7h* RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1193 
“Dad, Why Were You Afraid?” 
E IGHT years ago Inez Milholland, the beautiful 
and distinguished daughter of John E. Mil¬ 
holland, fell exhausted on a public platform in Cali¬ 
fornia from over-exertion in the national campaign 
of 1916 for “Women’s Votes.” She had devoted her 
gifts to the fight for woman suffrage, and sacrificed 
her young and brilliant life in the interest of justice 
to womankind. 
On August 17, members of the National Woman’s 
Party gathered at her father’s estate near Eliza¬ 
bethtown, in Essex County, N. Y., to pay tribute to 
the memory of the talented suffragist and to gain 
inspiration from her service and sacrifice for the 
work yet to be done. Five thousand women and 
children attended the memorial services at the little 
church in the village of Lewis, where Inez Milhol¬ 
land rests, and it is said that 10,000 witnessed the 
pageant in her honor during the afternoon at Mead- 
owmount on the Milholland estate. 
Miss Milholland was devoted to the principle of 
justice to womanhood. In her broad principles and 
universal human sympathies she found room for no 
exceptions of class, creed or color. She had devoted 
much work to the interest of negro women, and in 
the first suffrage parade she had insisted that they 
be allowed to march. Her social activities were not 
inspired by a demand for the enfranchisement of 
women of her own class and race. Her soul burned 
with reproof of what she believed to be an injustice 
to womanhood. This characteristic could best be 
emphasized in the memorial services by participa¬ 
tion of a representative of the negro race. No provis¬ 
ion having been made for this in the program, Mr. 
Milholland, in the face of some opposition, spoke up, 
and the deficiency was supplied. If he neglected to 
speak he said he believed the spirit of his daughter 
would cry out from the grave to ask, “Dad, why 
were you afraid?” 
To some the emphasis of a universal principle of 
justice over an expediency of class privilege may 
not seem important, but to us the incident bespoke 
a courage as characteristic of the father as it was 
worthy of the memory of his distinguished daughter. 
No filial spirit will have need to whisper from the 
grave to John E. Milholland, “Dad, why ivere you 
afraid .” 
Self-Government the Essence of 
Co-operation 
The important question in farm organization plans 
is this: Shall the machinery of organization be de¬ 
signed so that farmers can operate it economically 
and be protected in the control of it for themselves, 
or shall it be so complicated in form that farmers 
must depend on others to operate and control it for 
them? 
E have expressed our position on this proposi¬ 
tion so clearly and repeated it so often farm¬ 
ers are entirely familiar with it. We can therefore 
see no justification of a misrepresentation of our 
position by anyone. However, when lawyers have a 
weak case that they cannot defend on its merits they 
always try to befog the issue by an abusive attack 
on someone else. The more sensational the charge 
the better for their purpose. Because of this form 
of legal intrigue it is sometimes necessary to calmly 
restate well-known truths, even at the expense of 
repetition, that the public may not be misled, to its 
cost. 
We have said, and repeated, that it is possible to 
organize a good and efficient farm organization un¬ 
der the new so-called Sapiro law of New York State. 
So, too, some very successful localized associations 
are organized under the business or capital stock 
law of the States. The fault of the new law is that 
it makes it possible for a small group, when so in¬ 
clined, to grab control and hold farmers helpless in 
a mesh of legal entanglements and at great material 
loss. This is not a fancied danger. The result of 
it is written in the record of wrecks and disasters 
and losses and failures of co-operation from Maine 
to California. New York State has its share of 
them. Shall we serve the cause of co-operation by 
making a secret of these records, continuing the prac¬ 
tice, and multiplying the failures; or shall we serve 
co-operation better by frankly acknowledging the 
record, locating the cause, and adopting a plan and 
a procedure that has been successful? 
If there is any reason for a special co-operative 
law, and there is, its provisions should be directed to 
the benefit and protection of the farmer individually 
and collectively. The new law contains every pro¬ 
vision that experience could suggest for the comfort, 
convenience and advantage of the corporation and 
the official group. It provides means to bind the 
farmer to the most drastic restrictions and to legal¬ 
ize the surrender of every common privilege, even to 
the fundamental right of an accounting, but it does 
not contain a single line or a single word to safe- 
guai-d the farmer in either his individual or col¬ 
lective right. The law not only permits a minority 
gi’oup control, but it particularly makes provision for 
it. It is convenient for the proponents of the law to 
say that farmei’s may protect themselves under it, 
but that is not enough. The law should make it im¬ 
possible for any small group now or later on to take 
control of an association, organized under it, out of 
farmers’ hands or to exploit them under the author¬ 
ity of law. 
This dispute between the contenders for autocracy 
and the friends of self-government is as old as 
human society. Centralized government has always 
been favored by those who want to rule. Democracy 
or self-government comes only on the demand of the 
masses. The progress of democracy has been slow. 
The people have won-it at a cost of blood and tears; 
but it has in one form or another replaced imperial¬ 
ism as the governmental scheme of the civilized na¬ 
tions of the world. 
The incorporated capital stock trust is the symbol 
of centralized power in industry, just as fo-operation 
is the highest form of democracy in the government 
of industrial organization. To devise a scheme to 
bring the principles and policies of the capital stock 
corporation into farm association is to defeat the 
purpose of self-government in industrial organiza¬ 
tion, which is co-operation. The important point is 
not in the size of the organization, in the number of 
years in the contract, or in the definition of a mis¬ 
demeanor, or in the penalty of a breach of contract, or 
even in the surrender of the right to an accounting, 
important as that right is. Disguise and befog the 
issue to the full limit of legal skill, and still the es¬ 
sence of the dispute over co-operative law is in the 
demand for prompt and sure control by members. 
Secure in this supreme power, farmers may regard 
other details as of minor importance, because 
changes can then be made by themselves to serve the 
good of all. 
Governor or Governess for Texas 
W E think the entire country is greatly interest¬ 
ed in the remarkable campaign which has 
been conducted by Mrs. Miriam Ferguson of Texas. 
She has finally been nominated as the Democratic 
candidate for Governor. In Texas such nomination 
is usually the same thing as election. Some legal 
objections will be made on the ground that Mrs. 
Ferguson is a woman, but these ai-e not likely to 
hold. At the North, where information comes chiefly 
through partisan statements in the newspapers, it 
is difficult for people to know the real truth of such 
matters. It is a highly important event when a 
woman is selected as the candidate of a party for 
high office, and The R. N.-Y. desired to let its read¬ 
ers have the truth. So we went to our Texas sub¬ 
scribers, without knowing their political affiliations, 
and asked them to tell us about it. From many let¬ 
ters in reply we select the following as fair samples 
of public sentiment in the Lone Star State: 
A “Me for Ma” Enthusiast 
I am a former “New York Stater” ; in fact, I have 
resided in Texas less than four years. When I came to 
Texas thoughts of ever becoming deeply interested in 
politics were farthest from my mind. One never knows 
what issue will arise and need helpers! I am proud 
to say I was one of the “Bluebonnets” that worked 
day after day in Mrs. Ferguson’s cause, and I feel I 
should like to give you first-hand information from 
Texas, a« you wrote you knew only what the news¬ 
papers printed on the subject. There was one main issue 
at stake in the July 26 election. The major issue was, 
KJan or anti-Klan ; whether the good old Constitution 
of the United States of America, and also the Texas 
constitution, should stand hereafter, or whether some 
one or two men in Atlanta, Ga., or elsewhere, should 
dictate. _ . 
The first minor issue was prohibition. We placed it 
in that position only because our national and State 
laws were strongholds back of u«, which we knew could 
not, be destroyed by any one Robertson if he be elected 
Governor by the “sheet-and-pillowcasers.” Mrs. Ferguson 
refused to serve liquor when she was mistress in the Ex¬ 
ecutive Mansion at Austin. Those were pre-Volstead 
days, too. She says she will do all in her power to en¬ 
force the prohibition laws, and I believe her. Therefore 
I worked hard for her. 
The second minor cause was her personal desire to 
vindicate her husband’s name. As I was not in Texas 
at the time of his impeachment I am not in a position 
to give an opinion as to its justice or injustice. I have 
heard both sides, pro and con, these last few weeks. 
From what little information I have thus received I be¬ 
lieve Mrs. Ferguson is in the right when she says his 
name should be cleared. 
Thus far it is “Hurrah for Ma,” as she has won a 
large majority on August 2.3. We women workers in 
the precincts of San Antonio will do our best to have 
similar results in the November election. “Ma for Me,” 
as our slogan says. mrs. Joyce gibby clarke. 
The Other Side of It 
I believe Mrs. Ferguson is a lady ; also Mr. Ferguson 
is a gentleman. He appears to be a pretty good poli¬ 
tician, and wants to get back in office again ; could not 
make it himself, so got his wife to make the run for 
Governor. She succeeded pretty well in the Democratic 
primary by getting 90,000 majority over her opponent. 
Mi-. Robertson, in the run-off. It was a pretty hot con¬ 
test, the church people and temperance and Ivu Klux 
Ivlan favoring Robertson ; the liquor interests and the 
anti-Klan favoring Fei-guson. Personally, I believe Mrs. 
Ferguson would make a better Governor without the 
support of her husband, if the reports are true from his 
impeachment proceedings. He sure got something hand¬ 
ed to him from the liquor element, good and plenty. 
The impeachment proceedings kind of left him holding 
the bag. 
I believe the Republican party has a good chance «>f 
electing a Govei-nor if they nominate a good clean man 
against Mrs. Ferguson, although you know Texas is a 
sti-ong Democi-atic State. As to Mrs. Ferguson being a 
popular lady, she has not been so until she made the 
run for Governor for her husband ; I believe she is not 
much of a public speaker. Mr. Ferguson has done most 
of the talking for her thi-ough the campaign. He is 
well blessed with the gift. Some people are very bitter 
against the Ivu Klux Ivlan. I live here among them, 
but am in no way affiliated with them, and know very 
little about them. wm. moore. 
The Opinion of “An Onlooker” 
It would be a long story to go fully into the under¬ 
lying reasons for Mrs. Ferguson being in the campaign 
for Governor of Texas. In the first place, Mrs. Fer¬ 
guson would not have been in the race but for the fact 
that her husband, .Tames E. Fei-guson, could not get 
his name on the ticket on account of having been im¬ 
peached. Right or wrong, many people have the idea 
that Ferguson was persecuted on account of his stand 
in the matter of appropriations for the State Univer¬ 
sity. He has a large following which votes for him at 
every opportunity, as was demonstrated two years ago, 
when he made the race for the United States Senate and 
had a plurality in the first primary. 
You of course understand that in this State in the 
primary majority rules. In the recent campaign there 
were nine candidates for Governor. In the first primary 
Robertson was in the lead by about 50,000, with Mrs. 
Ferguson second. That necessitated a second or run-off 
primary, which was held August 23. We do not know 
the final result yet, but Mm Ferguson will probably 
lead by from 75,000 to 100,000, in an election pi which 
the largest vote was polled that has ever been recorded 
in this state, nearly 150,000 more than in the first pri¬ 
mary. 
Now it comes to a matter of personal opinion. I am 
a Republican and do not go into the primary, and am 
an onlooker, but naturally interested, as the nomination 
on the Democratic ticket in this State is equivalent to 
election. Mrs. Ferguson is popular with the country 
people, more than those in the cities. This has always 
been the case with Mr. Ferguson. She has received her 
support from all classes. Right here I want to say that 
Mrs. Ferguson received the vote of her following in 
the first primary, the vote that always has gone to her 
husband. Robertson received his strength in the first 
primary—the Ivu Klux vote. As I view the situation, 
neither of them would have been the first nor second 
choice of the majority of voters, but received their votes 
on the demerits of the opposition. The Robertson voters 
were bitterly opposed to Jim Ferguson, and claimed 
that a vote for Mrs. Ferguson was a vote for Jim by 
proxy, while the voters for Mrs. Ferguson claimed that 
a vote for Robertson was a vote for the Klan and all 
that it stands for. The Klan question was the deciding 
factor. 
Robertson was a weak candidate, and would have 
received very few votes except for his endorsement by 
the Klan. Mrs. Ferguson would have had a small fol¬ 
lowing except for the Ferguson vote. These two ele¬ 
ments put them into the run-off, therefore made a 
choice between the two of them necessary, and my opin¬ 
ion is that in the case of at least half the voters it was 
a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. I am in¬ 
clined to think that with the assistance of her husband 
and other advisers she may have a creditable adminis¬ 
tration. ltUSSELL N. WATSON. 
Bringing Up a Boy 
P EOPLE are waking up to an understanding of 
this proposed child labor amendment. They 
may well wake up, for this has passed Congress, and 
before we know it the States will ratify. Here is 
something on the subject from the Lewiston Journal. 
We have raised a good many children, but we should 
hardly care to try any more if Congress is to have 
the power to say that they shall be loafex-s until they 
are 18: 
I acknowledge that it is much better for a boy to have 
plenty of golf; a libera] allowance of spending money 
which he has not. earned ; a car of his own to “amuse 
him” and keep him out of pool rooms; a best girl to 
keep him steady ; a motorboat to get him tanned and 
strong, and a long, long vacation in which the dear thing 
may sleep mornings, than it i» to permit him to work. 
Work is bad for boys. It is agreed that it is galling to 
their pride; stunts them physically; grinds them to the 
level of slaves; take the heart out of them for real en¬ 
joyment of the better things God has provided for their 
betterment, and that it will finally cause a boy to be¬ 
come a clod. This has been demonstrated to be an abso¬ 
lute fact, since the days of George Washington, Adams, 
Jefferson, James Madison, Henry Wilson, Thomas A. 
Edison and some others who were intellectually ruined 
and stunted in physique by working before they were 18, 
in defiance of the laws of nature. 
It is too bad that early Americans were permitted to 
work as they did as children. I was up fishing this 
Spring with 12 other men—every other man of them 
but myself a signal success as a manager of a great 
business; cotton mills, bleacheries, publishers, shipmas¬ 
ters and heads of transportation lines. All of them 
were ruined in youth by being made to work. Three of 
them testified to earning their own livings since they 
were 13, and one of them was head of a family at 14, 
father dead and mother ill and he breadwinner for five 
smaller children. If he had not been compelled to work 
he might have been a golf champion today instead of 
being six feet tall and pulling down a salary of $30,000 
a year, as he is and does. 
