'There ig no more striking instance of the inconsistency of Soviet Russia than the alliance entered into some months ago with an Ame: company, the object bein, Burmese' and other Asi out of its own Asian home markets, replacing it with the product of Epropean Russia, Ordinarily, the nider-selling of private enterprise by socialized industry employing fair means is not open to criticism, " But, ay Sir Henry Deterding, of the Royal Dutch' Petroleum Company, pointed out, this is not the case in the present instance. The Soviet Are enjoying the benefit of resources for which they have never paid a penny of compensation and one views with amazement the spectacle gf the original owners of Russian all concessions and plant compelled to content themselves with buying cheaply from the nationalized industry as the only possible way of getting back fraction of what they were despoiled, Nor is the-cynical attitude of 8 socialistic. state entering into an alliance. with great private capitalistic " enterprise the only Paradox claiming the attention, Viewed from the opposite ang is little or no less amazing to find, a arent private capitalistic enterprise, whose very existence would seem to, rear upon international recognition of the sanctity of contracts, entering into an alliance with those who have proved their utter contempt for, anything savouring of the nature of contract, Nor can this fail to react to the ultimate disadvantage of said private enterprise. Russia's yearly output of oil threatens to become larger and larger; and they, who now take advantage of being able to. procure, at an advantageous price, that which but 9 comparative-short time ago was literally stolen from them, will doubtless have occasion, to rue their action. Can it be that the paradoxes of socialism are no more paradoxical than business expediency? Socialism, after all, is not so much involved in the matter as is the sanctity of con-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.