This disposes of the argument that a trade agreement with Soviet Russia could materially aid American industry. Even if trade were resumed on a pre-war basis, which is practically impossible, it would scarcely increase our exports by one per cent. But our foreign trade absorbs only one-tenth of the product of American industry. It is, therefore, practically impossible that the reopening of Russian trade on this comparatively large scale could keep American industry going for more than three or four hours!
Secretary of State Hughes has given a conclusive answer to the argument that a trade agreement might be materially helpful to the Russian people as long as they are still the helpless subjects of the present "government." In addition we may point out that two efforts were recently made to help the Russian people, one through the Norwegian statesman, Nansen, and the other through the Russian cooperative organizations. The Soviet Government refused both offers because the supplies to be sent were not to be left in the hands of the Bolshevists. Rather than to lose this chance of strengthening their own hold over the Russian people they decided to let the suffering of their helpless subjects continue.
It must also be remembered in this connection that whatever the hidden objects of the British trade agreement, the position of the British Government would be strengthened by a similar policy on the part of the United States. The report sent out by Moscow wireless on November 17th, 1920, that "England is carrying on in the United States agitation in favor of a renewal of trade relations with Soviet Russia" is, at least, plau-
