The Co-opolitan: A Story of the Co-operative Commonwealth of Idaho

by Zebina Forbush

The greatest of all the debates of that campaign occurred between Senator Thompson and the Reverend Dr. Desty during September. One of these took place in the great hall at Co-opolis. There were present 9,000 members of the Industrial Army and one thousand pupils from the schools. It was our custom to have the Educational department send a certain number of its wards to these discussions, in order to have them familiarized with Co-opolitan methods. These questions were always discussed fully in the schools as well as in the Industrial Army.

The discussion in the great hall was opened by Dr. Desty. He insisted that the bonds of Boise City should be paid, that the poor people, who doubtless held them, factory operators in the unfortunate competitive cities, perhaps, had purchased them in good faith; that the action of the Co-opolitan Association, which he entirely approved, had rendered these bonds valueless, and that the Association, which was founded on principles of justice, equality and righteousness, should not withhold from these poor people what belonged to them.

He also pointed out the fact that as long as the bonds remained outstanding the territory affected by them would be lost to the Association. Then came the wonderful, soul-stirring oratory of the man, which moved his hearers to the depths. I almost felt, as I listened to him on that occasion, that perhaps he was right.

When he finished the applause from all parts of the hall was deafening. I believe now that it was more an acknowledgment of his wonderful oratory than because he had produced a conviction of the correctness of his views, but I was distressed by different thoughts then.

Senator Thompson followed on behalf of the negative. The Senator was at that time in the very prime of an exceptionally strong and vigorous manhood. He had occupied the important positions of President of the Association and Governor of the state, the former for seven years, the latter for two. His reputation was world-wide, not as an orator, but as the father of the Co-operative Commonwealth and the possessor of extraordinary administrative ability. He had not, as yet, taken his oath of Senator of the United States, having been but recently elected, and was hardly known as a public speaker outside of the state. He was not an emotional orator.

His chief characteristics in debate were his ready wit, his complete command of the subject under discussion, and his logical and powerful array of facts. He was the opposite of the Reverend Dr. Desty in nearly every respect. That day he was at his best. As he came forward to the speakers’ stand he was received with terrific applause. This was always the case, however, and it did not indicate that his was the most popular side.

He commenced by informing the audience that he did not desire to use any personal influence with them concerning the exercise of their suffrage. He wished them to be guided by truth and wisdom only. If the people of Idaho were not sufficiently intelligent to save their Co-operative Commonwealth then it must fall, because their intelligence was its sole foundation. He had some evidence to present for their consideration.

Here he read three affidavits from England, which set forth the business, character and history of one Lester Hickman. These averred that gentleman to be the president of the American and English Bond and Trust Company, limited, of London, and that his company was the purchaser, for a mere nominal sum, of the municipal bonds of the cities of Idaho. They further averred that Hickman was known as a bitter enemy of all movements for the bettering of the condition of the people, and neither more nor less than a keen broker and speculator. They also set forth that Hickman’s reputation for honesty was somewhat shady.

After reading these affidavits Senator Thompson exclaimed:

“This is the prophet of financial morality whose teachings are invoked for your instruction by my good and sincere but misguided friend, Dr. Desty.” At this point the applause which shook the house and was again and again repeated marked the turning of the tide of public sentiment against the affirmative.