The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-01-07
NIBLEY's SUGAR TALK.

There appeared n Tuesday evening 5
issue of The Desert News communlca
tion from Presiding Bishor Charles ".
Niblcv of the Mormon church. In that
letter the bishop denies some of The
statements which were made by Mr..
.Iudson c. Wcllvcr in the January num-
Der of Hampton S Magazine with re-
spect TO tho connection Of the Mormon
church with the sugar trust,
1t appears 10 nc The burden Of Bishop
Nibley's thought that the Mormon
church is not a partner with the sugar
trust because IL is not in The sugar
business. That is the main point driv-
CO at. And undoubtedly the bishop is
right, if we are 10 take tho proposition
from the point of view that the church
in conference assembled has bought no
sugar stocks. built no sugar factories.
nor acted rs an officer in the inter.
mountain sugar combination In so far
as the meaning of Bishop Nibley may
take that complexion, he has not mis-.
stated the facts. But IN effect he has
misrepresented the condition. First. Let
us quote little from MIR, Nibley S
letter:
The church used some Of its means,
its credit and its influence 10 get this
tlchil factory built. and into operation.
The authorities urged church members
preached and promoted tho project at
every convenient opportunity. and some
q! them financially embarrassed them
selves to sec il started. Few OF The
financially strong mon Of The community
could be persuaded Ia invest. stu ihc
church leaders persevered assuming
orGcr 10 carry 1t 10 completion.
For NIL of which they are entitled
10 credit. But there arc some other
things to say with respect TO the initia.
tion of the project that do not reflect
such credit upon the church leaders.
Bishop Nibley fully confesses that their
influence as ccclesiasts was operated
and traded upon for this material pur-
pose, There is no doubt in tho world
either. that this same influence PLAYED
great part in the procurement of
bounty from the Territorial Legislature
Also, in the pulpiteering mentioned by
the bishop he viii recall that ono Of
the chief inducements held ont TO the
people in return for their assistance was
an assurance that they would be able
to buy the home manufactured sugar
at price much lower than that paid
for the product brought in from other
localities Another induccmeut was Of
fered to the farmers in that they were
promised that they should receive a fair
price for their beets if they would but
plant sufficient beet acreage to assure
the factory an unrestricted run under
fair conditions. In fact. IL was given
out in the most unmistakable terms
that IL was 10 be the people S concern
and to be operated for the benefit of
the people.
But how has it turned out' 1t used
10 inc that the ratio IN value as be.
tween the sugar beet and the refined
sugar was one ron ~ one hundred
pounds. In other words. for ton of
his beets the farmer received one hun
drcd pounds of sugar or its equivalent
Nowadays the ratio is ono ton to sew.
cntyivc pounds. or the farmer re-
ceives but seventy-6ve pounds Of sugar
for his ton of beets-a twenty Ave pcr
cent disadvantage 10 the producer and
an equal advantage 20 tho sugar com
bne. The consumer was promised, bv
speakers in Mormon pulpiis. that he
| should have sugar for $50 per hun
drcd pounds. Now he is obliged TO pay
| $500 for that amount.
| II IS noticed that Bishop Nibley has
| followed the usual official Mormon cus.
tom of giving the church credit for
anything AID everything that may ap-
pear TO be plainly good, and at the same
time to absoIvc IL from all responsible.
ity for any evil that may appear in
connection with the Identical matter. II
is as il q father would saw, Yes. he
IL my son., when the good qualities
| of his offspring are displayed and