The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-08-19

linz, but the victorious Russian army
had the whole OF European Turkey at
it's mercy and was encamped in sight OF
Constantinople. These examples seem at
the first glance to uphold the Russian
decl aration that their country. having
encountered reverses only on a remote
frontier, has nothing to ransom ex-
cept the convict island Of Sakhalin and
her leasehold OF the tip OF the Liaotung
peninsula.
The Japanese hold, on the other hand,
that even the historical precedents
above cited do not warrant, when closely
inspected. the deduction that an indem-
nifty should only be paid by way Of ran
som for territory actually conquered by
an antagonist. They point out that in
every ono Of the above instances an in
demnity was paid, not only to recover
most Of the territory actually lost but
to avert the loss Of more. They assert
and disinterested observers believe the
assertion to be we'll founded--that II
tho war continues Port Arthur's fate
will be yladivostok's, LINIEvITcH will
suffer more disastrous defeat than did
KuRoPATKIN, and Russia will be de-
prived Of the entire valley Of the Amur,
and in fact of the whole of Siberia east
Of Lake Baikal. Neither can it be taken
for granted that Russia's humiliation
would stop there. As we have often
pointed out, 1t should be quite as easy
for the Japanese army under OYAMA to
proceed westward by means Of the ST.
berian Railroad to Irkutsk, Tomsk and
Tobolsk as it was for Russia to despatch
KuRoPATKIN's forces to Manchuria;
and it should be much easier for fleet
so efficient as that which TOGO COM
mands to reach the Baltic than it was
for RoJEsTvENsKY to bring his crippled
warships to the Strait of Corea. In a
word, the compensation exacted by
Japan, if fairly regarded as an indemnity
at all, would be an indemnity paid, as in
many historical case, for the purpose
of averting future injury and disgrace
rather than with the sole object OF re-
gaining conquered territory.
The Japanese contend, moreover, that
there are circumstances under which an
indemnity should justly be looked upon
less as ransom than us punitory dam
ages for the preparation of an inter-
national wrong, No fair minded man
in any country will deny that Russia by
her refusal to keep her written promise
to begin the evacuation Of Mapohuria,
her occupation of which(yas fagitious in
its inception, not later than October l.,
1908, was guilty Of gross breach Of faith
toward not Japan alone, but the United
States, Great Britain and every other
Power possessing commercial interests
in Manchuria. For that act Russia de-
served to be brought to the bar Of ma
tions and subjected to a fitting penalty.
In the interest Of all the treaty Powers
Japan undertook the function of ejecting
Russia from premises upon which the
latter was a trespasser. To say, as the
Russians seem inclined to do, that Japan,
having executed the writ Of ejectment,
is not entitled to the costa which she has
incurred in the process is naturally in
the eyes Of the Toxic Government alb
surd. Russia is sacrificing no rightful
possession when she agrees to withdraw
her armies from Manchuria, where they
had no business to be, or to refrain from
disputing Japan's preponderance in
Corea, which had been established de
facto and de jure by the outcome Of the
Chinese-Japanese war Of 1s94-05. Is q
robber. ask the Mikado's advisers, ade-
quately punished for his crime when
under compulsion he consents to sur
render the stolen goods?
We incline to think that the subjects
or citizens Of every neutral Power Of
whose interests in Manchuria Japan
has stood forth as the champion will
upon reflection concur in the Japanese
contention that even if they be not
deemed entitled to an indemnity" in
the technical historical sense of the word,
they have moral right to demand re-
endorsement for the cost Of ejecting
Russia from Manchuria.