The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, August 24, 1916, Page 5

Sky ine of the great milling district of -Minneapolis. Here the grain of the northwest - pours in- and is turned into flour and by-products. Under present economie ;conditioxis the milling industry has flourished at ‘Minmeapolis while it has been'generally unprofitable elsewhere in the northwest, enabling the wealth to be concentrated at this point and keeping back the manufacturing industry development in othgf parts-of the norghwest, especially North Dakota. i . Faithful Agents of Chamber of Commerce Always (By Leader Staff Correspondent) T. ‘PAUL, Minn.,, Aug. 19.—How ‘has the grain combine been able ") to reign supremé at Minneapolis i+ so long, taking its unjust toll, not only from the farmers -of Minnesota, but from’ the producers of North and South the ‘story of the control of public offices and ‘the law making power by vested interests seeking special privileges and immunities. It is the same old story of the shame -of American politics every- where. It is the failure of so-called ~ government by the people to be govern- ment. by: the people or for the people. way. MONOPOLY EXISTS BY - SUPPORT OF THE LAW - . The Minneapolis grain combine exists with its special immunities and special privileges. and enforces its monopoly because of THE LAW, which the people are supposed to make and change at will " but - which, everybody knows, - they usually have little to do with. By the influence of money and the awe of power and position the beneficiaries of the great special privileges are always able to control absolutely a united minority, often a majority, in public office and in legislative halls. ,Then it is a simple matter to sway complete control by- keeping the opposition split up, disorgan- . ized or.quarreling among, themselves. time 'or 'another in ‘most states, and it is the situation today in Minnesota. The grain combine hasalways had-a solid" minority in. the Minnesota " legislature that it absolutely controlled, and it has always been able to keep "such‘Op_}'_yosxztion - “The. Chamber ‘of Commerce, Minne-- ap! : of the world. It is a closed ¢orporation, virtually above the law, governed by its . “own tules. Farmers have repeatedly . failed to get any legislation in Minnesota y curb this monopoly. This is the hiead- S s g, W s 28010 Sally succesdiod in killing the bilis aimed " e answer is the same old story— “And it.is brought about in the same old e situation at one’ polis, one of the greatest' grain markets - ~as has shown itself from uniting solidly in the people’s interests. S Gy - The grain combine has had its men at the head of and usually in the majority ‘on the important committees in the ¢ legislature from . which important reforms in the grain marketing system must come. And it has almost univer- at correcting the Chamber of Commerce _abuses. It has been able to do this because the voters have never been united to bring direct pressure of united public opinion and because its ‘men in the legislature have controlled the machinery of legis- lation—speakerships* and - important committee chairmanships—and have been better.-politicians,and. manipulators “than the men who go to the legislature with thé intention of ‘legislating for the . people.’ - R LR HOW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - PROTECTED ITS Il_‘ITERESTS 5 “‘The stand a legislator takes on bills affecting the .grain combine in:the Min- nesote. - legislature.. usually = indicates whether or not he is controlled by the " Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. But when his stand on bills is linked up with business, ~social’ .or blood = relationship | with members of the Chamber of Com- merce it is a clear case. :For years prior to the 1913 leg‘islat.:ilve ‘assembly, i : former ' "Attorney: Gerneral’ George P, Wilson, known as “General” - < : ‘Wilson, was ' senator .from - Hennepin - -county and: chairmanof the senate rail- - road, . grain. and- ‘warehouse . conimittee. During. the whole of most of the: time he .-was_ chairman of 'this’ committee from which measures to refornr grain market- -"ing abuses had to emanate’ in the senate he was associated in the practice of:law with H. V. Mercer,. then and now general = counsel of - the ~'Minneapolis Chamber of = Commerce, ‘It can be reasonably believed that- measures to aid the farmers and aimed at’ Chamber of :Commerce practices had scant chance in:the senate during ‘those times. = - ad- * The house of the legislature inaugur- uarters of .the political gang in Minne- ated: the: now | famous probe into the * marketing of :grain; which la(idv’bare the - The laws and state administration of Minnesota are the citadel of power of the grain trust. Here's a glimpse be- “hind the walls which reveals some of the secrets of the monopoly’s scheme for protecting itself against interfer- ence while it robs the farmer. evil practices of the present system, but which, while it resulted in the accumula- tion, of much valuable evidence, resulted in little if any legislation to reform the abuses that it exposed. . That session, in the senate, Samuel D. Works, a reaction- - ary politician, was chairman of the sen-" ate committée on railroads, grain and warehouses. - He = was known to be intimately associated with many mem- bers of the Chamber of Commerce. He was used to start a backfire to the house investigation of. the- Chamber’ of Com- merce, which promised to get at some real and startling facts. The Chamber wanted an “investiga- tion” of its own,- to offset the house investigation, and Senator Works was used to bring about an “independent” ‘senate investigation,; to cover the same ground as the house committee probe, but, of course, to "bring in a report favorable to the Chamber of Commerce. Works was made chairman of this senate investigation committee ‘and he admitted, when called before the house committee to. testify, that the committee - had been formed in the senate after a conference of senators with members of - the Chamber of Commerce. - A HAND-PICKED DELEGATION TO MAKE THINGS “SAFE” Profiting by the close shave it got in the 1913 legislature, the Chamber of . Commerce decided it didn’t want any nore investigations and it laid its plans well _ before the 1915 session opened. The Hennepin county delegation to the legislature was hand-picked. They were mostly all “safe’ and sane” men, and they were given' the balance of power on , the house grain -and .-warehouse commit- tee: when the ' session " opened. As a” result the 1915 session did ‘nothing to reform the .grain "trust_abuses. Repre- sentative- L. A. Lydiard of Minneapolis was made chairman of the-house grain committee.” At that time Lydiard had a brother who was a:member of the. Getchell-Taunton. company, ‘members - of the Chamher of Commerce. Lydiard -was not a dangerous man for the Cham- ber of Commerce, - Hh? : . Among other bills introduced in the 1915_fis§ssion on. behalf of the farmers ~ . got to a vote. “for one vote against it. On Guard at St. Paul '_tQEProte"ct’ Wheat Monopoly were four aimed at correcting some of the practices and conditions that-had been exposed by the 1913 house legisla~ tive probe into. grain marketing. They, got short shrift. : How well the Chamber of Commerca “controlled this ‘legislature “is: shown by, the fact that two of thése bills never got to “a vote, although -one of them was permitted to be favorably reported by, _‘the house committee. The others, so plainly’ just ‘and’ badly ‘needed measures " that the committee did.not dare to report - against them, wére allowed to come to a vote in the house, but were allowed to die in the senate without a vote. It was the old trick of killing bills without put- " ting legislators on record for or aginst - them. The bills seemed to have smooth . sailing—everybody was for them. Of course they would pass. But they never THESE FOUR BILLS SHOW HOW THE TRICK IS TURNED As illustrative of how the farmers have been treated by the Minnesota legislature and how the Chamber of Commerce pulls the strings, the history of these four bills in the 1915 session are interesting. One was House Bill 359, a plain, honest measure permitting the formation and incorporation of farmers’ cooper- ative enterprises. It was merely a bill to make it easy and safe for the incor- poration of farmers’ companies to handle and sell their own products and to buy their supplies cooperatively. law is on the statute books of -North Dakota and other agricultural states. It was not a direct attack on Chamber of Commerce abuses or a bill that would injure any legitimate business in the state. But it would make easy the formation of cooperative elevators and cooperative. terminal selling agencies, which. would become rivals of the Cham« ber of ‘Commerce. permitting . incorporation. along. lineg suitable " to _their needs. The farmerg were simply asking the same treatment, DELAYING A JUST BILL -’ TO PREVENT ITS PASSAGE . The bill was so-fair and reasonablé that the house committee did not dare attempt to hold it from a vote, and it passed the house unanimously, except Only one rep< resentative dared to vote against it of those secretly opposed to the measuré, “In the senate it was referred.to the com« mittee-on judiciary on March 18. It wag allowed to remain in this committed without action for over a month—simply, fiflllayipg tactics intended eventually tg The bill was reported out of committed favorably April 19, three days before the legislative session closed. But it was reported out with mutilating amend=~ ments, considerably destxoying its uge- fulness: to the farmers. Even in this The samq - Hence it was doomed. Other lines of business had their laws