The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, April 26, 1917, Page 4

9 e v R o A~ A Y T 9 W s helping others; they are not too busy to have ideals and to want their nation to be the best and to achieve the best that is possible. * % & WHY IS THE APPEAL NECESSARY? UT there is yet time to wonder why it is necessary to make this B appeal, why it is that an urgent call on patriotism is imperative in the face of the highest prices for food products and the great- est scarcity this country has known. Why are not farmers of them- selves for the sake of profit making huge inereases in their acreage and planting of crops? Why is not increased demand normally met by an increased supply? Why shouldn’t it be enough just to tell the farmers that there is a serious shortage and leave the rest to them? You know the reasons, but let’s recall a few of them. First of all, the farmers, though the prices are high, haven’t been getting the big profits on what they produce. The big profits have gone to the elevators, the mills, the cold storage warehouses, the rail- road companies and the speculators.. The farmers raised little grain , and got little for it. Most of it was ‘D Feed’’ and similar grades. BUT IT MADE TWELVE-DOLLARS-A-BARREL FLOUR JUST THE SAME. The farmer sold his grain last fall and got 75 cents to a dollar for sixty pounds of it. That’s reason No. 1. Reason No. 2 is that a high price for wheat. or potatoes one year doesn’t mean high price the next. Far from it. The farmer would not object so much if he knew that from a big crop he would get AT LEAST AS GREAT GROSS INCOME AS HE WOULD GET FROM A SMALL CROP. But he knows that is not true. He knows that, given a crop a little larger, or that looks at the start a little larger than usual, and the speculators will hammer the price down BELOW THE COST OF PRODUCTION. He has seen that happen many and many a time. He has learned the lesson. He has learned also how these boards of trade discover as winter wears on, that there isn’t as much wheat as they THOUGHT—and said—there was when they were making their ESTIMATES in the fall. The farmer isn’t a perfect fool—he knows about these things— but very often he HAS to sell in the fall. He CAN’T hold his wheat You know that and you know why. With flour and wheat selling at unheard-of prices there are -plenty of farmers who haven’t the price to buy seed, and they don’t like to go in debt for it, to take chances on seed at $2.50 a bushel when they don’t know whether they will harvest anything and what they will get for it if they do. > Now then, we see why this appeal to the PATRIOTISM OF THE FARMER, this call for the farmer to SAVE THE NATION, is neces- sary at this time. It is because THE NATION HAS NEGLECTED THE INTERESTS OF THE FARMER AND THUS NEGLECTED ITS OWN SAFETY that we are now calling upon the farmer to do his PATRIOTIC.DUTY. The farmer need not be bitter about this. He is not bitter about it. He is only determined, if he can, to set things right. He realizes that he himself is largely to blame, that his own lack of EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION has. prevented his getting what is necessary. > s & & WAR OPENS THEIR EYES AR seems to have stripped the scales from the eyes of a great ‘;‘/ many people. It may bring some terrible things to the na- tion, but if it will make people see clearly i% will have done some good. People are beginning to see the need of co-operation, of ‘‘team- work?’. They are talking of ways to help the farmer win a bigger crop. Probably with few exceptions they are sincere in that desire. The light of reason seems to be breaking. The administration practically has given a pledge to the farmer TO GUARANTEE A FAIR PRICE FOR HIS PRODUCT. It has even been proposed that the government shall TAKE OVER THE BIG TERMINAL ELEVATORS AND THE MILLS AND OPERATE THEM. When it comes to a time of war and necessity people will consent to some very ‘‘SOCIALISTIC’ things. When you propose to use the power of the state to do these things it is called ‘‘visionary’ and ‘‘impractica » Now the very same things on a BIGGER AND BROADER SCALE are proposed by conservative and wise statesmen as MEASURES OF NECESSITY TO SAVE THE NATION. : : In the name of common sense, if they are good in war, if they will do the business of cutting out the waste, why are they not equally, good in time of peace? g ~ THE FARMER WILL ANSWER HE farmer is going to answer the nation’s call. He is going to I do his best to increase production, and he will not ask or want the fortunes that are being made in the manufacture of muni- tions. He will not ask anything but a fair living out of it, money enough to supply his own needs and those of his family. He does not expect his service to his country to yield him wealth and ease, nor even glory. But it ought to bring him this: It ought to win him the right to a voice in solving his problems. It ought to win him the boon of being permitted to adopt and to put into effect the measures of justice which the concerted opinion and judgments of the best experts in the nation have put forward as the way to remedy what is wrong in Ameriecan farm production. g The record of that St. Liouis conference of farm and college ex- perts, statesmen and economists who declared for government opera- tion of mills, elevators, packing houses and other industries in case of emergency, for minimum price guarantees and for a government em- ployment system to take care of the farm labor problem ought to be treasured as an eternal vindiction of the ‘‘agitators’’ of North Dakota. It amounted to an adoption of the program of the Nonpartisan League.. “Forty-Four” and Prohibition No Truth at All to Story That Bill Would Have Allowed Sz_lle of Liquor, Says Attorney General Langer HERE is no truth whatever to the story that is being cir- culated around the state by enemies of the Nonpartisan League that House Bill 44 “would permit the state or any county or city to go into the liquor business.” If House Bill 44 had been passed and adopted as the constitution by the peo- ple of the state the prohibition laws would have been in exactly the same shape as’before. Assurance of this has been given by Attorney General William Langer, him- self one of the most zealous friends of prohibition in the state. Attorney Gen- eral Langer gave out his opinion near- ly two weeks ago. It was printed in the Fargo Daily Courier-News. Have you seen it in any of your Old Gang breweries. tention that may be made that Section 24 of House Bill 44 would in any manner permit the engage- “In my opinion there is no merit whatever to the contention that House Bill 44 opens the doors to the operation of municipal saloons or The prohibition clause in House Bill 44 is just as strong and effectual as it is in : the old constitution.” —From opinion of Attorney General William Langer tical sub-division thereof, to engage in any occupation or business for public purposes shall not be denied or pro- hibited. “Section 138 of House Bill No. 44, which you likewise mentioned, reads as follows: 3 “The term ‘corporation’ as used in this article shall not be understood as embracing municipalities or political * sub-divisions of the state unless other- ¢ wise expressly stated, but it shall be held and construed to include all as- sociations and joint stock companies having any of the powers or privileges of corporations not possessed by in= dividuals or partnerships. operation of either A LANGUAGE JUST AS STRONG { municipal saloons or breweries. - newspapers? Enemies of the League are very busy circulating this story about “44” among prohibitionists. According to their theory the right granted under ‘44" for the state, counties and cities to en- gage in any business for “public pur- poses” would permit them to engage in the liquor business. So persistently bas this story been spread that some honest prohibition- jsts themselves began to be worried, even though the prohibition clause was contained in “44” just the same as in the present constitution. So the North Dakota Total Abstinence association asked Attorney General Langer for an opinion. They knew they could trust his judgment, because the state has never had a more zealous prohibition- jst in public office. In fact, he was indorsed for his present position by all the temperance and law enforce- ment organizations in the state. Attorney General Langer has rendered his opinion that “there is no merit whatsoever to any con- ment of the state or any political subdivision thereof in the liquor traffic.” The question is not even debatable, says Attorney General Langer. There is no doubt whatever about it. To those who know Mr. Langer his mere statement will be conclusive. The friends of prohibition know they can trust him. But those who are inter- ested in the legal aspects of the matter will want to read the opinion. The complete opinion of the attorney general is as follows: “In your letter of April 6, 1917, written by your secretary, Mr. Olson, you inquire as to the opinion of the undersigned concerning the possibil- ity of municipal saloons and breweries under Section ‘24 of House Bill No. 44, if accepted as a constitution for this state. “Iln my opinion there is no merit whatsoever to the contention that House Bill No. 44, by reason of Section 24, opens the doors-to the “It takes only a very cursory read- ing of the provision 8f the constitu- tion that you mentioned to disclose that the prohibition clause in House Bill No. 44 is just as strong and effect- ual as it was in the old constitution. “Section 203 of House Bill No. 44 provides for prohibition of the Hquor traffic in the same words and terms as the same now stands in our present constitution, being section 217 of our constitution, which reads as follows: “No person, association or corpora- tion shall within the state, manufac- ture for sale or gift, any intoxicating _liquors, and no person, association or corporation shall import any of the same for sale or gift, or keep or sell or offer the same for sale, or gift, barter or trade as a beverage. The legislative assembly shall by law pre- scribe regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this article and shall thereby provide suitable penalties for the violation thereof. “Section 24 of House Bill No. 44, reads as follows: 4 “The right of the state, or any poli- FOUR 3 i AS IN PRESENT CONSTITUTION “At the outset, it should be-particu= larly noticed that section 138 is exact= ly the same as it stands now in our present constitution, and furthermore it should be particularly noticed that the word ‘corporation’ as there men- tioned is confined to its use in this ar« ticle, that is to article 8 of House Bill No. 44 just the same as in the present constitution, the same term ‘corpora- tion’ is confined in its use and applica« tion to article 8 of our present consti= tution. “Now, if the term ‘corporation’ as used in the prohibition clause of House Bill No. 44, does not cover the state or any political sub-division thereof, then it does not cover it in the present constitution. “In other words, if 2 municipal cor= poration, ‘or any other -corporation, could, by any possible construction. engage In the liquor traffic under House Bill No. 44, it could likewise do 8o under our present constitution. “But the argument might be ad= {Continued on page 19) i