184 REPORT ON COOPERATION IN AMERICAN EXPORT TRADE.

competition encountered, and the extension of credit are some of the
factors to be considered. They pointed out in a number of instances
what they considered the unreasonable attitude of some American
manufacturers both in respect to the granting of agencies and to the
sbligations thereby incurred by both sides.
The statements of the aforesaid informants, which related primarily
 to conditions of their trade in Argentina and Uruguay, were
borne out by information gathered in Brazil and Chile. While at
the present time the system of direct representation of American
manufacturers has made considerable progress in the commercial
centers of Brazil and Argentina, it has thus far made little progress
in Uruguay and Chile. There is reason to believe that in Uruguay
shanging conditions will eventually lead to the establishment of more
Jirect representation. On the other hand, in Chile most informants
acquainted with the local conditions considered that the large imnorting
 houses would continue to control the trade in most lines of
American goods for many years to come.
The dominating position of the foreign importing houses in the
past and present commercial life of the South American countries is
‘ounded on a firm basis. Many such houses were established 50 or
50 years ago, and the management is now in the hands of descendwil
 of the founders. ‘The present generation—born, brought ‘up,
and having their homes and all their interests in the country—are
peculiarly well fitted to cope with the local conditions. They are
thoroughly identified with the economic development of the country,
being participants in many local enterprises throughout their marketing
 territory. Their knowledge of credits is based on years of experience.
 Many of them are engaged in handling for export the
products of their customers for imported goods. To such customers
they are in a position to extend liberal credits.
The American export houses, whether operating as merchants or
as commission men, play a large part in the trade of American goods
in the countries mentioned above. Much criticism of the methods
followed by some houses prevails in each country, while methods
of other houses were highly commended. How far the criticism
frequently expressed was deserved by the houses in question or how
far the blame really should rest on the American manufacturer appears
 to be an open question. The specific instances of improper
business methods related by informants, while showing that certain
houses may have been at fault, do not appear to be the result of the
~ommission-house system. They gave no warrant for the sweeping
sondemnation of the whole system often heard from persons interasted
 in other methods of handling the trade in American goods;
nor were they more deserving of criticism than the alleged business