The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-01-29
THE RUSSIAN SIDE.

A staff correspondent of The Outlook
has been investigating the Russian
side of the Far Eastern question witt
results which appear in the issue OF
January 18th The statements giver
are derived from diplomats stationed
at Washington, probably Russian and
French. Most of them are plausible
1t strikes the foreign ENJOYS as sur
prising that the sympathy of the Uni
ted States, a country which wants
peace. should be so generally for ia
pan, country which wants war The
Cars policy is pacific. On more than
one occasion of his reign he might have
justly made war or at least taken a
course which would have rendered war
inevitable; but instead he called for
general disarmament and brought
about the peace tribunal at The Hague.
It is he alone who has kept down the
war spirit of Russia in the present
crisis. The question is put: Is it to
the interests of the United States to
the conserver of peace? Is ii quite
fair to oppose the reasonable expansion
of Russia within her natural sphere of
influence while claiming the right to
expand our own territory outside that
natural sphere?
Russia has entered Manchuria not
as the United States entered Mexican
and Spanish territory, but with the full
permission of the owner. Under its
treaty rights it has constructed a great
railway system there. Naturally it
must protect that system just as the
United States proposes to protect the
line of the Panama canal. Russian
influence says diplomat has
grown everywhere in Asia and this has
been for the benefit of the whole world
in general and of America in particu-
lar. Certainly American railway
builders and equippers have no reason
to complain"
What is Russia doing in Korea
What were we doing in California?
Russia insists as we have done upon
her right to expand in contiguous
territory where her interests are large
and are not protected by the local
government. Japan has no contigu-
Gus rights in Korea; she is an insular
territory. Should she acquire Korea
she could nPt hold it any more than
England, similarly placed, could hold
Normandy. Why then object to a
Russian occupancy which would mean
lasting peace and development and
favor Japanese occupancy which would
leave Korea as a bone of contention?
Quotes the Outlook:
AS to the Japanese and American
claim of open ports in Manchuria and
Korea, the Russian reply is: Are not
the ports open now? DO you not know
that we also need open ports there to
secure a worlds trade, and not for a
few years only, but for a much longer
time? Whatever our Government has |
pledged to the japanese and American |
Governments it will faithfully perform, |
and of course this includes any pledges |
given to respect the open door. But |
let us at the same time call your at |
tention to the fact that the request for |
river ports is peculiar, Both Japan |
and America have asked that Mukden !
be opened. Now, Mukden is a city on |
a small river at long distance from |
the sea. There may be some reason |
In the foreign demand that Niuchuang !
should be continued as an open port, |
but there is none as regards Mukden. |
American trade and Japanese trade do |
not need the latter. What would you |
think If Russia were to demand the |
right TO sail her ships up the Hudson |
River to Albany? Yet this is what !
has been done in China in the case of ,
Hankau. hundreds of miles up the
Yangtse from the sea, and it is what
you now propose to do with Mukden
in Manchuria and with Wiju in ko-
rea, both of them towns far from the
coast. You would not dare to send
your ships up the Neva past Peters
burg into Lake Ladoga, nor up the ,
Seine to Paris, but you do dare to
pursue this policy with weak nations
like China and Korea. If Japan and
America would not treat a powerful !
nation like ours, for instance, IN TINS
way. we do not like to see them so
treat two weak nations over which our
influence happens to be great"
Finally there comes into view the ar :
gument that Russia deserves well OF
the United States because of tradi-
tional friendship which was empha-
sized. during the Civil War, in way
which doubtless prevented the inter-
ference of Great Britain and France on
the side of the Confederacy.