The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, October 5, 1916, Page 10

upo: "are the box elder, willow.: Another division : of the: work at the ltatlon is fruit'tree culture. Fruit trees authotize -some pioneering work : along this line; because the results obtained so . far at the station mdlcate a glowing success ift'this line. - The pride of the hortlcultural depart- ment at the station is a thriving orchard of two-year-old peach trees—said to be the only peach orchard in the state of - North Dakota. ing peaches yet—not -even Mlclugan or § H | 1 | & il § years—but it~ gives every promisesof ‘commg mto bearmg when it. reaches the ECENTLY there has: appeared in North = Dakota’ (NeWSPapers . an , p .ance. plank of the Nonpartisan League. b ‘An amendment to the mitting. the kind of. ‘hail - insurance -the farmers ‘want, ‘on. the Canadxan plan; 4 now: being’ publishe : state; and: 2t will. 1 will be: voted’h amendment wxllp(’m‘ | he _people. ‘This * - profits and ‘comm _protection? program and in the platform of the state Republican = party. It is against this “amendment that the attack referred to “is directed.’ As is well known, the League platform declares for the creation of a.state hail E": ! .insurance fund through the taxation of . 1 all agricultural land, whether actually farmed or not. The fund is to be used to pay in full all hail losses in the state. The state is to be divided into zones-or districts, according to the: average hail . ¥ losses in various parts of the state, and the tax will be lighter in districts of small’ hail loss ! heavier -loss. In each - district - only 18] : enough tax will be levied to pay -the actual hail losses and expenses’ of run- ning: the department.” In Canada this tax is four cents an acre. There is no 5 reason why it should 'be more on'the 2 average .-in North Dakota; It might ‘average less, but even. if it averaged . five or'six cents'the cost to land owners would be very small mdeed 1 CRITICS OF NEW PLAN- . - : % MISUNDERSTAND THE METHOD Thls plan: is " being attacked from les'b ash; poplar are not yet being distributed. 1t is pos-. gible that the department later on-may - Of course, it is not bear-, " California could produce peaches in' two: attack on the. state hail msur—. nstltntxon ‘per - rx'mt the; 'ca.rrymg out, ~The new plan of hall msurance is protectm_n ' without discrimination” and " without the hu uge n ssions of the present system, . Why sheuld the farmers .pay fat commissions “ to ‘agents for - convincing them that they need They can get- Protection at a frac-: »tlon of the cost under a- properly planned state - system‘? “PEOPLE CAN'T DO IT” : 5 d in Canad: A el of Lou1s1ana and in Canada a ‘the article referred to.. bottoms. Tt is on the crest of a wmd- Wi } lwept hill, looking out over'a ‘great _expanse of rolling lulls and elevated ‘-_' State Hall Insurance Under the Acre Tax Plan ‘Will Help, Not Hurt, Land Values “in: vanous parts of the state: In dis-’ tricts ‘where‘losses are heavy the tax “will. be heavier than in dxstncfs where hail ~losses are: hght. Where is the " _chance, then, of “residents in a>certain the business much more efficiently than private compames" REAL HAIL PROTE(YI‘ION :WOULD. STRENGTHEN VA.LUES .Section which have repeated hail losses > . being’‘reimbursed by taxpayers in other -portions‘ where there is less l.\abxllty to ""hal’l ‘)” g equitable dxstnbutxo " and the fair and impartial adjusting of “losses is difficult enough under: fhe ‘most eareful management, € dxflicult it would be under state super- vision xt is easy to surmise.” THE OLD ARGUMENT This is ‘not an argument agamst hall insurance ' only. It and ~it is.. a ver)' -poor ‘argument. - adlmtted it would be a confessio ,p\;bhc ‘ownership - of |, water - : plants, state’ ownerslup\ ‘of facilities, such as is in-effect i Yet they -are not failures b sp!endldly. Why can not employ the *private experienced msurance . the state business. The argument that the D pl . -conduct ' business a private company state—ovmed : “arguments’ presented{- 3 risks- ~Tbxs class' f = out “improvement,. 'should be taxed for ° is: an atgument' e against any kind " of public ownership, - 5 “Thxs proposed legxslatxon would require owners of land, not farmed or . cultivated, to pay taxes for something for which they receive no benefit, and- other classes of land owners would also have to pay’ something for which they fcould not be “benefitted. There are sections of the state where little or no hail ‘occurs, and where farmers have not as a rule taken hail insurance in any . ‘company, prefering to take their own ° risks and not pay the cost:of insurance:: and /cultwa.iedL:md ‘not cultx— nd thus: force speculators and | others holdirig Jand' for increase in value . to, contribute.” sometlung- toward paying ~ hail’ lpsses. Thls is ‘a. desirable public pohe g Petsons ‘who vv'lthhold land from use in the " the mdustl‘y exgflbormg land owners, \vho.use land ‘and improve it; w111 increase the value of the land held with- mlsed land would bene- _hail-insurance law. and thelr agents, ‘not ¢ ere ready to 1 for Tosses whe look' better at the_axe- ' _"pxctute’-taken. Mr. ' Thorberg: : .cluefly mstrumexi __secure the appropnatlon for “and he naturally feels é * halil losses better than pay the high rates. - small sum, only $5-to $10 a year for a resxdents would also be . 1(: xn another way,. " the people" _An“orgamzed campalgn is ist the enactment of an Itis a campaign carri for the benefit of the hail insurance companie farmers. 55 ‘ pmper age. - 'ljhe trees are splen kept, :sturdy spemmens. “No orchard anywhere ‘in: thi °°Fn : ‘Thorberg, Who as “the father of. the_statlon. ‘congressinen - from Norflx ‘Dake o _to the comfort and convemences f west~ ern North Dakota farms by euablmg = because the hail loss in his dlstnct is negligible or because the ‘hail. company E rates are so high that he can suffer his M Under the proposed law, if he lived in a o district' where hail loss was’ negligible:or very small, the tax would be accordmg' to the loss, perhaps one or two cents per .acre, or maybe less. - Would He not be anxious to get -hail-: protectmn for farm of 500 acres? Whatever ‘the tax: is, it would be in exact’ proporhon to. the hail loss in his dlst'nct and: hewounld have the satisfaction o k'nowin the man owmng the nei and'not -improving it, bu other’s industry; v > hail company rates; and wo d be glad of ‘the protectlon pay the small tax per: this farmer wants and is waitin ‘“Whether this law would of eld as class leglslatnon and declaredfl‘uncon stitutional by the court question.” < . This is a good one.. How C 5 proposed plan be unconstitutional: en - it will be a part of the conshtutx when® the proposed amendment is adopted b It will be the cons tutior beiiig' conilncted t acre-tax compulsory for the “year? I -The state hail\insurance is exsetly. e i ‘¢ 3 X