The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-17
INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

| the northwestern AgrlcullurlSt that III
ternational exchanges are made in any
other way than are those between the
| farmer and his grain or cattle buyer
| and his merchant. He evidently be-
lieves that, as the farmer sells his grain
or cattle for cash and takes the money
| to pay for the articles he buys at the
store, just so the exporter of American
products sells to the foreign buyer for
! cash, and the domestic importer pays
cash for what he buys for import. Eng
land, as nation, he assures his read
ers, buys no wheat, which is very true,
and this, he tells them, with a certain
air of cocksureness, sis just the error
which is the foundation of the free
traders strongest argument. So sit is
not the English wheat buyer who owns
the Sheffield knife factory or the cot
ton factory" and consequently, want
ing wheat, he is Indifferent what or
| how high a tariff is put on Sheffield
cutlery or Manchester cottons.
1t would follow then that if the Eng
wheat or the Sheffield cutler gets cash
for his wares, there would be a
movement of actual money back and
forward across the Atlantic equal to
the value of the goods bought and sold.
We would be receiving each year some
eight hundred millions of gold for our
produce and be sending back some
six or seven hundred or more millions
| to pay for what We buy. But trade is
not so foolish or so eXtravagant. 1t
long ago learned that there was a much
more economical way of paying for
what we bought Of the people of other
nations, and it adopted the cheaper
plan. That the burdensome method of
| paying cash for each transaction does
not exist is shown by the exports and
imports of money. The latest report of
our International trade, the report of
the statlstician Of the treasury for
April shows that, in the ten months of
the fiscal year the value of all our i'm
ports was $500, 1884, $50, while our export
silver bullion, $75,OOO,OOO. Assuming
that all this was sent to pay for goods
imported, it is but $3.50 cents for each
$1OO worth bought. Again we sent
abroad products valued at $3.50, 1924, 112 in
the same period and received in gold
$S2,971. OFT and $24, 7S3, 3OS silver, or about
l212 cents on the dollar. It is quite ap-
parent that the Englishmen who
bought our various products did not
pay us the cash for them, and that our
importers did not pay cash for what
they bought abroad. Still every dol
lars worth of both imports and exports
was paid for
II the editor of the Agriculturist will
take an hour some evening and sit at
the feet of, say Mr.. Charles PilIsburv
or spend 1T with any merchant in his
CITY who imports, he will get informa-
ton that will enlighten him as to how
traders in different nations pay for
what they get or get paid for what
they sell. He will find that the Eng
ltshman who buys Mr.. Pillsbury's flour
goes to his bank in London and buvs
an order on New York bank for the
amount of the money and sends IT TO
Mr. P1llsbury, who deposits in his bank.
through which it is collected; not then
necessarily paid in cash, but by the
New York banks offset against it's
credits in Minneapolis for goods bought
by its merchants. Going back to Lon
don and tracing the process he will
| find that the bank there draws against
funds in New York representing money
paid or due there for goods bought in
England. So, instead of vast sums of
money crossing and recrossing the
ocean there is nothing but bits of
| paper on which are written orders to
meet one payment with the proceeds of
other sales, which, in it's final state
ment, is but the payment of goods with
goods.
1t should thus become apparent to
| even the editor of the Agriculturist
that International trade is practically
but the exchange of products through
the medium of bank exchanges repre-
senting not money so much as the ac-
tual wares Having attained to this de-
gree of knowledge the further step in
enlightenment becomes easy. and the
point is reached where it becoms' pIain
that, if there are to be sales, there must
De purchases of wares, and that any
law or policy that prevents or restricts
the buying of foreign products pre-
vents or restricts the selling of domestic
products. The reason of the economic
law that "'if you shut imports out Won
shut exports in" becomes clear. We ara
aware that all this is elementary the
hrst kindergarten lesson of trade. but
the serious argument made by the Ar-
rlculturist shows that it is sorely need
ed in other quarters than that excel
lent agricultural paper, again with
due emphasis on Agricultural"
CONCERNING TWO PLUTOCRATS.