Iron County record. [volume] (Cedar City, Utah) 1893-1982, 1916-08-25
SUGAR TRUST PULLS A STRING

W NblEIdtuldlt Nbu upOH lOui hEhb
upon the Sugar Trust. My, but you
are brave man! DO you know what
the Sugar Trust could DO to you, If
they only wanted TOT"
We replied that we realized that we
were taking some chances, but that
we had gone into this fight in the in
terests of the common people, and we
intended to see il through.
This week the Sugar Trust begins
to show its fine Patrician hand. w.
r. Palmer, our fellow townsman, the
secretary and manager Of our largest
mercantile establishment, the business
house which in the past has contrib
uted more generously to the advertis-
ing columns of this paper, and to the
printing department, than any other,
by margin of more than two to one,
has contributed a lengthy article to
our columns, in defense, ostensibly,
of Governor Spry and Charles W..
Nibley, but which ultimately amounts
TO defense of the Sugar trust in
this state, and closes with a covert
and nicely concealed threat of the loss
of patronage, If certain Objectionable
policies are continued. In this action.
it is privately intimated that he Is
sustained by members of his board of
directors.
IL takes no particular courage to
lambast the Sugar trust with head
quarters in New York, but when it
gets right up next to your bread and
butter, the real test of courage be-
gins. Mr.. Palmer's article will be
found in another portion of this is
sue of The Record, and we reply to it
briefly herein.
Eulogies for Governor Spry.
The fore part of the article in ques-
ton Is defense and eulogy of Gov.
William Spry, upon which we will
not devote any considerable space.
If the sentiments expressed are
merited, they come too late to help
the governor in a political way, and
we have no personal quarrel with him.
We still denounce with as much vehe-
mence as ever (not the fact that he
twice vetoed prohibition measure,
butt the fact that he assumed to wrest
the entire machinery of government
from the people and their representa-
tives, by Withholding the bill and his
veto until after the legislature had ad-
journed. This act made him unfit to
be entrusted with the important Of
flee of governor of this state. But
this has all been hashed and rehashed
through these columns, and since Gov.
Spry Is now out of the race, and dead
issue in Utah politics, we will try to
refrain hereafter from referring to
this painful subject.
The Republican party of Utah has
shown its disapproval of his action,
and ii is cowardly to kick man when
he is down.
The Live Issue.
But the Sugar question is by no
means dead issue, and on the con-
trary is beginning to show itself to
be very much alive. Our friend Will
Palmer does not know that in getting
into this controversy he is defending
aiding it to pick the bones Of the COM
mon people of this country; but such
is the fact. viii is a Jealous church
member, and the fact that Bishop
Nibley's name has been brought into
the question causes him to fly instinct
lively to his defense. We do not think
that Bishop Nibley is any worse than
other prominent members Of the sugar
trust in this or other states. And
neither do we recognize that the fact
of his holding an important eccles-
iastical position renders him immune
from criticism, if his actions in a bus
mess sense Warrant it.
We agree with our correspondent
that in a general way constructive
policy is better than negative or de-
structive policy. But in the case of
the sugar companies the constructive
policy has been tried until it has
ceased to be virtue. We have paid
the sugar companies bonasus and be-
slowed favors upon them in order TO
give them a good start, and what do
we get from them in return? Nothing
but extortion and their contempt for
our outcries for relief. When this
stage Is reached, II is sometimes nee
essary to resort to other methods, un-
til they mend their ways and show
more consideration for their patrons.
How Nibley Got In.
The name of Charles W. Nibley
has been prominently mentioned in
connection with the local tentacle Of
the sugar octopus, partially because he
is one of the heaviest individual stock
holders, who derives the greatest in
dividual benefit from the eXtortions
made upon the consumers of their
product, and partially because when
the practices of the trust were as
sailed he was the first to respond with
defense Of it, over his own sigma
ture, in which he cast decided reflec-
tions upon those who had shown the
temerity to criticise them, and to ask
for more equitable adjustment OF
prises on sugar.
In his defense of Bishop Nibley,
Mr.. Palmer reminds us of the story
they used to tell of how the Armour
Packing company was established
You may all have heard the story, and
quite probably we have forgotten
some of the important details, but as
we remember it the story is substan-
italy as follows;
How First Trust Was Formed.
A good many years ago, when the
only trust heard of in America was
trust at the stores, there was q man
Of "farsighted business ability" who
had an aversion for hard work, but
was fond Of hunting, and his frequent