New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1915-09-15

/
In Minnesota last year the farmers
raised:
91,000,OOO bushels of corn.
42,975,0O0 bushels of wheat,
1862, 900 bushels of barley,
5,245,OOO bushels of rye
Large quantities of all these crops
are used In the production of liquor,
and practically all the barley crop In
Minnesota Is used for mailing purposes
because of its high grade.
County option, II it became general
in Minnesota, would destroy this market
and GIVE NOTHING IN RETURN.
That county option Is unjust to the
farmer is shown In the fact that his
vote Is used only if the vote Is cast
for county option. In other words,
the farmers vote Is used If 1t Is dry
vote, and abused If 1t is a wet vote.
He is permitted to say that the sale of
liquor shall be prohibited, but he can
not say that the sale of liquor shall
not be prohibited.
To make this clear, a county goes
dry If the majority vote is dry, but it
does not go wet If the majority vote Is
wet. The wet or dry issue then must
be decided by the different municipali-
ties In the county, and the farmer,
living outside the municipalities, has
no vote in deciding the question. If
It Is fair for the farmer to help vote
county dry, it should be fair for the
farmer to help vote the county wet,
but he cannot do this for the reason
that If the majority vote is wet, the
farmer has no further voice in the matter
because the license issue then Is for
the municipalities and not the county
to decide.
Prohibition In any form is destructive
to farm interests, and this Is proved by
the United States Census statistics.
Comparing Minnesota, a license state,
with Kansas, heralded everywhere as the
model prohibition state, the following
results are shown:
Increased value of farm buildings,
1900 to 1910 Kansas, 1911 per cent;
Minnesota, 1908 per cent.
Increased value of live stock, 1900 to
1910-Kansas, 1928 per cent; Minnesota,
81.5 per cent.
Increased value of farm machinery,
1900 to 1910-Kansas, 63.8 per cent;
Minnesota, 1879 per cent.
Every farmer will agree that land
adjacent to good market Is the most
desirable and worth more than land
distant from those centers. Good mar
kets increase farm land values, and the
best markets are found in the progressive
towns and villages that favor license and
conduct their affairs with due regard
to the wishes of the majority.
Proof of this may be found by COM
pairing conditions In Grant county, with
one wet town, and Brown county with
six wet towns. Farm lands in Grant
county is valued at $50 to $50 an acre,
while land In Brown county Is valued at
from SIS to $125 an acre.
The reason for this Is that Brown
county has at least six live towns which
offer good markets to the farmer, while
Grant county has but one, and now that
county option carried there, it soon will
lose that one license town.
County option, or prohibition, never
yet has done anything to help the farmer.
It does not create new market for the
one it destroys; neither does it offer to
pay the increased taxation the farmer
must pay to meet the deficit in revenue
which results when county goes dry.
Farmers are asked to vote for county
option merely to close the saloons within
the county. The fair-minded farmer
will hesitate a long time before he will
follow the advice of extremists who de-
sire to override the wishes of the majority.
The average farmer Is not interested In
saloons. What he wants is good
market, and experience shows that the
best markets are found in the towns and
villages that favor license and regulation.
1t Is not a saloon question with the
farmer. but question of good markets
and increasing the value Of his land.
The entire issue, therefore, resolves
itself into business proposition: Does
the farmer want county option and pro-
hibition which, It is shown, is destructive
to his interests, or does he want the
municipalities In his county to rule them
selves, provide good markets, and by
SO doing increase the value of his land?