New-York tribune., 1908-04-07

whether solemn international agreements, such
as that for the open door in China and the
Treaty of Portsmouth, mean what they say.
The United States has habit, long ago ac-
quired and pretty consistently maintained, OF
thinking that they do mean what they say OF
taking things literally and Of holding In diplo-
macy as well as in mathematics that two and
two make four 1t assumes that when Russia
and Japan formally pledged themselves to the
recognition and upholding of the principles OF
the open door and territorial integrity for China
they did SO in earnest and In good faith. 1t
would regret exceedingly to be compelled to
think otherwise. 1t does not expect to be COM
PEELED ito think otherwise, and therefore 1t ex-
poets that those countries will recognize the
justice of its course in Manchuria, or else will
show some convincing reasons, thus far I'M
known to the world at hrge, for the repuda-
ton of the two conventions to which we have
referred.
We have already cited the provisions OF the
Treaty Of Portsmouth by which Russia and
Japan pledged themselves to the evacuation or
Manchuria and the complete restoration of that
province, with the exception Of the Tairen-Port
Arthur lease, to Chinese control and admins
tration. There could be nothing more unequlV-
ocal and explicit. All that the United States
Consul at Harbin has done has been to act &C
cording to their terms. If that treaty is worth
churia is purely Chinese territory, and all our
consular and other agents there are to be ac
credited to the Chinese government and TO no
other We are not unfamiliar with the terms or
the railroad concessions held by Russia anu
Japan. So far as they appear In the Treaty OF
Portsmouth they give those governments tue
right TO maintain a limited number of guards
along the lines of the railroads for police pur-
noses and nothing more In addition Russia,
under her specal agreement with China, Is, as
Baron Rosen truly says, permitted TO orgailhe
q sort of municipal administration over Tue
workshops and other purely Russian estaDilsi-
ments at Harbin and Chailar. Such an arrahg@
ment NAV be quite compatible, as Baron hose'i
thinks with Chinese sovereignty as guar
anteed by Articles / and of the same instru-
ment But IT, as is stated on responsible au-
thoritv Russia claims under Article VI that the
relations of that municipality with the Chlnese
government and foreign consuls are SUBJECT 10
the veto of the Russian railroad manager, there
NAV be more ground for our consuls reported
action than appears upon the face or Baron
Rosens statement
There will, of course, be no quarrel. Russia
and Japan have already had enough trouble over
Nanchuria they are both amicably disposed
toward America and they will doubtless give
q satisfactory answer to the question which they
themselves have caused to be raised. If the
open door and territorial integrity agreement
and the Treaty of Portsmouth are still valid and
operative, those powers must recognize the pro-
priety and the necessity of consuls dealing
with the Chinese government and no other If
they are not valid and operative, those powers
will doubtless explain satisfactorily when, how
and why they modified.