Jasper County Democrat, Volume 1, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 November 1898 — FOREIGN TRADE LOSS [ARTICLE]

FOREIGN TRADE LOSS

One of the Baneful Results of a Gold Standard. By Flavian J. Van Vorhln. The Indianapolis Journal and other papers and speakers advocating a gold standard are figuring out of our foreign trade a high state of prosperity. Such 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 products sold and the money paid out. The other side is made up of what is bought and the money received. When the two sides are summed up the difference is the loss or gaiu. If the sum of all that has been sold and the money paid out is less than all that has been bonght and the money received there has been a gain. On the contrary, if all the goods sold and money paid ont exceeds all the goods bonght and money received there has been a loss. One side of oar foreign trade is made up of what goes ont of the oountry (exports) and .the other side of what comes into it (imports). In the accounts of the treasury department onr exports and imports are stated under three heads—merchandise, gold and silver. To determine the exact condition of such trade three tables must be consulted. It wonld be foolish for any man in attempting to determine the profit and loss in his business never to oount the money paid ont or received. Foolish as this may appear, it is precisely what gold standard advocates are doing in their attempt to figure prosperity ont of onr foreign trade. They exalt over the fact that in the year ending June 80, 1898, we exported $616,824,791 more merchandise than we imported. With expressions of joy, they hold this np as a “balance in onr 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 $615,324,791 of merchandise. The statement is left so that the only inference that can be made is that we reoeived money for it. It is curious that they did not oonsult the tables covering the export and impart of gold and silver. One of the speakers recently singled ont the year 1892 as an example, and stated that there was a balance of trade in onr flavor* of $202,876,686. This halanoe is the excess of exports over imports of merchandise daring that year. The tables show also ah excess of exports over imports of money metals amennttng to $18,851,846. If the excess of exports of merchandise is evidence of prosperity, the excess of exports of gold and silver mast be evidence. It never seems to occur to these advocates to inquire what we got in return for the total exoess of $216,227,080 in 1892, or what we got in return for the* $615,824,791 in 1898. How oan any m»n with sense enongh to bny a bushel of potatoes, and with mathematical knowledge enough to count the money to pay for them, oall this a “balance In onr flavor?” The treasury department does not account for this balance of exports. There is nothing in the reports anywhere to show what we got in return for it. It is a clear.loss to the nation. It mishit be

true that it might have’ its compensating gain in the year before or after. They will look in vain for this compensation either before cr after. From Jane 80, 1873, to Jane 80. 1898, there were bat two years in which the aggregate imports of merchandise and money metals exceeded the exports. In the year 1887 the excess was $309,685 and in the year 1888 it was $40,926,410. Daring the other 28 years of the period we sent oat of the country exports of merchandise and money metals in exoess of imports $8,588,823,172. This was a net excess of $8,547,087,104. It will be well for any man who is joyful over this to explain how this excess is an evidence 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 g>t nothing for this vast amount of mone; metals that can be shown on the bookof themepartment. The American people wartt to know what became of it. Did we give it away? Let us have some explanation. When this has been answered, will they please explain what has oocurred to make It necessary for ns 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, 1873, to this date the amount sent oat of the country each year of our products and money metals in excess of all received, for which the reports of the treasury department show no return, have been gradually increasing until from an excess of $57,000,0u0 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 such a balance is a “favorable trade balance” can onlv be accounted for by ignorance or dishonesty. The failure to mention the tables covering gold and silver can have no parpose except to leave the impression that, having sold this amount more than we bought, we must be that mnoh ahead. To Include the merchandise in such statement and say nothing about the money metals is intended to leave the inference that, we have had sufficient importation of the money metals to balance the exportation of merchandise. Such au inference is unfounded. During the year 1898, the excess of the import of gold over the export was $104,685,283, 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 $615,324,791. In other words, there was iq the fiscal year jnst closed $534,620,166 of onr wealth sent out of the country for which the treasury department cau show no return. ■ Bimetallists charge that this loss is the result of falling prices caused by the abandonment of the bimetallic option. We ask the gold standard advocates to tell us what has; been received for this vast sum. When they have done so, then let them explain the condition that has made it necessary to send out of the couutry in one year an enormous amount of onr wealth for which we have received nothing that is shown on thq face of the treasury reports.