The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-01-09
BEET G. PLANT

A recent number Of the Missoula Ga
zette says that a large beet sugar plant
is about to be erected in hat city. This
is a commendable enterprise upon the
part Of the enterprising citizens Of that
place and will doubtless prove as remun-
e~rative to the projectors Of the plant as
to the farmers of that county. Sugar
beets can be successfully raised, for
manufacturing purposes, upon soils free
from alkali, but they do not prove a sue
cess upon those highly i%mpregnated
with alkaline salts. Large areas of
northern Montana lands are peculiarly
adapted to the raising Of the vegetable
and AN analysis of those raised in the
vicinity of Great Falls show they con
tain "A larger percentage OF sHccharinc
I matter than do those produced upon the
best soils of California. If sugar beet
plant will pay in Missoula II would
pay in Great Falls.
But it is not 81 much the purpose of
this article to call attention 10 these
facts as it is to point Out the other facts
that the raising of sugar hccts and their
manufacture into sugar ar" Infant IN
dustrics which must come in direct rom
petition with foreign 'pauprr" labor,
and that while the manufacturer re-
ccivrs a certain bounty upon tine output
Of his plant. neither he nor the farmer
who raises the vegetable receives that
protection which McKinlcyitcs contend
new enterprises should receive. And
that Notwithstanding this the industry
is assuming larger proportions each year
and will, without doubt. ultimately be
extended to that point whore the nome
demand will be fully met by the home
supply.
Large sugar beet plants are being sue
ccssfully operated in California, Utah
and Nebraska. They will be multiplied
wherever farmers extensively engage in
raising bccts and as has been said, this
Is being done by American labor com
pcting with the cheaper foreign labor.
Hence the question arises If the sugar
beet industry Il be p~roiitably carried
under these labor conditions why
other industries which are so
highly protected also be operated under
IA much lower tariff. This is Il very
pertinent question in tariff discussions.
Sugars, including German nee and
Chinese. Sandwich Islands, West India
ana brazilian cane. are now admitted
without payment of a tariff tax or duty.
II must be conceded owing to the
cheaper labor in those countries the
article can be raised at much less EOS
than it can be produced in this country.
1t is true that the manufacturer of
our beet and cane sugars receives "a
bounty of two cents "a pound upon his
which polarizcs 90 degrees and
three-quarters Of a cent per pound upon
all polarizing between so and 80 degrees,
but where does the protection or bounty
in for the farmer or raiser of the
bcets. He is neither protected nor
bountied by the tariff. He puts his la
Dor against the cheaper labor of the
German peasant, the Chinese c%oolie, the
and West India serf and the
Sandwich islander. Yet we are told by
protcctionists that we must protect
American labor against that of fareign
countries to make the laborer self sus-
and prosperous. The establish
nent Of a sugar beet plant in Montana
,alls these things to mind. Labor is as
nigh or higher in Montana than it is in
any other state in the union, and yet
farmers propose to make money in
an industry in which they must compete
with the cheapest labor in the world.
This is "A noticeable Inconsistency in the
theory of protection from which the
Of Montana may learn IA valua-
BILE tariff lesson.
IT would appear that executions by