The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, September 7, 1916, Page 9

v : INNESOTA_ farmers have been ) : fighting . . the Minneapolis . i Chamber-.of - Commerce and ! T T its hlgh-handcd methods for R =twenty “years without success. The i famous, - hundred-million-dollar- . corpora- : tion | ‘is still” ‘intact, - and .although i attempts ‘have been made to throw the - hght of mvestlgatlons upon ‘the C. of .C’s. methods, _ practically “every. legisla- tive cqumttee that has “mvestlgated" has- -adjournéd never-to-meet-again. - The history of the fight agamst | abuses of the farmers in their marketing | « privileges is interesting, to say the least. | : in the early eighties Ignatius Don- ¥ nelly started a fight against the Minne- ! apolis: Millers’ association. A brilliant | talker- and a forceful fighter, Donnelly Vol threw so much light on the Millers’ association and made that organization so unpopular with northwest farmers that the millers disbanded. This evi- 1 dently was only a subterfuge, for the A % E Chamber of Commerce then organized and secured a charter from the state. At first the seats in the Chamber were worth only a few hundred dollars. e Recently a single seat on the Chamber | . floor sold for $5000. This shows what it is considered worth to have the privil- ege of buying and selling in the Minne- - apolis market, and of course the pro- ducer—the farmer—pays this price and makes this value. FARMERS' ALLIANCE STARTED MOVE TO OWN ELEVATORS . Then came the Farmers’ Alliance, a € state-wide organization of farmers. The Alliance started the farmers’ ele- ' vator movement, but the railroads and Minnéapolis men worked so strongly . together that it was practically impos- sible to get sites for elevators, nor could ' the farmers who desired to market their grain direct, secure sufficient cars. This was made the object of criticism and legislation and finally the Alliance had the inspection and weighing taken - out of the hands of Minneapolis men and secured a railroad and warehouse com- mission and a state system of mspectmn- of xdockage and gradmg Finally ' co- operatlve elevators were granted si gate, Elias Steenerson of 1 however, that the problems . and North and South Dakota had to deal’ directly with lfimm\polis while the oth- tes dehlt; with special problem : C B ' the Chamber Threshing by Electricity in' Red River Valley. How Monopoly Has Strangled All Efforts for Establishing Free Market for Gram ever, so the Minnesota exchange -struck out for itself. Meetings were held and the exchange was incorporated with $500,000 capital stock. It was decided to sell for one cent a.bushel commission. HOW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SMASHED FARMERS' MARKET Accordingly offices were established in Minneapolis and shipments started to the exchange. And here is where the Chamber of Commerce threw a snag in the road of the exchange that eventually resulted in the breaking up of the farm- ers’ organization. When the exchange attempted to sell the grain shipped in, it found that no- FAILED. It developed that he was backed by a commission house and A RULE OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MADE THAT OTHER MEMBER THAT BACKED THE MAN WHO FAILED A PREFERRED CREDITOR. It then developed that the man who had failed had about fifteen car- loads of grain, belonging to members of the = Minnesota Farmers’ Exchange. The commission house that backed the failing member took possession of this grain AND HAS- NEVER TO THIS DAY PAID THE MEMBERS OF THE EXCHANGE FOR THIS GRAIN. The commotion over this matter was made a matter of legislative investiga- One of the objects of the Chamber of Commerece is “to facilitate speedy adjustment of business dis- putes.” means. Chamber of Commerce. body would buy it, unless through the medium of the Chamber of Commerce. Technically there was nothing to stop the exchange from selling without the C. of C.’s aid, but nobody would buy. Then the exchange attempted to buy a seat in the Chamber, but learned that the membership was limited to 500, and was full. In the meantime shipments came pouring in from' all over the Northwest ‘and something had to be done and done quickly. So an arrangement was made with one of the members of to handle the grain and split the commissions. . In the meantime efforts were still be- ing made to buy a seat. Then a man was found who would sell his seat for $4000. So the exchange made all pre- parations to buy at that price, and then . another dead—head was thrown in the: way. REFUSE MEMBERSHIP TO CO-OPERATIVE SELLING AGENCY The committée on mémbers_hips had to pass upon the application of the ex-. change -for admission to the Chamber, and after considerable jockeymg and postponing of meetings, the commission rejected the application of the exhange. The - committee said the organization WAS A CO-OPERATIVE CONCERN WHICH WOULD REFUND ANY- THING OVER THE ONE CENT “COMMISSION BACK TO ITS MEM- ‘BERS, AND DIVIDING COMMISSIONS WAS AGAINST THE RULES. OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER MEMBER FAILS AND THE FARMERS LOSE Sotheuehmgehadtokeepéndoing - business through a Chamber of Com- meme member. TKEN ‘THAT MEM»B!:R The farmers have found out what this All disputes are adjusted in favor of the The farmer always loses. tion when the Minnesota solons met in 1907, ‘It appears that Senators McCumber and Gronna of North Dakota had been - introducing bills in the United States congress providing for federal inspec- tions of grain, and of course the C. of C. - was radically opposed to anything along this line. So, -according to Mr. Steener- son of Crookston, the Chamber had it- self investigated, hoping that a white- wash would help materially in a lobby at Washington. So among the witness- es. called was Mr. Steenerson .and -he went to St. Paul to appear before the “investigating” committee. “PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY” AND WHAT THEY AMOUNT TO Mr. Steenerson called attention of the . committee to the high sounding phrases " of the articles of incorporation granted by the state of Minnesota to the Cham- ber of Commerce, which state’the objects of the corporation to be “to facilitate the buying and selling of all grain produets, to inculcate principles of justice and equity in trade and to facilitate speedy adjustment - of . business disputes” and then he cited the facts of the manner in which the Minnesota Farmers’ Exchange had been treated by the Chamber of Commerce and. its members. S “1 beheve," _ said. Mr. Steenerson, “that it is a question for the legislature to determine whether these things that have been enumerated shall apply to the .trade in general or'to the members of the Chamber of Commerce only. I told that-they have adopted arbltrary rules that are inconsistent with aforesaid ob- jects and tend to monopoly and restraint of trade.. T S facilitate - speedy adéushnent of 'husmess dxsputes’ —-shall that mean ‘bus- - iness disputes between members or shall . it mean business disputes between a member and a non-member. Taken in connection with the second object of the" articles, ‘to inculcate prmclples of just< ice and equity in trade,’ it is plainly, their duty to ‘it that their members do business on the square.”” How empty is the implied promise in the articles of incorporation was shown by Mr. Steenerson when he exhibited cor- respondence in which the officers of the Chamber of Commerce, after a long de- lay and a great amount of red tape, fin« ally referred the members of the farm- ers’ exchange to the railroad commission and the courts for satisfaction of their claim against McKinnon & Son, o whom they had shipped wheat that had never been paid for. CHAMBER A MONOPOLY STEENERSON TESTIFIED Mr. Steenerson pointed out how the limitation of memberships in the Cham- ber of Commerce and the refusal to grant memberships to farmers’ organi< zations had made of the chamber a monopoly in restraint of trade. “If all the grain buyers of Minnea- "polis are members of the Chamber of Commerce and operate on the floor and buy nowhere else it would be a pretty, hard job for a farmer from Northern Minnesota or North Dakota or anywhere' else bring in a cargo of grain and sell it, They -practically force him on the chamber floor. While it is not compul- sory yet practically they force him to pay a tribute of one cent and turn it over to a member of the Chamber of Commerce to divide between them-~ selves.” It was at this point that McHugh; the “million-dollar beauty” of the Chamber - of Commerce, interrupted. “Just a word, Mr. Steenerson,” he said; “do you mean to allow any man the right to operate on the floor of. the Chamber of. Commerce?” “Yes,” promptly answered Mr. Steen- .. erson. “Any man with grain to sell, by paymg a reasonable rent, should have the opportumty of showmg his' samples of grain in the Chamber of Commerce and to sell it if he so wishes. He could pay a reasonable price for the privilege’ of coming -in-and selling his own grain — and that is not to say that it would - be handled ' better viewed = from the standpoint of a member of the Chamber of Commerce, but it would be more in line with an open market and more sa- tisfying to the producer. “I want to tell you members of the ‘Chamber-of Commerce, but I presume you know it already, that-the people are ° suspicious of the way you are doing things. You should not in secret get to- gether and say what the market shall do. There should be publicity, state contro], and the public should have a voice in the matter. A PLAIN WARNING TO WHEAT ROBBERS - McHugh again intérrupted to say. that people “suspicion”: things before they ;” : are: sufficiently informed. “Yes,” qulekly mwered Mr. Suenerson, ‘you uclfie < ‘them and eomune sgainst then.