Girr of AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION The Ohio State University University Studies SOCIOLOGY SERIES— No. I June, 1924 1 SOME TOWN-COUNTRY RELATIONS IN UNION COUNTY, OHIO Oh 5 By Perry P. Denune Instructor in Sociology The Ohio State University Department of Sociology and the United States Department of Agriculture Co-operating FOREWORD I have read with unusual interest the report of the survey in Union County made by Mr. Perry P. Denune. [[This report is a very straightforward account of the life and social conditions to be found in a typical and somewhat repre- sentative rural county not involved in the problems of a large city near-by. Union County, as the report will show, presents all the interesting phases of rural life and rural agriculture in a State like Ohio, i The situation here developed could be duplicated, of course, in many rural districts, but one should not read such a report in the hope that it would be a faithful account of the conditions on the wide prairies of Iowa or Illinois, or of the irrigated districts in the Northwest. This contribution is to be commended for its clear and faithful account of conditions. My personal knowledge of the county for twenty years assures me that persons unacquainted with the territory may read it with confidence, and I am sure with satisfaction. [[The University prints this bulletin because of its fidelity to rural conditions to be found in the middle class rural counties of Ohio where a large city is not sufficiently near to dominate the situation. June 5, 1924. W. O. Thompson, President. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 5 I. Church Relations . 9 II. School Relations 14 III. Relations in the Fraternal Orders 16 IV. Recreation, Amusement and Sociable Intercourse 18 V. Economic Relations 21 VI. Conclusions 28 Appendix 30 Table I. Showing Church Attendance 10 Table II. Showing Sunday School Attendance 10 Table III. Showing Lodge Attendance 17 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study. This study was undertaken with the idea of col- lecting a number of facts regarding the social and economic relations that exist between the inhabitants of rural towns and the farmers of the surround- ing open country. The main purpose was to discover the underlying attitudes of mind which affect these relationships and the modes of expressing those attitudes in the ordinary social and economic life of the community. No attempt was made to measure in a quantitative way the exact extent to which each town served either as a marketing or trading center for any given area. However, a considerable amount of time was given to investi- gating business conditions, inasmuch as they reflect to a marked degree the attitudes we were endeavoring to discover. In so far as this is true the study has definite economic significance. The outstanding questions in the mind of the investigator were: 1. Are there any social lines drawn between people living in the towns and the people living in the country which reveal class distinctions? 2. What is the general feeling of farmers and townspeople toward each other — one of antagonism or friendship ? 3. Do townspeople and farmers in the immediate country territory re- gard the social and economic problems of their respective localities with a common community spirit? 4. To what extent is there a common community interest expressed in co-operative enterprises and in business relations? 5. If differences exist among localities with respect to these matters, what are the causes of those differences? Description of the Field. In choosing the location for the field workfit was desired to select a part of Ohio that was as thoroughly rural as could be found. Furthermore, it was thought best to choose a territory homogeneous with respect to population. . Therefore, counties with divisive elements such as large numbers of foreign born inhabitants, negroes or radically different religious sects were avoided. This course was followed because it was de- sired to eliminate as causal factors such classes as have been mentioned so that the explanation of differences between the rural relations of the several towns might be more accurately stated. With these considerations in mind, it will be readily seen that no county is typical of the whole state of Ohio. It must be understood, then, that the conclusions arrived at in this study per- tain only to the county chosen. Union County was chosen as meeting the above mentioned requirements. ^Ninety-two and one-half percent of the total area of the county is in farm land. The population is strictly rural with the exception of Marysville, the county seat, which had a population in 1920 of 3633 1 . Only two other towns in the county have a population of more than 1000 each. The population of the county as a whole has been slowly diminishing for a number of decades. In 1900 it was 22,342; in 1910, 21,871, and in 1920, 20,918. Eleven of the 1 United States Bureau of the Census, Population Report, 1920, Volume III. 5 fourteen townships showed a loss in population between 1900 and 1910, and the same number between 1910 and 1920. Of the incorporated towns in the county Marysville alone is slowly growing in size. Its population in 1900 was 3048; in 1910, 3576, and in 1920, 3633. Plain City, Richwood and Milford Center, the other incorporated places studied, are slowly decreasing in popu- lation. With respect to nativity only 1.1 per cent of the population of the county in 1920 were foreign born. This was a decrease of 0.5 per cent in the decade 1910 to 1920, and of 1.1 per cent in the twenty year period since 1900. Thus there were very few recent immigrants in the county. Negroes com- prised 1.3 per cent of the population in 1920; 1.2 per cent in 1910; 1.7 per cent in 1900. Thus there was homogeneity with regard to nativity and race 1 . There were, in 1920, 2736 farms averaging 96.4 acres each, with very few comprising more than 200 acres each. Land was valued at $110 per acre on the average 2 . Sixty-eight and two-tenths per cent of the farms were oper- ated by owners, leaving the percentage of tenantry 31.8, which was slightly above the average for the state of Ohio as a whole. The type of farming was the general diversified type with cattle and hogs, hay, grain, cream, milk, eggs and poultry as the chief products. ] Within this county seven towns were chosen as centers for the study. The population of these towns ranged from about 150 for the smallest to slightly more than 3600 for the largest. Four of the towns, namely, Marys- ville, Richwood, Plain City, and Milford Center, were incorporated villages, and the remaining three, Broadway, Peoria, and Raymond, were unincor- porated hamlets. Marysville alone carries on some manufacturing, but not enough to destroy its distinctive rural character. Method of Study. The method used in gathering the facts for this re- port was as follows. The investigator began by conferring with a number of state workers who were acquainted with conditions in Union County. He then went to Marysville, the county seat, and held conferences with a number of persons there in order to get the general information necessary for a study in the county. Among those conferred with at that time were the County Superintendent of Schools, the County Public Health Commissioner, the Secretary of the Union County Chapter of the Red Cross, the Secretary of the Union County Farm Bureau Association, and the Manager of the Union County Live Stock Shipping Association. The next step was to hold interviews with the editor of the local daily paper at Marysville, those business men in town having farmer patronage, the ministers of the churches, physicians, officers of the fraternal orders, and a number of leading citizens. Farmers were then visited, mostly those that lived several miles from town, at or near what might be thought of as the boundary lines between trading areas. This plan was closely followed at Marysville, Richwood, Plain City, Milford Center, Peoria, Raymond, and Broadway. Besides working rather intensively in these places short visits were made to York Center, Claibourne, and Irwin, somewhat smaller towns 1 The population was found to be not quite so homogeneous as the census report would indicate. jjThe investigator found a settlement of Germans, comprising several hundred families and covering most of Darby Township, most of whom, although native born nevertheless speak the German language, read German literature, conduct their church services exclusively in German, and are more or less cut off from the rest of the county. This section was not in- cluded in the detailed study of the county. 2 United States Bureau of the Census, Report for 1920, Volume VI. 6 in Union County, and West Mansfield and East Liberty in Logan County. These latter visits were made for the purpose of comparison with the situa- tion found in the more intensive study. Several schedules were prepared for recording such data as could he standardized and classified. Copies of the schedules used are included in the Appendix of this report. However, since the study was primarily the study of attitudes, the schedule method had a number of limitations; hence could not be used exclusively. It was early found inadvisable to write down an- swers to questions in the presence of the person interviewed. The investi- gator, therefore, carried with him a small pad upon which all important data were written down as soon as possible after each interview. Usually this was done in less than fifteen minutes. These notes were later copied upon regular filing cards and whenever possible reduced to schedule form. Of the persons interviewed not more than 50 percent furnished material that could be effectively used. This was due to the casual character of some of the meetings and the fragmentary nature of the information secured. However, data which could be satisfactorily recorded were secured from two hundred and fifty persons. Besides holding interviews and recording such data as could be secured in that way an effort was made to attend as many gatherings of the people as possible, especially where both farmers and townspeople were present. This was for the purpose of observing directly social attitudes as expressed in association and friendly intercourse. This served somewhat as a check upon the accuracy of information gathered by the interview method. Further, this afforded opportunity for interviews under the most favorable circum- stances, for in these cases the investigator was one of the group, and the person interviewed would often respond much more freely than under other circuinst&iicBS* The gatherings attended were: Six Sunday school services, eight preach- ing services, two prayer meetings, one Young People’s Christian Endeavor Society meeting, two Sunday school picnics, one Men’s Bible Class social meeting, two township Farm Bureau meetings, one Kiwanis Club meeting, two Ku Klux Klan meetings, one lodge picnic, one family reunion, two fairs, two chautauquas, two home-talent plays, three motion picture shows, and one community gathering on Labor Day. Supplementary to this the investigator mingled with persons in the pool rooms, confectionaries, stores, barber shops, and on the street corners. A. number of Saturday evenings were spent in observing the business and social life in the towns, with a special view to seeing how many farmers came to town and what they did while there. On a number of occasions the investigator was called upon to address public gatherings. This he did with reluctance until he found that it gave him a contact with many persons which he could not otherwise have made. It also gave him a status in the community which served as a favorable in- troduction. In all he addressed twelve different groups on topics not espe- cially related to the investigation but appropriate to the character of the gathering. T , . . The study was conducted by one person in the field during July, August, and September of 1923. The investigator spent practically all of that time in the communities studied, living with the people and associating with them as much as possible. He felt that only thus could he enter into such terms of friendship and intimacy as would secure their confidence, which was neces- sary for the success of the work. The results of this study are presented under the following captions: X. Church relations. 2. School relations. 3. Relations in the fraternal orders. 4. Recreation, amusement, and sociable intercourse. 5. Economic relations, including banking, trading and marketing. 6. Conclusions. 8 I CHURCH RELATIONS General Facts. In studying the church relations between the town and country in Union County the investigator talked with at least two members of each church — in many instances, more. He conferred with fourteen minis- ters, attended services in twelve churches of seven Protestant denominations, attended two Sunday school picnics, and one men’s social meeting. All of the regular services of the church were represented in those meetings attended. [ The seven towns studied intensively have twenty Evangelical Protestant churches with a total membership of 4094 persons, of whom 1127 live on farms. Thus 27 per cent of the membership of these town churches was composed of country people. (There were besides, three small Catholic churches in the towns, but their total membership was less than 2 per cent of the total population of the county, so that details regarding them were omitted from the report. J Besides the town churches, there were about forty open country churches scattered throughout the county which served more or less satisfactorily the religious needs of many of the country people. Of the total number of the farmers interviewed one-third said that they attended town churches, very few regularly; one-third attended the open country churches, and one-third did not attend any church, except occasionally. Church and Sunday School Attendance. The average attendance at the Sunday morning service in all the twenty town churches was 1892. Of this number 624, or about 33 per cent, were from the country. Each of these churches has a Sunday school and the total average attendance for all was 2126, of whom 698, or about 32 per cent, were country people. From these figures it would appear that about one-third of the audiences in the town churches and Sunday schools was made up of country people. This, however, was not true of the typical church, for the churches studied fall into several groups, and so the figures must be analyzed carefully. [ It must be noted first that there was a marked difference in the percent- age of country people found in the churches in the larger as contrasted with the smaller towns. population of one thousand persons may be used as a dividing line between the two groups. There were three towns with a popu- lation greater than one thousand each, namely, Marysville, Richwood, and Plain City, and four towns with a population less than a thousand each, namely, Milford Center, Raymond, Broadway, and Peoria. The three larger towns had eleven churches, with a membership of 3462, of whom 20 per cent were country people. The average attendance was 1540 for Sunday morning preaching service and 1605 for Sunday school, of whom 25 per cent were country people. In the four smaller villages there were nine churches. Of their total membership of 632 persons about 64 per cent lived in the open country. In these towns 53 per cent of the attendance at Sunday school and 67 per cent of the attendance at the Sunday morning preaching service was made up of country people. Thus there was a considerable dif- ference in the percentage of farmer membership in the churches in the small towns as compared with the large towns. This should not be construed as meaning that farmers did not go to church in the large towns as well as they did in the small towns, for, as the table on the following page shows, nearly as many farmers went to church in Marysville alone as in all of the four smaller towns. The difference in percentage noted above is explained 9 by the fact that the larger towns, because of their size, could and did fur- nish many more church members than the smaller towns. It may also seem at first observation that country people do not attend Sunday school as well as they do the preaching service. However, as Table No. II will show, this is not literally true, for there were actually more farm people present at the Sunday school than at the church service. The differ- ence in percentage is accounted for by the fact that there were many chil- dren in the towns who attended Sunday school but did not stay for the preach- ing service. Thus, with these additions in the Sunday school, a larger percent- age of townspeople were found in this service than in the preaching service. TABLE i Church membership, number and per cent of farmer members by village ; average weekly attend- ance at Sunday morning preaching service, number and per cent of farmer attendants, by village. Village \ 1 1 ' * ’ J Popula- tion 1 1 1 Number of churches Membership Average attendance Sunday morning service Tptal Farmer Total 1 Farmer Num- ber | Per- cent [ Num- ber | Per cent Marysville 3635 4 2087 351 16.8 890 219 24.6 Richwood 1601 5 1045 306 29.3 460 127 27.6 Plain City 1330 2 3 330 65 19.7 190 42 22.1 Milford Center. . 671 2 250 140 56.0 85 43 50.6 Raymond 360 3 197 130 66.0 107 83 77.5 Pebria. . 135 2 80 55 68.7 70 45 64.2 Broadway 250 2 105 80 76.2 90 65 72.2 i Total.. 7982 i 20 | 4094 1127 j 27.5 1892 | 624 | 32.9 Total for towns of more ' than 1000 in population! 11 | 3462 722 | 20.8 | 1540 | 388 j 25.2 Total for towns of less 1 ' than 1000 in population! 9 1 632 | 405 | 64.1 j . 352 | 286 | 67.0 1 Band M'cNally Commercial Atlas of America, 1922 edition. Large IJniversalist Church which had no Sunday School or regular preaching service was omitted from the report. TABLE II Average weekly Sunday School attendance ; number and per cent of farmer attendance', by village. Note. — (The item of Sunday School membership is omitted from the table because a num- ber of the Sunday Schools studied had no record of membership.) Number of Sunday Schools Average attendance Village Population Total Farmer * Number | Per cent Marysville 3635 4 840 215 25.6 Richwood 1601 5 465 143 30.8 Plain City 1330 2 300 60 20.0 Milford Center 671 2 160 57 35.6 Raymond 360 3 127 71 55.9 Peoria 135 2 82 37 45.1 Broadway 250 2 151 115 76.1 Total Total for towns over 7982 20 2125 698 32.8 1000 in population.. Total for towns under 11 1605 418 26.0 1000 in population.. 9 520 280 53.8 10 Young People’s Societies. Three of the churches reported active young people’s societies, with an active membership of 105, of whom 50 per cent were from the country. The average attendance was reported as 88, of whom 22 per cent were young people from the farm. Several other churches re- ported that during the winter months they had young people’s societies. At the time of this investigation they were not holding any meetings and no adequate data could be secured concerning them. With regard to the inter- mingling of the young people from the country and from the town, the uni- form report was that they were very cordial in their relations. Prayer Meetings. Eight of the twenty churches reported that they were conducting mid-week prayer meetings. The average attendance for all meet- ings combined was 125. Five per cent of this attendance was from outside of the towns. Only one such meeting was conducted in a village of less than 1000 inhabitants. This was a union service in the town of Raymond, where the three churches in the town co-operated. Only two farmers attended this meeting with regularity. Extent of the Parish. [ In the larger centers every minister that the in- vestigator talked to, except two, thought of the town as his parish and did not feel called upon to do pastoral work in the country, except to visit occa- sionally the country members of his church. J The churches ministered to by the two who thought otherwise, are discussed later at some length. Several frankly said that they did not have time to do country visitation, saying there were churches in the country whose ministers should do it. [in the smaller villages, however, every minister thought of his parish as composed of both town and country.^ Despite this attitude on the part of the ministers, many farmers did come to the churches in the towns, as has already been pointed out. One fact worthy of notice was the distance some farmers drove in order to attend church in the town. Many traveled from six to eight miles to do this, pass- ing other churches much nearer to their homes. The following illustrations are typical of many that could be given and also suggest the reasons assigned for this fact: (a) A farmer living two miles from a small town named Irwin, six miles from Milford Center and eleven miles from Marysville, attended the Presby- terian Church in the latter town. There is a church at Irwin. There are two churches at Milford Center, through which town this man passes on his way to Marysville. There is also a Presbyterian Church at Plain City, nine miles from this man’s home, which is two miles nearer than Marysville. When asked why he went to the church at Marysville, he answered promptly that he was a Presbyterian and preferred to go to Marysville rather than to Plain City, for several reasons. In the first place, he was acquainted there. In the second place, the road to Plain City, though shorter, was more difficult to travel. When asked why he did not attend the church nearest his home, he replied that he was helping to support it financially because the community needed its presence, but that he considered it a waste of his time to attend its services except very occasionally. He said, further, that the distance was no hindrance since he could make it in half an hour’s time with no difficulty. (b) Another case somewhat similar to the one just cited is that of a farmer living three and a half miles northwest of Milford Center and seven 11 miles west of Marysville. He attends church in Marysville, although there are a number of churches much nearer his home. His reason for attending the Marysville church was that he was formerly a member of the Presbyterian church in Milford Center, which had recently been closed. He had transferred his membership to Marysville because he did not like to attend any church other than the Presbyterian. Furthermore, he said that it was no more trou- ble to go as far as Marysville than to go to a church nearer home, as he had an automobile and was on a pike leading directly to Marysville. (c) Another farmer living nine miles northeast of Marysville attended church in that village. This man said that he belonged to a church near his home. He came to the Marysville church because his sister, with whom he was living, belonged there and wanted him to come with her. He said that the people there treated him very well. (d) There was the case of a farmer living near Somersville who attended church at Richwood, six miles from his home, although there were several churches considerably less than half as far away. He was formerly a mem- ber of a Baptist church near his home, which was abandoned several years ago. He then transferred his membership to the church of that denomina- tion at Richwood because, as he said, he had been a Baptist from boyhood and did not care to join any other church. Besides, it was no trouble to go to church six miles with his automobile. (e) One of the leading workers in the Christian church at Raymond lived at Broadway, three miles and a half away, where there are two churches within easy walking distance of his home. He goes to church in the nearby town because there is no church of “his” denomination in Broadway. (f) A final illustration is that of a farmer living three miles east of Richwood, who belongs to church at Magnetic Springs, five miles south of his home. He said that he attended services quite frequently. His reason was that he formerly lived in Magnetic Springs, and that he was well acquainted in the church there. These cases are illustrative of a growing tendency in the country to select one’s church on the basis of congeniality irrespective of the distance from home or the size of the town in which the church is located. Two Special Churches. The two churches in the larger towns already in- dicated as different from the others may be designated as Church A at Marys- ville with a membership of 450, of whom 225 were farmers, and Church B at Richwood with a membership of 250, of whom 150 were rural. If these two churches were left out of account the country membership in the remaining nine churches in the larger towns would be less than 10 per cent. The ministers of the two special churches showed a keen interest in the welfare of their parishes. Each had been in his respective field for four years or more and was held in high regard by the parishioners. .The minister of Church A said that he spent a great deal of his time in the country. He said that with his car he could call upon persons three or four miles away or even at a greater distance almost as easily as he could visit the townspeople. He was doing what he could to keep the most friendly feeling between the town and country members in his parish by bringing the two groups together as often as he could. His theory was that personal contact between the two groups would go far toward creating a spirit of friendship and co-operation. 12 The investigator attended a men’s evening social meeting at the home of a farmer several miles from town at which one hundred were present. There were many farmers in attendance that evening in spite of the fact that it was in the midst of the threshing season and they had to rise very early the next morning. The majority of those present, however, were from the town. Church B at Richwood had a fine new physical equipment. The main auditorium seated about 300 persons, but when the side rooms were opened up the church held 700 people — large enough to take care of the largest audi- ences that ever attended any meeting in Richwood. The church was well equipped with Sunday school and conference rooms, a rest room for the aged, a room for mothers with small children, telephone, gymnasium, and a large dining room. The pastor said that the gymnasium was open three nights a week during the winter and that many young people came in from the coun- try as well as from the town to enjoy basketball and other indoor sports. He said that he gave much of his time to the work of supervising the various types of recreation held at the church. He also said that he spent a consid- erable amount of his time calling upon the farmers. Social Relations in the Churchj In all of the churches studied no social lines seemed to be drawn between the farmers and the townspeople. Every minister and all of the townspeople interviewed on this subject declared that this was the case. Farmers were asked about this particular relationship and were almost unanimous in corroborating this opinion. In fact, only one farmer during the whole study suggested that the townspeople discriminated against the country people. This man’s wife, however, said that he had no just grounds for feeling as he did, that he was “too touchy”; he was too quick to notice slights when they were not intended. From observation at the various services of the churches, including the three social gatherings at which farmers and townspeople were present, the investigator could detect no feeling of superiority on the part of either the farmers or the townspeople. All mingled together in a free and friendly manner. In speaking of this matter, the Probate Judge of the county re- marked to the writer, “We are all one here; we have no class distinctions here whatever.” 13 II SCHOOL RELATIONS General Facts. Union County possesses a school system of which its citizens are very proud. Every township in the county has a first class high school and all but one a centralized grade school.f In the schools of all the towns studied there was the mingling of town and country children."] The schools were under four types of management, illustrated by the examples discussed below. The field work for this study was done during the summer time, while the schools were not in session and practically all teachers were away from the towns. However, the investigator made contact with the County Super- intendent, his former Assistant Superintendent, and three local superintend- ents, six teachers and quite a number of school board members. Management of the Schools, (a) The school at Marysville was under the supervision of a town board of education. The district, however, included, besides the incorporated village, certain contiguous country territory which was attached to the town school district. The school was supported by a tax levy over the whole district — country as well as town. The children of the outlying country territory were brought to school in vans furnished by the school board. Among the many farmers interviewed in this district not one objected to this type of management. (b) At Milford Center the school was a centralized township school lo- cated in the town, but under the control of a township board of education and supported by township school taxes. Here, as in the case of Marysville, children living at a distance of more than a mile and a half were brought to school in vans. ]_ The school board membership inducted several farmers. The investigator was told, however, that members were not elected on the basis of their being farmers or townspeople. There was an effort, though, to dis- tribute the membership of the board over the township.] The arrangement for the support and management of the school at Milford Center herein de- scribed seemed very satisfactory for the smaller villages. The town com- prises only a small part of the township and could not support its own school; hence co-operation on the matter of support is essential. (c) The Peoria school is a special district school under a local board of education. Peoria is not an incorporated village, but a settlement large enough for some community consciousness. The parents felt that there were enough children there to warrant the expense of keeping up a local grade school. A few years ago some of the residents of Peoria asked the township board of education to erect a school building in their town, which the town- ship board refused to do. The board held that it would cost the township too much to run two centralized schools. After several vain requests, the citi- zens of Peoria petitioned for a special district to be formed, and secured it. The district is somewhat larger than the town itself, but not large enough to make the use of school vans necessary. This school accommodates only 14 pupils below the high school grade. All high school pupils from this district attend the high school at Raymond, which is under township hoard manage- ment. (d) The Richwood school district is composed of the territory within the village. The school is under the town board of education and supported by town school taxes. Richwood is located within Claiborne Township, where the one-room school buildings are still used in the country. All high school pupils in the township attend the Richwood high school, their tuition being paid by the township board of education. This arrangement is not entirely satis- factory, but there is no indication of an early change. The situation is as follows: Many farmers said that centralization of schools would increase their school taxes and this they were not willing to do. Further, consolida- tion with Richwood would cause the farmers to help pay the debt of the present Richwood high school. This also the farmers object to doing. They feel that it is better for them to continue using the one-room school districts for the pupils in the grades and to pay the tuition of high school pupils in Richwood than to go to the expense either of building a new centralized school for themselves or to assume a part of the debt on the Richwood school. Thus the old system is continued because it is thought to be cheaper than consoli- dation. The Richwood superintendent, however, and the president of the school board expressed themselves as very willing for a consolidation of the town and township school districts. They believed that the country would gain by such a change. RELATIONS IN THE FRATERNAL ORDERS General Facts. [_ Eighteen fraternal orders were studied in the seven towns— six at Marysville, four at Richwood, two each at Plain City, Milford Center, and Raymond, and one each at Peoria and Broadway. The total mem- bership of these eighteen lodges was 2487, of whom 1007, or 40.6 per cent, were farmers. Besides these town lodges there were small lodges located through- out the county at smaller settlements than those studied. The regular meetings of the lodges in Union County were on the whole rather poorly attended by both townspeople and farmers. The average attend- ance in all the lodges was 354 or only 14.2 per cent of the total membership. It was reported in all towns that the attendance varied greatly from season to season, being much better, as a rule, in the winter than in the summer. Analysis of Membership and Attendance.! Farmers did not attend lodge meetings in Union County as well as the town members did, for while they comprised 40 per cent of the membership, they made up only 36 per cent of the average attendance.*^ Or, from another point of view, whereas an average of 15.2 per cent of all the town members were in attendance at the meetings only 12.8 per cent of all the country members were present. This discrepancy would be greater still if all who were considered town members lived in the town in which the lodge was located. The fact was that many townsmen had moved away but retained their lodge membership in the towns where they first joined. Thus, the actual percentage of attendance of resident town members was higher than our figures indicate. Just as in the case of church membership, there was considerable differ- ence in the composition of the membership of the lodges in the larger and the smaller towns. Taking the two largest towns, Marysville and Richwood, as one class and the remaining five as another, we may see this fact clearly. In Marysville and Richwood there were ten lodges with a total membership of 1567, of whom 374, or 23.7 per cent, were farmers. The average attendance at the lodge meetings was 221, of whom 49, or 22.2 per cent, were farmers. Officers of these lodges explained that farmers took practically no interest in the regular lodge meetings. They came when there was special “work” on the program or when there was a lodge supper, but not for the regular busi- ness meetings. In the five smaller villages there were eight lodges with a total member- ship of 911, of whom 633, or 69.4 per cent, were farmers. The average attend- ance for all of these lodges was 133, of whom 80, or 60.1 per cent, were farm- ers. Thus, the farmer members In the smaller town lodges, in proportion to their membership, did not attend the lodge meetings as well as the farmer members of the larger town lodges. Table No. Ill will make this fact clear. Distance Traveled by Farmers to Attend Lodge Meetings. One of the questions asked of lodge officials was, “How far do farmer members come to attend lodge meetings?” The average of the greatest distances traveled to 16 lodge meetings in the eighteen lodges was about three miles. Only three lodges reported that farmers were coming with regularity more than four miles to attend lodge meetings. It will be seen that farmers who attended lodge in town did not travel as great a distance to attend lodge meetings as they did to attend church. Friendly Relations^ The term “fraternal order” seemed to describe ac- curately the association in the lodges. The feeling between farmer and town members was said to be very friendly in every case. Those farmers who attended the meetings were considered on the same social plane as town members. ] The investigator did not have the opportunity to attend any regu- lar meetings, not being a member of any of the lodges; hence he was compelled to secure his information from interviews with the officers and other members of the lodges. However, he did attend a Red Men’s picnic at Peoria at which lodge members, their families and neighbors were present. It was a real community gathering. Dinner was served, a literary program was given and the remainder of the time was spent in visiting and horseshoe pitching. The investigator was a stranger to all the others present, but was made welcome and shown great hospitality. TABLE III Lodge membership, number and per cent of farmer members ; average attendance at each regu- lar meeting, number and per cent of farmer attendance, by village. Number of lodges Membership Average attendance Village Popula- tion Total Farmer Total Farmer Num- ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent Marysville 3635 6 1157 275 23.8 177 40 22.6 Richwood 1601 4 419 99 23.6 44 9 20.4 Plain City 1330 2 350 225 64.3 140 22 55.0 Milford Center.. 671 2 187 128 68.5 20 8 40.0 Raymond 360 2 177 120 67.8 38 25 65.8 Peoria 135 1 117 90 76.9 20 15 75.0 Broadway 250 1 80 70 87.5 15 10 66.7 Total 7982 18 2487 1007 40.5 354 129 36.5 Total for towns over 1500 in population 10 1576 374 23.7 221 49 22.2 Total for towns under 1500 in population 8 911 633 69.4 133 l 80 60.1 17 IV RECREATION, AMUSEMENT, AND SOCIABLE INTERCOURSE General Facts. The communities studied had practically no organized recreation, except that in connection with the public schools during the school year. However, there was some commercial recreation, including pool rooms, in every town and motion picture theaters in three of the towns. There were several semi-professional baseball teams which attracted hundreds of spec- tators during the season. Four of the communities studied held chautauquas which were supported by public subscription and furnished entertainment for several thousand people. Some of the towns put on “home talent” plays. Every community had at least one picnic, some of them several, during the year, conducted by Sunday schools, lodges or prominent families. The inves- tigator visited all of these types of amusement and noted the presence of both farmers and townspeople on all occasions. Following is an analysis of the principal findings regarding this feature of the study. Motion Picture Shows. The larger towns, Marysville, Richwood, and Plain City, each had a motion picture theater. Pictures were shown every evening except Sunday evening at Marysville, and two evenings each week at each of the other two towns. The theaters were, as a rule, very well at- tended; on Saturday evening with capacity houses. For several months dur- ing the summer tickets for the theater were given by a number of the mer- chants in Marysville with each dollar’s cash purchase. These tickets were good for admittance only on two evenings of the week. The theaters were always crowded on those evenings. This plan served both as an advertise- ment for the merchant and as a habit-forming device for theater attendance. The investigator attended all of the theaters upon a number of occasions. A good share of the gudiences was made up of country people as was shown by the number of persons coming to and going from the theaters in auto- mobiles. Pool Rooms. There were pool rooms in all the towns studied, which fur- nished recreation for a considerable number of men and young men. On days that the weather did not permit of farm work these places were usually crowded. In the evening one could almost always find young men from the farms either playing pool or lounging round the room. The investigator visited the pool rooms on a number of occasions and conversed with many of the men he met there. One of the services furnished by the pool room to the young man from the country is illustrated by the following examples. One farmer who lived six miles east of Marysville said that he came to town to bring his wife to the picture show. He did not care for the show, so he loafed in the pool room until the show was over. Another farmer living four miles southeast of Marysville said that he used to play pool considerably, but because of the fact that it was an expensive habit he had quit. However, he still came to ,18 the pool room to meet friends in town and to watch the games that were being played. The pool room keepers did not object to this habit for it brought some tobacco, cigar, and soft drink business. Baseball. Marysville and Plain City had Sunday baseball teams that played before large numbers of spectators. It was reported to the investi- gator that the crowd at Marysville averaged between two and three hundred per Sunday and the crowd at Plain City was somewhat larger, with as many as 500 at some games. These teams were semi-professional teams made up mostly of local boys from both town and country, but with several players from Columbus hired to fill important positions. The manager at Marysville said that the crowd there was made up mostly of townspeople, although a good many farmers were usually present. However, at Plain City it was reported by one of the players that the opposite was true. Home Talent Plays. Richwood and Raymond gave home talent plays during the interval covered by this study, both of which were attended by the investigator. The one at Richwood was given in the opera house, which was filled to capacity. The one at Raymond was given in the township meet- ing house to an audience of 160 persons in a repetition of the performance. Some of the performers on this occasion were from the country as far as six miles from Raymond. It was given for the purpose of raising money to buy uniforms for the local brass band and orchestra. The play given at Rich- wood was for the purpose of raising money for a community swimming pool which was being sponsored by the American Legion. Here, as at Raymond, the cast as well as the audience included a number of country people. Chautauquas. Marysville, Richwood, Plain City, and Milford Center each had a summer chautauqua. These chautauquas were purely community enter- prises supported by both town and country people. The attendance at each program ranged from several hundred to seven or eight hundred persons. The one at Plain City is here described as illustrative of the function per- formed by the chautauquas in the various towns. The chautauqua was held in a park near the town in connection with an annual camping week. Many residents of the town and some farmers pitched tents on the grounds and spent practically the whole week there. This year there were about fifty tents. Dinner was served on the grounds each evening by various ladies’ organizations from churches in Plain City, Unionville Cen- ter, and New California. Each organization donated all of its labor and much of the food and gave all profits to the chautauqua committee to help finance the entertainment. The farmers and townspeople alike were very proud of this chautauqua. It was said to be the one big community affair of the year, continuing for eight days with programs both afternoons and even- ings. Nearly all of the business houses of the town closed up for several hours each afternoon of the chautauqua week. Clubs. [There were men’s clubs in Marysville, Richwood, and Plain City composed of both town and country members. 1 (a) The Kiwanis Club at Marysville had 68 members, of whom five were farmers. This club met each week for dinner and a program of singing and speaking. It was reported to the investigator that there were usually 40 or 50 present. The farmers who attended were treated as cordially as town mem- bers, but very few either belonged or came. 19 (b) The Commercial Club at Richwood had 60 members, with four or five country members. This club met occasionally for a social hour. The farmer members attended very little and took no active part in the meetings. (c) The Plain City Club had 119 members, of whom 34 were farmers. This club had rooms over the Farmers’ Bank Building. Every member car- ried a key and was permitted to use the rooms at his pleasure for lounging, pool playing, reading or writing. They also had a radio equipment for re- ceiving, which furnished amusement and entertainment each evening for quite a number of the members. The farmer members came to the club quite fre- quently when they were not too busy with their work. Officers of the club said that there was a fine spirit among the members. This club promotes an annual Fourth of July picnic free for the whole community, and a corn show in the fall. It helps support the local ball team and the driving club. It is using its influence to have the county commis- sioners of both Union and Madison counties improve the roads leading into Plain City. No similar clubs existed in the smaller villages studied. Picnics. Numerous picnics and reunions are held annually throughout the county. They furnish diversion and opportunity for recreation and sociable intercourse for both town and country people. The picnics attended by the investigator were under the auspices of two Sunday schools and a lodge. Mention has already been made of the Fourth of July picnic held by the Plain City Club. Family reunions are usually considered as private af- fairs, but it seemed to be the custom in Union County for neighbors as well as relatives to attend. 20 V ECONOMIC RELATIONS 'The economic relations are considered under three main divisions: Bank- ing, trading, and marketing. Banking Relations, j There were five banking centers within the area studied. Marysville and Richwood had three banks each; Plain City and Mil- ford Center had two each, and Raymond had one, which was a branch of one of the Marysville banks. 'The banks were incorporated with capital stock of from ten thousand to one hundred thousand dollars each. The stock was owned by both farmers and townspeople. In some cases most of the stock was owned by farmers; in other cases little. J It was impossible to ascertain the exact per cent of the total capital owned by farmers for, as several of the bankers stated, they had no reliable statistics at the time the study was made showing in whose hands all of the stock was held^ Farmers or retired farmers were found on the boards of directors in every case. However, most of the managing offi- cers lived in the towns and considered themselves townspeople rather than farmers. 3 Of the five banking centers Richwood and Marysville had the largest areas. Those areas were about equal although Marysville was twice the size of Richwood. Two 6f the banks at Richwood were depositories for the county funds. With the deposits from this source they were able to take care of the credit needs of their communities much better than they could otherwise have done and, besides, they were in a position to serve a wider territory. The areas served by the banks were very irregular, the boundaries being influenced by the presence or absence of nearby banking towns. Marysville, for example, had practically no banking relations with farmers living more than three miles in the direction of Milford Center. While it did a banking business with many farmers eight miles away in other directions. Richwood’s banking area did not extend more than three and one-half miles in the direc- tion of Prospect, Marion County, but it reaches ten or twelve miles in the opposite direction. A number of farmers complained to the investigator that they could not borrow sufficient money for their needs, saying that the banks were hesitat- ing in the making of loans much more than they formerly did. One even suggested that the bankers were in league with the big buyers of the farmers’ products. This man claimed that the bankers refused to carry the farmers beyond the harvest time, thus compelling the farmers to sell their products at that time, taking lower prices than they could secure later if they were able to “hold.” Every banker interviewed said that this was not true. They seemed to be very sympathetic with the farmer. They seemed to be ready to supply the credit needed to all farmers who could furnish adequate security. How- ever, they said that they were ignoring calls for money from others than 21 their regular customers. One banker put it thus, “We take care of the needs of our depositors, but do not pay any attention to appeals for money from outsiders.” 1 The bankers all admitted that they were not making loans so freely as they did several years ago. The reason was that the credit of the farmer was not so good as it had been in the past. The number of mortgages on land, stock, implements and household goods was greater than ever before in the county. Furthermore, conditions had been so adverse for the farmer for several years that such security as he had was greatly diminished in value. .1 Several bankers also said that they were forced to watch the farmers’ manner of living somewhat closely. To illustrate: If a farmer had little material security but was known as a hard working, honest man who lived economically he had no trouble in obtaining necessary credit. If, however, a man was known to drive an expensive automobile or was seen on the road or in the town often when he should have been working on the farm his credit was limited and sometimes withdrawn. Such men were not told directly why the banks would not lend them money. The farmers who seemed to be prospering most, those who were looked upon as successful by both townspeople and other farmers, did not as a rule complain about credit facilities. Several such farmers told the investigator that the farmers of Union County had all the credit that they needed. They held that the farmers needed a larger share of the product they were produc- ing either through higher prices for the goods they produced or through lower prices for the goods they bought. If just conditions could be secured along this line, they said, and farmers lived more economically than many of them did, they would not lack necessary credit. Trading Relations. From the nature of the situation in Union County it was almost impossible to define trade areas with any degree of accuracy. The evidence gathered both from the merchants in the towns and from the farmers in the country indicated that there was a great deal of overlapping of territories. As in the case of church going, which has already been pointed out, so with the buying of almost all kinds of necessities, many persons were not held by home loyalty. They did not feel obligated to buy in the store nearest home. Some went as %r as eight or ten miles for groceries when they could have obtained them very much nearer home. Also persons went twelve or fifteen miles for clothing which could have been obtained in stores not over half as far away. The examples given below illustrate the fact that has just been stated. A man who lived in Broadway bought practically all of his groceries in Ray- mond because, as he said, he liked to deal at one of the stores there better than at either store in Broadway. He would give no other reason than that the stores in Raymond satisfied him better. Two families living at Wood- stock in Champaign County went to Marysville, ten miles away, for prac- tically all of their groceries, because one of the grocers in Marysville, the manager of a local branch of a large chain store, was a relative of theirs. A family living east of Dublin in Franklin County bought their groceries in Plain City, passing through Dublin on the way, where there were two stores. Their explanation was that they formerly lived in Plain City and were friends of one of the grocers there. Another farmer living a short distance from Plain City bought most of his groceries in Marysville. He said that he also bought some in Milford Center, some in Plain City, and some in Unionville 22 Center. His explanation was that he bought whatever he needed wherever he happened to be that day. A similar case is that of a family living eight miles north of Marysville and two miles from Broadway. They bought at both Marysville and Broadway according as it was convenient. One farmer living seven and a half miles from Marysville and three miles from Broadway said that he formerly bought all of his groceries at Broadway but that since the store there had gone on a cash basis he was now buying at Marysville, where he has credit. Another farmer living five miles west of Raymond and three and a half miles from West Mansfield said that he bought most of his groceries at Raymond because, as in the case just cited, the grocers there extended him credit when he needed it. A different reason was assigned by a farmer living one and a half miles north of York Center and three miles south of Byhalia. He bought his groceries in Byhalia be- cause the prices were the same as at York Center and, in addition, the gro- ceries were delivered. A farmer six miles east of Marysville and about a mile and a half from New Dover, where there were two grocery stores, said that he bought practically all of his groceries at Marysville because he could buy them cheaper there than at the stores nearer his home- Another instance of this same type was that of a man living near Pottersburg, where there was a good country store, who bought his groceries mostly at Milford Center, where there was a branch of a large chain store. It will be seen from the examples given above that at least six reasons were assigned for farmers not buying groceries from their local community stores, namely: Personal whims, kinship with the grocers, friendship, con- venience, credit, and price. [ Thus loyalty to the home dealer was not strong enough to prevent many persons from going, to other than their own com- munity stores for their necessities. Even among those persons who bought their necessities at home, the reason assigned was not loyalty but convenience. Only three farmers during the whole study said that they did their buying locally because of loyalty. 3 The same general tendency was found to be true in regard to the purchase of clothing as has just been shown regarding the purchase of groceries. How- ever, in the case of clothing people went still farther' because clothing stores were found only in the larger towns. Furthermore, the great variety of tastes in regard to clothing made it impossible for even the stores in the larger towns with a limited capital to satisfy the requirements of all their patrons. Therefore, there is explanation for the fact that 715 percent of all the farmers interviewed and many of the townspeople went outside of the county for a part of their clothing. In spite of the difficulties several types of trading areas were more or less clearly defined. First, there was a grocery trading area which extended out on the average from two to five miles from the trading center. The radii of the areas depended upon the relative nearness of other grocery trad- ing centers, the size and quality of stock carried in the local store, or the progressiveness of the merchant. In a crude way a line could be drawn around each grocery trading center connecting points equidistant between that cen- ter and the next similar center in each direction, thus bounding the grocery area for that center. The size of these areas varied considerably but not in proportion to the size of the town at the center. Some of the stores in the smaller towns served areas as large as the stores in the larger towns. For instance, one of the stores in Broadway and one of the stores in Raymond 23 were drawing trade from as great a distance as any grocery stores in Marys- ville, the largest town studied. Next, but less clearly defined, were the feed, fertilizer, coal, hardware and farm implement trading areas. The centers of these areas were found in the towns that had railroad stations and freight sidings. These areas were al- ways larger than the average grocery trading areas. Their boundaries could be located in the same manner as the boundaries around the grocery trading areas described above. These areas had radius of from four to seven miles but there was much overlapping of the adjoining territories. Next, and still more difficult to define accurately because of increased overlapping of boundaries may be mentioned the clothing and dry goods trading areas. These areas were centered by the towns Marysville, Plain City, and Richwood. Milford Center had a small dry goods store which did considerable business within a radius of about three miles, but not enough to be classed as a center comparable to the other towns mentioned. As in the case of the two types of trading areas already described the boundaries of all clothing areas were very irregular and also overlapped each other a great deal. The radii of this type of area were usually from eight to twelve miles. Within the clothing area there were usually several of the second type and a number of the first type. While the bulk of the grocery trade at the centers of these larger areas came from within a radius of two or three miles the grocery keepers there did have considerable business from a greater dis- tance. It was pointed out that when farmers came to town for clothing or dry goods they very often patronized the grocery stores as well. Conse- quently, farmers who were considered as regular customers of the stores in the small centers were also considered as customers at the stores in the larger centers. One more type of trading center might be mentioned which, while it was not found within the areas studied, exerted its influence upon trading condi- tions within the territory. Such larger centers as Columbus, Springfield, Marion and Bellefontaine drew considerable trade from Union County and greatly affected the business there. In the southern part of the county many persons reported that they went to Columbus, London, Springfield or Dayton for clothing, dry goods, and furniture. In the northeastern part of the county nearly everyone interviewed said that he went to Marion or Kenton to do part of his trading. In the northwestern part of the county many went to Kenton and Bellefontaine. With some, trading at these larger and more dis- tant points was an occasional circumstance; with others, a regular practice. This fact, which has been under consideration, namely, the tendency to buy away from home, should not be attributed only to the inhabitants of Union County nor wholly to the unsatisfactoriness of the stores there, for, as the following illustrations will show, many persons outside the county pur- chased goods at the stores in these towns. The furniture dealer in Plain City said that he sold goods regularly as far away as Columbus. The same fact was reported by three of the four fur- niture dealers interviewed in the county. They explained sales at great dis- tances on the grounds, first, that friends and former neighbors who had moved to the more distant points came back when they were in need of furniture; second, often relatives living at the distant points came to these stores when in need of furniture; third, traveling salesmen often bought furniture in the small towns because they found there just what they wanted. 24 This same tendency was reported by the shoe and clothing dealers. One shoe merchant at Plain City said that he furnished practically all the shoes for several families in Columbus and also for families in London. Another shoe dealer at Richwood said that he had regular trade at Marion. The men’s clothing store at Richwood had regular patrons from several towns outside the county. The same was reported by the clothier at West Mansfield. [One of the reasons for the lack of loyalty of the farmer to the town merchant can be attributed to the apparent indifference of the town merchant toward the farmer. On the whole he puts forth very little effort to secure the farmer trade.^ In the towns studied merchants, with very few exceptions, did little or no advertising. When asked why they did not advertise more many said that they had been in business a long time, that they knew practically every one in their respective territories, that they were known by every one and that, therefore, advertising did not pay. The fact is that many of these men went into business before the day of good roads, parcel post and automobiles, when farmers were compelled by force of circumstances to buy at home. The merchants then were not in competition with the business houses of the larger cities. Now, however, with the possibilities that have been brought to the farmer with the developments just mentioned, the farmer is not content to buy in the same way as he formerly did. A large number of the farmers interviewed during the study, 90 per cent, said that they took newspapers from the larger cities outside the county and received mail order catalogues regularly. They were thus in touch with the prices in the cities. In this way the small town merchant has been brought into every day compe- tition with the merchant in the large cities and with the mail order houses. This competition is not being successfully met by the small town merchants except in a very few cases, for they are still trying to carry on their business in the same way as they did before that competition developed. The indifference of the town merchant toward the farmer was also shown by the absence of any effort on the part of the merchants in the towns studied to help the farmer work out his distressing economic problems. It needs only to be mentioned here that at the time of this study the purchasing power of the farmer’s dollar was very low because of the low price he received for his products and the high price he was compelled to pay for the necessities he bought. The merchants said that their business was suffering because of the adverse conditions in the rural territory. When asked, however, what they were doing to help bring about better conditions they usually replied that they were doing nothing; there was nothing they could do. They seemed to feel that the whole economic situation would become adjusted in the course of time. In the meantime they were cutting down on the amount of credit granted to farmers or discontinuing the credit system altogether. Acknowl- edging the problem to be grave for the farmer, and admitting that their own business was seriously affected by it, the merchants were not trying to co- operate with the farmer in working out a solution. 'J Marketing Relations. All of the towns studied furnished marketing facilities for the farmers in the surrounding country. There was a railroad station at each point with two each at Marysville and Peoria. No point in the county is more than eight miles from a shipping center with railroad freight siding. The marketing centers studied served territories with radii averaging about five miles each. 25 Cattle, hogs, and sheep were shipped from all points. Each town had a private shipper who bought livestock from the farmers, paying market prices less shipping charges to the city markets. The Union County Co-operative Livestock Shipping Association had an agent at all of the towns except Peoria, who shipped stock for all members of the association. Under this plan the farmers received whatever their stock brought after it reached the market, less the actual cost of shipping. The members of the association did not all sell all of their stock through their shipping agents, however, for many of them said that it was profitable at times to sell to the private buyer. By selling on this plan they received their pay as soon as their stock was delivered and did not have to wait till it reached the market in the city. Hay was shipped from all of the towns by private dealers who usually bought the hay loose in the field, baled it and paid the farmer cash on delivery. No co-operative agency for shipping hay was found in any of the towns. Grain was bought from the farmers at elevators in Marysville, Milford Cen- ter, Plain City, Richwood, Raymond, and Broadway. Richwood, Milford Cen- ter and Plain City had mills for grinding flour, which consumed a considerable amount of the local wheat. In Richwood considerable grain was handled through the Farmers’ Co-operative Elevator Company. This was an incor- porated company with a paid up stock of $19,000, owned by 185 farmers liv- ing within a radius of about ten miles from Richwood. The manager said, however, that many stockholders in this company did not sell their grain to this company if they could get a cent a bushel more for their grain from an- other company. This occurred very often because it was the policy of the company to base its prices directly on the market quotations, distributing such profits as it was able to earn among the stockholders at a later time. Competitive grain buyers were able at times to quote prices slightly higher than the ruling market rate. Hence, they were able to get the grain from members of the co-operative elevator company, who were appealed to more strongly by immediate cash in full for their grain upon delivery than by the possibility of these same or higher returns at a later time. They seemed in- different also to the prospect of developing a strong co-operative marketing organization among themselves. Cream was bought at all of the towns studied by from one to six cream buyers who were usually agents working on a commission basis for some large creamery located outside of the county. There were two creameries within the county which made butter, one at Milford Center, and one at Marysville. The Scioto Valley Co-operative Creamery Company had a station at Marysville and one at Raymond. The most of the cream was brought into the towns by the farmers two or three times a week. This cream was weighed and tested at once for butter fat content and the farmer was given a check for payment. There were several buyers who sent trucks out through the country collecting cream at the homes of their customers. The drivers of these trucks paid for the cream collected on the next succeeding trip. There was one large milk buying concern in the county — the Nestle Company’s evap- orating plant at Marysville. Besides this concern, Marysville, Milford Cen- ter, Plain City, and Richwood had local retail distributors, who bought a small amount of whole milk. Eggs and poultry were bought at all of the towns studied. Every grocer in the county bought these products either in exchange for groceries or for cash. In some of the stores a difference of one or two cents a dozen was made 26 between eggs that were exchanged for groceries and those paid for in cash. Besides grocers, there were produce buyers at Marysville, Richwood, and Plain City who specialized in eggs and poultry. They sent trucks or wagons out into the country for many miles gathering produce at the homes of the farmers. Well defined marketing areas with the produce of those areas all shipped from their respective shipping points were not found in Union County. While it was true that the shipping points drew most of their produce from within four or five miles of the center some produce was drawn from a much greater distance. As in the case of the trading areas there was a great deal of shift- ing of boundaries and overlapping of territories. This tendency was well illustrated by the marketing of eggs. For in- stance, along the Kenton Pike north of Marysville the investigator found some farmers selling their eggs in Marysville, some in Broadway, some in Sommer- ville, and some even in Plain City. What was true of the several farmers along the same road taken as a group was often true of a single farmer, as for example, one man living four miles northwest of Milford Center said that he marketed his eggs sometimes in Milford Center, sometimes in Pottersburg, and sometimes in Marysville. Another, half way between Raymond and York Center, said that he took his eggs to one place part of the time and to the other place the rest of the time. A woman eight miles northeast of Marys- ville said that she called the produce buyers in all the surrounding towns to get their prices on poultry and sold hers to the one paying the highest price. This same tendency to disregard local territorial limits was noted with re- spect to livestock and even, at times, to the shipping of grain. In the case of grain, however, it was not so true because the weight of the grain made it disadvantageous to the farmer to haul it so great a distance. 27 VI CONCLUSIONS The investigator feels that no general and final conclusions should be based upon a study so limited as this one necessarily was. The field work extended over a period of three months only and was kept within the con- fines of one rural county of Ohio. The reader should also keep in mind that the work was done by one investigator. While this fact limited the number of persons interviewed it did assure to the study a relatively unform method of approach and recording of information. The effort throughout this report has been to allow the facts to speak for themselves with a minimum of generalization. It is hoped that future studies of a similar nature may be made in other rural sections which, to- gether with this study, may serve as the basis for more general conclusions. Bearing the above considerations in mind, the following conclusions seem to emerge from the facts presented: 1, Social distinctions between farmers and townspeople do not exist in Union County. ] If there ever was a time when townspeople had a feeling of superiority over country dwellers that feeling has disappeared^ The writer does not wish it to be inferred that no social distinctions exist in the country. They do exist to a certain extent but they are not based upon differences in the place of residence. \ Wherever the people congregate, in the churches, lodges, trading places, places of amusement or at sociable gatherings the farmers and townspeople mingle freely. 2.1 Not only is there an absence of social cleveage along town-country lines, but there is a positive feeling of friendliness and good will existing be- tween the two groups. This fact is made clear by the number of occasions on which they associate, the manner in which they associate, and the verbal expressions of interest in each other’s welfare, j 3J_In the third place it may be said that the townspeople and nearby farmers do recognize certain mutual interests which they attempt to satisfy through co-operative effort] Public school education is an example of such a mutual interest. It is generally recognized by both farmers and villagers that neither group alone can carry on as good a school as can be established through co-operation. Consequently, the centralized school is found in all the towns studied except Richwood. This type of school is under the man- agement of a board representing both town and country, supported by the whole community, attended by the children of the whole community, and looked upon with pride by all. The writer believes that the centralized school is the best expression of true community spirit found in the county. Another interest which is held in common in the localities studied is the provision of local public entertainment. In the smaller towns the home talent entertainments are participated in and supported by both groups and in the larger centers the annual chautauquas are made possible by the same 28 spirit of co-operation. The common designation applied to the chautauquas is “Our chautauqua.” Further illustrations of this spirit are seen in the Richwood fair, the local baseball teams at Marysville and Plain City, and the big community picnic at Plain City. In all of these enterprises there is a community of in- terest in that both farmers and townspeople recognize that they can be satis- fied best by co-operative effort and they act upon that principle. A somewhat similar community of interest may be noted regarding the religious life of the various areas, although it is not so unified as is the case with the interests mentioned above. People are still controlled largely by denominational 'bonds and so the communities are broken up into sect groups. Many persons who, by residence, belong in one community go elsewhere to church very regularly. This practice hinders the development of community spirit. 4. The attitude toward economic problems is quite the reverse of that toward the other aspects of life. In spite of the friendliness and good feeling shown above and the co-operation in many enterprises beneficial to the com- munity the same spirit is not expressed in the business life. While it is quite often stated that farmers and villagers are economically interdependent scarcely anyone is conducting his business on that basis. The actual practice that the investigator found is well expressed by the adage, “Friendship is all right in its place, but business is business.” The small town merchants neither co-operate among themselves nor with the farmer. Sympathy is often expressed concerning the farmer’s economic hardships but no effort is made to help him in the situation. “He (the farmer) must take care of himself.” The farmers likewise speak of “their” town, attend its churches and lodges, associate with the merchants in those relationships and on other occasions, but go often to other towns or send to mail order houses for many of their necessities which they could secure at the local stores. Thus, the attitude expressed by the business practice of both groups is one of almost complete individualism. £, The only tendency away from this individualistic attitude is seen in the development of certain co-operative enterprises among the farmers under the influence of the farm bureau federation. This movement toward co-operation, however, is among the farmers only and is opposed by the village merchants, J 5. Finally, a brief statement should be made regarding the extent to which villages with their surrounding territories constitute communities. If by community is meant “the population group which is formed by village or small city or city, together with all the farm families making this village or city their regular business city 1 ,” then every center included in this study constitutes a community. Although a great deal of material is purchased away from home, the local towns, because of their convenience, are the regu- lar trading centers for the farm population around them. However, if we include in our concept of a rural community the idea that the members “rec- ognize each other as members and co-operators’,” then the areas studied are communities with respect to certain needs, but not with respect to their economic needs. 1 Report of the National Country Life Conference, 1919, p. 128. 3 Gillette, Rural Sociology, p. 547. 29 APPENDIX The schedules used in the study are contained below: FARMER SCHEDULE Farmer’s name _. .... Location — — - Where do you buy f groceries?... I clothing? farm implements ?... hardware ? Do you buy from mail order houses ?_ Why buy at ? _. Church member? Attendant?- Farm Bureau member ? Lodge member ?. Attendant ?.._ .Where ?_ ..Where ?.. Do you take a newspaper?.. What newspaper?.. Where do you market your products ?„ Do you have an automobile? Remarks : — .Why ?.. ..Why ?_ CHURCH SCHEDULE Name of church Membership ( tnt.nl ) Farmer mem- bership Average attendance at morning preach- Average farmer at- tendance at mora- ine nreachimr..... S. S. (total Farmer Average attend- ant Average farmer tendance _. at- Young People’s Soc. Farmer Average attend- a nee - Average farmer tendance at- Farmer attendance Informant ► LODGE SCHEDULE Name of lodge Location Membership (total) Farmer membership... Attendance (total) _... Farmer attendance Distance farmers come to meetings Remarks : — Informant 30