not actually opposed, is at all events indifferent to the creation of peasant proprietorship in Siberia at present. In this respect its policy differs from that pursued in European Russia. Siberia thus exhibits perhaps the most extensive scheme of land nationalization in the world. In a young country this is not hard to accomplish, and it has, moreover, many points in its favour, since it effectively blocks land speculation and prevents the amassing of large fortunes by private individuals at the expense of the public. Well had it been if the Canadian Government had learnt a lesson from the Russian Government in this respect, before it was too late. On the other hand, it encourages the communal system of agriculture among the peasants, which in turn is not conducive to industry and thrift. At present, however, the disadvantages of the commune are not felt in a young growing country of which the wealth has hardly begun to be exploited. When the country becomes more densely populated the importance of higher cultivation will be more felt, and the Stated will probably begin to create peasant proprietorship by administrative means. Foreign investors must therefore realize that there is no opening at present for investment in real estate in Siberia.
But if the foreign investor has no outlet in land exploitation, he has an ample field in other directions, such as public works, both of a national and local character. Thus the construction of the proposed branch lines of the Siberian railway system will from time to time call for foreign capital from the European money markets. The richness of the areas which will be tapped by the proposed branches is in itself a good guarantee of the financial success of these railways,
