The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-08-21
PROTECTION IDIOCY.
A Republican Editor Explains
Protectors Benefit.
PERTCLEs ROAsTs THE DULLARD.
The Best the Republican Editor Can Do Is
to Exhlbt His Own
up dity


lures to question some of the remarks re-
Gently made by me in THE HERALD. From
faroff Logan comes thin, weak voic e
from the Republican paper of that town,
which a friend has sent TO me.
First it says the statistical abstract for
1890 does not say what l quoted from it,
pages 46 and A. 1t is right. 1t was the
report for 1889 that quoted from, but that
for 1880 contains the same figures in an
other place. Then it says:
No protcctionist claims, as he knavely in
sinuates, that we get back dollar in money
for each dollars worth OF exports. Neit1er 90
they claim, as he contradictorily asserts, that
after the imports from country are deducted
we get the trade balance in dollars. over and
over he refterates these false statements as a
promise for his school boy sallles at the Republic
can position.
What is the Republican claim, then?
| What do we get in payment for this bal
ance II we 40 not get money for its Gov
ernor Mckinley says we get money for it.
Every orthodox Republican thinks we get
money for it. But since we send away,
not only more goods, but also more money
than We get back, what do we get as pay
ment for this trade balances Please an
swer.
Then the paper explains why it is that
we do not receive this "balance.n The
leading ideas in the papers explanation
are correct and should be noted carefully
by every Repu blican:
| England may have a trade balance against
her with America, but il is in her favor with
India and so on with all the nations America
may have this year a debit account with
France, but she has q credit account with Eng
land with which to make settlement. One
hand is made 10 wash the other. And the ac-
| counts with all the nations are balanced up
and settled by continuous exchanges going on
! in the great money centres where the money
\ OF the world is at hand TO effect the exchange
without a movement of money. And because
our free-trader don't see a movement of money
| to effect this settlement he draws the absurd
conclusion that we are shopping goods.
| The commercial heart of the world has al
ready got all the money. 1t has drifted there
/ TO meet this very demand and save the enor-
nous expense of constant move ments of money.
But Percles sets up the false premise that
We claim toget the cash back for all our ex-
ports and then proceeds to knock it down as
follows:
The Statistical ATTRACT shows that from
| 1876 to 1889 inclusive. fifteen years we sent
away s1650, 10000 more wealth goods than
| We brought back. and that we also sent away
| in gold and silver during these same fifteen
years s. $50 more than we brought back
| We suppose it never occurred to the dashing
mind OF Pericles that ur county is great gold
and silver producing land and that tho product
of thus great industry reaches the worlds mar
kets IN the same way that other products do.
! We send more or less gold and silver out of the
country all The time. he says we sent out
| 81. 149 $50 between 1875 and 1889 more than we
brought back. OF course we did. That sum
represents our export gold and silver product
less that part of the trade balance which was
paid us in GOLD and silver. 1t doesn't show
that We paid 81, 49 $50 less than nothing for our
exports. does it?
Observe that the Republican paper
tacitly admits that goods pay for goods,'
that the accounts with all nations are bal
anced and settled UP by numerous ex-
changes (clearings) in the great money
| centers." With the word 'sclearings' in
stead of 'sexchanges'' the paper's state
ment is true. Less than per cent. of New
York's domestic trade is done by exchang-
ing money; it is nearly all done by clear
| ing accounts, cancellation of credits by
debts and Uice versa.
! 1t amuses me to observe q Republican
vaguely restate my own position, he think
| Ing at the same time that he is arguing
against me. What he says above is Demo
cratic fact, not Republican doctrine at ALL
He argues that goods pay for goods and
that no balance" in money is received.
Well, that is what / proved three weeks
ago.
At this point, however, our Republican
editor forgets Democratic facts and
plunges In Republican theory, thus:
If it were not for the absurdity of the follow
ing problem We would think this Peri cles was
the Mathematician Of 1891.
He says
FREE TRADE FOLLY.
Outing the last ten years Great Britain has
each year imported over $500 000 GOO more than
she has exp 'rted. Her imports for 1899 were
S. 13S 1870 go and her exports were 81 55s $50 o.
The difference of s579, $50 represents how much
Britain gained on her commerce that year.
| Does 1t? That is the free trade idea. Let us
zee. That So, 1888 10000 represents whatit cost
England for food and raw material. Much of it
was for wheat, bacon and other foods from
India and America. Such material is not per-
manent wealth; it is what the family lives on.
| A portion of the sum was spent for raw manu-
featuring material which, when made up was
exported for SIS 1851, 900 and the gain in this
transaction shows the profit England made. If
England ate up large portion OF the 81 1873 $780,
O0l imports, then 1919 66O, 00ON cannot show
what she gained Oh her commerce that year
| 1t is impossible to keep straight face
while answering the foregoing nonsense.
| Britain gave products that cost in Britain
81 558. $50 900 and received as pay for them
| proaucts that would have cost ", 13S, 100, 900
had she produced them directly instead OF
exchanging other goods for them Every
Republican believes that since England
received S579. 600. 900 more than she sent in
payment for 1t, she lost the difference!
That's, II man gives q cow worth 500 Tor
horse that is worth (to him) $40, he loses
the difference
The value Of British imports, 81, 1873, 1907
600, shows what they are worth in Eug-
land. not what they were worth in the
countries in which they were bought. The
value OF Britain's exports. 81. 500, $50 600,
shows what they we're worth in England,
not what they were worth in the countries
in which they were Sold
The difference, 1919 Go, GOO, shows what
was the gain TO England, not pecessarlly
what any other nation lost, oy trading
with her. La q traue both parties must
| a in p a trad ia xytl ar
! single illustration viii make this clear
to any one except Repu DlicaD editor. A
1 ton OF piglron can De produced in Scotland
for $40, and ten bushels of wheat can be
grown there for SO. In this country ton
OF pig iron can be produced for $50, out ton
bushels Of wheat can De grown for SO.
ANY one except Republican editor can
see that by exchanging ten bushels OF
American wheat FOR one ton OF Scotch pig
| iron this country viii gain IS ana Scotland
Will ais1 gain 50. be ten bushels OF
wheat would pc our export aud the ton of
iron our import. The difference in value
here would De our gain. We would not
care whether or not Scotland gained any
thing on the trade Ii tho iron cost the
Scot SD and the wheat cost US only IS, he
would stu gain 81 By the tIa0e, while our
gain would be 81. instead of only 80. 40
| before.
The iron is not partered for the wheat
but IS brought here aud sold for (say} sl5
The wheat Is taken there and sold Tor (say)
SIS. The American who pays money Tor
the iron and the Scot who pays money for
the wheat may not suspect thai the wheat
pays for the iron, bat such IS the case. as
1 proved in my first article.
Now, notice the absurd idea in the Re-
publican argument uoove, that III England
ate up large portion Of the 81, 1885, l9O, UUU,
then S571 600 QUO cannot show what she
gainsu on her commerce that year, Well.
why notl Does not the Scot gain several