England the recent movement to nationalize the coal and oil resources is an indication of the general tendency. In the United States the movement has manifested itself thus far only in the increasing reluctance on the part of the government to part with mineral resources on the public domain,—as is clear from the terms of its new leasing law to cover oil, coal, gas, potash, and phosphates on public lands.
Before the war only the German government was clearly identified with private interests in international trade and in the acquirement of mineral reserves. Since the war all governments except that of the United States are taking an active part in these fields, both directly and in coöperation with private capital. The British government has taken a direct financial interest in certain companies, such for instance as the Anglo-Persian and Shell Oil Companies, and in some cases is actively interested in the acquirement of selling contracts. In England there is a wider use of voting trusts in controlling private companies, with the purpose of preventing the control from falling into alien hands. Government control of shipping in certain countries is involving various degrees of control of mineral movements. Also, through loans and bonds, mineral resources in certain countries have been tied up by the loaning governments. There has been wide extension of government control of minerals in mandatory territories and elsewhere through many new loans and regulations. These steps are in effect closing important parts of the world to private initiative, and particularly to nationals of other countries. Whether these activities of governments are economically desirable or not, they are the actual conditions, not theories.
If this situation continues, it raises the question whether our government will not be forced, in protection of its own mineral industries, also to take a direct part; for under present conditions, our importers and exporters find themselves dealing single-handed with governments or with private groups