The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, October 13, 1919, Page 5

: Washington Bureau, -Nonpartisan Leader. WO MILLION Americans had been sent to France to make the world safe for democracy. Of this vast army of liberty, the last of the original fighting divisions, the First, has passed in final review through the streets of the national capital. At their head rode the hand- some figure of General Pershing, commander of the American forces. In token that his task and the task of the army was done, congress had voted him its thanks. Peace had come. War was finally past. Demoe- racy —at least in America —was officially safe- guarded. Yet on the day following the formal presentation of congress’ thanks to Pershing, there arose on the floor of the house one Simeon Fess of Ohio, who was chairman of the Republican congressional campaign committee last year. Fess offered an amendment to the deficiency appropriation bill which was under discussion. His amendment made it possible for any federal attorney to start prose- cutions against organized farmers or organized wage-workers, under the anti-trust laws. It struck at the heart of democratic freedom—the right of ths. producers of wealth to band together in mutual ai % On the surface, of course, the amendment did not appear to bring all organizations of farmers, or all labor unions, under the ban of the anti-trust laws. It merely struck out from the bill a pro- viso, written into each of these appropriation bills for many years past, that— “No part of this money shall be spent in the prosecution of any organization other than an organ- ization of public of- ficers, or any indi- vidual other than a public officer, for_en- tering intoe any combination or agreement having in view the increase of wages, shortening of hours, or bettering ‘of conditions of la- bor, or for any other act done in further- ance thereof, not in itself unlawful; pro- vided, further, that no part of this ap- propriation shall be expended for the prosecution of pro- ducers of farm prod- ucts and . associa- tions of farmers who co-operate and or- ganize in an effort to, and for the pur- pose to, obtain and maintain ‘a fair and reasonable price for their products.” FESS DENOUNCES “DISCRIMINATION” Fess, knowing that this proviso .had been placed in appropriation bills because the supreme court had made an ab- _surd decision thdt the Sherman law applied to farmers and wage-work- ers’ ‘associations, made a speech denouncing the “discriminations” ‘in fa- vor of farmers and-labor. He spoke:of the “humll- latmg surrender” by FEET—y B R s Rollcall Forces Congressmen Who Voted to Prosecute Producers Under Anti-Trust Law to Change Their Minds congress to the demand of the railway workers that they be permltted to secure the eight-hour day in 1916. “Now comes the threat,” he shouted, “that un- less we do so and so the whole transportation busi- ness of the country would be paralyzed. This goes not to -wages but to the principle of public service which approaches a revolution. - We are given the order that we are expected to pass cer- tain laws at the -behest of special classes in spite of the public interest, or else we will ‘hear from’ the men who are.now giving us orders. men, inspired by their success in 1916, are but ad- vancing step by step along similar lines. _ “Following that, you will have the same thing appear in the fire department, which is now threat- enmg the capital and the city of Boston. Success in these departments and it will come in the army and then in the navy, and then you will have Rus- sian sovietism ripened into-full _bloom in America. “I say bo you the time has come for us to make the issue.” There was a small attendance in the house that afternoon, and after some discussion Fess’ amend- ment, striking out the proviso which safeguarded the farmers and trade unions, prevailed. On a count of noses, without rollcall, there were 53 votes for the Fess position and only 19 votes for the position of the organized farmers and organ- ized wage-workers. Next day, when Nolan of San Francisco forced a rollcall vote on this Fess proposition, the result was quite different. Driven to stand R R These . and“Moores:of Indiana, Garner of Texas, Griffin, —Copyright, colnmbla Photo Supply Co. Bugler' announcing General .Pershing’s approach to the reviewmg stand in front of the White House. Grand review of Pershing’s First division, September, 1919, ' General Pershing under the trium- phal arch. His four-starred flag. carned ‘behind him, dlpped in salute to the allied colors.- up and answer to their names, so that con- stituents could see where they stood on dem- ocratic liberty, just 30 members dared to vote against the farmers and against labor. There were 23, at least, who ran to cover. Against Fess were 201 votes. Those who lined up as Tories, on rolleall, includ- ed Joe Cannon, Newton of Minneapolis, Webster of Spokane, Vaile of Denver, French of Idaho, Boies, Dickinson, Good and Green of Iowa, Blan- ton of Texas, Ackerman of New Jersey, Fairfield Hicks and Platt of New York, Humphreys of Mis- sissippi, Evans of Nebraska, Kitchin of North Carolina, Layton of Delaware, Luce and Tinkham of Massachusetts, Merritt of Connecticut, Shreve and Walters of Pennsylvania, Tincher of Kansas and Yates of Illinois. LAWYERS AND BANKERS VOTE AGAINST FARMERS Ackerman is a banker and manufacturer; Mer- ritt is the same; Evans, Good, Green, Dickinson, ™ Boies, Tincher, Newton, Webster, French and Vaile, from the West, are'all lawyers. Several of them have been judges and prosecutors. Tincher, for example, whose home town is Med- icine Lodge, Kan., and who sets forth in his official biography that “m addition to the practice of law he has been largely engaged in farming and live- stock operations,” made a lawyer-like excuse for his anti-farmer vote. When Barbour of California pointed out that Tincher had agreed to the same clause in the agri- cultural bill, Tincher replied that “in the agricultural bill we refused to make it unlawful for men to do these things. Now I say that it is un- necessary for the appropriations com- mittee to provide that the department of justice shall not use their money to enforce the law. I believe the action of - the committee in de- ciding what law they will permit the de- partment of justice to enforce against certain classes, and exempting others, is wrong.” He also said: “I rep- resent a farming com- munity, but if any law applies to my constitu- ents making a thing a crime, I do not want to have to go around to.the department of justice, and say: ‘Here, you can not enforce that Ilaw against my constituents, because the, appropria- tion which you have pre- vents you from doing it.” But did these valiant lawyers, bankers and manufacturers in con- gress, when they stood out against exemption of farmers and wage-work- ers —did ' they pledge themselves to work for the repeal of the law causing all the trouble? Not at all! That’s the job of the other fellow. Lawyers stand together to keep the law muddy enough so that the courts may get a chance to pre- ' vent these -hot-headed: radical farmers and .trade uniomats from ; gomg “too far. g