The Washington times., 1915-09-29
BRITAIN AND OUR TRADE

ence with American trs,le is one Of
facts, not of rhetoric or prejudice.
In the beginning it mus. be kept in
mind that American trade abroad
was never either so extensive or so
varied as it has become since the
war began. Alone among the big
commercial countries, America has
made this record since the war
started. British trade in almost all
directions has snrun6 impressively.
French foreign commerce has been
we'll nigh wiped oav, and Germany's
and Austria's have ceased to exist.
Some of the MINOR 'untrics, like
Holland, Sweden, and Norway, have
indeed increased their volumes in
some lines of trade; but on the other
hand they have suffered great losses
and their internal conditions have
been most unfortunately affected by
reason of their proximity to the war
area. Japan is in some directions
expanding industry; but the world
market for the great staples of or
binary japanese trade has suffered
fearfully. The United States alone
has had the capital, the comparative
security, and the producing capacity
to reap the harvest Of wars oppor-
tunity.
We have been reaping it, more
over, despite our lack of a merchant
marine. The rest of the world has
had to come to our rescue in the
matter Of moving our goods; and
the service, though done at war
rates, has yet been done. It is not
to be doubted that had foresight,
many years ago, provided the mer-
chant shipping that we now need,
our gains would have been yet
larger, our profits greater, and the
permanency of our conquests more
probable.
But surely we cannot blame the
allied nations and their blockade for
our own remissness in the matter
Of a merchant shipping establish
ment. We must charge that misfor-
tune to ourselves. Having done that,
the question is whether this country
has reasonable ground for protest
against the manner in which our
commerce has been treated by the
allies.
On both sides, the lists Of contra
band of war have been greatly ex-
panded as compared to other wars.
But for this, again, neither side is
more to be blamed than the other.
War has become as never before q
great industrial enterprise. It re-
quires wider range of supplies,
and therefore a greater number Of
commodities fall under its ban.
If the conditions imposed on
American trade by the British and
French DEGREES be compared to con-
ditions those same nations imposed
on US during the Napoleonic era, it
will have to be admitted that it is
immeasurably easier for this coun-
try to do business now than it was
then. Or, if we take the reverse
view, and consider the rigidity of
the North's blockade conditions dur
ing the civil war, it must be admit
ted that Great Britain is treating
US better, in the matter of wool and
rubber, than we treated her in the
matter of cotton, during the civil
war.
A precise parallel is afforded be-
tween our treatment of the British
textile industry, fifty years ago, and
the British treatment of our textile
industry now. The spinners of
Lancashire wanted cotton from the
South; we would not let them have
it if we could prevent. The spin
ners Of the United States want dye
stuffs from Germany now. The cases
are as much alike as two peas; but
whereas the Washington Govern
ment stood by the most literal en-
forcement of the blockade that was
designed to keep cotton from get
ting away from the South, France
and Great Britain have made many
notifications in their blockade regu-
lations, with the intent to allow
Americans to get necessary goods
out of Germany. 1t was announced
the other day that more than $780,
100000 worth of wares from Ger
many, piled on docks and in ware
houses at Dutch and other neutral
ports are to be released for ship
ment to America, by grace Of the
allied governments. That is 4 meas
ure Of concession that the North
never dreamed Of making to coun-
tries that wanted to get cotton from
the South.
1t has been charged that the Brit
ish authorities are using their sea