New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-02
SAY FOREIGN TRADE
OF BRITAIN LAGS
Diplomats at Washington Deny
Boom at Expense of the
United States.

Washington, Jan. IA statement
that Great Britain is enjoying a boom
in foreign trade while depression grips
the overseas commerce OF the United
States was declared 10 be untrue by
British diplomats in Washington TO-
dav. Figures were produced, said TO
he based on official American reports
and American commercial newspapers,
10 show that while both nations have
suffered a serious diminution Of the
foreign trade volume since the out
break of the present war, the United
States is recovering rapidly, whhe
Great Britain still suffers only IN a
slightly less degree to-day than she d'd
before the war.
only eleven months Of figures are OBJ
tainable. but comparisons are effected
with similar periods of 1913. Iney
disclose that the American foreign
commerce for the total of 1913 was
S2.250. 900 900 and that of the Unlted
Kingdom 100000. whereas for
the same period of 1914 the American
trade overseas was Sl,o5S,OOO,OOO anc
the British S2.019,000,000. The dimlnu-
ton of the foreign trade of the two
nations therefore is Approximately
$685.. 100000 each, or in nearly parallel
ratio. ,
The comparison Of the war months OF
1914 with the peaceful similar period
of 1913 shows that. as against last
year. the British trade Tor the months
of August. September, October and No
yember fell from 1889, 600 900 in 1913 to
$500 900 900 in 1914, loss of S369,OOO,-
600 to Great Britain. Americas falling
off was in a considerably shorter ratio.
In 1913 the American trade for the four
months I'm question was S923,OOO,OOO,
whereas in the war months it amounted
TO 1861 100000 The loss to America
W. 1856. 100000, or $ll3,0O0,00 less
than that of Britain.
Again, when the drop in trade is
measured month by month, the figures
appear more encouraging to the United
States. I'm August British overseas
trade fell from 1921 100000 for the
month i'm 1913 to 1921 100000 in 1914,
the loss being almost exactly 100000
0OO For the same month American
trade dropped from $lS8 100000 in 1913
10 $4,000. 900 in 1914, a loss of $751;
600 900. In September the showing was
slightly better for both nations. The
September. 1913, trade of Great Britain
totalled S212.000,000, and the Septem-
Der. 1914. trade totalled only $l33, 000,-
O00 a loss OF S79,000,0O0. The American
trade for September. 1913. totalled
/ S212. 600. 900, and for September, 1914,
Sl56, 100000, a loss of S5G,OO0,000 for
the month.
In October, 1913. British trade
amounted to 1898 .000,0 900, and in Octo-
Der. 1914. to only SLAB, 100000, again a
loss of S90.O0O.O0O. The American fig
ures for the same month show $272,-
000,O 600 for 1913, as against $l95,000,Q00
for 1914. q shortage as against last
year of S77 100000. These three months
illustrate the fact that British and
American trade both suffered. 1t was
pointed out that they fail TO show that
/ the suffering OF one nation materially
/ exceeded that Of the other, though the
British losses are slightly out of pro-
b portion 20 the American TO the advan-
/ tage OF the latter.
In the November figures the compar-
/ ison shows distinctly change in favor
/ Of the United States The British trade
/ for the month Of November, 1913. to.
tailed 1929 100000, and for November
. 1914. s123.000 900, a clear loss of $780,.
I COO.O 600 But for November, 1914, Amer
lean trade had jumped 10 S206,000, 900
as against 100000 in 1914, showing
/ the United States to-day only S39, 600,
600 behind her November figures foi
last year. or scarcely 10 per cent
whereas the British shortage is about
IL nor cont