The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-11-24

OtH Pulley IN 0HINA.
The press of most of the European coun-
tries operating in China criticises the
United States very sharply. in some in
stances almost contemptuousIy, for declin-
ing TO join the other powers in their recent
demands upon China The criticisms be-
gan with the British press. The London
Daily Chronicle characterized the course
OF the United States as "a feeble compro-
mise which it is impossible to accept" The
Standard dismissed the subject with a
mere reference, saying: American opinion
on the Chinese problem is too uncertain to
be considered seriously" The Times con-
States could consistently decline to join
with the other powers TO the full extent of
their demands. The French press adopted
the same line of censorious and supercilious
press. leading paper of Berlin says:
THE Philippine question is causing the
United States severe stomach ache, hence
the shilly-shally policy of Washington to-
impossible to aid more effectually the joint
enemy of western culture than by the
failure of the United States to maintain
concert of action with the European pow
ers
All this criticism is based on the fact that
the United States declined TO join in certain
expeditions led by the Germans and in
tended for punitive purposes solely; in
other words. for revenge, without reference
to the gaining of any military advantage,
and also because the United States de-
clined to unite with the other powers in
formulating and debating the exact terms
oc the punishment which should be inflicted
OF the leaders of the Boxer movement and
ly towards the ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the Chi
nese empire. AS far as the latter point is
concerned the United States has opposed
it from the beginning. maintaining that the
true policy is to preserve the integrity of
China, hold up the hands of the Chinese
government in enforcing law and order
and Maintain the open-door policy in trade
This is a broad and consistent policy, and
none and fairness to all. As for the par
ticular punishment which should be visited
upon different offenders. and as for war
indemnities, the position of the United
tied by the negotiators on both sides who
have been charged with agreeing on terms
of peace. and should not be determined i'm
advance by ultinHatums laid down by the
powers almost before the real negotiations
for peace begin. This seems to be a reason
able position and quite as likely to lead to
good results that of making impossible
demands and following them up with punt
tive expeditions, as the Germans are doing
AT all events. the United States should not
be blamed for shaping its policy in accord
ance with American traditions and inter-
ests. These are entirely different from
those of European powers. All our past
dealings with China have been based upon
fairness and equity and not upon injustice
and spoliation. those of European pow
ers have been. There is reason to believe
that if the latter had always dealt fairly
and justly with China as this country has
the recent anti-foreign uprising might not
have occurred. That it was largely due to
a long-continued course Of aggression and
disregard for Chinese rights admits of no
doubt. The United States is the least re-
sponsible Of all nations for the present
trouble. 1t has done its share in rescuing
the foreigners and restoring temporary
peace, and now that the question of in
demnity for the past and guarantees for
the future is to be settled she ought not to
be censured for declining to join in a new
policy of spoliation and revenge. If that is
to be the future Interpretation of concert
of action in China the less the United
States has TO do with ii the better.