The Washington times., 1903-08-24
Beet Sugar and Reciprocity.
Why We Can't Have the One, and Why
We Should Have the Other.

We Snoul0 nave the Otner.
Referring to the fact that we i'm
port, annually, sugar exceeding $780,
100000 IN value, the american
Economist" asks: ''Why do we not
produce this sugar7 We have the
land, we have the men, we have the
capital That $9O,OOO,OOO which we
send abroad would increase our
spendable income to just that amount,
d large part of which would go to
cur farmers to whom our manufac-
trrers want to sell more goods"
This question is always put by your
out-and-out protectionist whenever the
subject of Cuban reciprocity IS men
toned. And the question IS followed
by assertions, more or less vehement,
that IN a very short time a few
Years at the utmost-we shall raise all
the sugar we can consume, and sell to
other countries besides. Says the
Economist" :"
Just leave things as they are for ten or even
FIVE years. and viii have our own sugar in
dustry capable of supplying all own wants.
There is question about il In spite Of adj
verse legislation. OF continued agitation and
doubt; in spite Of the requirement Of Hawaii
and Porto Rico. our beet sugar industry has
made a marvellous start and progress, but this
Cuban treaty, if put into operation, viii be a
staggering blow.
Well, eight years ago the beet-root
sugar people issued a circular invit-
ing investors to take stock IN their
different enterprises They said that,
without a tariff to protect them, they
could compete successfully with the
bounty-fed sugars of Europe and
with the sugars even of Cuba, Porto
Rico and the Sandwich Islands. In
fact, they scorned the idea of a tariff
In spite of their protests, however,
the gift was forced upon them. They
have been at work a number of years
since then, and the industry is max
ing some headway. But it is moving
slowly, and, at the present rate of
progress, II viii be fifty years before
the beet-root sugar produced IN this
country can hope to equal the de-
mand. At present It barely keeps
pace with the natural increase in con-
sumption, which amounts yearly tC
about AZ per cent.
The reason why this country doe;
rot produce beet sugar Is due entirely
to the labor conditions prevailing
here. The sugar beet cannot be cult
waited by machinery; it requires hand
labor. In this country this woulC
mean sending women and children
into the fields; and, as everyon
knows, this is not to be thought Of a
this stage Of our development. Tn
other alternative IS the importation o.
cheap labor Chinese labor, for in
stance, on the Pacific Coast. Tn
country isn't prepared for that, either
The talk of the Economist" there
fore, is mere claptrap.
Trade should, in our opinion, ad
vance on lines Of least resistance. Ii
the ease Of cane sugar we have no
been able, though we protected the III
dustry for years by levying high du
ties, 10 do more than supply a loca
demand, because climatic condition
do not favor US. In the case Of bee
sugar we have, it is true, climate, sol
and capital, but we haven't the labor
Under these conditions It Is to our in
terest 10 make our ward, Cuba, pros
porous and strengthen her purchasin
power, which is essential If she
ever to be a valuable customer to u
or even become part and parcel of tn
United States. But it IS also NOR
than a mere matter of selfish interes
we are under a moral obligation
having assumed control, without $
much as asking her, Of Cuba's con
mereial relations and financial intel
ests, SO to shape our policy towar