The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-01-29
THE RussAN SIDE.

A staff correspondent OF The Outlook
has been investigating the Russian
side of the Far Eastern question with
results which appear in the issue of
January 18th. The statements given
are derived from diplomats stationed
st 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
1t 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
back the disturber of peace against
the conserver of peace? Is 1t 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
az 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 1t
must protect that system just as the
United States proposes to protect the
line Of the Panama canal. Russian
influence" says a 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 eGuippers have no reason
to complain"
What is Russia doing in Korea?
What We're 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 not 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 bone of contention?
quotes the Outlook:
AS to the Japanese and American
claim of open ports in Manchuria and
Korea. the Russian replV 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 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 cali 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 city on
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 We're 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
Yanstse from the sea- and 1t is what
you now propose to do with Mukden
in Manchuria, and with Win in Ko-