The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, February 10, 1919, Page 7

that the government wanted wheat and promised-a price that at least would not cause many farmers to lose money by sowing it. - They have already made provision to sow the spring crop in con- sideration of the guarantee of the government as to price. = - 'This being the situation, the Minneapolis Tribune, spokesman for the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and for the grain com- bine in general, recently published the following under a big front- page headline: Uncertainty concerning what action the government will take in -the handling of the 1919 wheat crop is causing uneasiness among Min- neapolis millers and grain dealers.. . . . Because the government has made no announcement as to whether its guaranteed wheat prices will obtain for the ensuing crop year, the milling industry is being brought rapidly to the verge of paralysis, Mr. Loring said. Millers’ are unwilling to manufacture flour from wheat paid for at the present fixed price of $2.21% a bushel, he declared. Should the government again guarantee the producers a. price of $2.21% for the coming crop year, millers are at a loss to know how the government expects them to compete with Argentina, Australia and India, where the price of wheat averages.about $1.10 a bushel. Flour from these countries can be laid down in the European ports, with freight, insurance and other charges paid, for less than $2 a bushel, it was said.. How the apparent loss will be absorbed is puzzling the millers, who declare that the government has only guaranteed the farmer against a'loss, and not the millers nor the grain dealers. ’ The Mr. Loring quoted is president of the Pillsbury Flour Mills company. Notice that the Tribune fails to make it plain that Presi- dent Wilson by.proclamation has already fixed $2.26 at Chicago as the 1919 price. The article infers that the price has not been fixed —that it is a debatable question whether or not it should be fixed. The inference is that there should be no price-fixing on wheat for this year’s crop. : As a matter of fact, the Minneapolis Tribune article is an example ‘of the vicious, though crude, propaganda put out by the grain combine to influence the public to support a betrayal of the farmers by the government. The Tribune professes to be fright- ened about an alleged Bolshevist movement in this country, yet it is trying to create a sentiment among its readers that will support an act of sabotage by the government against farmers which, if actually carried out, would be a governmental crime more evil and sweeping in its effect than the most monstrous act ever alleged to be committed by the I. W. W. or Bolsheviki. ; The only question in doubt about the guaranteed wheat price for 1919 is how the government will maintain it. It has already T 5 ONLY 1 BELIEVE A SCRAP | OF PAPER' ' O PROMISE OF ¢ A 2 P GeAlN COMBINE. GUARANTEED ‘ PRICE FOR 1919. been fixed at $2.26 at Chicago, but as the government has abolished its grain corporation since the armistice, there is at present no gov- ernment machinery existing to maintain the price at $2.26, as guaranteed. In order to lay low this vicious propaganda by the grain combine, congress should take immediate steps to provide machinery or a method for carrying out its promise of $2.26 at Chi-, cago for the 1919 crop. Despite the-Tribune article, there can be no discussion as to whether there will be a guaranteed price for 1919. That has been decided. There can be no discussion as to what that guaranteed price shall be. It has been decided that it shall not be less than $2.26 at Chicago. The only question is how to make the guarantee effective, and that should be settled at once to prevent further undermining propaganda by the grain combine. ‘" WAKING UP AT LAST MOST remarkable editorial was published recéntly by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a conservative newspaper long famous in the state of Washington for fighting the battles of special privilege and opposing union labor. The Post-Intelli- gencer starts out by saying that the-farmers of North Dakota, through their legislature, are now carrying out the Nonpartisan league program, a program which the Post-Intelligencer makes it plain that it heartily opposes. It then goes on to say: - All this may be considered radical. The wisdom of such policies may be debated, but the important fact for radicals to learn at the present moment is’ that this was done without any recourse to direct action, mob violence or through any illegal means. They (the farmers of North Dakota) did not burn the privately owned elevators nor wreck the insurance offices. The people of North Dakota simply exercised their rights as free citizens in a lawful and orderly man- ner, by going to the polling places and casting their ballots.. If the people want state-owned elevators, state-owned flour mills and state insurance of crops, they are required to do nothing more than to in- dicate their wish, and this is not only true of North Dakota, but of every state of the Union. 3 Does this mean that the big-interest press is at last beginning to see the light? Does it mean that the organized farmers are no longer to be accused of “bolshevism” and “I. W. W.ism” because they organize, formulate an economic program and elect governors - and legislators, favorable to that program, who will carry it out? The Post-Intelligencer editorial points out what the Nonpartisan “ Leader has repeatedly pointed out. To the insane cry of the kept - done. #rchy” we have answered that the state was merely carrying out “a legislative. program which the people of the state, by overwhelm- ing majorities, had ordered carried out, and that it was being done in a legal and constitutional manner. And now one of the con- servative, special-privilege organs recognizes this important fact! The Seattle Union Record, the organized labor daily of Seattle, commenting on this remarkable admission of the Post-Intelligencer, says: It should be remembered that the acts so highly commended in this editorial are the acts of the very group that has come in for so much abuse and misrepresentation at the hands of the Post-Intelli- gencer and other newspapers printed in the interest of those who live i)ut of the sweat of other men’s faces, the Farmers’ Nonpartisan eague. This is the same League that was branded as disloyal and un- patriotic by the kept press of the state only last summer, following \ 8Y Gouly THAT'S ALL O, T = WiLL \T > COME TO THISS the refusal of the big business lackeys of Walla Walla to permit a meeting of the state Grange in the public buildings of that city. Now, however, when the farmers take control of a great state and begin to function in the interests of the people the acts of the organization suddenly become “respectable” and quite the right thing. "May we not expect that the St. Paul Dispatch, whose pet phrase regarding North Dakota is “hell-bent anarchy,” will also_. gracefully acknowledge the fact that the farmers are proceeding by the respectable “law and order” route, just as the Dispatch’s sister defender of special privilege has already acknowledged it? : FARMERS TO PEACE CONFERENCE. HE chief thing that the Farmers’ National Reconstruction I conference at Washington, D. C., proved is that enemies of farmers’ organizations and farmers’ co-operative and eco- nomic programs have not succeeded in getting farmers to pull in different directions. The thing that would most effectively -set back the cause of the American farmer is disagreement among the great farmers’ organizations, something which the big interests’ are constantly trying to bring about. The Washington conference was participated -in by the Amer- ican Society of Equity, the Gleaners, the Farmers’ union, American National Livestock association, Intermountain Association of Sugar Beet Growers, the Grange and the Nonpartisan league. These or- ganizations all sent delegates and all was harmony at the confer- ence. There seemed to be no doubt at all about what ought to be The conference framed a reconstruction program, which has already been published in the Leader, and named a delegation to represent farmers’ organizations at the peace conference. Why shouldn’t these great farmers’ organizations co-operate together and send a delegation to Europe to speak for the Amer- ican farmer during the making of world peace? The only reason why they- shouldn’t is that certain interests and their newspapers say it is a “class move” and that it “has a taint of bolshevism.” What they mean by that is that they fear the solidarity of the American farmers and are afraid that the aroused and ORGAN- 1ZED common people will put over some reforms in politics and ;el(‘;onomics that will hurt some of the beneficiaries of special priv- - ege. . : Nonpartisan league farmers can be proud of the part their organization took in the conference and the representation it ob- tained on the farmers’ delegation which is going to Europe. League was represented at the meeting by Mark P. Bates, stock raiser and recent League candidate for governor in South Dakota; J. D. Ream, state committeeman of the League in Nebraska and also master of the Nebraska state Grange; Arthur LeSueur of A.A.« St. Paul and Doctor E. F. Ladd, president of the North Dakota Agricultural college. - On the .committee which will go to the peace conference the League obtained two places and will be represented by Mr. LeSueur and Doctor Ladd. The other members of the European commit- tee are H. A. Fuller of Minnesota, representing the Equity; H. G. Alexander of North Carolina, representing the Farmers’ union; Grant Slocum of Michigan, representing the Gleaners; C. H. Gus- tafson of Nebraska, representing the Farmers’ union, and George P. Hampton of Washington, D. C., representing the Farmers’ Na-: tional Headquarters, maintained by various farmer organizations at the national capital. "~ When the great American farmer organizations pull together in this way there is little chance for the plotters who want to break the farmers up into factions and thus prevent their being efficient - press that North Dakota was plunging into “bolshevism and an- and effective in their work for better conditions for producers. The -