THE FARMERS' UNION 251 



not contain a single cooperative feature," wrote the Nebraska Union 

 Farmer. "It is strictly an old line document, even more autocratic than 

 the articles of incorporation of most joint-stock companies." 7 



In defending the incorporation of the Farmers' Union Central Ex- 

 change, and also of the Farmers' Union Publishing Company, both of 

 which were incorporated under the laws of Delaware, the Farmers' Union 

 Herald said that this was the simplest procedure to follow. The State of 

 Delaware permitted a corporation to operate with a minimum of $1,000 

 capital, while many states required as much as $10,000. If the Farmers' 

 Union Exchange had been organized under the cooperative law of Minne- 

 sota it would have been impossible for the Farmers' Union Terminal 

 Association to be the owner of the exchange, because it was impossible 

 for one cooperative to own another. It was possible, however, for a co- 

 operative to own a corporation. 77 



In further defending its actions, the Farmers' Union Herald pointed 

 out that the three incorporators had transferred their stock to the Farmers' 

 Union Terminal Association on the same day that it was issued. Like- 

 wise, cooperation was permissible under the old corporation laws; the fact 

 that a cooperative was not incorporated under the cooperative laws of a 

 state did not necessarily mean that the cooperative spirit was lacking. 

 Though this latter statement was true enough, it was hardly a satisfactory 

 explanation for the long list of criticisms hurled against the Northwest 

 business enterprises, both by Union and non-Union sources. Later, when 

 all Union enterprises were organized under the necessary cooperative 

 statutes, the basis for these complaints was removed. 78 



It is evident that despite the earlier "apostolic" and at times doctrinaire 

 zeal of its leaders, the Union was by no means the radical organization 

 that its language made it out to be. It sought, with a limited degree of 

 success, to teach farmers that they could live within the capitalist sys- 

 tem. The emotional and strongly phrased language employed in con- 

 demning the existing order was but a means used by the Union for selling 

 itself to depressed farmers who did not respond to other appeals. This 



76. Nebraska Union Farmer, March 13, 1929; J. W. Brinton, Wheat and Politics 

 (Minneapolis, 1931), pp. 149-52. 



77. Farmers' Union Herald, June, 1929; September, 1929; February 17, 1930; 

 Ricker, The Farmers' Union and Its Enemies, pp. 9-11. 



78. Farmers' Union Herald, May, 1928. 



