New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-09-18


provided that were possible, but she
would expect to be compensated. lie
Allies would have to guarantee her
market for her exports, which are
largely raw materials and agrlcult-
ural products That seems simple
enough until you remember that the
British colonies expect a preferential
market within the alliance for ike
products. The Pan-Russian Agri-
cultural Congress has served notice
upon the Allies that the expectation
Of the products of Russian soil must
be facilitated, else Russia, after the
war. will be obliged to make a COM
rLercial treaty with her old customer,
Germany. The Russian Permanent
arv Committee of Commerce has
gone so far as TO suggest a monop-
DIV for Russian cereals in the Eng
l;sh market. 1t is not an unreason-
able idea, considering what the Al
les ask Russia TO do, namely, TO
renalize her trade with Germany;
the difficulty is that the British COL
onies want first call on the English
market for wheat. The proportion
Of Russian wheat imported INFO
Great Britain has remained station
ary for many years, while that i'm
ported from overseas, especially
from British colonies, has enormous
" increased. A writer in 1.-The Loa-
con Economist" is so emotionally dis
agreeable as TO call attention to the
fact that Russia's geographical posi-
ton obliges her to send a very large
proportion Of her export trade
through Germany and Austria, and
that this would continue TO be true,
no matter what happened to the OAR
danelles. The same considerations
apply to Italy. The Central Powers
offer the most natural outlet for
Italian products. Will Great Britain
undertake to guarantee an unlimited
ron-Teutonic market for both Italian
and Russian products? If so, what
would happen in the event OF these
products coming into competition
with those of the colonies? Then
there is France. 1t would seem
easiest of all to arrange matters be-
tween Great Britain and France, and
vet. in LA Revue de Paris" Max
Hoschiller, writing on the "The Dan
gers of an Economic War;" says:
"Some people wish to ignore the fact
that from 1889 to 1909 France sold
more to Germany than she bought
from her" That was favorable
balance of trade for France, and IS
contrary to the notion of what trade
with Germany inevitably meant.
Here was Germany actually spend
ing more money in France than
France spent in Germany. Can he
Alliance make guarantees to cover
this?
Speaking to the British House 0:
Commons, at the time representa-
tives were designated to attend the
Economic Conference at Paris, NJ.
Asouith said: Whatever you do, be
careful not to allow yourselves,
through excitement or blindness CT
natural sentiments, caused. | Will not
saw. by the desire of vengeance but Of
cementing the victory, to take meas
ures which will do more harm than
the enemy
Is it possible that after the war
people will not have the same IN
stinct for gain in trade as before?
Profits are generally irresistible and
are sought by the shortest means.
If feelings of patriotism are not
sufficient to cause people to forego
great profits during the war, even at
the expense of their own country,
will the feeling for revenge be strong
enough to hold the selfish rules OF
trade forever in allegiance? One an
swers promptly in the negative, and
one is probably right; but nothing 5
very certain since the factor of emo
ton has appeared in the economic
EQUATION. One knows what people
would do if they continued as before
10 pursue material welfare through
the competitive production, diStribu-
ton and exchange of goods, whereas,
on the other hand, if great many
people should unite in the belief that
It were better to diminish the wealth
Of their competitors than directly to
Increase their own, few of the fam,l-
lar economic assumptions would lit
orally hold.
-