Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:51:28.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Organizational Dimension of United States Economic Foreign Policy, 1900-1920

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Burton I. Kaufman
Burton I. Kaufman
Affiliation:
Associate Professoh of History, Louisiana State University, New Orleans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, businessmen and government officials increasingly worked together to strengthen the position of the United States in world markets. Much of the intellectual underpinnings of this organizational drive lay in progressive America's attraction to the gospel of efficiency and in a desire to emulate the nation which seemed to embody that gospel best — Germany.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , Spring 1972 , pp. 17 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 La Feber, Walter, The New Empire (Ithaca, N.Y., 1963)Google Scholar; Pletcher, David, The Awkward Years (Columbia Mo., 1961)Google Scholar; Williams, William Appleman, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (New York, 1962)Google Scholar; McCormick, Thomas J., China Market (Chicago, 1967)Google Scholar; Parrini, CarlHeir to Empire (Pittsburgh, 1969)Google Scholar; Plesur, Milton, America's Outward Thrust (DeKalb, Ill., 1971)Google Scholar; Israel, Jerry, Progressivism and the Open Door (Pittsburgh, 1971).Google Scholar

2 Johnson, Emory R. et al. , History of Domestic and Foreign Commerce of the United States, (2 vols., Washington, 1915), II, 64–81.Google Scholar

3 See, for example, the letter of Secretary of State John Hay to William McKinley, Washington, January 26, 1901 in Bureau of Foreign Commerce, Commercial Relations of the United States, 1900, (2 vols., Washington, 1901), I, 16.Google Scholar

4 Johnson, et al. , History of Domestic and Foreign Commerce, II, 96Google Scholar; U.S. Industrial Commission, Final Report (Washington, 1902), 580–81.Google Scholar Congress had established the Industrial Commission several years earlier to study the nation's economic life, especially the effects of the growing consolidation movement in industry on the economy. For over three years the Commission gathered a huge amount of information, including the testimony of seven hundred witnesses, all of which filled eighteen volumes. See Industrial Commission, Report (18 vols., Washington, 1898-1902).Google Scholar This information and the Commission's own summation and conclusions, which were published as a separate volume, are still the best source of material on the commercial and industrial problems of the nation at the turn of the century.

5 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 580: Johnson, et al. , History of Domestic and Foreign Commerce, II, 96Google Scholar; Plesur, America's Outward Thrust, 17-18.

6 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 579-580. For an excellent discussion of the financial problems facing American merchants in Latin America, see Kies, William S., “Branch Banks and American Foreign Trade,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, LIX (May, 1915), 301–308.Google Scholar See also New York Journal of Commerce, January 12, 1901 and W. L. Moyer (President of the Merchants and Traders Bank of New York), “Address before the Missouri Bankers Association,” (May, 1903) in Hull, W. H., Practical Problems in Banking and Currency, (New York, 1907), 18.Google Scholar

7 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 576; Hutchins, J. B., The American Maritime Industries and Public Policy, 1789-1914 (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), 527–541Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert, Businessmen and Reform (Chicago, 1968), 145–46.Google Scholar

8 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 572-73; Magee, Louis, “America and Germany as Export Competitors and Customers,” Engineering Magazine, XXIV (1899), 761–64Google Scholar; Kasson, John A., “National Organization of the Interests of Commerce and Industry, for Cooperation with the Government,” Address … Before the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York (New York, 1901), 4–6Google Scholar; Director of the Bureau of the Census to Oscar Straus (Secretary of Commerce and Labor) and attached memorandum, November 16, 1907, Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives, Washington, D.C.), 70338.

9 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 572-73; Paterson, Thomas G., “American Businessmen and Consular Service Reform, 1890's to 1906,” Business History Review, XL (Spring, 1966), 80–85Google Scholar; Johnson, et al. , History of Domestic and Foreign Commerce, II, 276–79.Google Scholar

10 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 575-76 and 641-43.

11 Bureau of Foreign Commerce, Commercial Relations of the United States, 1900, I, 21.Google Scholar For other indications of business community concern with respect to matters of foreign commerce, see Steigerwalt, Albert K., The National Association of Manufacturers, 1895-1914 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1964), 13–15Google Scholar; Campbell, Charles S. Jr., Special Business Interests and the Open Door (New Haven, Conn., 1951), 3–9.Google Scholar

12 Johnson, et al. , History of Domestic and Foreign Commerce, II, 86–92.Google Scholar

13 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 560-66.

14 McKenzie, F. A., The American Invaders (London, 1902)Google Scholar; Stead, William Thomas, The Americanisation of the World (New York, 1901)Google Scholar; Prager, M., “Die Amerikanische Gefahr,” Volkwirthschaftliche Zeitfragen (Berlin, 1902).Google Scholar

15 Hoffman, Ross J., Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry (New York, 1964), 259–260Google Scholar; See also Furness, C., “The Old World and the American Invasion,” Pall Mall Magazine, XXVI (1902), 362–68Google Scholar; Johnson, et al. , History of Domestic and Foreign Commerce, II, 90–91.Google Scholar

16 “The Industrial Future,” Address Before the American Bankers Association (October, 1905) in Vanderlip, Frank A., Business and Education (New York, 1907), 212.Google Scholar See also Campbell, Special Business Interests, 7-9.

17 “The American ‘Commercial Invasion’ of Europe,” reprinted from Scribner's Magazine (1902) in Vanderlip, Business and Education, 94-204.

18 Secretary of State John Hay, an optimist about United States' future role in forign trade, bad warned that, since Europeans were introducing American machinery and labor saving devices in their factories, Americans should prepare for stiffer competition in the future. Hay to Willam McKinley, January 26, 1901 in Bureau of Foreign Commerece, Commercial Relations of the United States, I, 16-17. See Vanderlip, “The American ‘Commercial Invasion’ of Europe,” 116-17.

19 The National Association of Manufacturers asserted in a matter-of-fact manner that Germany was “the leader in industrial skill and efficiency.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1908 (New York, 1908), 27.Google Scholar See also Frank A. Vanderlip, “Trade Schools and Labor Unions” reprinted from World's Work (1906) in Vanderlip, Business and Education, 56-81.

20 Vanderlip, “Trade Schools and Labor Unions,” 56-58; Magee, “America and Germany as Export Competitors and Customers,” 764-65; Louis Magee, The American and the German ‘Peril’, (n.p., 1906), 6-7; Wells, Benjamin W., “Our Relations with Germany,” The Forum, XXIX (July, 1900), 513–14Google Scholar; Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1910 (New York, 1910), 188–89Google Scholar; Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1912 (New York, 1912), 155–177.Google Scholar

21 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 581; Magee, “America and Germany as Export Competitors and Customers,” 115-17; Srimson, Henry, “The Need For Advanced Commercial Education,” The Forum, XXIX (March, 1900), 243–44.Google Scholar

22 England, for example, had its Board of Trade, first established in the reign of Charles II. the Board maintained strong ties with active and influential chambers of commerce, but arrangements between business and government were, on the whole, informal. English leaders hesitated to interfere in the private economic sector. See Federal Trade Commission, Cooperation in the Export Trade (2 vols., Washington, 1916), I, 88–94Google Scholar; Wolfe, Archibald J., Commercial Organizations in the United Kingdom, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Special Agents Series, No. 102 (Washington, 1915), especially 8–36.Google Scholar

23 Federal Trade Commission, Cooperation in the Export Trade, I, 44-49 and 55–56Google Scholar; Wolfe, Archibald J., Commercial Organizations in Germany, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Special Agents Series, no. 78 (Washington, 1914), especially 5-12 and 153–161Google Scholar; Stolper, Gustav, The German Economy, 1870 to the Present (New York, 1967).Google Scholar

24 Hoffman, Ross J., Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry, 1875-1914 (New York, 1964), 78 and 96.Google Scholar

25 This analysis of the efficiency gospel is derived from a number of works on the progressive movement. See especially Haber, Samuel, Efficiency and Uplift (Chicago, 1964)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), 122-27 and 264–69Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel, The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914 (Chicago, 1957), 88–89Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert, The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (New York, 1967), 151Google Scholar; Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (Chicago, 1967), 12–15Google Scholar; Galambos, Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review, XLIV (Autumn, 1970), 287–88.Google Scholar

26 A. H. Baldwin, Chief of the Bureau of Manufactures thus remarked to Secretary of Commerce and Labor Charles Nagel in 1912 that “The most casual observer of foreign trade conditions [could] not fail to be impressed by the genius for organization, by the thoroughness and by the adequate manner of meeting existing needs which distinguish the export trade of Germany.” Baldwin to Nagel, September 25, 1912. Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives), 70637. See also Low, Seth, “The Position of the United States Among the Nations,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, XXVI (July, 1905), 4 and 7Google Scholar; Iron Age, LXXXI (March 26, 1908), 996–97Google Scholar; Chicago Commerce, VII (August 1, 1911), 17Google Scholar; Whelpey, James Davenport, “Germany's Foreign Trade; Her Present Position a Marvel of the Age,” Century, LXXXIII (February, 1912), 486–490.Google Scholar For an excellent analysis of the overall German image in progressive America see Small, Melvin, “The American Image of Germany, 1906-1914,” (unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, 1965), especially 138-149, 413-437, 443-48, 451-55, and 467–475.Google Scholar

27 Magee, “America and Germany as Competitors,” 759-66; Conant, “The Financial Future of the United States,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Convention of the American Bankers Association, 1900 (New York, 1900), 142–47.Google Scholar Noting reports from consular officials about increased European competition, the State Department also warned the business community to expand and improve its efforts to develop foreign trade. See, for example, Bureau of Foreign Commerce, Commercial Relations of the United States, 1903 (Washington, 1904), 24–25.Google Scholar

28 Proceedings of the Second Annual Convention of the American Manufacturers Export Association, 1911 (New York, 1911), 108–122.Google Scholar

29 See remarks of President George Pope, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1915 (New York, 1915), 6–16.Google Scholar See also Steigerwalt, National Association of Manufacturers, 160-63.

30 As early as 1899, Theodore C. Search, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, had stated before the Industrial Commission that industrial education was essential if the United States “was to compete with foreign countries in trade.” Industrial Commission, Report, VII, 131. See also Industrial Commission, Final Report, 590; Bureau of Foreign Commerce, Commercial Relations of the United States, 1900, I, 27Google Scholar; Vanderlip, “Trade Schools and Labor Unions,” 56-81. Ironically, groups like the National Association of Manufacturers found themselves working in the same general movement as organized labor, which was also concerned with foreign markets, “Do you think that organized labor is going to advocate a policy of decline,” Samuel Gompers asked, “a policy of competing on a basis of cheap labor, instead of trained and efficient labor? Do you think it is going to advocate the adoption of Chinese methods in competition with Europe?” Bureau of Education, Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1915 (Washington, 1915), 251–59.Google Scholar See also “Supplemental Report on Industrial Education,” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1908, 46; Steigerwalt, National Association of Manufacturers, 158-59.

31 Proceedings of the Second Annual Convention of the American Manufacturers Export Association, 1911, 108-22; Stimson, “The Need for Advanced Commercial Education,” 240-44; Steigerwalt, National Association of Manufacturers, 95-96 and 158.

32 Kasson, “National Organization of the Interests of Commerce and Industry,” 1-12. See also remarks of William H. Douglas (President of the American Exporters and Importers Association), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1908, 97-104; remarks of A. H. Baldwin, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1910, 233-38.

33 On the NAM see Steigerwalt, National Association of Manufacturers, especially 12-30, 35-39, 44-59. See also Archibald J. Wolfe, Foreign Credits: A Study of the Foreign Credit Problem with a Review of European Methods of Financing Export Shipments, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Special Agents Series, No. 62 (Washington, 1913), 93–94.Google Scholar On the Philadelphia Commercial Museum see testimony of Dr. W. P. Wilson (Director, Philadelphia Museums), Industrial Commission, Report, XIV, 439-460. See also Philadelphia Commercial Museum, Proceedings of the National Export Trade Convention (Philadelphia, 1911), 7–8Google Scholar; Wolfe, Foreign Credits, 93-94; McCormick, China Market, 36-37; Campbell, Special Business Interests, 3.

34 When former Representative John Kasson of Iowa attempted to negotiate commercial treaties with a number of foreign countries at the turn of the century, for example, he contacted twelve local bodies throughout the country for information on exports. According to Kasson, not a single group supplied any useful data. Although one appointed a special committee to report, it later refused to disclose its findings, having learned they were for the government's use. Kasson, “National Organization of the Interests of Commerce and Industry,” 4.

35 Industrial Commission, Final Report, 580. As late as 1909, C. S. Donaldson of the Bureau of Manufactures noted that the federal government was only “beginning to lend a hand” in promoting foreign trade. Donaldson, C. S., “Government Assistance to Export Trade,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, XXXIV (November, 1909), 118–19.Google Scholar For the limited activities of the federal government in promoting foreign commerce prior to 1903 see Schmeckebier, Laurence F. and Weber, Gustavus A., The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce: Its History, Activities, and Organization [Institute for Government Research: Service Monographs of the United States Government, No. 29] (Baltimore, 1924), 16–23.Google Scholar

36 New York Times, January 15-17, 1907. See also American Exporter, Domestic Supplement, LXXV (July, 1914), 1–2.Google Scholar The American Exporter commented about the 1907 meeting in regard to another national foreign trade convention.

37 On a department for commercial affairs, see testimony of Theodore Search, Industrial Commission, Report, VII, 126Google Scholar; Industrial Commission, Final Report, 575-76; remarks of E. J. Parker, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Convention of American Bankers Association, 1900, 169-171. On consular reform, see Industrial Commission, Final Report, 573-75; Paterson, “American Businessmen and Consular Service Reform,” 77-96; Steiger-walt, National Association of Manufacturers, 75-81.

38 Schmeckebier and Weber, The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 23-28. See also Reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 1908 (Washington, 1909), 48–52.Google Scholar

39 Paterson, “American Businessmen and Consular Service Reform,” 92-94.

40 See, for example, Straus, , “Address Before the American Social Science Society,” (1902) in Straus, Oscar, The American Spirit (New York, 1913), 125–146Google Scholar; Straus, , Under Four Administrations: From Cleveland to Taft (Boston, 1922), 236.Google Scholar

41 Straus, Under Four Administrations, 236-37; Shreve, Earl O., The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (New York, 1949), 11Google Scholar; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 34-35.

42 The author expects to elaborate on this point in a future paper, but commercial organizations in New Orleans after 1900 worked closely with the city and state governments to improve the port of New Orleans for an expected trade bonanza. See Nockton, Susan, “The Panama Canal and the Development of the Port of New Orleans, 1900-1916,” (unpublished thesis, Louisiana State University in New Orleans, 1971).Google Scholar At the same time, close relations were established between commercial organizations in New Orleans and Chicago in order to develop and expand trade patterns between the Mississippi Valley and South America. The Chicago Association of Commerce even sent its own agent, Frank C. Enright, to Argentina where he opened an office to promote trade between that country and Chicago. Chicago Commerce, VII (May 12, 1911), 1Google Scholar and ibid., VII (June 2, 1911), 25-26. See also remarks of Martin Behrman (Mayor of New Orleans), Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the National Association of Port Authorities, 1913 (New Orleans, 1913), 8–11Google Scholar; remarks of John Donnan (President, Southern Hardware Jobber's Association), Iron Age, LXXXI (June 18, 1908), p. 1979.Google Scholar

43 Proceedings of the Second Annual Convention of the American Manufacturers Export Convention, 48-56 and 60-62.

44 Memorandum of JBO to Wilbur J. Carr (Director of Consular Service) and Carr to Albert H. Baldwin, November 25, 1911. Department of State Records, RG 59 (National Archives), 600.11171/1b. See also Carr to W. B. Campbell (President of the AMEA), November 22, 1911, ibid., 600.11171/1a.

45 For indications of the AMEA's national importance after 1913, see Woodrow Wilson to William C. Redfield, April 14, 1914, Woodrow Wilson Papers (Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress), Series III, Letterbook 12. See also Carleton Marion (Secretary's Office, Council of National Defense) to Julius Lay (Foreign Trade Adviser, Department of State), September 12, 1918 and Secretary of State Robert Lansing to Stanley J. Quinn (Secretary, AMEA), September 16, 1918, Department of State Records, RG 59 (National Archives), 600.1115/103. This exchange of letters concerned a lengthy “Memorandum on Cooperation Between the Government and Manufacturers of the Country on Formulating Policies for World Trade After the War,” prepared by the AMEA. On Lay's recommendation (which noted the AMEA's importance in the business world), Lansing wrote Quinn expressing his desire to cooperate with the AMEA in developing the nation's foreign trade.

46 For Nagel's views on business-government cooperation, see “Address at Houghton, Michigan,” (1911) and “Address to the Association of Commercial Executives,” (1911) in Heller, Otto (ed.), Charles Nagel: Speeches and Writings, 1900-1928 (2 vols., New York, 1931) I, 233-245 and 251–59.Google Scholar

47 These involved tariff investigatory powers originally given to the Bureau of Labor in 1888 but not used since 1891. Schmeckebier and Weber, The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 28. See also Bernhardt, Joshua, The Tariff Commission: Its History, Activities and Organization [Institute for Government Research: Service Monographs of the United States Government, No. 5] (New York, 1922), 13–14Google Scholar; Reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 1912 (Washington, 1913), 12.Google Scholar

48 Reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 1912, 12. See also A. H. Baldwin to William C. Redfield, April 16 and May 13, 1913, Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives), 70801/46.

49 Reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 1912, 14 and 441; Shreve, The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, 13-15; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 37-38 and 90-93.

50 Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Convention of the American Bankers Association, 1913 (New York, 1913), 245–253.Google Scholar See also remarks of Joseph N. Teal on the formation of the Chamber of Commerce, Proceedings of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association Tenth Annual Convention, 1912 (Chicago, 1912), 125–26.Google Scholar

51 Act of August 27, 1894, Sections 73-77, Stats., 570.

52 American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347 (1909).

53 While Attorney General G. W. Wickersham did not give an official opinion about the legality of export combinations, he noted unofficially that he thought they were illegal. Wickersham to Huntington-Wilson, December 1, 1911, Department of State Records, RG 59 (National Archives), 600.1116/4. See also M. C. Parson to Huntington-Wilson, February 16, May 11, November 15, 1911 and January 3, 1912; Huntington-Wilson to Parsons and attached memorandum, February 6, 1911; Huntington-Wilson to Parsons, May 25, 1911; William Douglas to J. Osbome, November 17, 1911, ibid., 600.1116/1-3 and 5.

54 Official Report of the First National Foreign Trade Convention, 1914 (New York, 1914), 392–93.Google Scholar

55 Edward H. Darville to William C. Redfield, June 1, 1914 containing “Preambles and Resolutions Adopted by the National Foreign Trade Convention, May 27-28, 1914,” Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives), 71737. See also American Exporter, Domestic Supplement, LXXV (July, 1914), 1–2.Google Scholar

56 Reports of the Department of Commerce, 1913 (Washington, 1914), 65–67Google Scholar; Report of the Department of Commerce, 1914 (Washington, 1915), 206–219Google Scholar; Schmeckebier and Weber, The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 28-42. See also William C. Redfield to Editor, Brooklyn Times, September 18, 1914, Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives), 7229; Woodrow Wilson to William C. Adamson, February 2, 1914 and Wilson to Joseph T. Johnson, March 5, 1914, Wilson Papers, Series III, Letter-books 10 and 11.

57 Wilson to Hurley, May 12, 1916, William McAdoo Papers, (Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress), Box 526. Actually Hurley himself had prepared the draft of this letter. See Hurley to Joseph P. Tumulty, April 26, 1916, Wilson Papers, Series IV, Case File 1150B.

58 See, for example, “Preambles and Resolutions Adopted by the National Foreign Trade Convention, May 27-28, 1914,” Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives), 71737; Iron Age, XCIII, (June 4, 1914), 1413Google Scholar; American Manufacturers Export Association to William C. Redfield, March 30, 1914, Wilson Papers, Series IV, Case File 1105B.

59 Redfield to Wilson, April 10 and 15, 1914 with enclosure, Wilson Papers, Series IV, Case File 1105; Redfield to Charles Muchnic, May 14, 1914, Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives), 7173.

60 Davidson, John Wells (ed.), A Crossroads of Freedom: The 1912 Campaign Speeches of Woodrow Wilson (New Haven, Conn., 1956), 372 and 457.Google Scholar

61 Italics mine. Redfield to Wilson, February 3, 1915, Department of Commerce Records, RG 40 (National Archives), 72626. See also Redfield to William Jennings Bryan, November 28, 1914, ibid, and Redfield to Wilson, September 18, 1914, Wilson Papers, Series IV, Case File 1105.

62 Wilson to Representative J. Harry Covington, August 27, 1914, Wilson Papers, Series IV, Case File 1105B.

63 Kaufman, Burton I., “United States Trade and Latin America: The Wilson Years,” Journal of American History, LVIII (September, 1971), 342–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 See, for example, Gary, E. H., “How Shall We Prepare for Peace,” System, XXX (June, 1916), 3–10.Google Scholar See also ibid., XXVIII (October, 1915), 445; ibid., XXIX (January, 1916), 15-18; ibid., XXIX (March, 1916), 334-35; ibid., XXIX (May, 1916), 461-67; ibid., XXX (June, 1916), 3-10; Iron Age, XCVIII (August 17, 1916), 357Google Scholar; Hardware Age, XCVIII (August 31, 1916), 63Google Scholar; Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1916 (New York, 1916), 112–117.Google Scholar

65 National Foreign Trade Council, European Economic Alliances: A Compilation of Information on International Commercial Politics After the European War and Their Effects Upon the Foreign Trade of the United States (New York, 1916Google Scholar). See also U.S. Senate, Committee on Judiciary, Trade Agreements Abroad, Senate Document No. 491, 64th Cong., 1st Sess.; Parrini, Heir to Empire, 15-21; Scheiber, Harry N., “World War I as Entrepreneurial Opportunity: Willard Straight and the American International Corporation,” Political Science Quarterly, LXXXIV (September, 1969), 503–504.Google Scholar

66 See, for example, Edward Hurley to Bernard Baruch, May 21, 1918, Records of the War Trade Board, RG 182 (National Archives), Box 97. “Every nation,” Hurley remarked to Baruch, “is preparing not merely to get its share of foreign trade, but is trying to find out how much it can take away from the other nations.” See also Farrell, James, “Foreign Trade Aspects,” Official Report of the Fifth National Foreign Trade Convention, 1918 (New York, 1918), 587–594.Google Scholar

67 See, for example, William McAdoo to Woodrow Wilson, October 26, 1918 and November 16, 1918, Wilson Papers, Series III, Box 525. See also Parrini, Heir to Empire, 40-71.

68 System, XXXII (October, 1917), 553.Google Scholar

69 New American chambers of commerce were formed abroad, for example, to promote American trade. These were supported by such groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce and the NFTC. Also the various trade organizations cooperated with each other in all matters relating to foreign commerce. Thus the NFTC and the AMEA worked with the National Civil Service Reform League in making a study of the foreign service. See Charles W. Whittemore, “The Work and Service of American Chambers of Commerce Abroad,” and Nichols, W. W., “Reorganization of the Foreign Service,” Official Report of the Seventh National Foreign Trade Convention, 1920 (New York, 1920), 270-281 and 304–311.Google Scholar

70 Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1916, 57-58; Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1917 (New York, 1917), 70–97.Google Scholar See also “Memorandum Concerning Sub-Committee on Education for Foreign Trade,” May 19, 1919 and “Appeal to Congress for Additional Funds” attached to R. S. MacElwee (Assistant Director, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce) to Julius Lay, May 19, 1919, Department of State Records, RG 59 (National Archives, 600.1115/104; Holt, W. Stull, The Federal Board for Vocational Training [Institute for Government Research: Service Monographs of the United States Government, No. 6] (New York, 1922), 3–6.Google Scholar

71 Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the American Manufacturers Export Association, 1915 (New York, 1915), 223–26Google Scholar; Official Report of the Seventh National Foreign Trade Convention, 1920, 267-68; For New Orleans, I (October 15, 1914), 1.Google Scholar

72 Reports of the Department of Commerce, 1917 (Washington, 1918), 90-92, 300-301, 307-308, 314-16, and 343–44Google Scholar; Schmeckebier and Weber, The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 33-42.

73 Lansing to Wilson, July 30, 1919 and August 15, 1919; Wilson to William C. Red-field, August 6, 1919; Wilson to Lansing, August 8, 1919, Wilson Papers, Series III. Letterbook 57 and Series IV, Case File 4647. For instances of federal agencies planning to promote post-war trade see “Memorandum of A. S. Straus” for Russell Leffingwell (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury) November 6, 1918 and “Memorandum of A. S. Straus for Secretaiy of the Treasury,” Department of the Treasury Records, RG 56 (National Archives), Box 69.

74 See, for example, Southern Lumberman, LXXXV (September 14, 1917), 24Google Scholar; Merchants Trade Index (of New Orleans), XXX (May, 1918), 29–30Google Scholar; Charles Holder to Robert Lansing, May 24, 1917, Robert Lansing Papers, (Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress), Letterbook, 27.

75 Cutler to Vance McCormick, December 12, 1908, War Trade Board Records, RG 182 (National Archives), Box 97; Financial Age, XXXIX (June 7, 1919), 878–79.Google Scholar

76 Joseph E. Davies to Wilson, July 1, 1915, Wilson Papers, Series IV, File 1105B. See also Iron Age, XCVIII (September 21, 1916), 649Google Scholar; McCormick, Cyrus, “What 71 Years in Business Have Taught Us,” System, XXXI (February, 1917), 448–54Google Scholar; Parrini, Heir to Empire, 29-30 and 110-11.

77 Joseph E. Davies to Joseph P. Tumulty, May 9, 1916 and enclosures, Wilson Papers, Series IV, Case File 11058.

78 Parrini, Heir to Empire, 28-30; Urofsky, Melvin I., Big Steel and the Wilson Administration (Columbus, O., 1969), 77–85.Google Scholar

79 Dudley, Dean Arthur, “Evolution of a Financial Institution: The Edge Subsidiary,” (unpublished dissertation, University of Washington, 1965), 41.Google Scholar See also Journal of the American Bankers Association, XII (August, 1919), 53–54.Google Scholar

80 Representative Carter Glass of Virginia thus remarked in 1916 that “under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act there is very great likelihood of the foreign banking business becoming a monopoly.” U.S. Congressional Record, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., Ml, Part 8, 7422. See also Phelps, Clyde, The Expansion of Foreign Banks: American Branch Banking Abroad (New York, 1927), 95–106Google Scholar; Dudley, “Evolution of a Financial Institution,” 37.

81 One proposal advocated by Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo, for example, and endorsed by President Wilson, called for the Federal Reserve Banks to establish joint agencies in foreign countries as permitted by the Federal Reserve Act. See McAdoo to Wilson, September 6, 1915 in Proceedings of the First Pan American Financial Conference (Washington, 1915), 7–20Google Scholar; McAdoo to Charles Hamlin, August 7, 1915, McAdoo Papers, Letterbook 82-2; Wilson to McAdoo, October 5, 1915, ibid. A second proposal, that of the NAM's Committee on Banking and Currency, would have had manufacturers and commercial interests invest in independent banks whose sole function would be to serve their foreign trade needs. See National Association of Manufacturers in Cooperation with Banking and Transportation Interests of the United States, Proceedings of the International Trade Conference (New York, 1915), 279–292.Google Scholar See also Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1916, 12-18.

82 Dudley, “Evolution of a Financial Institution,” 36-38.

83 “The Peace Treaty in Relation to International Finance and Trade,” Journal of the American Bankers Association, XII (July, 1919), 3Google Scholar; Dudley, “Evolution of a Financial Institution,” 38.

84 Dudley, “Evolution of a Financial Institution,” 38; Journal of the American Bankers Association, XI (July, 1919), 3.Google Scholar