The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, March 8, 1917, Page 5

T~ 1 s 1 H £ Gang Elevator Bill Vetoed - by the Governor Frazier Points Out Weakness of Measure in ‘ Statement of His Disapproval < | e Bismarck, March 6—(Staff Correspondence of the Leader) —Governor Lynn J. Frazier today vetoed Senate Bill 84, the Old Guard’s terminal elevator bill, which was passed by the house in the closing hours of the Fifteenth Assembly after having been amended in conference. In vetoing the bill Governor Frazier gave out a statement of his reasons for the action, show- ing that under the restrictions imposed by the bill the project could not succeed and would only re- tard the accomplishment of the program on which he was elected by the voters of North Dakota. The governor’s veto message is as follows: “To the Honorable Secretary of State: “I file herewith Senate Bill Number 84, an act to provide for the creation of a commission, the selection of a Tocation, erection, leasing, operating, renting or selling, one or more terminal elevators either within or outside the state of North Dakota, and making an appropriation therefor, without my approval for the following reasons: “l. This act provides for the building of an elevator or ele- vators by direct taxation. “I feel that the taxes are high enough and in view of the con- dition of the state’s finances and the financial' condition of the peo- ple, an increase of the taxes is unwarranted and undesirable. “Our state permits cities to issue bonds for improvements such " as sewers, water works, paving, electric light plants, etec. This method has proven to be the correct principle and has given general satisfaction. I believe the state should follow the same principle in the building of terminal elevators or other state owned projects for the benefit of the farmers who pay the greater part of the state’s taxes and produce most of its wealth. “2. I believe a state owned terminal elevator without a state owned flour mill to grind the wheat into flour and demonstrate its true milling value, thus showing the wide difference in the price re- ceived by the farmers for wheat and the price paid by the public for flour, would be a failure. ; “Such an elevator in this state without a mill would be of no “value unless it were large enough to handle or control all the North Dakota crop. In fact, $300,000 would not even finance such an elevator if it were already built. : “3. This act provides that the elevator may be built outside of the state. : e : “I am satisfied that the people of North Dakota would take no pride in building such an institution in ancther state, especially in a state where the grain gamblers still control the marketing and influence legislation in their favor. “Should the elevator be built outside the state, it would not be under the control of our laws, but would be regulated by the laws of the state in which it was built. - Neither would it be in keeping with the often expressed sentiment and desires of our people to keep North Dakota institutions and money at home. “4, I believe it to be my duty to withold my approval of this act for the further reason that the legislature appropriated money in excess of the state’s available funds. It is true that there will be about $120,000 in the terminal elevator fund, but this should be carefully protected rather than squandered by an ill-advised pro- cedure. e i “5. T am in favor of state-owned terminal elevators and flour mills built within the state and properly financed by the issue of bonds, and am satisfied that a terminal elevator in North Dakota with a state-owned flour mill would be a great success, and I firmly believe that two years from now the will of the people cannot be blocked and that these institutions will then be built. “I am equally satisfied that this measure would hamper and re- tard real progress, discourage the people and make the struggle of the farmer against the grain gamblers much harder and will tend to block the ultimate estabiishment of a terminal elevator and flour milling system on a business basis that will assure success. “Believing that this proposed act is against the best interests of both the producer and the consumer and that the best interests of the state demand a united effort for state-owned elevators and flour mills built by bond issue rather than by raising the taxes, ] withhold my approval. “I am, very respectfully yours,” (Sighed) LYNN J. FRAZIER, Governor, - The action of the governor in refusing to approve Senate Bill 84 meets the approval of leaders of the Nonpartisan League and of prominent League members of the legislature who have had more leisure to study the probable effect of the bill since the rush of the closing hours of the legislative session. NG Senate Bill 84 was originally a bill by Gronvold for a state- owned terminal elevator to be erected at Fargo, providing an appro- priation of $300,000 to be raised by direct taxation. As amended and combined with other measures by the state affairs committee in the senate, controlled by the Old Guard, it created a commission of fifteen headed by the governor to carry out its provisions.” In the closing hours of the session it was amended by the conference committee to provide for a commission of seven members, headed by the governor, the state treasurer and attorney general to be members and one mem- ‘ber to be appointed from each congressional district, with one at large. In this form it was passed by the house, the Leaguer members believing that the investigation provided in the bill might be used to pave the way for the establishment of a real state-owned elevator system. The real object of the bill was shown by the fact that after its passage there was jubilant rejoicing among the Old Guard in the sen- ate who had fought hard to secure its passage. Their reason was ap- parent.. The sum provided, $300,000, is inadequate for a state system of elevators. It would build only one elevator, small when compared. to the great storage clevators at the big grain terminals, while its tax- ation feature was bound to be a burden to the voters of the state. ; It was evidently the belief that this small elevator, standing aloné, and not reinforced by a state flour mill or any other state- controlled marketing units, would be of no substantial service to the grain producers of the state and would merely give enemies of the farmers’ program an opportunity to declare that state ownership was a failure. ; Like all the rest of the bills introduced by Old Guard members of the state legislature ‘‘to carry out the League platform,’’ this was a falke bill whose purpose was to discredit state ownership and defeat the farmers’ purposes. : Governor Frazier saw through the plot. He refused to be a party to the trick. He refused to sign the bill and delay construction of the elevator, knowing that thus he would be open to the charge of bad faith in not carrying- out to the letter the instructions of the legislature. He did what sound sense and good conscience demanded. The people of the state of North Dakota can be proud of their governor. This one act alone proves that the people of the state did right to repese their confidence in him. He has stood between the people of the state and the effort of the spoilers to wreek their plans. The Old Gang is fooled. They found the governor too much for them. The people will yet accomplish their will. With a man of sound sense on the jop to protect them they will not be turned aside hy shal- low fricks., 4 The slate is clean. Victory is ahead. Let the people’s fight go en, WATCHES FROM IOWA Humeston, Iowa. Editor Nonpartisan Leader: Over a year ago I was a citizen of North Dakota and when the organizer visited our locality I did not hesitate to Join the League, although I thought at the time that I would not be in the state when election time came around. I fully * sympathized with the poor downtrodden farmers of the state of North Dakota and concluded if my money would help the cause any that I could well afford to give it. Not long afterward I moved from the state but I have watched with great interest the political landslide which swept the state at the primaries and again at the general election. I am now ' greatly interested in the outcome of the present session of the'legisla- ture and the amending of the constitu- Jtion. * Every farmer should assist in every way possible to help push this et % FIVE amendment through just as quickly as possible for delay may mean defeat, I like the way the Leader keeps the important issues always before the people. - I can’t possibly see how there can be a failure if the farmers will only read the Leader. Every farmer should take time to real it froin cover to cover ‘ each week. They should also attend every massmeeting near them. This is undoubtedly one of the greatest fights ever staged against Big Business and they must win. If they lose it will seem to the on- looker that the farmer is easy and can always be made to serve Big Business the he wishes. Let us not think for one minute the battle is won when the farmer gets the-office for the pitfalls are still numerous and only a slight mistake may make a big difference in the outcome. So let every farmer stand back of the present legislature and be ready to back them up regard- less of what other papers say. A. A, THATCHER. AR ——" ¥ T e A e S T A e T e e R