WESTERN HEMISPHERE IMMIGRATION 451

rately the average earnings from beet production, yet it is generally agreed that
a Mexican family may average annually from $600 to $800 in beets.
It must be nofed that this is a family income and results from the labor of the
Mexican, his wife, and several children, who may number five or more, child
labor being extensive in the beet fields. The average earnings of a man working
in ‘beets at 1927 contract rates were $250. A man and wife could earn $425.
The average family earnings in 1927 were less than $666. Labor rates in 1027
were approximately 4 per cent above the rates of 1928. Here, indeed, is cheap
labor. Is it any wonder that Americans can not be found who will work in competition
 with Mexicans under such conditions and at such wages? I, for one,
am unwilling to admit that Americans will not do “dirty” work and that they
scorn manual labor until they refuse to do such labor when paid decent wages
that will enable them to have a reasonable standard of living. Americans and
white Europeans did practically all the work prior to the large importations of
Mexicans. If wages and living conditions become what they should be, there is
little doubt but that an ample supply of white labor could be secured in this
country, able and willing to do the work in the sugar-beet fields, monotonous
and “dirty” as the work may be. For, is it not true that Amerians do much
dirtier work in many industries in this country at the present time? The labor
agents of the sugar companies argue, however, that they are unable to pay
higher wages—that they must have cheap labor. In this they seem to be more
frank and honest than the other employers of such labor. As in cotton and truck
production, it is to be doubted, however, that the sugar-beet industry would be
ruined financially if its supply of cheap Mexican labor were cut off, in view of the
fact that the higher efficiency of white labor amply justifies the payment of
higher wages. Therefore, the same arguments apply here as in other cases.
Furthermore, there is this additional factor of major importance: The sugar
producers in this country enjoy a tariff which is designed to protect them in such
a manner as to enable them to produce at a profit on an American basis of doing
business. What they are really seeking is not only a protective tariff but the
continuation of a subsidy of cheap foreign labor.
Obviously the latter nullifies the purpose of the former, and has created serious
doubts in the minds of many Anericans as to the expediency of such conditions.
In view of the present mobility of labor in this country better housing and reasonable
 living conditions and fair wages should be inducement sufficient to
secure an ample supply of white, not negro, labor for the beet growers. If
sugar-beet producers are unwilling or unable to do this under present conditions
with the aid of a protective tariff, then a general housecleaning and reorganization
seems to be in order. The sugar-beet industry in this country not only needs
to be Americanized, it must be Americanized. Be it noted, further, that this
does not mean the substitution of Porto Rican negroes and Filipinos for Mexicans.
Yet this is the very thing the sugar beet companies are not only threatening in
retaliation for the inevitable restriction of Mexican immigration, but it is a
movement which they have already under way to defeat the purpose of such
legislation. The fact that such labor is even more undesirable than Mexicans is
evidence of the fact that none of these companies have the interests of the Nation
at heart. Apparently they have no intention of placing their industry on an
American basis unless forced to do so. It is a challenge to the successful operation
 of the whole restrictive program which the American people should meet
with the same determination that is being displayed bv the opposition in its
design to thwart such legislation. :
According to Prof. F. W. Taussig, the secret of the success of American agriculture
 is “the 1-family farm,” with “the labor of agriculture done mainly by
the owners of the soil; no sharp cleavage between land owners and land workers;
little inequality in economic and social status; a high general level of prosperity;
a landed class not rich and not poor, not highly cultured but far from inert or
dull.” Such is the standard we should strive for and try to improve upon. » To
do less would be contrary to American efficiency and progress. Li ‘
Even less convincing are the arguments of the mine owners and the southwestern
 railroad officials that they need Mexican labor.
A prominent representative of the mining interests in Arizona stated recently
that Mexicans are needed to do the work in the mines that the Americans are
unwilling to do and that wages are set at a minimum of $6 per day, while some
miners get from $15 to $18 per day. He admitted that the mine owners could
pay higher wages to secure labor if necessary but that they do not do so as they
do not wish to deprive the agricultural interests and railroads of their labor!
Vet at the same time he argued that a shortage of cheap labor exists! What he