New-York tribune., 1907-07-23
WHY LnPORrS INCREASE.

Many explanations are given by CObdenite
critics Of the gains made by the United States
in its export trade, for, though theoretically
denying the possibility OF any increase IN ex-
ports or imports under a high protective tariff,
these critics occasionally condescend to explain
away the bothersOme apparent increases re-
ported from time to time by the bureau Of sta
tistlcs Of the Department Of Commerce and
Labor. In the first place, they say that our ex-
ports are overvalued, the sellers wickedly con-
spring to initiate the business they do abroad.
Then they argue that an increase in foreign
sales, even Il properly sui antiated, is no real
indication Of national progress or prosperity,
since it represents only the payment of oblIga-
tions contracted abroad those obligations con-
sistlng of interest on borrowed capital, the Law
ish expenditures of American tourists and the
transportation charges we pay to the foreign
steamship companies which almost mOnopolize
our ocean carrying trade, The bigger the up
parent annual balance in our favor, therefore,
the more exhausting the burden of foreign debts
which It is used to defray.
After condemnlng the Dingley tariff originally
because it could operate only to diminish ex
ports our free trade friends now attack 1t be-
cause it has compelled u doubling Of our ex-
ports in order to satisfy our increasing foreign
demand notes. This diagnosis Of the 'logc Of
the situation" may satisfy those who offer 1t on
the principle that some sort Of an explanation
IS better than no explanation at all. But we
find the Cobdenite philosophers applying their
energies very sparngly to solving the converse
prOblem--why under q tariff which they de-
nounced as prohlbltory have imports so enor-
mously increased. Our imports have doubled
since the Dingley law went into effect Is that
result due to the frantic efforts of the rest of
the world TO force their goods on in order to
satisfy interest on borrowed capital, to pay the
travelling expenses Of tourists or to balance some
other Invisible debit? 1t may be, according to
the intricate logic Of the CObdenites, yet we
think far simpler and sOunder reason can be
found for the recent notable increase IN our
purchases Of foreign commodities The Amer
ican free traders have always conceived that
the only purchases we could make-and should
make--were of finished articles for consump-
ton They struggled for years to keep us an
agricultural country producing foodstuffs and
raw materials and exchanging them for foreign
manufactures. That was the dream of the
Southern economists, who long dominated the
Democratic party and through It at times con-
trolled the government at Washington. Those
economists never admitted the dcsrability OF
having our manufacturing done at home and
never contemplated the prospect Of our import
ing raw materials, turning them into manufact
ures and re-exporting them. They could not
like the Dlngey law imports could double, for
In their terminology imports consisted solely
Of finished manufactured goods.
Trade returns for the fiscal year 19O60T
show the folly Of such an assumption. Raw
materials and partly manufactured materials
are, in fact the two classes Of imports in which
the greatest gain has been made under the
Dingley act. Crude materials imported In
creased In value from about S20O,OO0OO0 in
1898t90 to nearly S5O0000,OO0 in 1900!07,
Partly manufactured materials increased In
value from 100000 in 1S9SJ09 to S275.OO0.O0O
In 1906'07. The percentage Of Imports of man
ufGcturing materials has risen from 43 In 1899
to SO In 1907, while the percentage Of imports Of
finished manufactures and foodstufIs has fallen
from 90 to 40. Only % per cent of our imports
are now IN the form Of fully manufactured
products, The natural explanation of this phe-
nomenon is that American industry has become
vHstIy more efficient and that manufactures and
agriculture are rapidly striking a new balance
"a balance undreamed Of in the philosophy Of
the older school Of American free traders