Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1885-04-16

In discussing the prospects OF war De-
tween Russia and England the merchants
of San Francisco have dwelt especially
unon the benefit such a conflict would be
to the trade of the United States, and
especially to California. A gentleman,
who is at the head of an important bust
ness, in conversation yesterday, says the
Call. took the opposite view to this, and
held that in the end a long war would be
disastrous, not only to the countries en-
gagged but to other countries, and espe-
cially to the United States:
"Suppose," he said, "that Russia and
England should go to war. The strength
of both nations would insure that it
would be a tedious and destructive con.
aict. Suppose England, although victo-
rious in the end, should come out of it
impoverished and crippled. If it were a
long war that would be a certain result,
although she may be the richest nation
in the world. Her credits would be
injured. Her power of consumption
would be reduced. Now, Americas
foreign market is largely in England.
But if q war made money scarce over
there, made people poor, the demand for
American products would be much less
than it would be if no war came. A war
at present would raise the price of wheat
and provisions and horses, but at the
close Of the wal there would be a sudden
and tremendous fall, and during the en-
tire period of revival TIE demand would
be quietly reduced, and then this country
would feel the disastrous effect of large
productions without a market. During
the Franco russian war this country
did a lively business, but the season of
depression in both those countries after
peace was brought about was felt here as
much as in Germany, where the people
had to economic for five years to make
up for the tremendous expense they in
Cured in that dreadful conflict. If you
remember, both countries passed through
a disastrous period of trade after the
war, and we felt it as much as the Ger
mans or the French. 1t would be ten.
fold worse if England's wealth should be
wasted in a war. The great demand for
our goods would be disastrously dimin-
ished.
GA war always initiates prices" he
continued, "and that proves disastrous
in the end. 1t makes business brisk for
the time, but a reaction is sure to follow,
which entails more loss on the mercantile
world in the end than all the benefit
that it at first bestowed. It is an errone.
Gus principle of political economy that a
war helps the trade of any nation. There
is so much money in the world. Now, if
many millions of value are destroyed in
a war, that creates so much debt that
must be paid. 1t is like a fire; it de-
stroys a s%torehouse with it's stock of
goods and entails an immense loss. That
loss must be borne somewhere, and in
trade we find that when one man loses
his money he usually loses a good deal
that belongs to other people. A inan-
cial failure always hurts more than the
man it principally affects. A war be-
tween England and Russia, if continued
long, would create a panic in the South
ern States of this country. The value
of cotton would shrink, the value of
wool would go down. Now do you
suppose that if the South were to suffer,
the North and the West would not feel
the effects of hard times there. 1t is a
thoroughly erroneous principle of po-
litical economy that a war between two
nations helps the trade Of a third. Com
merce is best when all nations are at
peace and in a prosperous condition. A
war between England and Russia would
help trade in this city and State at first.
but in the end it would iniure u.s."