I2 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



principle that the total energies of Equity should go toward price fixing, 

 and he was now particularly absorbed in trying to fix the price of wheat. 

 Everitt had considerable evidence to show that his propaganda had been 

 making good progress in the wheat-growing areas, especially in North 

 Dakota, where a state organization had been set up and a grain growers' 

 branch was contemplated. Under these circumstances, he deplored the 

 distraction that Tubbs' activities provided. Furthermore, he had been 

 opposed all along to joint-stock business cooperatives of the type that 

 Tubbs had organized. The way was thus wide-open for a violent split in 

 Equity, and at the national convention of 1907 the split came. 18 



There was more to the opposition to Everitt than a mere difference of 

 opinion on principle. Tubbs and others were concerned over the way in 

 which Everitt sought to dominate the society; some had even suggested 

 that the order should be rechristened "The American Society of Everitt." 

 And there were other charges, even more disturbing. Everitt was accused 

 of mishandling the funds of the national organization. He had apparently 

 made no effort to separate the accounts of the seed store, the printing 

 establishment, and Equity, which were all in his building. Auditors who 

 examined the organization records, which were handled by Everitt's own 

 bookkeeper, found them "all mixed up, the seed business, the printing 

 plant and the society's own accounts, and it was simply impossible . . . 

 to straighten [them] out." Many felt that at the very least, Everitt had 

 been conducting his business in a manner unbecoming the head of a 

 farmers' organization. 19 



A subject of particularly bitter contention was the fifty-year contract 

 which Everitt had negotiated with the society for publishing its official 

 paper. Irritation over this situation came to a head because of mounting 

 complaints that Everitt had refused to publish material that certain mem- 

 bers had submitted to him. A group of investigators later reported that the 

 contract was not binding because Everitt, an executive of Equity and thus 

 party of the first part, could not "sign a contract or make a contract" with 

 himself as an individual, the party of the second part. In other words, 

 Everitt could not legally enter into a contract with himself. When mem- 



18. Ibid., pp. 54-55. 



19. Annual Meeting of the North Dakota State Union of the American Society 

 of Equity (Devils Lake, N. Dak., November 19, 1907), pp. 28-30. 



