The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1918-02-14

far you can get on such a line OF
thought:
Another farmers cooperative
organization has drawn the fire
of the newspapers whose policy
1t Is to fight the farmers bust
ness or political organizations,
whenever one shows it's head"
the editorial begins. This time
it Is the Consumers United
Stores company of North Da-
kota against which the wrath Of
the anti-farmer press is directed.
This attack has been especially
vicious and especially sensation
al.
What can be done with a para
graph like that? To begin with, 1t
isn't a farmers cooperative organ
ization. It Is a Townley organiza-
ton, owned by Townley and controll-
ed by TownIey, absolutely. The
farmers haven't a word to say about
it under the terms of the contract,
and according to sworn testimony.
Then what newspaper in North Da-
kota is fighting the farmers? What
newspaper wants to fight the major
ity Of the people Of the gtate2 The
Forum led the attack on the stores,
and its attitude has been anything
but vicious. 1t has honestly tried to
find some merit in the plan. and is
still waiting to be shown.
Take the next paragraph:
THE Consumers United Stores
company is a farmers co-opera-
tive company, now operating
five farmers stores in North Da-
kota. It expects to start a few
other stores soon."
1t isn't a farmers cooperative
company.
Several hundred farmers be-
long to each store and they have
agreed among themselves and
with their company, that these
stores shall sell farmers who are
members, supplies at cost plus
freight and a margin not to ex-
coed 10 per cent for expenses.
What a vicious half truth that Isl
1t doesn't mention that the farmers
the money to start the
store, 800 apiece at least, and that
at least 500 of each 800 went direct
ly to Mr.. TownIey's directors, and
that the farmers have no voice in the
and can be kicked out
OF the organization any time It is
thought necessary, and can be denied
the right to buy goods any time they
are kicked out, and that they have
no interest in the store in return for
the money they paid.
The contract is being carried out
to the letter.
OF course It is. The contract
obligates the farmer to pay 500 and
that's about all it does do. Why
shouldn't 1t be carried out to the let
ter? The store company will see that
it is carried out to the letter. It is
obligated to nothing but to receive
the money.
THE stores are in a fourishing
condition.
Why shouldn't they be, at the be-
ginning at least, when they have a
cash capital of $4,000 supplied by
the farmers?
"They are saving their farmer
members substantial sums every
day.
Maybe they are. Maybe they are
not, That is yet to be demonstrated.
And they have to save the farmers
several times the value of all the
merchandise in the store before he
gets his money back.
The rest Of the editorial Is the
usual line Of abuse Of The Forum and
other newspapers that dare to attack
Mr.. TownIey's policies. For example:
THE newspapers which have been
the politicians, the war prof
iteers, and the other interests'-
"hysteria on the part OF the news
wild stories and sensa-
tionaI misrepresentation so
on ad infnitum and ad nauseatum,
OF course It isn't argument. It is
the old trick Of trying 20 obscure the