COTTON

Cotton, as king among agricultural crops, received renewed recognition at the convention of the American Bankers' Association which closed at Seattle, Wash., yesterday afternoon. On the motion of the president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas, The cotton crop of 1914 was marketed at low prices with consequent loss and hardship to the planters of the cotton-growing states and all those connected in any manner with the production and sale of cotton.

Whereas, Following the advice of recognized financial and agricultural authorities, the planters greatly reduced the acreage planted in cotton this year in their endeavors to promote as far as it lay within their power the general welfare.

Whereas, The recent declaration by belligerent powers that cotton is contraband now threatens to seriously affect the marketing of this season's crop and work great hardships.

Whereas, The President of the United States and the Federal Reserve Board have shown commendable zeal and great efficiency in forecasting and warding off similar impending calamities.

Resolved, That this convention commends the President of the United States and the State department for the efforts which have been already made looking to a modification of the said contraband order, and that it is a hope of this convention that these efforts will be continued until the threatened peril to this great industry is averted.

This action by the representatives of the entire banking interest of the United States is exactly in line with the policy in regard to cotton which

The Evening Mail has consistently advocated for several months.

Cotton is necessarily an international crop. Sixty-five per cent. of the world's output is produced in our southern states. The centers of consumption lie in the densely populated industrial districts of the New England states, England, France, Austria and Switzerland. Hence the importance of safe transportation and unimpeded distribution to the markets of the world.

Like the other pending international issues, the modification of the contraband order on cotton has a great significance for the future, as well as for the immediate present. If the contraband order for cotton is recognized now, a menace will hang over the agricultural industry of the South that will bring disorganization and heavy loss whenever a war breaks out.-Sept. 10, 1915.

OUR DUTY TO OURSELVES— AND TO OTHERS

President Wilson found a hearty response from the people the other day when he declared that "peace can be rebuilt only upon the ancient and accepted principles of international law-only upon those things which remind nations of their duties to each other."

Peace can be maintained only upon that basis, and war should not be waged upon any other. Certainly the clearly defined rights of nonbelligerent nations should not be

menaced by the necessities or the desires of any nation at war. This government has consistently maintained that policy so strongly urged upon us by all our earlier Presidents. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams are all on record unqualifiedly against the national servility that would tolerate interference with the trade of a nation at peace, and in favor of an aggressive assertion of an untrammeled right to have commercial intercourse with every nation not engaged in war.

Ever since England, through its Orders in Council, adopted the policy of putting all cargoes from this country that pass her shores under "suspicion," this country has been waiting for President Wilson to assert the rights of American foreign trade as stoutly as he defended those of American lives at sea. Ship after ship has been taken to English ports, there to remain until a prize court could find time to listen to American appeals for release. Our government has cabled its protests when urged to do so by the owners of the stuffs and the cargoes; and with each new arrest of an American ship, we have been told at Washington that a strong assertion of American rights was about to be made to the English government. Such a letter, it was said a month ago, awaited the return of Secretary of State Lansing from his vacation. We are now assured that it is on its way to England by messenger to be delivered to-day.

No doubt when our protest is made it will be in line with the firm attitude of Mr. Wilson's predecessors in office, and with the extract we have quoted above from his recent address. Unfortunately delay has created the impression that the

vitality has been revised out of the document-that fineness of phrase may unconsciously have taken the place of vigor of expression. It is unfortunate, too, that our delay has permitted England to lay down a new sea law, drafted out of its own necessities, for the smaller nations. of the Scandinavian group, when if we have a duty in this war it is to be the earliest among peaceful nations in defining and protecting the rights of all. That is one of the things which, as President Wilson has said, "remind nations of their duties to each other, and, deeper still, of their duties to mankind."

Sweden, Norway and Denmark have been looking to the United States with hope that this great nation will insist upon recognition of the accepted principles of sea law, not only as to her own ocean commerce, but that of smaller nations as well. Weak as they are, comparatively, they have not failed promptly to enter their own vigorous protest.

With the powerful backing of the United States, their cause is greatly strengthened and should be brought to a successful decision. The question is, whether Great Britain intends to take action on the protests of neutrals, including the United States, during the war or put off the issue until after the conflict is over. Sir Edward Grey is quoted in recent cable dispatches to the effect that the controversy that has arisen. out of the hold-up of American commerce on the high seas should be referred to The Hague for adjudication, and that in any event such an expedient must be resorted to in preference to an open breach with the United States.

There is a distinct implication in

Sir Edward Grey's attitude that Great Britain has no intention to push the matter to a quick decision. Does that mean that the oppressive interference with legitimate American commerce will continue pending the necessarily deliberate proceedings of the tribunal at The Hague? If such is the meaning of Sir Edward's utterance, then it amounts to a declaration of refusal to meet the grievances of the United States.

In such a contingency President Wilson will face the necessity of taking far more vigorous action than any that has yet been contemplated. -Nov. 1, 1915.

"BY LEAVE OF ENGLAND"

Italy is shipping fruit and other articles to Germany and getting in return coal from Germany's coal mines. This is by leave of England, for Italy must have fuel or her ships could not sail the seas or her factories continue business. Italy is one of the allies, but Italy is not at war with Germany.

If Italy was unable to get coal, Italy would be in a desperate plight. That being the case the English, to aid their troubled friend, permit the Italians to send goods to Britain's enemy, and get the much needed coal in return.

Why isn't England as generous to us? We have cotton-millions of bales of it-that has declined many dollars per bale in value because we cannot get it to foreign mills whose spindles are idle for want of it. We have wheat-millions upon millions of bushels of it-that has declined more than 20 cents a bushel within a month because we cannot get it to

people in Europe who are hungry for it.

And Germany has potash-tens of thousands of tons of potash-that we need to fertilize our farming acres, that we need to make certain medicines, and in a variety of things.

The cotton man of the South and the wheat grower of the West, the manufacturer, the railroad man, the shipper, the whole country, in fact, would benefit if we could exchange goods with Germany as Italy does "by leave of England."-Nov. 1, 1915.

JUST A BILL OF EXPENSE

The cables reflect the satisfaction of England's press and statesmen with the message from Secretary Lansing. There is just enough jar to the comments to keep them from appearing too unanimous in their attitude of benevolent dissent. They recognized that we have laboriously made up a record on which to base a bill of expense, but not to take serious issue with England's determination to rule the seas according to her needs. She has got to starve Germany, hence she defies American sovereignty on the waters and violates the very code of sea law which we bound Germany to recognize.

It was not only with fine phrase but with real vigor that we brought Germany to recognize that this nation proposed to assert its rights under all conditions both as to life and property at sea; it is not surprising, therefore, that the marked difference between that note and the latest Lansing document should have led England to assume, as she evidently has, that she was really not being brought to book-that the offenses she is committing are regarded by

our government as offenses against out pocketbook more than against our honor. The former can be satisfied through The Hague tribunal or otherwise; the latter requires instant satisfaction or gets none at all. Hence England takes our "protest" none too seriously, and will in her own leisurely way, following our own deliberate course, tell us her side of the story a year or so hence.

That is precisely Mexico's attitude in the matter of American claims for property wantonly destroyed by the rival bandits there. Our protests, such as they are, have been put aside for response when the belligerents feel disposed to give the question some thought. The only difference is that in Mexico the American property confiscated or destroyed has been on land; while England has taken American property on the seas. The protection of our government, however, ran to both, and was presumed by our citizens to cover both. Neither Mexico nor England, however, evidently regards our sovereignty as of much consequence when their necessities, arising out of war, demand the choking off of our sea trade or the looting of American enterprises.

A sharp and uncompromising stand toward Germany aroused that country from apathy to our vital interests and brought us a complete diplomatic victory. The Lansing note to England, however, does not justify a hope of similar results. The suggestion has been made from Washington that the issue could be settled by arbitration, likely to drag out for months and possibly for years after the war. In the meantime our throttled trade dies completely. A cash indemnity for a few particular shiploads of stuff cannot

possibly recompense us for the destruction of a vast trade and a commercial export organization that are the result of years of growth, and which are ours by right.

Even now, if it were possible for us to carry on the commerce that the note so ably demonstrates to be ours by right, whole sections of the country would be in a much better economic condition. Cotton, which is our largest export crop, would be bringing from fifteen cents to twenty cents a pound; lard and pork, instead of selling for less than the cost of production, would bring profitable returns to the farmers of the middle West. Our wheat and cereal crop, with Russia out of the market, should average twenty-five cents a bushel higher. The aggregate values loss to our farmers mount to more than five hundred million dollars. We have secured an open route for the export of a million dollars' worth of munitions a day. The country expects that the export interests of other sections, that are at least as legitimate, will be enforced with equal vigor.-Nov. 10, 1915.

AMERICA'S TRADE RIGHTS

Speaking for the best-informed British public opinion, the Manchester Guardian says that the issue raised by Mr. Lansing's note to Great Britain is somewhat clouded. If that issue, continues the Guardian, involves an insistence upon our right to trade with Germany, the British answer, regardless of international law, must be a decisive NO. If, on the other hand, the United States merely seeks to carry on an unrestricted trade in non-contra

band with neutrals, strictly for consumption by neutrals, the question would resolve itself into a minor matter of practice, and doubtless some arrangement could be made.

Such a presentation of the case by a responsible English newspaper discloses the immensity of the divergence between the English conception of the situation, even after the presentation of our note, and the actual interests of American producers and importers. To the average man reading that document the main point of emphasis appears to lie in our demand that we be permitted to carry on trade free from molestation with neutral countries surrounding Germany, in goods actually destined for consumption in those countries. The emphasis is misplaced.

The briefest reflection will show that this point is so simple and self-evident that it should not need to be made. The fact that Great Britain and Germany are at war has no bearing whatever upon our trade with Sweden or Holland. With Germany shut out of the markets of the Scandinavian countries as a seller by the exigencies of war, we are entitled to our share of the enlarged demand in those countries, no matter how much our sales there under the new conditions may exceed our exports to the same territory last year or two years ago. That is a trade opportunity that belongs rightfully to the American business man more than to any other. For England to limit us to the quantities sold last year, while her own commerce is profiting by larger exports to those very nations, constitutes a most unwarranted use of naval power, to which we cannot submit.

Sales for home consumption to Holland, Sweden or Denmark are minor matters compared with the main issue, which urgently needs to be brought out in its full force. Unless an actual and effective block

ade of all German ports is established, there is no warrant in international law for shutting off the exportation from Germany of any and all articles that we may need. Our farmers must have potash; our textile industries are hampered by the lack of dyestuffs; other industries of the country require other products of German industry. Our importing houses, engaged in this trade, have built up vast organizations representing years of effort and the expenditure of large capital. This business could be closed down legally by no other means than an effective blockade, and even then the way through Holland would remain open to us of right.

The main questions in the contraversy its heart and its essence from the point of view of legitimate American interests-range as follows:

1. Not whether, but HOW SOON are we to be allowed to trade directly with the central empires in non-contraband goods? For fifteen months Britain has held up this trade.

2. Not whether, but HOW SOON will the embargo on our trade in non-contraband with the central powers be lifted in cases when such shipments are sent by way of adjoining countries? For fifteen months this interference has been kept up by Britain.

3. Not whether, but HOW SOON shall we be permitted to trade with the merchants of neutral countries in goods that they may have pur