are already far less well supplied than ourselves, and is to be justified only on the basis of adding to the world's supply for common use, and of lending our expert assistance to neighbors to make them more nearly self-supporting. To carry out our campaign in these cases without regard to the needs of other countries will obviously not hasten the ideal of a democratic world with equal opportunity for all. On the other hand, the great freedom allowed by our laws in regard to foreign commercial control of our minerals, as compared to the restriction on such control in other countries, suggests the desirability of exerting our pressure for the open door policy in all parts of the world, in the interest of desirable reciprocal relations.
In this connection there has been a tendency to criticise England's post-war activity in securing oil reserves for the future. Self-interest has clearly dictated the necessity for improving England's weak position in regard to this vital energy resource. The success of this movement obviously means a lessening of the future preponderance of the United States in the oil industry, and calls for increased activity on the part of the United States in maintaining the desirable leading position it has long held. From the writer's viewpoint, however, the fair success of a rival does not call for criticism of motives. If there is any just criticism, it applies to methods (see pp. 390-391).
Whatever action may be taken by the United States in regard to international mineral questions, it is clear that the war has brought this country into such world relations that it has become imperative for us to study and understand the world mineral situation much more comprehensively than before,—in the interest not only of intelligent management of our own industries, but of far-sighted handling of international relations. Under the stress of war