The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, July 22, 1918, Page 8

< n DITORIA 7%, ///1// il S 0, T i a The Complete Vindication of Mr. Townley and the Leagué‘ g ! .— . AN ROSECUTOR ALLEN of Martin county, Minn., leaped into the national limelight a few months ago by causing the arrest of A. C. Townley, president of the National Nonparti- san league. Mr. Townley was arrested in this remote county of Minnesota for circulating two different sets of resolutions adopted at League meetings, which resolutions, it was charged, “discouraged enlistments in the United States navy and United States army.” In other words, the charge was SEDITION. The news of this indictment was played up in every city and village in the United States. No explanation was made in the newspapers as to what Mr. Townley was indicted upon, nor was it stated what the facts were surrounding the arrest, and the reasons for it. There then began a nation-wide campaign to discredit Mr. Townley and the Nonpartisan league. Was not Townley arrested for sedition? Was he not arrested for circulating in pamphlet form resolutions adopted at League meetings, which were seditious? The people of America were led to believe it was a clear case. In the absence of all the facts surrounding the case, people by the mil- lions were made to believe tRat the organized farmers and their president were disloyal. IN ‘THE states where the League is organizing, the statement 7 ¥ L3500 .that Mr. Townley was under indictment for discouraging en- listments has been repeated almost daily in the newspapers for over four months. All the incitements to violence against League farmers and League workers were based on the fact of Mr. Town- ley’s arrest. No matter if he had not even been tried! Those who publis}{ed and circulated this statement knew the facts. They knew that the resolutions Mr. Townley was arrested on had the freedom of the United States mails, in one case for a year, and in the other for eight months, without the slightest ques- tion. They knew that the same political enemies of the League that obtained Mr. Townley’s indictment in Martin county, previously had failed to have the United States department of justice cause his arrest, because the department of justice found no .disloyalty in the resolutions. But most important of all, they knew that to set forth the resolutions on which the indictments were brought would once and for all put to rest the charge that Mr. Townley was guilty. And so the resolutions themselves were not published by the press. The organized farmers had only one way of offsetting this base use of these indictments by the enemies of democracy, and that was through the publishing of the plain, unvarnished facts in the Nonpartisan Leader and other League publications. In the first place, THE LEADER PUBLISHED IN FULL THE RESOLU- TIONS, TO SHOW EXACTLY ON WHAT THE ARREST WAS BASED. We stated the plain facts about the adoption of these resolutions, about how the government had found no sedition in them, about Prosecutor Allen, political enemy of the League, who was a ready tool in the hands of enemies of the farmers, and we gave all the other facts showing clearly it was a political prosecu- tion. ' But no newspaper in-the United States even attempted to give.the League’s side of the question. i : VHE arrest and the indictment of Mr. Townley was the chief argument used against the candidates indorsed by the League in the recent Minnesota primary election. Tens of thousands of voters who had no means of information outside the poison press, honestly believed that Townley and the League were guilty of sedition. The candidates indorsed by the, farmers and . union labor lost tens of, thousands of votes as a consequence, AND | TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WAS THE SOLE OBJECT OF TFHE INDICTMENTS. The enemies of the League, who used the law- enforcing machinery of Martin county for this damnable purpose, accomplished their purpose in deceiving thousands of people. THEY PROBABLY NEVER EXPECTED THE INDICTMENTS TO STICK. THEY UNDOUBTEDLY KNEW THAT THE FIRST HONEST COURT THAT HEARD THE CASE WOULD THROW IT OUT. But the primary was over before the court could free Mr. Townley. 7 é | R _of the state, and have allowed the wholesale suppression of patriot- This, in brief, is the history of the indictments against Mr. - Townley and the League up to the rendering of the decision of the PAGE EIGHT () 7 G % 4 % % ¢/ ',%y,,/; 74////% % supreme court of Minnesota. The supreme court of Minnesota rendered its decision July 5. The decision is published in full in this issue of the Nonpartisan Leader. As we originally published the resolutions, indictments and other documents in full, that the people might know the truth, so we now publish in full the last chapter of this black political plot. No edltog'lal comment is neces- sary on the decision of the supreme court itself, and the Leader will make none here. Read the decision. It appears in full begin- ning on page 5. What the court says about the resolutiqns and the indictments is more illuminating than anything the editor of the Leader could say. ; HIS, however, should be borne in mind: If Mr. Townley was guilty of discouraging enlistments by circulating in pamphlet form these resolutions, the members of the -League who adopted the resolutions were guilty, and the whole organization was disloyal and seditious. The throwing of the indictments out of court, without even the formality of a trial, not only vindicates Mr. Townley. He was charged merely with giving voice to what the farmers themselves felt and thought, which they expressed in these resolutions, which he, as president of the League, was responsible for circulating. And it is not only a vindication of Mr. Townley and the LEAGUE FARMERS—it is a vindication of the farmers of America, whether they belong to the League or not, for the League farmers in these resolutions expressed what every farmer believes, and there is nothing unpatriotic or disloyal about it. DOING EVERYBODY, llll! STATE VS. NATIONAL WAR POLICIES = HE decision of the supreme court on the disloyalty charges - against the League has a nation-wide importance aside from its upholding of free speech in war ‘times. rule that the interpretation of what is disloyal rests properly with the United States authorities and courts, and not with state It makes the authorities and courts. Inasmuch as authorities in a few states, like Minnesota, have attempted to enforce war policies and fix a ~ standard of disloyalty utterly at variance with what the United States authorities hold to, and have attempted to brand progressive - or radical reform movements of the people as seditious, the decision is a precedent that will have far-reaching consequences. The Minnesota high court declares that, in considering the war views of the League, it examined federal court decisions and found nothing in federal decisions branding denunciations of war prof- iteers and suggestions as to ways of financing the war as sedition. The court added that it was a very significant fact that federal authorities, who, it must be presumed, knew all about the League’s war views, had taken no action against the League. - Minnesota, through its governor and public safety commission, has been particularly pernicious in disregarding the federal govern- ment’s war policies. Governor Burnquist attempted, through a commission created by him, to stamp out the organization of labor unions during the war. He declared that the state and employers of the state would not be compelled to recognize labor organizations formed during the war. The national government, through the war labor board, promptly challenged him on this policy, and he has had to drop it. The national war labor board has announced a policy which net only protects existing labor organizations, but erncourages the organization of new unions during the war. : . The Minnesota government has attempted to ‘set up other war 2t policies at variance with those of the government. It has failed to suppress mob violence, although the president, secretary of war and United States attorney general have urged the enforcement of law and order. Burnquist and his administration not only failed to issue a decree against mob action, but have failed to act against county-officials who have permitted open rioting in towns and cities \ ic farmers’ meetings, in violation of the Constitution, This war policy of _the governor—this letting of hate and lawlessnegs run | rampant in the state—is in direct opposition to the federal govern- = ment’s war policy. 3 G Cfis iy But the Minnesota supreme court has given a severe blow to states that attempt to set up war policies and interpretations of dis-