Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-03-14
FARMERS AND BEET HOOKS.
Beet Growers and Sugar Co.'S state
mcnts on Controversy.

The Descret News has received a
communication from Mapleton, signed
by George u Matson. Jr, "ln behalf
Of tho committee" iu which he states
chat 90 farmers OF that district have
signed an agreement not 10 raise beets
for the Lehi factory the coming season,
owing 20 IT'S having prohibited the use
OF the hook knife Mr. Matson claims
that this knife is highly advantageous
90 the farmers. and that It Is next to
impossible TO hire men 20 top beets
without it, He further says that the
companys agent. MIR. Farley Austin,
had Acknowledged that the beeu al the
Springviue cutting station. topped with
the hook, were iu good condition MIR.
MatsOu also SAYS that the damage from
mixing frozen bects with others has
been unjustiy iaid TO the hook knife,
which he SAYS saves onc-thlrd In the
topping OF heets. and protects tine
health of tho growers IN not compelling
them tO get 0u their knees on the wet
ground lie claims that the farmers
have potitiuued the sugar company.
but without results. and that the only
recourse is 90 cease raising beeta.
Iu order that both sides OF the sub
icct might Doe presented, a News repre-
sentative asked George Austin, agr-
cultural superintendent of the COM
panv. and MI Farley Austin, who
were in the city Saturday evening, for
a. statement They authorized the fol-
lowing.
been frequently thrcshed out with the
farmers In conventions and PERSONAL
U.s.. All have been notified again and
again that the use of the hook in
topping beets must be discontinued.
IL is lust MS reasonable 70 have "a hook
thrust into beets I'M gathering them,
as il would be into a crop OF apples
ln picking them. Ninety per cent OF
the farmers in Utah and Idaho do
without this tool, and in many places
lt has never been thought Of Last
wear some farmers In the south end OF
Utah county, even though they had
signed contract prohibiting the use
of the tool went right ahead ana used
it, well knowing that they We're Nolat-
ing the contract This year an such
were notified that this violation would
no longer DE tolerated II cost the
sugar company a good deal of money
last wear simply Co witch farmers who
were using the hook. thus not only
damaging the bects. but preventing
them from being properly freed OF
dirt In california the use Of such "a
thing as the hook knife is unknown,
and when farmers there were told 10
had been used in some parts Of Utah,
they were simply amazed that 10
should have been tolerated q moment
"The action OF the so farmers I'm
Maplct1n. if there are that many SIS
uu insignificant matter, and viii have
20 effect ON the tonnage for the Lehi
factory. which win have AN the bcets
and moro than 90 can conveniently
work Tho time has come when FARM
crs who refuse 90 live up 20 their con-
tracts should devote themselves 90
some other industry than the growing
of bcets.'
Since the above was written The
News has also received an extended
communication from Mr. John Men
douhall of Maplcton IN which he de-
fauds the use Of the beet hook. claim
Ing that 30 does not lnjure tho bcets
and s8vcs tho farmer much labor. He
also asks whether the beet hook Ia not
used by the FARMERS I'M Idaho? To
tho last question. the answer is. no. Mr
Mark Austin. agricultural superinten-
dent OF tho company for that state,
says that its use is unknown there.
and the company viii not permit its
use in either state.
The other points in Mr. Mondenhal's
letter AFRO covered by the article above
printed and besides the controversy
would seem 10 be closed by the action
Of the sugar company I'm declining %
accent any contract which does not
prohibit the use NJ the hook and the
M1pletcu farmers In declining to work
without H.