The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 18, 1916, Page 17

s T N “the legislature. Is Bratton Farmer’s Friend? DITOR L. H..BRATTON of the . § . . O thus furnishing more newspapew E Piel"ce County Tribune, who has Read Lenglatlve ReCOI'd Of ThlS BUSY revenue, £ e praised highly the Nonpartisan ; League candidates for the legislature in_his county but who nevertheless is engaged in a vicious attack on the League, editorially scoffs at the idea of the farmers gaining anything by sending tried "and true farmers to He says after the League’s men are elected to the legis- lature and return back to their homes - they will have to “explain why they did not’ give the farmers the relief promised.” Editor Bratton was himself a legis- lator during the last session, having been sent to Bismarck by the farmers whose organization he now ridicules. He says when the farmers get back from: the legislature they will have to “explain.” Since Editor Bratton has been to the legislature and never “explained,” why not give him a %hance? It’s his turn to explain rst. Before letting the records tell how Editor Bratton stood on farmers’ legislation -in the last session of the legislature, it may be well to see how he stood on bankers’ legislation. He was right there when it came to vot- ing for what banks wanted. He voted for the bankers’ bill to make it a misdemeanor to draw a check on a bank in which the person writing the check had no funds, whether the check is drawn by mistake or not; he voted for the bankers’ bill to increase the minimum capital required to start a new bank, to make it harder to give existing banks competition; he voted for the bankers’ bill reduc- ing the amount of reserve banks are required to carry to protect deposit- ors, which bill- had- an emergency clause that -stated it ‘was of the ut- _ ers’ legislation? Little Enemy of Nonpartisan League most importance that the bill become law at once, because: the bank reserv- es in this state were ‘“unnecessarily large”! (Dangerous for depositors to have too much protection!) These may all hayve been goad bills. Because the banks wanted them it was no sign in itself they were bad bills. - Editor Bratton’s record on this bankers’ legislation is merely given to show that he was right on the spot to help out with his vote when the bank- ers wanted something. WHERE WAS BRATTON WHEN FARMERS NEEDED HIM? But where was Editor Bratton on January 15, 1915? ' This was an im- portant day in the legislature for farmers. The farmers had' a little piece of legislation up at this time, even more important to them than the bills Bratton voted for were to the bankers. This was the day on which the house of representatives voted on the bill to reduce the legal contract rate of interest from 12 to 10 per cent. Over 12 per cent had been usury and now there was a bill up making over 10 per cent usury. ' Where was Bratton on this import- ant day? Was he right there to vote for this farmers’ legislation, just like he was there to help along the bank- Oh, no he wasn'’t. The roll was called on House Bill No. 2, to reduce the interest rate, ' AND EDITOR BRATTON DID NOT VOTE AND HE WAS NOT EXCUS- ED‘ FROM' VOTING FOR CAUSE: ~ Hall Laughs at Gangsters Who - “Knock” League Since having received notice of my indorsement I have met many persons of differing political affiliation; who stated that they believed the indorsement_of the League would prove to be a liability rather than an _asset to my candidacy, and I have been urged by a few to repudiate.the indorsement in a public statement made through the press of the state. Inasmuch as these suggestions have come from a class of people HE REFUSED TO HELP THIS FARMERS’ BILL, - .Mr. Bratton can begin explaining right here if he wants to, or he can wait to hear about the rest of his record and do it all at once. HE VOTED AGAINST THE TERMINAL ELEVATOR BILL. That was a bill to show where the farmers friends were. That smoked them out. It put Editor Bratton on record. He can’t say he didn't vote for it because he wasn’t in favor of an elevator outside of North Dakota, because the record shows he wasn’t in favor of one in North Dakota either. Later he failed to vote on the bill to levy a tax to investigate possibilities of building the elevator in this state. . Aside from always being there when it came-to helping bankers’ bills and being conveniently absent or not vot- ing when. it came to farmers’ bills, Editor Bratton’s function in the legis- lature was to champion the newspaper interests. Farmers put him in the legislature- but his chief work was to see that bills the newspapers did not want were killed and bills the newspapers, did want were passed. So far as has been learned by a care- ful searching of the records, the sum total of the legislation put on the books with which he had anything to do except to vote are three measures passed to help newspapers. He was chairman of the committee on public printing and recommended out a num- ber of bills to help newspapers and had killed a number of bills news- papers did not like. : The bills wanted by newspapers Bratton was instrumental in having pushed and the bills he caused to be put asleep because newspapers didn’t" want them, perhaps got- their just deserts. This is not to question his acts in this respect. It is merely to point out that as a newspaper man he fought for the newspapers and not for the farmers whilé he was in the legis- lature, though he did lend aid to the bankers also. : BRATTON WAS 'BUSIEST HELPING THE NEWSPAPERS One bill Bratton pushed through re- quires the - agricultural college to. certify to county auditors lists of its The other two bills he got through fix up some details of the laws rew quiring the publishing of estray notices, and tax lists, measures want« ed by newspapers. : This is a pretty fine record in favor of the farmers, isn’t it? ‘Bratton succeeded in killing the bill to prevent newspapers carrying on subscription contests for which prizes are offered. This is not saying that wasn’t a good bill to kill, but mere- ly- to show Bratton was fighting -for the newspapers and not the farmers. He can’t be blamed for that, because he is a newspaper man and not a farmer. Bratton introduced a bill to abolish the publicity pamphlet, which news- papers didn’t like because it was ex- pected to give candidates publicity in some -other way save through paid advertising in newspapers. He work- ed hard to repeal the publicity pam- phlet law and got the repeal through the house, but the senate killed it. Then Bratton tried to have a bill passed amending the publicity pam- . phlet law to make the rates charged candidates for this kind of publicity about twice as high. This was in- tended to force candidates to patron- ize newspapers instead of the state publicity pamphlet. He failed here. too. 00. Taken all in all Bratton made a mighty good representative in the legislature for the newspapers. He worked faithfully and hard for news+ papers and for himself as a news< paper man, and there can be no kick about his record in this respect. The point is he was there for Editor Brat« ton and the newspapers and not for the farmer. 3 Now let’s have the “explanation.” , American National Bank VALLEY CITY, N. D. Capital and Surplus $110,000.00 The Farmer’s Friend . Money to loan at all times to reliable parties ¢ - AT hoex Farm Loans a Specialty 4 kb who"as a rule have been opposed to Progressive ‘Republican principles, and to the political aspirations of myself I have not taken their reports, that'the indorsement is a menace to my candidacy, very seriously. These suggestions, I might say, have come from people who have been recog- nized as Stalwart Republicans, and Stalwart Democrats all the time, and have therefore never been my political supporters. : - X feel that the indorsement is one of ‘the nicest compliments that can come to a man holding a public office and is indicative of the general sat- isfaction of a goodly percentage of our people, with the manner in which their business has been attended to by myself. ! ; 3 THOMAS HALL, Secretary of State.’ publications, the auditors to have them published in county newspapers, Valley City Granite and Marble Works Are you going to erect a monu- ment or headstone this year? Don’t put it off until ii is too late. ©000000000000000750000000000020000000000000 Y (o i o fax schedule. Jorgenson Did It - 0000000000000000000%00000000000000000000 The New Tax Schedule Was His Work; b Nof That of State Tax Commiss\'o’r_:‘ _Editor 'Nonpartisan' Leader: The impression prevails.in some quarters 'of the state that the tax commission” is responsible for the new .95 item personal property schedule. The tax commission is.not only-not responsible for the schedule but: attempted: to prevent its bein% put into ‘effect: after it was-adopted by the state board of equalization. The story of the new schedule is as Tollows: ' ,-In 1913 Owens of Williston intro- duced House Bill' No. 227 empowering " ‘the state tax commission to revise the. ‘ This “bill was passed by both houses but was vetoed March 17, 1913 by, Governor Hanna for the reason, as he states in his veto mes- sage, “that the present law is entirely .. adequate upon this subject.” © In'1915 Westdal of McKenzie county- i introduced House Bill No. 21 which, - ' was similar to the Owens bill vetoed /by Governor Hanna. This bill passed " both ‘houses but before it received the signature ; of ' Lieutenant Governor f:inef{t\fas withdrawn.and the ‘state " board. of ‘equalization substituted for the ‘tax commission as the authority ~ for re-arranging the schedule: . . x Thi tax’ égmfission; some time dur- - g the xmer of 1915, prepared rd of :gugliizfitiqh ‘a d presented:ito a: member of the ' ;g’:sen i schedule - than the old schedule, or about one- fourth .as many as the state board finally adopted.. The recommendation -of the tax commission did not.prevail and on, October 23, 1915, at .a full ~session..of the board,” the present -schedule dontaining 95 items, assess- .ng poultry, dogs, fences and provid- - .ing_for the listing of - other minor “items ./ of .personal property, - was adopted. , : This schedule was drafted by Carl :0. Jorgenson, state auditer, and cer- tified _out to the county a-ditors on the 27th day of October; 1915. - The tax commission protested. -against this 95.item schedule as being unscientific, unjust and tending to place a disproportionate share of the “‘tax ‘burden upon farmers, household- ers and the man of small property not - engaged in business, We have not changed our opinion’ ; since and we today believe it to be a ‘clumsy, unscientific; 'unjust andein- ~minutely to -itemize the property of the: farmer and householder and’the man of small prope ) a wide loop hole for the business man —STATE TAX COMMISSION, by F. E. PACKARD, Chafrman, '~ ST ¢ oy “ ~equitable method of securing the list- - _ing of property for taxation.” It tends 7. while it leaves " insthat ‘he may lump his property: : engaged in-business in a single item: | SQUAW FLINT... ... .. We keep no agents and car. give the " buyers better prices. Write for our free catalogue and be convinced. All work sold on a guarantee, VALLEY CITY N. D. * NORTHERN GROWN $4.50 per ‘bushel - F.O.B.Valley City 94% i The above tests are by the Agricul- S e tural College. To be sure of a crop you . must plant seed of Northern origin. ‘Send - p * your order at once, our stock is limited.