Show GUIL MILSon sugar company FACTORY DIRECT ORlo W HARVEY ROSS UTAH W VM WRIGLEY JR C E 4 erat OFFICES CHICAGO AG 1 I 0 J C COX vice PAC 1104 ag 3 G continental NATIONAL DANK BANK incao W WM H CO R T HARRIS art U WASATCH vf HARVEY ROSS M 04 GLENN CLENN R T HARRIS ANO AND AST 1 I D voorhees SALT LAKE CITY UTAH january 3 1927 TO THE BEET GROWERS IN OUR SOUTH DISTRICT in a recent issue of the richfield reaper our competitor in various forms also in a statement issued by its vice president and general manager sets forth some misstatements and urges some rather surprising claims to those of our beet growers who have read these articles we invite attention to the state ment of this companas comp anys position in the same issue of the paper referred to we ask particularly that the growers ask themselves and ask the officials of our competitor the following fol loving questions 1 if our contract with an added guaranteed minimum of per ton or is not more advantageous to the growers why is our competitor offering a minimum in in idaho and only in utah 2 it is claimed that L considering the present prices of sugar the sliding scale contract itself will rot only take care of the added guaranteed minimum offered by our company butman but may pay more what will vill happen to the growers of utah should the price of sugar decline to or 5 0 O per ba bag who will then compensate them for the difference in the minimum guarantee 9 ii if as 11 1 threatened by our competitor there may be a loss in taxable revenue e through i the removal of its plant should this burden be shifted entirely upon the shoulders of the beet 1 growers 1 rowers by the loss of the added per ton if the present price of sugar maintains does not our contract also insure an additional dit ional payment even beyond the minimum guarantee 11 3 the statement has been made that because of a somewhat lesser average sugar content in our north district the growers in the south district with their beets commingled with the others will receive less for their beets has our company not always paid as much or more for its beets than the elsinore factory 4 our company because of the 1926 beet crop failure lias has waived and cancelled all its seed and planting charges has our competitor done lik likewise eNise 5 why does our competitor in its contract which offers you only a minimum nevertheless attach a string thereto requiring that the beets average in sugar content lj or more our contract makes no such limitations the gunnison su sugar suar ar company is not seeking to destroy an industry it is seeking and has always boug sought it to build up the beet sugar industry to a sound basis by paying c its rowers growers a fair price for their beets and to thus enlist their support and confidence this is the reason why we have offered our growers rowers a guarantee of per ton lon more than offered by any other oilier company in in the state we challenge e our competitor in fairness to all the growers of utah to increase its established minimum um to per ton and thus place them on the same basis as the growers of idaho why not do not be deceived just as our company lias has demonstrated its interest in the welfare of the growers so we can convince you that our financial backing is as great at least as that of any of our competitors we expect to and will give I 1 honest and faithful performance to our contracts and to every obligation along avith a character of service to our growers which will be in all respects of a satisfactory nature yours very truly GUNNISON SUGAR COMPANY by W harvey ross president idank W |