202 BRITAIN FOR THE BRITON 



safest means of selling this country to its foes, they could not 

 possibly adopt surer measures than by buying up, even for 

 a brief period, large quantities of the world's food su])plies. 



The consideration of this one ipiestion alone opens up a 

 wide held of controversy, but we can only deal here with one of 

 its many aspects. 



American citizens are, of course, beyond the jurisdiction of 

 Great Britain, but the bill introduced in the House of Eeprc- 

 sentatives by Charles F. Scott on April 15, 1009, to prohibit 

 gambling in wheat, shows that the United States Legislature 

 is fully alive to the necessity of stamping out a form of 

 gambling which necessarily involves the misery of an un- 

 offending people. 



To make huge fortunes out of the sufferings of fellow- 

 countrymen, or to reduce the peo})le of a friendly State to 

 starvation and death, is to do that which is cruel and wicked — 

 to commit, in short, the worst possible human crime, and all 

 the commercial customs in the world do not, and cannot, alter 

 the fact. The United States House of Eepresentatives have 

 earned the gratitude of all peoples by the introduction of their 

 AVheat Gambling Bill. 



British citizens, however, come under a different category, 

 and if there are no laws in the British code dealing with such 

 cases, then the sooner they are passed and codified the less 

 chance will there be of our own flesh and blood tampering 

 with the people's food supplies, and of betraying this country 

 to the enemy, 



Britain, of all countries, should have taken the lead in this 

 matter, seeing she is more at the mercy of "Cornerers" than 

 other nations are. She, however, failed to lead, but she can 

 follow, and the people of this country have a perfect right to 

 demand urgency for a measure that will once and for all 

 prohibit gambling in wheat or other food supplies; the 

 punishment for the offence should be — rigorous imprisonment 

 and restitution of all profits on the prohibited transaetions. 



That we are a nation of traders is Ijeyond dispute. The 

 develo])ment of our commerce and manufacturing industries 

 is, within certain limitations, which need not be referred to 

 here, good for the country ; and unless there were inexhaustible 

 vigour and increasing enterprise, our trade and manufactures 

 would languish and we should fall behind in the race for 

 wealth. 



This desire to be in the forefront of the fight for the world's 

 trade, wliile highly commendable in itself, has engendered a 

 spirit of commercial recklessness which aims high and is not 

 stopped by trifles. To mahc moneij is the chief aim of life, and 



