The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-03-28
THAT CRAsplNG BUREAUCRACY"

THAT CRASHING BUREAUCRACY
Bismarck. N. ID.
March &c, 1927
Editor Tribune:
| Articles have appeared in the Car
son Press, the Mott Pioneer Pres.
and the Fargo Forum dcnouncing tn,
attitude Of the state hail department
with reference to the so-callcd omni
bus bill, or the Eastgate senate bill
| No. 55. And Of course, the Governor
| also receives his share Of criticism
for having vetoed said measure.
To the uninitiatcd, these dcnuncia
tions may sound plausible, and cap.
toned by such titles as THAT Grasp
ing Bureaucracy" Governor Sorlit
Turns Farmers Deaf Ear" ETC., in
true sensation sheet style, great
many people have, no doubt, been
attracted to read same and wonder
what about it? Since these editorials
contain so many misstatcmcnts and
innuendos. we can hardly believe they
were motivatcd purely out of sim
ccre interest in the welfare of the
department or the majority Of the
farmers. There are two sides to
everything, they say, and I trust we
may be permitted to show our view
of this case as follows:
Aforementioned senate bill COM
prised six measures, good and bad,
in one. l shall discuss only the bad
ones, especially the original East
gate bill and the two Pathman bills,
numbers 1O5 and 1O6. The Eastgate
bill could eliminate automatically
from the compulsory listing provi-
sion Of the present law all counties
showing Is per cent or less of the
total acreage in crop, carrying state
hail insurance for the year 1927. The
average insurance carried the last
few years is 80 per cent. According
to our records the Eastgate bill, if
it had become law, would have elm
mated % out of the States SO coun-
ties, leaving only "a to be listed by
compulsion. The effect of this is
obvious. The farmers in the EEK
cepted" counties could get insurance
by applying for it individually it is
true. But the departments records
show that during the eight years
19l1 to 1870 under an option hail
law only very small number of
farmers availed themselves of the
privilege, $4,000 acres being the
maximum volume insured in any one
year. The average premium receipts
for the whole state were between
$4,000 and $4,000 annually This is
no more than il carried by moss any
one of the counties under the present
law, even in the Red River Valley
district. Volume Of business is what
makes possible the exceptionally low
cost Of overhead, andNa wide distri-
button Of risks, is the fundamental
principle of insurance.
Land Owner Can Withdraw
The advocates Of the bill argued
that it was unfair to compel ma
jority to take what they didn't want.
etc. This may be granted, but should
be qualified thus: In civilized soci-
ETY. we profess to make self-sacrifice
our religion for the sake of that
society's good and for the greatest
good to the greatest number, do we
not? We have heard this proc la lined
a grand one, indeed. Let US consider
what the sacrifice is in this case.
All that the land owner is asked to
do by compulsion is to fill out GER
tain blanks withdrawing his crops
from the insurance if protection is
not wanted. Certainly not great
sacrifice when we consider benefits
accruing to the state as a whole. 1t
means insurance furnished to thou
sands, covering six million acres
every year at less than half the cost
at which it could possibly be obtained
in any other way on earth.
Any institution, private or sustain
cd by some association (other than
the North Dakota State Hail Fund)
collecting and distributing at cost
some 26 million dollars to indemnify
against destitution and want, would
and should surely be hailed as a
great philanthropic body Of Red
Cross magnitude.
An injustice perpctratcd upon the
GARNER who does not wish the in
surance? What about other similar
impositions that we must endure in
democracy, such as tax for wolf
bounty, CHAMBERS and dourine fund,
which every taxpayer must pay
regardless Of whether he is directly
benefited? What is there, pray, that
is worth while that we can gain
without some sacrifice, anyhow?
Certainly any good citizen ought to
cheerfully contribute that much
toward the support Of state hail in
surance as to comply with the with
drawal provision for the good of his
fellowman who needs it.
The Trayn0r Provision
So much for the Eastgate portion
of the bill. Then we have the So
called Traynor provision, which
would restrain the department from
levying the one cent flat tax for
1927, on the assumption that the
surplus fund would reach the four
million limit by July LIST this year.
It was also argued that the fund was
large enough already, etc. Repre-
sentative Traynor made the singular
charge that the department juggles
its reports to prevent the fund ever
reaching it's stipulated limit, and in
situated that unless his bill passed
we would continue to levy the flat
tax indefinitely. We resent such in
naturally. We do notl
believe the limit will be exceeded by
The next years levy in view of the
many upsets of tax calculations,
lately. Proponents of the bill refer
rcd to the flat tax as an unjust ex-
tortion, robbing the poor farmer to