Evening star., 1933-11-12
Continued From First Page.D

Continued From First Page)
through sealed diplomatic pouches. II
| is natural enough not to hold out the
hand Of fellowship to government tht
openly avowed purpose Of which is to
| overthrow the government which makes
the gesture of friendship.
Neutrality Was Correct Move.
In retrospect one can see the errors
that were made in dealing with the
Boshevik government. 1t was unwise
to give even tacit support to the various
leaders like Kaledin, Deniken and the
rest who set out to overthrow the
| Soviet. The Siberian expedition was
! ill-advised and badly managed. But it
must also be remembered that at the
time the motive was altruistic The
United States. like the European ma
tions, believed these movements to be
popular Russian movements, that their
purpose was to overthrow bloody
oligarchy intent upon destroying the
Russian people Strict neutrality in the
internal affairs of Russia would have
been more correct; but it is hard even
for a nation to be correct when the
emotions are deeply reused.
In August, 1920, Mr. Bainbridge
Colby. then Secretary of State, in
answering note from the italian am
baSSador as to the American stand on
the Polish Russian dispute, took oc-
casion to discuss fully the American
attitude toward the Soviet regime. Mr..
Colby's note was warmly acclaimed in
the United States and was generally
praised in Europe. 1T is not possible" ="
he said, for the government Of the
United States to recognize the present
rulers of Russia as a government with
which the relations common to friendly
governments can be maintained"
Mr.. Colby pointed out that this had
nothing to do with the form of govern
ment. That was for the Russian people
to decide But because the Soviet gov
ernment had repeatedly announced that
it felt itself under no obligation to full
fill contracts made with capitalist gov
ernments. because it had repeatedly
announced its intention to foment rev
olutions in other countries, Mr.. Colby
said:
In the view of this Government
there cannot be any common ground
upon which it can stand with power
whose conceptions of international re-
ldtlOllo arc SO CIbnClN dlACAl " ITO OHIli
so utterly repugnant to its moral sense.
We cannot recognize" he added, "hold
official relations with or give friendly
reception to the agents of a government
which is determined and bound to con-
spire against our institutions, whose
diplomats will be the agitators of dan
gerous revolt, whose Spokesmen say
that they sign agreements with no in
tentiOn of keeping them
Hughes Continued Policy.
When Mr.. Charles E. Hughes became
Secretary of State he continued the
policy of non-recognition of the Soviet
government, and for similar reasons. He
always was friend of Russia, however,
and steadily defended Russian rights
when other nations showed signs of
ignoring them. To the Conference of
Limitation of Armament for example.
he said that the protection of Russian
interests. no Russian government being
recognized, devolved on the whole
conference.
On the other hand. he always was
careful to distinguish between economic
and political matters. He repeatedly
pointed out that trade with Russia de-
pended on what Russia had to sell, on
sources of the country. not On whether
the de facto government had been rec
cgnized or not. With him. also. the
main argument against recognition was
the persistent propaganda of the Soviet
government, Or of the Third Interna-
tional. the two being merely two arms
Of the Communist party and largely
with the same officers. 1t must always
be remembered that the American Gov
ernment had incontrovertible evidence
that revolutionary organizations in the
United States were directed from Mos
COW and were to some extent sub
sidized by Moscow.
There can be no question that the
reasons adduced for non-recognition of
the Soviet government still exist, at
least so far as the external relations OF
that government are concerned. The
domestic reasons no longer are valid.
The Soviet government has proved
itself capable of ruling Russia, and
whether or not we approve of the form
Of government and its methods of re-
tanning power has nothing to do with
recognition. 1t is not a moral, but
practical question.
Propaganda Less Intense.
That there has been diminution of
foreign propa agands also is true, al
though the theory remains in full force
that it is the duty of the Third Inter-
national to bring about Communist
revolutions in all capitalist countries.
Propaganda is less intense. partly
through lack of funds. partly through
the fact that the Russian government
now understands that for many reasons
it needs an outside capitalistic world for