1920, the Japanese Government declared that "from the nature of the case, the regions of South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia which are contiguous to Korea stand in very close and special relation to Japan's national defense and her economic existence. Enterprises launched forth in these regions, therefore, often involve questions vital to the safety of the country. This is why Japan has special interests in these regions and has established there special rights of various kinds." This memorandum closed with a formula which the Powers participating in the consortium were asked to adopt, according to which "In matters relating to loans affecting South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia, which in their opinion are calculated to create a serious impediment to the security of the economic life and national defense of Japan, the Japanese Government reserve the right to take the necessary steps to guarantee such security." This reservation, the memorandum declared, was indispensable to the existence of the Japanese State and people, and was based "on the paramount importance of the economic existence and national security, coupled with a due regard for the general peace of the Far East."

The British Government declared, in its reply to this memorandum, that it clearly recognized the legitimate desire of the Japanese nation to be assured of the supplies of food and raw material necessary to her economic life and her justifiable wish strategically to protect and maintain the Korean frontier, but that they could not assent to a formula that seemed to imply the possession by Japan of a special sphere of interest in particular regions of China, nor could it be believed that, in order to meet Japan's legitimate needs, it was essential that Japan alone should construct and control certain railway lines west of the South Manchuria Railway, which the Japanese memorandum had referred to.

The American reply was even more emphatic. In its memorandum of March 16, it said that Japan's proposition could not be reconciled with the principle of the independence and territorial integrity of China; that, as to the proposed formula, the right of national self-preservation is one of universal acceptance in the relations between States and therefore does not require

formulation as to its application in any particular instance, and that the principle was implicit in the terms of the Lansing-Ishii notes of November 2, 1917. The Government of Japan, it added, had no occasion to apprehend on the part of the consortium any activities directed against the economic life or national defense of Japan, and that Japan could rely with entire assurance upon the good faith of the United States and of the other two Powers associated in the consortium to refuse their countenance to any operation inimical to the vital interests of Japan. The British Government gave substantially similar general assurances to the Japanese Government.

In its communication of April 3, the Japanese Government noted these assurances, and, in reliance thereupon, withdrew its proposed formula.

It will be observed that, in this correspondence, neither the British nor the American Government gave recognition to any right upon the part of Japan, in the exercise of its general right of self-preservation, to take any action within Manchuria or Mongolia that would be in derogation of the sovereign territorial rights of China, or that might be founded upon a general superiority of rights (to use a phrase later employed by Secretary Hughes) within any designated region of China. All that the British and American Governments did engage to do was to refuse their countenance to any enterprises directed against the economic existence or defense of Japan. Of course, aside from any express engagement, it is, under any circumstances, an unfriendly act for one nation to give its support to undertakings directed against the existence of another State. Thus the matter stood when the Washington conference convened.

It is clear enough that, in that conference, the Japanese Government made statements and signed agreements which, if carried out in good faith, will prevent it from again raising a claim to special rights or interests in China that will be in derogation of the rights or interests of other Powers, or which will in any wise be inconsistent with the sovereignty and territorial and administrative integrity of China. In doing this, Japan is now precluded not only by the general principles of international law and comity but also by her own formally given undertakings.

As regards the matter of her national economic existence, and, as connected therewith, the obtaining of an adequate supply of foodstuffs and raw materials for her people, Japan, at the second meeting of the Committee on Pacific and Far Eastern Questions, made the following statement:

We adhere without condition or reservation to the principle of the Open Door or equal opportunity in China. We look to China in particular for the supply of raw materials essential to our industrial life, and for foodstuffs as well. In the purchase of such materials from China, as well as in all our trade relations with that country, we do not claim any special rights or privileges, and we welcome fair and honest competition with all nations.

This is a declaration satisfactory in every way, and it is to be hoped that it will be faithfully followed. It was, however, somewhat disturbing to China, and, no doubt, to the other Powers, later to find that, in justification of her refusal to abandon the leased Kwantung district, Japan should have pointed to the fact that that district was a part of Manchuria "where, by reason of its close propinquity to Japan's territory more than anything else, she has vital interests in that which relates to her economic life and national safety."

Furthermore, at the twentieth meeting of the Committee on Pacific and Far Eastern Questions the Japanese delegation submitted a formal statement in which it called attention to the richness of China's natural resources; expressed the hope that China would grant to foreigners, as far as possible, the opportunity of coöperation in the development and utilization of those resources; and said that it would be gratified to receive from China a spontaneous declaration as to her future policy in this regard.

It is to be hoped that, in these statements, there was not intended to be implied any right upon the part of Japan to claim that anything more than friendly persuasion can be applied to China in order that the Japanese people may obtain an assured and adequate supply of the foodstuffs and raw materials which they may deem to be necessary to their economic existence.

Replying to this request for a "spontaneous" statement, it will be remembered that, on February 2, Mr. Sze, speaking in behalf of the Chinese delegation, said that China's natural re

sources were already accessible to all under the normal operation of the economic law of supply and demand. "Consistent with the vital interests of the Chinese nation and the security of its economic life," he said, "China will continue, on her own accord, to invite the coöperation of foreign capital and skill in the development of her natural resources."

It is universally recognized that a country has the first claim upon the natural resources of its own soil, and may rightfully exploit or conserve them in accordance with the economic needs of its own people, whose needs rightfully take precedence of the needs of other peoples. As for Manchuria and Mongolia, the Chinese Government can, without difficulty, demonstrate that their forests, lands, and sub-surface treasures will be urgently needed by the Chinese themselves, and this too within the very near future. For some years now, Manchuria and Mongolia have furnished outlets for the surplus populations of other of China's provinces, and, with the rapidly increasing industrialization of China, it is certain that the coal and minerals of the Mongolian and Manchurian mines will be needed for home use or manufacturing. As Dr. Koo said, in answer to the Japanese statement which has been earlier quoted: "It is clear that China has such truly vital interests in Manchuria that the interests of any foreign Power therein, however important they may be in themselves, cannot compare with them. The fact of close propinquity of Manchuria to Korea, if it justifies any claim to consideration, can be equitably appealed to only on the condition of reciprocity"—that is, one that would give to the Chinese in Korea the same privileges as might be claimed by the Japanese in Manchuria.

The foregoing discussion furnishes an introduction to a thesis maintained by the late Premier Hara in the paper to which earlier reference has been made. This thesis, while not a new one, gains additional interest and importance when accepted and urged for world adoption by such a distinguished statesman. (Mr. Hara's paper entitled Reflections on Lasting Peace was published in The Tokyo Diplomatic Review of September 15, 1921; and republished in English translation in The Living Age of January 7, 1922.) He says that if one starts with the proposition

that no nation has a right to compel another nation to commit suicide

It follows that it is the great duty of every government today to open wide its economic doors, and to extend to all peoples free access to what is vital to existence, and thus to save the more unfortunate from unnatural misery and discrimination. The "open door" and the abolition of world barriers must be our policy, as it is the first principle of a lasting peace. We Japanese in particular are suffering from the increasing difficulty of living, attributable to our ever waxing population and our ever waning resources. Were any people to reach a point where their entire energy was inevitably devoted to earning a bare subsistence, and no energy was left them for attaining higher spiritual and cultural ideals, that people would indeed be facing a mighty dark future. We tremble to think that our people are often threatened with uncertainty as to even the necessaries of life. Their condition ought to be remedied and greater freedom be given the Japanese, if the world expects her to be the keystone to the arch of peace of the Far East, and a faithful supporter of the welfare of the world. Thus, even a single example shows beyond a doubt the absolute dependence of lasting peace upon the "open door". By "open door" I do not mean a complete throwing down of national boundary stones. What I have in mind is the removal of the economic insecurity of some peoples by extending to them the opportunity for free access to the world's resources, eliminating other artificial economic barriers, and adjusting as much as possible the inequality arising from the earlier discriminations of nature and of history.

Here we have frankly applied to nations that same principle with regard to the distribution of so-called "gifts of nature" which certain economists or sociologists have sought to have adopted as between individual human beings. Its international adoption would of course mean the abrogation of all tariff barriers, of all restraints upon immigration and emigration, and the repeal of all laws imposing limitations upon aliens with regard to land-holding, to ownership and operation of mines or ships, or to any other economic activities or enterprises.

This occasion does not offer an opportunity to discuss the abstract or inherent justice of this Communistic principle, whether as applied to nations or to individuals. It is sufficient for our purposes to say that the chance that it will be adopted by the nations of the world is so remote as to take it out of the realm of practical politics. If, then, this be admitted, in what position is Japan left? Premier Hara implies that, unless Japan is allowed