The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-11-29

than in any other, yet the Tribune says the
owners of it must be prevented from sell
ing even their surplus of it abroad for fear,
we suppose, that the riches of the world
they can get for it, will corrupt them
: We quoted from the statistical abstracts
a short time since, showing that our ex-
ports and imports are roughly
equal, each amounting to S700,009.-
600 in value-an absolute proof that
goods are exchanged for goods between
nations. This is not a matter of opinion,
but simply fact recorded in the statistical
abstracts prepared under the direction of
the government. In view of this fact, the
following piece of nonsense about exchang-
ing our money for goods is rather amusing:
If We, getting in love with English and French
manufacturers, throw OF our tariff laws. and
exchange the money now in circulation among
the people for the valuable goods which those
manufacturers produce, the same thing will
happen that happened once or twice before,
and the result in two years will be SO that no
matter how cheaply the goods may be laid down
in our markets, the people will not have quar-
ter of dollar with which to purchase them.
When an American sends cargo of cot
a cargo of cloth or chinaware back in re-
turn for it, he does not do so because he
loves the English merchant, but because
he loves himself. He makes profit on
the exchange, for the cotton is worth
more in England than it is here, and
the cloth is worth more here than
in England. He gets in return
more than he gives and grows
richer by each exchange of this kind.
He furnishes his countrymen, the pro-
ducers of the cotton and tools with work,
by finding a market for their surplus. If
this exchange is stopped, some of the cot
ton planters and tool-makers will be
thrown out of work. The merchant sells
them the cloth and chinaware again for
more cotton and tools, and through him
their surplus is turned into any kind of
goods they do not produce, and he is SIMPLY
paid a commission for his share in the
transaction. To stop that transaction in
order to spite the English, would be mere
idiocy.
AS to the result" that this beneficial
exchange ever deprived this country of its
money, no such result ever did happen
ever does happen, or ever can happen. We
defy the foolish sheet to name the 'onct
or twice in our history" when that impos
sibiIity took place. That this exchange O
products might deprive US of all our wheat
cotton, or any other thing we sell is, o
course, possible, but very improbable
That trade with other nations deprives u
of money, is simply an impossibility, an,
that is the end of it.
Once more and we are done with tn
weak thing:
We are perfectly we'll aware of the fact that tb
money OF country does not represent its prop
erty, but it represents the measure OF value c
the property.
4 OF course the money is used to measure
by comparison, the wealth of country
J just as foot-rule is used to measure lum
Der; but the money does not cause tn
/ wealth to have value any more than th
foot-rule causes the lumber to have length
Now, the difference is that the measurin
capacity of money is in the inverse ratio c
| its abundance, while that of the foot-rul
is invariable. Thus if the governmer
, doubles the amount of money circulating
J the country, the purchasing power of eac
dollar becomes one-half what it was befor,
r No one is better off from this change e.
3 cept debtors, and what they gain by payin
debt in diluted money, the creditors los
But-and here's the rub-this cheapenin
, of gold and silver Injuries the mine owne
/ and this is the very thing the so-called 81
d yer champion advocates.