The New York herald., 1921-11-05
OIL QUESTION SEEN
ASCONFERENCE PERIL.
London 'EimeS' Warns Brit
ish That Concessions
Are Inevitable.
MUST YIELD CONTROL
Taint of Governmental Par
ticipation Needed to
Pacify US.
ADVOCATES open DOOR
Only Policy That Will Make
for World Peace, Says
Article.
ADVOCATES open DOOR

LONDON, Nov. (Saturday).-One
danger to a final and satisfactory
agreement at the approaching Wash
ington conference lies in the present
conflict of British and American in
terests in oil questions, says an article
In the London Times this morning.
1T may fairly be advanced" says
the article, "if Great Britain is not
prepared to make concessions on this
vital question the conference is likely
to break down"
The writer advocates abandonment
by the British Government "of their
present policy Of participation in oil
production and supply" and adds that
If the British Government "renounces
its control Of the Anglo Persian Oil
Company and produces evidence of it's
complete dissertation from active par
ticipation in the oil industry 1t can
Justly demand, whether in California
or the Philippines, continuance of
Americas old and sound policy of
the open door, 1t is the only policy
that will make for the worlds peace"
Granted the conference has bet
ter chance for success with limited,
definite agenda, 1t is yet necessary that
the public, as we'll as the representa-
tives OF this country in Washington
should fully realize while limitation of
naval armaments must rold first place
In the agenda, that question cannot be
satisfactorily settled without a complete
understanding between America and
Great Britain on the international as
pect of oil production and supply.
1T cannot be denied that in the opera
tions Of certain oil companies there is
the taint of British Government control
That Is the real cause Of the bad feel
ing that exists between America and
Great Britain on the oil question, and
that Is why the anxiety of the British
Admiralty for the security of oil sup
plies for the British feet in time Of war,
which at once is reasonable and genuine,
has como into conflict with the equally
reasonable and genuine anxiety of the
American oil men as to the future profits
and Pre- spects in the oil business in time
OF peace"
1--WE know that Great Britain does
not. in fact, dominate the oil situation
and does not as an empire hold ideas Of
oil aggrandizement, yet the operations
OF the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and
the Shell-Royal Dutch group carry the
taint of British Government participa-
tion, and where these commercial con-
Germs have pushed their activities for
ward In competition with the Standard
OIL Company. the hundred per cent
American sees signs of British pre-
paredness for future naval war"
The article brands as a fallacy "the
~
supplies are the ultimate basis of naval
efficiency" adding that oil power de-
pends upon sea power for every big
nation except America. (which Is in the
unique position OF being. IL not actually
at present. yet potentially. self-support-
ing in OIL"
It asserts that the Industrial and COM
mercial control of oil fields without war
time military or naval command is
futile because Of the necessity of trans
portation. 1t declares further that sound.
commercial and economic reasons justify
a change in the British policy on account
Of the expense involved.