New-York tribune., 1901-01-12
THE CHINESE NEGOTIATIONS.

The refusal of certain Continental European
Powers to remove some of the Chinese negotia-
| tons from Pekilg to a more accessible place
/ and the consequent withdrawal of this Govern
ments suggestion TO that effect may be regret
ted, but they are not to be regarded as indicative
of i'll will among the nations. 1t was entirely
proper for the United States to make the sug-
gestion, and there is reason to believe the sug-
gestion was in line with precedent, with logic
and with the interests of peace and justice.
Nevertheless, every other Power was entitled
to its own view of the matter, and was as free
to decline as the United States was to make
the proposal. The United States can doubtless
endure the inconvenience and discomfort of
Peking as we'll as any one else, ard may hold
its own as well as any other Power amid the
unfavorable influences Of that place.
1t is we'll however. to have the crcum stances
of the case correctly understood. The Paris
! correspondent of The Associa ted Press gives
three reasons. which are said to prevail in Eu-
ropean Chancelleries against the transfer. The
first is that the negotiations can be conducted
in China better than elsewhere. because all
essential information is there close at hand.
That is a matter of opinion with which there
can be no quarrel. The proximity of sources
of information to Peking is indisputabe, though
it may well be considered whether other circum-
stances do not outweigh that The second rea-
son is of a different nature. It Is 10 the effect
that the United States commerce with China
is small in comparison with that of sew
eral other States, and therefore this coun-
! try is not entitled to have the negotiations
conducted at Washington. That is a mat
ter not of opinion but of fact, and the reason
cited must be set down giving intima-
ton contrary 10 the facts. The statement con-
cerning the comparative Importance of Ameri-
can commerce with China, while perhaps not
literally untrue, conveys a totally erroneous i'm
preston. 1t is true that two other countries
/ have a greater trade with China than the
United States has. They are the British En-
pire and Japan. But it does not appear that
they are the Powers which object on that
ground TO the transfer of negotiations. AS
for the intimation that any country of Cont
mental Europe is as much interested in Chinese
commerce as the United States, it is far from
the truth. Not one of those countries comes
anywhere near to rivalling this country in
Chinese commerce. Russia falls least far be-
hind us. But trade with China exceeds
Russia's by about 80 per cent and there is no
other country of Continental Europe that has
more than half great trade we. In
fact. our trade with China is nearly as great
as those of France. Germany. Austra-Hun-
gary. Spain, Portugal and Italy all put together
That second reason, therefore for declining the
proposed transfer is utterly TO be repudiated.
The third and final reason is well described
as the most delicate of all, and should be
glad TO believe it was never put forward by
any responsible statesman, but had its sole
origin in the imagination Of the correspondent
1t is that the Powers have not sufficient conf
dence In the freedom Of the United States Gov
ernment from the influence of interests seeking
the spoliation of China. That is a statement
which ii would not be easy to characterize as
II deserves without the use Of strong and per-
haps undiplomatc terms. We shall not enlarge
upon the tn quoque argument, which so obvi-
ously presents itself. by pointing out the extent
to which most other Powers have already open
ly yielded TO the influences of exploitation and
sDoliation 1t is sufficient TO declare, and to