bounded by several adjacent neutral countries through which commerce could filter regardless of a blockade of her small seacoast. To meet such situations the doctrine of continuous voyages has been advanced and enforced. It may be queried whether a principle of international organization any more than a rule of international law which does not take into account differences of geographical position will stand the stress of bitter controversy engendered by the inequalities of the operation of such a principle.

While it is an axiom that all independent sovereign states are equal before the law of nations, it is equally true that there are very great differences between the states in respect to wealth, power, and influence. Great Britain and Turkey may be equal before the Hague Tribunal, but commercially, in time of peace or as efficient belligerents in the present war, the two nations are hardly comparable. The development of the two peoples, of their governmental systems and their national resources, has been strikingly different. These are merely illustrations of the great difference in the degree of civilization which has been attained by the peoples of the globe. There are, to speak in barometric terms, areas of "high pressure" civilization interspersed over the globe with areas of "low pressure" civilization. As has been pointed out by Ellsworth Huntington, there are at the present time five "high" areas, one corresponding roughly to the United States north of Mason and Dixon's line, another to the British Isles and Central Europe, a part of Italy and the Baltic coasts, the third to Japan, the fourth to New Zealand and Southeast Australia, and the fifth to the southern extremity of South America. It has been suggested that these areas correspond to peculiar climatic conditions — conditions which may be described as a rapid succession of moderately high and low temperatures between about 30° and 70° F. It is thought that such temperature changes stimulate the mental and physical activity of people and have great effect upon their position in the scale of civilization; and that, therefore, no countries with warm, equable climates, with but very slight successive changes in temperature, can attain the same power and influence in the progress of civilization as countries situated in harsher climates. Thus, other things being equal, it is possible to conclude (though perhaps from insufficient data) that certain countries, for example, those bordering on the torrid zone, will always rank in the lowest class of nations, and as such will be subject to the dominating influence of their stronger neighbors. If this theory is correct, it opens the way for the formulation of an international organization which will give due consideration to certain nations unfavorably situated as to climatic conditions.

In the present age of rapid transit and facility of communication, it is impossible for a nation to live unto itself alone. Transportation and communication have not only forced upon nations personal contact between their respective peoples, but have made nations dependent upon each other for supplies. To such an extent has this interdependence grown that it would be difficult for any nation long to survive if it were cut off from communication with other countries. On this account the application of the principles of blockade and contraband in the present day is a stronger. means of bringing an enemy to terms than it was two centuries ago and a more efficient weapon than the greatest armies in the field. Indeed, the commercial isolation of an offensive state has been advocated as a substitute for war. The effect of such isolation was brought home to the United States by the embargo acts which were passed in the early part of the last century. In these circumstances it would seem important in any international organization to consider, aside from the disposition of the naval forces of the organization, the fundamental trade relations of the various countries of the globe. The importance of this matter cannot, perhaps, be overstated. In the last century the expansion of commerce was at the bottom of almost every great international controversy that had taken place. Even the avarice for territory was largely founded on the theory of greater wealth through increased trade. Whatever political alliances have been made; whatever treaties have been negotiated; whatever trade agreements have been concluded; whatever tariff and customs schedules have been set up, have been short-lived unless they have taken into consideration the great currents of international trade that are flowing from one country to another. Nations may endeavor to divert these currents, or to stem their tide by artificial customs barriers, trade agreements, economic alliances, etc., but in the end these are swept aside by the mere pressure of national interdependence. My idea is that no solid foundation of international organization in the field of politics can hope for success unless the fundamental elements of trade are taken into account. A paper organization will not accomplish the purpose in view. The fact, for example, that the great bulk of sulphur comes from Spain and Italy, nitrate from Chile, potash from Germany, tin and nickel from the British Colonies, platinum from Russia, phosphate rock from the United States and North Africa, cotton from the United States, rubber from South America and Africa, emery from Greece, wolfram from Portugal, not to mention the great sources of the food supplies of the world, should be taken into consideration. International coöperation for the supply of these and other essential materials should form a feature of any proposed interna

tional government; otherwise the organization may fall because of controversies arising out of the selfish use or control of one or more commodities over which one nation has practically a monopoly. An equitable arrangement for freedom of international trade, at least in respect to monopolistic commodities, would at one stroke not only allay many international suspicions and ambitions, but destroy the source of most international disputes and conflicts.

THE CHAIRMAN. Before I call for speakers, I may complete what we already have well begun, by reading to you the telegram that has been sent to the Cuban Society of International Law at Havana:

American Society at eleventh annual meeting gratefully acknowledges and fully reciprocates heartiest greetings and best wishes to Cuban Society of International Law, and rejoices that the two republics are allied in defense, as the two International Law Societies thereof are united in the study and development of a law of nations, based wholly upon enlightened principles of justice.

(Signed) Elihu Root, President.

The subject of the paper of Mr. Woolsey, "Some Economic Aspects of International Organization," is open for discussion.

Professor PHILIP MARSHALL BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the privilege of saying a word on the subject. It has loomed very big in my mind in recent months, particularly since the meeting of the representatives of the Allies in Paris. The announced intention of the Entente Allies to engage in a form of economic warfare against Germany at the end of this war ought to arouse, it seems to me, feelings of grave alarm in the minds of all true lovers of world peace; and Mr. Woolsey's paper seems to be most suggestive in this connection. He has certainly drawn our attention to what seems to be a fundamental principle: that nations must coöperate economically or you cannot have the basis of harmony and good neighborhood. It seems to me we are wasting our time in discussing some of the basic fundamental principles of international law, such as of sovereignty and equality and independence, and that we would do well to center our attention on other basic principles of international law which have loomed very big in this war: first, the right of men to group together in independent nationalities, according to their own preferences; second, the right of men to govern themselves on a democratic basis; and third, freedom of trade.

I have just been reading Mr. Weyl's most interesting book on America's World Policy. He there demonstrates in a most interesting manner

the danger of friction between nations over such questions as trade monopolies, and particularly in reference to commerce. I am aware personally that the logic of this argument goes very far, and in a very radical sense. There are many of us perhaps who have been protectionists, but it seems to me we must in an open-minded way recognize that the peace and harmony of the nations cannot be facilitated by trade warfare, but a great deal of ill will and a great deal of distrust between nations have been aroused by this basic question of trade and commerce. I recognize also that no nation wishes to expose itself to the danger to what seems to be a real danger at the close of a war like this, of "dumping" and of having its markets exposed to the products of cheap labor. It may be that nations will have, for some time, to resort to measures of self-defense in the way of tariff barriers; but still it seems to me that the implication of this argument is very clear, that nations are bound to come to agreements sooner or later on the question of freedom of trade. Perhaps a happier expression would be the regulation of the freedom of trade. But that means ultimately an understanding regarding the basic question of production and distribution.

You may say that that is socialism. It may be, but that can have no terrors to anyone if the argument itself is sound. May we not hope, and may we not look forward to what Mr. Woolsey has suggested, the time when there will be such coöperation between the nations that they will come to an understanding on this very basic question as to raw products, their production and their distribution?

I cannot emphasize too strongly, in my own mind, the immense importance of this phase of our international relations. How can we expect to lay the basis of durable peace, if we cannot agree on such fundamental questions as the necessities of life?

THE CHAIRMAN. The subject is still open for discussion.

Admiral COLBY M. CHESTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on that question. As Mr. Brown knows, I was engaged at one time in carrying on a war against Germany for two years, under the distinguished president of this society, and I feel very keenly that we are suggesting an organization for the future that does not conform to Mr. Blaine's idea of reciprocity. Reciprocity between all nations is the only way we can carry on our trade. Our trade is dependent upon our own resources; and the States of our Union were indeed bound together by the first act of war that was ever declared in this country, to assist each other in supporting their trade as well as their sovereignty, and it behooves us, I think, not to start any plans for forming an alliance between any people in

the world against any other people which may interfere with reciprocity between nations, and so hurt us in the end. We have as much interest at stake as any other nation, and it is necessary for us to be guided by the fundamental principles of our Constitution, which says that our trade is the means which gives us our security and happiness. It is through our trade that we shall be able to progress in the future, and I look with abhorrence on any idea that we shall form leagues to prevent our trading with any other nation in the world.

Mr. CHARLES Noble Gregory. I want to express the belief that trade does not benefit one side only and injure the other; that, on the other hand, all trade conducted by persons of ordinary intelligence and self-interest benefits both parties, and that, therefore, limitations upon trade are to be avoided unless the gravest and most overwhelming reasons are shown for such limitations. I want to say further that I am unable to recall any war, except possibly against some inferior and semibarbarous or barbarous country, which was occasioned by rivalries in trade. I would recall the further fact, which I think we must admit is the great example of liberalism in trade, that the great nation which has kept open ports is in the midst of the present great war, and that a policy of absolute liberalism as to foreign trade has not saved Great Britain from every reproach aimed at her by those opposed to her, upon that very subject, and from all the horrors of the present war. Therefore, I am not at all convinced that this matter of trade rivalry is the secret of modern war, or that a policy of freedom of trade will enable any nation to avoid it; and the striking, and to my mind, overwhelming, argument is that the one nation which has adopted on a great scale and pursued for over half a century the policy of substantial free trade, has not avoided the present war.

Mr. DENYS P. MYERS. Mr. Woolsey mentioned the areas of low pressure throughout the world. It seems to me that a word more might be said on those areas. Economic organization has two aspects. It is both economic and political, and in the past the politics of it have invariably centered around those areas of low pressure. We have a situation like this: the areas of high pressure - take the United States for instance -invent an automobile which requires rubber for its tires. Now, it so happens that the rubber grows in areas of low pressure, and the native down there wears the fig leaf and gets his meal by catching bananas in his mouth as they fall off the tree, or something almost as simple, and he knows nothing about the discipline that comes from the life that we ordinarily live based upon rendering service for money, which we can turn