The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1918-04-01

~~-~-~-~-~~>~-~~~~~~~~--
I ances made a short time ago at this
place.
1t was reported that he was a
| minister Of the Free church. This
statement is erroneous. The follow
ing are the true facts:
First-Carl Dahl is a member OF q
minor church organization called
'Broder Samfund"
Second-He is a travelling evange-
list, not an ordained minister.
Third-He was not called officially
by this congregation to conduct re-
vival meetings at this place, but came
at the invitation of few individuals
through their own initiative.
We are sorry that this erroneous
statement has been made and we re-
specially request the editor to make
this correction and to do justice to
our church. to our official minister
and to our loyalty as patriotic Am
erican citizens.
Norman ostby.
Argusville. n. D.. March 28.
To the Editor of The Forum:
AS a former Fargoan, still inter
ested in the welfare Of North Da-
lkOta, 1 take the liberty Of express
ing some personal views on recent
North Dakoth legislation. 1 refer
to the seed and feed bond bill, re-
cenEly passed, and the three mill
tax bill on mortgages and other
credits enacted in 1917. From all
data at hand, both of these bills were
put through without due regard for
the inevitable effect. Great damage,
much of 1t irreparable, so far as
1918 is concerned, has already been
done and the inevitable consequences
must be to greatly arrest North Da-
kota's agricultural progress and con-
sequently disastrously affect the
states well-being.
In past years North Dakota, as a
farming state, has received adverse
advertising because of light crops In
different sections, droughts and the
operations Of the radical element in
the NOnpartisan league. While much
Of this publicity was not based on
fact, great damage to North Dakota s
reputation resulted, a fact which
must have been known to the spon-
sors for the two bills referred to and
it is to be regretted that this adverse
advertising is bound to be aggravat-
ed through the recent announcement
that the Federal Land bank, private
farm loan houses, insurance COM
panies and individuals heretofore
loRning money TO the North Dakota
farmer on farm land security have
Withdrawn because Of the effect of
this legislation on their business.
Yet the people of North Dakota
themselves are not blameless, for a
majority OF them elected to Office
the men composing the state legis-
lature which includes a large per-
centage OF the ''BolshevilHi" OF the
n. p. /.
Considering the effects Of these
two bills separately what do we find?
A seed and feed bill, properly con-
structed and with due regard for the
effect Of its operation in practice,
was a necessary piece Of legislation,
but only on the foregoing basis. To
make the note or mortgage given by
the farmer under this seed bill a
first lien on the land, when existing
provides some other lien
as being the first mortgage. Is hardly
a wise provision. True, II protects
the state or county agency advanc-
ing money TO the farmer for seed and
feed, but such protection Is secured
only at the expense Of the state or
county and that OF the borrowing
farmer. The withdrawal Of outside
Ioaning agencies which, through the
nature Of things have heretofore
handled the major share OF the
OF the North Dakota farm
er, can only result in depriving the
farmer Of needed funds and the state
Of necessary production, TO say moth
ing OF preventing the needed in
creased production to meet the ma
TONS requirements for foodstuffs
and livestock products this year
Only the farmer who can borrow
money enough under the seed and
feed bill to finance himself for seed
and feed and who I'm addition re-
seIves a bumper crop in 1918 az fancy
prices, so that he need not look to
anyone for financial assistance, can
profit ultimately by this legislation, |
because he alone at the end Of the
year will have on hand money |
enough to make it unnecessary to |
borrow under the seed bin next |
lpring.
The three mill tax bin referred to /
s reported to affect not only new
business but all outstanding mort I
cages and other paper. Applying the 4
principle 60 the Minnesota or Iowa 4
INVESTOR who holds North Dakota /
or paper, this individual I
must pay a double tax because he
already pays a similar tax IN his 4
lWn state. There can Of course be 4
lo objection 10 North Dakota pass
ING HuCh laws as are necessary but
& can hardly be said TO be 90 the