The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, September 6, 1917, Page 6

DN lNonpartisén Teader Official Magagjne of the National Nonpartisan League—Every Thursday. Entered as second-class matter September 3, 1915, at the postoffice at Fargo, North Dakota, under the Act of March 3, 1879, . OLIVER S. MORRIS, EDITOR Advertising rates on application. Subscription, one year, in advance, $2.50; siXx months, $1.50 Communications should be addressed to the Nonpartisan Leader, Box 941, Fargo, North Dakota. 5 MEMBER OF AUDIT BUREAU OF CIRCULATIONS THE S. C. BECKWITH SPECIAL AGENCY, Advertising Representatives, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Kansas City. Quack, fradulent and irresponsible firms are not knowingly advertised, and we will take it as a favor if any readers will advise us promptly should they have occasion to doubt or question the reliability of any firm which patronizes our advertising columns. 5 Let’s Keep Our Heads HE Nonpartisan league’s policy in regard to the war is stated in I detail in the resolutions adopted at League meetings and printed in the Leader and in the statements of the League’s congress- man, John M. Baer, both before and after his election. There can be no misunderstanding of this policy, as it has been clearly stated and dis- cussed in the Leader from time to time. The League is not allied with any other organization, nor has it anything in common with or to do with war policies put forward by any other ~organization. The League’s war poliey differs sharply with that of the People’s Council for Democracy and Peace, and the League has refused to be represented in the People’s Council. Among other things the People’s Couneil is asking for the repeal of the conseription law, while the League’s posi- tion is one of support for the prineiple of conscription and its applica- tion also to wealth, so that the dollars as well as the men can be drafted. ‘What the Leader has to say here, therefore, is not to discuss the ob- jects or motives of the People’s Council or to indorse or forward its propaganda in any way. : A meeting called under the auspices of the People’s Council was broken up in Fargo last week by citizens of the city, including members of Company B and the Home Guard, in uniform. The Leader believes that the young men of Comany B and the Home Guard should not be harshly criticized for the leading part they took in the near-riot. Those who have been intemperate.in their denunciation of the boys have not been in possession of all the facts. They have not understood where the real responsibility rests nor appreciated the provocation. Whatever the policy of the People’s Counecil is in regard to the war, and this is not to diseuss or question it, the fact remains that the public press has been intemperate in its denunciation of the Council and has spread the belief, whether justly or not, that it is a dangerous and treasonable organization. This is especially true of the Fargo Torum, which has been ‘‘yellow’’ and sensational to a disgusting de- gree in trying to inflame the people at a time when eool heads are most needed. One can therefore appreciate the feelings of the boys in uni- form, who, naturally resenting the activities of an organization they thought was a menace to their country, showed their patriotism and loyalty in a way they thought perfectly legitimate. These young men’ are making the supreme sacrifice—placing their lives on the altar of their country. There can be no greater act of patriotism. In their place, anybody would resent the activities of an organization that they thought had treasonable intentions. The part of diseretion and temperance, therefore, was not to further inflame: the minds of these youths against the speakers scheduled to appear in Fargo, but rather to say and do what could be said and done to keep the peace. The real blame for the disorder does not rest with the boys. Under the circumstances they conducted them- selves with moderation and it is surprising that property was not damaged and many people injured. As it was, the reports mention only one man being beaten—a person whose remarks the crowd took to be pro-German and disloyal. The real culprits are those in charge of Company B and the Home Guard, the Fargo Forum and those citizens who, not taking part in the near-riot themselves, urged on the others before and during the meet- ing. Those'in charge of Company B and the Home Guard purposely assembled the soldiers for a drill on the downtown block “where the People’s Council had advertised its meeting. The soldier boys, know- ing they were assembled to shame the speakers, if not actually to pre- vent the meeting from taking place, naturally took the tip. After the meeting on the street was made impossible by this method, the soldiers were dismissed, so-they could follow the’speakers to the hall where they adjourned, and stop the meeting there. Those in charge of Com- pany B and the Home Guard must have known what the result would be. They are not youths or hot-headed. The assembly of the soldiers, purposely, at the time and place selected, and their dismissal so they could attend the meeting in the hall were the chief causes of the dis- order. On those responsible for these silly acts of mistaken patriotism rests the chief responsibility for the near-riot which denied citizens their constitutional right of peaceful assembly and free speech. The part played by the Fargo Forum is just as reprehensible. This paper by its violent and intemperate language did everything in its power to inflame the minds of the people and the soldiers. And after Fargo had succeeded by what happened in giving the impression that it lacked the spirit of democracy and fair dealing, the Forum editorially gloated over the result. Were it threatened with denial of its constitutional rights by mob action, the Forum would be the first to clamor for protection and insist on the same constitutional rights it is so anxious to deny others. The Forum knows that mob violence in any cause or degree can not be defended, but intentionally advocat- ed and approved it for a purpose. It will be remembered that the same editor wanted just this sort of thing or worse to happen when the Non- partisan league’s big patriotic meeting was scheduled for Fargo during the congressional campaign last June. An appeal to mob violerce to suppress League speakers was made then by the Forym. Men or papers who advocate and encourage mob action to suppress views and opinions with which they differ have always existed. Even twentieth century civilization has not eliminated them. Bigotry, fanaticism, passion and prejudice probably will always take the place of reason in some heads. The Forum can not, however, be allowed the defense of ignorance and fanaticism. Its part was played intentionally, with full knowledge of the indefensibility and danger of fanning mob spirit. Out of the whole business has come at least one sane light for the guidanece of the people. Governor Frazier of North Dakota, since the Fargo events, has stated that hereafter the constitutional rights of all citizens to peacefully assemble and exercise the right of petition and free speech will be guaranteed by him, and proper protection for the keeping of peace furnished. This is a guarantee of the equal protection of the laws for all citizens. The governor says that no seditious acts or utterances will be permitted at any meeting, and that all necessary legal means to suppress anything of this kind and punish those respon- sible for it will be taken. Nothing can be added to what the governor has said. It is common sense and common justice. The constitution and the laws will be upheld. The governor’s statement should -make the Forum, if it has a spark of honesty left, blush for shame. * % % The food administration, in a statement farm papers were asked to publish, hints at a possible glut of wheat—a condition that would make even a low guaranteed wheat price for farmers look good. This state- ment by the food administration is not honest. It does not jibe with its insistence that there is a world shortage of wheat and that the farmers . must be patriotic and sow greater acreages to feed the starving world. There can not be a glut if there is a world shortage of wheat, and the administration should not have tried to create the impression that a glut was possible, in order to reconcile the farmers to a low guaranteed price. s MAKING HEADWAY HE Nonpartisan league campaign for conseription of wealth to I pay war costs is bringing some results. The war revenue bill, as it is being amended by the senate, will not be a fair bill when it is passed, but the senate finance committee is being forced to make a few changes to make the bill look at least a little less unfair than it was at first. The other day the senate got clear out of hand. It voted by a beavy majority to put back the so-called Lenroot amendment, which the finance committee had stricken. This gave the standpat majority of the committee real ecause for alarm. ' ‘“Where were you fellows when this party was pulled off,”’ Sena~ tor Penrose of Pennsylvania demanded, in angry tones, from the coms mittee members, after the vote was taken. Vigorous demands on the floor of the senate by Senator Hiram Johnson of California, Senator Borah of Idaho, Senator La Follette of ‘Wisconsin and others, for conscription of wealth, gave the committee further cause for alarm. As a result they held a meeting and raised the tax on concerns making war profits of more than 300 per cént to 60 per cent of their profits. The tax proposed had been only 50 per cent. The majority members said after making this and other minor changes that they estimated ‘‘that the proposed levy would take $1,286,000,000 of the three billion or four billion dollars war profits estimated to be earned this year.”’ Increases forced in the senate thus far, principally by adoption of the Lenroot amendment, amount to $73,000,000. That all this is being done against the real wishes of the committee and only in an effort to stave off the demand for a real tax, is shown by this authorized states ment of the committee, referring to the La Follette demand for eon« scription of wealth: “‘Chairman Simmons and others of the majority hope the new levy, —almost double—will command suffieient support to cause rejection of the more drastic proposal.”’ PAGE SIX