Democratic Sentinel, Volume 22, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 October 1898 — FOREIGN TRADE LOSS [ARTICLE]

FOREIGN TRADE LOSS

One of the Baneful Results of a Gold Standard. By Flavin* J. Van Vorhta. The Indianapolis Jonrnal and other papers and speakers advocating a gold standard are figuring out of oar foreign trade a high state of prosperity. Snoh figuring is an exemplification of ignorance or an attempt to deceive. This nation, in trade with foreign countries, is like a firm carrying on business or a farmer running a farm. It is one institution. Baying and selling merchandise, paying out and receiving money must be considered together. There are always two sides to the account. One side is made up of the prodnots sold and the money paid out. The other side is made np of what is bought and the money received. When the two sides are summed np the difference is the loss or gain. If the sum of all that has been sold and the money paid ont is less than all that has been bought and the money received there has been a gain. On the contrary, if all the goods sold and money paid out exceeds all the goods bought and money received there has been a loss. One side of oar foreign trade is made up of what goes ont of the country'( exports) and the other side of what comes into it (imports). In the accounts of the treasury department our exports and imports are stated under three heads—merchandise, gold and silver. To determine the exact condition of snch trade three tables must be consulted. It would be foolish for any man in attempting to determine the profit and loss in his business never to oount the money paid out or received. Foolish as this may appear, it is precisely what gold standard advocates are doing in their attempt to figure prosperity ont of our foreign trade. They exalt over the fact that in the year ending June 80, 1898, we exported $615,824,791 more merchandise than we imported. With expressions of joy, they hold this up as a “balance in our favor” •and as evidence of prosperity. This balance is taken wholly from the merchandise table. They do not take into consideration the export or import of money metals. They make no attempt to show what we got in return for this $615,824,791 of merchandise.. The statement is left so that the only inference that can be made is that we received money for it. It is onrions that they did not oonsalt the tables covering the export and import of gold and silver. One of the speakers recently singled out the year 1892 as an example, and stated that there was a balance of trade in oar favor of $202,875,886. This balanoe is the excess of exports over imports of merchandise during that year. The tables show also an exoess of exports over imports of money metals amounting to $18,351,846. If the excess of exports of merchandise is evidence of prosperity, the exoess of exports of gold and silver must be evidence. It never seems to occur to these advocates to inquire what we got in return for the total excess of $216,227,080 in 1892, or what we got in return for the $615,824,791 in 1898. How can any man with sense enough to buy a bushel of potatoes, and with mathematical knowledge enough to oount the money to pay for them, call this a “balanoe in our favor?” The treasury department does not account for this balanoe of experts. There is nothing in the reports anywhere te show what we got in return for it. It is a clear loss to the nation. It might he true that it might have its compensating gain in the year before or after. They will look in vain for this oempensatioa either before cr after. From June 89, 1878, to June 30, 1898, there were but two years in whioh the aggregate imports of merchandise and money metals exceeded the exports. In the year 1887 the excess was $809,685 and in the year 1888 it was $40,926,410. During the other 23 years of the period we ssnt out of the country exports of merchandise and money metals in excess of imports $8,588,328,172. This was a net exoess of $8,547,087,104. It will be well for any man who is joyful over this to explain how this excess is an evidenoe of prosperity. In 25 years we have parted with this great wealth, and the reports of the treasury department do not show anything in return. There was no return. We got nothing for this vast amount of money metals that oan tie shown on the books of the department. The American people want to know what beoame of it. Did we give it away? Let ns have some explanation. When this has been answered, will they please explain what has ooourred to make it necessary far us to export this vast wealth for which the reports of the treasury department show no return ? Let another thing be explained. How is it that from July 1, 1878, to this date the amount sent ont of the country each year of onr products and money metals in excess of all received, for whioh the reports of the treasury department show no return, have been gradually increasing until from an excess of $57,000,000 in the first year of the 25, the balance has reached the enormous sum of $535,000,000 in the last year? The claim that suoh a balance is a “favorable trade balance” can only be accounted for by ignoranoe or dishonesty. The failure to mention the tables covering gold and sliver can have no purpose except to leave the impression that, having sold this amount more than we bought, we must be that much ahead. To include the merchandise in snch statement and say nothing about the money metals is intend Id to leave the inference that we have had sufficient importation of the money metals to balance the exportation of merohandise. Such an inference is unfounded. During the year 1898, the exoees of the import of gold over the export was $104,985,288, while the excess of the export of silver over the import was $24,180,658, making the entire import of money metals over the export $80,704,625. This is all the reports show we received for the $615,824,791. In other words, there was in the fiscal year just elosed $534,620,166 of our wealth sent out of the country for which the treasury department oan show no return. Bimetallists charge that this loss is the result of falling prices caused by (be abandonment of the bimetallio option. We (isk the gold standard advocates to tell us what has been received for this vast sum. When they hpve done so, then let them explain the condition that has made it necessary to send ont of the country in one year au enormous amount of our wealth for which we have reoelved nothing that is shotirn on the face of the treasury reports. Free coinage is inalienably allied to the free institutions of the country, without it we pass to the vassalage of the plutocracy. The RepuMoan goldbug speakers heve yet to leant that the advocacy of sennd money demands sound arguments

The “Snowdrift,” manufactured by J. M. Gardner, of Monitor mills is rapidly forging to the front in public estimation. Try it and yon will want no other. 'Hie Indianapolis Weekly Ssn tinel and Democratic Sentinel, one year for $1.50.