The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, April 7, 1919, Page 7

B 4 » 5', & L8 - ¥ - & 5 i [y . li»> i - - S ( ‘\ o fr others thought they were taking too r .~ The plan was a com- promise; - 2 S 5 A Benjamin Franklin summed up their idea when he said this pla;;thas “not altogether to my mind, but it is as good as I could get i .n - / ; Franklin’s words uttered in 1754 are timely today. Few of us are in exact accord with the constitution for the league of na- tions as proposed by the Versailles conference. But-we -can say with the renowned author of “Poor Richard,” that while the pro- posed plan for the league is “not altogether to our minds, it is as good as we could get it.” ; The opponents of the Albany plan of union in 1754 succeeded in defeating it. - Possibly they postponed the birth of the great republic 20 years or so. The next meeting of representatives of the colonies came about in 1765. This was called the “stamp act congress.” It assembled at. New York. Nine colonies were represented this time. They sent memorials to the English king and parliament. In 1772 there was a further advance in the-unity of the col- onies. They began to form “committees of correspondence” which worked together to promote plans for protecting the colonists against England’s aggression. When Massachusetts came into line for this plan the governor of that colony termed the members of the committee “deacons, atheists and black-hearted fellows,” whom one would not care to meet after dark. But the colonists were undis- mayed. They kept on with their work. In 1776 the revolution broke out in earnest and the continental congress was formed. - And when® the war was won and the Constitution was adopted in 1789 the congress as it exists today was organized. But still the United States of 1789 was not the United States of today. They spoke of it then as “these United States,” convey- ing the impression that was general in men’s minds, that here was a group of separate, sovereign states, acting together on some mat- ters, but retaining complete local independence in most matters. Gradually the “states’ rights” theory dwindled and the “strong central government” theory gathered strength. It was not -until the Civil war ended, in 1865, that the principle was fully established that this was a nation, and not a group of confederated states. Some of those who object to the league of nations com_plain that the plan, in its present aspects, is too nebulous. They say the league will be a weak sort of thing, without much power, likely to do more harm than good. They should consider the lessons of history. Whether any individual likes it or not, the longing for world peace through the plan of the league of nations is so firmly implanted in men’s minds that its creation is just as obvious as was the creation of a league of colonies in 1754. Whether. any individual likes it or not, the league is certain to be created, now or in the near future. The league is just as bound to grow and increase its powers as was the first feeble confederation of colonies. What every true progressive should do now is to insist that the league be democratically managed—that it be a true league of peoples and not merely a league of governments. / HOW THEY ARGUE S OME friend has sent us a copy of “Who Is Who in the Grain Trade,” published in Toledo, Ohio. It contains a long article on “Townleyism in Michigan,” alleging that the Nonpartisan league had, unknown to everybody, secured a “large membership” in Michigan and had elected 14 members of the legislature. Im- portant if true. We must confess that we did not know it had ® happened. ¢ “Who Is Who” then proceeds to utterly demolish the Nonpar- tisan league. It is allied with the I. W. W., the writer charges, and then proceeds to “prove” his case by this statement: In 1917, at executive meetings of the League held in Minot, Devilg . Lake, Bismarck and Valley City, N. D., it was necessary to show membership in the League or the red card of the I. W. W. to gain admission. Now the facts are that meetings were held in these cities in 1917. No one was entitled to admission to them except members of the Nonpartisan league. : Let us twist the facts the same as “Who Is Who” does and see what we could do with the same kind of argument. For in- stance, a meeting of the board of directors of the United States - Steel corporation was held the other day. Copying “Who Is Who” let us report it this'way: i , 5 An executive meeting of the directors of the United States Steel corporation was held recently. - It was necessary to show membership in the board of directors or a conviction for first degree murder to gain admission. : : X : One report is just as fair as the other. Why do opponents of the League “argue” this way? Possibly because they have no other arguments, = - DEEDS NEEDED, NOT WORDS PENING our mail the other day we found an envelope marked “State of Illinois, Office of the Governor.” We - wondered if the governor of Illinois had been converted and was sending in his $16 membershiv dues. , Or maybe he had noticed what the North Dakota legislature had been doing and was writing to indorse it. ' We opened the envelope. We were disappointed. It had in it only a printed statement of an extract from “the address of Gov- ernor Frank O. Lowden of Illinois at Indiana state livestock rally in Indianapolis, Ind., at 10 a. m. March 20.” But there was some good stuff in the extract at that. Goverror Lowden said: ‘Men everywhere are beginning to realize that we must have a ~ better agriculture if we are to meet the demands for food which are We at last are learning that you can not forever already upon us. ILLINOIS —~ TALKING WORHING subtract from the soil, adding nothing to it, without having impover- ished fields. We used to feel that a man’s land was his own, to do with as he would. We begin to see now that there are limitations upon this right. Land does not belong to one generation alone. It belongs to all the generations of men. Any system of farm tenantry which results in the depreciation . of the soil will have to go. : We have a heritage rich beyond compare. Unless we shall hand: down our farms to our successors unimpaired in their richness, we shall have lived at the expense of our children and all who come after us. Unless, too, we shall preserve an orderly government, based upon the principle of equal opportunity to all, our rich fields, our increased flocks, will be of no value. . With all of this the Leader cordially agrees. Governor Lowden does not state the full case of the farmer, but as far as he goes he is all right. But it is only a speech. Governor Lowden has as much author- ity in Illinois as Governor Frazier has in North Dakota. Illinois has a legislature, as North Dakota has. We would like to ask Gov- ernor Lowden what he and.the legislature of Illinois have done to make for better agriculture, to decrease farm tenancy and to pro- vide for government “on the principle of equal opportunity to all.” It seems to us that we remember hearing that the board of trade still fixes the price on the farmer’s grain in Chicago, that farm tenancy is still on the increase in Illinois and that in spite of the “equal opportunity to all” grain gamblers own more of the palatial homes along Lake Shore drive in Chicago than farmers own. Governor Lowden has some friends kind enough to “mention” him as a possible dark horse candidate for the Republican nomina- tion for president. That may explain why the governor wants the farmers to know how thoughtfully he spoke of them in the address at the state livestock rally at 10 a. m. March 20. - But the farmers will look for more than kind and thoughtful words. They will ask, “What have you done?’ The man who gets the farmers’ support for president in 1920 will have to answer that question satisfactorily. THE “DANGER” OF BUREAUCRACY VERY opponent of government ownership of public utilities E and of other forms of monopoly has much to say of the dan- ger of bureaucracy. By this they mean that under public ownership the officers and employes of the utility or industry will form a solid political unit which will dominate the rest of govern- ment and the people generally. Every so often a railroad senator, for instance, struggles to his feet in the United States senate and -solemnly warns the people against the danger of putting the rail- roads into politics. But can any one imagine a so-called bureaucracy stronger in its power to dominate the people than the present Standard Oil group, the packing trust, the railroad magnates, or the ovérlords of A\ finance? They are in politics now and domihating the government much more effectively than government employes actually needed AN — SAP7, IHEEP USs our or rPOLITICS/ (e “ to conduct these different lines of business possibly could. . Again, under government ownership the people would have a direct check on them; whereas now they must first fight a political battle with the great bureaucrats of special privilege and then if the people win they must undertake the rarely successful task of adopting laws to regulate the bureaucrats. We need only to grasp what is really going on at the present time to see the foolishness of the great “bureaucracy” argument against public ownerghip; A5