The Norfolk weekly news. (Norfolk, Neb.) 1888-1900, 1899-07-20

dustry and allow Mr.. Havemeyer to
continue refining foreign raw sugars.
We must look to the reason which
led Mr.. Havemeyer to make this won.
derful and fallaoious attack on home
sugar production In the first place he
knows perfectly well, and can read the
handwriting on the wall, which says
that the production of sugar from sugar
beets carried out on the lines on which
the industry is being developed IN the
United States will finally result in pro-
ducing the sugar consumed by the people
of the United States in a thousand beet
sugar factories dotted all over the union
and render useless the refnerics on the
coast. These factories will employ n
hundred men where one is employed to.
day by the sugar trust and give the
farmers the benefit of n protective tariff
on new and profitable crop, which is
desirable end to be obtained for the
agricultural classes who are not usually
benefited by any tariff protection.
Mr.. Havemeyer, as president Of the
American Sugar Refining company, is
perfectly right to do everything in his
power to protect the industry he repre-
sents, and his suggestion tha. raw su-
gars-which are his raw material
should be let in duty free is undoubted.
ly on the lines most favorable to the su.
gar trust.
He suggests that sugar be admitted
duty free from Cuba, knowing full well
that this would at the present time pre-
vent the development of the home beet
sugar industry, which is a new industry
in this country, only having had prac.
tical existence since the Mckinley act,
but most promising one, and one which
will, If fostered during the next ten or
fifteen years, supply the United States
with their own sugar instead of sending
abroad over one hundred million dollars
for this agricultural article Of daily use.
Another reason for Mr.. Havemeyers s
attack OH the tariff in general, and the
home sugar industry in particular, may
he accounted for by his desire to direct
the attention away from trusts and have
ences OF depression following the Wilson
act, contrasted with the prosperity
which succeeded the Mckinley law will
hardly fool the majority of the Amer
lean people. Mr.. Havemeyer and
others have selfish interests to protect,
Notwithstanding Mr.. Havemeyer
wants raw sugar free, and favors Cuban
planters against American farmers,
This might be an additional reason for
his suggestion that Cuban sugar should
be admitted free, but the main aud, in
my opinion, underlying reason for his
statement rests on the fact that he sees
the final destruction of the sugar retin-
ing industry threatened by the coming
prosperity of the home beet sugar indus.
try, which is beginning to assume most
important proportions and which exists
today in California, Oregon, Washing.
ton, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado Ne
braska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Michigan and New York, having de-
! veloped phenomenally in the last two
years.
There Is no trust among the sugar
i producers of this country, and there
. never can be, for the simple reason that
, the beet sugar industry can be started in
almost any part Of the union.
I conclude by calling attention to the
fact that the home sugar industry, which
Mr.. Havemeyer claims to be inordinate
| ly protected, is not in trust, whereas
the sugar refining industry, which he
! clai ms does not receive one.half Of the
protection it requires, is with the Stand
ard Oil Company, the pioneer Of this new
/ business consolidation known as trust
/ l will not dispute Mr.. Havemeyer'l
claim that 10 per cent is sufficient pro
lection to the sugar refining interests
which he represents, but do asser,
that he cannot make the American peo
l pie believe that the industries Of thii
, country and business prospered during
the years we were struggling under tht
! Wilson law, when the average protec
-tion amounted to 40 per cent. ad valoren
: IL Mr.. Hayemeyer had said that keer
r and losing competition in business Ice
' to the formation of trusts he would b,
: right. for the tariff has nothing to d.
: with the formation Of trusts.
HENRY t. OXNARD.
{ Road Notice to Land Owners.