The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1896-06-26
IL England Is the Wealthiest Nation on
the Globe Free Trade Has Not Made
1t so-James Gordon Bennett Corn
cred.

Paradoxical as 1t may seem to those
imbued with the false mercantile
theory, Their, can be no real prosperity
In any nations foreign commerce ex-
cept In years when the imports exceed
In value or productiveness the exports
ii. a., hen there is an diverse bal
ance re- trade" ESQ called. N'sw York
Her
purse this is one of Jan Gordon
Be. cts attacks upon Amer or
an Industries. No other news on
earth would publish any such IF,
much less refer to England, now the
wealthiest nation on the globe" in COR
roboration of the "undisputed fact"
In the first place England is not "the
wealthiest nation on the GLOBE" Ac-
cording to Mulhall, "the United States
occupies the first place" with f12, 1884,
100000 of wealth against only f9, AGO.
100000 for the United Kingdom. But
Bennett, perhaps, knows more than
Mulhall. He should give to the world
a new dictionary of statistics. Then we
could make the country ring with
| lhem."
| If Bennett started any such trade
theories in England, 1t Is no wonder
that the life of the London edition Of
tn New York Herald was so brief.
Flo, warned is forearmed. English
mel are not fools, as race, whatever
else they may be. But they made fool
of Wilson, just as surely as Paris is pro-
crossing in the same direction with
Bennett.
If an excess of imports makes coun-
try wealthy. why is it that British pa
pers, especially the London Economist,
are congratulating the English people
because last January's exports from the
United Kingdom were 16 per cent larger
than in January, 1895? Why is that,
in speaking Of a decrease in their i'm
ports of raw cotton, they say that "the
entire burden fell upon the United
States?" If Benefits theory was the
correct one-that "the import is really
the goose that lays the golden eggs"
then England is to be pitied for losing
some Of "the golden eggs" But En-
gland pities us, the exporter, saying
that "the entire burden fell upon the
United States" Why? Because we
sold less.
Again, the British papers refer to the
excellent increase of f10, 345, 900 in their
exports to all countries during 1895,
showing that 1918, 900 of the amount
was due to the low democratic tariff
that we now have in the United States.
Over 80 per cent of their enlarged ship
ments were made to this country, and
they are glad of 1t. They are not clam
bring for more imports. When they de-
cline "the entire burden" falls upon the
United States. They don't transact
business on theory, but on hard pan,
bedrock, pounds shillings and pence
basis. Were 1t otherwise, the English
papers would not say that the United
Kingdom has "at last entered upon a
period of fresh activity in trade" and
that 1.-The entire burden" of its smaller
Imports falls upon the United States.
Bennett should open a school for eco
nomics. We doubt, though, whether it
would be as successful as his school for
theories of economics, and says there
should be q campaign Of education on
this exceedingly important matter"
Go ahead with the campaign" 1t Is
amusing. But don't tell us how rich
the British trader is getting when he
imports more than he exports. AT |
least don't do it when he is rejoicing |
because his trade is exactly the oppo-
site. Wait little, till he has got over |
his early enthusiasm and has stopped |
saying that "the entire burden" of his |
tighter imports, falls upon the United |
States" England is not cackling and
growing because she is losing "the |
golden eggs" of trade. Not much, |
"paradoxical as it may SEEM" En-
Gland is wise. And BENEFITS paper
well. otherwise.