middle West and Southwest.\nMissouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma are the states most\nwidely represented. A great many are children of original homesteaders.\n\nThe breathless haste with which settlers occupied and developed this\ngreat primeval region of the West, rich in natural resources, is shown by\nthe following figures of population:\n\n            Beaverhead  Hughes  Sheridan  Union\n  1870          722\n  1880        2,712       262\n  1890        4,655     5,044     1,972\n  1900        5,615     3,684     5,122    4,528\n  1910        6,444     6,271    16,324   11,404\n  1920        7,369     5,711    18,132   16,680\n\nThe greatest period of growth for Beaverhead was from 1870 to 1880; for\nHughes from 1880 to 1890; but both Union and Sheridan made their largest\nincrease from 1900 to 1910, while Beaverhead during those years has made a\nslow, steady gain.\n\nHughes has had \"booms,\" and has gained and lost population in succeeding\ndecades. Sheridan and Union, the newer counties, have forged rapidly ahead\nof the others in population. Sheridan, on account of her city, has made a\nrapid urban increase, but her rural increase has been slow and steady.\nUnion is a large county with no Forest Reserve area and has been\nhomesteaded rapidly. Although, in 1903, 265 square miles were taken away\nfrom Union, the population in 1910 was 11,404, or an increase of 151.9 per\ncent. during the decade from 1900. The density of rural population per\nsquare mile in Beaverhead is 9.8, in Sheridan 3.5, in Hughes 3.3 and in\nUnion 3.\n\nThe West has a smaller percentage of foreign-born population than the East\nor Middle West. In three of the states represented, Montana, Wyoming and\nSouth Dakota, the percentage of foreign-born has decreased in the last\ndecade. In Montana, it decreased from 24.4 per cent. to 17 per cent.; in\nWyoming, from 18.6 per cent. to 13 per cent.; and in South Dakota, from\n17.2 per cent. to 12.9 per cent. New Mexico, with the smallest proportion\nof foreign-born of any of the four states, went from 6.9 per cent. in 1910\nto 8 per cent. in 1920.\n\nSheridan, with 15.9 per cent., is the only one of the four counties\nstudied whose foreign-born population remained constant. In Beaverhead,\nthe proportion fell from 18.1 to 14, in Hughes from 11.4 to 8.1 and in\nUnion from 2.2 to 1.7. The total number of foreign-born in all four\ncounties is 4,670, or 9.7 per cent. of the total number of people. Germans\npredominate in Union, Hughes and Sheridan. In Beaverhead, the\npredominating nationalities are Danes, Swedes and Austrians. The New\nAmericans in Beaverhead, Hughes and Union are largely on the land; in\nSheridan County, the majority are in the mining camps.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration: A SPANISH-AMERICAN TYPE AND A TYPICAL ADOBE HOUSE IN NEW\nMEXICO]\n\nLess than one hundred Indians are reported in the combined four counties,\nand the number has been diminishing in every county except Union.\nSixty-nine of the eighty-one reporting are in Hughes County, a small\nsection of which is included in the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. But\nHughes had 169 in 1910. Spanish-Americans in Union, a cross between\nMexicans and Pueblo Indians (the Spaniards brought no women with them for\n400 years), equal between one-fourth and one-third of the total\npopulation. They live chiefly in the south-central and southwestern\nsections of the county, and together with their habitations remind one of\npicturesque Mexico. Sheridan County has the largest proportion of negroes\nof any of the four counties--147 out of a total of 214; but these western\nstates in general have only a small percentage of negroes in their\npopulation, varying from 1.6 per cent in New Mexico to 9.7 in Wyoming. The\nChinese and Japanese in the four counties number, all told, less than 150.\n\n\nWide Spaces and Few People\n\nCounty areas ordinarily group themselves into so-called \"communities,\"\nwhere individuals share common social and economic interests centering in\na definite locality. In this country, with its scattered pioneer\npopulation, community groupings are less definite and permanent than in\nthe East or Middle West. Here they are usually determined by topography,\nand especially by the rivers and creeks and the railroad. Along the\nrailroad are trade centers which serve the entire county. The majority of\nthese communities are of small population and large area, with a small\ntrading center containing stores, hotel, school, possibly a church or two\nand some houses huddled together. The county seat largely centralizes the\nlife of each county.\n\nOutside the trade centers and the open country area included within their\ncommunity boundaries, the counties fall into certain social groupings.\nWhere the land is good, and is being intensively developed, there are\nwell-defined permanent communities. Some have even grown staid and\nconservative. In other sections the story is pathetically different. One\nlonely family, a forlorn row of claim shacks along the horizon, are all\nthat is left of a real social life that existed only a few years before. A\nwoman standing at the door of the only habitation in a round of sky and\nstretch of plain, tells how \"all the good neighbors are gone and us left\ngrieving for the fine times we once had.\" Transiency is usual in\nhomesteading country, many people only remaining long enough to homestead\ntheir land. In Beaverhead and Hughes, which have been longer homesteaded,\nthere is a larger proportion of residents of more than fifteen years than\nin the other two counties. But in all four counties, there are temporary\ngroups of people with some social life at present, which may or may not\nhave significance in the future. On the whole, present development tends\nto be permanent because most of the desirable land in Beaverhead, Sheridan\nand Union, and all of the land in Hughes has long since been taken up. All\ncommunity limits are more or less indefinite. For example, a rancher\nliving near the boundary of two communities may go to two or more centers\nfor trade. And a dance or barbecue will bring people from any number of\nthe communities.\n\n[Illustration: WHERE MAIN STREET MIGHT HAVE RUN\n\nThe hut of a lonely homesteader.]\n\nCounty interests tend to become concentrated in increasing proportion in\nthe county seat. Dillon, the Beaverhead County seat, is fairly well\nlocated in the central eastern section. It is considered one of the best\nbusiness towns of the state, drawing trade from every point in Idaho.\nDillon is a retired ranchers' town, conservative and wealthy. Community\nspirit is not manifest. The old settlers run the town and are not friendly\nto the ideas of others. Even a Commercial Club has found it hard to\nsurvive in Dillon. Sheridan City, the county seat of Sheridan County, with\na population of about 10,000, is wide-awake and progressive. Although\nthere are a number of growing industries and it is a division point on the\nrailroad, Sheridan is also dependent to a large extent upon farming.\nClayton, the county seat of Union, a town with a spirit of \"boost,\"\ninforms travellers by means of a bill board that it is \"the smallest town\non earth with a Rotary.\" Clayton's large proportion of transient\npopulation is at once typical of the frontier in its nonchalant spirit, in\nits cowboys with sombreros, jingling spurs and high-heeled boots that\nclick along the pavements; it typifies the Range country in the\ncanvas-covered wagons, coming in provided with camping outfits and rations\nto last for several days because \"home\" is far away. But all this is\ngradually changing, and Clayton is becoming more of a farming center, less\nlike the frontier and more like the Middle West. Pierre, the Hughes County\nseat and State capital, is a busy town. It has a number of industries and\nis the center for an extensive farming and stock-raising region, but the\ncapitol overshadows the rest of the town in importance.\n\n\nMeans of Livelihood\n\nCattle were once raised on a large scale in this country. That was the day\nof the cowboy. But with the coming of the homesteader and his fenced land,\nstock has had to be raised in smaller herds and more restricted areas. In\nthe old days, there was a great deal of open range land. Most of this has\nnow been homesteaded. Naturally the rancher has resented the steady\nappropriation of his \"free range\" by the farmer.\n\nWhile cattle raising is still the chief source of income, there has been a\nsteady gain in the relative value of farming, especially since the\nintroduction of irrigation and dry-farming methods. About half the farm\nland in both Beaverhead and Sheridan is under irrigation, and there is\nsome irrigated land in the northern part of Union, but practically no\nirrigation in Hughes County. Some dry farming is carried on in every\nsection of each county. General farming and dairying rank next to stock\nraising. Hay and forage are the chief crops. Considerable farm land is fit\nonly for range land for cattle; it is too broken or dry for crops.\nDairying is comparatively a new development.\n\nForest Reserve land in Beaverhead and Sheridan is allotted to ranches for\ncattle range. In Beaverhead National Forest, 10,530 acres have been\nhomesteaded and seventy-five claims have been listed, chiefly in 160 acre\ntracts. Very little homesteading has been done in the Big Horn National\nForest because the entire area is above the practical range of farm crops,\nand killing frosts occur every month in the year. In the entire forest,\nonly about a dozen tracts have been taken under the homestead laws,\naveraging a little over one hundred acres each; all have been abandoned,\nexcept a few used as summer resorts.\n\n[Illustration: A WYOMING RANCH\n\nThe home of a well-to-do rancher in Sheridan County.]\n\nAs is usually the case in frontier country, a large majority of the farms\nand ranches are operated by owners. South Dakota, at the threshold of the\nWest, has a larger proportion of tenancy than any of the other states\nrepresented. The percentage in South Dakota is 34.9 per cent., in New\nMexico it is 12.2 per cent., in Wyoming it is 12.5 per cent., and in\nMontana it is 11.3 per cent. In Beaverhead tenancy has decreased from 10.2\nper cent. in 1910 to 7.2 per cent. in 1920. In Sheridan, it has remained\nabout the same, 20.5 per cent. in 1910 and 20.4 per cent. in 1920. Hughes\nhas had a marked increase--from 16.6 per cent. in 1910 to 30.9 per cent.\nin 1920. Tenancy has increased 11.9 per cent. in Union during the past\ndecade. This has been partly because so much of the land is held by\nabsentee owners who have proved up on the land, moved away, and are\nwaiting for property to go up in value; also because on account of the\nhigh taxation some cattlemen find that they make better profits by renting\ninstead of owning.\n\nBeaverhead County is rich in minerals, including gold, silver, copper,\nlead, ore, graphite, coal and building stone. Comparatively little mining\nhas been done since the war on account of low prices. A large amount of\ncoal is produced in Sheridan County. Stretching out one after the other in\na compact series, there are six large mines north of Sheridan City, set in\nthe midst of an agricultural area and having little relation to the rest\nof the county. There is also a small coal mine being operated at Arvada in\nthe eastern part of the county. A number of farmers and ranchmen are lucky\nenough to have small coal veins on their land, and mine their own coal\nwith pick and shovel.\n\n[Illustration: A MONTANA MINING CAMP]\n\nOil is thought to be present in both Hughes and Union, but very little has\nbeen done with its development. There is some coal in the mountains in\nUnion, and building stone and deposits of lime and alum are found in some\ncommunities. There are numerous gas wells in Hughes County. Many ranches\nhave wells giving sufficient gas for all domestic purposes.\n\nEach county has a number of smaller industries, such as printing\nestablishments, lumber yards, etc. Sheridan City has several large plants,\nincluding an iron works, flour mill, sugar beet factory and a brick and\ntile plant. All the counties benefit from the summer auto-tourist trade.\nThe city and towns all have camping grounds for tourists. Sheridan has a\ntourist building, with a sitting-room, fire-place for rainy days and rest\nrooms, in her city park. Sheridan also has a park in the Big Horn\nMountains. Both Beaverhead and Sheridan have a small number of resorts.\nSheridan has three \"Dude\" ranches, the largest of which is the Eaton\nranch, established in 1904.\n\n\nThe Young Idea\n\nGood school systems have been developed in the comparatively short time\nsince these counties were organized and running as active units of group\nlife. Buildings are almost all fairly well built. Teachers receive good\nsalaries. Of course, the schools are nowhere near ideal. The isolation and\ndistances present serious school problems. Small rural schools persist\nwhere distances are great. Union is the only county of the four with any\nconsolidated schools. The problem of supervision is great. Each county has\nlocal school districts and a local board of trustees in each. The county\nsuperintendent, a woman in each county, has a difficult time visiting the\nmore remote schools and does not reach them often. Many roads and trails\nare practically impassable during the largest part of the school year.\nBecause of the isolation it is often difficult to find a teacher or to\nget a place for her to live, when one is secured. School terms vary from\nfive to nine months, the longer terms predominating. Only six communities\nin the four counties have active Parents' and Teachers' associations.\n\n[Illustration: WHEN OIL IS FOUND\n\nThe Snorty Gobbler Project at Grenville, N. M.]\n\nBesides the two elementary schools in Dillon, used as model schools by the\nState Normal which is located there, Beaverhead County has forty-six\nelementary schools. Two of these, the schools in both villages, Wisdom and\nLima, offer one year of high school. The only four-year high school in the\ncounty, located at Dillon, has sixteen teachers and a student enrollment\nof 185. The entire school enrollment in the county in 1920-21 was 2,671;\nthe total number of teachers, 100; the total cost of school maintenance\n$510,006.00. The State Normal had an enrollment of 561 during the summer\nof 1920; 190 in the winter of 1920-21 and 620 in the summer of 1921.\n\nThere were seventy-four schools running in Sheridan County in 1920-21, not\nincluding the city schools. In addition to the Sheridan High School, there\nare five schools in the county offering some high school training. Big\nHorn has had a four year course, but this year (1921-22) is sending her\nthird and fourth year high school pupils to Sheridan City in a school bus;\nDayton offers two years of high school, and Ranchester, Ulm and Clearmont\neach have one year. An annual county graduation day is held in the\nSheridan High School. It is an all-day affair with a picnic in the park in\nthe afternoon. The total number of pupils in rural schools in 1920-21 was\n1,850, the total cost of maintenance, $264,647.21. The Sheridan High\nSchool with its enrollment of 522 is the largest in the state. The total\nschool enrollment of the county, including the five Sheridan City\nelementary schools and the high school was 4,772. There was a total of 173\nteachers, of which ninety-six were employed in the rural schools. A\nparochial school in Sheridan City has an enrollment of about 180 and four\nteachers. The city also has two privately owned business colleges with a\ntotal enrollment of 150.\n\nIn Union County, there are 108 elementary schools outside of Clayton, with\na total enrollment of 4,500 and a force of 170 teachers. Nine schools have\nsome high school work. Five have a two-year course; two have a four-year\ncourse. Several elementary schools have been consolidated within the past\nfew years, and occupy new buildings to which the children living at a\ndistance are transported in motor trucks. Besides four earlier issues of\nschool bonds, totalling $79,000, the people have voted, in this year of\nhard times, an additional issue of $88,000. Clayton has four elementary\nschools with seventeen teachers and an enrollment of 723. The Clayton High\nSchool has twelve teachers and an enrollment of 225. It has a new\nwell-equipped building.\n\nHughes County has thirty-nine rural schools outside of Pierre. Four\nschools offer some high school work, two offering one year, one two years\nand one three years. Pierre has three elementary schools. The Pierre\nfour-year high school has 220 students. The total school enrollment of the\ncounty, including the schools in Pierre, was 1,530, the total number of\nteachers seventy and the total cost of maintenance $130,199.35. There is a\nGovernment Indian Industrial School located just outside Pierre.\n\nThe lack of opportunity for high school training in so large a part of\neach county, brings about an increasing migration into the county seat for\neducational advantages. Many families leave their ranches and move in for\nthe winter instead of sending a child or two. Some come in for elementary\nschools, because of bad roads and the inaccessibility of their country\nschool. This is one of the greatest factors in the growth of these\ncenters. To illustrate the number of pupils from the country, 150 of the\n522 pupils of the Sheridan High School are non-resident and all but about\nten are from Sheridan County. In Union County, fifty of the 225 pupils in\nthe Clayton High School come from all over the county, the majority coming\nfrom ten miles around Clayton. The number of county children attending\nClayton schools is increasing at the rate of about 15 per cent. a year.\nThese children have certain marked characteristics. They are older for\ntheir grade than the town children, they average higher marks, and are\nanxious to make the best of their opportunity. In other words, they do not\ntake education for granted, like the town or city child.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nEconomic and Social Tendencies\n\n\nGrowth of the Farm Bureau\n\nNo greater laboratory exists for scientific farming than in this western\ncountry. A Farm Bureau, popularized through county agents, is an asset of\nprime significance to a region that will endow the rest of the country\nwith the fruits of its development. Hughes, in 1915, was the first of the\nfour counties to organize a Farm Bureau. Sheridan and Union followed in\n1919. Beaverhead County has no Farm Bureau. A County Farm Agent was\nemployed for eight months in 1918, but did not have the support of the\nranchers. They felt that an agent, in a stock raising county like\nBeaverhead where hay flourished without cultivation, was a needless\nexpense. As one rancher remarked, \"We did not want some one who knew less\nabout our business than we did.\" As an index to the success attending\nexpert farm advice, one entire community in Beaverhead attempted and\nabandoned dry farming, whereas in other counties where Farm Bureaus and\nagents have given service and advice no entire community has failed so\ncompletely.\n\nThe Farm Bureaus not only improve agricultural methods, but are creating\nlocal leaders and a community spirit. The Farm Bureau offers a definite\nprogram that is rewarding if adopted. It develops in the individual\ncommunity a spirit of independence and self-respect which must precede\ncooeperation. The Sheridan Farm Bureau records a typical objective: \"to\npromote the development of the most profitable and permanent system of\nagriculture; the most wholesome and satisfactory living conditions; the\nhighest ideals in home and community life, and a genuine interest in the\nfarm business and rural life on the part of the boys and girls and young\npeople.... There shall be a definite program of work ... based on the\nresults of a careful study of the problems of the county. It shall be\nformulated and carried out by the members of the organization, with the\nassistance of their agents and specialists as may be available from the\nState Agricultural College.\"\n\nEach Farm Bureau has county leaders or a board of directors, each member\nspecializing in and promoting some particular project, as poultry, cattle,\nmarketing of grain, dairying, roads, child welfare, clothing, food and\ncounty fair. During 1919-1920 forty-three Farm Bureau meetings were held\nin Sheridan County, with a total attendance of 1,321. Twenty extension\nschools or courses were given with a total attendance of 261. Two\ncommunity fairs were held, and six communities put on recreation programs.\nThe Farm Bureau upheld Governor Carey's announcement of Good Roads Day by\ndonating $3,300 worth of work on the roads. Seventeen communities were\norganized; twelve have community committees. Nothing can better create\ncommunity spirit and enlist cooeperation.\n\n[Illustration: A FARM BUREAU DEMONSTRATION\n\nThe County Agent for Sheridan is making grasshopper poison.]\n\nEach community also adopts a program of work of its own under the\nleadership of the community committee. A community program for Union\nCounty, which is inaccessible to the railroad, is as follows:\n\n  Program of Work    Goal for 1921  Accomplishments  Work Still To Be\n                                        to Date           Done\n\n  Poultry            Market eggs    Letters written  Prices not sufficient\n                                      for markets      to warrant shipping\n                                                       as yet\n\n  Livestock          Organize pig   Two talks\n                       club         Two leaders\n                     Organize calf    secured\n                       club\n\n  Home beautifi-     Plant trees,   Planted\n    cation             vines and\n                       shrubbery\n\n  Road               Fix bad        Secured county   Keep at it\n                       places         aid. Got\n                                      bridge\n\n  Rodent             Rodent poison  11 poisoned      Eradication\n                       demonstration\n\n  Coyote             \"Kill 'em\"     Nine put out     Complete it\n                                      coyote poison\n                                      and killed 48\n                                      coyotes\n\n[Illustration: A HOME DEMONSTRATION AGENT\n\nHere is a Woman's Club at an all-day meeting in Union County receiving\ninstructions in the workings of an iceless refrigerator.]\n\nThe Farm Bureau works with the County Agents, the Home Demonstration\nAgents, and the Boys' and Girls' Club leaders, wherever such agents exist.\nThe County Agents are giving themselves whole-heartedly to their jobs, and\nthe demands for their services keep them busy driving through counties for\npurposes of demonstration or organization. The Hughes County agent reports\nthe following schedule: fifty days on animal disease, thirty-seven and\none-half days on boys' and girls' club work, thirty-seven days on\norganization, twenty-three days on marketing and 116 days on miscellaneous\nwork.\n\nSheridan and Union have Home Demonstration agents, energetic women, who go\nout over the county organizing groups of women and giving demonstrations\nand talks. Some of their achievements in Sheridan County may be cited.\nHot lunches were established in six rural schools in cooeperation with the\nPublic Health Nurse; some phase of health work was carried on in four\ncommunities and in Sheridan City schools a clothing school was held; 200\nwomen were taught the Cold Pack method of canning; four home convenience\ndemonstrations were given; five pressure cookers were purchased;\ntwenty-five flocks were culled; twelve American cheese demonstrations were\ngiven, and 500 pounds of cheese made.\n\nBoys' and girls' club work is carried on in every county except\nBeaverhead. The boys and girls all over the county are organized into\nclubs and work on various kinds of projects. Union County's record for\n1920 is notable:\n\n  Kind of Club   Total Membership  Value of Products, 1920\n  Pig Club            83                  $8,107.00\n  Calf Club           39                   1,568.00\n  Poultry Club        30                     367.00\n  Cooking  \"          36                     220.00\n  Serving  \"          36                     310.00\n  Bean     \"          13                     165.60\n  Maize    \"          10                     120.00\n  Corn     \"          25                   1,765.00\n                     ---                 ----------\n    Total            272                 $11,622.60\n\nPure-bred hogs and cattle owned by boys and girls are sold under the\nauspices of the Farm Bureau. Prizes are offered. In Sheridan County, the\ncounty club champions are sent to the \"Annual Round-up\" at the State\nUniversity. In Hughes, three teams of three members each were given a free\ntrip to the State Fair as a reward for their efforts and achievements. One\nmember of the Cow-Calf Club won a free trip to the International Live\nStock Show in Chicago as a prize for his exhibit at the State Fair.\n\n\nDevelopment of Cooeperation\n\nIrrigation means cooeperation, but cooeperation in buying and marketing is\ncomparatively a new development. Cooeperation, however, is a necessity\nbecause so many farmers are distant from the trade centers and shipping\npoints. Cooeperation is the prime interest of the Farm Bureaus which, in\nsome counties, undertake cooeperative buying and selling. The Hughes County\nFarm Bureau has been especially effective in promoting cooeperative\nenterprise. Says the County Agent:\n\n    The Medicine Valley Farm Bureau has done considerable work along\n    different lines, but the most outstanding has been the promotion of a\n    Farmers' Cooeperative Elevator. Most of the stock in this enterprise\n    has been sold and work will be started very soon on the building....\n    The Harrold Live Stock Shipping Association was promoted by the Farm\n    Bureau Community Club south of Harrold. Several meetings were held by\n    this club on marketing. Members were supplied with cooeperative\n    shipping instructions and information. At the present time, most of\n    the stock shipped out of Harrold is shipped through this organization.\n    It has proved a success. This community club was also instrumental in\n    the promotion of a cooeperative elevator at Harrold ... in addition to\n    the organization projects on marketing, considerable buying and\n    selling in car-load lots has been done by the different Farm Bureau\n    Community Clubs. The Snake Butte Community Club has bought four\n    car-loads of coal for its members, with a saving of at least $200.\n    They have also bought a car of flour, a car of apples and a car of\n    fence posts, all of which has effected a saving of another $200. Three\n    other community clubs have bought supplies by the car-load. These\n    purchases have netted members of the county a saving of approximately\n    six hundred dollars.... (The Farm Bureau through its exchange service\n    has located 4,550 bushels of seed flax, 495 pounds of Grimm alfalfa\n    seed, 200 bushels of seed wheat, 100 bushels of rye and 800 bushels of\n    seed corn.) One thousand, six hundred and eighty-five pounds of wool\n    was also directed to the state pool of the National Wool Warehouse and\n    Storage Company at Chicago, Illinois.\n\n[Illustration: A TRUCK FARM IN HUGHES COUNTY]\n\nBeaverhead County has three active stock-growers' associations, the most\nactive of which is the Big Hole Stockmen's Association which established\nstock yards at Wisdom and at Divide, their shipping point. They finally\ninduced the railroad to help pay for the yards. This association was\nfounded chiefly to work for a road from the Big Hole over into the Bitter\nRoot Valley. The Forest Service was willing to help build the road if\nBeaverhead and Ravalli Counties would also help. Beaverhead County did\nnot favor the project because it feared competition from the Bitter Root\nproducts. But the Big Hole Valley wanted the road on account of the\nbusiness it would bring in. The Stockmen's Association raised about $7,000\ntowards it and the county finally put in $3,500. Besides their\ncontribution of money, the members of the Association donated time and\nteams. One reason why they have held together so well and so long was\nbecause they shared the debt. It has been hard sledding, but they have won\nout. Their wage scale, which is established annually, was successfully\noperated for the first time last year (1921), when all but two ranchers\nstuck to the prescribed wage of $2.00 per day for hay hands. They have\nfixed up the Fair Grounds at Wisdom and give a Pow-wow there every year.\n\n[Illustration: FRUITS OF THE EARTH\n\nThe Community spirit expresses itself in friendly rivalry at Union County\nFair.]\n\nLargely through the influence of the Farm Bureau, two cooeperative\norganizations were recently started in Union County, the Union County\nFarmers' Mutual Hail Insurance Association and the Registered Live Stock\nand Pure Bred Poultry Association. There is only one other active\ncooeperative at present, a Telephone Company at Mount Dora, capitalized at\n$3,000. A state-wide marketing association has 280 Union County members\nwho produced in 1920 one-third of all the products marketed through the\norganization. Besides the marketing associations, Hughes has a cooeperative\nFarmers' Lumber Company.\n\nAll these counties have cooeperative stores. A cooeperative store at Wisdom\nin Beaverhead County has fifty stockholders. Lima had a cooeperative store\nin 1919-1920 which failed through poor management. Two Rochdale\nCooeperative stores were started three years ago in Ulm and Clearmont in\nSheridan County. When the central organization took the surplus earnings\nof the branch stores to make up failures in other stores in the chain\ninstead of declaring dividends, both the Sheridan County stores withdrew\nand organized cooeperatives of their own in March, 1921. Sheridan City for\nthe past eight years has had a cooeperative store in which ranchers and\nfarmers from nearby communities have most of the shares. There is also a\nMiners' Store in Sheridan City. Hughes County has one cooeperative store\nwith 150 stockholders.\n\n\nUrban and Rural Rivalry\n\nAll the centers are service stations for the farmers. In some places the\nold, deep-seated antagonism between town and country is noticeable. There\nis the feeling that the merchants overcharge, that big business sets the\nprices, that capital is to be distrusted. Most of the merchants have been\nof the old individualistic type which places the dollar higher than the\ncommunity, an idea which the Commercial Clubs are altering. This is\nespecially noticeable in Union County, where the feeling between country\nand town has been very bitter. The farmers unfortunately are unfriendly to\nand distrustful of the merchants and business men. Each group is really\ninterdependent, but 'such' a feeling retards progress and development. As\none leading farmer put it, \"The prejudice between the farmer and business\nman _must_ be overcome. There is no limit to the results if we can just\nget together.\"\n\nThe farmers feel that the average merchant in buying farm products has not\ndiscriminated between a good and a bad product so far as price goes. In\nshort, the honest farmer does not want to sell bad eggs or sandy maize,\nbut he doesn't like to get a poor price for a good product. Farmers feel\nthat the merchants have overcharged them for goods and obtained high\nprofits and they are undoubtedly right to some extent. The farmers believe\nthat the fact of their charging goods on credit with the merchant gives\nthe latter an unfair advantage over them, that the merchant thinks he can\npay any price he wants when purchasing from the farmer.\n\nChambers of Commerce and Commercial Clubs are working toward a better\nunderstanding. Get-together meetings have been started. The first Union\nCounty meeting prepared the farmers by letters and visits, in order to\nsuggest a more friendly and constructive meeting ground. In Sheridan and\nPierre, the Commercial Clubs have been very ready to cooeperate in any\nmovements that would benefit the farmer. An example of happier relations\nbetween farmer and merchant is the rest room for farmers' wives maintained\nin Dillon by the Good Government Club.\n\n[Illustration: UP-TO-DATE REAPING ON THE PLAINS\n\nAnswering the World's Prayer for Daily Bread.]\n\n\nHard Times\n\nIn the history of this Range area the last three years have been the most\ndifficult for farmers and ranchers. They have suffered acutely from the\nsharp drop in prices of stock and farm products. Part of the Range section\nhas had a severe drouth. Beaverhead has had several dry years. Last year\n(1921), thousands of dollars' worth of hay had to be shipped into the\ncounty as feed, and much livestock had to be sent out of the county to\ngraze. In addition to drouth, grasshoppers, fairly plentiful before,\nbecame a scourge in part of Sheridan the summer of 1921. The farmers,\nhelped by the Farm Bureau, worked hard to exterminate them with poisoned\noats. Simultaneously with the drouth and grasshopper scourge in certain\nsections, the decrease in prices has led to hard times and much\nsuffering. Whereas a rancher was \"well off\" a few years ago, he now\nconsiders himself lucky if he is \"in the hole\" for only a few thousand.\nThe farmers are bitter. They feel that something is wrong with the\n\"system.\" One can hardly blame them when crops bring no profit, while\ntaxes seem to be higher than ever. The hard times have made ranchers and\nfarmers do more serious thinking about taxes, farm conditions, and the\nmarketing of farm products than they have ever done before.\n\nE. T. Devine, writing on \"Montana Farmers\" in _The Survey Magazine_, gives\nthe farmers' position:\n\n    Montana farmers are much like other American producers, urban and\n    rural, but they are even harder hit than most of their fellow\n    countrymen, except, of course, unemployed town workers. They share in\n    the general calamity of relatively low prices for agricultural\n    products and they have also just passed through several years of\n    unprecedented drouth. Freight rates are high and burdensome, and the\n    things the farmers have to buy are still high in proportion to the\n    prices which they get for their grain and stock. These farmers are\n    therefore in debt, and are borrowing more than they can. They are\n    actually and not merely in a chronically distorted imagination, having\n    difficulty in paying their interest and taxes; and if their equity is\n    small they are losing it.... The farmers are not seeking fundamental\n    or permanent solutions. What concerns them is to get immediate and\n    appreciable relief from taxes.\n\nHard times, as in Union County, usually strike our best assets. The county\nfirst had a County Agent in 1915, a Home Demonstration Agent in 1917, and\nAssistant County Agent in 1918 and a Club Leader in 1918. Unfortunately,\nthe hard times forced upon the country a program of retrenchment. In 1920\nthe Assistant County Agent and, early in 1921, the Club Leader were\nremoved. At present, there is a determined effort in some quarters to\ndispense with the other two workers.\n\n\nSocial Agencies\n\nCountry folk keep track of things. County papers as well as outside\nnewspapers are read in all communities. These outside newspapers come from\nDenver, Kansas City, Butte or Omaha, depending upon location. Four\nnewspapers are published in Beaverhead, two in the county seat, and one in\neach of the two villages. Rural Sheridan prints but one newspaper, _The\nTongue River News_, at Ranchester. Two dailies are published in Sheridan\nCity. Three communities in Union, and three in Hughes County, publish\ntheir own papers. The town of Clayton has the _Examiner_ and the\n_Tribune_, as well as a paper printed in Spanish. Grenville and Des\nMoines, two villages in Union, also have local papers. In Hughes County,\nPierre has two papers, and Blunt and Harrold one each. The editors are\nalmost all progressive and up-to-date, and vitally interested in the\nwelfare of their communities.\n\nMore and better libraries are an urgent need of all these counties.\nSheridan, Pierre and Dillon all have splendid Carnegie libraries. The\nmajority of the schools have small school libraries. But there is only one\npublic library in Beaverhead County, besides that in Dillon, in the\ncommunity house of Wisdom village. Sheridan has no other library in the\nwhole county. The only libraries in Union County are a collection of books\nfor public use in the office of a village lumber yard and a small\ntravelling library. Hughes County has a town library and three circulating\nlibraries.\n\n[Illustration: WISDOM IS JUSTIFIED\n\nThe Community House at Wisdom, Beaverhead County.]\n\nGood leadership is always essential to progress. Every one of these\ncounties is fortunate in having some splendid county-wide leaders who are\ndevoting themselves to their county's progress. Wherever a county has a\nFarm Bureau, leadership is developed by that organization. But in rural\nsections where distances prevent people from coming together, leadership\nis wanting. Each ranch is a small isolated world and by the very nature of\nthings there are few community undertakings. The development of local\nleadership, especially in remote sections, should become the concern of\nthis country. As Hart says in his book, \"Community Organization,\" \"the\ndestiny of civilization is wrapped up in the future of community life. If\nthat life becomes intelligent, richly developed, democratically organized,\nsocially controlled--the future of civilization is secure.... The\ndetermination is largely one of leadership.\"\n\n\nCommunity Spirit\n\nRed Cross work, during the war, did a great deal toward bringing about a\nunified spirit. The Farm Bureau is working in this direction. When real\nneeds arise, a community spirit is born, and unsuspected qualities of\nloyalty, cooeperation and leadership develop, as happened in one community\nin Sheridan County, when that community wanted the State highway: they\ncanvassed every load of wheat that went to Sheridan City from their\ncommunity to show how much their road was used. Another splendid example\nof community spirit was the pageant staged by Armstead Community, in\nBeaverhead County, to celebrate the anniversary of the Lewis and Clark\nExpedition. Every one in the community, even the babies as Indian\npapooses, took part. About half of all the communities have a real\ncommunity spirit, i.e., a willingness on the part of the people to work\nunselfishly, cooeperatively, for the best interests of the community. This\nspirit, fostered by the Farm Bureau or by war work, has directed\ncommunities to concern themselves with their roads, schools, methods of\nfarming and the creation and strengthening of all community bonds and\ninterests.\n\nThe results of this spirit are shown in social and educative agencies like\nLodges and the local branches of the Farm Bureau. Of the sixty-eight\nLodges only seventeen are for women, and their total enrollment is about\n7,000 members. While women have fewer Lodges their attendance is more\nenthusiastic and regular than in the case of the men. There are Commercial\nClubs in the city and towns, and in a number of the villages. The American\nLegion has five branches in the four counties. Eight communities have\nLiterary Societies meeting regularly. Then there are the many clubs and\nsocieties which are purely social. These include sewing clubs, card clubs,\nathletic clubs and similar organizations which are found in the city and\ntowns, and in about one-third of the other communities. There are musical\norganizations in seven communities, and four communities have community\nsinging. These organizations, together with the schools and churches, give\nthe inspiration for most of the social life.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration: CAMPING IN SHERIDAN COUNTY\n\nThe colored cook, at least, seems to delight in her surroundings.]\n\n\n\"Movies,\" Motors and the Dance\n\nAll the larger centers have moving-picture theatres. With the coming of\nthe \"movie,\" and the general ownership of cars, there is a growing\ntendency to go into the centers for amusement. Dancing is the most popular\nrecreation. If an event is really a success, it ends with a dance. In many\ncommunities a dance is the only thing that will \"go.\" One reason for this\nis the lack of leadership; a dance needs no planning to speak of, which is\nnot the case with other forms of indoor recreation. Dances attract people\nfrom great distances and are generally held on Saturday night, lasting\nuntil Sunday morning, with a feast at midnight. Perhaps the Farm Bureau\nhas an exhibition during the day, and there is a community dance in the\nevening. It is held in the hall over the poolroom. An orchestra of three\narmy veterans plays good lively jazz. The latest tunes and dances of the\ncity are as familiar in these remote communities as are the latest modes\nand fashions. No country square dances here; nothing older than the very\nlatest dancing, and the most modern of ear-capped coiffures! Whole\nfamilies attend, and parents take the floor along with the young folks.\nThere is a great friendliness. The young men are well set-up, muscular and\ntanned, and some of them even wear spurs which clink together as they\ndance. Feminine noses are not as white as they might be, though powder\npuffs are here, very properly concealed. Most of these girls ride\nhorseback as well as their brothers, and both young women and men, with\ntheir athletic supple figures, their innate sense of grace and rhythm,\nmight put to shame our tired, anaemic city dancers. At midnight, there is a\nsupper of fried chicken, sandwiches and real cake brought a few dozen\nmiles more or less by team or car. Everything tastes good because it is\nmade at home. Afterwards, the tireless feet continue the intricate,\ngraceful measures. But outside the brightly lighted hall, and beyond the\nsound of laughter and music broods the silent, mysterious night of a\nspacious country. How many city dancers know the homeward drive through a\nbig country, the moon perhaps lighting the river, the contours of plain\nand butte, and the sleeping hamlets?\n\nThe most popular forms of outdoor recreation are the community barbecues,\nfrontier days and pow-wows. Only those who live this free, healthy life in\nthe heart of nature have appetites worthy of a barbecue. At noon the\ndelicious beef, roasted all night over a deep trough of coals, and basted\nwith real butter, is a social meal that many of us envy. There are\nfrontier field days with sports belonging to ranch life, such as horse\nracing and broncho busting. The day usually ends with a big dance. Even\nthe \"dude\" ranches in Sheridan hold Frontier days, and great events they\nare, too, with many spectators. In sections of Sheridan and Union\nCounties, but especially in Beaverhead, there is the beauty of the country\nwhich furnishes recreation in itself. Nature has lavished upon them every\ngift of line and color. The mountains and the streams, the woods and the\ncanyons, hold a hundred delightful possibilities that are within the reach\nof almost every one. It is a playground as varied as it is perfect. On\nSaturdays and Sundays in the summer, car after car, packed with camp\nequipment and home-made delicacies, head for the health-giving hills and\nmountains.\n\n[Illustration: A FRONTIER CELEBRATION\n\nThe Barbecue is an institution typical of the Range Country and is\nattended by settlers from far and near.]\n\n[Illustration: CHURCH AND COMMUNITY MAP OF HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nWhat of the Church?\n\n\nWhat country landscape is complete without the church spires? In this\nspacious western region, in the heart of awe-inspiring natural scenery,\nthe church spires are guideposts to almost 50,000 people. This land is\nnew. It has been the changing frontier. Tremendous developments have been\nin process. The country is in a transition stage between the stock-raising\npast and the agricultural future. Population has increased rapidly;\npopulation has been shifting. The whole background has been kaleidoscopic.\nThe Church has faced bewildering changes and growth. The burden of\nincreasing its service and equipment has been heavy; it has not been able\nto \"keep up\" with the pace of civilization.\n\nThe story of early church growth in the cowboy country is one inspiring\nloyalty since it eloquently traces the faithfulness of a few in a country\nwhere God was easily forgotten. One of the first things to be read of\nrough-and-ready Bannock, among the earliest mining towns on the Range, is\nthat church services were held there. The Church migrated with its\ncongregations. Missionaries from the East came through with the fur\ntrappers and preached the word of God. When the land began to be taken up\nby settlers, impromptu meetings were held, and Sunday schools were started\nin many places which had no ministers. Some of these points of worship\ngradually developed into organized religious bodies so that at present\nthere are churches which have grown up with the country.\n\n\nA Difficult Field\n\nThe Church in this frontier country has always faced great difficulties.\nChiefly, there is the vast area of it, with a scattered and transient\npopulation. Homesteaders are a restless, uncertain, human quantity. Some\nare engrossed in getting a start. Others move on as soon as they have\n\"proved up\" on their claims. All are poor; there is always an economic\nstruggle going on. The old frontier spirit of \"let have and let be\"\nsurvives from the cowboy days. This free and easy spirit says: \"Boys\ndrinking?--well, boys have to have their good times. Streets weedy?--well,\nthey might be worse.\" The same spirit says: \"No churches?--well, we're\njust as well off and our money is better in the bank than paying for a\nminister who never gets out and does an honest day's work.\"\n\n\"Good-bye, God, we're going to Wyoming,\" said a little Boston girl as the\nfamily was starting west. This typifies what happened as people from the\nEast and Middle West moved out to the frontier. In the desperate struggle\nfor existence homesteaders had little time for Christian enterprise.\nBecause of the great distances and scattered population, adequate church\nministry has been difficult if not impossible. People had for so long\nlived without a church that indifference developed. The longer they stayed\nthe less they took the church for granted. The older the section, one\nfinds to-day, the less likely it is to want church ministry. Newer\nhomesteaders, recently come from other parts of the country where the\nchurch was more available, are more eager for church and Sunday school.\n\n[Illustration: A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS\n\nThe M. E. Church at Mosquero, Union County, N. M.]\n\n\nDevelopment and Distribution\n\nThe differences in religious development and psychology according to the\ntime of settlement are well illustrated by these counties. Generally\nspeaking, Beaverhead grew up before the Church had made much headway. It\nis conservative. The general attitude is the wary one of \"Let the Church\nalone.\" Men class churches among those feminine luxuries with which a\nreal, red-blooded man has little to do. On the other hand, Union, the most\nrecently developed county of the four, still has a marked \"church\nconsciousness.\" The majority of the people have not yet broken with the\nhabits and customs of the more closely settled and churched Middle West\nfrom which they came. The other two counties combine these two conditions.\nPart of Sheridan is like Union, a region newly homesteaded. Part of it is\nlike Beaverhead, old and settled with frontier habits. Hughes, on the\nthreshold of the West, retains the frontier sentiment of all the other\ncounties.\n\n[Illustration: NO ROOM FOR BOTH\n\nThe Presbyterian Church at Melrose, Montana, and its next-door neighbor, a\ndeserted saloon.]\n\nChurch work has been going on in these counties since 1867, when\nProtestant work was started at Bannock, in Beaverhead County. Churches\nwere organized in the other counties in succeeding decades. The first\nProtestant church was organized in Hughes between 1870 and 1880, in\nSheridan and Union Counties between 1880 and 1890. In this comparatively\nshort time, some churches have gone under. Beaverhead has had nine\nProtestant churches, of which six are now active. One church, located just\noutside the border of the county in Melrose, a small hamlet, is included\nin this report. Dillon, the county seat, has four churches, or one\nProtestant church for about every 675 persons. Outside Dillon, the\nhabitable rural area of the county has two Protestant churches, or one\nchurch for about every 1,800 square miles and for about every 2,300\npersons. Roman Catholics have two organized churches in the county,\nMormons have one active and one inactive church, and there is one\nChristian Science church.\n\n[Illustration: COMMUNITY MAP OF SHERIDAN COUNTY, WYOMING]\n\n[Illustration: MAP SHOWING CHURCHES AND PARISH BOUNDARIES OF SHERIDAN\nCOUNTY]\n\n[Illustration: CHURCH AND COMMUNITY MAP OF BEAVERHEAD COUNTY]\n\n[Illustration: MAP SHOWING CHURCHES AND PARISH BOUNDARIES OF UNION COUNTY,\nNEW MEXICO]\n\n[Illustration: COMMUNITY MAP OF UNION COUNTY, NEW MEXICO]\n\nSixteen Protestant churches have been organized in Hughes County, all but\none of which are now active. Pierre, the county seat, with six of the\nchurches, has a Protestant church for about every 535 people. Outside\nPierre and the section occupied by the Crow Creek Indian Reservation, the\nrural area of the county has one Protestant church for about every\nseventy-three square miles, and for every 300 persons. There are three\nCatholic churches outside the Indian Reservation.\n\nSheridan County has had twenty-two Protestant churches, of which seventeen\nare now active and two are inactive. The city of Sheridan has nine\nProtestant churches, one church for about every 1,020 persons; outside\nSheridan, the habitable area of the county has one Protestant church for\nabout every 220 square miles, and for about every 1,130 persons. The\ncounty has five Catholic churches, a Mormon, a Christian Science, and a\nTheosophical organization.\n\nThe newest county of the four has the most churches. Thirty-nine\nProtestant churches have been organized in Union County, thirty-one of\nwhich are now active. Clayton, the county seat, has four churches, one for\nabout every 625 persons; outside Clayton, the rural area of the county has\none Protestant church for about every 280 square miles and for about every\n525 persons. There are five organized Catholic churches.\n\nThe four counties now have a total of seventy active Protestant churches\nrepresenting eleven different denominations, but there is an acute need of\na more strategic distribution. Churches located in the city of Sheridan\nwill henceforth be referred to as \"city\" churches; churches located in the\ntowns of Dillon, Pierre and Clayton will be referred to as \"town\"\nchurches; those located in villages, a classification applying to all\ncenters with a population of 250 to 2,500, will be referred to as\n\"village\" churches; and those located in hamlets of less than 250\npopulation or the open country will be known as \"country\" churches.\nClassified in this way, nine, or 13 per cent. of the total, are \"city\"\nchurches; thirteen, or 19 per cent., are \"town\" churches; fourteen, or 20\nper cent., are \"village\" churches, and thirty-four, or 48 per cent., are\n\"country\" churches. Other than Protestant churches will be discussed in a\nseparate chapter.\n\n\nGod's Houses\n\nA live church organization should have a building of its own. It is hard,\nindeed, to preach the reality of religion without a visible house of God.\nYet nearly one-third of the organizations have no buildings and must\ndepend on school houses, homes or depots. Some of these churches, located\nin strategic places, acutely need buildings and equipment if they are to\nhold their own in the future. For others, however, the possession of\nbuildings would be a tragedy, since they would thus become assured of a\npermanency which is not justified. All the city and town churches have\nbuildings, as well as twelve of the fourteen village, and fifteen of the\nthirty-four country, churches. In addition, two inactive organizations\nhave buildings which are available and are used to some extent.\n\n[Illustration: EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND PARISH HOUSE\n\nBeaverhead County, Montana.]\n\nThe majority of the buildings are of wood; fourteen are of brick, cement\nor adobe. Unfortunately, the Range has no typical pioneer architecture of\nits own. Most of the buildings are reminiscent of New England forbears.\nMany of them look barren and unkempt. Standing forlorn upon the plains,\nmost of the open country churches are unrelieved by any sign of trees.\nLittle or no effort has been made to make them attractive. Thirty\nbuildings are lighted by electricity. Twenty-two churches are of the\nusual one-room type, eleven have two-room buildings, four have three\nrooms, three have five rooms, six have six rooms or more. A few possess\nspecial facilities for social purposes. One town church has a parish\nhouse. Nine have extra rooms and some special equipment, including three\ngymnasiums. Stereopticon outfits have been installed in one city and in\ntwo town churches. One other town church borrows a stereopticon once a\nmonth from a public school, and one town church occasionally borrows the\ncounty moving-picture machine.\n\nA new kind of community house was built last summer by the Sheridan\nPresbyterian Church. It is a summer camp on a mountain stream not far from\nthe Big Horn Mountains, about twenty miles south of Sheridan. The building\nis used for kitchen, dining room, rest room and general headquarters. Each\nfamily brings its own tent when using the camp. The purpose is to make it\na place for tired people, and especially for those who have no cars or\nother means of taking an outing during some part of the hot weather. The\ncommunity idea expresses itself in a plan whereby those owning cars shall\nsometimes transport a family that otherwise might have no outing.\n\nChurch property is valued at $592,323, and it is noteworthy that the\nchurches have acquired property of such value in so short a time. The fact\nthat church growth is a present-day phenomenon is illustrated by the two\nsplendid buildings erected since this survey was made, and the\npreparations for a third which will cover an entire block. The highest\nvalue of any city church is $70,000, of any town church $75,000, of any\nvillage church $7,000 and of any country church, $4,000. Twenty-eight\nchurches have parsonages, their total valuation amounting to $61,300, or\nan average value of $2,189.\n\nAbout one-third of the churches carry some indebtedness on their property.\nTwenty-five churches report a total debt of $57,695, of which amount\n$28,500 was borrowed by six city churches, $21,700 by four town churches,\n$2,905 by five village churches and $4,590 by eight country churches. The\nmoney was spent for new buildings, new parsonages, repairs and, in one\ncase, for a garage to hold the preacher's Ford. Curiously enough, instead\nof being a hardship, working to pay off a debt often brings church members\ntogether into a unified working group. The interest paid ranges from 4 to\n8 per cent.\n\n\nChurch Membership\n\nEven more important than the material assets of the churches are their\nhuman assets--their members. The total number enrolled in Protestant\nchurches in the four counties is 5,820. Active members number 3,956, or 68\nper cent., while 1,013, or 17.4 per cent., are classed as inactive, i.e.,\nthey neither attend church services nor contribute to church support, and\n851, or 14.6 per cent., are non-resident. The country and city churches\nhave the highest proportion of non-resident members--16.9 per cent. and\n16.6 per cent., respectively; the town figure is next at 11.7 per cent.,\nand the village percentage is 9.83. These people have moved, or else live\ntoo far away to come to church services. In addition to the enrolled\nmembership, there are members of distant churches who have never\ntransferred to local churches. They are scattered through all these\ncounties, and their number is, of course, not known and cannot be\nestimated. Some may have been asked to join local churches, but it is\ncertain that some have not, and that no one knows or seems to care if they\nhave been members of some church elsewhere. They may attend local churches\noccasionally, but it is more likely that they do not. Some of them feel\nlike the little hard-working ranch lady who said, \"I was a church member\nout in Iowa, thirty-five years ago, but I've never done lifted by letter\nand I've been here so long now, I guess I never will.\"\n\n[Illustration: CHART I]\n\nThe Protestant church member who moves away is not followed up by his\nchurch as a general thing. This is partly due to frequent ministerial\nchanges, partly to the lack of well-kept church records, and partly to\nlack of interest. Of course, the fault is not only with the churches on\nthe Range; it is a shortcoming of the churches everywhere. Since, however,\na transient population is characteristic of this country, it would seem to\nbe a matter of prime importance for churches to keep track of the\nmovements of their members. This matter concerns not only local churches\nand their denominations, but also calls for cooeperation among different\ndenominations.\n\n[Illustration: CHART II]\n\nMost of the churches are in the larger centers. Of the total resident\nchurch membership nearly 43 per cent. belong to city churches, 28 per\ncent. to town churches, 11 per cent. to village churches and only 15 per\ncent. to country churches. As the center decreases in size, the more it\ndraws from the surrounding country. Thus, 93 per cent. of the total\nresident families of city churches live in the city and 7 per cent. live\noutside; 87 per cent. of the total resident families of town churches live\nin the town and 13 per cent. live outside; 62 per cent. of the total\nresident families belonging to village churches live in villages and 38\nper cent. live outside.\n\nSomehow the Church has failed to appeal to the men. A prominent man who\nnever came to church in one of the towns in the counties studied, said to\na minister: \"Here is a hundred dollars. For God's sake, don't let the\nchurch go down!\" This man realized that the community needed the church,\nbut he chose to help from the outside. This is the prevailing attitude:\nthe men are not antagonistic, but they are indifferent. All the counties\nhave a higher proportion of men than of women in the population; each has\na higher proportion of women than men in the church membership.\nBeaverhead, preponderant by 58.3 per cent. in males, has the lowest\nproportion of adult men in the church membership, 23.8 per cent. Union has\nthe highest proportion of men, 32.7 per cent. For all the churches of the\nfour counties, 30.5 per cent. of all church members are males over\ntwenty-one, 8.6 per cent. are males under twenty-one, 47.5 per cent. are\nfemales over twenty-one and 13.4 per cent. are females under twenty-one.\n\nA larger proportion of young people are enrolled in the city and town\nchurches than in those of the village and open country. City and town\nchurch memberships have 9 per cent. boys, and 14.36 per cent. girls.\nVillages have 6.75 per cent. boys, and 12.26 per cent. girls. Open country\nchurches have 8.19 per cent. boys, and 9.26 per cent. girls. One reason\nfor the small number of young people is that many grew up without the\nChurch. The children now growing up have better church opportunities. The\nhope of the Church for the future is to reach the children.\n\nThe small church prevails on the Range, the average active membership\nbeing only about fifty-seven. For the various groups, the active\nmembership is as follows:\n\n  AVERAGE ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP\n\n               Country   Village   Town   City   Average\n  Beaverhead     8          6       81              49\n  Hughes         8         39      109              59\n  Sheridan      33         62              185     117\n  Union         16         33       66              24\n\nThe country churches have an average of eighteen, the village churches\nthirty-five, the town churches ninety-one and the city churches 185\nmembers each. Forty-nine of the seventy churches have fifty active members\nor less, and thirty-six, or 51.4 per cent., of these have less than\ntwenty-five each. Twenty-one churches have each more than fifty active\nmembers. Forty-four out of the forty-nine churches of less than fifty\nmembers are either in villages or in the open country. All the churches of\nmore than 100 members are either town or city churches.\n\n[Illustration: CHART III]\n\n[Illustration: CHART IV]\n\nIt is an acknowledged fact that the size of membership has a good deal to\ndo with church efficiency; in a word, that the small church is a losing\nproposition. Until the present, the small church on the Range has been a\nnecessity because of the small and scattered population. It is only the\nlarger centers that have been able to support good-sized churches. Even\nwith the coming of irrigation, this Western country will never be as\nthickly populated as the East or Middle West. Nor can a fair comparison be\nmade between the churches in the larger centers in the Middle West and far\nWest. A different policy is likewise needed here because many of these\ncenters in the West are surrounded with large unchurched areas and on that\naccount their churches should be strategic centers for a radiating\nreligious work.\n\n[Illustration: CHART V]\n\nIn the matter of gain or loss in membership, it is to be noted that,\nduring the last year, a little more than half the churches made a net gain\nin membership, sixteen churches broke even on the year and seventeen\nshowed a net loss. Thus, 3 per cent. of all the churches remained\nstationary, 24 per cent. lost in membership and 53 per cent. gained. Of\nthe churches with 50 or more members, 82 per cent. gained; of those with\nless than 50 members only 33.3 per cent. gained.\n\nSeven hundred and sixty-four new members were taken in during the year.\nForty per cent. of these were taken in by letter, the rest on confession\nof faith. This gain by confession was about 13 per cent. of the previous\nnet active membership. Gain was distributed according to sex and age as\nfollows:\n\n  Adult male      31.0%\n  Adult female    42.4%\n  Boys            11.7%\n  Girls           14.9%\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nThe Church Dollar\n\n\nOne way, though by no means the only way, that the Church can judge of its\nsuccessful work is by the financial support that it receives. In this\nRange country nearly all of the Church dollar is raised locally, except\nabout twelve cents donated toward church work by denominational boards.\nVarious methods are used by the local church for raising the other\neighty-eight cents. Half the churches use a budget system. That is, they\nset down at the beginning of the fiscal year an itemized budget of the\namount which they need, on the basis of which amount subscriptions are\nobtained from each church member or family. Twenty-five churches finance\nall their work this way and ten churches budget only their local needs.\nThirty-two churches make an annual every-member canvass, i.e., every\nmember is asked regularly each year to contribute something toward the\nchurch. Weekly envelopes, in single or duplex form, are used in\ntwenty-four churches. Forty churches can be said to have a system of\nregular, frequent payments. The rest of the churches depend upon various\ncombinations of quarterly or annual payments, plate collections at\nservices, bazaars and other money-raising devices.\n\nIncidentally, the Ladies Aid and Missionary Societies are real stand-bys\nin the matter of church upkeep and benevolences. In fully half the\nchurches, women's organizations undertake to raise some part of the church\nexpenses in various ways, from regular weekly contributions to\ndistributing bags to be filled with pennies for every year of the\ncontributor's age, or by making gayly colored holders at three cents each.\n\nNearly one hundred thousand dollars were raised by the 3,956 active\nmembers in the year of the survey. This is the \"real thrill\" of the church\ndollar. The total amount of the budget raised on the field by sixty-eight\nof the seventy churches[3] was $97,571.98. Of this amount $70,910.74, or\nlittle less than three-fourths, was procured by subscriptions; $9,464.24,\nor slightly less than one-tenth, by collections, and the balance of the\n$17,197.00 by miscellaneous means. This is an average amount per church of\n$990.25. Here again it is clear that the larger the membership of a\nchurch, the greater the impetus from within for further growth and\nactivities. This condition is evident in the various church campaigns. The\ncity churches raise more than twice as much as the churches in the town,\nvillage or country, but with their larger membership there is not a\ncorresponding drain on the individual. Thus, the city and village church\nmembers give about the same, $24.87 and $24.47 respectively per year; the\ntown members give $29.63; the country members, with fewer buildings, fewer\nservices, and less resident ministers to maintain than the members in the\ncenters, pay $16.12 each.\n\n[Illustration: CHART VI\n\nFigures refer to total amount raised and spent, including Home Mission\nAid.]\n\nConsidering that nearly half the churches raise their money haphazardly,\nthe average contribution per church and per member, in these four counties\non the Range, is most encouraging. Of course, it must be borne in mind\nthat 1919-1920 came at the end of the fat years, and hard upon this\nprosperous period followed the lean one of high freight rates and low\nprices for farm products. Church finances depend in part upon the\npractical presentation of the financial needs of the Church, and upon\neducation in Christian stewardship--i.e., in learning the value of church\nwork at home and abroad. But there is another side to the question which\nis quite as vital. Is the Church rendering a real service to the\ncommunity, and has it an adequate and worth-while ministry? After all,\npeople cannot be expected to give more than they receive in service.\n\nNot quite all the money was spent. In each group there was a small\nsurplus; $85.00 for the country churches, $64.24 for the village, $64.00\nfor the town, and $365.89 for the city churches. Of the total amount\nspent, $41,268.79, or about 43 per cent., paid salaries, $24,657.55, or 25\nper cent., was given to missions and benevolences, and the remaining 32\nper cent. was used for local expenses and upkeep. The total amount given\nto benevolences averages $6.27 a year. All the money spent averages $24.67\nper resident active member, a good record indeed for a homesteading\ncountry.\n\nThe question of benevolences is important because many churches offer no\nother means to their members of learning and practising unselfish giving\nand service. One of the standards adopted by the Interchurch World\nMovement was that the amount given to benevolences should at least equal\n25 per cent. of the total amount spent. The proportion of all money raised\nwhich is used to pay salaries and local expenses is higher in country and\nvillage churches, while the proportion given for missions and benevolences\nis lower than in the town and city churches. In other words, the country\nand village churches have less surplus over and above their running\nexpenses. Benevolences receive 14.3 per cent. of all money raised by the\ncountry churches, and 12.75 per cent. of all money raised by the village\nchurches. Town churches, on the other hand, give 23.84 per cent. of their\nreceipts to benevolences, and the city churches give 33.65 per cent. The\nfinances of city churches are well proportioned, almost an equal amount\ngoing for salaries, missions and all other expenses.\n\n\nHome Mission Aid\n\nIt has already been stated that about twelve cents of the church dollar\ncome from the denominational boards in the form of Home Mission aid. The\ntotal amount given to the local churches in the year preceding the survey\nwas $12,937.50, which went to forty-one churches in amounts varying from\n$50 to $750. Two more churches would have been receiving aid if they had\nhad a pastor, and still another church had there been a resident pastor.\nOf the forty-one churches receiving aid, two are city, seven are town,\nseven are village and twenty-five are country churches.\n\nOf course, some of these churches, in their turn, hand back money to other\nboards in the form of missions and benevolences. All the city churches\ngive $13,382.04 in benevolences and missions and receive $2,100; all the\ntown churches give $8,304.96 and receive $3,035; the village churches give\n$1,650 and receive $3,650, and the country churches give $1,320 and\nreceive $4,152. By counties, Beaverhead gets back 46.8 per cent. of what\nshe gives, Hughes gets back 47.3 per cent., Sheridan 37.2 per cent., while\nUnion is the only county which receives more than she gives--24.4 per\ncent. The churches which receive aid send back to the boards $2,872.79. In\na word, the churches send money to the church boards, who in turn remit\nthis money. This would seem a strange story to some one not versed in\nchurch ethics and denominational procedure. But giving and serving is one\nof the fundamental ideas of the Christian religion, and money given for\nmissions and benevolences is good training as well as definitely a service\nto humanity.\n\nThe Range has always been Home Mission territory; justifiably too, because\nhomesteaders have not been able to pay for religious ministry. A\nhomesteader's \"bit\" is hard earned enough, and seldom adequate to his\nneeds. Nevertheless, the problem of financial aid is always a serious one.\nSubsidization of persons as well as institutions must be wisely handled or\nmoral deterioration is likely to set in. The Y. M. C. A. never subsidizes\na county for its rural work. If the county cannot pay, it must do without\nthe work. Ordinarily, several counties combine for rural Y. M. C. A. work\nand have one secretary among them.\n\nAn excellent grading system for their aided fields has been worked out by\nthe Presbyterian Home Mission Board.[4] One of the first questions\nconsidered is the prospect of self-support. How far has it been the policy\nof the Boards to help a church to a status of self-support? Forty-four of\nthe seventy active churches have had aid during the last thirty years.\nOnly four of these churches are now self-supporting. It has already been\npointed out that three churches did not receive aid during the year\npreceding the survey because they lacked pastors. Development toward\nself-support has evidently not been a criterion of the Boards in granting\nmoney.\n\nAnother test is whether the field is a \"strategic service\nopportunity\"--either allocated to this denomination or a field presenting\na unique need. Some of the churches fall within such a classification. A\ntotal of about $207,170 has been received, given by eleven denominations.\nCity churches have received $40,850, town churches $67,465, village\nchurches $47,430 and country churches $51,425. Of the total amount,\n$44,980 has gone to fifteen strategic service churches. In addition, four\nof the aided churches receiving $27,000 serve special groups of\npopulation, of which one is Swedish, one Norwegian, and two are German\nLutheran churches. There remain thirty churches receiving $136,190. Three\nchurches, receiving $6,830, are the only ones in their community. All the\nrest are in communities with other churches, at least one of which in each\ncase is aided.\n\n[Illustration: A NEGLECTED OUTPOST OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nA village church in the center of a large unevangelized area, served by a\nminister living thirty-five miles away.]\n\n\nAid Misapplied\n\nSome aid has very evidently been granted without a definite understanding\non the part of the board as to whether other churches were concerned,\nwhether the community could really support a church, whether, after all,\nit was good sense to assist a church in that particular situation. Not\nvery much money has been spent. More could have been used to advantage. As\nH. Paul Douglass says in \"From Survey to Service,\" \"It is in the nature of\nthe case that the conquest of distance by the Gospel will take very\ndisproportionate amounts of money compared with other forms of missions.\nIt can be cheap only when it is adequate.\" The policy has too often been\nto help keep alive a great many struggling churches which did little to\njustify support, rather than to develop a smaller number of churches in\ngreater need of help in a poorly churched area. In other words, the\npolicy has been one of denominational expansion rather than of\ndenominational concentration and demonstration. Home Mission aid too often\ncreates futile competition within a community by supporting a church for\nselfish denominational purposes. Some of these churches were better dead,\nand they would have died of natural causes but for Home Mission aid.\n\nThere are good and bad instances of denominational help. One denomination\nhas aided three churches for thirty years, but has not helped any one of\nthem for the last ten years. They had reached a self-supporting status.\nBut, when a denomination lavishes $18,000 of Home Mission aid in keeping\nalive a church in a village of 150 population, where there is also another\nchurch, and when the village is situated near to a large, well-churched\ncenter, such aid is wasted. The same denomination fails to give with\nliberality to a far needier case, the only Protestant church in a small\nvillage, a railroad center, located fairly in the center of a large\nunevangelized area. In one of its valleys, a resident recently remarked\nthat they had heard no preaching for twenty years. This instance of\nneglect is in Montana, and the territory has been allocated to this\ndenomination since 1919, so that other churches are keeping their hands\noff. Yet this church, which had a resident pastor until two years before\nthe time of the survey, is now being served by a pastor of a town church\nliving thirty-five miles away who preaches there on a _week-day_ night. No\npreaching on Sunday, no pastoral work, obviously no community work in the\nvillage and no touch at all on the districts outside of the village! How\nwell could the lavish aid of $18,000 have been put to use in this\nchurchless area! This desperate condition needs as much aid every year as\n_all_ the Boards give _all_ forty-one aided churches at present. Instead,\nthis church has been allocated to one denomination, and is now getting\nless attention than before. This case constitutes an abuse of the\nprinciple of allocation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTo Measure Church Effectiveness\n\n\nAdd members contributing to the support of an organization to a probable\nminister and possibly to a building and you have the ground-plan of the\naverage church in this Western country. What, then, is the church program?\nHow are the churches attempting to serve their members, and just how much\nare they contributing through their program and activities to the life\nabout them, toward bringing about a genuine Christianization of a\ncommunity life? Religious values, it is true, are spiritual and cannot be\ntabulated in statistical tables. This fact is as fully recognized as the\ncorollary that circumstances often limit ideals. What the churches are\ndoing, however, ought to be a fair test of their underlying purpose. In a\nword, then, what do they consider their job and are they \"putting it\nacross\"?\n\n\nOpportunities for Worship\n\nAll the churches have services for the preaching of God's word, but it has\nalready become evident in the preceding pages that in certain sections of\nthe Range country the Church, even as a social factor, is regarded rather\nas a curiosity by the men. An amusing story with a Bret Harte flavor is\ntold of an early meeting in Beaverhead County. The hall in Glendale, a\nbusy place then, with banks, restaurants, even a paper, was filled with a\nrough-and-ready audience of miners and cowboys listening to a lantern\nlecture. Vastly delighted over the trick, one man after another quietly\nrose from his seat and stepped out of the window. When the preacher ended\nhis talk and the hall lighted up not a soul remained but himself. The next\nday, however, his audience made it right. They passed a hat and collected\n$300 for him.\n\nAs has been noted, more than half of the church buildings are adapted to\npreaching and nothing else, nineteen churches, of necessity, holding their\nmeetings in school houses. The frequency of services varies. The larger\ncenters have an abundance of church meetings. All but two of the town and\ntwo of the city churches have two preaching services each Sunday. But only\nthree country and two village churches are so fortunate. Two additional\nchurches, one a village and one a town church, have the advantage of two\nservices a Sunday because they unite regularly with other churches near\nthem, both of which hold two services a Sunday.\n\n[Illustration: NOT A STORE BUT A CHURCH\n\nChristian Church at Des Moines, Union County.]\n\nForty-five of the seventy churches have less than two services a Sunday.\nOf thirty churches, twenty-five country and five village churches, each\nhas less than four services a month. Those located in the larger\nwell-churched centers have an ample number of services, while the majority\nof churches with less than two services a Sunday are country churches. Yet\nmost of these are holding the only service in their community.\nSeventy-three and five-tenths per cent. of all the country churches have\nless than four services each month, and 44 per cent. have only one service\nor even less. All but one of the eighteen churches with only one service\nor less per month are country churches. Ten churches hold special musical\nservices. Mid-week prayer meetings are held by sixteen of those which have\ntwo services each Sunday, but by only one of the forty-five churches in\nthe group holding the fewer number of services.\n\nExcept in winter, the chief handicap to attendance in Beaverhead and\nSheridan lies in the rugged landscape. Country members in all the counties\nhave real difficulty in getting to church throughout the year. Most of\nthem have long distances to go, and the roads make travel difficult in\nwinter and early spring. In summer, haying is carried on very generally\nseven days of the week, and church attendance is a problem even if the\nchurch service is held at night. The aggregate monthly attendance is\n18,337 and as the total number of services is 286, the average attendance\nper service is about sixty-five persons, low enough, but higher than the\naverage active membership per church, which is about fifty-six. Average\nseating capacity, active membership and attendance compare as follows:\n\n[Illustration: CHART VII]\n\n                              Country    Village     Town     City\n                              Churches   Churches  Churches Churches  Total\n  Average seating capacity     129[5]     177[6]     285      436      233\n  Average active membership     18         36         91      196       56\n  Average attendance at\n    services                    34         37         72      112       65\n\nIt is evident from the table above that the churches are only about\none-fourth filled on the average. Nothing is more disheartening than a\nchurch three-quarters empty in which the echoes of the minister's voice\nreverberate over the vacant seats.\n\n\nUnion Services\n\nTangible evidence of cooeperation and good-will among churches of different\ndenominations is found in \"union\" services, which thirty-eight churches\nmight reasonably hold in these counties. Just twenty-one of these churches\ndo unite, the majority for Thanksgiving Day services and in fewer\ninstances, for Chautauqua, Baccalaureate, Memorial Day, and summer evening\nservices. In two instances, two churches, Methodist and Presbyterian, are\nuniting for services and Sunday schools, their other organizations meeting\nseparately. Since the time of the survey, two churches, located in an\noverchurched hamlet, have also temporarily put this plan into effect.\n\n[Illustration: A CASE OF COOePERATION\n\nThe M. E. Church at Blunt, S. D., which being pastorless joined with the\nPresbyterian Church for preaching services.]\n\n\nEvangelism\n\nA greater portion of the evangelistic work is done through revival\nmeetings, although less than half of the churches hold them. Of all the\nmembers admitted on confession of faith by all the churches during the\nyear, 76 per cent. were converted in revival meetings, and joined one of\nthe churches holding such a revival. Thirty-one of the seventy churches\nheld or united in thirty such meetings, one being a union meeting of two\nchurches. Pastors conducted fifteen meetings, in three of which a\nneighboring pastor or evangelist assisted. Fourteen meetings were held by\nvisiting clergymen. The meetings were well attended, extending from seven\nto thirty-five days, the average meeting lasting thirteen days.\nEighty-seven per cent. of the 385 converts and the thirteen who were\nreclaimed joined the churches holding the revival. This gain amounted to\n72 per cent. of the total gain in membership made by these same thirty-one\nchurches during the entire year. Forty-four per cent. of all the churches\nheld revivals, and while they represent only 45 per cent. of the total\nharvest by confession and letter, yet three-fourths of all the gain made\nby confession of faith were obtained by these churches.\n\nThe country churches held seventeen meetings, averaged four new members\neach, and made 20 per cent. of the total gain. The village churches held\nfive meetings and the town churches held four meetings, both averaging\nfive new members each, the village churches making 8 per cent. of the\ntotal gain and the town churches 6 per cent. The city churches held only\nfour meetings, averaged about fifty-seven new members each and realized\none-third of the total gain made.\n\n\nChildren and the Churches\n\nSunday schools are the big hope of this country. Young people and older\npeople are not so much interested in the Church and religion because so\nmany have grown up without it, but the children have had more chance to\nknow the Church. Sunday schools are to-day the most frequent form of\nchurch work in these Western counties. They are especially hopeful because\nso many of them over-ride denominational lines and unionize; also because\nthey persist when all other church spirit seems to be dead.\n\nFifty-six churches have Sunday schools of their own, and one city church\nhas a mission Sunday school in addition to its own. Two groups of two\nchurches each combine their Sunday schools. Only three churches neither\nmaintain their own Sunday schools nor help with a union school.\n\nThirty-seven union Sunday schools are being carried on in the four\ncounties, nine of which have the assistance of church organizations\nmeeting in the same building. Three are located in mining camp villages,\nthe rest in small hamlets or open country. These union schools have a\nfourth of the total Sunday school enrollment. People on ranches and far\nfrom town start Sunday schools under local leadership without waiting for\nchurches to be organized. When a newcomer sends his children to Sunday\nschool it is often the only contact made with religious activity in the\nnew country. The independent Sunday school has, therefore, in a sense, a\ngreater responsibility than the church Sunday school.\n\nThe importance of the Sunday school is brought out in a comparison between\nSunday school enrollment and resident church membership.\n\n                                 Country   Village   Town     City    Total\n  Number of churches                  34      14       13        9       70\n  Number of Sunday schools            56      14       12       10       92\n  Total resident church membership   745     563    1,389    2,272    4,969\n  Total enrollment of church\n    Sunday schools                   897     731    1,430    1,475    4,533\n  Total enrollment of all Sunday\n    schools                        2,373     829    1,430    1,475    6,107\n  Average enrollment of all\n    Sunday schools                    42      59      119      147       67\n  Average attendance of all\n    Sunday schools                    28      40       79      104       50\n\nThe enrollment of church Sunday schools is larger than the total church\nmembership in Union County, and larger than resident church membership in\nBeaverhead, Hughes or Union. The total enrollment of all Sunday schools is\n23 per cent. higher than the total resident church membership. Without the\nUnion County Sunday schools this enrollment equals only 91 per cent. of\nthe resident church membership. Thirty-five churches have a larger Sunday\nschool enrollment than resident church membership; all nine churches\nhelping with Union Sunday schools have a smaller membership than the Union\nschool enrollment. This discrepancy is high in some churches. For example,\na country church has thirty-five enrolled in the Sunday school and only\neight church members; a village church with sixty-five enrolled in its\nSunday school has seven church members; a town church has fifteen church\nmembers and 150 enrolled in its Sunday school.\n\nCountry and village Sunday schools show the best record. The total\nenrollment of all country Sunday schools, including the Union schools, is\nmore than three times as high as church membership. The enrollment of all\nvillage Sunday schools is about 47 per cent. higher than village church\nenrollment. There are no Union Sunday schools in the towns or city. Except\nin the city the average Sunday school enrollment exceeds average resident\nchurch membership, the advantage being twenty-two for the country schools,\nnineteen for the village, and twelve for the town schools. The average\ncity church membership, however, exceeds average Sunday school enrollment\nby 105.\n\nWhen Sunday school enrollment is higher than church membership, it is\nordinarily encouraging as a promise of future growth. But the large\ndiscrepancies between village and open country church membership and\nSunday school enrollment, coupled with the low percentage of young\npeople in their church memberships, show that these churches are not\nrecruiting new members from their Sunday schools as they might. Nor are\nthe churches relating themselves to any extent to the separate Sunday\nschools in outlying sections. This _can_ be done, and is most successful\nin a few cases. For example, the Apache Valley Sunday School, which meets\non Sunday afternoons at a schoolhouse in Union County, is being \"fathered\"\nby two ministers from Clayton, six miles away, who go out on alternate\nSundays. This Sunday school is live and flourishing. It maintains a high\npercentage of attendance and carries on various activities.\n\nAttendance in general is good. The percentage of enrollment represented in\nthe attendance on a typical Sunday varies from 66.7 per cent. for the town\nto 70.8 per cent. for the city schools. Yet only twenty-five schools make\ndefinite efforts to increase their attendance. The various methods used\nare contests such as a competitive Boys' and Girls' day, a fall Rally Day,\ncards, rewards and prizes, a Banner Class, a Look-out Committee and the\nCross and Crown System.\n\nDuring the year preceding the survey, 168 pupils joined the churches from\nthe Sunday schools, and there were seven probationers at the time the\nsurvey was made. Decision Day was held in four country, one village, five\ntown and four city schools. The results were meager. Only thirty-five\ndeclared for church membership. Nine town and city schools have classes to\nprepare for church membership, eight schools have sent twenty scholars\ninto some kind of Christian work during the last ten years. A country\nSunday school in Hughes County has shown what can be done in this respect.\nIt has sent five young people into Christian service during the last ten\nyears, and five more in the whole history of the school. It is significant\nthat one consecrated pastor has served this Sunday school and church\nduring this entire time.\n\nCradle Rolls are another excellent method of enlistment. Yet these are\nkept in only twenty-six schools. The total enrollment is 473. One of the\ngreatest needs of this country is more local and better trained\nleadership, not only for Sunday schools but for the community at large.\nThe only definite training for leadership is eight Teacher Training\nclasses, held in two city, four town, one village and one country school.\n\nMission study is carried on in seventeen schools more or less frequently,\nseveral additional schools annually presenting the cause of missions. One\ncity school has a four-day institute for the study of Sunday school\nmethods and missions. Twenty-nine schools make regular missionary\nofferings, and seven take them once a year. Twelve schools have libraries\nwith an average of seventy-three volumes each. Eighty-three schools give\nout Sunday school papers. There are 507 classes, an average of about\ntwelve per class.\n\nProper preparation is one of the greatest needs of the Sunday schools in\nthese counties. Much of the instruction is haphazard and indifferent. Men\nteach 123 classes and 26.6 per cent. of the total enrollment. Ordinarily,\nthe man teacher, if there is one, takes the adult class at the expense of\nthe growing boy who needs him more than the adults. Graded lessons are\nused exclusively in ten schools and twenty others use them in some\nclasses. Seventeen schools have organized classes. Sixty-six schools are\nopen throughout the year. The pastor is superintendent in six schools,\nteacher in fifteen, substitute teacher in one, \"helps\" in nineteen, is a\nstudent in two, and in one reports his job as \"superintendent; teacher and\njanitor.\"\n\nSocial events for the Sunday schools mean picnics, class parties, and\nsometimes a real ice cream sociable. About one-third of the schools have a\nreasonable amount of social activity, while sixteen report a great deal.\nFifty-seven schools have picnics, and great events they are, too, with\nmore cakes and pies and goodies of all sorts than the community is likely\nto see again for another year. One or more classes have socials, parties\nand \"hikes\" in seventeen schools (four village, nine town and four city).\nThe \"Anti-Kants\" is an interesting class of young women. Every time one of\nthe class becomes engaged, there is a party and a shower, called a\ngraduation. Twenty graduations have taken place in the history of the\nclass. About half of the schools have programs for special days,\nespecially for Children's Day, Christmas and Easter. One Union school has\nan Easter picnic and egg-hunt. Nineteen schools have mixed socials, such\nas parties, indoor picnics, ice cream suppers and entertainments. One town\nschool has a weekly social. The only special Sunday school organizations\nare a Choir Association and Sunday school athletic teams in three town\nchurches which play competitive games. Twenty report no social life of any\nsort in connection with their schools. They do not even have a picnic to\nliven things up.\n\n[Illustration: HAPPY LITTLE PICNICKERS\n\nThe Baptist Mission at Kleenburg, Wyoming, does good work for the\nkiddies.]\n\n[Illustration: A GOOD TIME WAS HAD BY ALL\n\nA Sunday School class picnic in Union County.]\n\n\nOther Church Organizations\n\nVarious other organizations have been developed within the churches for\nbusiness, educational and social purposes. Women have a great many, men\nhave very few. Fifty-six women's organizations are carried on in\nthirty-seven churches, of which nine are village and nine country\nchurches. There are twenty-eight Ladies' Aids, thirteen Missionary\nSocieties and various Guilds, Circles, Auxiliaries, a Manse Society, a\nKing's Daughters, an Adelphian and a Dorcas. The total enrollment is\n1,682, or about 70 per cent. of the total female resident church\nmembership over twenty-one, and 17 per cent. of the total female\npopulation aged from eighteen to forty-four, in the four counties. The\nattendance averages about twenty-one to each organization.\n\nIn sorry contrast to this array, men's organizations number only seven,\nand all are connected with city or town churches in Pierre, the county\nseat of Hughes County. The enrollment is 300, or 27 per cent. of the total\nresident church membership in city and town of males over twenty-one years\nof age, and only 3 per cent. of the total male population between the ages\nof eighteen and forty-four in the four counties. Men and women have two\norganizations in common. One is a missionary society which, contrary to\ncustom, shares its endeavors with men, the other is a dramatic club for\nany one old or young who has dramatic ability. This interesting\norganization gives a splendid amateur show every year. A former\nprofessional actor, who also coaches dramatics in the high school, is the\ncoach.\n\n\nBoys Left Out\n\nThere are only eight organizations for girls in seven town or city\nchurches. Two hundred and twenty-two, or 42 per cent., of all the girls\nunder twenty-one in the town and city resident membership are enrolled.\nOne is a Friendly Society, and the rest are various kinds of guilds. But\nboys are the most shabbily treated of all. There are only four\norganizations especially for them, all in town churches and two in one\nchurch, so that only three churches have special clubs for their boys. The\nenrollment is sixty-nine, or about 21 per cent. of all the boys under\ntwenty-one enrolled in city and town church membership. Boys and girls\ntogether have two organizations in two town churches with a membership of\nseventy-three. One is a Junior League, and the other a Junior Baptist\nYoung People's Union. Young people have twenty-eight organizations in ten\ncountry, three village, nine town and six city churches. Eight of them are\nEpworth Leagues, eight are Christian Endeavors and the rest are various\nYoung People's Societies, Baptist Young People's Unions, Mission\nVolunteers, Young People's Alliances, two Choir Organizations and one\nPurely for Fun Club. Their total enrollment of 834, together with the\nmembership of the mixed boys' and girls' organizations, equals 84 per\ncent. of the total church resident membership under twenty-one.[7]\n\nMore people in the community are reached through the meetings of these\norganizations than by any other single church activity, with the exception\nof the celebration of special days. These meetings are often community\naffairs, especially in the case of the women's organizations. In twenty\norganizations, the attendance exceeds the enrollment. The men's clubs work\nfor the church, and several do practical community work. Their programs in\nall but two cases include dinners, either at every meeting or at special\nbanquets during the year. One club puts on a Father and Son banquet every\nyear.\n\n\nMen's Forum and Ladies' Aids\n\nThe most interesting outcome of the work of any of the men's organizations\nis the Men's Forum, recently developed in Sheridan by the combined Men's\nClubs of the Congregational and Protestant churches. This was the first\nopen forum held in Wyoming. The attendance at the meetings averaged 400.\nThe principles of the forum are as follows:\n\n    The complete development of democracy in America.\n\n    A common meeting ground for all the people in the interest of truth\n    and mutual understanding, and for the cultivation of community spirit.\n\n    The freest and fullest open discussion of all vital questions\n    affecting human welfare.\n\n    Participation on the part of the audience from the Forum Floor whether\n    by questions or discussion.\n\n    The freedom of the Forum management from responsibility for utterances\n    by speakers from the platform or floor.\n\nAmong the subjects presented have been \"Community Problems,\" \"The Church\nand Industrial Conflict,\" \"The Golden Rule in Business: Is It\nPracticable?\" \"The Farmers' Movement in America,\" \"Bolshevism,\" \"Feeding\nthe World: Is It America's Job?\" There is no more encouraging sign of\ncommunity interest in public questions, and a conscious effort on the part\nof the Church to develop a public opinion on social, economic and\nreligious problems.\n\n[Illustration: PROGRAM OF A COMMUNITY RALLY]\n\nThe Ladies' Aid is often the only woman's organization in the community.\nMost of these clubs meet once or twice a month, with regular programs for\nBible study or missions, organize sewing and quilting bees, and bazaars,\netc. The help they give in church finances has already been appreciated.\nAny such common interest and responsibility holds many an organization\ntogether. Several promote social welfare work. One organized a Teachers'\nTraining Class to improve material for Sunday school teachers. One village\nhas a community Ladies' Aid which works for the church, although only a\nfew are church members. The community woman's club in a small hamlet is\nstudying missions as a part of its program. In one community, the Ladies'\nAid of the only church, which is pastorless, meets regularly and holds a\nyearly bazaar to pay the occasional supply preacher and keep the church in\nrepair. At the \"Frontier Day\" given by a Dude Ranch, the Ladies' Aid from\na nearby hamlet had a booth for selling hamburgers and lemonade. In one of\nthe mining camps, the Ladies' Aid of the Mission church sent out\ninvitations for an afternoon tea to raise money for a new piano for the\nKindergarten. It turned out to be a great social event attended by women,\nmany of them foreign, from all the camps in the vicinity. Here is another\nLadies' Aid, the only organization in all that part of a sparsely settled\ncountry, and many miles from town which holds eight socials a year and\nevery social is a supper. Those suppers bring out whole families, and are\nthe biggest annual events. Is it any wonder? The woman on the Range has a\nlonesome time of it. Ranches are far apart. She rarely sees her neighbors\nand less frequently goes to town. This woman needs social activities more\nthan her town sister. Yet only nine out of thirty-four country churches\nhave women's organizations.\n\nYoung People's Meetings are generally held Sunday nights, and the majority\nhold an occasional social. One town Young People's organization has a\nsuccessful Bible Study Class. The Purely for Fun Club, as its name\nimplies, is purely social and meets twice a month. It has a special garden\nparty once a year. This club is one of the activities of a M. E. community\nchurch located in a new dry-farming community which is having a struggle\nto make both ends meet, but is doing good work in that community. The\npeople are loyal, even enthusiastic. There is not, however, even a church\nbuilding, let alone any equipment for social activities. A building is\ndesperately needed for church and community center, nor can the members\nprovide it themselves. Cases of this kind represent possibilities for the\nmost effective sort of home mission aid.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nThe Preachers' Goings and Comings\n\n\nThis is a field that challenges a preacher. The love of a new world has\ndrawn his potential flocks and with them a pastor may come to new pastures\nwhere the satisfaction of creative pioneer work is not its least\nattraction. Settlements have grown up almost over night. People have come\nfrom all over the East, Middle West and Southwest. Many families live far\nfrom their neighbors. Leadership is the challenging need and it is\nprimarily the task of the Church to furnish and develop it. The initial\nhandicap is that here people, from a matter of habit, do not yearn for\nchurch ministry as they do in other parts of the country. Their traditions\ndo not include it. It is the preacher who must \"sell\" the idea of religion\nand the Church. No one else will do it. He must be a \"builder of something\nout of nothing--a pioneer of the Gospel, creator as well as evangelist.\"\n\n\nThe Vagrant Minister\n\nOne of the most startling facts brought out by this survey is the degree\nto which the ministers have been transient. Always a detriment to\neffective work, this lack of permanency is especially unfortunate in a\ncountry of such rapid growth and so transient a population. It takes more\nthan average time to win people's confidence because they do not accept\nthe Church _per se_. There are problems enough to be met when a preacher\n\"hog-ties,\" as the Western slang puts it, meaning when he stays on the\njob. But the preachers have come and gone along with the rest. Three of\nthe forty-five churches organized for ten years or more have had the same\npreacher throughout the period, and five more churches have had only two\npastors. But seven churches have changed pastors three times, ten have\nchanged four, seven have changed five, six have changed six, five have\nchanged seven, one has changed eight and one has changed nine times during\nthis period. About half of the country and village churches, 38 per cent.\nof the town, and one-fourth of the city churches have had five or more\npastors during the last ten years. Of the churches organized within the\nlast ten years, ten have had one pastor, eight have had two, one has had\nthree, three have had four, one has had six, one has had seven and two\nhave had no regular pastors during the entire time. These men have indeed\nhad the spirit of wanderlust. They have scarcely stayed long enough to get\nacquainted with their task.\n\n[Illustration: CHART VIII]\n\nLapses between pastors are revealed. The changing has meant loss of time\nto three-fourths of the churches. Thus, of the group of churches organized\nten years or more, city churches have been vacant 2.5 per cent. of the ten\nyears, town churches 6 per cent. of the time, village churches 11 per\ncent. and country churches 17 per cent. of the time. The churches\norganized in the last ten years, of which the majority are in small\nhamlets and the open country, have been vacant 20 per cent. of the time.\nAgain the churches in the larger centers fare better.\n\n\nDistribution of Pastors\n\nThe churches in the four counties are at present being served by forty\nministers who have been a long time in church service, but only a short\ntime in their present fields. Their average length of time in their\npresent charge is only two and one-third years. Twelve of the forty-one\npresent pastors have been in their parishes less than a year, and fourteen\nmore have been serving from one to two years inclusive. Thirty-two\nministers give their entire time to the ministry. Eight have some other\noccupation in addition to their church work. One is a student, and the\nrest are ranchers. These eight men serve eleven churches in the four\ncounties and eight churches outside. Thirteen churches were without\nregular pastors at the time of the survey, but five churches were only\ntemporarily pastorless--transiency caught in the act! Four of the thirteen\nwere being supplied by local or travelling preachers, one a woman\nhomesteader. The remaining fifty-seven churches, therefore, were being\nserved by forty regular ministers, and two resident social workers who\ntake care of a Baptist Mission at a mining village in Sheridan County. The\nregular ministers also serve twenty churches in other counties, making a\ntotal of seventy-seven churches, or 1.87 churches per man. This is a\nslightly lower proportion of ministers per church than the region\naverages.\n\nHow the ministers are divided up so that they will go around is shown in\nthe following table. The sixteen preaching points and missions which these\nsame men also serve are not included because in general they do not take\nthe same amount of time as a regular church.[8]\n\n                          Preachers with No Other      Preachers with\n                                Occupation            Other Occupation\n\n  Serving one church      18  (B-3, H-5, S-8, U-2)     3  (H-2, U-1)\n  Serving two churches     9  (B-1, H-3, S-2, U-3)     1  (..., U-1)\n  Serving three churches   3  (..., H-1, S-1, U-1)     2  (..., U-2)\n  Serving four churches                                2  (..., U-2)\n  Serving five churches    2  (...............U-2)\n                          --                          --\n  Total                   32                           8\n\nThe denominational basis of church organization, as a preceding chapter\nshows, leads to an uneven distribution of churches and ministers. If it\nwere not for denominational lines, it would be possible to make a better\ndistribution of the ministers so as to give a larger proportion of the\ncommunities a resident minister. The centers have an abundance of\nministers, but outside the centers there are too few. Thus, thirty-three\nof the churches have resident preachers, but twenty-two, or _two-thirds_,\nof these churches are located in centers which have other resident\nministers. More than half of the churches with resident pastors are town\nor city churches. Only _nine_ communities have one or more resident\nministers serving a single church on full time. One of these communities\nis the city, three are the towns, one is a village community in\nBeaverhead, one the mining town with the two social workers, and three are\ncountry communities. Only eighteen communities have such full-time\nresident pastors. Ten other churches have pastors living adjacent to their\nbuildings, but in each case the pastor also serves other churches, or has\nother occupation. Fourteen churches have pastors living from five to\neighteen miles distant, four have ministers living from eighteen to\nthirty-five miles distant. One has its pastor living fifty miles away, one\nsixty-five and one 120 miles. Four pastors live outside their counties.\n\n[Illustration: CHART IX]\n\nAn adequate parsonage is one means of keeping a resident pastor. About\nhalf of the churches have parsonages. Of the forty churches with\nbuildings, thirty-four have parsonages and one country pastor has a\nparsonage and no church building. Three parsonages were not being used at\nthe time of the survey.\n\nThe residence of pastors and the distribution of pastoral service have a\nclear relation to growth. The pastor is ordinarily responsible for the\nevangelistic success of the church. If a pastor is non-resident or has too\nlarge a territory to serve, his personal contribution is lessened. Of the\nchurches having resident pastors, two-thirds made a net gain. Of those\nwith non-resident pastors, only one-third gained.\n\n\nPastors' Salaries.\n\nThe question of ministers' salaries is important. Inadequate salaries have\nundoubtedly caused some of the restlessness among the ministry. Salaries\nvary as the minister is on full or on part time, as shown in the following\ntable. The full-time one-church man commands a wage higher than the man\nwith more churches, or the man with another occupation.\n\n[Illustration: A PARSONAGE BUT NO CHURCH\n\nThe M. E. pastor shown here with his wife and baby has a house but no\nchurch building on his circuit. He preaches in three school houses.]\n\n                                                       Minister\n                                           Full Time   with Other\n                   Full Time   Part Time   Minister    Occupation\n                   Minister    Minister    with More   and More\n                   with One    with One    Than One    Than One\n                   Church      Church      Church      Church\n\n  Maximum salary    $2,650       $1,550     $3,250      $1,900\n  Minimum salary       600          840        880         100\n  Average            1,835        1,195      1,507         610\n\nThese average salary figures may be compared with the average salary of\nthe Y. M. C. A. county secretaries for the entire United States which was\n$2,265 in 1920.\n\n\nTraining of Ministers\n\nStandards of the various denominations as to the educational\nqualifications of the ministers vary. Eighteen of the forty-one pastors\nare graduates of colleges and theological seminaries; six others are\ncollege graduates, three are graduates of seminaries or Bible Schools, but\nhave no college training. One minister is going to seminary. Ten ministers\nhave had no special training for the ministry.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nNegro and Indian Work\n\n\nRacial Cordiality\n\nIn this Range country, there are not many negroes in proportion to the\nwhite settlers, and the relations between the races are cordial.\nBeaverhead County has twenty-eight negroes in Dillon and Lima communities.\nSheridan County has a total of about 295. A small neighborhood, Cat Creek,\nsix miles west of the city of Sheridan has about 250 negroes. There are\nsix negro farm owners at Cat Creek with farms of 320 acres each.\nConsiderable community spirit has been developed, which is manifested by\nincreased friendliness and by pride in the farms. The Plum Grove Club has\nsixteen members, and meets twice a month for discussions on crop welfare\nand for social times. There is a Sunday school, with an enrollment of\nfifteen and an average attendance of ten, which is kept going for eight\nmonths of the year. Preaching services are held occasionally.\n\nThe negroes in the city of Sheridan are hard-working and industrious. They\nare mainly laborers, but some have small businesses. Organizations include\na Mutual Aid Society with fifty members and three lodges which are all\ninactive at present. The National Association for the Advancement of\nColored People has a local branch with 100 members. A recently organized\nAthletic Club of fifteen members hopes to branch out into a regular\nathletic association.\n\n\nColored Churches\n\nThere are two colored churches--a Methodist Episcopal and a Baptist North.\nThe Methodist Episcopal was organized in 1908; the Baptist in the\nfollowing year. Both churches have resident pastors, serving but one point\neach. Each denomination has a church building and a parsonage. The\ncombined value of the church buildings is $3,500, of the parsonages $500.\nThe Baptist church has recently been rebuilt. Both churches use weekly\nenvelopes for raising their money which amounted to $2,887.14 last year,\n$1,164.25 of which was by subscription, and $680 by collection. There was\nno surplus or deficit. From this fund $938.79 was spent for salaries,\n$142.17 for missions and benevolences, and $1,500.04 for rebuilding and\nrepairs. The Baptist church receives home mission aid of $600.\n\nThe Methodist church has thirty-six members, having made a net gain of\nseven in the year preceding the survey. The Baptist church has twenty-six\nmembers whose membership has remained constant. The total net active\nmembership of the two churches is fifty-one.\n\nEach church holds eight Sunday preaching services a month. Both have\nSunday schools. The Methodist Sunday school, with an enrollment of\nsixteen, is kept going the year round; the Baptist Sunday school, with an\nenrollment of twelve, meets for only seven months. The Methodist church\nhas three other organizations--a Woman's Missionary Society, a Willing\nWorkers and Ladies' Aid, and a Literary Society for both sexes with a\nmembership of fifty. The Baptists have one organization, a Christian Aid,\nwith a membership of twelve, to which both men and women belong.\n\nOne church has had six, the other five, pastors in the last ten years. The\npresent pastors are graduates of both college and seminary.\n\nA friendly feeling exists between the white and colored people in\nSheridan, which is manifested by a willingness on the part of the white\nchurches to help the colored. The colored ministers are included in the\nSheridan Ministerial Union.\n\n\nIndian Missions\n\nPart of the Crow Creek Indian Reservation extends into the southeastern\npart of Hughes County, and about 70 per cent. of the people living in this\nsection of Hughes are Indians. All are farmers owning their own land.\n\nAn Episcopal Indian Mission was established here in 1892. The pastor, who\nlives in Fort Thompson, conducts one morning service a month. There are\ntwenty-six members, of whom twenty-one are active. There is no Sunday\nschool, but a Ladies' Aid with five members meets every week and has twice\nas large an attendance as it has enrollment.\n\nThere is also a Catholic Mission located near the Episcopal Mission, which\nwas started about 1911. The priest comes from outside the county and holds\none mass each month. There are about fifteen families in the membership.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nNon-Protestant Work\n\n\nRoman Catholic\n\nThe Roman Catholic work is the strongest non-Protestant religious activity\nin all the four counties and naturally has a large number of foreign-born\nand Spanish-American communicants in its parishes. There is a total of\ntwenty-four organized Catholic churches. Beaverhead County has two, Hughes\nthree, Sheridan five and Union fourteen. The city of Sheridan, and each of\nthe towns supports a Catholic church; eight are located in villages, two\nof which are in Sheridan mining camps, and twelve in small hamlets. Nine\npriests, seven of whom live in these counties, serve the twenty-four\nchurches. Four churches, two in villages and two in small hamlets, are\nserved by priests living outside the county.\n\n[Illustration: AN OASIS IN THE DESERT\n\nThe grounds in which this Catholic Church and parsonage stand make this\nthe only spot of verdure in a barren waste extending for miles on every\nside.]\n\nEach of the twenty-four churches has a building. There are six priests'\nhouses, valued at $21,000, and two parochial school buildings. The value\nof church buildings is estimated at a total value of $98,800. The total\nvalue of church property, including land, is $211,025. None of the\nchurches have any social equipment. The total receipts of all the churches\nlast year amounted to $23,157.56 and this amount was spent largely on\nsalaries and church upkeep. The only churches receiving aid are two in\nUnion, each of which received $500. The average salary is $892.\n\n[Illustration: ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES AND PARISHES, UNION COUNTY, NEW\nMEXICO]\n\nThe total membership is about 5,152, which is within 668 of the total\nProtestant figure for seventy churches. The average total membership is\n215 per church. Only three of the twenty-four churches have as few as\nfifty members or less.\n\nThirteen churches have Catechism and Confirmation classes, with a total\nenrollment of 416. Attendance is high; it equals 77 per cent. of the\nenrollment. There are seventeen other organizations, three for men, ten\nfor women, one for boys, one for girls and two for young people. The total\nenrollment is 771. The church in Sheridan has a parochial school.\n\nCatholic church membership increased more rapidly than the Protestant in\nBeaverhead and Hughes and less rapidly in Sheridan from 1890 to 1916,\naccording to the United States religious census. In Union, from 1906 to\n1916, the Protestant membership increased more rapidly than the Catholic.\nCatholic membership is greater than Protestant membership in every county\nbut Hughes. There are a total of nineteen Catholic mission centers in\nUnion and Beaverhead.\n\n\nPenitentes\n\nThere are about five groups of Penitentes in Union County, with an average\nof twenty-five members each. No women belong. The Penitentes are all\nSpanish-Americans and are largely sheep and cattle herders. Their small\nadobe and stone buildings are called \"morada.\" Meetings are held in Lent,\non the last three days of Holy Week. During the ceremonies, members\ninflict personal punishment, often carrying it to an extreme. This sect,\nwhich was at one time distributed over the whole territory of New Mexico,\nsince 1850 has retreated towards the north. As to their origin, Twitchell\nin his \"History of New Mexico\" says: \"It is possible that the Penitentes,\nparticularly by their scourging themselves with whips made of cactus, come\nfrom the order of Flagellants which was a body of religious persons who\nbelieved by whipping and scourging themselves for religious discipline\nthey could appease the divine wrath against their sins and the sins of the\nage.\" The Penitentes are not recognized by the Catholic Church.\n\n\nLatter Day Saints\n\nDillon, in Beaverhead, and the city of Sheridan, each have a Mormon\nchurch. There is a church building in Dillon, and the one in Sheridan is\nnow being erected. There is also an inactive church at Lima, organized in\n1900. The Mormon membership is eighty-five in Dillon and thirty-six in\nSheridan. Both churches have Sunday schools, with a total enrollment of\nseventy and relief societies with a total membership of thirty-five.\n\n\nChristian Science\n\nThere are two Christian Science churches, located in Dillon and in the\ncity of Sheridan, both organized in 1919. The Dillon church meets in an\noffice, but the Sheridan church has a building valued at $2,500. The\nchurch membership is about 170. Both churches have Sunday schools, with an\nenrollment of about thirty in Dillon and about fifty in Sheridan.\n\n\nTheosophical\n\nThe city of Sheridan has a Theosophical Society which meets in a real\nestate office. The membership is seventeen. Six new members were taken in\nlast year. Meetings are held every Friday night. Two meetings a month are\nfor members only, and two are public lectures.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nSeeing It Whole\n\n\nThe Range, our last real frontier, has grown up. Round-ups are miniature\nand staged. All the land is fenced. The cowboy is passing, if not gone.\nEven \"chaps\" and a sombrero are rare, unless worn by a \"Dude\" from the\nEast. The last 100 years have seen a remarkable growth and change in this\ncountry. The cattleman and the cowboy have largely given way to the\nhomesteader, and he in turn has become a regular farmer or, as he prefers\nit, \"rancher.\"\n\n\nThe Land of the Homesteader\n\nThe cowman used to insist that no one could make a living on the semi-arid\nRange. For many years \"there was no sign of permanent settlement on the\nPlains and no one thought of this region as frontier.\" Then the\nHomesteader came. \"And always, just back of the frontier,\" says Emerson\nHough in \"The Passing of the Frontier,\" \"advancing, receding, crossing it\nthis way and that, succeeding and failing, hoping and despairing, but\nsteadily advancing in the net result--has come that portion of the\npopulation which builds homes and lives in them, and which is not content\nwith a blanket for a bed and the sky for a roof above.\"\n\nHomesteaders are good stock upon which to build a civilization. Many of\nthem are sturdy folk who have come to the West to establish homes and with\ndetermination are doing so. Of course, there are the habitual drifters who\nhave always been failures because they never stayed long enough anywhere\nto succeed. But they prove up on their claims and then go elsewhere,\ndrifting still. Others leave, holding their land as an investment, because\nthey have not found the land or the circumstances up to their\nexpectations. The free land has gradually been taken up, so that there is\nvery little of it left in any one of these counties. The population is\nbecoming less transient on this account. More people are staying because\nthere is no more free land, and no other newer frontier.\n\nWhat, then, has the survey shown of the Range? How has it fared in its 100\nyears of growth? What are its assets as well as its needs? In a word,\nwhat has it made of itself? The very presence of real farm-houses on dry\nfarming land and mesas speaks in itself of a small world conquered. Of\ncourse, there are farm-houses in the valleys. But sheer grit is all that\nachieves a house and a barn and a wind-shield of trees out on the mesa.\nLumber is expensive and must be hauled from the nearest market. Trees, so\nwary of growing there, must be watched, watered and carefully tended every\nday for the first five years. A home on the plains means more sweat and\ntoil and effort than a home anywhere else in our country.\n\n[Illustration: WATERING HER GARDEN\n\nThis homesteader of ten years' standing has succeeded in cultivating an\nattractive garden patch even in the thirsty soil of New Mexico.]\n\n\nSelf-Help the Rule\n\nThe development of the Range has been haphazard. Any Land Company has been\nable to work up a \"boom\" at will. Not even misrepresentations and\nuncounted, unlimited hardships have stirred the Government to form and\nfollow any better colonization policy for its unoccupied lands than its\n\"Homestead laws.\" The western farmer has never been cherished by his\nGovernment as has been the Canadian farmer. Until the comparatively\nrecent development of county agent services and the Farm Bureau, he has\nhad to work for everything he got with very little help from any one.\n\nAn intense economic struggle is behind the homesteaders. They begin from\nthe bottom up. Some are just now beginning, but for the majority the\ndifficulty of getting a start is over. But the last few years have been\nhard for every farmer and rancher on the Range, old settler and new alike.\nNo part of the country can afford to have the men on the land as hard\npressed as these men have been. Too large a proportion of the farms have\nbeen mortgaged for the economic well-being of a nation.\n\n[Illustration: A COMMUNITY RENDEZVOUS\n\nOften the general store is the only gathering place for neighbors miles\napart.]\n\nMade up largely of people from the Middle West, this country has taken on\nsome of the characteristics of that region--in the development of small\nand large centers, and in the improved roads and schools. But on account\nof the nature of the soil, it will be many years before the Range becomes\na second Middle West, if ever. The land will not support as many people\nper square mile. Much of the area will remain, for years to come, a land\nof large distances and comparatively few people. The future of the Range\nis not to be summed up by saying, \"Go to, this country will soon become a\nsecond Middle West. Just give it time.\"\n\n\"If you want to see neighbor Adams, you'll find him in town on Saturday\nafternoon, most like round Perkins' store.\" Such will be the advice given\nin regard to meeting almost any farmer living in almost any part of these\ncounties. As roads have improved, and autos have come to be generally used\nby the farmers as a means of transportation, the trade centers along the\nrailroads, especially the county seats, have increased greatly in size and\nimportance. This growth of the centers is characteristic of the whole\nUnited States. Until after 1820 less than 5 per cent. of the American\npeople lived in cities of 8,000 population and over. In 1790 there were\nbut five cities in the United States having a population of 8,000. Now a\nmajority live in the cities; but the West does not yet have the urban\ndevelopment of the East.\n\n\nImportance of the County Seat\n\nAs the county seats are coming gradually to have more of a direct\nrelationship to the country around them, they should assume more\nresponsibility toward their counties. Through their organizations and\nCivic Leagues of business men, these centers are just waking up to the\nfact that the towns are dependent upon them. As one farmer in Union County\nsaid, \"There is no permanent prosperity except that based on the farmer.\nIf our town is big and top-heavy and the farmers are taxed heavily to keep\nthe town up, it is killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. The 1,000\nfarmers tributary to Clayton must pay the bills of everything brought in\nbecause, ultimately, the products of the farm have to pay for everything.\nWhen conditions are bad, the farmer has to pay the bill and keep going\nbesides.\" If the development of the future is to be sound each side will\ndo its best to understand the other.\n\n\nA Centralized School System\n\nSchool systems are becoming better. People realize the advantages of\neducation. More and more young people are being sent to college. But as\ndistances are gradually being overcome, schools should be administered\nwholly from the county seat. The County Unit plan does away with the local\nschool district boards. This system equalizes burdens and advantages,\nminimizes dissension, and conduces to economy and efficiency. The average\nschool board has no standards by which to judge an applicant for teaching.\nOne disadvantage of the district system is that so often daughters are put\nin as teachers. The county unit plan means centralized control. The county\nsuperintendent, who is selected solely because of education, training and\nsuccessful experience, takes over most of the duties which the various\ndistricts now have. This means a comprehensive and efficient plan of\neducation for the whole county.\n\n\nSocial Needs\n\nOther great needs are a better organized social life and more recreational\nactivities. Outside the larger center, there is a great lack of social\nlife. Social organizations are fairly abundant, but they are almost all\ncity or town affairs. Living on the land is a more solitary affair for\nwomen than for men. The men drive to town, but the women stay home week in\nand week out with few diversions. A postmistress in Montana told about two\nwomen living on large cattle ranches about six miles apart, a small\ndistance in that country. She said to one of them: \"There is Mrs. Denis at\nthe door just going out. Did you see her?\" The other lady answered: \"Yes,\nbut I hardly know Mrs. Denis.\" They had lived there for more than ten\nyears, near neighbors for the Range country, and yet barely acquainted!\n\n[Illustration: \"MARY, CALL THE CATTLE HOME!\"\n\nBut this \"Mary\" is a homesteader's wife and the Range is a long way from\nthe Sands o' Dee, and \"Mary\" herself is usually a long way from anywhere.]\n\n\nThe Part of the Church\n\nFinally, there is the duty of the Church. \"The churches performed an\ninestimable social function in frontier expansion,\" says John Dewey. \"They\nwere the rallying points not only of respectability but of decency and\norder in the midst of a rough and turbulent population. They were the\nrepresentatives of social neighborliness and all the higher interests of\nthe communities.\" The Church has played an important role in the past, but\nits position in this same country to-day is disappointing. For some reason\nit has not become essential to the landscape.\n\n[Illustration: WAITING AT THE CHURCH\n\nA Christian Church in Union County which draws its congregation from a\nwide area.]\n\nThe immense distances and scattered population have, of course, been a\ngreat problem. All the country west of the Mississippi makes up 70.9 per\ncent. of the total area of the United States, while the western area has\nonly 30 per cent. of the total population. In 1850, it had only 8.6 per\ncent. of the population. The average density per square mile in the United\nStates is 35.5 persons. Illinois has 115.7 people per square mile, but\nMontana has an average density of only 3.8, Wyoming of 2, New Mexico of\n2.9 and South Dakota of 8.3 persons.\n\nMuch of the Range has never had the chance to go to church, and one result\nof the lack of church facilities in the past is that it is difficult now\nto create a church spirit. Homesteading is no fun. It means being away\nfrom doctors and comforts, getting ahead little by little, facing\nset-backs, discouragements and loneliness. Of course, a homesteader is\nabsorbed by his place. Unless he is simply proving up on his claim for the\npurpose of selling it, he must be absorbed if he is to succeed. He broke\nwith most of his home ties before he came and, after arriving, has not had\ntime to go adventuring for any but those simple things which he must have.\n\"Church\" is one of the things he left behind. Church services have rarely\nfollowed him, and generally he has been too busy to seek them. Even if he\nwere minded to hunt them out, it takes more than average courage to be\n\"different\" when one's neighbors are largely of a common mind. So the\nabsence of church has become a habit.\n\n[Illustration: HITTING THE TRAIL\n\nWill this settler find a church welcome in his new home?]\n\nBut probably the greatest hindrance to church work has been the shifting\npopulation. Churches have trained lay leaders only to have them leave \"en\nmasse.\" Out of the fourteen churches which have been abandoned in these\nfour counties, nine have gone under because their members melted away.\n\nThe carrying over of the care-free frontier spirit often makes for a\ngeneral slackness. This spirit has in it the freedom of the West, the\nperfect democracy of the cowboy, and is essentially individualistic. If\ndirected into right channels, it should be an asset instead of a\ndrawback.\n\n\nWhat the Frontier Church Is\n\nFive sentences sum up the Church on the Range. It is a church of the\ncenter. It is, in the main, a church of the middle-aged. It has been a\nchurch with haphazard leadership. It is a church of past achievements and\nof unlimited future possibilities, provided it has an inspired and\nsustained leadership. It is a church which needs a social vision.\n\nIt is natural that, where the centers along the railroad have been the\nonly \"sure\" things in a country of constantly shifting settlements, the\nlargest number of churches have been established in such centers. But\nthese churches have not reached the great unevangelized areas around them.\nThe \"isolated, unattached Christian,\" who lives perhaps only a few miles\nfrom town, has been neglected by the church in the center.\n\nIt is natural, too, that this should be largely a church of the\nmiddle-aged. What is there to attract the young people? Many of the church\norganizations have no buildings. With few exceptions, buildings are\nequipped for little else but preaching and listening. Nearly half of the\nchurches have less than four services a month. The Sunday schools are not\nwell organized. With the start the Sunday schools now have, possibilities\nare unlimited if they can be conducted on a more business-like basis. Yet\nthese young people and children are the great hope of the church. No more\nwide-awake, vigorous young people are to be found. \"If only the Church\ncould work out something that would last through the week,\" said one of\nthem, \"it would seem more real.\" But in many communities the women's\norganization is not only the sole organization in the church, outside the\nSunday school, but the only one in the community.\n\nThe work has been haphazard. Home Mission aid has been spent out of all\nproportion to fitness. The same amount now received would go further,\neventually, if spent in fewer places. With means and leaders adequate for\na small area only, the general idea of some denominations has been to\nhold, but to do little with a large area. There has been some unnecessary\nover-lapping of work. With their large fields, the ministers cannot be\nexpected to do more than they are doing at present which is, in most\nchurches, occasional preaching. A missionary pastor said, concerning one\nof his charges in a neglected community in Union, \"The second time I went\nto preach no one came. Do you think I'd go back?\" Under the present system\nof many points and long distances, this pastor could hardly afford to use\nthe time to go back. Yet, to succeed, church ministry must be steadier and\nmore long-suffering.\n\nThere are some New Americans in each county, but they are in larger\nnumbers in Sheridan and Beaverhead. A large number of the\nSpanish-Americans in Union are not provided for by the Catholic church,\nand the only Protestant work for them in the county, a Spanish American\nMission in Clayton, has been given up. In Sheridan County there is great\nneed of a comprehensive program that shall include all six mines. There\nshould be at least two community houses built with organized social\nactivities and evening classes; the staff to include a domestic science\nteacher. With the exception of one class for half a dozen Italian mothers\nin one of Sheridan's mining villages, no Americanization work is being\ndone in any county. The churches should enlarge their vision so as to\ninclude the New Americans.\n\n[Illustration: THE FAMILY MANSION\n\nWith the family and the Union County doctor in front of it. The family is\nSpanish-American.]\n\n\nWhat the Frontier Church Can Be\n\nIt is possible for the Church to serve this kind of country with its\nscattered people. It is difficult but it can be done. Certain\ndenominations have succeeded with what they call a \"demonstration parish.\"\nThe plan is exactly the same as that of the experimental farms conducted\nby the Government. A comprehensive seven-day-a-week plan, which has in\nmind the whole man, mind, body and soul, in place of the old circuit-rider\nsystem, is the program of the Congregational Demonstration Parish in\nPlateau Valley, Colorado. Six thousand feet up on the western slope of the\nRockies, this valley is shut in on three sides by rugged, white-capped\nmountains. It is thirty miles long, from one to six miles wide, and\ncontains about 150 square miles of territory. This is a small world in\nitself, self-contained by the nature of its environment. Of the 3,500\npeople, 750 live in the four small villages of Collbran, Plateau City,\nMelina and Mesa. The one great industry of the valley is stock-raising.\nFarmers have devoted themselves chiefly to raising beef cattle, but an\ninterest in dairying is increasing. Pure-bred stock is now the goal of\ntheir efforts.\n\nThis beautiful mountain valley was chosen as a \"model parish\" to show what\ncould be done by the Church throughout a large, thinly settled area.\nAlthough there were five church buildings in the valley, the church-going\nhabit seemed to have been lost or never acquired, possibly because\nreligious privileges had been meager and not altogether suited to the\npeculiar needs of the people and the country. It is doubtful if 250 people\nliving in the valley were church members or attendants, while not more\nthan 200 children went to Sunday school regularly. Few persons, however,\nwere actually hostile toward religion or the Church. Here was the\nopportunity and the challenge.\n\nThe work centers in Collbran village, where there is a Congregational\nchurch organization and building. There are two men on the staff. The\npastor has charge of the church school, the Christian Endeavor, and the\nwork with men and young people in Collbran village. He also does visiting\nthroughout the valley. The Director of Extension Work has the\nresponsibility for establishing and maintaining out-stations, financing\nthe local budget, and supervising the activities and the building of the\nCommunity House.\n\nThis Community House is to be the center and great achievement of the\nmodern socio-religious program. The completed building will have rooms and\nequipment for an ideal church school, kindergarten, game room, library,\nrest-room and men's club. The gymnasium will have a floor space\nseventy-five by forty feet and a gallery; it will also serve as an\nauditorium, while a stage, dressing-rooms and a moving-picture booth form\npart of the equipment. The basement will have billiard room, bowling\nalleys, lockers, baths, dining room and kitchen. The entire cost of the\nbuilding will be approximately $25,000, to be financed in part by the\nCongregational Church Building Society and in part by local pledges. This\nis Home Mission aid well spent.\n\nThe first and second units were completed and opened for use on Christmas\nDay, 1921. The first unit is the auditorium. The second unit contains the\nlibrary, assembly room, men's room, women's room, large billiard room and\ntwo offices which are to be used as headquarters for the boys' and girls'\norganizations. The third unit will be completed in the summer of 1922. The\npastor and extension man have office hours in the morning. In the\nafternoon, the women's rest room, with its easy chair, lounge and cribs\nfor babies, and the men's club are open. The billiard and reading rooms\nare open from one to five-thirty and the library is open from three-thirty\nto five. This library already has 1,200 books, and there are shelves for\n3,800 more. The library service is probably the most appreciated part of\nthe work for it fills a long and sorely felt need. In the evening, the\nmen's and women's rooms are open, and the reading room and billiard room\nare open from seven to nine. The privileges of the Community House are for\neach man, woman and child in the valley irrespective of church or creed.\n\nSo far as possible, everything enjoyed at the center is to be taken to the\nfurthest circumference of the valley. The equipment for the extension work\nconsists of a truck, auto, moving-picture machine and a generator. The\ncommunity truck is used to furnish group transportation and to promote\ninter-neighborhood \"mixing\" in competitive and other ways. The Extension\nDirector is organizer, social engineer and community builder. He has a\nregular circuit of preaching appointments and Sunday schools. His program\nincludes a one-hour visit to four schools every week. Ten minutes are used\nfor physical exercises, thirty minutes for public school music with the\ncooeperation of the teacher and twenty minutes for religious education. He\ntakes out library books and Sunday school papers to the teacher, and once\na month shows educational moving-pictures.\n\nThe people are already responding to this constructive program. Within\nfour months, the Collbran Church School has increased nearly 150 per cent.\nin average daily attendance. The Christian Endeavor Society includes\npractically all the young people of the intermediate age. The Scouts and\nCamp Fire organizations are very active and recently held a dual meet with\nthe Mesa organizations. Wrestling, basket-ball, hog-tying and three-legged\nraces were some of the events. Within the year, thirty-seven members were\nadded to the Collbran church, among whom were the leading lawyer, banker,\ndoctor, contractor, editor, merchant and rancher.\n\nThe other two denominations in the valley, the Methodist Episcopal and\nBaptists, are cooeperating in the effort. The small Methodist Episcopal\nchurch at Plateau City has come into the movement by arrangement with the\nMethodist Episcopal Conference, and has become part of the larger parish.\nThis church and community will unite with the Congregational church on a\ncommon budget for the support of general work. There is now Methodist\nEpiscopal work in the extreme end of the valley, Baptist in the central\npart, and Congregational in the extreme west. Each church sticks to its\nown territory; each urges members of its own denomination to work with\nchurches in other sections. But the larger parish equipment serves all in\nthe extension program.\n\nThe work is only begun. The larger purpose is to break down distinctions\nbetween neighborhoods, as well as between village and country, and to weld\nall people living over a wide area into one large community with community\nspirit and a common loyalty. This cannot be done by the Church alone;\ndoctors, visiting nurse, school teachers, county agent and farm bureau\nwill gradually be called into a cooeperative team play. This, then, is the\nChurch not merely aspiring to leadership, but utilizing its opportunity\nwith a real program. Asking no favors because of its divine origin, it is\ndetermined to make itself a necessity in the community by virtue of what\nit does. It is the Church \"actually practising a religion of fellowship,\ngiving value for value and serving all the people and all of their\ninterests, all of the time.\"\n\n\nThe Larger Parish Plan\n\nThis Larger Parish plan is the old circuit rider system brought up to\ndate, and given an all-around significance through the use of modern means\nof transportation and an equipment suited to a religio-social program. The\nminister is no less a preacher and man of God because he is a community\nbuilder. His measure of \"success\" is his ability to work out with his\npeople a genuine program of rural and social service.\n\nWith its community church and program, the Larger Parish plan seeks to\nmake the church both a religious and a social center. Under its own roof,\nif necessary, or better, with an adjoining community house, it has\nequipment which provides for ideal worship, a modern church school and\nwell-supervised social and recreational activities. It amounts to a church\nthat offers advantages like those of the Y. M. C. A. and Y. W. C. A. By\nmeans of this program, the rural church puts itself at the center rather\nthan at the far circumference of rural life, and becomes one of the most\nactive agencies in the community.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration: A REAL COMMUNITY HOUSE\n\nMembers of this Presbyterian Church at Sheridan building their own\ncommunity house under the leadership of the pastor. The women of the\nchurch provided the eats.]\n\nThis plan remedies a characteristic disability of the average rural\nminister and his church--the neglect in farmstead visitation. Especially\non the plains, isolation and loneliness persist despite modern\nimprovements. There are country homes near to villages or towns into which\nno minister or church visitor goes from one year's end to another. Within\nreach of almost any church on the Range, and over great stretches of\ncountry, children may be found who are growing up without any religious\ntraining. In the face of this need and its challenge, the Larger Parish\nplan need not wait for people to come into the Church. By means of a\nwell-equipped extension program the Church, and everything it stands for,\nis taken to all who need its ministrations.\n\n[Illustration: A CHURCH THAT SERVES THE COMMUNITY\n\nThe M. E. Church and parsonage at Clearmont, Wyoming.]\n\nPreaching is essential. But when a minister and congregation can \"brother\"\nscattered peoples, they are most helpful in bringing the Kingdom of God to\nrural America. There may be some justice in the excuse that \"the farmer\nand his family might easily come in to services in their automobile,\" but\nit is true that a \"house-going minister makes a church-going people.\" The\nLarger Parish plan furnishes the minister the equipment and help to do\njust this thing. It views the church as a service institution.\n\n\nThe Montana Plan\n\nIt is even possible for a whole state to make a united plan for church\nwork. Montana has had its area, community by community, county by county,\nor valley by valley, \"allocated\" to the religious care and undisputed\nresponsibility of one or more denominations. For this new and progressive\npolicy the people of the State were themselves responsible, and its\ndevelopment will be watched with intense interest. Unfortunately one of\nthe fields in the only Montana county in this survey is not receiving the\nattention it should from its \"allocated denomination.\" This is the work in\nthe southern part of the county, now served by a non-resident pastor. A\nglance at the map will show how effectively the larger parish plan could\nbe applied.\n\nTwo tasks face the churches in these counties: First, to increase and\nenlarge the work of the churches already established, and, secondly, to\nreach and serve the great unevangelized areas. The former is a problem for\nthe individual church and community. The latter is a problem demanding the\ncooeperation of all religious forces on the field, for \"there is religious\nneed enough to tax the best energies and resources of all.\" The churches\nin this new western country must keep pace with their rapidly changing\nenvironment, and with elastic yet inclusive programs really become\ncommunity churches.\n\nThe county seat towns should assume more responsibility for their\nsurrounding areas; in other words, they should plan and develop larger\nparishes. Especially in Beaverhead and Hughes, this area is unchurched and\nto a great extent neglected. While the social and economic life of these\n\"centers\" naturally overshadows a great portion of the county areas, yet\nthe churches minister very inadequately to their needs. The church\nparishes on the map represent few members. The centers are growing, their\ninfluence is ever widening, so that the Church, in building up her work at\nthe center with the idea not only of serving the people at hand but of\nreaching just as thoroughly the people in the surrounding areas, will\nnaturally fulfill her destiny.\n\nTo reach areas outside the influence of the church work at the centers,\ncolporteurs should be employed. A Sunday school missionary could give\npermanence to all Sunday school work and help to organize new schools in\nUnion and possibly in Sheridan County. Some additional churches should be\nestablished; others might very well be closed. But it is chiefly\nup-to-date, educated, resident pastors that are needed, with a belief\nthat the rural task is worth their lives.\n\n\nCooeperation the Solution\n\nThe psychological and religious differences in these four counties have\nalready been shown. All should not be treated alike. Every county is\ndifferent. Every county demands individual study and treatment. Such\nconditions call for the survey method and for intensive cooeperation. This\nis the key to the whole situation. Business, though still competitive and\non an individual basis, combines for the community good, as in the case of\nRotary and Civic Clubs. The churches might well emulate this example in\norganization. There are competent Ministerial Unions in Pierre and\nSheridan City. What is needed now is a Council of Religion in each county\nwith a program enlisting every minister and every church, and including\nevery square mile of occupied land in the county. All problems are\nrelated. The causes of church ineffectiveness lie in non-cooeperation.\nMinisters have stayed too short a time to relate themselves to their\nparish and their people; denominations in establishing new churches have\nnot been curious enough about the lay of the land; the various component\nparts have been unrelated--the preacher to the church, the fringe areas to\nthe church in the center and, finally, the Church to the people.\n\n\nThe Frontier of the Future\n\nYesterday the Range population was busy settling down. To-day it is\nhaphazardly here, and still coming. And what of to-morrow? Franklin K.\nLane wrote at the end of his term of service in the Department of the\nInterior: \"We are quickly passing out of the rough-and-ready period of our\nnational life, in which we have dealt wholesale with men and things, into\na period of more intensive development in which we must seek to find the\nspecial qualities of the individual unit whether that unit be an acre of\ndesert, a barrel of oil, a mountain canyon, the flow of a river, or the\ncapacity of the humblest of men.\" Here is fertile ground for well directed\nand progressive development.\n\nThe East is crystallized into its habits and customs. The West is more\nplastic because it is in the social making, and is willing, at need, to\nchange its ways. The social baggage of the eastern states is only partly\nunpacked in this region. The young West is developing a flexible social\nand institutional life in keeping with its phenomena of time and place.\n\nGreat possibilities are ahead. A real welding process has begun during the\nlast few years as the population tends to become more static, or as it\nlearns to cooeperate in such agencies as Red Cross work during the war and\nthe work of the Farm Bureau. A new social spirit is developing. The Church\nhas counted for a great deal on the Range and has done some good,\nfundamental work. But in order to keep abreast of the new development and\nto help bring to the Range a \"satisfying community life which is\nprofitable, sociable, healthful and full of culture and charm and, above\nall, full of God,\" the Church must make its ministry broader, steadier and\nmore available.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\n\nI: METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS\n\nII: TABLES\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I\n\nMethodology and Definitions\n\n\nThe method used in the Town and Country Surveys of the Interchurch World\nMovement and of the Committee on Social and Religious Surveys differs from\nthe method of earlier surveys in this field chiefly in the following\nparticulars:\n\n1. \"Rural\" was defined as including all population living outside\nincorporated places of over 5,000. Previous surveys usually excluded all\nplaces of 2,500 population or over, which follows the United States Census\ndefinition of \"rural.\"\n\n2. The local unit for the assembling of material was the community,\nregarded, usually, as the trade area of a town or village center. Previous\nsurveys usually took the minor civil division as the local unit. The\ndisadvantage of the community unit is that census and other statistical\ndata are seldom available on that basis, thus increasing both the labor\ninvolved and the possibility of error. The great advantage is that it\npresents its results assembled on the basis of units which have real\nsocial significance, which the minor civil division seldom has. This\nadvantage is considered as more than compensating for the disadvantage.\n\n3. The actual service area of each church as indicated by the residences\nof its members and adherents was mapped and studied. This was an entirely\nnew departure in rural surveys.\n\nFour chief processes were involved in the actual field work of these\nsurveys:\n\n1. The determination of the community units and of any subsidiary\nneighborhood units included within them. The community boundaries were\nascertained by noting the location of the last family on each road leading\nout from a given center who regularly traded at that center. These points,\nindicated on a map, were connected with each other by straight lines. The\narea about the given center thus enclosed was regarded as the community.\n\n2. The study of the economic, social and institutional life of each\ncommunity as thus defined.\n\n3. The location of each church in the county, the determination of its\nparish area, and the detailed study of its equipment, finance, membership,\norganization, program and leadership.\n\n4. The preparation of a map showing, in addition to the usual physical\nfeatures, the boundaries of each community, the location, parish area and\ncircuit connections of each church, and the residence of each minister.\n\nThe following are the more important definitions used in the making of\nthese surveys and the preparation of the reports:\n\n\nGEOGRAPHICAL\n\n_City_--A center of over 5,000 population. Not included within the scope\nof these surveys except as specifically noted.\n\n_Town_--A center with a population of from 2,501 to 5,000.\n\n_Village_--A center with a population of from 251 to 2,500.\n\n_Hamlet_--Any clustered group of people not living on farms whose numbers\ndo not exceed 250.\n\n_Open Country_--The farming area, excluding hamlets and other centers.\n\n_Country_--Used in a three-fold division of population included in scope\nof survey into Town, Village and Country. Includes Hamlets and Open\nCountry.\n\n_Town and Country_--The whole area covered by these surveys, i.e., all\npopulation living outside cities.\n\n_Rural_--Used interchangeably with Town and Country.\n\n_Community_--That unit of territory and of population characterized by\ncommon social and economic interests and experiences; an \"aggregation of\npeople the majority of whose interests have a common center.\" Usually\nascertained by determining the normal trade area of each given center. The\nprimary social grouping of sufficient size and diversity of interests to\nbe practically self-sufficing in ordinary affairs of business, civil and\nsocial life.\n\n_Neutral Territory_--Any area not definitely included within the area of\none community. Usually an area between two or more centers, and somewhat\ninfluenced by each, but whose interests are so scattered that it cannot\ndefinitely be assigned to the sphere of influence of any one center.\n\n_Neighborhood_--A recognizable social grouping having certain interests in\ncommon, but dependent for certain elemental needs upon some adjacent\ncenter within the community area of which it is located.\n\n_Rural Industrial_--Pertaining to any industry other than farming within\nthe Town and Country area.\n\n\nPOPULATION\n\n_Foreigner_--Refers to foreign-born and native-born of foreign parentage.\n\n_New Americans_--Usually includes foreign-born and native-born of foreign\nor mixed parentage, but sometimes refers only to more recent immigration.\nIn each case the exact meaning is clear from the context.\n\n\nTHE CHURCH\n\n_Parish_--The area within which the members and regular attendants of a\ngiven church live.\n\n_Circuit_--Two or more churches combined under the direction of one\nminister.\n\n_Resident Pastor_--A church whose minister lives within its parish area is\nsaid to have a resident pastor.\n\n_Full-time Resident Pastor_--A church with a resident pastor who serves no\nother church, and follows no other occupation than the ministry, is said\nto have a full-time resident pastor.\n\n_Part-time Pastor_--A church whose minister either serves another church\nalso, or devotes part of his time to some regular occupation other than\nthe ministry, or both, is said to have a part-time minister.\n\n_Non-Resident Member_--One carried on the rolls of a given church but\nliving too far away to permit regular attendance; generally, any member\nliving outside the community in which the church is located unless he is a\nregular attendant.\n\n_Inactive Member_--One who resides within the parish area of the church,\nbut who neither attends its services nor contributes to its support.\n\n_Net Active Membership_--The resultant membership of a given church after\nthe number of non-resident and inactive members is deducted from the total\non the church roll.\n\n_Per Capita Contributions or Expenditures_--The total amount contributed\nor expended, divided by the number of the net active membership.\n\n_Budget System_--A church which, at the beginning of the fiscal year,\nmakes an itemized forecast of the entire amount of money required for its\nmaintenance during the year as a basis for a canvass of its membership for\nfunds, is said to operate on a budget system with respect to its local\nfinances. If amounts to be raised for denominational or other benevolences\nare included in the forecast and canvass, it is said to operate on a\nbudget system for all monies raised.\n\n_Adequate Financial System_--Three chief elements are recognized in an\nadequate financial system: a budget system, an annual every-member\ncanvass, and the use of envelopes for the weekly payment of subscriptions.\n\n_Receipts_--Receipts have been divided under three heads:\n\n    a. Subscriptions, that is monies received in payment of annual\n    pledges.\n\n    b. Collections, that is money received from free will offerings at\n    public services.\n\n    c. All other sources of revenue, chiefly proceeds of entertainments\n    and interest on endowments.\n\n_Salary of Minister_--Inasmuch as some ministers receive, in addition to\ntheir cash salary, the free use of a house while others do not, a\ncomparison of the cash salaries paid is misleading. In all salary\ncomparisons, therefore, the cash value of a free parsonage is arbitrarily\nstated as $250 a year, and that amount is added to the cash salary of each\nminister with free parsonage privileges. Thus an average salary stated as\n$1,450 is equivalent to $1,200 cash and the free use of a house.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II\n\nTables\n\n\nI\n\nLAND AND FARM AREA IN THE RANGE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL CENSUSES\nFOR 1910 AND 1920\n\n                           Beaverhead            Hughes\n\n                        1920      1910       1920    1910\n  Approximate land\n   area (acres)      3,620,480  3,020,160  485,760  485,760\n\n  Land in farms\n   (acres)            637,009     461,315  284,907  165,069\n\n  Improved land in\n   farms (acres)      270,603     275,530  144,237   62,531\n\n  Woodland in farms\n   (acres)   7,142      3,088       7,032    2,521    8,741\n\n  Other unimproved\n   land in farms\n   (acres)            359,264     182,697  133,638  100,017\n\n  Per cent. of land\n   area in farms         17.6        15.3     58.7     34.0\n\n  Per cent. of farm\n   land improved         42.5        59.7     50.6     37.9\n\n  Average acreage\n   per farm             992.1       860.7    784.9    440.2\n\n  Average improved\n   acreage per farm     421.5       514.0    397.3    116.7\n\n\n\n       Sheridan                Union\n\n    1920       1910       1920       1910\n\n  1,647,360  1,648,000  3,436,800  3,436,800\n\n\n  625,796    421,543  2,515,522    814,011\n\n\n  113,385     95,368    273,748     72,630\n\n\n    7,269     51,634      1,854\n\n\n\n  503,670    318,906  2,190,140    739,527\n\n\n     38.0       25.6       73.2       23.7\n\n\n     18.1       22.6       10.9        8.9\n\n\n    643.8      527.6      948.5      423.3\n\n\n    116.7      119.4      103.2       37.8\n\nThe average acreage per farm in Beaverhead and Sheridan has increased very\nslightly in the past ten years, while the improved acreage per farm has\ndecreased. In Hughes and Union, however, there is a decided increase in\nboth the acreage per farm and the improved acreage per farm.\n\n\nII\n\nFARMS AND FARM PROPERTY IN THE RANGE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL\nCENSUSES FOR 1910 AND 1920\n\n  _Farms Operated by Owners_                        Beaverhead\n                                                 1920        1910\n  Number of farms                                 559         456\n  Per cent. of all farms                         87.1        85.1\n  Land in farms (acres)                       490,453     324,248\n  Improved land in farms (acres)              214,638     194,592\n  Value of land, buildings (dollars)       12,753,847   6,021,007\n  Number of farmers owning entire farm            506         439\n  Number of farmers hiring additional land         53          17\n\n  _Color and Nativity of Owners_\n  Number of native whites                         385         305\n  Number of foreign-horn whites                   174         151\n  Number of non-whites                              0           0\n\n  _Farms Operated by Tenants_\n  Number of farms                                  46          55\n  Per cent. of all farms                          7.2        10.3\n  Land in farms (acres)                        42,489      43,196\n  Improved land in farms (acres)               18,536      25,565\n  Value of land and buildings (dollars)     1,410,170   1,056,695\n\n  _Color and Nativity of Tenants_\n  Number of native whites                          37          38\n  Number of foreign-born whites                     9          15\n  Number of non-whites                              0           2\n\n  _Farms operated by managers_\n  Number of farms                                  37          25\n  Land in farms (acres)                       104,067      93,871\n  Improved land in farms (acres)               37,429      55,373\n  Value of land and buildings (dollars)     2,900,920   1,520,630\n\n\n           Hughes                 Sheridan                 Union\n      1920        1910        1920        1910        1920        1910\n        245         308         734         626       2,282       1,891\n       67.5        82.1        75.5        78.3          86        98.3\n    151,684     124,686     455,057     302,076   2,043,800     716,506\n     69,052      45,675      68,729      63,631     216,881      70,047\n  6,291,101   3,136,356  10,454,136   6,742,704  22,052,531   3,973,909\n        165         219         591         503       1,670       1,822\n         80          89         143         123         612          69\n\n\n        187         224         595         519       2,241       1,809\n         47          64         131         105          38          77\n         11          20           8           2           3           5\n\n\n        112          63         198         164         344          22\n       30.9        16.8        20.4        20.5          13         1.1\n    117,163      34,283      86,147     108,233     292,004      14,305\n     65,200      16,136      28,832      28,922      37,362       1,705\n  3,459,605     933,680   3,663,700   2,616,525   3,424,668      88,840\n\n\n        396          57         173         150         289          20\n        141           6          24          12          54           2\n          0           0           1           2           1           0\n\n\n          6           4          40           9          26          10\n     16,060       6,100      84,592      11,234     179,718      83,200\n      9,985         720      15,824       2,815      19,505         878\n    352,500     103,560   2,483,650     240,200   1,834,472     306,210\n\nAs is usual in districts that have been homesteaded, the proportion of\nownership is high. But because of absentee ownership, land companies\noperating over large areas and high taxes, the rate of tenancy is\nincreasing.\n\n\nIII\n\nACREAGE AND VALUE OF CULTIVATED CROPS IN THE RANGE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO\nFEDERAL CENSUSES FOR 1910 AND 1920\n\n                                Beaverhead                 Hughes\n  _Cereals_                   1920        1910       1920        1910\n  Corn                                              10,740       4,352\n  Oats                       4,118      15,255       2,891       3,684\n  Wheat                      2,157         763       4,499       3,761\n  Barley                       903         225       1,560         131\n  Rye                           47          96         962          96\n\n  _Hay and Forage_\n  All tame and\n    cultivated crops        36,243      26,996       4,667         827\n\n  _Special Crops_\n  Potatoes                     198         408         219         272\n  All other vegetables           9          87          25         132\n\n                          Dollars     Dollars     Dollars     Dollars\n  Value of all crops    $3,883,480  $1,529,830  $1,141,939  $  225,315\n    Cereals                200,733     414,539     539,471      78,654\n    Hay and forage       3,597,990   1,080,093     505,323     103,592\n    Vegetables              80,421      33,622      49,673      15,336\n  Dairy products            64,083      41,176      71,379      29,162\n\n\n            Sheridan                 Union\n        1920        1910        1920        1910\n         292         200      51,077       3,220\n       2,916       8,043       2,819         431\n      11,466       9,898      14,094         377\n         801       1,601         552           3\n          93         224         618          10\n\n\n\n      35,067      35,766       7,925       2,688\n\n\n         267         808         619         157\n          35         367         142         365\n\n    Dollars     Dollars     Dollars     Dollars\n  $1,655,937  $1,108,967  $5,198,986  $  295,293\n     335,719     368,205   3,050,879      84,410\n   1,036,246     596,473   1,092,554     152,494\n     109,670     110,087     110,700      18,687\n     174,759      85,512     313,632      18,230\n\nThe most important crops are hay and forage in Beaverhead and Sheridan; in\nUnion cereal crops; in Hughes, both in nearly equal proportions. Dairying\nis a comparatively new development.\n\n\nIV\n\nURBAN AND RURAL POPULATION OF THE RANGE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL\nCENSUSES FOR 1910 AND 1920\n\n                                  Beaverhead        Hughes\n                                 1920    1910    1920    1910\n  Distribution of population:\n    Rural population             4,668   6,446   2,502   2,615\n    Rural increase 1910-1920     27.6%           -4.3%\n    Urban population             2,701           3,209   3,656\n    Urban increase 1910-1920                    -12.2%\n    Total population             7,369   6,446   5,711   6,271\n    Total increase 1910-1920     14.3%           -8.9%\n\n  Density of population per sq. mile:\n    Rural density                  .8      1.4     3.3     3.4\n    Total density                 1.3[9]   1.4     7.5     8.3\n    No. of dwellings             1,832   1,493   1,301   1,419\n    No. of families              1,937   1,561   1,387   1,492\n\n\n     Sheridan         Union           Total\n   1920    1910    1920    1910    1920    1910\n\n   9,007   7,916  16,680  11,404  32,857  28,381\n   13.8%           46.3%           15.8%\n   9,175   8,408                  15,085  12,064\n    9.1%                           25%\n  18,182  16,324  16,680  11,404  47,942  40,445\n   11.4%           46.3%           18.5%\n\n\n     3.5     3.1     3.1     2.1\n     7.1[9]  6.3     3.1     2.1\n   4,169   3,376   3,768   2,961  11,070   9,249\n   4,492   3,186   3,956   3,093  11,772   9,632\n\n\nV\n\nRACIAL COMPOSITION OF POPULATION OF THE RANGE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO\nFEDERAL CENSUS OF 1920\n\n                    Beaverhead       Hughes        Sheridan      Union[10]\n                   Number  Rank   Number  Rank   Number  Rank   Number Rank\n\n  Total population  7,369          5,711         18,182         16,680\n  Native White,\n    Total           6,261          5,155         15,058         16,376\n  Native parentage  4,454          3,752         11,454         15,512\n  Foreign parentage 1,024            778          2,314            414\n  Mixed parentage     783            625          1,290            450\n  Foreign White,\n    Total           1,035            462          2,895            278\n\n  Austria              69    7        15    9        90   12         5   14\n  Canada              150    1        49    2       126    9        26    3\n  Czecho-Slovakia      11   14         4   11        90   12         7   12\n  Denmark             121    2        42    3        44   17         6   13\n  England              98    5        38    4       194    4        19    5\n  Finland              23   11         3   12        66   13         0\n  France               17   12         6   10        51   16         5   14\n  Germany             107    3       118    1       541    1        49    1\n  Greece               11   14         4   11        53   15        10   10\n  Hungary               4   16         1   14       107   11        10   10\n  Ireland             106    4        22    6        56   14        12    8\n  Italy                33    9         3   12       240    3         8   11\n  Jugo-Slavia          27   10         0            169    7         0\n  Mexico                0              0            192    5        13    7\n  Norway               33    9        49    2        38   18         3   15\n  Poland                2   17         2   13       290    2        11    9\n  Russia               13   13        20    7       181    6        28    2\n  Scotland             33    9         3   12       108   10        10   10\n  Sweden               80    6        37    5       143    8        15    6\n  Switzerland          43    8        18    8        15   20         6   13\n  Syria                 0              0              0             22    4\n  Wales                 7   15         3   12        22   19         0\n  All other countries  47             25             79             13\n  Other than white     73             94            229             26\n\n\nVI\n\nAGE AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN THE RANGE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL\nCENSUS FOR 1920\n\n                     Beaverhead       Hughes        Sheridan      Union\n                     Number  Per   Number  Per   Number  Per   Number  Per\n                            cent.         cent.         cent.         cent.\n\n  Under 7 years       1,057   ...    847   ...    2,779   ...   3,217   ...\n  7 to 13 years\n    inclusive           850   ...    790   ...    2,395   ...   2,909   ...\n  Attending school      789  92.8    714  90.4    2,225  92.9   2,594  89.2\n    14 and 15 years     213   ...    201   ...      564   ...     700   ...\n  Attending school      195  91.5    191  95        495  87.8     590  84.3\n    16 and 17 years     206   ...    216   ...      531   ...     655   ...\n  Attending school      137  66.5    153  70.8      286  53.9     337  51.5\n    18 to 20 years\n    inclusive           302   ...    306   ...      829   ...     846   ...\n  Attending school       68  22.5     82  26.8      147  17.8     140  16.5\n\nThe proportion of children in school is high through the age of sixteen.\nBeyond that age the ratio of attendance falls off rapidly, Sheridan and\nUnion having a smaller proportion in school than the other two counties.\n\n\nVII\n\nILLITERACY IN THE RANGE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL CENSUS FOR 1920\n\n                      Beaverhead       Hughes        Sheridan      Union\n                      Number  Per   Number Per   Number  Per   Number  Per\n  _Ten Years and Over_       cent.        cent.         cent.         cent.\n\n  Total                5,950   ...  4,520  ...   14,320   ...  12,123   ...\n    Illiterates           59   1.0     20  1.4      437   3.1     668   5.5\n      Native Whites    4,863   ...  3,982  ...   11,284   ...  11,830   ...\n        Illiterates       13    .3      2   .1       33    .3     652   5.5\n      Foreign Born\n        Whites         1,023   ...    460  ...    2,828   ...     276\n        Illiterates       29   2.8      9   2.      393  13.9      14   5.1\n      Negro               14   ...     23  ...      131   ...      12   ...\n        Illiterates        3   ...      1  ...        4   3.1       1   ...\n\n  _16-20 Years Inclusive_\n  Total                  508   ...    522  ...    1,359   ...   1,501   ...\n    Illiterates            2    .4      1   .2        9    .7      44   2.9\n\n  _Illiteracy 21 Years and Over_\n  Males                   42   1.4      8   .5      276   4.2     211   4.6\n    Native Whites         11   ...    ...  ...       16   ...     205   ...\n    Foreign Born\n      Whites              18   ...      5  ...      252   ...       6   ...\n    Negro                  2   ...    ...  ...        3   ...     ...   ...\n  Females                 15    .8     11   .7      148   3.2     350   9.2\n    Native Whites          1   ...      1  ...        9   ...     341   ...\n    Foreign Born\n      Whites              10   ...      4  ...      137   ...       8   ...\n    Negro                  1   ...    ...  ...        1   ...       1   ...\n\nThe rate of illiteracy is higher in Sheridan and Union than in Beaverhead\nand Hughes.\n\n\nVIII\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF PROTESTANT CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS ON THE CHANGING FRONTIER\n\n    A BEAVERHEAD Total Number Churches    K SHERIDAN Number Now Abandoned\n    B BEAVERHEAD Number Now Active        L SHERIDAN Number Now Inactive\n    C BEAVERHEAD Number Now Abandoned     M UNION Total Number Churches\n    D BEAVERHEAD Number Now Inactive      N UNION Number Now Active\n    E HUGHES Total Number Churches        O UNION Number Now Abandoned\n    F HUGHES Number Now Active            P UNION Number Now Inactive\n    G HUGHES Number Now Abandoned         Q TOTAL Total Number Churches\n    H HUGHES Number Now Inactive          R TOTAL Number Now Active\n    I SHERIDAN Total Number Churches      S TOTAL Number Now Abandoned\n    J SHERIDAN Number Now Active          T TOTAL Number Now Inactive\n\n  Period of organization:\n             A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T\n  1871-80    1  1 .. ..  1  1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..  2  2  2 ..\n  1881-90    7  4  3 ..  8  7  1 ..  3  2  1 ..  1  1 .. .. 19 14  5 ..\n  1891-1900 .. .. .. ..  1  1 .. ..  5  5 .. ..  3  3 .. ..  9  9 .. ..\n  1901-10    2  2 .. ..  1  1 .. ..  7  4  1  2 15  9  5  1 25 16  6  3\n  1911-20   .. .. .. ..  5  5 .. ..  6  6 .. .. 21 18  3 .. 32 29  3 ..\n            -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --\n  Total     10  7  3 .. 16 15  1 .. 21 17  2  2 40 31  8  1 87 70 14  3\n\nAbout one-sixth of all the churches which have been organized are now\neither abandoned or inactive. Population has shifted; communities have\nchanged; the churches sometimes have not survived.\n\n\nIX-A\n\nDISTRIBUTION OF CHURCHES AMONG DENOMINATIONS\n\n                                                 Churches in\n  _Denominations_                 Country   Village   Town   City   Total\n\n  Baptist, North                     0         1        2      1      4\n  Baptist, South                     3         1        1      0      5\n  Church of Christ or Christian      0         1        1      1      3\n  Church of Christ (Unprogressive)   2         1        0      0      3\n  Congregational                     3         0        1      1      5\n  Evangelical Association            0         0        1      0      1\n  Lutheran:\n    Norwegian Lutheran of America    0         0        1      0      1\n    German                           0         0        0      1      1\n    Swedish                          0         0        0      1      1\n    Polish                           0         1        0      0      1\n    Others                           0         1        0      0      1\n  Methodist, North                  13         6        3      1     23\n  Methodist, South                   6         0        0      0      6\n  Nazarene                           1         0        0      0      1\n  Presbyterian in U. S. A.           3         2        1      1      7\n  Protestant Episcopal               0         0        2      1      3\n  Seventh Day Adventist              1         0        0      1      2\n  United Brethren                    2         0        0      0      2\n                                    --        --       --     --     --\n    Total                           34        14       13      9     70\n\n\nIX-B\n\n  _Denominations_               Beaverhead  Hughes  Sheridan  Union  Total\n\n  Baptist North                     1         1         2       0     4}\n  Baptist South                     0         0         0       5     5} 9\n  Church of Christ or Christian     0         1         1       1     3\n  Church of Christ (Unprogressive)  0         0         0       3     3\n  Congregational                    0         2         3       0     5\n  Evangelical Association           0         1         0       0     1\n  Lutheran:\n    Norwegian Lutheran of America   0         1         0       0     1}\n    German                          0         0         1       0     1}\n    Swedish                         0         0         1       0     1} 5\n    Polish                          0         0         1       0     1}\n    Others                          0         1         0       0     1}\n  Methodist North                   2         6         5      10    23}\n  Methodist South                   0         0         0       6     6} 29\n  Nazarenes                         0         0         0       1     1\n  Presbyterian in U. S. A.          3         1         1       2     7\n  Protestant Episcopal              1         1         1       0     3\n  Seventh Day Adventist             0         0         1       1     2\n  United Brethren                   0         0         0       2     2\n                                   --        --        --      --    --\n  Total                             7        15        17      31    70\n\nWith so many denominations at work in the field, every square mile of\ninhabited area ought to be reached. But large areas and many people are\nnot even touched by the church.\n\n\nX-A\n\nRESIDENCE AND ACTIVITY OF CHURCH MEMBERS BY TYPES OF COMMUNITIES\n\n                                          Churches in\n                             Country   Village   Town   City   Total\n  Net active members           616       497    1,178  1,665   3,956\n  Inactive      \"              129        66      221    607   1,013\n  Non-resident  \"              152        60      186    453     851\n    Total enrollment           897       623    1,575  2,725   5,820\n    Average per congregation    26        45      121    303      83\n\n\nX-B\n\nBY COUNTIES\n\n                                        Churches in\n                          Beaverhead  Hughes  Sheridan  Union  Total\n  Net active members           345       884    1,988    739   3,956\n  Inactive     \"                96        74      646    197   1,013\n  Non-resident  \"               94       108      496    153     851\n    Total enrollment           535     1,066    3,130  1,089   5,820\n    Average per congregation    76        71      184     35      83\n\nThe non-resident member is an \"unattached Christian\" and no one looks out\nfor him.\n\n\nXI-A\n\nCHURCHES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO SIZE BY TYPES OF COMMUNITIES\n\n  Churches with a net\n    active membership\n    of:                 Country   Village   Town   City   Total\n\n     25 or less           26         7        2      1      36\n     26 to 50              7         4        1      1      13\n     51 to 100             1         3        5      1      10\n    101 to 150             0         0        3      1       4\n    Over 150               0         0        2      5       7\n                          --        --       --     --      --\n      Total               34        14       13      9      70\n\n\nXI-B\n\nBY COUNTIES\n\n  Churches with a net\n    active membership\n    of:                 Beaverhead  Hughes  Sheridan  Union  Total\n\n     25 or less             3         7        4       22     36\n     26 to 50               1         2        5        5     13\n     51 to 100              2         3        2        3     10\n    101 to 150              1         1        1        1      4\n    Over 150                0         2        5        0      7\n                           --        --       --       --     --\n      Total                 7        15       17       31     70\n\nScattered and transient population together with denominational\ncompetition has resulted in a large proportion of small churches.\n\n\nXII\n\nHOW THE CHURCHES HAVE GROWN DURING A ONE-YEAR PERIOD BY TYPES OF\nCOMMUNITIES\n\n               Country      Village       Town         City\n               Churches    Churches     Churches     Churches       Total\n             Number  Per  Number  Per  Number  Per  Number  Per  Number Per\n                    Cent         Cent         Cent         Cent        Cent\n\n  Gained       12     35     7     50    10     77     8     89    37   53\n  Stationary    9     27     6     43     1      8     0      0    16   23\n  Declined     13     38     1      7     2     15     1     11    17   24\n               --    ---    --    ---    --    ---    --    ---    --  ---\n  Total        34    100    14    100    13    100     9    100    70  100\n\nThe gain in church membership increases with the size of the community.\n\n\nXIII\n\nMEMBERSHIP GAIN OF THE CHURCHES ORGANIZED TEN YEARS OR MORE, DURING THE\nLAST TEN YEARS\n\n             Nine     Seven    Thirteen   Eight\n           Country   Village     Town      City\n  Year     Churches  Churches  Churches  Churches  Total\n\n  1910       257       166      1,197     1,012    2,632\n  1915       303       278      1,385     2,011    3,977\n  1920       326       271      1,575     2,660    4,852\n\nVillage and Country Churches Increased 41% Town and City Churches\nIncreased 92%.\n\n\nXIV\n\nAGE AND SEX OF RESIDENT MEMBERS\n\n                                           By Counties\n                               Beaverhead   Hughes   Sheridan   Union\n  Men over 21                     24%        31%       31%       33%\n  Women over 21                   55%        45%       47%       47%\n  Young men and boys under 21      8%        10%        9%        7%\n  Young women and girls under 21  13%        14%       13%       13%\n\nThe churches are not winning the boys and girls. They need better\nrecreational methods and broader programs.\n\n\nXV\n\nWAYS OF RAISING MONEY\n\n      A CITY Beaverhead         K VILLAGE Sheridan\n      B CITY Hughes             L VILLAGE Union\n      C CITY Sheridan           M COUNTRY Beaverhead\n      D CITY Union              N COUNTRY Hughes\n      E TOWN Beaverhead         O COUNTRY Sheridan\n      F TOWN Hughes             P COUNTRY Union\n      G TOWN Sheridan           Q ENTIRE COUNTY Beaverhead\n      H TOWN Union              R ENTIRE COUNTY Hughes\n      I VILLAGE Beaverhead      S ENTIRE  COUNTY Sheridan\n      J VILLAGE Hughes          T ENTIRE COUNTY Union\n\n  Number of churches  with:\n                         A B C D E     F G H I J K L M N O  P Q  R  S  T\n  Budget for all monies  0 0 5 0 2[11] 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 4 4  3 2  9  9  5\n  Budget for local\n    expenses only        0 0 1 0 1     3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0  2 1  4  1  3\n  Annual every member\n    canvass              0 0 6 0 3[11] 5 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 3 4  4 3 12 10  7\n  Both budget and every\n    member canvass       0 0 6 0 3[11] 5 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 3 4  3 3 11 10  5\n  No budget and no every\n    member canvass       0 0 3 0 0     0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 11 0  0  4 16\n  Total number of\n    churches             0 0 9 0 4     6 0 3 2 5 2 5 1 4 6 23 7 15 17 31\n\nA fair proportion of the churches are using modern methods of financing\ntheir work.\n\n\nXVI\n\nOCCUPATIONS OF CHURCH MEMBERS\n\n  A Number of Members\n  B Per Cent of Total\n\n                              Churches Located in\n\n                        CITY        TOWN     VILLAGE   COUNTRY      ENTIRE\n                                                                    COUNTY\n                       A    B      A     B    A    B    A    B      A    B\n\n  Beaverhead:\n    Retired farmers                 6   5.7                         6   5.3\n    Operating farmers              28  26.6                        28  24.8\n    Farm renters\n    Farm laborers\n    Business or\n      professional                 51  48.6   2   40    2  66.7    55  48.7\n    All others                     20  19.1   3   60    1  33.3    24  21.2\n    Total reporting\n      occupations                 105  100    5  100    3  100    113  100\n\n  Hughes:\n    Retired farmers                 6   2.8   1   1.7               7   2.5\n    Operating farmers               8   3.8  34  58.7   6  75      48  17.2\n    Farm renters                             12  20.7   1  12.5    13   4.7\n    Farm laborers\n    Business or\n      professional                114  53.5   6  10.3             120  43\n    All others                     85  39.9   5   8.6   1  12.5    91  32.6\n    Total reporting\n      occupations                 213  100   58  100    8  100    279  100\n\n  Sheridan:\n    Retired farmers    16   2.3                                    16     2\n    Operating farmers  49   7.2                        41  51.8    90  11.1\n    Farm renters        8    12                        15    19    23   2.8\n    Farm laborers       5    .7                                     5    .6\n    Business or\n      professional    179  26.2                         6   7.6   185  22.9\n    All others        426  62.4              49  100   17  21.6   492  60.6\n    Total reporting\n      occupations     683  100               49  100   79  100    811  100\n\n  Union:\n    Retired farmers                                     1           1\n    Operating farmers              13  16.4  41  622   46  80.1   100  49.5\n    Farm renters                                        3   5.1     3   1.5\n    Farm laborers                                       3   5.1     3   1.5\n    Business or\n      professional                 36  45.6  11  16.6   3   5.1    50  24.7\n    All others                     30  38    14  212    2   3.6    46  22.8\n    Total reporting\n      occupations                  79  100   66  100   57  100    202  100\n\nOf the four counties, Union is the only one with a higher percentage of\nfarmers on its rolls than of men in other occupations. Yet over half the\nchurches in the four counties are country churches.\n\n\nXVII-A\n\nTHE AMOUNT OF MONEY RAISED AND SPENT\n\nThe amount raised by the local churches is $97,571.98.\n\n                                              Per cent.\n  Subscription                  $70,910.74      72.68\n  Collections                     9,464.24       9.7\n  All other methods              17,197.00      17.62\n                                ----------\n                                $97,571.98\n\n\nXVII-B\n\nThe amount spent by the local churches is $96,992.85.\n\n                                             Per cent.\n  Salaries                      $41,268.79      43.\n  Missions and benevolences      24,657.55      25.\n  Upkeep and all other expenses  31,066.51      32.\n\nThe entire amount spent for church purposes is $110,080.35.\n\n                                              Per cent.\n  Salaries                      $54,356.29[12]   49.\n  Missions and benevolences      24,657.55       23.\n  Upkeep and all other expenses  31,066.51       28.\n\nOf the entire church dollar, about 12 per cent. comes from Denominational\nBoards.\n\n\nXVIII\n\nRECEIPTS PER CHURCH\n\n                  Country     Village      Town      City        Total\n                 Thirty-one   Fourteen   Thirteen    Eight     Sixty-six\n  From:           Churches    Churches   Churches   Churches   Churches\n\n  Subscription     $235.45     $526.51   $1,972.93  $3,824.04   $1,074.41\n  Collections        57.99      106.57      254.35     358.49      143.40\n  All other methods  12.96      297.42      458.01     834.63      260.55\n                   -------     -------   ---------  ---------   ---------\n    Total          $306.40     $930.50   $2,685.29  $5,017.16   $1,478.36\n\n\nXIX\n\nRECEIPTS PER ACTIVE MEMBER\n\n                  Country     Village      Town      City        Total\n                 Thirty-one   Fourteen   Thirteen    Eight     Sixty-six\n                  Churches    Churches   Churches   Churches   Churches\n\n  Subscription      $12.39      $14.07      $21.77     $18.65      $18.04\n  Collections         3.05        2.85        2.81       1.75        2.41\n  All other methods    .68        7.95        5.05       4.07        4.37\n                    ------      ------      ------     ------      ------\n    Total           $16.12      $24.87      $29.63     $24.47      $24.82\n\nThe average active member is generous in the support of his church.\n\n\nXX\n\nEXPENDITURES PER CHURCH\n\n                   Country    Village     Town      City        Total\n                  Thirty-one  Fourteen  Thirteen    Eight     Sixty-six\n  For:             Churches   Churches  Churches   Churches   Churches\n\n  Salaries         $220.12    $366.43  $1,247.31  $1,637.50    $625.28\n  Missions and\n    Benevolences     42.59     117.85     638.84   1,672.75     373.60\n  Upkeep and all\n    other expenses   40.95     441.63     794.22   1,661.18     470.70\n                   -------    -------  ---------  ---------  ---------\n     Total         $303.66    $925.91  $2,680.37  $4,971.43  $1,469.58\n\n\nXXI\n\nEXPENDITURES PER ACTIVE MEMBER\n\n                   Country    Village     Town      City        Total\n                  Thirty-one  Fourteen  Thirteen    Eight     Sixty-six\n  For:             Churches   Churches  Churches   Churches   Churches\n\n  Salaries         $11.59      $9.79     $13.76     $7.99      $10.50\n  Missions and\n    Benevolences     2.24       3.15       7.05      8.16        6.27\n  Upkeep and all\n    other expenses   2.16      11.80       8.76      8.10        7.90\n                   ------     ------     ------    ------      ------\n      Total        $15.99     $24.74     $29.57    $24.25      $24.67\n\n\nXXII-A\n\nHOW A TYPICAL DOLLAR IS RAISED AND SPENT BY THE LOCAL CHURCHES\n\n                   Country    Village     Town      City        Total\n                  Thirty-one  Fourteen  Thirteen    Eight     Sixty-six\n  By:              Churches   Churches  Churches   Churches   Churches\n\n  Subscription        $.77      $.57      $.74       $.76       $.73\n  Collections          .19       .11       .09        .07        .10\n  All other methods    .04       .32       .17        .17        .17\n                     -----     -----     -----      -----      -----\n    Total            $1.00     $1.00     $1.00      $1.00      $1.00\n\n\nXXII-B\n\n                   Country    Village     Town      City        Total\n                  Thirty-one  Fourteen  Thirteen    Eight     Sixty-six\n  For:             Churches   Churches  Churches   Churches   Churches\n\n  Salary             $.72       $.39      $.46      $.33        $.43\n  Missions and\n    Benevolences      .14        .13       .24       .34         .25\n  Upkeep and all\n    other expenses    .14        .48       .30       .33         .32\n                    -----      -----     -----     -----       -----\n    Total           $1.00      $1.00     $1.00     $1.00       $1.00\n\nOn the average, these churches devote one-fourth of their receipts to\nbenevolences.\n\n\nXXIII\n\nGRADING FOR HOME MISSION FIELDS--PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN U. S. A.\n\n  A. Promising Field:\n     1. Prospect of self-support.\n     2. Strategic service opportunity.\n  B. Problematic Field:\n     1. Uncertain of community development.\n     2. Denominational responsibility uncertain.\n  C. Field to be relinquished:\n     1. Should be self-sustaining.\n     2. Work should be discontinued.\n\nThis would be a good test to apply to every aided church on the Range.\n\n\nXXIV\n\nNUMBER OF CHURCH SERVICES\n\n  Number of Services    Country    Village      Town       City\n       a Month          Churches   Churches   Churches   Churches   Total\n  Eight                     3          3[13]     12[14]      7       25\n  Seven                     0          0          0          0        0\n  Six                       0          0          1          0        1\n  Five                      0          0          0          0        0\n  Four                      6          6[13]      0          2       14\n  Three                     0          0          0          0        0\n  Two                       9          3          0          0       12\n  One                      12          0          0          0       12\n  No regular service        2          2          0          0        4\n  Services in summer only   2          0          0          0        2\n                           --         --         --         --       --\n    Total                  34         14         13          9       70\n\nAbout three hours a week set aside for church services and Sunday school\nmeans six days a year; only twenty-five out of seventy churches have as\nlarge a number.\n\n\nXXV\n\nATTENDANCE AT SERVICES COMPARED WITH SEATING CAPACITY AND ACTIVE\nMEMBERSHIP\n\n                                  Beaverhead   Hughes   Sheridan   Union\n  Average seating capacity            197        277       286      160\n  Average active membership            49         59       117       24\n  Average attendance at services       52         50        80       67\n\nAn average attendance one-third less than the seating capacity means many\nempty seats.\n\n\nXXVI\n\nORGANIZATIONS IN THE CHURCHES OTHER THAN SUNDAY SCHOOLS\n\n                                                      Mixed\n\n                Men            Women          Grown-up      Young People\n           Number Members  Number Members  Number Members  Number Members\n\n  Churches in:\n    Country   0       0       9     171       0       0      10     239\n    Village   0       0       9     166       0       0       3      81\n    Town      2      74      22     710       0       0       9     314\n    City      5     226      16     635       2      40       6     200\n             --     ---      --   -----      --      --      --     ---\n      Total   7     300      56   1,682       2      40      28     834\n\n\n       Boys            Girls      Boys and Girls\n  Number Members  Number Members  Number Members\n\n\n    0       0       0       0       0       0\n    0       0       0       0       0       0\n    3      54       5     128       2      73\n    1      15       3      94       0       0\n   --      --      --     ---      --      --\n    4      69       8     222       2      73\n\nWomen's organizations are numerous; men have only one-eighth as many. Less\nthan half of the churches have young people's organizations.\n\n\nXXVII\n\nNUMBER OF PASTORS WHO HAVE SERVED THE CHURCHES WHICH HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED\nTEN YEARS OR MORE\n\n      A  One Pastor        F Six Pastors\n      B Two Pastors        G Seven Pastors\n      C Three Pastors      H Eight Pastors\n      D Four Pastors       I Nine Pastors\n      E Five Pastors\n\n  Churches in:   A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H    I\n    Country      1   1   2   2   2   3   1   0    1\n    Village      1   1   1   2   1   1   3   1    0\n    Town         0   1   3   4   2   2   1   0    0\n    City         1   2   1   2   2   0   0   0    0\n                --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --   --\n      Total      3   5   7  10   7   6   5   1    1\n\nThe turn-over on the part of the ministers has been high. Two-thirds of\nthese churches have had a new minister every two and one half years or\noftener.\n\n\nXXVIII\n\nRESIDENCE OF PASTORS IN RELATION TO THEIR CHURCHES\n\n                                  Country  Village  Town  City  Total\n  Churches with:\n    Pastor resident in parish        8       8[15]   10     8     34\n    Pastor resident in community\n      but not in parish              4       0        0     0      4\n    Pastor resident in other\n      community in same county      12       2        0     0     14\n    Pastor resident in another\n      county                         3       0        1     0      4\n    No regular pastor                4       4        2     0     10\n    Supply pastor                    3       0        0     1      4\n                                    --      --       --    --     --\n      Total                         34      14       13     9     70\n\nAbout half of the churches have their ministers resident among the\nmembers.\n\n\nXXIX\n\nSALARIES OF MINISTERS ACCORDING TO PROPORTION OF TIME DEVOTED TO THE\nMINISTRY\n\n                             Ministers Giving       Ministers\n                               Full Time to         with other\n                                 Ministry           Occupation\n\n                          With One   With More Than\n                           Church      One Church\n\n  Pastors receiving:[16]\n    Over   $2,000             6            3\n    $1,501-$2,000             4            3            2\n    $1,201-$1,500             5            3            0\n    $1,001-$1,200             2            2            0\n    $  751-$1,000             0            3            1\n    $  501-$  750             1            0            0\n    $  101-$  500             0            0            2\n    $  100 or less            0            0            1\n    No salary                 0            0            2\n                             --           --           --\n      Total                  18           14            8\n\nWith the high cost of living, it is difficult to sustain adequate family\nlife on many of these salaries. It is not strange that eight of the\nministers must earn part of their support at other occupations.\n\n\nXXX\n\nGAIN AND LOSS IN MEMBERSHIP AS RELATED TO RESIDENCE OF MINISTERS (One year\nperiod)\n\n  Churches with:        Country  Village  Town  City  Total\n    Resident minister       8       8[17]  10     8     34\n      Number gaining        4       5       7     7     23\n      Number stationary     2       3       2     0      7\n      Number losing         2       0       1     1      4\n    Non-resident minister  19       2       1     0     22\n      Number gaining        5       2       1     0      8\n      Number stationary    17       0       0     0      7\n      Number losing         7       0       0     0      7\n\nAbout two-thirds of the churches with resident ministers made a gain in\nmembership; of the churches with non-resident ministers only about\none-third show a gain. Fourteen churches were either pastorless or were\nserved by a supply. Six of them made a gain during the year preceding the\nsurvey.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] See Wilson, \"Sectional Characteristics,\" _Homelands_, August, 1920.\n\n[2] A monument to Sacajawea was erected in Armstead in 1915.\n\n[3] Three country churches raised no money during the year and one city\nchurch, which tithes, did not have financial figures available.\n\n[4] See Table XXIII.\n\n[5] 17 country churches have buildings.\n\n[6] 13 village churches have buildings.\n\n[7] The membership of the separate boys' and girls' organizations cannot\nbe added here because it would involve duplication.\n\n[8] The capital letters in parentheses in the Table indicate the\nrespective counties, Beaverhead, Hughes, Sheridan, Union.\n\n[9] In deriving these figures the Census Board has included the forest\nreserve territory. The following figures were obtained by excluding this\narea (with the exception of the inhabited portion of Beaverhead):\n\n  Total density per square mile of Beaverhead  2.1\n  Total density per square mile of Sheridan    9.2\n\nOn the Range the development of centers is just beginning.\n\n[10] The Census does not give Spanish-American separately. They are of\ncourse native-born and are included under that division.\n\n  Per cent. of native increase is 20.7 in Beaverhead for 1910-20\n   \"    \"   \"    \"    decrease \"   4.1  \" Hughes      \"  1910-20\n   \"    \"   \"    \"    increase \"  12.1  \" Sheridan    \"  1910-20\n   \"    \"   \"    \"      \"      \"  32.2  \" Union       \"  1910-20\n\nIn Sheridan, the \"New Americans\" are in the mines; in the other counties,\nthey are on the land.\n\n[11] Two federated churches have a single budget and a single canvass.\n\n[12] 76.37% of this amount was raised by local churches. The rest came\nfrom the denominational boards.\n\n[13] One church in each of these groups unites regularly with a church\nholding eight services.\n\n[14] One church in this group also has four week day services. One church\nhas its four services on week day nights and has no Sunday services.\n\n[15] One church in this group has two resident social workers.\n\n[16] Including $250 rental value of parsonage if there is one.\n\n[17] One church in this group has two resident social workers.\n\n\n\n\nUNIQUE STUDIES OF RURAL AMERICA\n\nTOWN AND COUNTRY SERIES TWELVE VOLUMES\n\nMADE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF\n\nEDMUND DES. BRUNNER, PH.D.\n\nWhat the Protestant Churches Are Doing and Can Do for Rural America--The\nResults of Twenty-six Intensive County Surveys\n\n  _Description_                                         _Publication Date_\n\n  (1) Church and Community Survey of Salem County, N. J.             Ready\n\n  (2) Church and Community Survey of Pend Oreille County,\n      Washington                                                     Ready\n\n  (3) Church and Community Survey of Sedgwick County, Kansas         Ready\n\n  (4) Religion in the Old and New South                        Forthcoming\n\n  (5) The New and Old Immigrant on the Land, as seen in two\n      Wisconsin Counties                                             Ready\n\n  (6) Rural Church Life in the Middle West                           Ready\n\n  (7) The Country Church in Colonial Counties                        Ready\n\n  (8) Irrigation and Religion, a study of two prosperous\n      California Counties                                            Ready\n\n  (9) The Church on the Changing Frontier                            Ready\n\n  (10) The Rural Church Before and After the War, Comparative\n       Studies of Two Surveys                                  Forthcoming\n\n  (11) The Country Church in Industrial Zones                        Ready\n\n  (12) The Town and Country Church in the United States        Forthcoming\n\n\"_They are fine pieces of work and examples of what we need to have done\non a large scale._\" Dr. Charles A. Ellwood, Dept. of Sociology, University\nof Missouri.\n\n\"_I am heartily appreciative of these splendid results._\" Rev. Charles S.\nMacfarland, Genl. Secy., Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in\nAmerica.\n\nPublished by GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY, New York\n\nFOR\n\nCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS SURVEYS\n\n111 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK","title":"The Church on the changing frontier : $b a study of the homesteader and his church","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":35070}