The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, August 24, 1916, Page 6

3 ] i # § T A e RS S P RN R0 DRI L R read h j form, however, it never came to a vote. It was read the second time two days i before the legislature 'closed and that ;was the end of it. Had it passed in the ;last hours of the senate session it would have been'useless, for the house would not have had time to concur in the \Benate amendments. Those opposed to ,the measure had it fixed going and com- ing, through-'the month delay in_ com- 5L ow neatly and This is a field of northwest grain ready to thresh. me ;fifllions and millions P ! ing - other lines of business are effective in ‘Minnesota. It was the practice of old line elevators to bid higher for farmers’ grain in towns. where there was a farm- “ers’ or cooperative elevator than in towns where there Was no competition. This, of course, was to put farmers’ elevators out of business by keeping the grain away from them or making them pay so high for it that they would go bf acres of this sort of land, tilled by the sweat of hundreds of thousands of farmers, comes the wealth that has been chiefly responsible in building up Minneapolis and St. Paul. mittee and the amendments that the house would not have had time to concur in. And senators did not have to g0 on record as opposing it. 4 JUST ANOTHER TRAGEDY 'O SHOW THE METHOD - { The fate of House Bill 509 was much. the same. This was a bill to prevent discrimination and unfair competition of old line elevators against farmers’ or cooperative elevators in the country. {The same bill is law in North Dakota and other states and similar measures affect- Dr. Greene on Rural Credits an Exceedingly Sour th Dakota Farmer delegation first, and David Lubin, Amer- - * ican delegate to the International Insti- Editor Nonpartisan Leader: In your issue of August 10th you have Bn article entitled “Will this Law Help Farmers,” discussing the Moss-Holilis 1M interesting to your readers let me quote a little ancient history. : The American commmsum sent abroad during Taft’s Taft indorsed the system in his letter to the governors of the states in- organ- iziing this commission dated October 11, 1912, as follows: - “A study of these reports and of the ; recommendation of -Ambassador Herrick ;(My?m’l‘_.ofohio) which I am sending Germany.” (Sen. Doeument 916, 62nd congress, pages 3, 5 and 6.) : *Indeed the entire question was fought ! out in Paris between the delegates of the American ' banking interests who pought to anticipate and counteract the: Amefiumcommissipnby sending their- broke. An old line elevator in one town, where there was. competition, would often bid five cents more a bushel for grain. than an. elevator owned by the same old line company in a nearby town, .where there was no competition. The reason for the opposition of the grain combine to a bill putting a stop-to this can readily be seen. i This bill passed the house March 15 with only 9 votes against it, five of which were the votes of Hennepin county (Minneapolis) representatives. It went immediately to the senate where it was Present Federal Act Lemon, Says Nor tute of Agriculture, Rome. In a letter to Senator Fletcher Lubin \ “You give a list of representatives whohavebeminEuropethissmnmer_. commissioned by the American Banking interests to make a preliminary investi- gation of these sygtems._ I note at your ‘universal experience. ‘ The safe and sane way to exploit the peopleis to.control the law smoothly a hand-picked senate t later referred to the committee on rail- roads, grain' and warehouses. It remained in the senate considerably over & month without action, being re- ported out of committee: for pas- sage April 21, 'THE NEXT TO LAST DAY OF -THE LE- - GISLATIVE SESSION, WHEN IT WAS KNOWN IT WOULD BE TOO - LATE TO GET IT ON THE CALEN- DAR FORPASSAGE. ‘It was read the second time that day and that was the end of it. The month’s delay in- the senate killed it. 'And the beauty of it Was no senator was placed on record in a rolleall as opposing so reasonable a measure. JUSTICE FOR THE FARMERS? WHAT AN ABSURD IDEA! The other two bills had a briefer his- tory. - 'H. B. 324 was a bill to require all terminal elevators and warehouses to weigh grain on track scales, the only fair way of weighing it, according to It would cost the grain trust - elevators . some money to re-equip to meet the terms of this bill if it.became law, and it was freely charged that the grain combine foynd it more profitable to weigh grain in other ways, because the inaccuracies in weight were One of the numerous luxurious clubs built by grain mil{ionnires of the Twin i agnificently in business Brought b: the great tributary. northwest to this financial and commercial center, wbeuf & 5 Cities and others who have profited m P never in favor of the farmer or farmers® elevator shipping the grain. Represent~ ative Lydiard’s committee in the house reported this bill without recommenda- tion March 11 in the house and this end- ed it. It fiever got to second or third reading or passage. It just naturally died. urns tri House bill 427 was intended to correct a very plain abuse in the Chamber of Commerce rules. The rules provided that when a Chamber member failed or- couldn’t pay his ‘debts, fellow members of the Chamber of Commerce could have -first lien on his Membership, worth about $5000. So that by this rule members of the Chamber -of Commerce protected themselves against loss from debts owing by fellow members. But what of farm- ers or country elevators who had shipped grain to the bankrupt member and-had money coming from him? Oh well, they . could get theirs ‘if thére was anything left after fellow members of . the Chamber got through. : TRy This bill abolished this rule of the Chamber and made the claim of a ship- per of grain the first lien on a default- ing Chamber member’s membership. The Chamber was against that. The record shows the bill went to second reading in the house, but the record fails to show any other action ever taken on it. producers have sought for 20 years in vain to secure reforms in marketing methods to lessen the toll now exacted from tillers of the soil. select comgfittee is to investigate with a view of their adaptation to American needs) seems to me far superior' to any such plan- for the follpwing reasons: First, because co-operative groups of- farmers form their own banks under a. method whereby they are continuously enabled to obtain meney at an interest rate almost as low as that on govern- ment bonds. Second,” because the co- operative use of this money enables the farmer to act as the distributor of his product and’ thus prevents the formation ative use of money gives the European pmfihresultingfiomthee&mmie,—eo- operative - di: tion of their products’ hich their . co ot P it ; enjoyed by the European farmer. To md the most importanit measure lacking is that it does not afford relief to those | most needing it, and the greatest menace | to American agriculture, the small and Poor tenant farmer who needs compara.- . tively small sums of money for definite purpoeses.. The i | i % i i g I co-operative credit ¢