The _Tsūshō Isan_, October 23, 1903, pp. 1–21; the U. S. daily _Consular Reports_, May 7, July 16, and August 28, 1903, and February 23, 1904. Footnote 80: See Mr. Miller’s reports in the U. S. daily _Consular Reports_ for January 21 and 24, and February 5 and 6, 1904 (Nos. 1856 1858, 1859, and 1870). Mr. James J. Hill, in a recent speech at Minneapolis, said that his great system of transportation, by taking advantage of all conditions, and by carrying full loads both ways, had been able to make a freight rate of forty cents a hundred pounds of flour to the Orient, or one mill per ton-mile. According to him, the effect of the growing exportation of wheat from the Pacific coast to the East seems to have caused an advance in its price at Minneapolis of five to seven cents per bushel. In view of these facts, the possible exclusion of American flour from Manchuria would not be without serious effects, especially if we consider Mr. Hill’s opinion that the success of Mr. Chamberlain’s financial scheme would result in enabling Manitoba to supply all the wheat needed in Great Britain, thus leaving in the United States a large surplus of grain, for which other markets would have to be developed. See the American _Review of Reviews_ for February, 1904. Footnote 81: The U. S. daily _Consular Reports_, February 15, 1904 (No. 877), p. 11. Footnote 82: The U. S. daily _Consular Reports_, January 19, 1904 (No. 1854). Also see _ibid._, April 4, 1903. Footnote 83: British Consul Hosie’s report, the _British Parliamentary Papers_ (“Blue Books”), _China, No. 1 (1900)_, p. 154. Footnote 84: See U. S. daily _Consular Reports_, February 15, 1904 (No. 1877), and the _Tsūshō Isan_, October 8, 1903, pp. 42–43. Footnote 85: The _North American Review_ for May, 1904, pp. 683–684. Footnote 86: For the laborious process of obtaining permits to carry on business only for short terms in these great sites for future cities, see the _Tsūshō Isan_, September 18 (pp. 40–41) and November 23 (pp. 39–40), 1903. At Dalny, however, Russia has welcomed the coöperation of all nationalities in its development, and has been rather disappointed at their comparative indifference. See Mr. F. Nakasawa’s conversation in the _Tōyō Keizai Zasshi_ (“Oriental Economist”), No. 262 (March 15, 1903), p. 13. The reasons for this modification at Dalny of the customary Russian policy are plain, for the port must be developed as rapidly as possible before the Russians can absolutely control its trade. Thus the importance of Dalny as a trading port brings to conspicuous prominence the universal contradiction of the Russian commercial policy in East Asia. Russia would exclude other trading nations from her possessions in order to control the trade, but is at the same time unable to develop it without either the coöperation of other people or some unnatural devices. Footnote 87: