MR. WEFALD is tt teaching fellow in the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where he is studying for a doctorate in American intellectual history. The present article is adapted from his master's thesis on the political career of his grandfather.

Congressman KNUD WEFALD A Voice for Farm Parity

J ON M. WEFALD

RUNNING under the newly-raised banner railroad freight rates remained high, and of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor coalition in prices on farm equipment continued at war­ 1922, Knud Wefald, a Hawley lumber time inflation levels. Combined with the per­ dealer, defeated the Republican incumbent, sistent problems that had for years troubled Halvor Steenorson, in the battle for Minne­ the American farmer — mortgage indebted­ sota's ninth district Congressional seat. We- ness, high interest and freight rates, and fald's success was one of many ominous signs farm equipment monopohes — were the of an impending farm revolt, for the Red problems of export surpluses swollen by ex­ River Valley and the wheat belt of the panded acreage and improved production Northern Plains were among the first areas techniques. By the 1922 mid-term elections, to feel the impact of the postwar agricultural farm insurgents, making use of a deteriorat­ crisis. The new Representative was to spend ing agricultural situation, and stressing Re­ the next four years in Washington demand­ publican blunders, gained election victories ing aid from the federal government for the in the North Star State and several others, crumbling economy of the nation's farm including Indiana, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and population. In that time he became one of North Dakota. Wefald was one of three Minnesota's leading spokesmen for the prin­ Minnesota Farmer-Labor candidates who ciples which, embodied in the ill-fated moved into the Congress that year, the other McNary-Haugen bills, were to foreshadow two being Ole J. Kvale, elected to the House, more than a quarter century of federal agri­ and , sent to the Senate.^ cultural policy. Born in Kragero, Norway, on November With the end of World War I, farm prices 3, 1869, Wefald, like many other Norwe­ slid downward and continued in most in­ gians in the 1880s, left his birthplace to emi­ stances to fall below prewar figures, while grate to Minnesota. He arrived there in 1887, and after working as a farm laborer in Fos­ 'James H. Shideler, Farm Crisis, 1919-1923, sum for several years, he moved to the agri­ 221-223 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1957); Theo­ cultural community of Hawley, where he en­ dore Saloutos and John D. Hicks, Agricultural Dis­ content in the Middle West, 1900-1939, 102-110 tered the lumber business. As manager of (Madison, Wisconsin, 1951); George H. Mayer, the Wilcox Lumber Company from 1896 to The Political Career of Floyd B. Olson, 24 (Min­ 1902 and secretary-manager of the Hawley neapolis, 1951).

December 1962 177 Lumber Company from 1903 to 1923, he as the Esch-Cummins biU, a measure that came in contact with many farmers from had pervasive ramifications for the Repubh­ the surrounding area. According to Harold can party in the national elections of 1922. Wefald of Fargo, North Dakota, "It was my Wefald was aware of the intense opposition father's activity in the lumber business that in the Middle West to those who had voted made him see the plight of the farmer."^ for this act. While in Hawley, Wefald was seven times The bill, which became law on February elected president of the town council and 28, 1920, directed the Interstate Commerce served two terms in the state legislature Commission to establish rates so that car­ from 1913 to 1915. This pohtical experience riers would earn a fair return on the aggre­ largely accounted for his nomination to the gate value of their property. The return was ninth district Congressional seat in 1922. set at five and a half per cent on the values Wefald's election was due in part to the of the properties, and the commission was support he received from members of authorized to increase this by a half of one the Nonpartisan League, an organization per cent to provide funds for needed capital founded by Arthur C. Townley of North Da­ improvement. The result in some sections kota in 1915 and dedicated to securing eco­ of the country was freight rate increases nomic relief for the farmer. Gaining rapid ranging from thirty-five to forty per cent. success in North Dakota, Townley decided As rates climbed in the fall of 1920, prices to extend operations to Minnesota in 1917. for farm products began their downward But rebellious farmers were not enough to trend, and farmers naturally pointed to the insure League victory in Minnesota as they Esch-Cummins Act as a cause of their dis­ had in North Dakota. Finding that support tress. To them, Republican prosperity from the urban dwellers of the Twin Cities seemed designed only to favor certain and the laborers of the Iron Range was groups. Farmers watched as industrial needed to gain state-wide backing, Townley profits zoomed upward, leaving them to by 1918 was convinced that the League plow through the dust of low farm prices had to broaden its political base by courting and high consumer costs. Antipathy in the organized labor. From this arrangement the ninth district to Steenorson's vote for the Farmer-Labor party of Minnesota was born.^ measure was sensed by Wefald, who ob­ Townley argued that genuine farm relief served, "I think that Steenorson is the strong­ could be achieved only if farm representa­ est [candidate] around here, but even the tives worked within the framework of the merchants remember how he lauded the two major parties. But his Minnesota col­ Esch-Cummins bill to the skies and they leagues overruled him in the 1922 election swear every time they pay a freight bill."^ when a full slate of candidates ran on the third-party Farmer-Labor ticket. Their suc­ CONGRESS had passed three important cess in capturing Congressional seats was agricultural bills from 1921 to 1923. The counterbalanced by failure in the race for ' Joseph A. A. Burnquist, ed., Minnesota and Its state offices.* People, 4:660 (Chicago, 1924); Hawley Herald, Wefald launched his campaign by exploit­ October 29, 1936; interview with Harold Wefald, ing farm resentment against a phlegmatic June 17, 1960. ^ Robert L. Morlan, Political Prairie Fire: The Republican party and articulating the hopes Nonpartisan League, 1915-1922, 191, 207 (Minne­ of the Red River Valley farmers. He criti­ apolis, 1955); Mayer, Floyd B. Olson, 18-22. cized his opponent's position in the Congress * Morlan, Political Prairie Fire, 345; Mayer, Floyd B. Olson, 24. during a sixteen-year tenure and pledged " Shideler, Farm Crisis, 28; Murray R. Benedict, himself to a for the farmer. He Farm Policies of the , 1790-1950, 170 played up, moreover, Steenorson's vote for (New York, 1953); Wefald to N. E. Thormodson, February 14, 1922, Wefald Papers, in the possession the Transportation Act of 1920, also known of the Minnesota Historical Society.

178 MINNESOTA History KNUD Wefald at his desk in the Minnesota State Capitol, 1913

Capper-Volstead Act of 1922, which bore Credit Banks, through which the federal the name of Minnesota Representative An­ government could extend short-term loans drew J. Volstead, legalized co-operative to organized groups of farmers. This legis­ marketing associations; the Grain Futures lation, however, did not seem sufficient to Act, passed in the same year, sought to pre­ many farm leaders, including the new Rep- vent discrimination against such associa­ sentative from the Red River Valley. Aware tions by boards of trade and chambers of of extensive government support for Ameri­ commerce; and the Agricultural Credits Act can business and industry, and searching of 1923 set up a system of Intermediate for ways to realign the economic balance of power to benefit the American farmer, We­ " Saloutos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, fald began backing the farm bloc in Con­ 288, 322, 340; John D. Hicks, Republican Ascend­ gress by supporting one of the most impor­ ancy, 1921-1933, 193-195 (New York, 1960); Wil­ fiam E. Leuchtenberg, The Perth of Prosperity, tant proposals set forth by that group in the 101-103 (Chicago, 1958). The bipartisan pressure 1920s: the McNary-Haugen bdl.« group known through the 1920s as the "farm bloc" came into existence in 1921 as a response to the The measure was conceived by George N. decline in farm prices and the fact that neither major Peek and Hugh S. Johnson, two capable and party had a strong farm refief program. It included energetic executives of the Moline Plow at one time or another some thirty Senators and as many as a hundred Congressmen. (Hicks and Sa­ Company of Moline, . Viewing loutos, Agricultural Discontent, 321-341.) The bleakly the sales charts of their enterprise, McNary-Haugen bill received its name from its sponsors. Senator Charles L. McNary of Oregon and they saw mounting losses due to a dwin­ Representative Gilbert N. Haugen of Iowa. dling market for farm machinery. Peek's re-

December 1962 179 mark was telling: "You can't sell a plow to ized at two hundred million dollars, with a busted customer."'^ Coining the phrase power to buy and dispose of surpluses. If the "equality for agriculture," Peek initiated a export corporation, consisting of the secre­ movement that continued until the passage tary of agriculture and four presidential of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933. appointees, found the domestic price of a Advocates of his plan attempted to pass basic farm commodity lower than the ratio legislation that would fit neatly into the price, it was to buy the surplus at the ra­ framework of the Republican party princi­ tio figure. The surplus products would then ples and incorporate values that were popu­ be sold abroad by the corporation at world lar in the rural Midwest. Thus instead of prices. Losses suffered by selling on the trying to eliminate tariff barriers entirely in world market would be recouped through an order to aid agriculture, they advanced the equahzation fee that would be charged back McNary-Haugen plan which they claimed to those who sold for a higher price on the would simply make the existing tariff effec­ domestic market. Thus, a two-price system tive for the farmer.^ was caUed for: a tariff-protected parity price Because the federal government had been for the American market, and the world used advantageously to promote the inter­ price for the foreign market. Assessments ests of big business, as evidenced by the would be charged to those seUing on the do­ Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act and the mestic market by issuing "scrip" as partial Esch-Cummins Act, the farm representa­ payment for their crop. The value of the tives felt justified in supporting the McNary- scrip would be set after operation costs and Haugen plan. The bill, said Wefald, "asks losses were determined. The plan was built the same relative price for farm products on the philosophy that farmers could be that the farmer pays for the goods he must helped if they were forced to enter into co­ buy. If the bill falls short in any way, it is operative marketing arrangements, and the because it is too modest and does not ask bill attempted to facilitate the solution of enough." ^ farm marketing problems by laying the Five McNary-Haugen bills were intro­ groundwork for involuntary co-operation.^^ duced into Congress from 1924 to 1928, the Reflecting clearly grass roots support for first four while Wefald was a member of this philosophy was a letter to Congressman the House. The original version of the bill was presented in the first session of the ' Quoted in Gilbert C. Fite, George N. Peek and Sixty-Eighth Congress on January 16, 1924. the Fight for Farm Parity, 38 (Norman, Oklahoma, 1954). Peek and Johnson, originators of the plan, ' Saloutos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, contended that agriculture had to receive a 372, 377. "fair exchange value" for its products if a " Hicks, Republican Ascendancy, 198-200; Con­ gressional Record, 68 Congress, 1 session, p. 11093. healthy rural economy were to be main­ " Saloutos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, tained. The value would be computed by 378; Hicks, Republican Ascendancy, 198. the secretaries of agriculture and labor for " Fite, Peek and the Fight for Parity, 60; Salou­ tos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, 378, 380. eight basic commodities — wheat, flour, cot­ The tariff was ineffective in protecting the farmer ton, corn, cattle, sheep, swine, and wool — because the United States exported most basic crops. on the basis of "the same ratio to the current Thus in the absence of either marketing or produc­ tion controls, the domestic price feU to the level of general price index as a ten year, pre-war the world price. This would occur even in the event average crop price bears to the average gen­ that a very smaU proportion of the crop were sold eral price index, for the same period." ^^ abroad. The McNary-Haugen biUs called for mar­ keting restrictions without production controls on Thus was the concept of parity born. the assumption that the bulk of agricultural prod­ To restore and maintain ratio prices for uce could be sold on the domestic market at an artificial price, and that the surplus to be dumped basic farm commodities, a government ex­ at a loss on the world market would remain rela­ port corporation was to be set up, capital­ tively smaU.

180 MINNESOTA HistOTy Wefald from C. M. Strawman, manager of ture, voted for the McNary-Haugen bill, in­ the Montana Wheat Grower's Association, forming the House that "In my section of who insisted that "A government agency the country the farmers are in more dire having complete control of the product pro­ straits than they have ever found them­ vides the only solution for handling this selves." Using slightly different reasoning, surplus, for the losses incurred can be but still supporting the measure, Andresen charged back to all producers. The McNary- said, "It has been demonstrated beyond any Haugen bill will control the entire com­ doubt, that 6,000,000 farmers cannot organ­ modity. It will provide the machinery for ize co-operatively without the assistance of keeping our domestic prices up to a basis the government, and I believe that the Hau­ with other commodities."^^ gen bill will stimulate and encourage co­ Other Minnesota representatives who re­ operation to the fullest extent." ^^ Richard sponded to the wave of feeling in behalf T. Buckler, state chairman of the Farmer- of the bill included Kvale and August H. Labor party, claimed that "Over ninety per­ Andresen, a Republican from the third dis­ cent of the voters in the Red River VaUey trict. Kvale, a perfervid backer of agricul- are in favor of the McNary-Haugen Bill." In that area dwindling returns on wheat and " Strawman to Wefald, April 13, 1924. Wefald potato crops, proliferating bank failures, Papers. and increasing foreclosures helped make the " Congressional Record, 68 Congress, 1 session, idea of administered crop prices acceptable p. 10026; Tribune, May 8, 1926.

"POLITICAL hog Killing Time" as viewed hy the Minnesota Union Advocate in 1922

December 1962 181 even to traditionally laissez /aire-minded larger surpluses. Lending money to co-oper­ Midwestern farmers.^* atives, and encouraging the curtailment of In a House speech Wefald angrily pointed production, felt Coolidge, were all the fed­ out that if the bill failed, its supporters could eral government could do.^'^ Frustrated, be expected to call for alternative measures Wefald reminded the president that no addi­ to aid a stifled farm population. "We will tional legislation for the farm population ask revision of the Federal reserve act in the was necessary "providing that the Federal interest of the people," he declared. "We reserve act, the Esch-Cummins law, and the will ask reduction of cost of transportation. Fordney-McCumber tariff law were rewrit­ If the farmer must continue to sell his prod­ ten in favor of all the people and not allowed ucts in the world market, he will demand to stand on the statute books as they that he does not have to buy what he needs are now, special interest acts pure and in a highly protected one." Emphasizing the simple." ^^ sectionalism prevalent on the issue, Wefald Even though the first try to pass the bill aUeged that New England was only trying had been decisively defeated, George Peek to protect its industrial and business inter­ would not quit, and working with the Amer­ ests. With particular reference to Robert ican Council of Agriculture, he outlined a Luce, a Repubhcan Congressman from Mas­ new proposal. 1^ The second McNary-Hau­ sachusetts, the Minnesotan bombastically gen bill, introduced in the following session stated: "So long have he and his able col­ of the Sixty-Eighth Congress, omitted both leagues been coming before Congress plead­ the ratio price and scrip features because ing for help for bleak and barren New business and banking circles had especially England in the shape of high protective tar­ attacked these aspects of the first version. iff, subsidy, bonus, and God knows what not, Still strongly behind Peek's plan, Wefald that he does not want to call the McNary- declared: "The progressive element in Con­ Haugen bill either a tariff, a subsidy, or a gress, backed by the progressive element bonus. . . . Tariff, subsidy, and bonus are among the people, are not discouraged . . . all right in their place and for theff rightful they believe that their program as it affects purpose, namely, to help New England . . . the vital interests of the common people is but—-perish the thought — they were absolutely and fundamentally sound." Be­ never intended to help any other part of cause it was caught in a legislative log jam, the country, especially the West." Contend­ the revised measure did not come to a vote ing that the people of the Midwest would in the second session.^^ never again be tricked by the cry that a high Finding that President Coolidge had protective tariff would help the whole coun­ scarcely deviated from his original stand try, Wefald stressed that agriculture should have its Fordney-McCumber tariff, too, in the form of the McNary-Haugen bill.^^ " Buckler to Wefald, February 25, 1927, Wefald Papers; Congressional Record, 68 Congress, 1 ses­ sion, p. 6431-6434; Mayer, Floyd B. Olson, 20. THE FIRST attempt to pass the biU was de­ " Congressional Record, 68 Congress, 1 session, p. 11090, 11093. feated in the House on June 3, 1924, by a " Hicks, Republican Ascendancy, 198; Fite, Peek vote of 223 to 153. The voting followed geo­ and the Fight for Parity, 77. graphic lines; the West and the Midwest " Congressional Record, 69 Congress, 1 session, p. 9163. favored it, the East and South were op­ " The American Council of Agriculture, repre­ posed. President Coolidge laid the basis for senting some fifty-five farm organizations, was his opposition to the bill by jejunely preach­ formed at St. Paul, July 11-12, 1924. Its main pur­ pose was to mobilize support for the McNary-Hau­ ing the doctrine of self-help, and — more gen bill. Shideler, Farm Crisis, 288. appropriately — he warned that the plan " Benedict, Farm Policies, 219; Fite, Peek and would lead to greater overproduction and the Fight for Parity, 111; Congressional Record, 68 Congress, 1 ses.sion, p. 5243.

182 MINNESOTA Hlstory on the McNary-Haugen proposal. Congress­ Agriculture Committee reported favorably man Wefald, in a House speech on Febru­ another plan, commonly labeled as the third ary 20, 1926, invited Coolidge to spend the McNary-Haugen bill. Under this proposal, summer in Minnesota, hoping that a visit of a federal farm board of twelve members ap­ reasonable duration would convince the pointed by the president was to be set up. head of the Republican party of the farmer's It was charged with removing price- plight. Coolidge had visited Minnesota a depressing surpluses from the market by year earlier when he spoke at the Minnesota contracting with co-operative marketing as­ state fairgrounds. But, according to Wefald, sociations. As with the earlier bills, the third the one-day visit was not nearly long enough revision contained an equalization fee that to allow Coolidge to meet the typical Min­ was to be levied on each unit of a commodity nesota farmer and discuss his problems. sold. This would force all producers to help Optimistically, naively, yet sarcastically, finance benefits which could come from the Wefald preached: "We would hke to get regulated disposal of the crop.-^ the President so far West, for a short time, To avoid the charge of price fixing, the that Wall Street, the monopolies, and the 1926 bill, like the previous version, dropped trusts could not get near him. If he saw us in the ratio price feature, and called for the our homes, saw us at work, saw? us in world price plus the tariff. Maintaining that trouble, he would begin to understand the they simply sought to make the tariff effec­ problems of the farmer. I say that there will tive for agriculture, supporters of the bill be no farm relief legislation passed out of argued once more that their measure was Congress until the President thoroughly un­ in keeping with the prevailing policy of tar­ derstands the farmer's plight."-" The pres­ iff protection for American industries.^^ ident quietly turned down the invitation, a Opposed in 1924 and in 1925 to McNary- response which probably came as no sur­ Haugen principles, the South by 1926 was prise to the Congressman from Minnesota or beginning to reverse its stand. With cotton to most other political observers. acreage expanding and a surplus threaten­ ing the price of the 1926 crop, the idea of UNDAUNTED by the first two setbacks, an alliance between the South and West was George Peek calmly reorganized his forces. revived. After a meeting held in Memphis, Collaborating with the Corn Belt Commit­ Tennessee, in January, 1926, leaders from tee and the Committee of Twenty-Two, and the cotton states began to appear before gaining support from the American Farm committees in support of the revised meas­ Bureau Federation, Peek initiated action for ure. A proviso was attached to the bill stating a new bfll.-i On Aprfl 27, 1926, the House that no equalization fee was to be collected on cotton and corn for a period of three years. Southerners were not yet ready for "° Speech of Knud Wefald, February 20, 1926, Wefald Papers. the fee portion of the program.-* ^ The Corn Belt Committee was formed at a The revised bill was introduced into Con­ meeting of farm organizations called by the National Farmers' Union in Des Moines, Iowa, during May, gress but, again, not enough support could 1925. It represented mainly corn and hog-raising be mustered for its passage. On May 21 the interests. The Executive Committee of Twenty-Two bill was defeated in the House by a vote of was appointed by a farm marketing conference of­ ficially representing eleven Midwestern states, held 212 to 167, and on June 24 the Senate voted in Des Moines, January 28, 1926. The committee 45 to 39 against the plan. Although not became a powerful lobbying instrument. Saloutos enough Southern votes were picked up, and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, 386; Fite, Peek and the Fight for Parity, 146. there was a noticeable shift in the voting ^ Fite, Peek and the Fight for Parity, 155. pattern of representatives from the South -' Fite, Peek and the Fight for Parity, 155. Atlantic states. The possibility of an align­ -' Saloutos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, 391-393. ment was increased after the South in 1926

December 1962 183 produced its largest cotton crop in history. the administration, paying lip service to the In St. Louis on November 17,1926, Southern principle of hmited government in so far as and Western leaders met in a cotton and industry was concerned, had applied it prac­ corn states conference to solemnize the mar­ tically against a positive role for government riage of wheat and cotton and endorse the in agriculture.^^ principles of the McNary-Haugen biU.^^ Standing firm against price fixing, fearing Taking into consideration various changes the building up of a prodigious bureaucracy, suggested by particular groups, in the hope and realizing that the dumping of farm of reducing administration hostility, the products abroad would bring resentment farm bloc introduced another revised bill and retaliatory action by foreign govern­ in February, 1927. This version proposed to ments, Coolidge denounced the McNary- establish orderly marketing of basic agri­ Haugen group for their attempt to pass the cultural commodities — cotton, wheat, corn, bill. Thirty-five years later, with the per­ rice, hogs, and tobacco — by controlling and spective that history offers, it seems appar­ disposing of surpluses; all reference to tariff ent that his opposition was partially justified or price was ehminated. Again, a federal and that increased surpluses would have re­ farm board was advocated to work through sulted from the lack of production controls. the co-operatives in disposing of the crops, He failed, however, to construct any positive but as a concession to the administration, a program for the desperate Midwestern provision was inserted restricting the farmer, and on the very day of the veto he board's operations. Advisory councils com­ raised the tariff on pig iron by fifty per cent, posed of representatives of farm organ­ allowing the price of that commodity to izations and co-operatives had to approve soar fifty cents a ton two days later.^" of the board's plans.^^ Not forgetting the central argument of THE FOLLOWING year farm progressives their opposition to the bill, administration again succeeded in passing the measure and supporters refused to countenance the once more it was resoundingly vetoed. Con­ equalization fee, and called instead for a gressman Wefald had no part in this, how­ revolving fund of $250,000,000, which could ever, for in February, 1927, he made his last be loaned to co-operatives to handle sur­ plea on behalf of the McNary-Haugen bill. pluses. In reference to this substitution, After thundering for four years about the Wefald argued that "The equahzation fee problems and hopes of the Red River Valley has been the storm center in this debate. farmers, he had met defeat in the election If, as some fear, it is unconstitutional, it of 1926. His successor was Conrad G. Sel- will be stricken from the law; if it is con­ vig, a Crookston Republican. stitutional, it will function as well as the Discouraged, Wefald could only look to tariff." ^'^ The bill came to a vote on February the future. "The present condition can't last 17, 1927, and "The galleries were packed. forever," he remarked. "A change must come There was tense excitement as members one way or another soon. . . . The only re­ milled around the chamber. Loud roars of lief lies in changing the personnel of the ad­ 'no' greeted every amendment or substitute ministration. New men with sympathy in as the McNary-Haugenites firmly held their lines." ^^ '^ Saloutos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, This time the bill passed both houses — 393, 397; Fite, Peek and the Fight for Parity, 162. the Senate by a vote of 54 to 43, and the " Fite, Peek and the Fight for Panty, 173-175. " Congressional Record, 69 Congress, 2 session, House by a vote of 214 to 178 — but on Feb­ p. 4061; Fite, Peek and the Fight for Parity, 174. ruary 25 President Coolidge vetoed the -' Fite, Peek and the Fite for Parity, 176. measure, an act the farm progressives re­ ^ Saloutos and Hicks, Agricultural Discontent, 399. garded as blatantly unfair. They felt that '" Leuchtenberg, Perils of Prosperity, 103.

184 MINNESOTA History "ADVICE from the featherbed isn't helping"

their hearts for the farmer must take their had rung through the Upper Midwest for place before relief comes." ^^ more than a generation. In the decade of Despite its apparent futility, however, the the twenties no solution to the farm prob­ long and bitter struggle over the McNary- lem was found, yet one proposed solution — Haugen bill had significant results for Amer­ McNary-Haugenism — persisted. As We­ ican agricultural policy. It brought about a fald hoped, some ideas central to the unification of farm forces and helped to McNary-Haugen bills of the 1920s became crystallize new concepts sharply at variance integral parts of farm legislation in the with the old slogans of agrarian revolt that 1930s, and echoes of them may still be heard in the federal farm program of today.

"^ Wefald to Ray Crowe, March 29, 1926, Wefald Papers. THE INDEX for volume 37 of Minnesota His­ THE PORTRAIT on page 178 is owned by the tory, covering the eight issues published in 1960 Minnesota Historical Society. The cartoon on page and 1961, is now ready for distribution. Copies 181 is from the Minnesota Union Advocate of will be sent to members and subscribers who ask August 31, 1922, and the one above is from the Farmers' Dispatch (St. Paul) for May 30, 1924. for them as long as the supply lasts.

December 1962 185 Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory