SETTLEMENT AND COLONIZATION IN GREAT LAKES STATES 49 
plan or closely similar plans. On two projects, the settler had con- 
siderable choice. 
The proportion of settlers who wanted buildings erected appears 
to be dependent, to a large extent, upon the type of advertising done 
and of prospects secured. When the option to have a house built or 
not have one built is played up in the advertisements and sales talk, 
the proportion deciding against it is large. Asa result, most of the 
companies building houses were stressing the settlers’ freedom of 
choice in the matter. The rising cost of buildings was undoubtedly 
partly responsible for this policy. The prices at which the houses 
were advertised appeared prohibitive. The settler could not see why 
such houses should cost so much. Although every company which 
was building houses claimed to be furnishing them at cost, the gen- 
eral impression among the settlers in the community and among 
competing land companies was that a margin of profit was always 
added. Some heavy costs are connected with this kind of building, 
for materials must be hauled long distances and carpenters must be 
transported to and from town. 
The usual type of house constructed by the companies on the proj- 
ects surveyed was one-story and had two or three small rooms. A 
few had low sleeping rooms above. They were usually sided only 
with paper and strips or with siding in addition on the front. The 
floors were generally hardwood. Such houses were selling at prices 
ranging from $300 to $750 depending upon size and finish. One 
company had erected ready-cut houses and barns at a cost of about 
$2,000, but most of them were unoccupied. 
Arguments advanced in favor of building houses for settlers are: 
(1) The settler has a place for his family to move into when they 
arrive. This makes them more contented. Discontent of the family 
is a large factor in settlers’ failures. (2) The settler does not have 
to use valuable time in putting up a house when he should be clearing 
land and getting in his first small crop. When settlers move in, in 
April or May, it is very important that they get to clearing land for 
the first crop at once. (3) The company can economize for the set- 
tler by buying lumber in quantities and organizing construction on 
an efficient basis. Especially is this true if lumber can be sawed on 
the company’s holdings near by. _- : 
Arguments advanced against building are: (1) The settler can 
erect these buildings much more economically than he can hire it 
done, especially if the company will furnish him lumber at quantity 
prices. He can do most of the work himself, and at odd times when 
his time is not valuable. Cost of transporting workmen is saved. 
(2) He can usually find a place to rent for a month or two for his 
family, or leave them behind for awhile; or he can come up the fall 
before, erect his house and even clear some land. (3) Houses con- 
structed in advance by land companies are undesirable and are not 
likely to please the families of the settlers. At best, such houses can 
not ordinarily be used to advantage as part of the permanent struc- 
ture to be erected later. A settler with even fair means is not ordi- 
narily attracted by a ready-made two-room one-story house. 
The house-building program appeals to prospects who have from 
$500 to $1,000. Such settlers can not ordinarily make a first pay- 
2024°—25——4 
ee a ee a ee Ee eee ee 
