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

v “ s most interesting ever tried in this or any other country. I am watch- ing it with open mind. ~ 1 This is fair comment. It does not approve the League or what the people of North Dakota are doing, but it gets to the heart of the whole question, so far as persons outside of North Dakota and nonmembers of the League are concerned. Twice with overwhelm- ing majorities the people of North Dakota have voted to carry out the program now being carried out there. If North Dakota is a democracy the program MUST be carried out. The state is com- mitted to it and there can be no withdrawal until it is tried out. Therefore, the only fair thing for outsiders to do is to wait to see how it works. As the Mail and Breeze says, if it succeeds, other states will follow suit; if it fails, it will be abandoned, even in North Dakota. - : : OUR SOCIALISTIC FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HE people of North Dakota, who are establishing a state- owned and operated central bank, are accused of being Social- ists. If this proposition is socialism, then it is also socialism for the people of the United States as a whole, through the federal government, to go into the banking business. The federal govern- ment HAS gone into the banking business on a large scale—“hell- bent,” we might say, to use the St. Paul Dispatch’s phrase describ- ing North Dakota. If, then, a state or government bank is social- ism, and if it is damnable to do anything socialistic, the United gtates dgovernment and the North Dakota government stand equally amned. E The government’s “socialistic,” publicly owned and operated * banking business is conducted through 12 central government banks, known as federal land banks. They have been in operation over two years, long enough to estimate their worth. We learn from the second annual report of the federal farm loan board that this “socialistic” experiment is doubly damned—damned once for being socialistic, and damned a second time right on top of that for being a tremendous: success. ; : Sixty-four thousand farmers, who formerly borrowed of pri- . vate bankers and brokers, to date have borrowed from Uncle Sam’s “socialistic” and “damnable” federal banks. They have borrowed a total of over $150,000,000. Think of all the farm loan brokers, money lenders and private bankers this “socialistic” proposition has -put out of business! Think of all the interest, profits, commissions, MY BA g wom?e“g 2 IGHT bonuses, etc., etc., this “socialistic” venture has cheated “100 per cent American” bankers and brokers out of! Think of the farmers being able to save all of said interest, profits, commissions, etc., in- stead of letting the money lenders have them! Half of the $150,000,000 that has been loaned by this “social- istic” federal banking system was loaned at 5 per cent, the other half at 514 per cent. The government banks made a profit of over $584,000 last year, after paying all expenses and loaning the money at these low rates. : But don’t get the idea that this federal report shows ALL the savings borrowers have made as a result of these government banks. True, on the $150;000,000 they have actually borrowed of the fed- eral banks, farmers have saved the difference between 5 and 5l% per cent and the 6 and 8 and sometimes 10 per cent they formerly paid. But what of the general lowering of farm loan interest rates as a result of government competition with the private money lend- ers? How many millions have the farmers saved since the govern- ment banks were established in interest on loans placed with PRI- VAEI‘;] lenders, who had to lower rates to compete with Uncle Sam’s bank? 3 , i In fact, this whole “socialistic” proposition is shocking, un- American and anarchistic. It smacks of pro-Germanism and: bol- shevism. Down with government and state banks! The Minne- apolis Journal, we think, will agree that the more the farmers have saved, the more shocking and damnable it is. _ OPPOSITION JOINS FARMERS EPRESENTATIVE J. F. T. O'CONNOR of North Dakota, R floor leader of the opposition to the farmer majority in the house, paused in his opposition long enough the other day to vote for two bills carrying out the League program. He voted for the terminal elevator and flour mill bill and for the home-building bill. The former bill carries out the kind of state ownership which League enemies have so bitterly assailed, and the latter lends the aid and-credit of the state to citizens who desire to build homes— also a “hell-bent socialistic measure,” according to the opposition. Mr. O’Connor, an-orator of no mean ability, has been the hero of the anti-League press, both in and out of North Dakota. After all his tremendous speeches against the League and its program, his pleas for delay and his calamity warnings, he votes for two of ~ the principal League measures! His opposition, interpreted into ~ action, means support for the farmer program. On practically - i . Sl A e = e Ea e#ery Leagfie measure some of the opposition members in the orth Dakota legislature have voted with the farmers. And now the opposition LEADER lines up! : . ADVERTISERS AS EDITORS EADERS of these columns will remember the quotations we R gave recently from a big eastern advertising man, frankly arguing in favor of advertisers swinging a club over editors to prevent editorial policies deemed “hostile to business” by adver- tisers. Due to the fact that for many years there were enough in- dependent, fearless editors to make it “interesting” for advertisers who suggested that sort of control of the press, advertisers did not wp’?fi"&"fi Hég;fi—'fii?’ GET o) STYFF GOES CH 2L till lately openly assert their “right” to censor publications. But lately prominent advertisers and advertising agencies have dropped all camouflage and now insist frankly on their “right” to shape the policy of the press. : The sad thing about this is not so much the viciousness of the doctrine they advocate, as the fact that they would not boldly espouse such a doctrine had not editors and publishers as a whole, and to a greater extent than ever before, bowed their necks in willing slavery and humble acquiescence. d Thus we find George Frank Lord, director of advertising of the Du Pont American industries, frankly announcing, in an ad- dress before the Minneapolis Advertising forum, that editors and publishers are merely appendages of the advertising game. He said: Time was when publishers were editors who endeavored to mould 3 the opinion of their readers along this line or that. Then the circu- lation and influence of the publication was in proportion to the popu- larity of the editor’s ideas, but nowadays the REAL PUBLISHERS ARE THE ADVERTISERS, since their financial support of a publi- cation is in most cases all that keeps it alive. Having established this basis as to who the REAL publishers are, Mr. Lord proceeds to state : * % * that they (advertisers, the REAL publishers) must see to it that the publication renders a real service, that it is constructive, sound and clean, rather than destructive, irrational and immoral. Who are to be the judges as to whether a publication is “con- structive, sound and clean, rather than destructive, irrational”? The readers? The public? Not at all. The Du Pont American in- dustries, the packing trust and every other big financial or busi- ness interest that spends money for advertising. Continuing, Mr. Lord says: ; : : The claim that the withdrawing of financial support from a de- structive (i. e. in the opinion of the advertisers) publication is a mis- chievous use of advertising patronage to curb the power of the press, seems pure sophistry to me. - It doubtless seems thus to many boot-licking editors and pub- lishers also. But Mr. Lord is too optimistic. He further says: If he (the advertiser) stops demanding or using that kind of cir- culation (circulation gained by publishers who approve policies’ and measures that advertisers disagree with) it will quickly go out of existence, * * * ~ : ' And there you have it! If you editors and publishers won’t be good, why the advertisers will ruin you. Mr. Lord demonstrates ‘| the truth of everything that has been said about control of the - press through financial and economic pressure. : ' A COMMUNICATION R. COWLES, millionaire newspaper publisher, had a long editorial in his Spokane Spokesman-Review the other day against .state ownership of newspapers. Mr. Cowles said he had a “communication” stating that North Dakota had gone in for state ownership of newspapers, and he proceeds to riddle the idea. Mr. Cowles, however, fails to enlighten us as to the source or means' of his “communication” regarding state ownership of newspapers in North Dakota. Whether he consulted a fortune teller or had a bad nightmare, he fails to state. Maybe Mr. Cowles’ city police at Spokane have not cleaned up all the opium joints there, and the worthy publisher may have got his “communication” through a pipe dream. ' At any rate, the “communication” is greatly exaggerated, like Mark Twain said of the false report of his death. It is entirely true, except that North Dakota is NOT going in for state ownership of newspapers. and for the very reasons that Mr. Cowles so ably gives in his editorial. L i PR TR AN