origin of farmers alliances

8/3/2019 Origin of Farmers Alliances

1/25

The Origin and Early History of the Farmers' Alliance in Minnesota

Author(s): John D. HicksReviewed work(s):Source: The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Dec., 1922), pp. 203-226Published by: Organization of American HistoriansStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1895977 .Accessed: 15/12/2011 06:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Organization of American Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The Mississippi Valley Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oahhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1895977?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1895977?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oah


2/25

THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE FARMERS'ALLIANCE IN MINNESOTAAmong thevarious rural organizations to gain prominence ntheUnited States after the civil wa,rnone had a,greater recordof achievementthan the national farmers' alliance, which ap-pea.red in the northwesta.s early as 1880 and continueda.ctive

until well toward the close of the century.Throughthe brancheswhich it maintained in most of the western states the north-western allia,nce,as it was more appropria,tely alled, forcedfromdemocrats and republicans a-like n unwonted recognitionof farmers rights.At length, n conjunc,tion ith similarfarmersocieties from other sections of the country, nd withthe activeco6peration of the forces of la,bor, t blossomed forth as thepeople's party with a, national program of reform. Concern-ing the newparty thus crea.ted nd its principles not a, ittle ha,salready beenwritten, ut of theseveral labor and farmer groupsfrom which it.wa,s formed much remains to be told.Creditforfounding he nlational a,rmers,'lliance is generallyconceded to a Chicago editor named Milton George, who usedto advantage the columns of his paper, the WesternRutral, nesta,blishinga local alliance in Cook c,ounty, llinois, and inspreadingfurther he gospel of farmerorganization. The Cookcountya,llianceat firsta,ssumedauthority to grant charters toother locals, but the growing interest ini the movement sooncalled for a, national foundation, which a convention of threehundreddelega,tes, neetinga,tChicago on October 15, 1880,un-dertook to create. The constitution hereadopted set forththatthe object of the order wa,s"to unite the fa.rmers f theUnitedStates for theirprotec,tion gainst cla,sslegislation a,nd the en-croachments f concentra,ted apital and the tyrannyof monop-oly; to provide aga.inst being imposed upon by swindlers andswindling dvertisenmentsn the public prints; to oppose in theirrespective politica,l parties the election of any candidate tooffice,tate or National,whowas not strongly n sympathywith


3/25

204 John D. flicks M. V.H. R.the farmers' interests, to demand that the existing politicalparties shouldnominatefarmers, r those who were in sympathywiththem,for all offices ithin the giftof thepeople; and to doanything n a legitimatemannerthat might serve to benefit heproducer." Obviously the delegates felt,as one conventionora-tor said, that the failure of thefarmers"to get tlheir air shareof the wealth they produced was owing to the neglect, f theirpolitical duties." Only by united actionmight they hope to se-cure their rights.'The plan of organization approved by the Chicago gatheringanticipated the union of the various local chapters into statealliances, subordinate n a general way to the national allianlce,but free to act as they chose on purely state matters. In accor-dance withthis programthe IVestern Rural late in 1881 invitedtheMinnesota locals to send delegates to Rochester,Minnesota,on December 8, 1881,where a secretaryof the national alliancewould meet themin an endeavor to form the desired state or-ganization. There were then n Minnesota some eightyalliancechapters,distributedthrough twenty-fiveifferentounties,butthe interest n the Rochestermeetingwas so sliglht hat only ahandful of delegates appeared at the appointed time and place.After searching in vain for the promised national agent, the"somewhat indig-nant"delegates finallyselected state officerswithouthis help, authori7zeda state lecturer to form newalliances, and adjourned.2It -was some time before the Minnesota,order took root andgrew. The second meeting of the state alliance, held at Man-kato on January 4, 1883, wa.s hardly more auspicious than thefirst. Only eighteen local alliances were represented a.t thisgathering, and neither the president nor the vice-presidentelected at Rochester saw fitto attend. Courageous resolutionswere adopted, however, mainly directed against the railroads,and well-calculated to win farmersupport.3 The third meeting,held in the summerof 1884, registered more definiteprogress.1 Chicago Tribune, October 15, 1880; Solon J. Buck, The agrarian crusade (Theehronicles of America, vol. 45- New Haven, 1920), 117-119.

2Record and Union (Rochester, Minnesota), December 16, 1881; Great West (St.Paul), February 14, 1890.3 Mankato Review, January 9, 1883.


4/25

Vol. IX, No. 3 Farmers' Alliance in Minnesota 205At this time the state secretary reported the existence of 138local chapters and a considerably increased membership. Aformal constitutionwas a,dopted, which sought to encouragegrowthby providinga,mong ther thingsthat the state lecturerand his deputiesmightkeep as theirrewardfifteen ents of thetwenty-fiveentsdues to be collectedfrom each charter memberthey obtained. And the determinationof the alliance to seekreformsbyway of theballot-boxand the legislature was vigor-ously affirmed.4When the fourthannual meetingof the alliance was held inSt. Paul on February 4, 1885,the orderwas a definite actortobe reckonedwith n thepolitics of the state. It was not withoutsignificance hat themeetingtook place during a, session of thestate legislature, and that,the place of meetingwas the sta,tecapital. Disclaiming any desire to become a. political party, oreven to join hands with any existing party, alliance men yetfreely admitted that their order was in a sense political, fortheybelievedtha,t heremedyfortheills fromwhichtheysuffer-ed was to be obtained only"by recourseto the instrumentalitiesof government." The inevit,able esolutions, rged the electionofmen to the legislature who favored "the enactmentof equaland just laws for all interests and all subjects." Clearly thefarmersbelieved that by the enactmentof laws they could putan end to existingdiscriminationisgainst them.5The conditionof thefarming nterestsofthe statewas indeedcritical. Harvests of surpassing abundance, grown upon thecheapest of land, failed none the less to brinlg o the farmermore than the most meager profit, f indeed he received anyprofit ,tall. The root of the evil was the low price of whea,t.Outside the United Sta,tes,particularly in Russia and in theArgentine,wheatwa,sbeing produced in larger and larger quan-*tities,while within the United States itself the expansion ofpopulation into the northwest had enormously increa,sedthearea of wheat-growingands. The population of Minnesota., orexample,grewfrom 597,407in 1875 to 1,117,798 n 1885,nearlydoubling in the ten years; and while a large proportionof thisincreasewentto the rapidly growingtwincities,the number of

4 Ibid., June 17, 1884; Great West, February 14, 1890.5Pioneer Press (St. Paul), February 6, 1885.


5/25

206 JohnD. Hicks M. V. H. R.new farmsopened up was nevertheless arge.6 They contributedtheir share towards what amounted practically to an oversupplyof whea,t n the markets of theworld, and thereforetowards aninevitable decline in the price it would bring. The avera.geamount per bushel received by the Minnesota wheat grower forhis crop in 1884 wa,s estima,tedby the state railway commis-sioner at from forty-two o forty-eight ents. It was generallyagreed that the cost of ra,isinga bushel of wheat was not lessthan forty-fiveents government experts said fromfifty osixty-sevencents.7 "The result," according to a committeeoft.heMinneapolis board of tra,de, is general dissatisfaction andcomplaint throughout he great wheat belt of thenorthwest, ndin many of the newer portions, mpoverishment,ankruptcy,ndgeneral distress. Tra,de is stagnant, the farmers are despon-dent,and financialdisa,ster nd ruin are takingtheplace of thebusiness prosperity, agricultural thriftand the general buoy-ancy which pervaded those regions only a, short time since."The complaints advanced in suchabundance and with such earn-estness could not have been, apparently,the "mere mutteringsof malcontents." They were truly enough the representationsofmen"brought face to face withprobable ruin." 8That the farmershad themselvesto thank for some of theirdistress is probably true. Many of them,withmore optimismthan capital, had gone so deeply into debt for their farm mach-

6Legislative manual of the state of Minnesota. Compiled for the legislature of1891 (St. Paul, 1891), 300-301.7 Annual report of the railway commissionerof Minnesota, to the governor,forthe year ending June 30, 1884 (St. Paul, 1885), 21. Wheat prices of the best gradesin St. Paul (December) were quoted as follows, 1858-1884:

1858 ........... $ .80 1867 ........... $1.40 1876 ........... $1.151859 ........... . 60 1868 ........... . 95 1877 ........... 1. 001860 ........... . 50 1869 ........... . 75 1878 ........... . 781861 ........... . 68 1870 ........... . 85 1879 ........... 1.181862 ........... . 90 1871 ........... 1.10 1880 ........... . 881863 ........... 1.15 1872 ........... . 85 1881 ........... 1.231864 ........... . 90 1873 ........... . 95 1882 ........... . 931865 ........... . 90 1874 ........... . 82 1883 ........... 1.001866 ........... 1.60 1875 ........... . 95 1884 ........... .76

It will be observed that in 1884 the price of wheat reached the lowest level since1869, and that only five times in 27 years had it been lower than 76 cents. SeePioneer Press, January 28, 1885. Local wheat prices would be substantially the St.Paul price less transportationto St. Paul, elevator charges, and the like.8Pioneer Press, February 2, 1884, January 27, 1885.


6/25

Vol. IX, No. 3 Farmiers' Alliance in Minnesota 207inery and improvements hat only the most liberal prices andthe most favorable seasons could have saved them. Others,eager "to get rich in a yea,ror two,"Ihad undertakento farmmore land than theycould reasonablyhope, o give a,dequa,te t-tention.9 Practically all of them depended mainly for theirliving upon the raising of wheat and small grain. The wheatcrop fromseedingtime to ha.rvestoccupied at best but four anda ha-lfmonths, and during the rest,of the year fa,r too manyfarmerswere withoutremunerative mployment.James J. Hill,the railway builder, never lost an opportunityto poilntout,tothe people of the northwestthe perils of the one-crop system,and the necessityof diversified griculture. "There is not onefarmer in five in the northernpart of the state, he com-pla-ined, who raises his own meat or makes his own butter."What thefarmerneeded, accordingto a less friendly riticthanHill, was to raise "more pigs"' and "'less politics."While the farmers' shortcomings nd.the low price of whea,taccount in large part for the agra,riandiscontent n the north-west during the middle eighties,therewere undoubtedlyotherimportantfactors which entered into the situa,tion. Farmersdid not as a rule complain about the low price of wheat in theworld ma,rket.What theydid complainof was the fa,ct ha,t heyreceived so much less, than this price. When wheat sold foreighty-fiveents a bushel in New York, the Minnesota farmerwa,sfortunate lndeed f he received fifty ents a,bushel for hiscrop at the local elevator. The thirty-fiveents differencebe-tween these two figures representedthe cost of transportation,elevatorcharges,and so forth, ees paid not, o theproducer,butto. ra,ilways,warehouse companies, commission merchants andthe like. The farmercla,imed hat if he could only get his fairshare of the price forwhich his grain eventuallysold he wouldbe prosperous enough. "How long," he queried, "even withthese chea.p and wonderfully productive lands, can . . . anya,gricultural ommunity a.ysuch enormoustribut,eo corporateorganizationin times like these. withoutfinal exhaustion?" 11"Corpora,te organization" meant to the Minnesota,fa,rmer

9 Ibid., January 19, 1884.10Pioneer Press, January 12, 19, 1884; James G. Pyle, The Life of James J. Hill(New York, 1917), 1:362.11Pioneer Press, January 27, 1885.


7/25

208 JohnD. Hicks M.V.H. B.primarilythe railway companies. Afterthe panic of 1873 rail-way building in the state was so arrested that for four yearstogether ess than a hundredmiles of new roadbed were com-pleted, but beginningwith1877 constructionwentforwardrap-idly. By theend ofthatyear Minnesot,a oads cla,imed ver twothousandmiles of tra,ckage; by 1880 theyhad passed the threethousand figure; and by 1884 practically four thousand mileswere in use. The state railway commissionernoted also the"striking fact" of railway consolidation. While admittingcheerfully headministration f his officen a way "to encouragethe further nvestmentof capital in railways in this sta,te," heexpressed mild astonishment that the process of consolidationhad gone so far. "The number of sepa,ratera,ilroadcompaniesopera,tingdistinct roads in,Minnesota wa,s as high as twenty,threeyears ago," he said. "Now, the number s reduced sub-stantia,lly o about one-thirdthat number." He might haveadded with equal truthfulness hat so far a.s local hauls wereconcernedconipetitionha.d ceased to exist, if indeed it ever didexist. Mos,tof the new roads were built into undeveloped re-gions wherefromthe first heyhad a,completemonopolyof thebusiness, but if perchance a, "parallel and competing" line ap-peared on the scene "it would be discovered some finemorningthat enough of its stockhad been purcha,sedby the older linesto give themcontrol." 12Thus fortifiedby monopoly,the railroads, a,ccording o thefarmers,collected in excessive rates enough to make the differ-ence betweenprosperityan'druin forthegra,in-grower."Frommanypoints in the Sta,te," wroteGovernorHubba,rd in his an-nua,lmessage to the legislature in 1885,"one-half thevalue of abushel ofwheat is takenfor its transportation o Chicago, whilefrom remote stations the freight and a,ccompanying hargesupon certain kinds and grades,ofgrain,amountalmost to a, con-fiscation.I IMost of this toll,moreover,wa.stakenby the localroads. For example,therates fromFargo to Duluth were near-

12 .Antnual report of the railway commissioner, 881, pp. 4-5; Pioneer Press, Janu-ary 31, 1884.13 Bieinnial message of GovernorL. F. Hubbard to the legislature of Minnesota,delivered January 7, 1885. Printed by authority (St. Paul, 1885), 42-43. Printedalso in Pioneer Press, January 8, 1885.


8/25

Vol. IX,No.3 Farmers'Alliance nMinnesota 209ly double hosefromMiinneapoliso Chicago a distance wiceas great. It cost as much s twenty-fiveents bushelfreighttogetgraini rommanyMinnesotatations o St. Paul or Min-neapolis,wllenloronly few entsmore t couldbe transportedall thewayto theseaboard. Indeed,evidencewas at handtoshowtllatwheat ould actuallybe sentfromChicagoto Liver-pool for ess thanfrom henorthwesternartofMinnesota othetwin ities. As thepriceof wheatdeclined,hesehigh ocalfreights eemedto the farmermore and moreunreasonable.Costsofniearlyverythinglse were ess thantheyhad beenafewyears before,but freight ates remainedpractically hesame as wheni hea.t ad brought alfagain as much. It lookedas if theprinciple f "charging ll thetrafficouldbear" wasbeingpushed o the imit.14The railroadsnever ailed omake showingn their wnde-fence. Theypointed utthatthehigh ocalrateswere ustifiedbecausethetrafficf the northwest as nearly ll in one direc-tion. Durinig ne season of theyear for every car of wheathauledout an emptyar hadtobehauled n,while herestof thetimeabout ninety er centof the traffic entfromChicago tothenorthwestTheyasserted hatthenewroadswereoftennterritoryparsely ettled nd operated t a loss even withthehighest frates. JamesJ.Hillmaintainedhatthe roadswerereducing atesas fastas they ould, nd to prove t he evende-dlaredhimself willing hat hestatemake ny rates t see fit,"provided he statewould guaranteethe roads6% ontheir c-tual cost aiid a fundformaintenance,enewal nd otherneces-saryexpenditures.Butthefarmers ad ittle se for uch rgu-ments. They believedthatthe roads tookadvantage of thewell-nlighbsolutedependence f thenorthwest pon themforcontactwiththe outsideworld; that theybuiltfeeders ntosparsely ettled egions, ftenn advance of immigration,nlyto preempt he field or future xpansion; hat theydemandedfrom armersivingn civilization ateshigh nough ot only opay interestupon these speculativeinvestments, ut also to payintereston wateredcapital stocknever investedat all.'5

14 Ibid., January 26, 1884, January 27, 1885; Annual report of the railway com-inissioner,884,p. 21.15Pioaeer Press, January 3, 27, 29, 31, February 3, 7, 1885.


9/25

210 John D. Hicks M. V. H. R.Some Minilesota.roads made? their reputations eveln worsethan was generallythe case by charging "transit" or through

rates on all the whea,t hey ca.rried. Companies makiing se ofthis device were selfishly determined to get. every dollar ofrevenue they could from. heir customers. They deman-ded hatthe wheat shipperpay in advance thefull ra,te o Chica,goor Mil-waukee, or whatevercity happened to be their ea-sterumlmoster-minal. They refused entirely to quote local rates to Minne-apolis or St. Paul, fea-ring hat if theydid so the grain mightbetransferred t those points to some otherroad. It was well un-derstood, however,tha,t he shipper who pa,id "transit" ratesmight unloa,dhis grain a,t a,nymillilng enter, or at anlymill ontheroute,have it ground,and thenship it out, gain as flour, nthe sa,merate contract. And if he disposed of his grain finallyat such a poinlt,he mightsell thebalance of his unused freightfor wha,t t would bring.Suppose, forexample,that a,grain dealer a,tMilbank,Dakota,just across thewestern border of Minnesota,wished to sell hiswheat in Minneapolis. According to the rules of the Hastingsand Dakota road, over which he must ship,he was not allowedto pay loca,lfreight o Minneapolis,but he was compelledto payfull " tra,nsit rates to Milwaukee - forty cenits a hundredpounds instead of thetwenty ents a hundredwhichshouldnor-mallyhave been charged. Afterdisposing of his wheat in Mlin-neapolis the dealer still had on his, hands a, qua.ntityof unex-pended freight romMininea,poliso Milwaukee,forwhich he hadpaid approxima,tely wenty cents a hundred. This he offeredfor sale on the open ma,rket, ut beca.use "transit," as the unl-used freightwas called, was too plentiful,and sold only at a,discount of from two and one half to five cents per hundredpounds, the Milbank shipperwas fortuna,teo get fifteenients,or a little more depending on t,hemarket,for transportationwhich had cost him t,wentyents. This loss he lea,rned o lookupon a.s inevitable,and as inevitablyhe protected himself iber-ally against it in advance by loweringthe price paid the fa.rmerforhis grain. "Tra,nsit wheat," that is, wheat which had to beshipped over roads quoting transit rates only, always broughtfromthreeto fivecentsa,bushel less tha,n free wheat.


10/25

Vol. X, No. 3 Farmers' Alliance in Minnesota 211Small wonder hatfarmersiving n "transit" regionsfeltthemselves o be defrauded f theirrightful rofits! Thereis

"probably n no otherportion f thiscountry," ommentedheconservativeioneer Press, "any class ofpeople subjected osuchmiserable ppression, xercised y a power o which hereis noresistenceo be offered,nd fromwhosedominionhere sno escape. . . . Those who would submitquietly to such outragemustbe eithermoreor less thanmen." 6Norwas thecharging f excessive ndunreasonable ates theonlyrailwaygrievance f which hefarmersomplained. Theyassertedthatthe transportationompanies iscriminated efi-nitely gainstthe small shipper, nd in favorof his largercom-petitors. The local grain merchant ithout levatorfacilities,or the farmer esiring o shiphis own grain, nvariablyhadgreater nd graverdifficultiesith he roadsthandid the argeelevator ompanies. These atter, he farmers ontended, erefavored by "inside rates," by rebates, and by preferentialtreatment ithregard o cars. Secret rateunderstandingse-tween he railroads and the elevator ompanieswere hard toprove, utdiscrimination ith espect o cars was open and no-torious. "Parties desiring o ship grain,whether roducers rpurchasers,"ran a regulation n force on the Hill system,'where there s an elevator,must hipthrought, or constructan elevator f at least 30,000bushels apacity, r cars will notbe furnished." No doubt, s GovernorHubbard pointedout,therailroads ound t a matter f"economy,rofit,ndconven-ience" to receive "large, frequent nd easily regulated hip-ments nder ontracts ith smaller umberfshippers rath-erthan obotherwith mall nd rregularhipmentsrommanydifferentources. But thiscouldnot beregarded s a sufficientapologyforthe failureof supposedly ommon arriers o giveequal treatmento all thosewhodesired o use their ines." Therailways annothave a choiceofcustomers," eclaredthe im-potent ailway ommissioner. Railways, ike nn-keepers,usttakeall thatcometill thequarters re full. If it is an incon-venience to furnish ars to flat-houses r merchants, he answer

16 The subject of "transit" rates is fully discused in the Annual report of therailway co&mimi,sioner,884, p. 23; and in thePioneer Press, January 26, 1884.1 4 *


11/25

212 John . Hicks M.V.H R.is, that is just what the railways a-repaid for; to serve thepublic generally is their proper function." 7

Closely connectedwith the problemof the railroads wa,sthatof the elevators. Some grain houses were ownedby individualsor local companies who ran one or more elevators in neighbor-ing towns. A few were owned by the railway companies them-selves. Still others were the property of large corporationswhich operated a whole string of elevators up and down theentire ength of a railway line. These larger companies,whosecapital wa,s usually subscribed in part at least by the AMinneap-olis millers, naturally built better and more commodioushouses than the sma,ller ompanies; theywere more efficientntheirmanner of doing business; and theywere easily the favor-ites of the railroads. All the companies, large or small, mustobta,inon whatevertermsthe ra,ilwaycompanies saw fitto im-pose such special privileges as the rightto build upon railroadland, and the right to proper sidetrackfacilities. By refusingthese favors the roads could prevent,and did prevent,the erec-tion ofnew elevators where they deemed the old onies dequa,te,but once an elevator was authorized it could usually count onrailway support.18Thanks ma,inly o their satisfactoryrelations with the rail-roads,the first leva,tor oim.panieso covera,territory nijoved n.their respective localities almost a complete moniopolyof thegrain business, both buying and selling. Wherever elevatorsexisted the roads virtually required tha,t hipmentsof grain bemade throughthem,for in practice if not in theorycars wereseldomfurnished o thosewhowished t,o void the eleva,tor, ndto load theirgrain fromwagons or from flat warehouses. Onthe face of it this rule seemedha,rmless niough, or the elevator

17 Annual report of the railway comminssioner,883, pp. 15-19; Bientnial messageof GovernorHubbard, deliveredJanuary 7, 1885, 40; Pioneer Press, January 8, 1885An eastern railway president wrote to Ignatius Donnelly: "'One of these days thepeople of the Northwestwill seize on the railroads and run them. And they will beriglht. At the East we have consciences. But I never saw such insoucientservices tothe charteringparty charged for at as lofty a rate as by three or four roads thatrun into St. Paul." Appleton Morgan to Donnelly, November 25, 1886, in the Don-nelly papers, in the possession of the Minnesota historical societ,y.18Annual report of the railway commissioner, 884, pp. 17-20; Annual report ofthe railroad and warehouses ommissionof Minnesota to the gov,ernor. For the yearendizngNovember30, 1889 (Minneapolis, 1890), 13-14.


12/25

Vol. IX, No.3 Farmers' Alliance in Minnesota 213companies were supposedly under obligations to serve the gen-eral public, and to ship gra,infor all comers on equal terms.This theymight have done with fair impartialityhad theynotbeen engagedthemselves n the buyingand selling ofgrain. Butsince it wa,sthe chief concern of the elevator operator to pur-chase and ship all the grain he could get,he could hardlybe ex-pectedto takemuch nterest nprovidingfacilitiesforthefarmerwho wished to ship directly,or for the competitivegrain mer-chantwho lacked an eleva,torof his own. The resultwa,sthatthe independent buyer wa.s speedily "frozen out," and thefarmerfound that if he wa,s to get rid of his gra,inat all hemustsell to thelocal eleva,tor or what-ever rice he was offered.He cla,imedrightly that under such a systemhe wa.s denied a"free market" for his grain. To all except the privileged ele-va,torcompanies the marketwas closed.19This absence of a free market was the chiefrea.son assignedby the farmers. for the low prices they were paid for theirgrain. Since the elevator men had a monopoly of the grainbuyingbusiness, what was to prevent themfrompaying onlysuch a figurea,s their pleasure and interestsmightdictate? Ifthere wa,s only one eleva,tor t a station it was clear that theoperatorwas a law untohimself, nd might pay what he chose.Even if therewere several elevators there was only rarely com-petition as to price. Poolinigwas sometimes resorted to, butusually agreementswithregard to prices could be reached with-out this device, ea,chelevator taking its sha.reof grain withoutattemptingto capture the business of its neighbor.20When. heelevator companiespa,id owerprices than were jus-tifiable, heynaturallyma,de n effort o conceal the fact. Theyknewthat t,he rice of wheat in Minneapolis or Chicago at, anygiven time was public informa,tion.The railway rates to sucha terminalwere also known to all. If, therefore, hey openlyexacted more than a reasonable profitfor handling grain theirpracticewould be subjected to an unpleasant and "pitiless" pub-licity. So they genera,lly uoted as good prices as could be! rea.-sonably expected,considering the highfreighttheyhad to pay,

19Annual report of the railway commissioner, 883, p. 19; ibi., 1884, pp. 19-20;Pioneer Press, January 19, 1884.20Pioneer Press, January 12, 19, 1884.


13/25

214 JohnD. Hicks M. V. H. R.and the currentmarket,values of wheat at the terminals towhich they shipped. For their long profitsthey relied uponmore skilful means. Wheat, as presented for sa,le, was ofcourse of uneven quality, and must be graded before a pricecould be assigned. Customhad established certain standards ofgrading; for example, wheat ranked a.s numberone hard mustweigh fifty-eightounds or more to the bu.shel,must be clean,of a good color, and at least ninetyper cent pure hard wheat.Grain whichwa,s too light in weight,or which contained foulseed, and was dirty, ff-color,r frostedwas,graded accordingly.It was in determining hese grades that the elevator men hadthebest opportunity o reduce theprice pa,idto the farmer,forthe buyer fixedthe grades a,t will aftermaking such an exam-ina,tion f the wheat as he sa,w fit. The farmerhad nothing tosa,y bout it. If he objected to the grade and price he wa,s offer-ed he had no recourse but to take his gra,in o anotherelevator,probably only to find that there the same conditionprevailed.Nor was another elevator always available.

Undoubtedly there was great. irregula,rity nd unfairnessabout the grading of grain. Farmers at, one station claimedthat, heyhad never received a grade of numberone ha,rd, ndvery ittle fany numberone regular. They therefore ppointeda committeeof three to follow a, shipmentof thirtycars fromtheir town to Duluth, where theyfoulnd hat four of the ca.rshad been gra.dednumberone hard, tennumber one regular, andnearly all above the gra,des the farmers received. The localelevator had profitedaccordingly. It wa,s a,lleged in anothercommunity hatwheatfromthesame field,grownfrom the sameseed, and harvested at the same time,had been graded somenumberone, some number two, and some rejected. At best theelevator operators were anxious to grade low enoughto protectthemselves gainst losses. Charles A. Pillsbury,one of themostprominentelevator men in the state, himselfadmitted that atthebeginningof the crop season, grades at Minneapolis and Du-luth were much more liberal than later when the supply wasgreater and the demand had diminished. Oft,en nough,eleva,-tor operat.ors n the early part of the season graded accordingto their honest judgment,but later on when inspection at theterminalpoints had tightenedup, theybecame frightened nd


14/25

Vol. X, No.3 Farmiers'Alliance n Minnesota 215refused "for days at a time to grade anythingabove numbertwo hard, no ma.tterwha.tthe quality offered." The state rail-way commissioner estimated conserva,tively, e believed, thatthe farmer ost on an average about fivecents a bushel throughunfairgrading. Many said twice that amount.2'These in a generalway were thepractices of the elevator com-panies and of the railways to which the Minnesota farmersob-jected. The state railway commissioner n his report for 1884commentedon the fact that his officewa,s deluged with com-plaints about "transportation rates, transit rates, discrimina-tions,facilitiesfor shippinggra,in nd matters of kindredchar-acter . . . intermingledwithothers a,s to the arbitrarymethodof the grading of wheat." These evils he wa.s helpless to cor-rect, for, as a farmers' alliance speaker at Mankato bluntlyphrased it, he ha,d "no authorityto do anything." "The! rail-way code of Minnesota," declared the commissionerhimself,"is undoubtedly the most meager and defective of any of thenorthern States. The legislative action of 1871 wa.s carried tosuch an extreme that in the reaction the people of the Statenaturallyfeared to reopen the subject .... New questions andnewdifficultiesave constantlypresented themselves . . . whichare whollybeyond means of redress under existing statutes."Nor were laws to correctelevator abuses any less conspicuouslywanting.22It was the determinationof the farmers' alliance to see thatthis missing authoritywa,s supplied. Thanks to the grangerdecisions,whichestablishedtheprinciple thata sta,temightregu-late businesses of a public nature,23t wa,s assumed that therecould be no question as to the constitutionalityof such pro-cedure. Nor was thereany denying themoral right of a peopleto exercise a wide measure of control over railroads,built byland grant assistance, and over an elevator system authorizedby these roads. It was claimed by alliance leaders that foreach mile of track constructed n Minnesota more than $20,000had been expendedby thepublic in giftsof land, not to mention

21 Annual reportof the railway commissioner, 883, pp. 12-15; Appleton's annualcyclopaedia, 1882, p. 560; Pioneer Press, January 19, 1884.22 Annual report of the railway commissioner,1884, pp. 9-11; Mankato Review,June 17, 1884.23 Solon J. Buck, The granger movement Cambridge, 1913), 206.


15/25

216 JohnD. Hicks M. V. H. R.otherassistance receivedby the roads fromcounties,townships,and municipalities. "We, the people," argued one lecturer,"have giventhemthousands. nd thousands of acres of land ....Under thesecircumstances t is ... just and rightthat we shouldhave something to say about their management." 24 As ameans to this end the alliance organizationused its influencetoput men in the state legislature who could be trusted to carryout the farmers' program of reform. So successful was thismovementthat, when the session of 1885 opened, the house wasconceded to be "pretty much granger," and the conservativesenate faced the grave duty of keeping in check a sturdycom-pany of "fresh and self-conscious" countrymembers.25So insistent was the demand of the farmers for relief thatfromthe opening days of the session it was evident that botha railway and an elevator bill would be passed, even thoughneither could be expected to go as far as the farmersdesired.Hoping to obtain an "open market freefromall discriminationsby railroads, and . . . wheat transportation . . at the lowestpossible rate," 26 the alliance men generally favored the cre-ation of an electiverailway and warehouse commissionof threenembers,which should have the most extensivepowers of "in-spection, supervision, inquisition, and prosecution," includingthe right to enforce the "long and short haul" principle, andwherever it was deemed necessary, to fix and maintain maxi-mumrates. As for the elevator monopoly,some stringent ys-tem of state inspection and control must be devised. To thealliance demands the railway and the elevator companies wereby no means prepared to yield. Railroad men, led by JamesJ. Hill, foughtvaliantly against any controlby the state in thematter of making rates, and elevator owners under Senator

24 Pioneer Press, February 7, 1885. The state railway commissionerfurnishedthese statistics: Congressional grants .......... 12,151,527 acresSwamp lands ................ 1,811,750 acresTotal ................ 13,963,277 acresThis meant 4,259 acres of land for every mile of railway in the state, worth$21,295 if valued at $5 per acre. -Annualreport of the railway commmissioner,882,p. 37.25 Pioneer Press, January 5, February 11, 1885; W. Muzzy to Donnelly,December7, 1886, Donnelly papers.26 Mankato 7Review,une 17, 1884.


16/25

Vol. IX, No. 3 Farmers' Alliance in Minanesota 217Charles A. Pillsbury even threatened to convert their publicelevators into private grain houses if their activities were tooclosely circumscribed. Since the state senate proved to bemore keenly sensitive to thewishes of the corporationsthan tothe wishes of the farmers' alliance, the advocates of radicalmeasures sustained frequentdisappointments. House bills,re-flectedfairly accurately the desires of the farmers; senate billsreceived the hearty sanction of the interests to be regulated;and the compromisemeasures finallypa.ssed yielded somethingto each side.27

Disappointing as in some respects it, was, the legislationenacted registered definiteprogress for the farmers. Everyrailway company n the statewas requiredto permit any person,company, r corporationfor one dollar a year rentalto constructand operate an elevator or warehouse of any desired size at aregular railway station, and upon or along the right of way.It was thought that this,provision would create a free marketby encouragingthe building of many country elevators,whoseactivities would be regulated by close competition. A railwaycompany must also provide reasonable sidetrack facilities forall grain houses; it must furnishcars to elevators, warehouses,and those desiring to ship from sidetracks without aniydis-criminationwhatsoever; and it must forward the grain to thepoint indicated by the shipper, "or in the directionthereof,"with reasonable dispatch and at reasonable rates. A railroadand warehouse commission of three members, to be appointedby the governor,was authorized to enforce these regulationsby negotiations with the companies if it could, and by prosecu-tion in the courts if it. must.28 The "long and short haul"clause, which was included in the house bill, was eliminated bythe senate, as was also the rig,ht f the commission to fix maxi-mum rates. The grain bill, which dealt,with the elevators, or-dered the same commission to establish grain grades, and todevise machinery for the grading and weighing by state in-spectorsof all grain handled at the terminal points St. Paul,

27 The debates on these bills are given in part in the,Pioneer Press, January-February, 1885. See especially January 30, February 5, 13.28 General laws of the state of Minnesota passed during the twenty-fowrthessionof the state legislature (St. Paul, 1885), 243-253.


17/25

218 JohnD. Hicks M. V.H. R.Minneapolis, and Duluth. All elevators in these cities weredeclared to be public grain houses, and were required to pro-cure licenses before doing business.29 The great number andvariety of the countryelevators made it seem out of the ques-tionto try to inspectgrain buying everywhere, nd furthermoreit was maintainedthat"if a fair,equitable and uniform ystemof inspection could be established at the terminalpoints, uponwhich the countrybuyer could depend witha reasonable degreeof assurance, he in turn would establish his grades in conform-ity thereto,and thus the producer who was compelled to mar-ket his grain at the local station,would secure indirectlythebenefits f the new system." 0The railroad and warehouse commission, reated by the legis-lation of 1885, acquitted itselfcreditablyconsideringthehandi-caps under which it worked. It scored its greatest success,perhaps,wvhentput intoeffect t the terminalpointsmentionedin the law uniformgrades in wheat and othergrain, and a uni-formsystemofweighing. From the railways it forceda reluc-tant consentto the total abolition of "transit" rates, except astheyexisted in purely optional form, nd to a state-widethree-centpassenger fare.3' Its effortsto maintain a free and opengrain market,by enforcingthe right of every person for onedollar a year rental to erect a warehouse upon railway land,were doomed, however, to quick disappointment. The statesupreme court held on the firsttest case that this procedurewas uinconstitutional,ince it authorized the taking of privatepropertywithoutadequate compensation,and withoutthe con-sentoftheowners.32 In manyotherways the commissionfoundits work seriously hampered. If the railways chose to obeyits orders,all wentwell enough; but ifnot,theonlycourse openwas to institute udicial proceedings,and pending the outcomeof litigation a matterofmonthsand years - the roads invar-iably did as theypleased. To be fullyeffective,he commissionneeded the right to make and to enforce such rates and suchregulationsas it deemed advisable.33

29 General laws of the state of Minnesota, 136-148.30Annua report of the railroad an warehoue commission,1890, part 1, pp. 7-8.31 Ibid., 1885, p. 11; 1886, pp. 9, 11, 45; 1888, pp. 10-11.32 Ibid., 1886, pp. 14-15; 36 Minnesota, 402.33 A bill giving it the desired authoritywas submitted by the commissionto thelegislature of 1887, and is printed in the Annual report, 1887, pp. 163-201.


18/25

Vol. IX, No. 3 Farmers'Alliance n AMinnesota 219There remainedthereforemanybattles for the farmersi' lli-ance yet to win, and early in 1886 anothermobilizationof far-

mer forces began. Following the annual February conventionof the alliance, at whichtheusual resolutionswere adopted withunusual enthusiasm,34he state executivecommitteemet in con-ference at St. Paul to lay plans for the fall campaign. Theirintentionswere boldlyannouncedin a circular letter to therankand file: "We do not desire to organize a political party," itran. "We hope that one party or the otherwill present a setof candidates that we can endorse."' At another alliance gath-ering, held on September 1, it was decided to sound out theolderparties on platformsas well as candidates, and committeeswere authorized to present to each conventionthe farmers' de-mrands.35 o impressed were democrats and republicans alikewith this threateningattitude that they both made haste tocompromisewith it. The republicans turned down the candi-date for governor most favored by alliance leaders, but theyreceived the alliance committeewithevery show of respect,andthey adopted resolutions even more radical than the farmersurged.3' The democrats gave slight considerationto the visit-ing committee,for whose spokesman, Ignatius Donnelly, theyhad small regard,but theyadopted a liberal platform, nd theynominateda candidate at thehead oftheirticketwhowas knownto be stronglyfavorable to the farmers' cause.37 Under thecircumstancesthe alliance stood a fair chance to get some ofits views translatedinto law whicheverparty won the election;but the leaders, withDonnelly dissenting,decided to throwthefarmervote to the democrats. They succeeded to a remarkabledegree, for the republican ticket won by a margin of but 3,400votes instead ofmanytimesthatnumberas would normallyhavebeen the case. Had Donnelly co6perated it is probably true,as he claimed, that he "couldc have carried the state for thedemocratic candidate for governor by 10,000 majority." In

34 The platformis printed in the Pioneer Press, February 25, 1886.35 Ibid., May 27, June 5, September 2, 1886.36 A historyof the republican party from its organization to the present time, towhichis added a political historyof Minnesota from a republican point of view andbiographical sketches of leading Minnesota republicans, published by Eugene V.Smalley (St. Paul, 1896), 223. The platformadopted is given in full in the PioneerPress, September26, 1886.37 Ibid., September 15, 1886.


19/25

220 John D. Hicks M.V. H. ZR.the congressional contests of the year the independentvotingwa.s so great that for the first ime since the civil war a demo-cratic delegation was sent to congress three democrats to tworepublicans. As for the legislature it seemed certain that menofa.llianceprinciples would controlboth houses.38Among those elected to the legislature in 1886 was the quix-otic Donnelly himself, wlho now stepped forward uninvitedtolead the; farmers' cause. He warned Governor-electMcGillthat the new administrationmust "t.ake advanced and positiveground in favor of the chief measures enunciated in the Re-publican state platform . . If this, s not done and the Legisla-ture does not sustain you, the Democracy will sweep the statein 1888." Donnelly only spoke the minds of the Republicanleaders, who were already badly frightened t, the prospect oflosing theirhold on the state. They therefore nterposed fewobstacles in the way of the success of the alliance reforms.Whien he legislaturemet,they permittedDonnellyto obtain themost importantcommittee ppointments n the house of repre-sentatives, and in general they gave the alliance men a freerein- one mightbetter say, all the rope they wanted.39While the legislature was in session tlh.e armers' allianeemetin annual convention nd stated its terms anew. The plat-form adopted called for an intricatesystem of state inspectionof the country elevators, new and more stringent grain andwarehouse legislation, reduction of the legal rate of interestfrom tenper centto eight per cent, a constitutional mendmentdeclaring all combinations which interfered with the freedomof the food markeltsof the state to be criminal conspiraciesand another giving to the legislature or such officers s itmight designate the right to make or alter railway fares atwill, to establish the long and shorthaul principle,and in var-ious ways to regulate the railroads. These were the measureswhichDonnelly and his colleagues lhopedto push through.40They were doomed to bitter disappointment. The op,por-

38Donnelly to Lucius Q. C. Lamar, January 1, 1887, Donnelly papers; Smalley,History of the republicamparty, 224-225.39 Donnelly to McGill, November 8, 1886, Donnelly papers; John D. Hicks, "Thepolitical career of Ignatius Doninelly," in MISSISSIPPI VALLEY HISTORICAL REVIEW,8:107-108.40 PionteerPress, February 3, 5, 1887.


20/25

Vol. IX, No. 3 Farmers' Alliance in Minnesota 221tunityto exert authoritywas too much for Donnelly,who con-ducted himself "like a bull in a china shop," and speedilylost the support of many whose views accorded withhis. "Wehad to sit down on Donnellyin order to get any legislation thisterm," said one of his colleagues. "He got the idea no billcould pass the House withouthis 0. K." To dissension amongthe reformerswas added the active lobbyingof the interestedcorporations,who whittled down the farmer majority in thehouse, and virtually abolished it in the senate. The grainbills, theusury bill, and the railway amendmentfailed one afteranother, as did many minor measures dear to the farmers'hearts.4' The food monopolyamendmentwas passed, and wasfina.lly dopted at the polls, but it was mostly rhetoric.42Aboutthe only measure of importance t.o become law was a generalrevisionof the railroad and warehouse commission act of 1885.There was much that was comforting o alliance men aboutthis law. It enlarged the powers, duties, and responsibilitiesof the commission,added provisions to prevent rebates andpooling, required that charges should be "equal and reason-able," and no higher"for a shorterthan for a longer distanceover the same line," forbade hindrances to through transpor-tation over whatever route the shipper desired to use, andinsisted on ample facilities for all localities without discrimina-tion. Moreover the law came very close to giving the commis-sion full rate-makingauthority. It provided that in case anypart of thepublishedtariffs f rates, fa.res, harges, or classifi-cations sllould be found by the commission to be unequal andunreasoniable, he commissionshould have the power "to com-pel any common carrier to change the same and adopt suchrate, fare, charge, or classification as said commission shall

41 A. H. B3akerto jLightbourn,February 22, 1887, Do-nnellypapers; HarlanP. Hall, Observations; being more or less a history of political contests in Minne-sota fromn849 to 1904 (St. Paul, 1904), 224; Labor Echo (St. Paul), October 20,1888. The fate of the various alliance measures may also be ascertained from thejournals of the house and senate: Journal of the house of the twenty-fifthessionof the legislature of the state of Minnesota (St. Paul, 1887), 437, 609; Journal ofthe senate of the twenty-fifthession of the legislature of the state of Minnesota(St. Paul, 1887), 511, 514, 603, 700, 963.

42 William Anderson, A history of the constitution of Minnesota with the firstverifiedtext (University of Minnesota studies in the social sciences, no. 15 - Min-neapolis, 1921), 221.


21/25


22/25

Vol. X, No. 3 Farmers'Alliance n Minnesota 223laborleaders to name a farm nd laborticket, uttheir andi-dates declinednomination,nd evenbefore heday ofelectiontheirpartyhad disappeared. Others,ed byDonnelly, avoredcobperation ith herepublicans, hosecandidateforgovernorproclaimedoudlyhis sympathyorthefarmers. Still othershopedforreformhrough emocratic ictory. Withthefarmervote thus dividedtheelectionwas morenearlynormal han thad been foryears,and thelegislaturewhichresulted howedlittledisposition o take up radical legislation. To be sure,it didputa modified ustralianballot aw onthe statute ooks,and it made an appropriationof $100,000to help farmerswhosecrops had beendestroyed yhail,frost, r blight obuyseedgrain,butthemorepressingdemands fthealliancewereignored. WithDonnelly bsent he had beendefeated orre-electionmany of themwerenotevengiven an airing.40It was nowperfectlylearthattheallianceneedednewmem-bersanda newpolicy fitwere to succeed. The newmemberscameeasily. Earlyin1889Donnelly ecame tate ecturer,ndwithan able forceof deputieshe undertooko spreadthealli-ancegospel to every orner fthe state. A weekly ewspaper,theGreatWest,editedin St. Paul, assistedmat.eriallyn thegood work. Farmerswere as readyas ever to be impressedby reform ropaganda,forthepriceofwheatwas still ow,47freight atesandelevatorprofits ad notbeengreatly educed,and mortgages emainedwell-nigh niversal. Thanksmainlyto systematicultivation f thefield, henumber f local alli-ances and of affiliatedmembersgrew by leaps and bounds.With the ncrease n membershiphepolicyof thealliancebe-gan likewise oundergo change. Heretoforet had beeni en-erallyunderstood hattheorganization ad no thought f be-coming political.party. Now,members sked,whyshouldthealliancehesitate ongeraboutgoingintopolitics? It had

443Smalley, History of the republican party, 226-230, gives the history of thecampaign of 1888. The legislation of 1889 is reviewed briefly n Appleton's annualcyclopaedia, 1889, pp. 561-563. The election law is in General laws of the state ofMinnesota, 1889, pp. 12-40. It was further amended by subsequent legislatures.Ibid., 1891, pp. 23-67; ibid., 1893, pp. 16-78. The seed grain law may be foundibid., 1889, pp. 41-46. It was by no means unprecedented.

47 Prices in St. Paul were quoted in the Pioneer Press as from seventy-fiveentsto eighty-fiveents in January,1888, and a little under one dollar in January,1889.


23/25

224 JohnD. Hicks M. V. H. R,tried repeatedly to gain ground,by use of the older parties,and had always fallen far short of its objectives. Why shoulditnot strikeoutfor tselfe 48The historyof the alliance movement n Minnesota fromthistime on need not be repeated here. For the sake of complete-ness, however,a little ought to be! said about subsequent legis-lationinwhich attemptsweremade to realize alliance ambitions.One ra,ther utile aw passed in 1891 subjected to heavy fine! llthose who were responsible for the formationof pools, trusts,combinations,or agreementsto regulate or fixthe price of oil,lumber,coal, grain,flour,provisions,or "any othercommodityor article whatever." In 1893 an amendment added to thepunishmentby finea penitentiarysentenceof fromone to tenyears.49 Another ill-starred statute provided for the erectionat Duluth of a st,ateterminalelevator of 1,500,000bushels ca-pacity for the public storage of grain. It, was expected thatthis elevator would secure to the farmersof the northernpartof the state the opportunity o ship their grain to a primarymarket nstead of selling it to the eleva,tors t countryrailroadstations,as theywere virtually compelled to do. But the ele-vator was never built. The appropriation for the purpose wasmade inlcorrectlyroma practicallynonexistentgrain and ware-house fund, nstead of fromthe general fund,and the a.ttorney-general ruled tha,t herewas no way to make themoneyavail-able. The state supreme court later held that the entire lawwas in violation of article 9, section 5, of the constitution ofMinnesota, whichforbids the state to "contract any debts forworks of internal improvements, r be a party in carryingonsuch works." 50 More successfulwas the long-delayedcountryelevator law. Terminal elevators had been subject to stateregulation and inspectionsince 1885, but the countryelevatorswere still free from public cont,rol,nd could declare whatevergrades they clhose. Officialnspectionunder the old law couldbe obtainedonlyby loading and consigninggrain to theterminal

48 Smalley, History of the republican party, 232-236; Appleton's annual cyolo-paedia, 1890, pp. 299, 556-557; Legislative manual of the state of Miinnesota, 1891,pp. 485-492.49 General laws of the state of Minnesota, 1891, pp. 82-83; ibid., 1893, p. 251.50 Ibid., pp. 140-143; Annual report of the railroad and warehouse commission,1893, pp. 8-20; 56 Minnesota, 100.


24/25

Vol. IX, No. 3 Farmers' Alliance in Minnesota 225points- a difficult rocess for the small shipper. A law of1893 subjected all elevators and warehouses engaged in thebusiness of receiving, storing, and shipping grain to regu-lation by the state railroad and warehouse commission, nd re-quired them to take out licenses as public elevators. Localinspectors were not provided, however, as in the case of theterminalelevators,but disputes and disagreementsas to grade,arising between the countrybuyer and seller, could be referredto the chief nspectorof the state,who must then determine hequality or grade of the grain fromsamples submittedto him.The law provided a.lso that the operators of countryelevatorsshould issue negotiable warehouse receipts, which the holdermiglht ell whereverand to whomsoeverhe chose. These pro-visionls did much to insure fair treatmentto the farmer at thelocal stations.5'The farmers' alliance in its lifetimereally accomplished agreat deal, but it failed certainly to bring on an agriculturalmillenium. At lea.st one reason for the continued ack of pros-perityof the farmerswas pointed out by the New York Nationwhen it insisted that the rural classes. were "a priori 'unpro-tected,' the victims of a systemof free-tradeselling and 'pro-tected' purchasing-in their economic relations as consumerspaying heavy prices for high tariffgoods, and as producersmost of them selling against the competition of the world'smarkets." The same journal was less inspired when it gavespace to the followingparagraph, which, incidentally, s stillan ortlhodox xplanation of agrarian discontent: "Every fewyears.there comes to the surface of thingsa.gricultural n orga-nization of one kind or another that proposes to amend theworld in the interestof the farmer . . . . When, afterthe lapseoftime,the farmersfindout that theyhave been 'fooled again,the organization falls in pieces, and the agricultural classesgo onwiththeirfarmwork,takingtheirchances withthenationat large until they have forgottenthe lesson and st.artagainunder fresh leaders to fresh disasters. A few years ago itwas the Grange, now it is the Alliance." 52 And to-day, one

51General laws of the state of Minnesota, 1893, pp. 131-138; Annual report ofthe railroad anidwarehousecommission,1894, pp. 35-36.52 Nation, 50:269, 329.


25/25

226 JohnD. Hicks M. V. H. R.mightadd, it is the nonpartisan league and theAmerican farmbureau federation.

But this argumentfails to take into consideration the factthatthegrange,the alliance, thelea.gue, nd thefederationhaveeach in turngained substantialvictories for the farmers. Nonehas obtained all that it.s founders expected of it, but each hasmade progress. By these organized protests the farmerfromntime to timehas forced the older parties to take up his cause,and to grant him concession after concession. If in the endthe organizationhe has used "falls in pieces," that is a smallmatter,provided the ground gained by it is not enltirelyost.And the formation of another organization whenimore griev-ances are to be redressed is evidence that a lessolnhas beenlearned ratherthanthat one has been forgotten. If our preselntday agrarian orders pass into oblivion after winning a fewvictories,how can it be said that theyhave failed? And whocan blame the American farmerof some years hence if he en-deavors once again to makehistoryrepeat itself

JOHND. HICKSNORTH CAROLINA COLLEGE FOR WOMENGREENSBORO

origin of farmers alliances

Documents