(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer will names be with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

It appears to me that the proposal to boycott Japan for an alleged breach of the Pact of Paris rests upon very insecure legal foundations. Japan holds that her action constitutes not war, but intervention, which is allowable when undertaken to preserve vital interests.

Now, by Article II of the Pact of Paris "the High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, shall never be sought except by pacific means". But this must be read in conjunction with the British Note of May 19, 1928, in which Great Britain reserved her freedom of action in "certain regions of the world, the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety"; and the Japanese Note of May 26, 1928, in which it was stated that the "proposal of the United States is understood to contain nothing that would refuse to independent states the right of self-defense". Mr. J. T. Shotwell, in his Commentary on the Pact (from which work the above extracts are taken) says that the Monroe Doctrine and intervention are covered by the doctrine of defense (p451).

The Soviet Government, in a note to France of August 31, 1928, said that in its opinion "there must be forbidden not only wars in the form of the judicial meaning of the word but also such military actions as intervention, blockade, military occupation of foreign territory, etc". Yet in the very next year, the U.S.S.R. denied that its actions in Manchuria, which included armed invasion of Chinese territory, bombardment by land and air of Chinese frontier towns, and the defeat of the local Chinese troops, constituted an infringement of the Pact of Paris. No other Power supported the United States in invoking the Pact and the Soviet eventually succeeded in forcing the Chinese to enter into direct negotiations, precisely as Japan is attempting to do at present.

In the light of these events, one can only conclude that the Pact of Paris is inoperative, except in the case of a formal declaration of war, and that Japan has not violated its provisions as interpreted by the signatory Powers.

As for the Nine Power Treaty, Japan has assured the United States that she will do nothing against its provisions in the final settlement of the dispute. If her military and naval operations in themselves constitute a violation of the Treaty then she has sinned in company with Great Britain, the United States, and France, who all intervened in China during the crisis of 1926-27.

So, unless there is one law for the occidental nations but another for Japan, steps can only be taken against her on the ground that her forces are endangering the lives and property of the protesting nations, and this is now being done by the other Powers concerned. F. C. Jones 2G.