Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-04-26

| produce 2le long tons OF sugar, or In
| round figures $500 pounds. The rule In
| Cuba, as | understand from the testi-
mony is that one-half OF that goes to
the planter, In other words, the plant
| en- raises the sugar cane and takes II to
the centrales, and Is there paid for his
cane one-half OF the sugar which IL
| produced, IL Is not turned over TO him
In kind, but ne receives the value Of
one-half Of the sugar.
II is the same as II the planter had
received from the 5000 pounds Of sugar
which his cane viii yield $500, which at
| N.Sl per hundred. the lowest price
would mean S5O6S per acre, or at 2
cents a pound which Is about the aver
| age price that he has received during
| this year, II viii mean $50 to the plant-
| err $50 for every acre Of land planted In
sugar cane IN the island of Cuba. Now,
IN the United States we raise upon the
! beet-sugar, lands an average Of 10 tons
| OF beets to the acre. That Is a large
average. In many OF the states the
average is only nine tons. / am taking
| the largest amount. We raise 10 tons
OF beets at an average OF ss.39 per ton,
I which is paid to the farmer, and which
would give TO the farmer $40 so per
"NANs W AAeiA AHf IituAii III wv l0lbllh
of Cuba receives gross revenue from
his land, at the lowest price that sugar
has ever been, OF $50. 6S, While the beet
sugar planter In this country receives
q gross profit on his land Of 1890 per
acre. Now, anyone who understands
the situation knows that IL costs the
American farmer more 10 raise an acre
OF beets than II does the Cuban planter
to raise an acre of sugar cane IN Cuba.
So that the point make is this-that II
the sugar-beet farmer In this country
Is doing well and making a profit upon
his land with gross income Of $3.50
per acre, the Cuban planter must be
making good profit when he receives
a gross income Of s50.6S. loud APP
plausel
But, Mr.. Chairman II Is not sufl-
Client TO show that the Cuban people
need this legislation. We must so fur
ther and show that 1t Will not injure
any American industry. We must pay
some attention to the protests OF our
own citizens who are engaged In the
production Of cane and beet sugar. The
injurious effect upon the cane growers
Of Louisiana and Texas has been so
forcibly and so clearly demonstrated
by gentlemen who represent those
states that II is not necessary TO further
discuss IL. The slightest interference
with the duty is sure TO result disas-
trously to the industry In those states.
Mr.. Fowler a native Cuban planter
whose historical appeal for aid l read
moment ago, while apparently recog-
Milling this fact, coolly and blandly sug-
gests that the cane planters take their
machinery 10 Cuba and turn their sugar
estates into rice fields to supply Cuba
with rice. He says.
Louisiana, producing refined sugar
from cane, should find her markets in
her own sphere OF influence. II unable
TO do so, II is wholly clear that sugar
cane Is, as II is said TO be, an artificial
product for which her vicfdty Is UNI
suited, and her planters would do well
to take their machinery TO Cuba and
turn their sugar estates into rice fields
TO supply the Cuban demand, for that
article is largely consumed on the
island
An exceedingly generous proposition
to come from an allen and a stranger
who Is himself seeking our aid for the
preservation Of his own sugar landsl
II would not be unreasonable TO com
mend TO him his own advice. II Cuba
can not produce sugar at profit under
existing conditions, let her turn her
sugar lands into coffee farms and sup
ply us with an article that viii not
come into competition with any product
of our own.
But II has been argued here that the
proposed reduction may be made with
out injury TO the beet-sugar producers.
ma, ha gp,aa no nlar io fptta TINT
there are factories In especially favored
localities that will not be injured by
reduction OF 20 per cent Of the duty.
The Utah Sugar company's factory. at
Lehi, in my own late, has been re-
ferred to. The gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Long called attention 10 the
statement Of Mr. Cutler, manager OF
that factory, on the subject II is
claimed that Mr.. Cutler stated that the
beet sugar Industry would not be inju-
riously affected by the proposed reduce
ton.
| know Mr.. Cutler very well indeed,
I am glad 10 number him among my
close personal friends. ] am ready to
stand by and vouch for any statement
which he has made upon this subject;
but ] have searched Mr.. Cutters state
ment before the ways and means COM
mittee I'm vain 10 find any such declara-
ton / think he does substantially say
that the Lehi factory would not be In
jured. The Lehi factory, / think. Is
more favorably located and is In a bet
ter position 10 stand the reduction Of |
the duty than any factory In the Unit |
ed States. II Is an old factory. under |
excellent management. In which every |
expense has been reduced to the mini |
mum. Auxiliary plants are situated Is 1
or 20 miles 10 the north and 10 or 20 /
miles 20 the south OF the main factory |
respectively, and with connecting pipe |
lines. The beets grown In their local |
ity are taken 10 these auxiliary plants, |
and there sliced and the juice sent TO |
the main factory by means OF the pipe /
lines, and thus a great saving In the |
cost OF, Transportation Is effected. There /
are other circumstances which result |
III cheapening the cost OF the sugar pro-
duct. and Il Is entirely safe TO say that
sugar can be produced at this factory |
very much more cheaply than at any
other factory IN the United States. So
much for this exceptional case.
The question, however, is not wheth-
err this factory or that factory can
stand the proposed reduction, but a
will be the effect upon the sugar beet
Industry itself? win that be injuredY
The distinguished gentleman from Ohio,
tMr. Crossword In his speech the 9TH
er day answers this question In the
negative, and he refers with somewhat
contemptuous emphasis TO the MEM
bers upon this side Of the chamber who
have had the hardlhood 10 differ with
him as Juvenile Republicans Now,
! submit Mr. Chairman, that when a
man Is being arraigned for his party
loyalty TO a cardinal principle II Is not
so much a question as 10 how long he
has been a protectionist as Il Is how
good a protectlonist Is he Tested by
that rule. the men who are standing
together upon this side In opposition
10 this bin are better protecii0nists by
20 per cent than those who are bending
every effort 10 pass u. Less than three
months ago the gentleman himself took
the position which we occupy today. on
January q. In a hearing before the