To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Mr. Shidehara, Japanese Ambassador to the United States, in his article published in our Daily, lays forth what purports to be Japan's policy in the Far East. We deem that it is of great importance that the American public should know the truth about the whole situation. Broad generalizations help us but little; We must resort to concrete facts. With this principle in mind, let us, examine some of the Ambassador's statements.

(1) He says: "But from China, we Japanese believe we have a right to ask the privileges of equal opportunity and the Open Door."

China's Door is supposed to be open to all. Japan does not need to ask for it. Is there any power denying Japan's right to equal opportunity for legitimate economic enterprises in China?

It is Japan herself that closes the Open Door to other powers.

Let us just take the case of Manchuria that the Ambassador refers o in his article.

In 1909-10 Mr. Knox, American Secretary of State under Taft's administration proposed a magnificent scheme for the neutralization of the Manchurian railways. The scheme was planned with a view to sop he existing practice of rate discrimination and facilitate the transportation of foreign merchandise there. It failed completely. Both Russia and Japan made strong oppositions. They would not allow any meddling in the territories which they considered as their spheres of interest. At present practically all the railways are run by semi-Japanese Government officials, and by unfair treatment of foreign merchants and deliberate cheating of the Chinese tax officials the only significant trade in Manchuria at present in Japanese trade. Her officially acknowledged ambitions are clearly revealed in Group H of the notorious Twenty-One. Demands prescribed to China in 1915, with an ultimatum.

Again in 1913, an American company, the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, negotiated with the Chinese Government with a view to build a naval shipyard for China with American materials and technical assistance in Fukein Province Japan projected. Fukien was claimed to be her sphere of interest, and no American can could be allowed to make such an investment. The present Japanese objection to the proposed establishment of radio stations in China by the Federal Telegraph Company of the United States further illustrates how Japan tries to close China's door to other powers except herself.

(2) As to Shantung the Ambassador says: "Japan promised China that she would withdraw her forces and return the Kiaochow territory to her: and she also offered to share with China, on an absolutely fair and equal footing in substance as well as in name, that section of the German railway which has come to her hands in consequence of the war."

This argument is much the same as though a foreign power, having occupied the State of California should express its willingness to "return" the political sovereignty over that State but should ask merely the city of San Francisco and to "share" on "an absolutely fair and equal footing" the Union Pacific Railway.

As a matter of fact, Japan has never had any little to anything in Shantung. By virtue of China's declaration of war on Germany, the little of the leasehold automatically reverted to the lessor. In the treaty of 1898 between China and Germany. It was provided that Germany could not transfer her leasehold to a third power. This was confirmed by Germany in the recent commercial treaty with China. The Versailles Treaty, on which Japan bases her claim, is not binding up on China since she is not a party to it.

We write the above with the above with the hope that some light may be thrown upon the discussion of the Far Eastern questions. C. J. Lin 2G.   T.W. Kwok 1G.

November 9, 1921.