Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1918-11-04
Facts o. Abuse?

To brand the joint committee as liars proves nothing.
Our exposure Of the dangers Of unlimited bonding ~orqguar=l
anteeing Of bonds by the state and to the menacesof per-
uniting the state to engage in any or all business UNDER
takings was answered editorially by the following argu-f
tnent in the American on Saturday: Liar "~gangster,"
"alarnaist,' etc. This answer may be exciting, but it is
hardly illuminating. We had in one advertisement called
attention to- the admitted fact that the proposedAa amend
lments permit the state to-glarantee the bonds of.private
corporations: then we cited the disastrous experience Of
eleven American states that were bankrupted by becoming
liable on bonds in aid of private business undertakings. To
refute this argument the American calls us the names above
set forth and says, among other things:
t. t. r. !: '; ;:s;s' ~ En- s: Is s:: s$s:,:s f Ps :$:ss%: ~ y :ss$i I g, sss SIS:
IS; Is $sS s - Fl $S $$s$$5 e Fl: 55 $ sE5$$$$$ 8 81 - $ $$s$S5 !; S!!ss$$-
s ssfpsra se Ss become tn o"nsF' . capital stock in n association q
Note the paragraph-whchthey quote. 1t is as cleverly
worded and as neatly calculated, to mislead as is the edi-f
torial paragraph above quoted. Note the word, OTHER
WISE. The above wording is almost identical with the
language of the present constitution, except this little word
"otherwise" has been inserted by the men who wrote these
amendments. What does this word mean in this connec-
ton? 1t means that the state shall not lend its credit to or
in aid of private corporations except as "OTHERWISE'
provided in a preceding paragraph of the proposed amend
ments which reads as follows: II
f.: f.? $ $$$;$ $: s; s: s 2s:; ;s:S$; S : A. r, A. :S$ :: q; :; s S s; $ s & !: $$ {
P PoP ssese Of s ats Ss Mne a s@19 psov%sd 's %ssf or that taaD se sta ,te .s a5anu nss
5 5sTpsS So F%ai ndSsri Ss" IS eacsess D Of 3sn m iF ' ddon%s 0''A0es !"
Is there anything in this paragraph Of the proposed
amendments to indicate that the state should not guaran-
tee the bonds of corporations? Whose bonds should the
state guaranteed, individuals do not issue bonds. of
course the state is here empowered to guarantee the. bonds
of corporations. This has never been questioned hereto
fore in this campaign and would not have been questioned
but for the fact that the dangers have been pointed out.
The American admits that unlimited bonding was one
among other causes that led to the bankruptcy of the states
we named, but they say these states we're all southern
states. IS MINNESOTA A SOUTHERN STATE? The
American does not attempt to explain the bankruptcy of
Minnesota as a result Of issuing and becoming liable on
bonds in aid of business undertakings and of corporations.
The willy editor side steps this important state, although
we clearly pointed out in the advertisement that drew the
broadside of names that MINNESOTA REPUDIATEDi
OVER N MILLION OF UGH BONDS.
He does not deny the FACTS although we gave the book
and the laws by page and number where our statements
could be verified. WHERE DID THE PROMOTERS
OF L THIS SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA POINT
OUT A STATE THAT HAS BEEN BENE-1
FITEDB BY UNLIMITED BONDING; BY UNLIMIT-l
ED RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN N BUSINESS UNI
DERTAKINGS; OR BY UNLIMITED GUARANTEED
ING OF THE BONDS OF CORPORATIONS? I'll
WILL o ANSWER TO SAY That ABOVE TWO
MILLIONS OFDOLLARS THE STATE MUST HAVEf
REAL STAT SECURITY. WAS
ACTUALLY LIABLE ON ONLY $2,275OOO, vet she
went bankrupt although MINNESOTA
A ECURITY IN THEFORM OF AND Valued
AT ABOUT $5,000,0O0 for the full amount. The state
could not realize on the security.
We believe the voters would rather have facts and figures
than abuse.
GRAND FORKS COUNTY JOINT COMMITTEE
o DOYLE o GOVERNOR !
political ADVERTISEMENT