The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-10-14

on the other hand an excess of imports
does not injure or drain country, let us
take the case of the richest, most powerful
most wealthy country on the globe, Eng
land, For the last twenty years, save ISL
2-34, her import valuations have exceeded
her exports, on balance, by more than
81, 5OO,OO0,OOO. Here is living contradic-
ton Of our opponents position. She did not
even settle these balances with specie. Per
contra, during that period she received
by importation $i50,0O0,000 of specie. Or,
to view it in another light; during those
excepted years, as above, 1S7l-2-3+, Eng
land exported more than she imported by
| $50, 100000, while in the four succeeding
years her excess of importations was ST.
100000. Now, during the first period,
the balance of specie received. by her over
the specie exported was some $Sl 100000,
while during the second it was some $780,
100000. In other words, during the four
years when she largely exported she re-
ceived 81 100000 less specie than when she
imported. But the mistress of the seas"
is not the only country whose imports are
almost constantly in excess of the exports,
for the same is true of Germany, Belgium,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands,
etc. The truth is all prosperous nations
import more than they export, and vice
versa. An excess of exports near
| ly always indicates an indebted coun-
I ~
the payment of obligations maturing or
the current interest thereon, national debts
or otherwise. In Englands case over $780,
100000 are annually received by her for in
tcrest from India and America alone, and
about the same amount from other debtor
countries, The fact of the United States
being now prosperous, however, is not at all
necessarily caused by the exports exceeding
the imports. She may beprosperng despite
of and not because of that very thing, and
indeed il is so in reality. Mil
lions of dollars transmitted hence
to British capitalists is no symp-
tom of our wealth. Did we hold our
own bonds, it is clear the export column,
whether of specie or commodities sent to
pay on their account, would not foot up SO
big. No, no. five expect TO export much
we must of necessity import. To restrict
imports is, by the memorable law of logical
sequence, to restrict exports to
the same extent. The ATTEMPT
to so restrict them is the dclusion, the par
adox of a valley without the mountain, a
shadow without light, square without
corners. But some regard exports as in
come, because they have to be collected for
by us; and our imports as outlay, because
they have to be paid for by us. The reverse
view is the correct one. Our exports repre-
sent our expenditure, as they are the things
we pay with; and the imports represent our
profits, rs they are what we re-
ceive for the expenditures. These
are the conclusions of sound,
honest political econnmy. They may be
at war with certain selfish, sectional inter-
ests in this country, but they are truism,
and he who takes the other course is follow
ing after false and dcceiving gods. The
trouble with our correspondent is that his
view is circumscribcd. He omits in his
calculation and illustration that in custom
house returns of exports and imports,
frcights, insurance, commissions, etc, etc,
are part and parcel the figuring on val
ues The product that A in Texas
buys from Il in England may be
figured at $1,000, while at the port of ship.
ment it stands at only $500, and vice versa
as to his English friends purchased product
from him. When to this view he adds tn,
reflections that will arise to his mind il
carefully considering that fundamental rul
that "the amounts due by Il country, or t,
f country, whether Coran excess of import
or exports, or in settlement of debt, ar
paid not in specie but in goods" a ney
vision will burst upon him that will caus
him to blush for his former opinions.