n them or on any new colonies. This is due to the fact that
the class most needing help in the cities is not the class to succeed on
the land, and to the fact that men are more successful as pioneers on
the land, when they are scattered and left to rely on themselves, having
experienced farmers as neighbors, than when they are grouped closely
together in one colony. Also there is nothing in favor of heavy
expenditure for Christmas dinners, since the same amount of money can be
put to better advantage in other ways.

But, having reached these conclusions regarding the separate departments
of the Army social work, what about the movement as a whole? The
critics have advanced a good many objections against the Army. Some of
these objections relating to special departments and not to the Army as
a whole, we have already dealt with in our discussion of those separate
departments. There remain six principal objections:

1. That the organization is narrow and not willing to cooperate with
other organizations.

2. That the highly centralized military form of government is likely to
lead to disastrous consequences.

3. That the Army, in its financial dealings, does not take the public
sufficiently into its confidence.

4. That the Army collects funds, on the strength of its social work, and
applies these funds to religious propaganda.

5. That there is a lack of accuracy in its reports of work accomplished.

6. That the Army, as an organization, has become more of an end in
itself, than a means to an end.

Regarding the first objection, the narrowness and lack of cooperation,
we think there is a good deal of truth in it. The Army has made a great
success as an organization, and the work of its founder and his
assistants is one of the most remarkable achievements of the age. Things
apparently impossible have been accomplished, and obstacles apparently
unsurmountable have been overcome. The result is a self-confidence and
assurance, amounting in many cases to bigotry. The members of the
organization look upon it as especially favored by God, and as above any
other organization. Hence, we find many of the leaders far from humble
in their bearings, whatever their profession may be, and entirely
uninclined to cooperate with other organizations. This fact has been
brought to the foreground of late years in England and America by a
certain amount of antagonism between the Army and the Charity
Organization Society, the Army cla