410 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 



The fact tlial tliore can bo uo true trust in the inaiiulacture of beet 

 sui»ar is comparatively uiiimportaut if the beet sugar cannot compete 

 with trust relined cane sugar without legislative assistance. 



This is the case of course, from the academic standpoint of the con- 

 sumer. From the j^oint of view of the farmer interested in the industry, 

 it may be argued, that since lie has helped to support a multitude of 

 ''infant industries" all these years from which he derived no benefit 

 whateviH', it is no more than fair that he should huxe a little protection 

 now that he has discovered an infant industry in which the greater 

 share of the profits belong to him. The claims of his pet industry are 

 certainly as convincing as the claims of a lot of other infant industries, 

 and we cannot blame liim for demanding a share in the spoil. Certainly 

 his interests are entitled to as much consideration as any else's in- 

 terests. We do not include the public in this generalization; because 

 where tariffs are tinkered the public is entitled to no consideration at all. 



GIVE BEET SUGAR A FAIR CHANCE. 



[From Free Press, Oct. 20, 1901.] 



PROF. KEDZIE BELIEVES IT WILL BENEFIT THE COUNTRY.— COMPETI- 

 TION WILL COMPEL REDUCTION OF THE PRICE.— MONEY 

 SAVED THEREBY WILL AID EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY. 



To the Editor of the Free Press: 



From the editorial in the Free Press of October 11 on the beet sugar 

 industry the following extract is made: 



"Prof. Kedzie makes the point that it is impossible to form a trust 

 in the beet sugar business; but w'e hardly think he has maintained his 

 thesis. In fact, the entire beet sugar industry thus far has been to all 

 intents and purposes in accordance with trust methods. There has been 

 practically no competition between the producers of beet sugar and the 

 company that controls the business of refining cane sugar. If the prices 

 of beet sugar have been shaded slightly in certain districts for the 

 benefit of the jobber, the consumer has not profited. He has paid as 

 much for his sugar as he would have paid if there had not been a 

 ton of sugar beets raised in the United States, and it is yet to be proved 

 that the development of the industry is likely to lower the price to 

 the consumer." 



The statement that "the entire beet sugar industry thus far has been, 

 to all intents and purposes, in accordance with trust methods," is passed 

 by, because it had been shown that monopoly, or a trust, w^as impossible 

 where competition was free and uncontrolled. A trust that includes 

 the farmers as a class would be something new and rare. 



''There has been practically no competition between the producers 

 of beet sugar and the company that controls the business of refining 

 cane sucar.'' Yet this verv month the sugar trust has announced a 

 reduction of more than 31 per cent in the price of refined sugar in 

 places where beet sugar comes in competition with its sugar. A serious 



