The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-04-17
: THE MANcHURIAN QUESTION. @

~
| 1t is still uncertain, says the New
York Sun, whether the proposed con-
yention between the Russian and Chi
nese Governments will be concluded.
| Neither is there, as yet, any ground Tor
believing that any of the foreign pow
| ers now represented at Pekng Will
protest against the signing OF that
| convention, or will support China in
| refusal to sign it. Why should a pro-
test be made? An answer to the ques-
| ton requires, first, know;edge or the
text of the proposed convention, which
has not been published; and, secondly,
a recognition of the fact that, not only
geographically, but also in the eye or
international law, Russia occupies to-
ward China a position different from
that held by any other or the treaty
powers.
So far as the attack on the foreign
ton of foreigners in many parts Of
China are concerned, Russia'S relation
to the Chinese Government, which or
dered or tolerated those outrageS, Is
indistinguishable from that or Great
Britain or that of the United States.
AS a matter of convenience, the Rus
sian Foreign Office, like our own State
Department, has chosen to assume
that those injuries did not, technically,
constitute acts of war. Whatever may
be thought of the wisdom of that as
sumption or of the difficulty of recon-
CLING it with the punitive expeditions
and wholesale massacres for which
Germany and France have principally
made themselves responsible, and at
which, it must be admitted, some other
powers have connived, it is certain
that Russia has suffered wrongs of an
exceptional nature, which she is at
perfect liberty to construe as acts Of
war, and which, indeed, can hardly
bear any other construction. We refer
to the invasion of Russian territory
lying north of the Amur river by Chi
nese regular soldiers, whose commanS
der produced, in Justification or his
course, orders emanating directly from
the court at Picking.
Now, while the murder of Russian
officials in Manchuria and the destruc-
ton of a part of the Manchurian
branch of the rans-Siberian Railway
might, like similar losses of life and
property by subjects or citizens of 9TH
er powers in that part of China lying
south of the Great Wall, be held,
theoretically, not necessarily to satisfy
the definition of a casus belli, it can
not, for a moment be denied that the
invasion of Russian territory under the
circumstances just mentioned was an
act whose warlike character is inca
pable of eXtenuation. This act, en-
tirely apart from the grievances which
Russia has complained OF in common
with other treaty powers, would, as we
have said, have justified her in pursu-
ing an entirely independent course, and
in despatching an army directly
against Picking, or against any other
city in which the Chinese court might
find a refuge. The fact that Russia
has, hitherto, refrained from availing
herself of the provocation given does
not of itself impair her right to accept
the challenge, and we know of no
ground on which any of the treaty
powers could fairly object to a frank
declaration on the part OF the st. Pc
tersburg Government that, by way OF
reprisal for the Chinese invasion of ST.
IBERIA, it purposed to undertake the
permanent conquest of Manchuria.
Such is the fundamental distinction
between the position occupied by Rus
STA and that of the other treaty pow
ers, and it is, no doubt, a recognition OF
it that caused Count Won Bulow to- say
in the Reichstag that the Anglo-Ger-
man agreement did not cover the case
of Manchuria He acknowledges, APP
parently, that, while Russia, whose
soldiers helped to defend the foreign
settlement at Tien-tsin and to rescue
the legations at Picking, is entitled to
share in the pecuniary indemnities ex-
losses of life and property suffered by
their respective subjects or citizens in
China, she has a particular grievance
of her own, in that she has incurred
an actual invasion of her territory by
Chinese regular troops acting under
orders from the Picking government.
1t is by no means evident that any
other power has any business to dis
cuss the nature of the reparation which
Russia may choose to demand for that
indisputable act of war.
1t may be said, however, that Rus
STA has given the other treaty powers
right, which they did not originally
possess, by declaring that, notwith-
standing the Chinese invasion of ST.
IBERIA, she did not purpose to retaliate
by annexing Manchuria. Whether
Russia has ever made an unequivocal
declaration to that effect is disputed;
the London National Review main
tains that the written reply given by
the st. Petersburg Foreign Office to an
inquiry on the subject was evasive and
ambiguous. Be that as it may, it is
now verbally asserted by the Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs and by his