64:
Federation of Labor organized beet workers struck for higher wages in
Blissfield Michigan in 1935. These workers migrated from Texas and included individuals who had been born on US soil, those who had entered the US legally and those who lacked legal resident standing. Regardless of citizenship status, maltreatment of these workers was widespread by both employers and government authorities. Employer intimidation was commonplace and workers were often fined for made-up infractions so as not to receive even the low pay they had been promised. Overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions were pervasive. Such conditions received growing attention as public health departments became burdened with the cost of care and quarantine. In Saginaw Michigan the Mexican population, accounting for just one and one half percent of the population, suffered 25% of all tuberculosis cases, at a cost to the county of some $ 18,000 in 1937.
119:
years to recover outlays and earn a profit. Yet, with no guarantee of a market for additional sugar yields, investment was lower than it would have been under a system in which planters could make accurate long-term assessments of demand. Prices rose from the implementation of the act, and dispute exists about whether this was a good or bad outcome. One critic noted in 1956 that the typical
American consumer continued to pay some 50% more for sugar than did the average consumer in the world market.
152:
commonly known as the Court
Packing Scheme. Frustrated by what he regarded as obstructionism by the Supreme Court, Roosevelt threatened simply to appoint additional Justices sympathetic to his programs, whose votes would override those of the sitting justices. The proposal never came to pass, but the
147:
cited as unconstitutional. Congress reaffirmed the tariff and quota portions of the bill the same year, and adopted a new Sugar Act in 1937. The period 1933 to 1937 saw a fierce battle for power between the president and the
Supreme Court, during which the court struck down numerous provisions of the
118:
Despite early recovery in Cuba, critics noted that the nature of the quota, which was reset each year and subject to considerable change, disrupted the whole of the Cuban economy, dominated as it was by the single crop. Due to the high fixed cost of planting sugar cane, a planter would need several
101:
Citing increased returns to both sugar growers and processors, wage increases, and the near elimination of child labor in the industry, while consumer prices rose modestly but did not exceed levels comparable to pre-Depression levels, Roosevelt declared the program a short-term success. US exports
71:
outlined Six objectives of the Jones-Costigan Act: 1) To ensure "fair returns" to sugar beet and sugar cane producers. This was to be achieved through a two-pronged approach of limiting the sugar supply to aid in a recovery of market prices, and a direct subsidy to be given to sugar producers. 2)
109:
According to Kent
Hendrickson in 1964, the New Deal laws had a major impact on sugar beet farming in the Great Plains. They improved working conditions but were written primarily to aid the growers and the sugar processing mills. Much of the work was done by migrant Mexicans, who faced low wages,
72:
To assure laborers in the sugar industry a share in the benefits of the program, by conditioning benefits on the elimination of child labor and the payment of wages deemed fair and equitable. 3) To stabilize sugar prices by limiting production. 4) To "stabilize" or limit sugar production in the
59:
The US market for sugar was the largest in the world, consuming some 6,000,000 tons per year. Of this, the US sugar industry supplied only about a third, while the rest consisted of foreign imports. Within the US itself, sugar production was divided between two industries; sugar cane producers
63:
In the early 20th century, sugar beet workers were primarily Polish, Belgian, and
Hungarian immigrant families. Following the Immigration Act of 1924, which cut off most European immigration, growers turned to workers of Mexican descent. The trend became still more widespread when American
105:
In an effort to protect mainland sugar growers, the Jones-Costigan Act imposed quotas on both
Caribbean nations under the American sphere of influence and American territories themselves. Outraged by these restrictions, Hawaiian plantation owners began issuing calls for statehood.
88:
at levels commensurate with US demand. 5) To stop the decline of Cuban sugar exports to the US. This was also to serve to rejuvenate Cuban consumption of
American goods. 6) To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to mediate disputes between growers, processors, and laborers.
92:
The Act authorized the
Federal Surplus Relief Commission to purchase surplus beet sugar using proceeds from the processing tax. This sugar was used in foods distributed to the unemployed, in an attempt to alleviate widespread hunger.
122:
Among the harshest criticisms was a 1961 allegation that the Jones-Costigan Act had established "a government-created cartel that goes well beyond the controls imposed in any other sector of
American private enterprise."
143:. The bill contained a subsidy for growers, supported by a tax levied on processors. In the case of sugar, the tax amounted to one half cent per pound. It was the imposition of this tax that Justice
24:
that reclassified sugar crop as basic commodity, subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act enacted the previous year. Sponsored by Senator
56:
that lasted through the 1930s. By 1931, sugar prices had fallen from a pre-Depression level of 7 cents per pound to just one and one half cents per pound.
149:
102:
to Cuba increased 140% from 1933 to 1935 under a reciprocal trade agreement that lowered trade barriers between the US and Cuba.
278:
Kent Hendrickson, "The Sugar-Beet Laborer and the Federal Government: An Episode in the History of the Plains in the 1930's."
249:
Roosevelt, Franklin D. (May 9, 1934) . "Presidential Statement on Signing Statute Aimed to Help the Sugar Industry".
331:
40:
by imposing protective tariffs and quotas along with a direct subsidy to growers of sugar cane and sugar beet.
336:
134:
21:
49:
68:
184:
Cater, Douglass and Walter Pincus In (April 13, 1961). "At Home & Abroad Our Sugar Diplomacy".
133:
The 1934 version of the Jones-Costigan Act was overturned in 1936 when the Supreme Court ruled the
139:
60:
along the coast and on Caribbean and Pacific islands, and sugar beet producers on the mainland.
311:
Cater, Douglas and Walter Pincus (April 13, 1961). "At Home & Abroad Our Sugar Diplomacy".
292:
Poirot, Paul L. (1958). "("Flies in the Sugar Bowl" - The Foundation for Economic Education)".
169:
Flynn, John (August 1, 1931). "Sweet and Low - Sugar on the table and what's wrong with it|".
8:
25:
29:
20:, also known as the Sugar Act of 1934, passed on May 9, 1934 was an amendment to the
53:
85:
37:
325:
264:
Diogenes (November 24, 1934). "News and Comment From the National Capital".
144:
81:
73:
251:
From the Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (9 Vols)
33:
77:
148:
New Deal. This came to a head in 1937 with the proposal of a
229:
McWilliams, Carey (September 1941). "Mexicans to Michigan".
214:
McWilliams, Carey (September 1941). "Mexicans to Michigan".
199:
McWilliams, Carey (September 1941). "Mexicans to Michigan".
52:, commonly associated with the start of the worldwide
153:
court became more docile. The 1937 Sugar Act stood.
323:
48:Declining agricultural prices preceded the
228:
213:
198:
126:
248:
263:
324:
291:
310:
244:
242:
240:
183:
168:
13:
237:
14:
348:
304:
150:Judicial Procedures Reform Bill
110:child labor and poor housing.
285:
272:
257:
222:
207:
192:
177:
162:
1:
156:
43:
113:
36:effort to salvage an ailing
7:
135:Agricultural Adjustment Act
22:Agricultural Adjustment Act
10:
353:
50:Stock Market Crash of 1929
28:(D-CO) and Representative
96:
69:Franklin Delano Roosevelt
18:Jones-Costigan Amendment
332:American sugar industry
140:United States v. Butler
128:United States v. Butler
32:(D-TX), the act was a
337:1934 in American law
280:Great Plains Journal
137:unconstitutional in
266:The Literary Digest
26:Edward P. Costigan
294:Essays on Liberty
282:3.2 (1964): 44+.
30:John Marvin Jones
344:
317:
316:
308:
302:
301:
289:
283:
276:
270:
269:
261:
255:
254:
246:
235:
234:
226:
220:
219:
211:
205:
204:
196:
190:
189:
181:
175:
174:
171:Collier's Weekly
166:
54:Great Depression
352:
351:
347:
346:
345:
343:
342:
341:
322:
321:
320:
309:
305:
290:
286:
277:
273:
262:
258:
253:: pps. 220–222.
247:
238:
227:
223:
212:
208:
197:
193:
182:
178:
167:
163:
159:
131:
116:
99:
46:
12:
11:
5:
350:
340:
339:
334:
319:
318:
303:
284:
271:
256:
236:
221:
206:
191:
176:
160:
158:
155:
130:
125:
115:
112:
98:
95:
86:Virgin Islands
45:
42:
38:sugar industry
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
349:
338:
335:
333:
330:
329:
327:
314:
307:
299:
295:
288:
281:
275:
267:
260:
252:
245:
243:
241:
232:
231:Common Ground
225:
217:
216:Common Ground
210:
202:
201:Common Ground
195:
187:
180:
172:
165:
161:
154:
151:
146:
142:
141:
136:
129:
124:
120:
111:
107:
103:
94:
90:
87:
83:
79:
75:
70:
65:
61:
57:
55:
51:
41:
39:
35:
31:
27:
23:
19:
313:The Reporter
312:
306:
297:
293:
287:
279:
274:
265:
259:
250:
230:
224:
215:
209:
200:
194:
186:The Reporter
185:
179:
170:
164:
145:Owen Roberts
138:
132:
127:
121:
117:
108:
104:
100:
91:
66:
62:
58:
47:
17:
15:
82:Puerto Rico
74:Philippines
326:Categories
300:: 352–357.
157:References
67:President
44:Background
114:Criticism
315:: 24–27.
188:: 24–27.
84:and the
34:New Deal
97:Impact
78:Hawaii
268:: 13.
233:: 14.
218:: 6.
203:: 6.
16:The
328::
298:IV
296:.
239:^
80:,
76:,
173:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.