The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, September 6, 1920, Page 4

Senator Harding and Co-Operation publican nomination for president of the United States, gets his economic wires somewhat crossed. He says one of his chief “committals”’—a word his limited vocabulary causes him to over- work throughout his speech—is for free competition in industry; in other words, individualism. This he conceives to be one of the fun- damentals of traditional American doctrine. He finds competition in'industry, both by workers for jobs and by capital for markets, vital to progress. He abhors government ownership of railroads, which of course is co-operation ! of the people acting through the st=te, and is the opposite of com- povition and individualism. Yet, in discussing agricul- ture, practically. his only “com- mittal” is for farmer co-oper- .ation in buying and selling. Now co-operation is collectiveism— socialism in one sense of the : ; ; word—and the opposite of individualism and competition. He is ap- plying one economic theory to labor and the opposite to agriculture. The position of the Leader regarding farmer co-operation is well known. It has always been one of our “committals.” We think Senator Harding is right in “committing” himself to it. But this “committal” to co-operation by a reactionary candidate running on a-reactionary party platform is amusing: We can remember when co-operation was considered extreme radicalism. We remember the fight on the Equity in the Dakotas and Minnesota—a fight against the co-operators as intense and bitter and ruthless as that now waged against the Nonpartisan league BY THE SAME INTER- ESTS. " We remember when farmers sought government recognition of the great principle of co-operation. They wanted exemption un- rSENATOR HARDING of Ohio, in his speech accepting the Re- der the anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws for their co-operative enter-" prises. They now have that exemption—but not so long ago it was .denounced as a demand for ‘“class legislation” and a piece of ef- frontery on the part of the co-operatives. It is no less interesting to consider how the old enemies of co- operation now try to boost it as an alternative of farmers’ political programs such as is being worked out in North Dakota. In North Dakota the same interests, with their press and politicians, which fought the co-operative movement now fight the industrial program of that state, and én'ge ’;l};at c(i; Y operation, not action roug HURRAH! the state, is the solution. But secretly these interests are as much opposed to farmer co-operation as ever. With Can- didate Harding they boost it at the present time as the lesser of two menaces to profiteering and monopoly. That is all. If the farmers had not organized politically as an aid to their co-operative movement and had not, while continuing their support for co-oper- atives, put forward a more advanced program to be developed by the state along with co-operation, Senator Harding and his backers would not be so open in support of co-operation. Let the movement for financing and marketing farm crops through nonspeculating, nonprofiteering state enterprises be killed or sidetracked, and the co-operatives would again feel the brunt of the battle of the profiteers and monopolists against any movement, be it ever so reasonable or moderate, which menaces privilege. ~Co- operation manaces privilege and graft, but for the moment not so much as the North Dakota program. That is why we find co- operation boosted from strange sources at this time. ‘ ‘ POLITICIAN. . THE MONTANA VICTORY N THE next issue the Leader expects to be able to carry a full report of the primary election in Montana. As we go to press returns indicate the nomination of B. K. Wheeler for governor and all the rest of the League ticket in one of the most sweeping victories the organized farmers ever have won. One cause for this tremendous victory is the close co-operation of the farmer and labor forces. They made “We’ll stick; we’ll win” more than a campaign slogan. They made it an accomplished fact. But with all due deference to the farmers and workers of Mon- tana and their fighting spirit, the real cause of the Montana victory is the Anaconda Copper Mining company. The attitude of this giant corporation, its flagrant disregard of the rights of the people, its attempt to dodge taxes and milk the state dry for the benefit of its eastern stockholders and the corruption of Montana politics under its regime, made a political revolt against its rule just as inevitable as the revolt against the rule of the czar of Russia. ; The people of Montana, for years past, have needed only an organization, such as the Nonpartisan league, to enable them to throw off the copper company yoke. Now they have the organiza- lion and they are making good use of it. “I will not put the Ana- conda Copper Mining company out of business, but I WILL put them out of politics,” was the statement of B. K. Wheeler, dur- ing his campaign, that led to his elec- tion. . Other states, also ridden by corrupt corporations, may be expected to follow the example of Montana. ‘Wherever the Non- partisan league is or- ganized the people have an opportunity to throw off their old political masters, whether these be the copper trust, the mill-- ing trust, the lumber trust or the steel ’ trust. 2 Everywhere the people are awakening and the rule of the corporations in poli- tics is- threatened with the fate of the copper company in - IYontana. ) /"/t/’/'.// PAGE FOUR . Al ' IT CAN’T BE SPLIT! ; SR B G put in the humiliat- AN HONEST DECISION B HE United States circuit court of appeals, by its decision in the Townley bankruptey case, has done much to destroy the feeling, often unhappily based on facts, that courts exist largely for the benefit of big business. In the case at issue the facts were plain. Through causes over which they had no control A. C. Townley and his brother had sustained a commercial “failure” in flax farming, years before the Nonpartisan league was born. Wher_l the League became a political factor the creditors attempted to seize control of the League and its funds, on the specious plea that this money was being devoted, or was likely to be devoted, to Mr. Toyvnley’_s personal use. The district court, after more than a year’s investigation, found ‘Mr. Townley was an honest steward of the farmers’ funds. The circuit court, adopting the same view, has ended this attempt of the interests to obtain control of the League. RECOGNITION—WITH A STRING - HE new president of Mexico, news dispatches state, will re- Ject the “recognition” offered by the Wilson administration, because it has a string tied to it. And what is the string? It_appear§ to be that as a condition for recognition the Mexican ad- ministration is to agree in advance to certain legislation in the inter- est of citizens of our country. In other words, the United States government is j ; ing position of acting % as a mere agent and 1% cat’s-paw of the. oil millionaires. ; Meanwhile, whether Mr. Wilson recognizes it or not, a government has been . functioning in Russia for some three years and in Mexico for as many months, with every indication that both will continue in- definitely, In view of theonce-famous “self - determination” principle, wouldn’t it be wisdom for our government to recog- nize existing facts, regardless of Mr. Wil- - son’s theories .of who should be in power in these countries? D et —Drawn efxpressly for the Leader by W. C. Morris.