Evening star., 1934-01-21
Continued From First Page.)
ttonal government, and is ostensib
Wared on the grnllnd that the Nation

W6BeQ Oh tIle STOuIlu ulldI tllc NdIioiinA
government has not put up an effective
resistance against Japan in Manchuria.
This is only an excuse; any other would
have done as well.
The revolt Is serious only in that 1t
includes certain of the more important
Cantonese leaders who are also leaders
in the dominant party and in that 1t
adds one more to the many disruptive
forces against which Chang Kai-shek
Is fighting. There is no indication that
1t contains the seed of a new national
unity 1t is only the latest manifesto
ton Of general disorganization. The
Government in Washington, like other
governments, persists in the error Of
thinking that since the fall of the
monarchy it can treat with Peiping or
with Marking as it can treat with Paris
But China is not nation in the sense
that France is a nation.
With all its protestations and evil
dences of friendship to China, the
United States has not failed to look
after its own interests. We have extra
territorial privileges like the others
Americans in China are tried in the
United States Court for China We
have had troops in China ever since the
Boxer troubles in 1900, and it is GER
tainly no exaggeration to say that the
presence of these troops has saved many
an American life
Before the trouble between China and
Japan the Chinese were actively ne
gotiating for the abolition of all extra
territorial treaties, and even went so
far as to denounce them as of GER
tain date. There has, however, been no
attempt to interfere with the extra
territorial rights since the date of de-
nunciation, and the United States would
be very foolish to give them up except
as part of a general international ar
rangement.
about the iniquity of eXtraterritorial
jurisdiction as being an anachronism
in this modern world, as being direct
interference in national affairs and
therefore contrary to the spirit of the
postwar peace treaties. This is theo-
retically true. There seems little reason
to cling to these rights in Morocco or
even in Egypt. We surrendered them
years ago in Japan. But in China the
situation is different. When China be-
comes a sufficiently unified nation to
enforce justice in all its parts and when
the system of Jurisprudence is such as
to insure justice as it is understood in
the Western World. including equal
treatment in the courts of aliens and
nationals. as is supposedly the case in
al modern nationS-when that time
GENES. the United States should Join
with the rest of the world in relln-
gushing voluntarily and gladly all
extraterritorial rights Until that time
comes, doing so would be unfair to our
own citizens. 1t would be a gesture
which the Chinese would interpret as
weakness, not as generosity.
Except in this matter Of extraterrito-
riality there would seem to be no rea-
scr why relations between the United
States and China should be in any
way strained. China must understand,
of course, that American friendship is
iri no sense an alliance, that while we
are sincere in wishing to assist China to
build herself into strong and for
looking nation able to defend
itself. we ourselves are not willing to
act as its defenders. The American
tradition of no entangling alliances
must apply to the Far East as well as
to Europe.
Nor should there be any danger
OF serious misunderstanding Elth Japan.
After all. the interests Of the United
States and Japan were parellel ana
thoughtful Japanese must realize that
over the course Of years America has
not been only friendly, but under
standing. There have been disagree.
thoughtful japanese must also realize
that America has its standards, just as
Japan has its standards. and that we
have as much right as they to be faith
full to our traditions and beliefs. The
verv fact that, on the whole. we have
been enthusiastic friends OF Japan
makes the occasional disagreements
stand out more prominently in Japa-
nese eyes.
America has always claimed that its
is S0lelV
matter, that questions Of quotas or even
OF exclusion lie solely in the hands OF
Congress and of the Government. II
We wish to exclude all immigrants we
have an undoubted right to DO so. II
we decide to exclude, because they are
dangerous. to our standards or 10 ma
tional economy, the people OF some par,
ticular nation, we have an unoouoCeo
right to do so.
NAV have to pass this law or that there
are other criteria beside legal right
which should decide action. When the
Japanese exclusion law was passed no
BODY denied it's legality, though most
thinking people denied its necessity ana
felt that it was not in good taste. The
japanese were proving themselves dan
perous competitors of native Americans
in agricultural enterprises on the "a
CHIC COdSU. SdlllOlIll1 was PSiouoNSN
by the furious propaganda Of few
newspapers that unless something we're
done American farmers would be driven
from their holdings. The California
representatives in Congress \echoed
these sentiments.
When the immigration laws were
under consideration the Japanese en-
bassy sent a note to the Secretary OF
State protesting against the suggestion
of singing out Japan for drastic ac-
tion. The Ambassador used the un-
fortunate phrase grave consequences
in commenting on what might happen
II the act was passed. The phrase was
used in its literal sense. The Senate
seized on it in its diplomatic sense as
a threat of war. and to prove that
America could not be coerced, it
, promptly made japanese exclusion
part of the law 1t ignored the fact
that the note was sent at the sugges-
ton Of the Department of State, but
the Secretary of State himself had seen
no sinister meaning in the phrase, but
had taken 1t literally, as it was in
tended. So. through misunderstanding
and through lack of reflection, the
United States gave Japan what that
country has always considered gratui-
tous insult.
But without exclusion" one hears
people say. the country would be
flooded with Japanese. who would in
troduce lower standards of living. who
would, because of this, compete un-
fairly with our merchants and farm
ers." This remark is characteristic.
Actually. if Japan were on a quota
basis. a maximum of some 180 persons
could enter the United States annually.
Will those 18O destroy the living stand
ards of 130000000?
1t is high time that the Congress
should reconsider this action and thus
heal the sore that testers the japanese
imagination.
This episode in Japanese se-American
relations is worth extended comment
only because the action has been as
much misinterpreted in japan as Mr.: