OCR Interpretation


The National leader. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1921-1923, March 06, 1922, Image 3

Image and text provided by State Historical Society of North Dakota

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89074444/1922-03-06/ed-1/seq-3/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

I

tW-
•v*
-fw
4'
vM
ir"
IN THE INTEREST OF A SQUARE
DEAL FOR THE FARMERS
Entered. as second-class matter at the postofflce at
Minneapolis, Minn., under the act of March 3, 1879.
IJiMication address. 427 Sixth avenue S.. Minneapolis.
Minn. Address all remittances to The National
Leader, Box 2072, Minneapolis, Minn.
VOL. 14, NO. 5
&
No Agitation
for Harding
"Remedies"
-V
The Congressional Record,
the newspapers and many other
"straws," not to mention the
Leader's reports direct from
hundreds of farming communi
ties, show which way the wind
is blowing. The demand is em
phatically for price stabilization.
All the praise of the administra
tion for the result of the farm
conference, all the opposition of
the Republican machine in con
gress, all the prattling of Farm
Bureau federation leaders, all
the sage advice of agricultural
college "experts" and farm
agents—all this will not down
the demand for price stabiliza
tion. It is the only adequate
remedy.
If congress refuses to act,
or if congress does act and the
president vetoes the bill, as is
threatened, it is not going too
far to say that the Republicans
will lose their majority in con
gress at the coming elections.
A FTER a great expenditure of time and money in making in
vestigations and .holding hearings in Washington and all
JL JL over the country, the joint committee of congress, appointed
to study agricultural problems, made its report. So inadequate
were its recommendations that, although much publicity was given
them, the average farmer probably does not even remember what
the committee proposed. Nothing that the com
mittee did stuck in the farmer's mind.
Following'the report of the joint committee,
as if to admit frankly the inadequacy of the com
mittee's findings, President Harding and Secre
tary of Agriculture ^llace called a national
'farm conference." This_conference met and likewise made recom
mendations. Some weeks have passed since the conference adjourn
ed. It was given great publicity, and was declared by the president
and Mr. Wallace to be the greatest event that ever took place in the
history of American agriculture.
Yet, does anything the conference recommended stand out as
a leading issue and as a remedy fdr the present farmer distress?
Is anybody talking about'what it recommended? Are farmers cir
culating petitions,, writing letters to congressmen and meeting and
passing resolutions to forward the carrying out of the conference's
"remedies"? Have the conference's plans become an issue in con
gress Does any one seriously claim that the fate of the farmer
and a change for the better within a reasonable time depend on
congress passing any bills which may have been introduced to carry
out the conference's recommendations
Read over those questions again. "No" is the answer to all of
them. In fact, the average farmer, just as in the case of the report
9f the joint congressional committee, will find difficulty in recalling
just what the conference did say was the matter, and just what it
did propose to solve the problem.
Something ignored by both the congressional committee and
the conference is now the big issue. Only one remedy proposed has
convinced any considerable number of congressmen or farmers that
it is a solution. That proposal is stabilization of farm prices,
through the revival of the war grain corporation, or by new ma
chinery of some kind. To forward that plan hundreds of rural com
munities are bringing pressure
on congress—flooding congress
men and senators with-petitionp,
resolutions and letters. The
farmers have forced price stabi
lization to the front as" a solu
tion. That is the issue not
anything the congressional com
mittee or the conference' pro
posed.
$
tow""*
V- &
Published at Minneapolis, Minn., Every Two Weeks
OLIVER S. MORRIS. Editor.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, MARCH 6, 1922
Comment by the Editor on Current Events
r®P**®sentatives
Labor for
Relief of
Farmers
ymg
FARM BLOC BALANCE OF POWER
aBouT-nuT
—Drawn expressly for the Leader by W. C. Morris.
PAGE THREE
A MAGAZINE THAT DARES TO
PRINT THE TRUTH
One year, $1.50. Classified rates on classified pnge
other advertising rates on application. Member Audit
Bureau of Circulations. S. C. Beckwith Special
Agency, advertising representatives. New York, Chicauc
St Louis, Kansas City.
There are even possibilities of the'Democrats, or a new party, elect
ing a president. The "farmers are aroused and will not be put down.
DGAR WALLACE, legislature representative of the American
federation of Labor, and Albert Fechner, member of the na
—-.<p></p>E'
tional executive board of the International Association of
^Machinists, appeared before the senate committee on agriculture
ana urged the stabilization of farm prices. Numerous other labor
WHOLE NUMBER 29S
sent letters and resolutions approving the revival
•ot the grain corporation and the fixing of living prices for farmers."
The Minneapolis Trades and Labor assembly is one of
the many labor organizations which have passed
fprmal resolutions asking congress to give relief to
farmers. All indorse the Sinclait-Ladd bill.
Only a few years ago labor, like many farmers,
believed in a narrow class policy. Labor felt that
Prices for farmers meant unnecessarily high cost of living
,e pities. Fanners shunned labor as "radical." They believed
that labor kept prices of manufactured articles up through demands
for unreasonable wages.
But now labor comes forward to help farmers get better
prices. A long road has been traveled in a few years. Labor un
derstands that one reason for the widespread unemployment and its
disastrous effect on wages and the solidity of the unions, is due to
ua
Power away from farmers by starvation prices.
When farmers stop buying, factories shut down and there is noth
ing to pay labor wages. On the other hand, when labor is unem
ployed or working for starvation wages, one of the biggest markets
for farm products is destroyed.
It has taken a long time to bring these ideas home to the two
classes of producers. But they see the point now, much to the
menace of certain interests that have attempted to foster the oppo
site view on both sides.
UST now organized labor is waging a hard battle for existence.
Capital has taken advantage of unemployment and competi
tion tor jobs to smash the unions and lower working standards
and wages. One of the chief weapons of employers in this fight
is the courts. The labor injunction has been revived and made more
effective than ever, after many
states and even congress had
passed laws that it was felt
would protect
1 a or against
this procedure.
Farmers and
the Labor
Injunction
Many state and
a
courts have is­
sued injunctions in recent indus
trial disputes which have had
•the effect of defeating the labor
cause. Even the supreme court
of the United States has made a
decision upholding an injunction
that restricts the right of labor
to peaceful picketing and argu
ment during disputes with em
ployers.
Mr. Gompers declared that
the Clayton act, which forbade
injunctions against labor in cer
tain cases for "restraining
trade," was the greatest "bill of
rights" labor ever was granted.
Likewise labor leaders hailed
state laws which prohibited
labor injunctions as great ad
vances in the cause of unionism.
But these laws now seem to
count for naught. The courts
are making the labor injunction'
more potent than ever.
But what is the farmers' in
terest in labor injunctions? It
is an interest just as great as
labor s. The Clayton act was in-
A
..

xml | txt