The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1920-03-15
Some Side Lights.


as actually drafted.
Some Side Lights.
Some of the bones of contention
that have arisen during the winters
negotiations are as follows:
The sugar companies claim that
C. G. Patterson is not a reliable nor
responsible man, but that he is quite
emphatically the opposite of that
and not good citizen. They admit
that. the government has not been
able to make case Of disloyalty
against him, yet they say he has been
under surveillance and has melted
others to act and successfully cover
ed his tracks at all times
In rebuttal to this it is claimed
that this may be only lame effort
to discredit the man, and cowardly
way of combating his influence tenn
porarily. )
1t is charged that the representa-
tiyes Of the beet growers have made
exaggerated claims as to what are
the costs of manufacturing sugar,
and then they do not know how to
figure the overhead. The growers
also claim that no beets> are ever
booked at more than Is per cent
sugar, and that it is known that
great deal of the tonnage runs high
er than 20 per cent, some as high as
25 per cent, and that the company
takes that and employs deception in
its dealings with the growers.
1t is said that the Sugar company
claims loss in shrinkage, and holds
that up as one item to be consider
ed in overhead expense, while as
matter Of fact, it is onlywater that
evaporates from the beets and that
the sugar was all there or practical
ly all there, even after they are ex-
posed to the air and become wilted.
Some of the individual growers
make exaggerated claims as to the
company docking them for SEEM
ingly unreasonable amount of tare
tfor dirt and in some of these cases
the field men and the weighmasters
for the company declare that GER
tain growers are so dishonest it takes
from one to three men to watch them
to keep them from cheating in sub
stantial amounts every time they
weigh and unload.
1t is charged that the Sugar COM
pany has attempted to use the va
rious business interests, including
the banks, the press and commercial
bodies, to get them to bring pressure
to bear upon the growers to get them
into line for compromises; that some
requests have been made in such
matters that did not meet with the
approval of the persons or firms re-
ceiving the requests. 1t is charged
that the Sugar company made some
stock dividends or issues of bonuses
and pushed announcements of them
in the newspapers at a critical time
in the negotiations, apparently in the
hope of thus buying good will with
bonuses that might not have been
rendered if these negotiations had
not been under way.
1t is charged that the Sugar COM
pany has claimed to have made only
small profits while at the same time
they were building new factories ont
of the funds set aside for expansion
of the business, and that these funds
came out of the profits which the
growers should have received some
share of in their beet checks.
1t is said that the farmers have
been encouraged to invest in sugar
stock and thus be in a position to
draw from both sides of the indus
try, and that they have generally
plead their inability to buy it. But
when the company issued them stock |
in substantial blocks as bonuses, CIV
ing them the option of turning it |
back and receiving cash for it at |
par, this sugar stock that came I'M
and without the growers |
having to put out money for it, i'm
began to flow back to the
in change for their checks,
and within three weeks, more than
half of it has been turned in. Some
estimates put it, at much more than
half, but we are unable to get the
exact percentage. This action on the
part of the growers indicates that
hey do not believe the sugar stock
S as profitable as they have been
iaying it is.
1t is charged that the representa-
ives of the Sugar company gave
marked offense to the growers by
efusing to meet with them Friday
md by insisting upon meeting with
lobody that did not come under the
.uspices of the farm bureau. They