France alone. The news is contained in the following cablegram from the American consul-general in London:

The French government has opened a special office in London for the granting of licenses for the importation into France and Algeria of British goods under import prohibition in those countries. Arrangements have been made whereby French exporters of goods on the British prohibited list may apply to the French ministry of commerce for approval of applications which will then be transmitted to British Board of Trade import restrictions department in Paris, thus enabling French exporters to overcome existing British restrictions.

The State department is deeply alarmed over this action, which not only contravenes the "most favored nation" clause of our commercial agreements with Great Britain, but also establishes the precedent of not only discriminating against our trade, but even boycotting it altogether.

The Washington correspondent of the Detroit Free Press, however, sees in this measure a balm to the feelings of Americans already outraged by Great Britain. This is the way he figures it out, in a dispatch to his paper:

It may be a great surprise to some to learn that there are even now in existence British restrictions upon trade between the allies. It will be soothing to the offended Americans to learn that Great Britain has not confined edicts to neutral commerce, but has felt the compulsion of war so heavily as to lay an embargo on British exports, not even excepting her sister ally, France.

her

No one but this Washington correspondent was ignorant of the fact that British import prohibitions were prohibitive, and affected all countries, including France. To all the rest of us the new London measure means that Great Britain has begun to open for her allies the gate she keeps barred to us.-Sept. 23, 1916.

"PICKING UP" A MERCHANT MARINE

Bernard N. Baker, former president of the Atlantic Transport Company, and more recently an intimate counselor of President Wilson on the government-owned shipping proposal, laments the fact that the failure to pass the administration's bill last winter prevented at that time the purchase of control of the International Mercantile Marine Company. He points enthusiastically to the current quotations for International securities, and estimates that on the rise the government would have cleaned up $70,000,000.

Of course, there is no way of ascertaining whether the government could have "picked up" control of this shipping corporation last spring in the stock market in the manner that so many "war brides" were taken over by speculative optimists. Shrewd manipulation of the tape, backed by ample government funds, might have landed a majority of the stock in the Treasury department at Washington before the operating owners of the ship company were aware of what was going on; hundreds of stockholders might have sold during the distressing times of the early war period, and the government might have made a handsome stock market profit besides getting possession of a shipping corporation at bankrupt prices.

Is such the purpose of the administration's ship purchase bill? Is

Mr. Baker's lament over the lost opportunity shared by Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo? Is the government to seek profits-even of $70,000,000-out of a bull market in war stocks as well as control and direct the development of a mercantile marine?

On the other hand, suppose peace had come last spring-after the government had purchased the International Mercantile Marine and the shipping of the world had resumed its competition for American trade, at what price would the securities of this company be selling in Wall Street to-day? Would there be a $70,000,000 advance or a $70,000,000 decline? How would the $70,000,000 depreciation be carried on the treasury books?

These questions, prompted by Mr. Baker's statement, reveal the peril of establishing a shipping corporation, with 51 per cent. of its stock in the United States treasury and 49 per cent. scattered in private ownership. Of course, the government's stock would not be affected by Wall Street quotations, but Wall Street quotations would be seriously affected by the government's policy from time to time in directing the ship corporation's business affairs.

In the days before the federal reserve act it was always worth a point or two on the "granger" stocks to know how much money the government would release for cropmoving requirements. Happily, un

der the present law, the Treasury's action is no longer a factor. Money moves freely in response to legitimate demand. How much more seriously, however, would the government's course (or rumors of its course) affect the quotation of a corporation, the stock of which was in part government owned and in part privately owned? Having taken the government out of Wall Street in one instance, why put it back in another?

The demand of the country is for a merchant marine. There are only two ways of establishing it. One way is that urged by Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo. It means government-owned ships, operated by the government in some instances, leased to private corporations in other instances. The Democratic Congress refused last winter to indorse the McAdoo plan, but the administration is determined to force it through the approaching session if it is possible to do so. It does not now seem possible.

the

The alternative way is to encourage private capital to build, own and operate ships. This is the plan followed by every other nation. For years it has been urged upon Congress by practically every commercial organization in the country. It has back of it also a world-wide experience. Its opponents yell "subsidy," however, and the politicians in Congress fear to indorse it. They lack the courage to go back to their constituents and frankly state that they have voted sensibly and according to sound business judgment on a business proposition.

Between Secretary McAdoo's theories on one side and the demagogic cry of "subsidy" on the other

side, the nation's real interests are sacrificed.

We have no ships to carry our products to the markets of the world; we have no ships to attend. our battlefleet as auxiliaries in the event of war. In brief, our present condition means that we have no ships for American trade in times of peace and no ships for American defense in times of war.-Nov. 24, 1915.

SCARCITY OF AMERICAN

MARINE INSURANCE

American capital can probably find no safer nor more lucrative employment to-day in the United States than in the establishment of a sufficient number of marine insurance companies to cover all of the risks arising from maritime pursuits in the United States. The larger part of the marine insurance underwritten in New York is placed through agents here with foreign, chiefly British, marine insurance companies. One of the serious drawbacks to the establishment of an American merchant marine in foreign trade is the lack of sufficient American marine insurance companies to transact the business daily. offering in this country, chiefly in this port.

To secure insurance of ships and their cargoes the vessels must possess "a class" and "a rating" that satisfies marine underwriters that the' risk is acceptable. To secure such classifiction and rating ships must be built according to specified rules. Lloyds' Register of Shipping is the institution, privately owned in Great Britain, under whose rules most of the vessels are built in England, and

when so built that institution classes and rates them in a book consulted by marine underwriters for all of the essential information regarding vessels, and upon which insurance of vessels and their cargoes is based.

When marine insurance is sought in England marine underwriters refer to Lloyds' Register for needed particulars regarding the vessels. There is difficulty in placing insurance in England if the vessels are not classed and rated in Lloyds' Register. This forces owners of ships, even if built in the United States, to build them according to Lloyds' rules.

It is remarkable that the usual acumen of American business men has been unequal hitherto to the complete insurance of American ships and their cargoes. Ships worth at least $600,000,000 are annually engaged in carrying the imports and exports of the United States, valued at approximately $4,500,000,000 in normal times, all of which are insured, chiefly in Great Britain.

Marine insurance is an old-established business. It could not have lasted so long if it were not profitable. If it is profitable, why are there not enongh American marine insurance companies to cover every American maritime risk? Why are Americans forced to have their ships built to conform to British rules in order to secure in England the insurance they ought to be able to obtain in the United States? "There is a reason" why American marine underwriting falls so far short of wholly covering American marine risks, and we should like to learn just what that reason is.-Dec. 3, 1915.

AMERICAN PREPAREDNESS Germany's Lessons for the United States

By THEODORE ROOSEVELT, Copyright, 1915, by S. S. McClure.

The first and most vital need of this country is the military preparedness necessary in order that this nation shall be safe internationally, that we shall be able to protect our own coasts, to protect the isthmian canal, Alaska and the islands where the American flag floats. In the end there is just one way for a democratic country to meet its obligations in this matter, and that is by universal military training.

This is the the only democratic method. The citizen who does not fit himself to fight for the country is not entitled to a vote in deciding that country's policy. A man should no more be permitted to "volunteer" to stay at home in time of war than to "volunteer" not to pay his taxes in time of peace.

But one of the main reasons why I advocate the Swiss system of universal military training is because such service and training would help us to national solidarity and cohesion, and would enable us to do our duty in time of peace infinitely better than at present. The men who have had military training would be more self-respecting, more loyal to the nation, more lawabiding and with a greater sense of responsibility to themselves and to others. In especial, they would understand that our haphazard system of social and commercial development to-day cannot continue if we are to hold our place as a great

nation.

Preparedness in Peace

There can be no real preparedness to perform our duty in time of war unless there is preparedness to do our duty in time of peace. Of course, the most important of all types of preparedness is that of the spirit and the soul. This comes first, if we are to get the proper social and business preparedness; and in the same way it is proper social and business preparedness that lies at the bottom of mili

try preparedness. Germany's history shows this. It is her social and industrial efficiency that has given her military efficiency.

There are two or three essentials for this nation to understand as regards such preparedness in and for the work of peace. It is, in the first place, necessary that we shall do justice to each individual and in return exact justice from him. Business must be encouraged and controlled; the rights of labor must be secured; and in return labor must be required to acknowledge and live up to its obligations toward the commonwealth as a whole.

There is much that labor can get only by the co-operation of many different influences and factorsschools, doctors, hospitals, experts of all kinds; it is only through the government that such co-operation can be organized. Such co-operation should be given by the government, acting for the people as a whole, and in return the fullest performance of duty and loyalty should be required.

German Social Advantage Germany has been far in advance of us in securing industrial assurance, old-age pensions and homes,

a reasonably fair division of profits. and the like. But she has also been between employer and employed, far ahead of us in requiring from the man who toils with his hands, just as much as from the man who employs him, loyalty to the nation.

Capitalist and wage worker alike must be required-not merely asked, but required as a matter of right in the fullest and most ungrudging manner to acknowledge the prime duty of loyalty to this great democratic commonwealth, of loyalty to our flag, which symbolizes so much of the hope of the modern world.

The effects of the recent shipping legislation upon our Pacific coast shipping trade illustrate just exactly what ought not to be done in all such legislation. The farmers of the law were well-meaning men outside of political life. They had not thought deeply enough of the effects of the law. The politicians who enacted the law were interested in votes and not in national wellbeing.

In consequence, the effect of the law has been to impose such requirements upon the American owners that the American flag has practically disappeared from the Pacific. The law provided elaborately for the welfare of the American sailor-and did it in such fashion as absolutely to eliminate the American sailor from the Pacific Ocean.

Now, this ought to show our people that when we control business in the public interest we are also bound to encourage it in the public interest, or it will be a bad thing for everybody and worst of all for those on whose behalf the control is nominally exercised. We ought,