The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1918-04-25
The Nonpartisan Press Hostile to the
Farmers, Movement.

The Nonpartisan Press Hostile to the
Farmers Movement.
A certain newspaper in this county
printed some articles which criticised
the legislative changes proposed by
the Nonpartisan league. The author
submitted the sources Of his data to
the editor. The editorial policy of the
paper is strongly favorable towards
the Nonpartisan league and of course
is unfavorable to any adverse criticism.
The appearance Of the last article
in the paper was followed with an edi-
torial which began as follows: "The
editor has reviewed the sources of
(the author's) information in regard to
the proposed legislation and as they
are sources plainly hostile to the far
mers' movement we do not consider
them very reliable" etc. After such
a pronouncementb by the editor it is, we
think, a reasonable supposition that
the subject is no longer debatable in
his columns. There are some things,
however, which we would like to say
about it, which are necessary to cor
rect understanding. We therefore beg
to request the favor of your space and
assistance.
AS you probably know, am the
author of the said articles, and I would
like to describe little more minutely
those "sources" which are said to be
"plainly hostile" and mot reliable"
These consist of two documents: The
one is pamphlet containing az Care
full Digest and Comparison" of North
Dakota's constitution, Revised to Lat
est Amendments of Proposed Consti-
tuition" While the compiler of this di-
gest was not favorable to the proposed
changes, the editor admitted that it's
statements are in all probability cor
rect, as ortherwise it would defeat it's
own purpose.
The other document was a copy of
the North Dakota Leader, March g.,
1918, the official organ Of the Non
partisan league of North Dakota as
"The Minnesota Leader" is for this
state. This paper announces the
places and dates for five of their
speakers then in North Dakota, but
singles out one of them viz, Judson
King, for special honor, as being zone
of the leading American authorities"
on popular government" and "con-
tinuing his triumphal drive through
North Dakota" This same King is re-
ported in the same paper as being OPP
posed to the representative system Of
government which we now have. He
advocates "a small single-chambered
legislature and governor who selects
his own cabinet and has large power"
etc. This, it seems TO me, would put
the governor in position somewhat
similar to that of the chancellor of
Germany, and all of his appointees and
subappointees would be responsible to
him directly or indirectly. Under such
conditions an officer, on receipt Of an
humble petition from the people for
this or that, may sneeringly reply,
1--WE don't take orders from you"
King, however, says that with the
'recall" in working order the system
could be controlled. According to the
first document before mentioned, page
II, "recall' section is proposed for
the constitution, but it is in too vague
a form for any intelligent Judgment.
Perhaps this is the reason why the
paper aforementioned says nothing
about it, while it devotes the greater
part of six columns to the discussion of
constitutional changes proposed.
Even with "recall" provision to be
applied when necessary, why not avoid
as far as possible the need of such
application by electing the public SER
wants instead Of giving others the pow
er to appoint? Why does the Non
partisan league want this power?
When the power is granted don't you
think it certain that there will be
scheming to use it anyway? Under
such conditions it seems to me that the
government officials would be very
liable to degenerate into a coterie of
oligarchs, ready to make use of any
means to obtain their positions and
emoluments.
The league leaders are not adver-
1rsr @4@S
made against some one else calling at
tention to them but, on the other
hand, they do advertise what they call
large concession of political power
to the people. Let me quote from the
aforesaid North Dakota Leader:
According to the new amendments
the legislature would have no power,
as at present, to pass on amendments