have merely accentuated the fierceness of individual competition in world trade and financing. To uncontrolled individualism has been added an uncontrolled nationalism. This situation points conclusively to the necessity for an international organization vested, even if in the most rudimentary form, with the essential elements of government." Two points may be suggested in this connection. One is that the commercial policy of nations has historically played a leading rôle in the continuous struggle of nations for a dominating position in the world's affairs. Political power and economic strength have gone hand in hand. Whichever of these two may have seemed the goal of national effort at any particular time, each has been a weapon for increasing the other. It is self-evident that economic strength is a vital element in securing political predominance. It is equally clear historically that political power has been used as a means, and frequently a ruthless one, of increasing economic strength. Tariffs, prohibitions, bounties, subsidies, commercial treaties, colonial policies, navigation laws, tariff wars, and ultimately real wars are inextricably bound up together in the history of national rivalry. Consequently any fundamental consideration of the problem of whether it is possible to soften, or to restrain within bounds, this struggle of nations for prestige and power must deal fully with the underlying facts of commercial rivalry and the possibility of its restraint or control. So much has long ago been granted by all thoughtful adherents of the League of Nations. idea. In covering so fully the manifold phases of commercial policy in the light of his main concept, Mr. Culbertson makes a welcome and timely contribution to the chief problem of reconstruction. The second point is that in view of the fact that we are already seriously discussing the possibility of some international control of the relations of labor and capi tal, of hours of labor and conditions of employment, the proposition for some international control of commercial policy is relatively simple. The phrase "commercial policy" has come to mean the policy of nations toward one another in favoring or encouraging their own citizens in international competition. The relations of labor and capital we have hitherto looked upon as a purely domestic problem. If we are to have international agreements as to conditions of employment and international commissions and tribunals to handle these matters, to balk at an international control of commercial policies would be to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel. It should also be stated that, in coming to his conclusions, Mr. Culbertson has not done so lightly or without due consideration of what is enduring and valuable in the spirit of nationalism. He is not a sentimental internationalist in his philosophy. He is not an individualist free-trader in his economics. His first published work was an appreciation, written con amore, of the economic philosophy and policy of Alexander Hamilton, the sanest, the most profound, and the most convinced of the exponents of nationalistic economics. But he would not admit for a moment that he has departed in any way from Hamiltonian principles in his present recommendations. We should not forget that Hamilton's advocacy of a strong Federal union was looked upon by the cautious sectionalists of his time as a radical departure from safe and established policy. As Mr. E. S. Martin recently pointed out in one of his happy editorials, Washington was an adventurous soul, quite ready to meet a new situation with a bold and untried programme. The same was certainly true of Hamilton. There is no necessary and inherent conflict between the nationalism of his day and the support of a League of Nations in ours. The writer of an introduction is allowed some per sonal reference, I believe, and I may perhaps say that it was under my direction that Mr. Culbertson made his early studies into the history and principles of commercial policy. In the work just mentioned he has been kind enough to refer to what he believes to have been my influence on his own intellectual processes. I speak of this merely to indicate my great interest in noting the point to which he has come in his consideration of the new problems that confront us as a heritage from the war. It is significant of the widespread changes in men's minds regarding the foundations of national policy that one so steeped in the nationalistic conception of society should go so far in his concessions to the necessity for some form of international control. Having committed myself to this personal reference in order to make Mr. Culbertson's position somewhat clearer to the reader, I must continue it to the extent of saying that, although heartily recommending a serious consideration of the author's treatment of his intricate subject, I am not prepared to commit myself, at the present stage of my thinking, to accepting his final conclusions. As one who has always looked upon the struggle of human groups as an inevitable part of the processes of history, this would be hard for me. On the other hand, we have all been forced by the experience of the Great War to discard many of our fundamental concepts. Believing that, despite all theories, we must give support to any serious proposal, however experimental, that seems to give promise of preventing a repetition of recent world experiences for the immediate future at least, I am bound to admit that logically any such effort must involve some international control of commercial policy. Whether this means a permanent change in international relations, or only a necessary makeshift to tide over a period of readjustment and reconstruction, is quite another matter. There are some. deep historical and philosophical reasons for maintaining that a League that is not a League against something, that aims at coöperation for its own sake, and is not coöperation forced by evolutionary struggle, cannot have permanent vitality and significance. But a discussion of this problem would carry us too far afield, and the present time demands a consideration of how we can help to establish peace and harmony for a generation rather than of what are the permanent forces that will be operative in future ages. HENRY C. EMERY. |