The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1907-03-15

1908. 1900. 57,22S. POI 23,5O4, AT
1862. ...... 4S,619,5 SS 23.061, 1928
There is another view of the matter,
which seems to have been overlooked.
Take. for example, 1905, the year of
greatest trade, the total of imports and
exports being $40, 427, sos. OF this
amount our purchases represent $685.
$685. and our sales $44, 569812. The
difference between these two amounts
represents the money we paid to Cuba
for her products in excess of what Cuba
paid US for our products-namely, $51,
$685. That is the net sum which the
United States sent to Cuba in 1905, and
with which Cuba was enabled to in
crease her purchases of commodities
from European countries. That is to
say, we provided out of our own cash
capital more than $51, 900, 900 for the en-
richment of foreign competitors. To
be sure, we increased our foreign trade
from less than $50, 900, 900 in 1902 to
more than $14O, 100000 in 1905, but
while doing this we increased our adj
verse trade balance from a little over
$50, 900, 900 in 1902 to $51. 569, S12 in 1905.
Our trade balance loss was, therefore.
in 1905 more than 500, 0O0,00 greater
than in 1902. 1t was, moreover, 81, 000,-
900 in excess of our gain in sales to
Cuba, comparing 1919 sales with 1906
sales
This is one way of increasing our
foreign trade-to buy more than we
sell; to furnish the other party vast sums
of American money with which to buy
things from other countries. There is
no limit to the foreign trade which we
could have on terms like these. All
the world would be glad to stand in
Cuba's shoes-to sell to US twice as
much as it buys from us. All the world
would agree to buy more from us at
that ratio. But where would our
national finances fetch up when we had
captured big foreign trade on the
Cuban basis? Why, on the bankrupt
side of the ledger, to be sure. We
should need only eight or nine duplica-
lions of the dicker with Cuba to use up |
The whole of our annual trade balance |
IF $500, 100000 and put us hopelessly |
nto the debtor class of nations For it |
must not be forgotten that we now have
early foreign fixed charges to meet
mounting to fully $400, OOO,O 600 year,
md that of the $500, 100000 trade bal
Ince only 500, 900, 600 is net gain.
Then, too, the Ledger has wholly
ost sight of another element which en-
ers into the net cost of our highly ad-
ambiguous" reciprocity arrangement
With Cuba. In addition to the $50, 000,-
90 average of yearly trade balances
gainst us-the s50,0OO,OO0 of good
american money which Cuba is able to
urn over to our foreign competitors
ach year-there is little matter of
ost revenue which comes out of the
ational treasury each year because of
ur generous gift of 20 and % per cent
Tariff duties in favor of Cuban pro.
ucts. This gift, computed on $685.
10000 of imports from Cuba, amounts
something between $15,OOO,OOO and
5000, 900 a year. Not so trifling a
latter as to warrant being entirely
'nored when we are reckoning up the
'sults of Cuban reciprocity. If we
Ike the smaller sums as the average
e shall find that the adverse trade
alance and the donation from the ,
ational Treasury together amount to
least $65, 900, 600 year, or 500, 900, 900 ,
year more than our total sales to CUBA ,
That some benefit has accrued to a
w American producers through en-
rged sales to Cuba nobody will dis.
lite. The loss of $1,000, 600 is, of :
urse, not a total loss. Some fortunate 6
'rsons have profited by it--notably
% Sugar Trust, which pockets prac- ;
,ally every dollar of the 90 per cent q
sriff concession on raw sugar. But, g
EN- allowing that the Sugar =
'ust and the Steel Trust and
me other producers are the gamers, it !,
not easy to see how the Cuban deal =
other than losing game to the 9
~, l