The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, April 22, 1918, Page 7

' ; S 1 s P \\ TR Wy, f / League’s progra;m closely approaches that of the British labor party. The League is supporting the president, but that fact has not changed the radical policy of the organization, nor has it made the League less hated by the predatory interests of America. Mr. Ricker has seized onto a very significant fact. The League’s support for President Wilson has not won it the friendship ‘or even the tolerance of the interests that, since its organization, have fought it. Instead, there is even an attempt to prove the League disloyal, showing conclusively that the opposition against the or- ganized farmers is not on account of pretended disloyalty (which could not exist along with support of the president) but on account of the League’s political and economic program. DIRTY. JOURNALISM- JOHN Thompson is the author of a straightforward, frank ar- ticle in the April issue of the Review of Reviews on the accom- plishments and purposes of the Nonpartisan league. Imme- diately following it the Review publishes an article against . the League by W. H. Hunter, editor of the Minneapolis Tribune, one of the organs of the grain combine and of course an inveterate enemy of the organized farmers. ., The Review doubtless publishes both articles in good faith, intending to give both sides of the question. But the result is hardly fair. Mr. Hunter’s article is not an answer to the legitimate arguments and fair presentment of the League’s cause by Mr. Thompson. Instead, Mr. Hunter indulges in the usual misrepresen- tations of the farmers’ cause, resorts to calling names and ends with a trick often played by crooked journalists. Mr. Hunter states that the manager of the League has been convicted of obstructing the draft. This is not true. Mr. Gilbert, to. whorp he refers, was convicted of holding a meeting forbidden " by officious town officials, and nothing he said was involved in the: trial. He states that “the League attempted to adopt a new con- stitution for North Dakota by act of the legislature, instead of by a vote of the people.” This is untrue. The League proposed to have ~ the legislature frame a new constitution which WAS TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE PEOPLE. Mr. Hunter says that the League in North Dakota proposed “to authorize the issue of currency by state banks.” This is untrue. No such wild-eyed proposition was ever proposed by the League or any of the farmer members of the legis- lature. Mr. Hunter sdys that the League “proposed that three bona fide farmers be elected to the supreme court” in North Dakota. This is untrue. How such a pipe dream got abroad it is hard to tell. Nobody but a lawyer can be elected judge constitutionally and all the League’s candidates for judgeships have: been lawyers. - All this is bad enough. But Mr. Hunter resorts to the most despicable brand of journalism known to the trade when he ends - his article with the plain inference that the League has indorsed for governor of Minnesota a “man who has been convicted for ob- structing ‘the draft and a candidate fer state senator who is under conviction for seditious utterances.” Mr. Hunter refers in that passage to the Socialist candidate for governor of Minnesota and probably to some other Socialist candidate, but intentionally "does not make his point clear. He does not say outright that the League - has indorsed the men he refers to, but he purposely leaves the reader with that impression by stating that the League is “associated” with Socialists (which is not true, any more than it is associa d with Republicans and Democrats) and then adding ambiguously ‘that “these same Socialists” have indorsed a candidate for governor ~who was convicted of obstructing the draft. The Leader would not give Mr. Hunter this much space for - anything he published in his discredited organ of the chamber of commerce and grain ‘combine at Minneapolis, but- the publication of these falsehoods in the Review of Reviews is more serious. Mr. Hunter is well paid to edit a newspaper which does not even publish his name as editor. When he talks anonymously in the Tribune in I'M A DEMOCRAT ‘causE MY DAD < WAS M GOING TO GWE THiS DoG TO THE BoY THAT TELLS THE BEST STORY OF H(S ¢« AN’ I'M A REPUBLICAN ' AN' NOW MY LITTLE CAUSE | THINK | OUGHT TO BE BuT I'M NOT NAPOLEON P | ¥l R il the interests of the plutocrats of the state every one understands. But it is somewhat different when he uses the Minneapolis Tribune brand of journalism in a publication like the Review of Reviews. “PAUPERIZING” THE FARMERS "'I \HE Baer bill, appropriating $7,500,000 for loans to farmers in buying seed and $2,500,000 in obtaining farm help for them to harvest the crop, passed the house of representa- tives by the astonishing vote of 241 to 67. Congressman Baer has worked tirelessly for the bill, night and day, for months. The Non- partisan league threw its powerful influence into the balance. An original hostile majority on the agricultural committee was over- come, and the original prejudice against the measure in the lower house was finally reduced to only 67 votes. The most significant thing in connection with the fight on the bill on the floor of the house was the recognition of the power and influence of the organized farmers, even by the enemies of the League and of the bill. The principal attack on the measure was made by Congressman Moore of Pennsylvania. During the debate he made the following illuminating comment: I charge that this measure and the spirit behind it springs from the Nonpartisan league, an organization which has come to have one representative in this house and IS INCREASING ITS INFLUENCE SO RAPIDLY AS TO TERRORIZE CERTAIN HITHERTO .FREE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN HOME DISTRICTS, causing them to indulge in these socialistic practices or get out of congress. I compliment the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Baer), the sole representative of the Nonpartisan league in the house, on the fact that THE GREAT AND POWERFUL COMMITTEE ON' AGRICULTURE HAS ADOPTED HIS ARGUMENT and his speeches and has reported his views in its report. Look in the report of the committee on agriculture and you will find there the exact lan- - guage of the gentleman from North Dakota. All these things the committee on agriculture accepted from the representative of the Non- partisan league. Yes, and not only the committee on agriculture, but the lower house has accepted those views of Mr. Baer and the League—has accepted them by a vote of 241 to 67. And Mr. Moore might have added that practically every farmer in America has those same views, and that they are backing them up, thousands of them each week, by paying $16 memberships in that same League: Some other parts of the debate are worth while also: . MR. MOORE OF PENNSYLVANIA—I am objecting to the propo- sition that we shall treat as paupers the farmers of this land, and bid for those who have nothing to come forward and take from those who have something. MR. CAMPBELL. OF KANSAS—Dces the. gentleman object to Pauperizing the great industries of the country that are being financed (by the government) to the tune of about $5,500,000,000 ? MR. MOORE OF PENNSYLVANIA-—Not at all. [ It’s not “pauperizing” the great industries for the government to finance them to the tune of five and one-half billions, as it has done, says Mr. Moore, but it is “pauperizing” the farmers to finance them to the extent of only ten million dollars! Following is some of the argument in the debate that bore real weight and finally carried the bill through the house with flying colors. This is a statement of Congressman Dempsey as to what Great Britain is -doing to encourage food production: L A Let us turn our eyes for a moment across the Atlantic and see what Great Britain has done in this crisis. Why, they have come over —~ to the city of Detroit, and the government of Great Britain has bought " 6,000 tractors at $750 apiece, $4,500,000 of money. Who bought them ? - -Did the farmers buy them? Oh, no. Who was it that was in charge of the correspondence? ' The premier, Lloyd-George,-and his corre- spondence is today on file out there in Detroit. Why did he do it? - He did it to increase the food supply of Great Britain, and he has thereby increased the food supply enormously. : W ! OoH ™M MAN WHAT ARE You? msrmne.'ro - GET TH' DOG Wow! JUST LIKE ONE OF THE 4 oLD GANG