By far the most illuminating part of M. Cassini’s conversation was its practical confirmation of the truth of one of the reported demands of Russia which were considered the most objectionable, and which Count Lamsdorff specifically denied, characterizing them “as on the face of them ridiculous,” namely, that no new ports should be opened in Manchuria for the world’s trade. “Of the opening of new treaty ports in Manchuria,” said M. Cassini, “it is impossible for me to speak at present, but it is the earnest conviction of those best acquainted with the state of affairs there that such a move will not be to the best interest of the territory. Were the question solely a commercial one, it would be different. But open a treaty port in Manchuria, and close upon the heels of commerce will follow political complications of all kinds, which will increase the threats to peace.” In this statement Count Cassini not only virtually contradicted Count Lamsdorff, but also, as we shall soon see, was subsequently contradicted by the latter. A careful reader of these words uttered by one of Russia’s greatest diplomatic agents abroad will feel satisfied that, despite Count Lamsdorff’s elastic statement to the contrary, Russia was actually proposing some terms to China, and that one of those terms probably was that Manchuria should have no more treaty ports. When diplomacy relies, even to a slight extent, upon subterfuges, it risks a certain lack of consistent unity among its exponents, and the rule could hardly have for exceptions even such highly trained diplomats as Lamsdorff and Cassini.