New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-15
JAPAEs VIEW OF RUSSIA.

In making what is said to be a pacific, or at
least acknowledgement, reply TO Russla's latest
note concerning the Manchurian- Corean ques-
tion Japan has. from the japanese point OF
view, acted with much moderation and re-
straint. Fer to the japanese mind the Russian
proposals were so offensive as TO SAVIOR of add
ing insult to injury. Thus all talk about Rus
Elan concessions TO Japan In Corea, If not in
1Ianchuria, is regarded by the Japanese as es-
sentaIiy iIapertinent. They hold that, accord
ing to every valid and logical principle. the nat
urai rights Of Japan there are far superior TO
any Russia may possess. Japan was fighting
wars with Kubiai Khan over Corea at a time
when the ckioftains Of what has since been de-
veleped into Russia making pilgrlmages
into Asia TO kiss Tartar tyrants stlrrup in
token Of subsection to him. In proximity, IN
magnitude OF interests, and in all considerable
respects, Japan so far eutranks Russia that the
concessions and cendescension. If any there
shall be- must be granted by Japan to Russia,
and not by Russia to Japan.
Japan therefore strongly resents the Russian
prescriptions that Japan must not do thus
and SO in Northern Corea. She holds that no
power in the world has right thus to dictate
10 her. This is the mere SO since Russia at
the same time declares that she accepts no
conditions IN reference to Manchuria- Why
not asks Japan, since she assumes so high and
mighty a tone concerning Japan In Corea7 Why
must Japan in Csrea suffer conditions which
Russia will not tolerate in Manchuria? Surely,
they say, Japan's rights in Corea are far su-
peFior to Rassa's in Manchuria Children in
their play have a saying intended TO denote
monopeiistic greed. Il is: Whats yours 10
mine, and what's mine is my own" That IN
the Japanese Wow, Is Russias attitude. She
claims as exclusively her own Manchuria, re-
fusing even TO discuss its disposal; and at the
same time she claims the control Of Corea
which properly belongs within Japan's sphere
Of influence. IL brief think the Japanese, Rus
STA arFegaaes TO herself moaopoiistic authority
In that part OF the wgrid. She insists that she
may 80 as she pleases without consulting any
one else. but tsat nobody else shall do anything
without consulting her.
Whether this Japanese view OF the Russian
government asd its designs be true or false, 1t
seems TO have some justiasstiGn in the utter
aness of IKE Russian prsss which are approved
by the Russian eGicial censor. Thus tha -srie5"
81 ST Petersburg. which rssents The Trihune's
suggestion of reference of the whole matter to
The Hague. declares that the opening of Man
ehurian ports 10 American commerce. under the
American treaty with China, without the con-
sent Of Russia, is an open provocatien of Rus
STA. Since vixen. IL might be asked. has it been
necessary for America to get Russia's consent
10 the making Of treaty with another SOW
ereign power? But what discrepancy there is
between that and the other Russian statement
that ''we cannot discuss Manciuria any more
than we could Australia or the Philippines.
"Manchuria does not belong TO u.s." Then why
Is RHssia's consent necessary for the opening
Of Manchurian pertsf And by what authority
does Russia, as reported, copdesceHdingiy say
that she viii permit Japan and America to
represent their interests In Manchuria? Is it
only by the grace Of Russia's permission that
america may look after American interests In