New-York tribune., 1902-02-17
BEET PROFITS AND PROTECTION


In another column of to-day's paper we print
one of the few letters which we have received
expressing dissent from The Tribune's attitude
toward reciprocity with Cuba. The letter is in
teresting for two major reasons. One is that
1t quite ignores the fact-as do nearly all who
take that side of the question-that in propos-
ing reciprocity with Cuba there is no thought
of depriving the United States sugar indus
try Of protection. We have the word of the
foremost beet sugar producers for II that entire
ly free admission of Cuban sugar to our markets
would not cause the protective system to cease
to protect the beet sugar industry in this coun-
try. The other ground OF interest is found in
the strange msconCeptiou OF the purport of pro-
lection. You admit" says our correspondent
that we can raise the beets, bur doubt the
'proftableness of the business. in comparison
with other crops Then. why do you wish to
deny it protection 10 make it profitablef" Per
haps our correspondent Will perceive his error
most clearly IN the relation of a bit Of New
England history
Years ago the legislators Of a certain State
observed that nearly all the wheat -four con-
suned in that State was being imported from
other States Under the constitution they could
not encourage wheat growing In their own
State with protective tariff. so they sought to
attain the same end by paying a bounty. For
a few years this caused considerable increase
in wheat culture Then there was despite the
bounty a relapse into the old condition. The
legislators investigated the case, TO discover
why their bounty not effective in building
up great wheat growing industry. They found
that the farmers had found that they could groN,
on a given area of ground enough potatoes 10
buy several times much wheat as could be
grown thereon. And as the farmers were
CHI in hot nd
potatoes rather than wheat. We suppose il
would have been possible TO make wheat grow
ing more profitable than potato growing by
putting on a big enough bounty. But if only
$50 worth Of wheat can be raised on an acre
against $50 worth Of potatoes would il be
sound policy for the State to pay 500 bounty
on every acre of wheat in order to induce farm
ers to grow it instead Of potatoes? We think
our correspondent will unhesitatingly answer
No.
It may he that a sufficiently high tariff or
bounty, would make it profitable TO grow
oranges in Greenland. But protection is not de
signed to promote such mOnstrosities The ex-
ample Of tin plate, which our correspondent
cites. does not help his side of the case. The
tin plate industry in this country is not nearl,.
as old one as beet sugar, and has not en-
joyed protection nearly as long Yet it long
ago grew to great proportions. supplying the
bulk of our own demand and providing large
surplus for export and to-day it would be
able to stand secure with only half the pro
lection it enjoys. But beet sugar, with much
longer career as protected industry, has not
yet developed sufficiently TO make any material
figure in markets. and is not growing as
rapidly as our demand for sugar Is growing
that is TO say the proportion of our demand
which it supplies is actually decreasing The
one industry has well vindicated the wisdom of
protecting it. The other has yet failed to do
so. We have no objection to a continuance of
the present degree Of protection to beet sugar
and we repeat, upon the authority of the beet
sugar men themselves, that reciprocity with
Cuba would not impair that protection. And
we must repudiate our correspondents remark
that The Tribune seems to have abandoned
1.-The Republican doctrine of protection and gone
'over to the ranks of the free traders" In TAX
ing its present ground toward Cuba The Trib-
une occupies the exact ground taken and held
by Benjamin Harrison, by James G. Blaine and
by William Mckinley. Their Republicanism
and protectionism were good enough for The
Tribune and we really think they should be
good enough for The Tribune's readers