New-York tribune., 1922-01-19

''s'al banking groups organized 10 oN'
tcud loans to China. it was made plain
~ Mr. Hughes in answer to question
ty Baron de Cattier. II the Belgian
delegation. Mr. hughes added that the
oonsortium as a means of helpful CO
operation was entirely consistent with
;sc principles adopted
Gcddes Answers Shidehara
Baron Shidchara raised a question
concerning the proposed board OF ref
-rence which is 10 sit in China per-
manently "a safeguard the open door
He said it might be dificult for each
OF the powers 20 spare jurists neces-
sary for the work. Explaining this
phase OF the work. Sir Auckland Geddcs
said.
The idea that we had in mind about
shss machinery was something Of this
sort: That the actual board Of reference
should be composed Of jurists but that
i would not be necessary for all the
Powers representatives to attend all
y" meetings Of the board
We conceived OF this machinery
some what in this wa: That every
power should nominate 10 panel jur-
ists of cminence and distinction, and
hat from that panel there should be
.irawn two, three. four whatever mum
pc- was required 10 form the board
Wnlch IS actually to consider any spe-
slal case that is brought before it.
For example. It occurred to US that il
Nigh. be possible for justices AZ Shaug-
Ns' or Hongkoag 10 be on the panel of
-" board or reference as the British
representatives. If an occasion IN which
Great Brital was concerned arose or
60 IN whicn under the adopted scheme
:. British justice would sit upon the
p~aTG OF reference ORE Of these diStln-
cL.Sned Jut.s:s would be called to take
a.. turn on the board. ! think that
poss.ti. scheme worked out by the
conference which is 10 be responsible
fos - preparation migh. follow &c
such ices a. these.
Jas what nas America meant in the
pas. ~ It's open door policy was
question raised hy Baron Shidehara
h@fslc tho propose. vas adopted. The
question was answered tN MIR Hughes
- o.otations from americas dirlo-
i1htir noes or The s'.hiect
i;7~04 81 dNhara suggested that the
oron door po.iy. as initiated by John
He, in $500. Was of an entirely dIf-
'sr'nt scope than that conceived" in
ia--~2. II" asserted that Mir, Hughes
vas giving new definition to the
po.icg. Speaking Of tho Hay policy
ne Japanese Munster SdlC.
II was then limited in its scope
potn concerned the subject matter
and the area of Chinese territory to
which IT applied. 1t simply provided
IN substance that none Of the powers
having spheres Of influence OF leased
territories in China should interfere
with treaty ports or with vested rights
or exercise any discrimination in the
Collection Of customs duties or rail
way or harbor chargcs' He contcndod
that therefore the new definition"
mould not have any retroactive force.
Mr.. Hughes took an entirely differ
cnt view. ooatending that this govern
ment had not attempted to modify It's
po'lcy. To substantiate his contention
Mr.. Hughes read the instruction sent
~ Secretary lay to Lord Salisbury at
london through Ambassador Choate in
1899. and similar notes sent 10 the
French, Italian. Japanese and other
governments about the same time. He
reed also the note exchanged between
Elinu Root. then Secretary of State.
and Baron Takahira. the Japanese Am
oassador IN 1909.
Policy Merely Clarified
IN the light Of these reiterated
sta. ments. which could hardly be re
c..rded as ambiguous" Nj. Hughes is
quoted in to-night's communique as
saying. "thc chairman could not as
sumo that the statement Of principles
'ecordcd in the resolution before the
committee was 4 new statement He
rather regarded j. Is Z more definite
and precise statement o. tho principle
that had long been admitted, and to
which the powers concerned had given
Their unqualified adherence for twenty
years