, 1922-07-22
Conflicts With Reason and History

QUITE LIKELY some people will be misled by
Y the plausible but fallacious statement recently
made by Henry Ford that 1.-The purely industrial or
commercial enterprise that is worth anything at
all can stand on its own feet His statement Is
used as an argument against protective tariffs and
ship subsidies. The assertion made with such pos
i.iveness will be accepted as true by those VINO re.
fuse to study history.
Mr.. Ford has established an enterprise which
he probably thinks is an illustration Of an under
taking that stands on its own feet" tie has no
government subsidy; he needs no protective tariff.
But the fact is that the building of his great en-
terprise was made possible by protection afforded
by the government under patent laws. His patents
may have expired but in the days when he was de-
veloping his enterprise it was the patents that pro
1ected him from competition. Now he is producing
ON SO extensive a basis that apparently no one can
meet his costs of production.
Mr.. Ford's statements are at variance with doc
trines maintained by American public leaders from
the foundation of our government. Hamilton,
Washington and jefferson were advocates of pro
tective tariffs as aids in establishment and main
tenance of enterprises in the new world. We have
set up standards of living which are maintained in
neither Europe nor Asia, and if we are to maintain
those standards there must be imposed a tax on
importation of commodities produced in countries
where standards of living are lower than ours.
Every chamber of commerce in the United States
is urging the people of the community to patron
iZc their local home industries. Mr.. Ford would re-
ply TO them 1.-The purely industrial or commercial
enterprise that is worth anything at all can stand
on its own feet" and he would reject this appeal
for the support of local commercial enterprises.
~ OhN bug III Coulu Duy CucapeBt
Every newspaper in the United States, Republi.
can and Democratic alike, is urging it's readers to
buy commodities produced Mt home, even if they
pay a little more than they would pay for commod-
tiles manufactured outside. Their argument is,
and it is sound argument, that by patronizing the
home establishment the money is kept at home to
pay the wages of the home people and afford 1arg-
er patronage for the home merchant and every in
dustry of the community. This argument applies
with no less force to the upbuilding of national in.
dnstries.
Prior to 1890 the United States had been buvinp
practically all it's tinplate in Europe. Those eco
npmists who believed in the Ford doctrines said
that an industry that is worth anything at all
can stand ON its own feet and they opposed a pro
tectiye tariff saying that a protective tariff would
add to the cost of every canned commodity the pub
lie consumes. Republicans in congress rejected the
Ford doctrine and established a protective tariff
on tnplate with the result that an enormous tin
plate industry was built up in the United States
and through competition prices were reduced and
the American people bought tinplate cheaper than
they had ever bought it under free trade.
Mr.. Ford's assertion sounds plausible at frs;
nearing but it will not stand the test OF reason no,
the facts of history.