The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 18, 1916, Page 3

In the interest of a square deal Tonpartigan Tader A newspaper that dares to for the farmer print the truth iy : ; : Qfficial Paper of the Farmers' Nonpartisan f_’oll!icdl_l_.gggue of North Dakota g" : VOL. 2, NO. 20 : FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA, MAY 18, 1916 WHOLE NO. 356 “ are now exerting their strongest efforts to break up the or- ganization and to prevent the accomplishment of its pur- poses. They are using every means they can devige—fair or unfair, honest or dishonest, truthful, half true or false—to attain the end of wrecking the organization the farmers have formed. .They 'have never relied upon a straight-out, honorable fight against the principles the League stands for. Their chief effort has been to create doubt and distrust of the Leagtie leaders and officers _ among the membership of the League. - ! Their most recent line.of attack is the baseless and untrue re- port printed in the Fargo Courier-News of May 4 and subsequent issues, a portion’of which is re- produced on the front page of this issue of the Leader. This is an effort to cause members of the League to renounce their ~membership by telling them that they will be INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE for debts that may be incurred on behalf of the League " by the officers of the or- ganization. ] All that the article seeks to convey is summarized in this statement in the second para- graph: “The League, not being : ; : i THE enemies of the Nonpartisan League and their hired agents Roify P T T — SLANDER| THE POLIT Pt .. - ¥ A Challenge to the League’s Enemies A,nvboc.ly.Can See Through It O Gongster = ICIAN | L1 ES ABOUT no new partner can be admitted into a partnership without the con« sent of every existing member thereof.” ' How then can Guild or any one, let alone an ‘“able lawyer,” con- . tend that a partnership FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES has been formed by the members of the League, UNDER THE STATUTES, which in plain words provide that a partnership in the meaning of the law must be FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSACTING BUSI- NESS AND MAKING PROFITS and that ALL MEMBERS MUST GIVE THEIR CONSENT BEFORE ANY NEW MEMBER IS ADMITTED. : Why, just look at the common sense of the thing. What is the League? You have only to define it to know that it is not a “part- ' nership” in the legal sense. It is a voluntary association of citizens, banded together for political action. Its funds are raised and expended for the pur- pose of carrying on its work of organization, of . adding new members and of -informing all the people of the state regarding the work it desires to do. Its members contribute fees for - that purpose AND ARE LI- ABLE FOR NOTHING BUT THE MEMBERSHIP FEES THEY HAVE CONTRACTED e pawEbems o BIG BUSINESS |66 RUBES i o G HOLD CONYENTION —_— —_— 1 * incorporated; is a partnership, " _and members who do not resign - TO PAY. WHEN THEY PAY THEM THEY ARE NO LONG- " “during-the ‘year for which their dues are paid, are personally -lable for its debts.” : : This is a bare statement, not ‘supported by a particle of - evidence and not given on the “authority of any responsible per- : -son- The only pretense of sup- - R ! . porting this assertion is the fur- i § -ther statement that “This is the ; : ; decision of several of thé ablest attorneys in North Dakota.” ; Who are these *‘ablest at- torneys in North Dakota”? Is - an opinion which no attorney is willing to sign worth anything? Why didn’t the Courier-News : tell their names? Was it be- P ; cause no reputable attorney gave ‘ | or would give any such opinion, ;A : because the whole thing was con- ?‘ TR ..-cocted in the head of the man ¢ : . who wrote this false and base- { o less story? aeh - A ' “Under the statutes the Vi ; Nonpartisan League is a part- nership,” says the Courier-News further. What statutes? The Courier-News doesn’t quote any, nor doés it mention any para- graph of the code or section of any law. : : i Here are the statutes, taken ™ | ot . from the latest edition of .the : ‘ . revised:code, which the Leader is not afraid to print, though the 1 see what we do. It seems to us don’t see the same thing. < Courier-News is: - revised code of 1913, reads: -“Partnership defined :—'Partliershifi is the associ:itiqn of two or more persons for the purpose of carrying on bus_ines_s together t - and dividing its profits between them.” = ’ 'This section clearly defines WHAT THE LAW REGARDS AS Y A PARTNERSHIP. Has there been any association of members of the League FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON BUSI-. . NESS? Has there been any AGREEMENT TO MAKE PROFITS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE? No. You know, and the man that made this statement knew, there has not. Is the v League organized to carry on BUSINESS? No, of course not. S Anyone not an absolute simpleton knows that. = = - % R . THEN UNDER THE LAW THE '_'LEAGUE' I8¢ NOT A « ] ' V_PA'RTNERSHIP AND CAN NOT BE. It lacks every element of i S @ partnership. - Any lawyer who would sign a statement that the i - . Leagueis a partnership would make himself the laughing stock of =" the state. -~ than the Courier-News has for reliability in printing the news— - . and thatis none at all. = el e STty - . Now examine the statutes further—not what Guild says about : © - thestatutes, but the codeitself— -~ - °* . - = - o 3‘: X © - .. “Section 6388—Formed only: by consent.. A partnership can 3 .. be formed only by consent of all the parties thereto and therefore . This is a lifelike reproduction of any one of several Old Gang news- papers in North Dakota. The artist’s conception might also be called .“Reading Between the Lines.” Take a good look at it and see if you can ness and the Gang Politician in close conference over their business of CHEATING THE FARMER TO MAKE MORE PROFITS FOR COR- RUPT INTERESTS. Yes, we are quite sure that’s what it-is. Look closely through the columns of any copy of these papers and see if you 1] B _ First, 8 to the question, what is a partnership? Section 6386, He would have no more reputationfor legal ability left ER LIABLE FOR ANYTHING AND CAN NOT BE MADE SO. Though not a political party itself, the League is an associa- tion similar under the law both . -to the Republican and Democrat- ic parties. All are voluntary as- sociations for the purpose of po- litical action. So far as legal liability is concerned members of the Republican party and the Democratic party are in ex- actly the same situation as mem- bers of the Nonpartisan League. If Guild is right then the members of these parties are re- sponsible for any debts their campaign committees may incur. This would be pretty soft for the bosses, wouldn’t it? They those fat contributions from Big Business for “slush funds” and to pay their hirelings of the press. If that were the condi- tion it would be better for a man to sign a stranger’s note than to admit to the assessor that he was a Republican or a Democrat. g If Guild is right, REPUB- LICANS HAD BETTER LEAVE THE PARTY QUICK, for more debts will be made and more money spent in this state by Republican bosses during the coming campaign THAN HAVE BEEN SPENT IN A DOZEN CAMPAIGNS BEFORE—AND ALL TO BEAT THE LEAGUE’S CANDIDATES. .. If Guild is right, then the Republican voter who registers with the Republicans and the Democratic voter who registers with the Democratic party, are liable not only. for all the debts of the organ- izations with which they affiliate in this state, BUT FOR THE MILLIONS - OF INDEBTEDNESS WHICH THEY INCUR IN OTHER STATES DURING EVERY CAMPAIGN, - Why ‘haven’t the: Bosses thought of this? -Why have they been going to Big Business' to fill their campaign money bags? Why haven’t they soaked the farmer for this the same as they have this must be the shadow of Big Busi- soaked him for everything else? Mr. Republican Farmer, has the sheriff ever been out on your farm toseize-your horses and your lican campaign? He would have been if Guild is right. Why ‘hasn’t he? < : : The Danbury Hatters’ case, wherein the members of the union ~were held responsible for a judgment against the union, is men- tioned by the Courier-News as a similar case to membership in the Nonpartisan League. That case is as much in point as the rest of his assertions. The members of the Danbury Hatters union were ~held liable for conspiracy in restraint of trade. They had voted to carry on, and did carry on, a boycott against manufacturers against whom they had struck- They caused this boycott to be taken up by union men-all over the country. : Ao wouldn’t have ‘to get any of - farm machinery to PAY THE COST OF CARRYING ON a Repub- . - This in law is called a tort, and it has no carthly connection ~ PAGE THREE