Sammamish Valley Grange History

Chapter 3 - The Sammamish Valley Grange until 1926

Chapter 3 – The Original Sammamish Valley Grange – To 1926

Why was our Grange created? The minutes from the meetings do not indicate why it was created. Neither is there any original members (nor their descendants) who are members of this Grange, and no one I have spoken to who is a long time member knows, either.
According to a 1944 article in the “Grange News,” written 35 years after organization:

“Realizing that united effort was of first importance if agriculture were to progress in the Bothell community, the farmers of that district organized the Sammamish Grange in 1909.”

However, that sounds like the language of official Grange propaganda, if anything. It makes it appear that a group of farmers had spontaneously gathered to push for a program to advance agricultural interests, and were salivating at the right organization to do so. However, history is made up of past myths, and it is the job of the historian to determine what really happened, and if the myths are untrue, then to debunk them with the conclusions of an investigation.
For one thing, one of the charter member, William Guernsey, was a newspaper editor. The state office may have published an announcement in the local paper about organizing a Grange, and being a civically minded person (who did his work) he may have been in a position to see one was being organized, and went to the organizing location. Having been a charter member of an organization, and having been trained for the membership development team, an organization decides on an area to organize in, sends in it’s deputies, and gets groups organized. One of the big agenda items at the time for the State Master, Kegley, was to organize Granges throughout the state, and several Granges were organized at the same time in this area.
Possibly at that time, there was a paucity of Granges in the North King County-South Snohomish County area. Look at the following subordinate units in our area that were organized in January 1909 – January 1909, including Garden City (#280, Snohomish), Tualco (#284, Monroe), and Cherry Valley (#287, Duvall). Halls Lake Grange (306, Lynnwood, now Cedar Valley) was organized a few months later.[1] This suggests that the state office probably had a plan to create Granges in the area, and Bothell may have been a targeted community.
Furthermore, to debunk the above myth, there seemed to be a lack of things to do in the first year – the above article alludes to the fact that a group of activist farmers had a set program of things ready to go, and just needed the right organization to get their agenda in motion. If they truly were a group of farmers who wanted to advance agriculture in the Bothell area, they would have had a program of ideas pushed during their first year.
Making something spontaneous sounds much more glamorous than writing what may be the truth, i.e. “The state office decided to organize a bunch of Granges in South Snohomish County and North King County, so State Master Kegley sent a bunch of deputies up there to so organize.” Such myths also help to justify an organization’s existence, too. However, we may never know the precise reason why a Grange was organized here.
It may have been relatively easy to get one going in Bothell, however. In the early 20th century, the fraternal organization concept was at the height of vogue. There may have been Grangers who were already members who wished to start Granges closer to home, as Brother Nims, the first master and the founder, was Lecturer of King County Pomona. [This is something that I need to look further into.]
On January 16, 1909, an organizer got a bunch of members together, and the Sammamish Valley Grange was organized; it was charted on January 29 of that year. During that time, we met in the “Winters Hall,” (though we mostly met in the Oddfellows Hall during our first incarnation). One of it’s first actions was to request that their congressman have the Federal Government do a soils survey of the valley. It was accomplished two months later. Remember, this was done in the days before computers made things faster. They also worked to establish Arbor Day on the school grounds. Yet, even at this date, they asked for help from the State Grange to help in running a Grange, even as late as 1911. Yet, they also were willing to help organize other Granges, like in Juanita.
In these days, the sphere of influence for our Grange was relatively wide. People applied for membership as far west as Lake Forest Park, east to Woodinville. This was before the wide use of automobiles. As I show in later chapters, several Granges were organized east of here, but none directly west of here (at least to Puget Sound, excepting Northside) so there may not have been much demand for a Grange in north west King County.
There were some similarities between then and today. Like until recently, one meeting a month was closed, and one was open. In addition, we agreed to hold an open meeting once a month. Almost at the beginning, our Grange (in this incarnation) agreed to pay it’s secretary for the work that person did. There was always a push to get more members, and one way we tried to get more people was thru “advertising ourselves.”
One of the things that kept coming up, more than once, was that starting in the November 1915 meeting, we prepared a yearly budget. In the early years, we had a budget committee – due to a perennial lack of funds.
For example, we had a committee to look into building a hall, but we the records show that we had to keep transferring money from the committee fund to the general fund. Sometimes, we had to collect money from the members during a meeting to pay the hall rental fee. Rather than have a Halloween party, we used it as a fundraiser.
There was a lot of difference between the lecturer’s program between then and now. Today, in our Grange, the Lecturer’s program is relatively sparse. However, at that time, the Lecturer’s program was much more extensive, and sometimes included debates after the meeting. It appeared to include things that were much more relevant to the members then, than many Lecturer’s programs in many Granges today[2]. For example, there was also a spraying demonstration, and often the demonstration included agriculture techniques. In 1912, there was a program about the joys of electricity on the farm. One program in January 1916 discussed the advantages of the organization that eventually became GIA. There was also programs about new farm technology. Thus, the lecture’s program was much more relevant to the members than most programs I have seen today. However, as the old saying goes, “the more things change, the more they stay the same,” and one problem occurred then that reappeared. In 1912, there was a program (for which Twin Valley Grange was invited) that was about trapping and poisoning the mole. Unfortunately, this was not passed down, for I remember that in 2002, someone asked about how to eradicate moles.
One problem that was constant was that of membership. Throughout the records, there was constant talk in the meetings about trying to get more members. For example, in one meeting, people were trying to figure out how to get “younger members”(much like today). Some years there were contests (like in 1910 & 1922, when the losing side had to buy the winning side a dinner). As was evidenced in a later day, whenever there was a strong membership benefit (like the Grange warehouse), many people joined up, as the records correspond to. Due to this fact, during this time, we were the largest organization in Bothell. And likewise, when one no longer had to be a Granger for the benefit (or it disappeared), the membership fell.
Like today, we tried superficial means to get members, like having “men charm their brother Grangers with music, thereby getting them to attend Grange” (resulting in a music committee).Likewise, another similar barrier existed to getting members to attend Grange. State Master Bouck asked fro “more lively topics” that would interest farmers. The most interesting attempt to get members was toward the end of this period, when we tried, but failed to get the votes, to change the name to Bothell Grange.
Another difference, the organization was utilized much more to advance it’s members economically, as we sent people to look into growing hay, as well as grapes. There was also an attempt to organize a Holstein club, and as noted above, there were spraying demonstrations. We had our own library, up to 92 volumes, dedicated to agriculture. We attempted to obtain a stall to sell produce at a Seattle Labor Temple, and we also tried, along with Woodinville Grange, to obtain a stall at Pike Place Market. We also hired our own purchasing agent (who had to be bonded). Finally, despite the fact that we are competing organizations, we attempted to establish a Farm Bureau.
Another difference was regarding the meetings. According to the minutes, as late as 1916, the members were making major mistakes regarding the ritual. It also took time to get a solid meeting night. The minutes also show that during 1913 – 1914, they did not have a quorum, but ran a meeting (and decided business) anyway. The records consistently indicate that rather than have a CWA (or it’s equivalent) we instead had an “Eats” Committee. Throughout the early period, degree work was done during the meetings, rather than have Pomona do it Finally, there is no mention of any (formal) Executive Committee until 1912.
The most important difference between then and now, however, had to do with farming. Whereas today we had to get members interested in some aspect of farming, up until 1921, much of the concerns during the meetings had to do with crops, farming methods, machinery, and the like. Rather than appoint one agricultural committee, for example, in 1917, there were six standing committees representing some aspect of farming.
Another difference was that we had various resolutions of sympathy when something bad happened to a member. In our first incarnation, whenever a member died, or sometimes their descendant, a Resolution of Sympathy was drafted. On the other hand, not a lot of money went to charity, like a Grange is supposed to do. The only important charity I found was gathering vegetables for the benefits of the Seattle unemployed.
As one aspect of the Grange is a political aspect, our efforts on this front were many. However, all of our efforts were in line with what the State Grange was advocating. On multiple occasions, we advocated having a Farmers Institute nearby. This Grange asked it’s State Senator in 1911 to vote for the Initiative and Referundum bills (As State Master Kegley was pushing in the legislature at the time, too). Our own Grange sent a delegate to the Good Roads Convention in 1911 (we would continue to do this until the 1930’s). As our members thought there was a possibility of war in 1914, we passed resolutions asking for naval disarmament (which went to President Wilson and Congress). In 1910, we voted to support the abolition of saloons in the area (known as “local option.”). We had signed a petition to Congress opposing Canadian Recipricocity (a big issue during the Taft administration). There was a resolution to disallow the distillation of alcohol in wartime. In 1916, we supported municipal ownership of milk. On another occasion, we were willing to invite the so-called “Non-Partisan” league to our meeting.Apparently out of thin-air, it appears a child-welfare committee was created. It appears that the Grange had more clout then than today, as we had the audacity to write our congressman, in a single letter, about positions on various issues (imaging trying to get such open-ended responses today!). Finally, to indicate our future orientation, we aided the Hollywood and Woodinville “neighborhoods” in obtaining a mail route.
The one exception to the rule was when a vote came up to support women’s suffrage. Our Grange voted against it.
Even after World War I, we were more-than-willing to voice our position on issues, but still largely in line with the values of the State Organization. There was a resolution asking that food be places on a “cost basis.” There was a resolution supporting the League of Nations. We supported the Municipal Power Bill. In our last year, we supported a Child Labor Amendment.
Some of our political activity did not even involve the government. At that time, there was an effort condemning the state Master, William Bouck. Sammamish Valley Grange consistently passed resolutions in favor of Mr. Bouck, even in opposition to other Granges, such as Walla Walla Pomona. It even went to the point of gathering funds for our State Master However, some members left shortly after the disputed 1918 convention, like the Simonds family, although it is not clear whether the events disgusted them or not. On the other hand, the records explicitly show that some members quit right after Bouck seceded from the State Grange in 1922.
All this dispute between the Grange and organizations hostile to the work of the order flooded over into our own subordinate unit. In May 1919, the doorkeeper was instructed to not let anyone in the hall unless he personally knew that person. In addition, one person was not allowed to join, because he was not a farmer (See inset).
The most important venture we did in our early incarnation was a cooperative store. In 1909, the citizens of Bothell created a
cooperative store. The mission was “to serve the public, not fleece it.” Some of the founders of this store, such as Beardsley and Simonds, were founders of it. Despite that fact, it appeared to some of the members of our Grange that this store was fulfilling it’s mission, so it created it’s own cooperative store in 1915. However, in the book “Squak Slough” it is mentioned noted that our store was “not entirely successful.” In the October 18, 1920 meeting, there was a mention of loss of money in the warehouse. Brother F.H. Rice, the Lecturer, stated that it was “no one’s business.” A special committee was to investigate what happened[3], but on November 01 of that year, it decided not to do anything. Interestingly, the page after November 15, 1920 is ripped out of the records. Some difficulties resulted from this, in that some financial chicanery was attempted when someone suggested moving the Relief Fund into the General Fund, but fortunately this motion was voted down.
In our minutes, there is mention of cooperation with several Granges, such as North Creek Grange, Twin Valley Grange, Woodinville Grange, and Happy Valley Grange.
In those days, the Granges were involved in big projects. As mentioned above, Sammamish Valley Grange immediately got a soils survey done, and had a cooperative store. It also held a Bothell Fair, at least for a few years. Along with Twin Valley Grange and Woodinville Grange (and an organization called the Commercial Club), there was to be a Sammamish Valley Fair, but I have yet to determine what happened to that. Happy Valley Grange, somewhat distant at that time, helped to organize telephone service in it’s neighborhood.
While “progressive” in some aspects, and basically following the State Line on various issues, it appears that our Grange was on the more-conservative side the issues, for a Grange. For example, while State Master Bouck arguably opposed the war effort, we were in support of it. While Woodinville Grange gathered money to help coal strikers, Sammamish Valley Grange’s records do not so indicate (although a Lecturer’s program addressed the coal strikers itself). We were also opposed to Women’s suffrage. Later on, we were split on the issue of government ownership.
Staying in line with the trends of the local Grange movement, until recently, has largely been a consistent part of our history.[4] This role can be seen in the difficulties the State Grange had in the late teens-early twenties. We appeared to take a middle-of-the-road position. When Bouck had his troubles in 1919-1921, and Whatcom County Pomona condemned him, we had a resolution supporting Bouck and condemning that Pomona. We also gathered funds in support of State Master Bouck.
However, when push came to shove, we supported the institution over the person. While Bouck was really having his fit, and seceded from the National Grange, we supported the State Grange. This Grange passed a resolution in favor of staying, as noted:

WHEREAS there is a concerted movement to disrupt he Washington State Grange by secession,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Sammamish Valley Grange, No. 286, that we wish to reaffirm our loyalty to the State Grange and further approve the action of our State Executive Committee against any secession, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to King County Pomona Grange and to the Agricultural GRANGE (sic) News.
Partly due to this, as well as the fact that our large venture failed, our organization was ultimately weakened. The records of the early 1920’s indicate that the activity was reduced. Starting about 1923, Sammamish Valley Grange thought about merging with another Grange, and also toyed with the idea of dissolving.
The minutes show that not only were fewer members attending meetings (often having less than eight officers), but the meetings were getting more and more scant. For example, in 1923, we only had seven meetings, and of those seven, only four had a quorum. There were almost whole seasons without a meeting, and sometimes, nothing was discussed. The only exception was a low-level marketing discussion by the members of this Grange to get residents of Seattle to buy “Home Grown” Produce (i.e., local produce). One event could show how member-poor we were toward the end. In 1923, Bothell High School won the state basketball tournament (under Dean Nicholson, who went to CWU to have a phenomenal 65-year father-son coaching career), and the Grange was to organize a banquet for them – only that a few members got sick and we couldn’t do it.
In the last few years, the records have scant evidence of any real business that went on besides resolutions of sympathy, voting on money, picnics, and planning for events.
A few pie-in-the-sky ideas were started, but apparently, they were just ideas. We tried to start a feed store, to use as a way to get members, but it went nowhere. Another idea was a radio committee was started to get a Grange radio station – but we could not get our own signal. To be fair, however, I am unable to determine if these were ideas of Sammamish Valley, or of higher levels of the Grange.
Money woes may have led to our demise, too. While this had consistently been a problem, it became one of the problems that maybe contributed to the end of this incarnation of the Grange. Our attempts at organizing fundraising events were by-and-large failures. One event, a basket social (whatever that was), was a dismal failure.
There was a discussion in May 1924 about cutting expenses. In 1925, we tried to give Associated Grange Warehouse Stock in exchange for a subscription in a powder company – but it was disallowed. By the time the Grange disbanded, we were $23.81 in arrears (about $600-$700 in today’s dollars).
During this time, the Grange we cooperated with the most was the Woodinville Grange, as was mentioned more and more in our records. Not only was the Woodinville Grange in the Northshore area, but also, in the Sammamish Valley. So merging did make sense. This Grange voted to consolidate with Woodinville Grange on December 10, 1925. We were given the verbal approval of State Master Goss – the only national master (albeit in the future) whoever attended Sammamish Valley Grange meetings. However, he did come back to visit the new, consolidated Grange a few times.
Despite what some members believe, we are not the Woodinville Grange with a few members of Sammamish Valley thrown in – the records indicate that a sizeable number of members, (28, 24 in good standing), went over to the Woodinville Grange.
However, for some time, there was some friction between the two Granges. There appears to be jurisdictional boundaries, as the records of the Woodinville Grange indicate. This will be addressed in the next chapter.
The question is why the first incarnation of this Grange died. While I have been working on members of our own Grange, I developed my own theories of membership, and can be applied here.
First, this Grange relied too much on membership benefits, while the meetings may not have interested the members themselves. It had to find ways to get these members to attend meetings. Although the programs were much more relevant than those of today, the State Master had to encourage the Grangers to make programs more interesting. And this was in the day before mass entertainment, when there was not very much competition with this sphere of Grange activity.
More importantly, this Grange lost it’s focus. My review of the records seem to indicate that after it’s big project, the store, failed, it could not find another way to revitalize itself.
National Master Goss, in 1947, wrote about how Granges fail when they turn inward, ignore agriculture, and become selfish.[5] After the warehouse failed, we did just that. We never spent much on charity as the records show. We stopped focusing on agriculture around 1921. He certainly was at our Grange in 1925 to dissolve it. It is not too much of a stretch to suggest that the failure of our Grange could have contributed to his formulation of this theory – especially since State Grange has an increase in members at the time we merged.
Essentially, we lost our purpose, so why go to a Grange meeting? We never got a project started toward the end (despite thinking we could build a feed and grocery store, or get a radio station). It became a waste of time.
While there was a secession of members in 1921, my review of the records suggest that this Grange was already in decline by this time, and even though some members seceded, we may have ultimately failed even without it.
I think that the failures of the original Sammamish Valley Grange can teach all Grangers a lesson about how to fail. Nevertheless, Woodinville Grange would help bail us out, creating a synthesis of both organizations.
[1] Note that Granges in a state are numbered in the order they are organized.
[2] Unfortunately, in my observations of many Granges today, the lecturers fail to do programs that are relevant to their larger community – while insisting that it is the most important part of the meeting. This attitude, along with the broader attitude of a lack of willingness to change, is what I believe is killing many subordinates today. More below.
[3] If anyone wishes further investigation, the committee consisted of Will Pearson, Chas Olson, Eslek Ormbuck, E. Thomson, and Mr. Souder
[4] I will, of course, note these in later chapters
[5] In fact, his piece, in “Grange, Friend of the Farmer” (1947) has been one of the most inspiring pieces toward my theories about membership. I first read it before I read these minutes.

posted by EricMatthew @ 11:26 PM