was not my man. He, himself, was not considered in matters affecting the community's spirituality. It was plainly to be seen that I could look for no support from Father and Mother Rose. They believed in me, but this belief was not to be permanent if I failed to give the religious movement my undivided support. After a very unpleasant interview with these two good friends, I sought advice from Mr. Constad, who to my surprise was as far from approving my course as any of the others. He did not deny that my position was a correct one, but he thought it was not the only correct position. He believed in school, but he recognized an importance in connection with the church which he felt I should not ignore, and would not ignore if I would succeed with my school. He favored my pursuing a conservative rather than an extreme policy, and showed me quite plainly that the church, regardless of denomination, was as much an agency of civilization as the school, and was therefore as much entitled to consideration and support.

To my discomfort he showed me that my objection to the meetings was as much due to my estimate of the denomination holding the meetings as to their interference with the work of the school.

Through his temperate presentation of the subject I was led to see that my position was not only an untenable one, but that it was one that might work

an injury to others than myself. The teacher above all others is one person who must not be considered as allied with those forces that are destructive to the best interests of society.

Upon leaving him, I determined upon a course which I believed, and do believe to this day, was consistent with what was to the best interests of the young people under my care.

Instead of opposing the meetings I would give them my support. Instead of being counted against the church, which I was not, I would be counted for it, which I was. The results were good. The minister was quite willing to give me support. He preached early in the series on the importance of education. He showed very forcibly that good church members must be supporters of education.

The meetings had been in progress but a few evenings before I discovered this community, like all communities, had problems too great for the school. As a teacher I was seeing educational problems without seeing that their solution is dependent upon the solution of certain social problems. I had yet to learn that the school, unaided by other agencies, i.e., the home and the church, can not build up a wholesome social life, and that these three, the home, school and church, are organically bound together and constitute the only safe basis for society.

с

CHAPTER X

A RURAL SOCIAL PROBLEM

THERE is a rural social problem just as there is a city social problem. There are those who contend that there is a greater social problem affecting cities than affecting rural communities. This is not a question that can be definitely settled nor is it a question that needs to be settled. There is a rural social problem and it is great enough to enlist the attention of the sociologist.

It is said that there is little or no pauperism in the rural districts; that there are no slums and that social vice is unknown.

It is true that these bad social conditions are not found in rural communities, but it is no less true that bad social conditions of the cities are worse because of this fact. The rural degenerate and the rural unfortunate for obvious reasons drift to the cities. The divorce evil is said to be greater in cities than in rural communities. The city affords less publicity to delinquency than does the open country. The city makes possible greater independence of one's associates, and in consequence thereof the city gets the refuse and the drift from its tributary territory as surely as the main river of a system

gets the wreckage caused by the flood devastations of all the rivers of the entire basin.

There is one point that is all-important, and important as it is, is commonly overlooked. That point is the absolute dependence of rural people in social matters. As stated above, the criminal, the pauper, and the unfortunate drift to the city. It is absolutely necessary that they shall. The human being cannot live unto himself. However, the rural community has the undesirable element, and keeps it till it reaches the intolerable stage. The dependence of the baser element is no greater than that of the better element, and herein is the problem. A boy and a girl may grow up in a city with all its evils and vices and never know of their existence. They may pass through the public schools without any personal contact with the vicious. The opportunity for selection is unlimited. The good may find their kind just as the bad may find theirs each is independent of the other and each is happy to be left out of the other's consideration. In the rural community an exactly opposite condition presents itself. The small number makes all dependent on each other and the smaller the unit the greater this dependency, and the greater is the difficulty of escaping the contaminating influence of the evil.

The rowdy element, of which no community, rural or urban, is entirely free, is less restrained in

the outlying rural communities. There are several reasons for this, but the greatest is that of dependency. The sober, steady-going, self-respecting element, while disapproving, dare not ignore the fact that those who live in their midst and who are capable of doing them serious injury must not be offended. This point is well illustrated in a case occurring during this same year but in another neighborhood.

The teacher was at the head of what would be called to-day a community welfare league. He arranged literary programs and upon certain occasions read popular lectures to his audiences. These were especially enjoyed by a great majority of his audiences, but there was that rowdy, lawless element whose ideals and thoughts were low. This element, though small, began to disturb the meetings with the avowed purpose of breaking them up. In a city these toughs would have been summarily fined or jailed, probably both, but here they operated unopposed except by the teacher, who after a most serious affront had several parties arrested, and as he expressed it later, he himself was almost convicted.

This must not be interpreted to mean that moral courage is more lacking in rural than in urban communities. It is a condition surrounded with responsibilities that are most grave, but there is an organization which as a moralizing influence cannot be overestimated. It, like its sister organization of the