IOO THE GRANGER MOVEMENT 



As a result of this survey of western state and local politics 

 from 1873 to 1876, it appears that Independent, Reform, or 

 Anti-Monopoly parties were organized in eleven states 

 Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, 

 Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, California, and Oregon. In 

 some of these states, as in Wisconsin and Iowa, the new parties 

 secured victories, including the election of the state ticket in 

 Wisconsin, by coalescing with the Democrats and forming a 

 new party of opposition to the dominant Republicans. In 

 other states, as in Oregon and in part in Illinois, they main- 

 tained their independence of the old parties and secured local 

 victories over both of them, and in three states Illinois, 

 Kansas, and California they secured the election- of " Reform- 

 ers " to the United States Senate. 1 



The purpose and character of this Independent movement 

 can best be determined by an examination of the platforms 

 adopted. In all of the states, except Indiana and Michigan, 

 these contained planks demanding the subjection of corpora- 

 tions, and especially of railroad corporations, to the control of 

 the state, and in several states regulation of all monopolies was 

 demanded. It was thus an " anti-monopoly " movement, and 

 in this direction the Granger laws were its principal achieve- 

 ment. But it was more than an " anti-monopoly " movement 

 it was also a " reform " movement. Every platform adopted 

 by the new parties in all of the states denounced corruption in 

 government and demanded reform, economy, and reduction 

 of taxation, and several of the platforms contained specific 

 demands for " civil service reform." In this direction the move- 

 ment seems to have been a result of the unusually large amount 

 of corruption which prevailed in both national and state govern- 

 ments during the first half of the decade of the seventies. 2 



These, then, were the two principal and distinguishing char- 

 acteristics of the new parties they were anti-monopoly (or 



1 The Biographical Congressional Directory lists Harvey of Kansas as a Republi- 

 can, but Booth of California is described as an " Anti-monopolist " and Hager of 

 the same state as an " Anti-monopoly Democrat," while Davis of Illinois is listed as 

 " elected ... by the votes of Independents and Democrats." 



2 See W. A. Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, chs. xiv, xviii. 



