The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1933-12-29
tQtlll|io'ia9'9 Big B5ijq9e(k
National Topics Interpreted "a fFYTY1fTSD
by William Bruckart kpxTT7dF
National Topics Interpreted
by William Bruckart

newed interest In de-
Seek Trade velopment of bases
n,,tI,s. for trade between
the United States
and other nations and thus. for the
first time, it seems to appear that
very definite trend has been set up
to take care of our surplus farm
crops and our surplus manufactured
products. How far it will extend is
a question that none can answer at
this time, but the situation and the
circumstance certainly constitute
factor that should be examined in
larger sense than piece-meal discus
sion because of the far-reaching effect
that conceivably will flow from the
course upon which the government
seems to be travelling.
International trade has been a sub
ject about which too many high-sound-
ing phrases have been grouped. Indi-
viduals in the interior, for example,
were too prone to pass it by as having
no effect on them, whatever their call
ing in life may have been. Such is
distinctly not the case. 1t has d.
rect bearing on the success of farm
er as it has a direct effect on the sue
cess of a manufacturer. In each in
stance, the benefits or the damages
flow on through the various lines of
commerce and industry and into the
lives of all. That is why, in my opin-
ion, the trend that now appears to be
developing is matter of concern to
the humblest laborer and of great con-
sequence to the agricultural areas of
our country.
In a speech at the recent Pan-Ameri-
can conference at Montevideo, Cordell
Hull, secretary of state, observed. that
international trade is hopelessly
clogged with prohibitions, embargoes,
quotas and other arbitrary restric-
tions." Thereupon, he proposed con-
certed action to do away with those
barriers to trade among nations.
Secretary Hull offered several prop
ositions to the statesmen assembled
at Montevideo and initiated numerous
discussions privately along the lines
of elimination of trade barriers But
the secretary talked about ''multilat-
eral treaties" agreements between
many nations, and appears to be car
rying on that policy. Here in Wash
ington, however, we are repeatedly
told that multilateral treaties are i'm
possible of consummation. President
Roosevelt thinks that there are few
possibilities in that direction, and he
is talking about treaties between pairs
of countries. For example, CONNER
cial agreement between the United
States and England, or France, or the
Argentine, or some other nation with
which the United States engages in
heavy international trade.
1t is yet too early to tell which way
we are headed. Likewise, none can
forecast whether the bilateral agree
ments or the multilateral pacts will
work to our best advantage. Nothing
can be more certain, however, than
that there will be a lot of discussion
in congress as it gets under way, and
l believe it is equally certain that
there will be a lot of debate by mem
bers of the house and senate who will
be wholly uniformed as to the mean
ing Of their words.
But let us examine the two types
of treaties. The multilateral agree
ment obviously con-
TUo Types templates conces-
of Tr.,t;e. sions on the part of
every nation that be-
comes signatory to it, but in reach
ing that accord the nations figure out
what they can gain before they give
up anything. Such a treaty runs
smack into the longtime policy of the
United States. Our nation has always
attempted to protect its wage earners,
its agriculture and its other indus
tries against the products of other
countries where wages are low, where
the standard of living is far below that
upon which we insist. So multilateral
treaties are regarded by one school of
thought in this country as challenge
to our national life.
The bi,ateral treaty contemplates an
arrangement whereby, If the theory is
carried to an extreme, each of the
two countries paired in the agreement,
will seek to balance the trade in COM
modities. For instance, if the United
States and Poland were to agree on
certain trade concessions and sign a
treaty, purchases by Poland from the
United States would be unrestricted so
long as the American government al
lowed all of the Polish products to
come into this country on an unre-
stricted basis. That is the theory. In
practice, / am told it will not work
out that way.
To use Poland as an example again:
it seems to be more than likely that
Poland might say to the United States,
I'VE will allow only so much of the
American purchases to come into our
country as will equal American pur-
chases here" If that attitude were
assumed by Poland and the United
States were to agree, our exports to
Poland would have to be reduced
The effect is obvious. 1t would
mean strangulation of trade between
nations.
On the other hand, there is that bal
anced trade idea on which some au-
thorities rely to force open doors that
are now partially closed. If Poland
could be persuaded to buy more from
the United States than has been the
case, of course, the result will be adj
yantageeps to our side.
There can be no doubt that high
tariff rates hold out some foreign prod
ucts. That is the