Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-07-09
A CASE IN Ponsr.

In view OF the fact that the tartn bill finally has
reached the stage Of actual debate IN the House OF Rep
resentatves, It may be timely 70 refer to conditions that
obtain in a small country where the very same subject
is asttating the minds Of all those who are interested In
the welfare Of their nation. On June IA. the industrial
Council OF Denmark held a meeting. at which were pres
emit leading representatives OF al the Industrial branches
OF Denmark. The principal address was given BY H. p
IPrtor-hinself a manufacturer who thirty years ago
started his business with a force OF two men, two women
and a boy, and who borrowed about $4,000 for the start
Today he is-the head OF thatsvery same concern, but It
now gives employment TO 1870 rersons-facts which he
referred to in the course Of his address to emphasixe
certain important points.
Mr. Prior declared this. Denmark had never enjoyed
the benefits Of an industrial policy: It had become .
tradition that the country's prosperity rested solely upon
its agriculture. and that 1t was unable to compete with
other countries because Of its lack Of raw materials. This
claim he waived aside, with a reference to England and
Germany as the greatest cotton manufacturing nations
although cotton grows IN 1nd!a and America; he also
said that the English silk production had developed Ia
dependenty Of the fact that the raw material was not
made in England.
The burden OF Mr.. PHor,s address was, however. that
Denmark had suffered because OF it's free-trade system
which had thrown the country open to Ill the great
manufacturing nations Of the world who were invited to
dump their goods without paving anything for the priv
Itlege. This fact had hindered Industrial DEVELOPMENT Ia
Denmark to- such an extent that there now are In a pop-i
ulatIon Of three miluons, sixty thousand unemployed.
Agriculture cannot absorb this host. and g there is no
demand for Danish products, because Industrial Denmark
has neglected its opportunities. industry cannot absorb
them. There Is the ANAL resort Of letting the state pay
unemployment support, but during the war, Mr.. Prior
said, 1t was clearly demonstrated that this form OF social
Development was very undesirable. inasrnuch as It was
shown in numerous instances that it was more profitable
to remain unemployed than to work--for tho state put 4
premium on laxinessn @
Mr.. Prior emphasized tho fact that even d Traditional
free-trade country like Great Britain had fourdit neces-
sary to protect itself by levying 4 IS l-s per- cent dump.
ing tax on all imports; in Switzerland the tariff has been
increased, and France and Belgium have raised their Inn
port duties very nnaterially-for the sole and avowed pur-
pose Of maintaining their home industry and solving the
unemployment problem. He also referred to the United
States with the remark that industrial tendencies IN this
country, in conjunction with those manifested elsewhere,
made It imperative to resort to some form Of effective
protection.
No nation can AFFORD nowadays to sit back quietly, Mr..
Prior said; the age calls for aggressive measures, and al
though some Of the tme-honored ideals must 5totter,
every nation owes 1t to itself to encourage and protect
its own industry. Entirely aside from the economic
phases OF the question he thought that intensified home
Industries would. tend to. increase the sound patriotism
among the nationals Of each country.
The closing message OF Mr.. Prior's address may be
applied practically anywhere; Only production can safe
only II imply protected; Industrial production is the
only factor that can guarantee constant employment 70
q large number Of workers, and its field is the entire
world. Agricultural production is Just a. essential, but
you cannot separate the two. A nation thAt nesIects to
afford its industrial ana Agricultural production what
ever protection Is necessary against competition from
without Will most certainly consdsn itself to- economic
|perdition.. @. FAC