17th December, Mr. Foorp begins his "Current Comment" in the November issue of this very interesting monthly review of trade and polities, with a paragraph showing that when the Czar preaches peace all round and does all he can to provoke war in the Far East he must not be charged with insincerity, because, though he is nominally an autocrat, he does not really rule. "The Russian Empire may be regarded as a stream of tendency which makes for something that those who guide it probably count as righteous, but which other nations may be pardoned for regarding with suspicion and distrust. The policy which directs its movements is as p-sistent as the law of gravitation. Czars—'iberal, reactionary, humanitarian—come and go, but the conditions under which Russia presses southward, now in Europe, now in Asia, seem to have the fixity of fate. Other countries watch the process with more or less solicitude, but find no reason sufficiently compelling to prompt: the endeavour to arrest it." But a point is now being reached, says Mr. Ford, where Russia is threatening che future development of the United States, and the American Press generally seems to begin to understand the situation. But the argument for immediate action is dismissed with the remark that "it is time to cross the bridge when we come to it."
"Are we not at the bridge already?" asks Mr. Foord. "Tie very assumption that Russian approval is necessary for the opening of we additional torts in Manchuria is an admission that Ru-sia exercise s at l-ast concurrent jurisdiction with China in the three Eastern provinces of the Chinese empire, and consequently that the dismemberment of that empire has begun with all the tremendous consequences which it holds for the future of the Republic... It may be true that Russia is under no obligation to explain to the United States what are her designs in regard to Manchuria. But it is also true that the Russian Government has gone out of its way to assure the Government of the United States of the absolute disinterestedness of the policy it was pursuing there... Shall "all. the resources of our diplomacy be involved to prevent the consummation of a purpose by international agreement, and our Government confess itself powerless to prevent the aczomplishment of the same purpose by force Mr. Foord concludes his argument by showing that there is no analogy between she U. S. possession of the Philippines—which "carries with it neither menace to the safety nor impairment of the integrity of any Power in the vast Pacific area"—and Russia's seizure of Manchuria. We know from private letters from Washington that President Roosevelt and Secretary Hay understand t e question thoroughly and feel the necessity for action, but they cannot act until the country generally is moved to demand action.
The usual tables are given, showing the values of the principal exports from the U.S. to China and Hongkong in the first nine months of 1902 and 1903, in gold dollars Cotton Mineral—Wheat, cloths. oii jour. 1902...13,596,844 2,164,775 135,142 8 0 1,186,307 144,559 To Hongkong.
1902... 2 779,476 2,802,574 1903... 56'270 760,248 3,149,845 Then follows the article from the New York "Evening Sun" on which many of the remarks in the " Current Comment" are based.
Then comes the report of the sixth annual meeting of the Association on the 15th of October, last, at which Mr. Silas D. Webb was in the chair. In short speech the Chairman referred to the full information given members in the monthly "Journal," to the laying of the Pacific Cable, the conclusion of a commercial treaty with China, the anxiety caused by Russia's action, and the consequent depression of trade in the Far East. He dwelt also on the desirability of getting more members for the As-Sociation. The Secretary's report, a
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.