The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, February 17, 1919, Page 7

O ~ lies and‘misrepi'esehvtatiofisbf -_the exiemy.' The opposition, not: tlll)e‘ i League members, determined upon making MR. TOWNLEY PE SONALLY the issue. The reason was obvious. An attack on 200,000 farmers—on 200,000 American citizens whose only crime was organizing for their own protection and to promote a moderate program of public reforms—was considered dangerous. It would merely make the farmers angry. 3 i ' Se the oppositipn decided to adopt the beautiful theory that the League members were “all right” ; that they were a “fine bunch” _ of patriotic and law-abiding citizens, but that (shameful to report) this big group of fine, up-standing citizens had been “misled,” and in fact was being exploited, cheated, robbed and what-not by Mr. Townley personally! Working along this line they concocted .the - remarkable hypothesis that Mr. Townley was a millionaire, was di- verting League funds to his private purposes, that he owned the League publications, that the League was, in fact, an immense machine created to personally enrich Mr. Townley. THen came along a decision of the federal courts, finding Mr. Townley had not appropriated League funds, that the League: records and accounts were honestly kept, and that Mr. Townley was acquitting himself honorably in his stewardship of League funds. In connection with the remarkable hypothesis exploded by the United States courts in the now historie, so-called bankruptcy case, it 'was ingeniously alleged by the League opposition that Mr. Town- ley had “foisted” himself on the League membership; that he was not the choice of the League members for this office, and that there was “open rebellion” in the League ranks over the “dictatorship.” ~ Of course, if Mr. Townley was maintaining himself as head of the organization without the support of a majority of the League members (impossible as such a thing could be under the League articles of association), the members of the League would be quick to take the first opportunity they had to kick him out.” Well, they have had that opportunity. A ballot was placed in the hands of every League member, giving him the opportunity of casting his vote to kick Mr. Townley out. Some 978 Leaguers desired that event and so voted. On the other hand, some 98,391 Leaguers gave .Mr. Townley a vote of cornfidence such as is probably unparalleled in the history of big organizations. ; This splendid indorsement of Mr. Townley—this tremendous repudiation of the ingenious allegation of the opposition—was more than a personal victory for Mr. Townley. Very naturally and very properly, any Leaguer who disapproved of anything the League has done, who believed the lurid stories of the opposition, who was dissatisfied with the way the state and national ¢ommittees have been working, or who objected to the League policies or announced plans for-the future—any such Leaguer naturally and properly voted against sustaining the action of the national committee in re-electing Mr. Townley. -And there were less than 1,000 such in -the 200,000 membership of the organization! : This is written before the comments of the press on the ref- erendum result are known. What will be their answer to, their explanation of, this: mighty demonstration of League confidence and enthusiasm? What can men who have put forward absurd and ridiculous charges to beat the organized farmers say to this overwhelming proof that they are liars and hypocrites? Well, we imagine they will find something about the referendum and the result to find fault with, to pick to pieces and to criticize. Regard- less of how it was conducted, and regardless of the result, so long as the result sustained the League management-and its policies, they would find something to talk about to save their faces. But. the Leader does not believe that they will persist for long in the past methods of attack which this referendum has shown up. They will grumble and “squawk” for a short time, pretend to laugh about it, and then try to forget it. But the verdict of the League mem- bership will stand as overwhelming evidence of the impossibility of getting League members to quarreling among themselves and abandoning the solidarity which has given them success to date and which will eventually result in their complete and full triumph. MR. MEREDITH TO HAVE A “LEAGUE” UR friend E. T. Meredith of Des Moines, Iowa, publisher of Successful Farming, is going to start a “great national farmers’ organization.” At least we gather that impression from full-page ads he is running in other farm papers. He says “there’s a great need for a nation-wide organization made up of ‘actual farmers and actually. controlled by them,” and promises any- body who will subscribe for his paper (25 cents a year, including all the packer advertising) ‘that he will acquaint them with the splendid plan he has worked out. - SuoN e We haven’t the slightest objection to Mr. Meredith starting a league of his own. However, being interested in “great national farmers’ organizations,” we hope Mr. Meredith will not take it amiss if we give him some suggestions. Recalling that -he orig- I inally heartily supported the National Nonpartisan league and later ' turned against it, we suggest that he immediately pledge himself PAGE ot to betféy fhe new organization after it gets ‘sta.rted. ~This will create more confidence on the part of farmers who may be inter- ested in the proposition. 4 Next, we suggest that he refuse to appoint J. Ogden Armour as manager and secretary of his league. Mr. Armour would doubt- less be glad to act in that capacity, in payment to Mr. Meredith for attending Mr. Armour’s little meeting at the Saddle and Sirloin club at Chicago recently, at which Mr. Meredith made certain prom- ises to the packers regarding the handling of their propaganda. But PERHAPS HE WiLL BE T0O ° BLARRETY o 3 .~ MODEST To PuBLIsH Em/ < o .-rQ N PO == 5 I Sy S~ T o I = A= T~ it wouldn’t do to give Mr. Armour a position of too much prom- ‘inence. in Meredith’s league. . ; & Finally we suggest that Mr. Meredith resign from the board of directors of the United States Chamber of Commerce. The fact that the United States Chamber of Commerce is putting up a gal- lant fight for the packing trust and attempting to undermine the federal trade commission, because the commission has exposed the packers, is liable to destroy confidence in Mr. Meredith’s proposed farmers’ league. The farmers are naturally, although perhaps un- reasonably, suspicious of anybody who is a director of this big business organization. : ; Mr. Meredith asks farmers to write him what they think of his proposed new league. We hope they will—and send us copies of their letters, as it may be Mr. Meredith will be too modest to publish them. - : Mr. Meredith’s originality is striking. His new ‘“national league” was announced shortly after several discharged League organizers in South Dakota announced a rival “league” in that state, with five charter members, including the publisher of a daily paper. His announcement is coincident with the announcement of a rival “league” in North Dakota, called the “North Dakota Non- - partisan Reconstruction league,” started with the approval of the anti-farmer press of that state and the good wishes of the Inde- pendent Voters’ association, which opposed the League candidates last fall. This new North Dakota organization is known to have two members already. Why not combine with them, Mr. Meredith? ORGANIZATION VS. INDIVIDUALITY - NDER the heading, “A Ship Without a Rudder,” the Kansas Trades Unionist, a labor paper published at Topeka, has a striking editorial on conditions in the Kansas legislature relative to the farmers of that state. It seems a majority of the Kansas legislators are farmers, and—but let the Trades Unionist explain it: . The farmers have a working majority in the Kansas house of representatives this session, and if properly organized would be in a position to put across some real legislation of value to the agricul- tural interests. ‘But they are here-as individuals, with no definite plans and with no farm organization back of them, and nowhere to go, except as their party affiliations lead them. Quite unlike the situation in North Dakota, where the farmer legislators were elected on a definite program and are now in session enacting into laws. measures that will put that state in the lead.of all other common- wealths, every one of them working in a concerted manner to carry out the will of the majority of citizens. The editor of the Trades Unionist puts it-in a nutshell. What good is it going to do the farmers of Kansas to have a majority in the legislature, since they are not united on a definite political and economic program and are split by party lines? None whatever, of course. The Kansas legislature will not pass any fundamental re- ‘form measures of benefit to farmers or anybody else. Yet, there is a farmer majority in the legislature that could do so if it were organized on a specific program and had a state-wide organization of Kansas farmers behind it. ’ 3 When you understand this point you begin to see the reason for the pqupaganda against farmer political organizations—espe- 2 Al wilrcH Do€S, W HE FEHRE cially the Léague—whicfi proj)aganda urges: that the “farmers do not have to organize to get a majority in the legislature,” and that . “a majority of the legislature is and always has been composed of farmers. So why organize?”’- No, the beneficiaries of special privi-- lege and their newspapers and politicians have nothing to “fear”’ from “farmer majorities” in legislatures or anywhere else, unless ® those majorities are ORGANIZED and agreed on a definite program, and have behind them a solid organization of the common people. - North Dakota and Kansas both have farmer majorities in their legislatures, but the North Dakota legislature is adopting funda- mental reform legislation, and the Kansas legislature is not. - The: difference is that the North Dakota farmers are ORGANIZED and the Kansas farmgrs aremot. . . -~~~ - SEVEN