One does not read so much. about it, but American consumers of rubber are very peeved at the! attitude of Great Britain,—The! "Industrial Digest," a conservative trade organ, commented editorially on the Stevenson Act and the British Government the other day, in this way: we "should" say, "that the rubber situation "had been "cleverly "and successfully handled. That cireumatance, however, alters the situation entirely Lord Stevenson "and eave assurances the Rubber Association of America in 8 shortage The present contention of the British "authorities that such crisis doesn't exist simply. need Rubber at over $1 jund would place that contention ts true light if) those same British authorities did not contradict the very next breath sce to recognize their a the "responsibility for the present situation." the British argument, royts fo the The "responsibility, according to fact that "American "manufacturers {alle to bid the price up. in. the ise quarter to tate year" to which, under the: restrict for. extra" releases lowing quarter, etc. The only trouble with that argument ts that Americ facturers did fo find that British manipulate would drive the market down at the close exch day below the level necessary to secure such sonal releases.
This is plausible, but the market. was a free market at the time, and American manufacturers had much opportunity of doing what they thought would benefit them as the British manipulators had of doing what they thought would not benefit their American rivals, When rubber was hopelessly down, so that estates were doubling up with the pain of carrying on, and finally succumbed, we did forward and offer to pay more for what rubbers they wanted. My opinion is that no fault can be found with the methods by which Britain is trying to get all she can out of a natural monopoly.—_The
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.