Omaha daily bee., 1899-11-27
THE OPEN DOOR QUESTION.

Our government has not yet received
formal reply from any of the Eu-
ropean powers to its request for
definite assurances that the rights of
the United States in China will he
respected. According to reports from
Washington there is some disappoint-
ment in administration circles at the
apparent reluctance of the nations hav-
ing territory in China, particularly Rus
sia, to give the assurances asked for by
the United States, though it is still
hoped they will ultimately respond
as desired. When the American note
was sent to the several powers it was
thought that the Russian government
would promptly reply, availing itself of
the opportunity to once more attest its
friendship for this country. That it
has not done so, but on the contrary
has asked to know the reasons why
the United States should now request
such assurances, is a cause of surprise
and has created the impression that
Russia is preparing to proleng negoti-
ations or possibly refuse to give the
assurances called for.
Russia having already proclaimed to
the world that the port of Talien Wan
is to be open to the commerce of all
the world, it is thought not improbable
that the Russian government may sim
ply refer the United States to its
former declarations OH the subject and
Inr 81 cplIp TD n a
necessary. This is practically what
Germany has done. 1t is suggested,
however, that if Great Britain, Ger
many, Japan and the United States
believe it is for the best interests of
the world that the integrity of the
Chinese empire should be maintained,
Russia and France or both combined
will not attempt to overturn this
opinion. On the other hand it is
urged that the United States having
neglected the opportunity to exact
assurances for the protection of its in
terests in China when these were first
put in jeopardy by Germany's seizure
of Chinese territory and by the acquisi-
ton of exclusive Russian privileges in
China, our government cannot reason
sions for which it has nothing to give
in return. "The time for us to have
made conditions with Russia" remarks
the New York Times, twas when Rus
sia wanted something that was against
our interests, to-wit, the acquisition of
n u Il l.,
ing to pay something Tor it. Why
should she pay anything now, when
she has got all she wanted from us, our
benevolent neutrality, for nothing, or
at no greater cost than the bestowal of
international compliments, which cost
nothing, at the State department or at
the White House? Now it is we that
want something and we have parted
for nothing, with the equivalent for
which we might have had it," The
Times regards our attempt TO get from
the continental powers by separate ac-
tion what we forewent the opportunity
to get from them by joint action with
England as an acknowledgment of the
great blunder we made a year and
half ago when Germany ana Russia
took possession of Chinese territory.
Perhaps at that time n request by
this government for assurances that it's
rights and interests in China would be
would have received prompt
and satisfactory answer, but circum-
stances were then of a nature to re-
quire extraordinary prudence and cir
in our rela tons with Eu-
ropean powers and ii is possible that
had we then demanded what we now
ask we should have become involved
in Il controversy that would subse-
quently have operated TO our serious
Besides. we had not at
that time so great an interest in China
as we now have, nor did any one fore
see that we should have. We We're not
blind or Indifferent to the possibilities
of Chinese trade year and half ago,
but we did not value that trade as we
now do. Having obtained fOOthold in
the far east not dreamed of when Ger
many and Russia became possessed of
territory in China. we have an interest
in the commerce of that quarter of the
world vastly greater than before and