The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, March 10, 1919, Page 9

) &5 -8 = W % » ‘. L B9 d s | B e - | | Az ‘. By ' ROCKEFELLER’S PLAN vthe strings we tie to it. * I e ~ Who Houston Serves More Evidence In Speech Before National Board of Farm Organizations, W. J. Spillman Shows Rockefeller Domination—Private Ownership of Government Department Washington Bureau, Nonpartisan Leader S EXCLUSIVELY published by the Nonpartisan Leader in its issue of February 10, the “lid” of the department of agricul- ture has been torn off by Doc- tor J. W. Spillman, who was sition as chief of the office of farm management by Secretary Houston. In that article was revealed how the Rockefeller interests had been served by the Houston policies, while Houston had deliberately and insistently opposed the furnishing to the farmers of. any information which would °; indicate the real cost of pro- ducing their crops. Much of the information in that article was gained from a document in the hands of certain members of congress. Now it appears that the docu- ment was almost identical with the speech delivered by Doctor Spillman before the National Board of Farm Organizations in session here on February 11. The matter in this speech, which was not quoted from the earlier document by the Nonpartisan Leader, is so sen- sational that some extracts from it are given here. It in- dicates for one thing that the Rockefeller organization, whose hand was discovered in the plottings and persecutions of the National Security league, has been trying directly to control the policy of the col- leges and universities of the United States, to destroy all liberal economic teaching -and thinking among students and faculties. CONTROL OF EDUCATION “It will be recalled,” said Doctor Spillman, “that when Mr. Houston becamg secretary he.was a member of the South- ern Education Board, a sub- sidiary*- of Mr. Rockefeller’s General Education Board of New York. The following in- cident throws some light on the purposes of this board: “Some nine years ago a wealthy friend of mine ap- proached me with the state- ment that Mr. Rockefeller’s object in establishing the. Gen- eral Education Board was to gain control of the educational institutions of the country and see that the men employed in them are ‘right.” Then he con- tinued: ‘In this we have been quite successful with the smaller institutions, and now control all of them that are worth - controlling. But the larger institutions have refus- ed to accept our money with Z SCHEMED” = “ ‘Mr. Rockefeller is now going to add $100,000,000 ; iy 2 -to this foundation for the express purpose of forcing his money into these big institutions. He is looking for a man who can put this across. I think you are just the man for the place. There is a fat salary in it for the man who can do the trick. Think it over, and if it appeals to you let me know and I will take it up with Mr. Rockefeller through friends of mine. I think my recommendation will have _considerable weight with Mr. Rockefeller.’ “I -declined to consider the matter and said very plainly what I thought of the proposition. last fall forced out of his po- . I have never heard of the matter again. I have no idea that Mr. Rockefeller ever heard of this proposition to me, but the incident is important in showing what people who are in sympathy with his views believe his purpose to be.” How Secretary Houston tried to prevent Doctor Spillman from presenting to the price-fixing com- mittee a report on the cost of raising wheat, is - told in these words: “The federal trade commission took up with the bureau of markets the matter of ascertaining the ‘ GET BACK ON THE NEST! | e — ORI RS it I > \\\\\\\\\_\_‘\\\\ IS - D o S XN ANNN A AR Yo - ve w— NNNNK . —From the Grain Growers’ Guide, Winnipeg, Canada If the old hen (the government) will get back on the nest, she can do something worth while. She_can hatch out the farmers’ program. Whereas sitting ‘on that old door knob, the im- practical schemes, will_produce nothing and the work which ought to be done will be neg- lected. The organized farmer is trying to shoo the foolish hen back on the nest. The story on this page, for instance, shows our department of agriculture trying to remove the taint from Rockefeller’s money instead of working for the interests of the farmer. It ouglit to be hatching out the farmers’ program. We evidently need gov- ernment ownership of our department of. agriculture. cost of production of farm products. Arrangements were made for the office of farm management to have' charge of this work in co-operation with the bureau of markets. - As chief of the office of farm management I requested letters.of authorization for the purpose of sending 13 experts from that office to the field to collect the data-necessary for determining current costs. ~ This was early in Oc- tober, 1917. Since the money available for this would lapse on July 1, 1918, it was planned to finish the work by that time. _“Secretary Houston: refused to grant these let- ters, and called me to his office for a consultation. : This is the conference referred to by-the secretary in his letter to the senate of November 7, 1918, in which he saysv ‘I indicated to him (Spillman) my desire that careful consideration be given the whole matter and that a system of inquiry and interpre- tation be devised which would be regarded by com- petent students of farm economics as sound and which would furnish results reasonably reliable and creditable to the department.’ “Every word of that statement is deliberate falsehood. Secretary Houston made no such suggestion to me at that or any other time. What he did say at this particu- lar interview was substan- tially as follows: “He first rebuked me in the stormiest mamnner for > == having gone before the Garfield committee at\h the NN time the price of wheat \\\\\‘§\\§\“§ S was fixed the first time, and reminded me that I had done so without his permission. He stated that it was weli under- stood amongst those who were in a position to know, that the price to be fixed for wheat was about $1.90, but that my testimony had resulted in the unreason- able price of $2.20. He made it very clear to me that I had been guilty of Y] S X SRS ANN IR e\ iy A TEARAIN AN A SEENNFRY Y EITEAARIRL AN NN . N r— ) an unpardonable offense Fl‘ Eéfi;é’ in this matter. b ’lfif H lii'_j CO-OPERATE ONLY E= iili WITH ROCKEFELLER L] 1% # H & “I had, in fact, prepared g s report to be submitted to the price-fixing committee with Mr. Houston’s consent, but when it came time to present : this report Mr. Houston was ——— 3 conveniently out of town .and 2 I could not learn where he was. I therefore presented the re- port in person and without his permission. The price I urged upon the committee was $2.30, for at that time a farmer could get $2.28 for his wheat by feed- ing it to hogs, and I argued would induce many farmers to feed their wheat—a result which actually occurred.” The farm management work was getting $330,000 a year from congress before Houston became secretary; now it is getting only $218,000. - “In order to further hamper the work of farm manage- ment,” says Doctor Spillman, “Mr. Houston issued orders to . demonstration workers in the department not to co-operate with any outside agency ex- cept Mr. Rockefeller’s General Education Board. The pur- pose of this order was to pre- vent the office of farm manage- ment from benefiting by funds from various sources that were being made- available for dem- onstration work outside of the Rockefeller territory. These orders were not re- sduced to- writing, -~ They were delivered verhally by a young man- who is now a clerk in the de- partment.” : All of which leads back naturally to the ques- tion—Why not have public ownership and oper- ation of the department of “agriculture? Again we have an illustration of the important fact that the farmers can not keep politics and special interest wire pulling out of their essential affairs unless-they go into politics themselves and take control. 2% . Sy that any price. below $2.30. TG & ] 5 ¢ € LA ARSI