May 23, 19 1 8 
Land & Water 
ease with which commercial power can be abused has been 
made so abundantly clear, and the inmiediate profits of its 
abuse are so manifest, that it would not he wise to trust 
that no attempt will be made to abuse such power in the 
future. There is imperative need that the nations — especially 
those endowed with commercial strength — should agree upon 
some general set of rules concerning what is fair and what 
unfair competition. 
The greatest commercial power and the greatest respon- 
sibilitv now rests on tlie American and the British peoples. 
This is indicated by tke large proportion of the world's 
more vital resources held by them. For example, the year 
before the war (1913) the world's coal production was about 
1,478 miHion short tons. Of this, 570 million tons were 
mined under the American Flag and 3S0 milHon tons under 
the British Flag. The two together make 950 million tons, or 
just two-thirds" of the world's supply. The pig-iron produc- 
tion in 1913 was about 79I million metric tons. Of this, 
3i.\ million was American and 11 J million British — the two 
together somewhat more than half the world's supply. The 
steel figiires were much the same. Of the total 76 million 
tons, the United States produced 31 million and British 
people 9 million — together, a little more than half the total. 
The copper production before the war was about a million 
metric tons a year. Of this, more than half (557,387 tons) 
was American and about 100,000 tons British. The two 
together were two-thirds of the world's total. 
"Tlie United States produced two-thir^ls of the world's oil 
supply of that ypar alone. 
• About 60 per cent, of the world's cotton is raised in the 
United States and another 25 per cent, in British depen- 
dencies. 
National Responsibilities 
American responsibilities arising out of the possession of 
natural wealth are much greater than those of all the British 
people. On the other hand, Great Britain owns the strategic 
points of world commerce, arid governs more than 300 
million politically undeveloped peoples. We are responsible 
for about 10 million chiefly in the Philippines. In this 
respect, France has far greater responsibilities than the 
United States, for the French colonies in Africa, China, and 
elsewhere contain about 40 million people. 
Next to the United States and the British peoples, and in 
many things more than the British — Germany had the 
greatest responsibilities of power, but her selfish use of her 
strength has not been mitigated by any enlightened ideas 
whatever. 
In or out of a league, the richly endowed nations must 
meet these responsibilities, must mitigate the dangers of 
unfair commercial competition, and must endeavour, on the 
one hand, to prevent the exploitation of dependent and 
backward people, and, on the other hand, to encourage them 
toward material well-being and political ability and its 
attendant freedom. * 
In other ti-ords, to protect their oun political liberties, to 
protect and encourage the political liberties of less well- 
developed people, and to establish a system of commercial 
intercourse which prevents the abuse of economic power either 
by chance or desii^n, the close co-operation of the United States 
and Great Britain is a world necessity. 
Unless it betrays the principles of both nations,' such 
<-o-opcration cannot be for selfish ends, nor can it be exclusive. 
It is of the utmost importance that all nations whose ideals 
are sufficiently similar to enable them to aid irv, these tasks 
should do so. But the defection of any other nation 
would not be so serious as the defection of either the 
United States or Great Britain because these are the two 
strongest commercial Powers which believe in free jjolitical 
institutions. 
The fact that they have the same language, literature, 
tradition^, and ideals, and are engaged in the ceaseless struggle 
to improve democracies along similar, if not identical, lines, 
is not only added reason for their co-operation, but assurance 
of its success. And the lessons of our previous history add 
strength to this assurance. 
By what machinery can this co-operation be achieved ? 
The League to Enforce Peace, as generally discussed in the 
United States, is, very roughly, a plan for a treaty between 
the nations which become members binding them to accept 
arbitration — or, at least, a delay for discussion before the 
appeal to arms— upon pain of universal economic and militarv 
pressure. But this' merely provides a means of settling 
disputes after they arise. There is nothing in it to prevent 
disputes from arising, nor to prevent abuses of economic 
power which do not transgress international law. There has 
been little or no discussion of a League with a Legislature 
representing the different countries as suggested b\- the 
Britisli Labour Party. Whether such a programme as the 
Britis-Ji Labour Party proposes be feasible or not, it is certain 
that some machinery must be devised that will be in con- 
tinuovis operation. It is not possible to make an international 
treaty, such as the American idea of the League to Enforce 
Peace, which would govern close co-operation in the changing 
aspects of commercial and diplomatic affairs, except to settle 
disputes after they arose. 
Machinery Essential 
A static 'thing like the League cannot have foresight or 
flexibihty of action. To achieve these things there must be 
some continuously functioning machinery. Until some 
better machinery can be devised, it is a fortunate circumstance 
that we now have the machinery in operation. The diplo^ 
matic and consular services have always furnished the 
skeleton framework of this machinery ; but these services 
were usually left in the skeleton shape, except now and then 
in critical situations, when the two nations saw clearlv the 
necessities of close co-operation. Then the skeleton has 
been filled out and invigorated. 
The question now before the nations is whether we wish 
to relapse again into passive lack of disagreement or push 
the great principles in which both agree in active co-opera- 
tion. The machinery is at hand. "The question is one of 
foresight and intention. 
To make the matter concrete, the Monroe Doctrine for a 
very long time, if not during its entire existence, has depended 
upon the fact that both nations were behind it. On the 
other hand, during President Cleveland's administration the 
fact that tliere was not sufficient common counsel between 
the two rountries made it possible for a misunderstanding to 
arise over the particular application of a doctrine in which 
both believed. This misunderstanding was-settled amicably, 
but it unquestionably led the Kaiser, who did not and does 
not believe in the Monroe Doctrine, to try to make a breach 
in it in the same place during Mr. Roosevelt's administration. 
It is quite possible that the United States and Great 
Britain could between them announce and effect a more 
ideal policy for their conduct in Far Eastern affairs than 
either could alone. 
The commercial field is also full of opportunities and 
necessities for agreement. After the war, for example, both 
America and Great Britain will have a large merchant marine. 
In both cases it is likely to be owned or closely controlled ' 
by ihe Government. If these two great shipping organisa- 
tions, with the taxing power of their respective nations 
behind them, should drift into a cainpaign of ruthless com- 
petition, the result would hardly fit with the principles for 
which we are fighting. Great Britain 1ms the lower cost of 
operation and advantages of strategic coaling stations. The 
United States has more money to back its ship campaign. 
A struggle between the two would drive other competition 
from the seas and bring loss and ill-will to both contestants. 
Yet without continuous and cordial discussion, such a con- 
tingency is entirely possible. If the people and the Govern- 
ments of the two countries realise that their community of 
ideals and interest must mean continuous community of 
action in peace and war, the Vnachinery for developing this 
action will appear. 
Mr. James A. Farrel, President of the United States Steel 
Corporation, recently said : 
America, it may be hoped, will maintain the position of 
offering to the world all its requirements which can he 
supplied here, on terms and conditions that are fair and 
just. There is no evidence of any intention to take undue 
advantage of our economic and productive strength, and 
we shall in the future be as little disposed to turn to personal 
profit the necessities of a war-worn world, or the excep- 
tional influence of our position as exporters and importers. 
That is a statement of American feeling — the feeling not only 
of thoscwho could not profit personally by a less enlightened 
policy, but of those who could. But these good intentions, 
unless organised in America and reciprocated abroad, cannot 
be made effective. 
There are people who would look upon a co-operation 
between two great nations as a menacing combfnation of 
power. It leould certainly produce great power. But it is 
power for good as well as power for evil. Whether it is used 
for good or evil depends on the intention and wisdom of its 
holders, not on their strength. 
The virtues of impotence are not of great moment in the 
world. The virtues of strength are, and in combined strength 
there is likely to be more virtue than if the power is used 
separately, for in combination the policies would have to 
have the approval of at least two national consciences. 
