The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, February 3, 1919, Page 7

labor and farmers’ organizations from co-operating in politics, and points out that to effect this sepgration of interests ‘that should loglca}ly unite, sops in the shape of minor concessions are thrown organized labor, to get labor to repudiate its co-operation with farm- ers’ organizations. The labor assembly then goes on to say: Organized labor is nbt a narrow, selfish movement, seeking favors for itself at the expense of others’ rights, but it desires a full justice for those who toil and a square deal for all. _It is therefore incom- patible with its principles to bargain or temporize with any force or faction that seeks to despoil honest labor of its fruits. The future be- longs to the workers on the farm and in the city, if they continue to organize on-the economic and the. political fields, and wuse their united .power to overthrow the common enemy. . : . “This ought to make it clear that organized labor is not to be tricked by specious arguments or petty favors into opposing or refusing to co-operate with farmers’ organizations. But to make it entirely plain, St. Paul labor goes on officially to declare: The St. Paul Trades and Labor assembly hereby emphatically pro- ~claims the necessity of organized labor and: the working people in gen- eral maintaining a solid front with the organized farmer against every subtle scheme of the politicians and plutocrats to divide .or separate them, as it will mean the defeat of every substantial meas-- ure designed for labor’s benefit and the destruction of the only force * that will bring justice to the common people. ~ The document ends by instructing labor members of the legis- lature from St. Paul to “support all measures in the farmers’ legis- lative program for the abolition of special privilege and the estab- lishment of equal opportunity for all.”.. In the face of a stand like this by_labor, the St. Paul Pioneer Press-Dllspatch will have a “fat chance” to create dissension among j;he farmer-labor forces in the present legislature. . GETTING INTO DEEP WATER ZER - STRIKING example of the uncomfortable position our non- combatant editors are liable to get into by allowing hate and rancor to have full sway in their editorial columns has recently come to the attention of newspaper readers. - Perhaps you have read one or more of the “patriotic” editorials in the big press which have been along the following line: “Any man who can’ read and write the American language after he has been here long enough to learn it ought to be kicked out. We want 100 per cent Americans, and an essential ingredient is ability to read and write American.. We do not want to nourish in our midst vipers of this class. Let congress take steps to return to where they came from all persons who take ad- vantage of our free in- stitutions and opportuni- ties and who fail or re- fuse to become Amer- icanized by learning to read and write our lan- _guage. America has no place for such.”_ Expressions of hate and intolerance of this 2 A NS SRS # kind lead to a very em- ; barrassing “point. The fact is that 200,600 men out of our draft army of 2,000,000 could not read or write English. Illiterates were barred from the United States army prior to this war, but the prohibition against them was withdrawn after April, 1917. In the first draft alone some 40,000 illiterates were taken into the army, and as many more near-illiterates got by. There were over 700,000 men of draft age in the United States who could not read or write any language. The editors who would deport those who can not read and write English have undertaken a big job. There are over 4,000,000 per- sons in the United States over 20- years of age who can not read or write ANY LANGUAGE, let alone English! -Over a million and a half of these are white NATIVE AMERICANS! What coun- try are you going to send THEM back to? : = - - Whose fault is it that NATIVE AMERICANS in such large numbers are illiterate? Ours as a people, of course. -~ The problem of illiteracy in this country does not call for hate and rancor. It calls. for careful and dispassionate study-and well- thought-out action. There is not only the problem of foreigners who do not read and write English. There is also the problem of NATIVE BORN American illiterates. “Patriotic” editorials like - those referred to tend to prevent the solution of the problem, rather than facilitating its solution. LIBERTY BOND QUOTATIONS URING the war the Leader, in helping the government to sell._Liberty bonds, published United States government statements declaring that Liberty bonds were as “good as gold,” that the credit of “one of the greatest nations in the world” was back of them and that nobody would lose anything in taking . their savings out of the bank and loaning them to the government. Yet today thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of poor people, compelled to sell the Liberty bonds which they bought through patriotism, are losing from $4 to $6 on every bond. To them, at least, the bonds have not been “as good as gold,” and the credit of “one of the greatest nations in the world” has not pre- vented them from being forced to accept losses that they can ill stand. Liberty bonds have been quoted as low as $92 in the market. 5 g t e et ‘ the farmers. Sl 'P'Ag_'x‘sv_’sny;sn'_f.}j. - The Leader has not the slightest doubt but that any big finan- cier, or even a humble bank clerk, can, and will on invitation, give a lengthy and intricate explanation of the reason why the govern- ment’s perfectly good securities are discounted from 4 to 6 per cent on the boards of trade, chambers of commerce and stock exchanges, which fix the prices of securities for the whole country. But when they are through with their explanations, the fact remains that bonds, which the government sold its citizens under assurance they were as “good as gold,” are not as good as gold at the present time. It would be a sign of weakness and inefficiency in our financial sys- tem for any kind of government securities to be discounted so heavily, but when it is bonds patriotically purchased by hundreds of thousands of people who could ill-afford it, and who bought them under promise that they would lose no money, it becomes some- fihh;'g more than weakness and inefficiency. It is downright double ealing. . Investors should hold their Liberty bonds till the market re- covers—if it ever does—or till maturity, and then get out of them - what they put in. But this is no answer to the thousands of poor people whe must sell the bonds at once on account of financial em- barrassment and who should not be compelled to accept losses which the wealthy, who can hold their bonds, do not have to suffer. There is also the fact that the overly rich can buy up the bonds at a heavy dis- count and make profits at the expense of the overly poor. Anothef in- dication of the truth of the old proverb, “To him who hath,” ete. It may be “pro-German” or “bolshevism” to mention this mat- ter of Liberty loan quotations, but we’ll take a chance on it. THE “DEMAGOGUES” : ECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE HOUSTON has delivered S himself of a solemn warning against “demagogues” and agi- tators. He says, “We shall be pestered by the narrow, selfish partisan and the demagogue—the farmers of the farmers—their pretended self-constituted friends.” The secretary thus resorts to the convenient method of calling his critics names. Now Mr. Houston has a reason for calling names, for he finds himself in the very uncomfortable position of being distrusted by The counts against him are many and ample, as follows: { He helped to perpetuate and defended the outrageous federal grain grades, frankly designed to penalize farmers and enrich the grain combine. : He has kept at the head of the bureau of markets a man frankly and notoriously friendly to the business interests that exploit farmers. . He attempted to suppress facts and figures gathered by men in his department showing that farm costs are much higher than big business agencies dealing with the farmers will admit, and he “purged” his department of one of the few men in it competent to understand production costs. ) ; He has permitted the Rockefeller interests to have great in- fluence in shaping the publicity matter sent out by the bureau of education in his department. . He opposed the well-thought-out and efficient plan for the loaning of money direct by the government to drouth-stricken farmers last year. > The secretary has not considered it worth while to answer sat- isfactorily these charges, or to furnish the public with facts and figures bearing on them. In- stead, he seeks to dis- credit his critics and ob- scure the facts by the simple expedient of call- ing the honest and sin- cere persons who have | criticized him “dema- | gogues” and “farmers of farmers.” ' The Nonpartisan Leader has obtained some highly interesting evidence concerning the efforts of Mr. Houston to make the United . States department of agriculture serve the business interests in- stead of the farmers. We expect to publish this evidence in full in an early issue. It will sustain the chief charges that have been made against Mr. Houston. We do not expect 'that Mr. Houston will reply to this evidence. He undoubtedly will content himself with calling us names. A time is coming, however, when Mr. Houston will have to explain. Conditions in his department have become an open scandal, and the evidence in the hands of the Leader is also in the hands of 3 congressional committee which, we understand, is go-" - ing to get to the bottom of it. Mr. Houston will likely have to testify. ; If you want to know the reason why Mr. Houston calls names instead of answering his critics, watch for our coming article. -