The Europeans were showing a disposition to run away with President Wilson's modest proposition and to deduce all manner of unexpected conclusions from it; but our delegates would not be rushed!

As time passed it grew clearer and clearer that it would be impossible to come to any general agreements whatever upon these enormous and complicated problems.

Informal exchanges of views established the fact that no one proposition was popular with all delegations. The American plan for an agreement against discriminatory tariffs might have rallied British support, if qualified in certain respects touching on imperial preference and the status of the Philippines. But standing alone, it was not acceptable to the French. They would swallow the proposal only if accompanied by a set of exceptional transitory measures designed to bolster up France's own economic position. These the Americans and the British were not prepared to adopt, although they admitted the necessity of some special measures in favour of the devastated regions. As for the French proposal in regard to raw materials, it is doubtful if even they would have agreed to a general permanent agreement on the unqualified proposition. But there was simply no chance of the United States accepting the abolition of import duties it called for. We have no export duties; but there would have been many countries to balk at abolishing these. Likewise, there were several states which had always declined to enter conventions for the protection of industrial property and the prevention of unfair methods of competition. A general agreement on this subject was not to be obtained at a stroke. In consequence of all these differences of opinion, the project of a general convention, or even of a call for a special conference to draw one, was never discussed in the Economic Commission,

or any of its offshoots, to the point of reaching any decision.1

In the end, the whole business of general commercial agreements was handed on almost untouched to the League of Nations as, indeed, the President from the beginning thought it should be.2

Since the Peace Conference the League has been struggling vigorously with the problem, keeping the subject with determination before the world. The matters involved are partly covered by certain Conventions on Industrial Property, last revised at Washington in 1911; but only a relatively small proportion of states have adhered to them. The only hope of a constructive adherence of the others lies with the League. Last March (1922) the Economic Committee of the League agreed to refer further action to the Conference of the Union for the Protection of Industrial Property, due to meet in December, 1923.3

The Genoa Conference likewise passed on the question to a future assembly.

But just as the Allies at Paris refused, in the matter of armament, to impose any limitations upon themselves they were willing enough to impose them on Germany and other enemy states, and even on new states. All the delegations offered drafts of treaty clauses with this end in view.

1See A. A. Young in "A History of the Peace Conference at Paris," Volume V. pp. 70-71.

"In only one minor respect does even the limited proposition of President Wilson, as finally embodied in Article 23 e of the Covenant, obtain immediate recognition. That is in the Covenant itself-in Article 22 dealing with mandataries. The “equal opportunities" in mandated territories "for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League" are required only in the case of the least important second class of mandates.

3See Monthly Summary, League of Nations, March, 1922, p. 56.

These corresponded fairly well in their main feature. Each enemy power was to be obliged to grant all the allied and associated powers, without discrimination, "most favoured nation" treatment in regard to import and export duties and all regulations pertaining to commerce. Obligations to this effect were embodied, without controversy, in Articles 264-267 of the German treaty and transferred in identical form to the other treaties.

The Americans believed this obligation was all that need be imposed, as Wilson told the Council on April 23. But many additional proposals were advanced, especially by the French and the Italians, to force tariff concessions on Germany without reciprocal obligations. For example, Italy wished to prevent Germany from imposing high import duties on, such Italian products as wine, olive oil, vegetables, and fruit. The Americans fought the whole idea of this proposal bitterly. They maintained that Germany must have complete freedom in her tariff policy, subject only to the ban on discrimination. The American argument on this point was admirably presented by Baruch in the full Commission, on April 3:

Mr. BARUCH said that before considering the specific proposal under discussion, he thought the general principle should be dealt with as to whether it was the intention to impose and maintain restrictions on German trade after peace was signed. The intention of the Allies was to demand very large sums by way of reparation from Germany, and the view of President Wilson was that Germany should have freedom of trade immediately after the signature of peace, so that she should not be in a position to resist the demand of the Allied and Associated Powers for reparation by urging the plea that these powers had imposed on her restrictions which prevented her from raising funds. The first two or three years after the signature of peace would be a specially important period from this point of view.

The proposal could not be downed, however. Special interests and the desire to hamper Germany always got precedence over the requirements of a sound reparation policy based on the restoration of Germany's productivity. Whenever the question arose of special obligations to be imposed on the enemy without reciprocal observance of them by the allied and associated powers, there was always a fight over the duration of these requirements. The French always stood at the head of a continental group eager to stretch these disabilities over as long a period as possible. The Americans always fought to cut the period down. It was finally agreed after a long fight that general articles should last for five years unless prolonged by the Council of the League.

In conclusion it may be said that while practically no progress was made by the Peace Conference toward solving the vital problems connected with "commercial equality" and "access to raw materials," there was undoubted value in the mere effort to consider them; for in this way a group of questions of the utmost importance to the future of civilization was called to the attention of thoughtful men. For how can there long be peace among nations which are employing against each other, without restriction, all the weapons of economic warfare? And how can there be peace when a world growing yearly more crowded is dependent for access to indispensable raw materials upon nations which hedge about these resources, without restriction, with every sort of customs barrier, or indeed control them through monopolistic concessions or by special forms of taxation?

These are questions clamouring for studious and sensible consideration, and the world has at least to be thankful that the beginnings were made at Paris.

CHAPTER XLV

NEW WORLD PROBLEMS OF FREEDOM OF TRANSIT"FREE HIGHWAYS FOR TRADE"-INTERNATIONALIZATION OF RIVERS, CANALS, AND RAILROADSQUESTION OF "FREE PORTS"

CONOMIC disarmament at Paris encountered as rocky a road as military disarmament. The nations proved as unwilling to make any agreements to reduce or equalize their customs barriers or to modify their control of transit facilities, as they did to curtail their frontier fortifications or to cut down their armies and navies. In the last chapter it was shown what happened to the American principle of "commercial equality" embodied originally in Point Three of President Wilson's Fourteen.

In this chapter will be considered what happened to the corresponding British principle of "free highways for trade": rivers, canals, railroads, and the approaches to all three-ports.

It is a fact that the principle of free highways, maintained and protected by the state, has grown steadily with civilization and with economic development. It is easily apparent that free communication promotes common progress and prosperity.

If the day of the toll-road and toll-bridge within the state has passed, the principle of restricted transit in the international field has long been under attack. Here were great rivers flowing through the territory of several nations: should each of these states, no matter how small,