The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, November 24, 1919, Page 7

A not part of the League and has no direct R et i e b s e i o PR Sy T o 2 the League, the Equity, the Farmers’ union, the Grange or . M _any other real farmers’ organization. We have always been found boosting these organizations and doing battle with their enemies. We believe they can live side by side in peace and co- operation, and that the most injurious thing that could happen to the farmers would be friction or fighting among the farmers’ own organizations. Hence we believe we can speak frankly about the new movement to organize county farm bureaus into state and national federations, without being accused of opposing the prin- THE ‘Leader is for organization .of the farmers, whether in - —ciple of farmer organization or without being charged with boost- ing one farmers’ organization at the expense of another. To begin with, we find it significant that those farm papers which have not sold out. to the business interests opposed to reforms demanded by farmers, are either skeptical about or opposed to the farm bureau movement. The Iowa Homestead has waged an intelligent and effective fight against the Greater Iowa associ- ation, a bankers and manufacturers’ arganization which has sought to sell out the farmers. The Homestead sees the hand of the Great- er Iowa association in the promotion of the Iowa farm bureau movement. It points out that an effort is being made to include representatives of commercial clubs in the county bureaus, and that the commercial clubs will run the bureaus if they can. This means that the bureaus in Iowa will not be strictly farmers’ organizations, of, by and for farmers.” There may be no objection to an organiza- tion composed of business men and farmers, but such an organiza- tion has no claim as a farmers’ organization. Says the Homestead: o Certainly the farmers of Iowa will be as Sampson shorn of his locks if they place it within the power of any other interests or class of men to help determine the policies of their organizations. On the other hand, we find Mr. Meredith, publisher of Success-" ful Farming, enthusiastically boosting the farm bureau movement and making desperate efforts to put it over in Iowa and other states. If there is one man of whom the farmers are more sus- picious than another it is this same Meredith. He is a Democratic politician, a director of the United States Chamber of Commerce- and a friend of the packers, with whom he dined at Chicago re- cently, making them certain promises concerning what Successful Farming would do for them in the way of publicity. We find the Prairie Farmer (Chicago) boosting the farm WHAT WE NEED IS B REAL FARMERS' QRGANIZATION bureau plan in the same issue in which it makes a bitter attack on the initiative and referendum! The Country Gentleman (nuf sed!) is another booster for the plan, while the Rural New Yorker, a publication that has served the farmers long and well and is not dominated by business interests, is skeptical about it. The Rural New Yorker justly points out that the farm bureau movement is liable to become a mere adjunct of officialdom. Its chief local boosters outside of the town commercial clubs are county farm agents and officials of state and national agricultural departments. .One word about the farm bureau or federated club movement in Minnesota and we are done with the subject. We have scores of letters from Minnesota farmers declaring the movemerit is a thinly disguised plan for attacking the Equity and the League. It is true that a few farmers whose judgment we respect think the movement can be made valuable to the farmers, but it is also true that throughout the state those politicians, newspapers and interests which have so bitterly fought the League and the Equity are boosters of the new plan, and many of the most resentful foes of the organized farmers’ program in Minnesota are active organ- izers of the bureau and federated club movement. We don’t believe ' that those interests will succeed in controlling the movement in Minnesota, but there is no doubt they will do it if they can, and Minnesota farmers, if they join, would do well to keep their eyes peeled and promptly squelch those who attempt to use the or- ganization for selfish or political purposes. ' PROGRESS IN CO-OPERATION HE Consumers’ United Stores company, a North Dakota . I farmers’ corporation having 11,000 members and noew oper- ating 33 general retail stores doing a business of over $1,000,- 000 annually, has just made an important announcement. The company is to reorganize on a strictly co-operative stock basis. It has been operating on the certificate membership plan. A member- ship cost $100 and entitled the purchaser to trade for 10 years at the Consumers’ store nearest him. Stock in the company is now to be issued in lieu of these membership certificates, giving the farmer members more democratic management and making them actual owners of the company instead of merely giving them op- portunity to buy-ef the stores at cost. This company was organized by Nonpartisan leaguers and had the indorsement of prominent League leaders, including Mr. Town- ley. Nearly all the members are Leaguers, though the company is connection with it. It e THE FARM BUREAU MOVEMENT = - That accomplishment, however, L A 2 " b was nevertheless generally known as the “League chain store " company” and it has been one of the farmers’ efiterprises in North Dakota subjected to fierce attack by the press and politicians hos- tile to the farmers. From the start the members of the company have understood that as soon as the organization period of the busi- ness was over and it was big and strong enough to stand alone, stock would be issued for the membership certificates and the af- fairs of the company turned over to the stockholders. This did not prevent vicious attacks on the company and the League, on the ground that the farmers had no voice in the enterprise and that it was a “graft for the leaders.” The recent announcement of the company ought to silence these dishonest critics—dishonest be- cause they really did not have the interests of the farmers’ com- WE TRADE Wiy SR ZE s ™ 7S oUR SToRE NO PROFITEERING: pany at heart, but the opposite, and did not criticize to aid the proposition but to discredit the League for political purposes. Mr. Paddock, manager of the company, states plainly the rea- son for the original form of organization and for the announced change. He says: 2 The foresight on the part of the organizers of the company in providing for a centralized form of government during the organiza- tion period has undoubtedly saved the co-operative store movement from destruction. From the first it has been subjected to all manner of persecution on the part of big business and allied interests opposed to the.farmers’ movement. When the first store was opened in Kenmare two years ago it was predicted by those planning its de- struction that it would not be in business six months. When the num- ber of stores had reached four the wholesale grocers of the country started a boycott, hoping in that way to make it impossible for the company to buy goods and thus be forced out of business. Twenty- nine out of 30 northwestern wholesale houses refused orders accom- panied by certified checks, the insurance companies refused to in- sure the company’s properties and the bonding houses refused to bond its employes. When all else had failed to bring about the ruin planned for the company by its big business enemies, Attorney General William Langer started an attack on it” last spring in an attempt to prohibit it from doing business in the state, charging that the concern was violating the biue sky laws. He failed to prove his point and this, like the other attacks, proved futile. * * - * The Consumers’ United Stores company is now over the top. It is in a position to withstand any attacks that big business may make upon it in the future. According to estimates of the farmers who are keeping track of their: cost account, the company’s co-operative ~handling of groceries has ‘saved them from 20 to 25 per cent on their purchases. The company, only two years old, is the biggest of the kind in America. Mr. Paddock’s announcement means that it will enter on a new era of development and prosperity, having successfully weathered the period fatal to many co-operative movements. it AN EDITORIAL SLIP : IT ISN'T often that anything real good gets by the blue pencils of the editors employed by Millionaire Cowles on his Spokane (Wash.) Spokesman-Review. But we were able to gather the following rare flower from the editorial columns of a recent issue: . To the Editor of the Spokesman-Review: Allow me to con- gratulate you on the masterly editorial entitled “Politics in the Grange.” : The facts are even worse than you know. Not only in the west- ern part of the state, but in the eastern part the farmers begin to discuss politics. As an example of the pernicious influence of such radical leaders as Bouck, the Excelsior district Pomona at Deer Park , on October 4 passed a resolution indorsing the triple alliance without a dissenting vote. While the Spokesman-Review should have the support of every honest farmer in its laudable effort to keep the - Grange spotless, the darn-fool farmers grin when one quotes from the Spokesman-Review. ; Clayton, Wash, 3 . F. A. MEYER. Farmer Meyer ought to have a medal for getting Mr. Cowles to print this. We have watched the news columns of the S.-R. in vain for reports of how the Washington Grangers are getting sol- idly back of the “Triple Alliance,” the political organization of the railroad brotherhoods, the farmers and the labor unions. But Mr. Meyer gets the facts printed in the S.-R. with apparent ease. is perhaps less amusing than -the inexpressibly superb sarcasm of Mr. Meyer’s last sentence. In passing, it may be mentioned that one of the S.-R.’s efforts to “keep the Grange spotless” mobsters at Walla Walla, who drove the annual state convention of the Grange out of that city. PAGE SEVEN L ST R R e S S U A S e e A S A S O U N S SN A I was its approval and defense last year of the | 5 {