Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914, Supplement, The World War

File No. 763.72/1217

The Minister in China (Reinsch) to the Secretary of State

American Legation,
Peking, October 12, 1914
[Received November 14.]

No. 406]

Sir: I have the honor to transmit, for the information of the Department, a translation of the Japanese official reply to the Chinese Government in the matter of the occupation and control of the Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway, together with a report of the discussion of this question in the Tsan Cheng Yuan (Advisory Council) and the interpellation addressed to the Government also an editorial discussion of the same matter from the Peking Gazette of the 5th instant.

The reply of the Japanese Government contains the sentence:

The aim of the Imperial Government is not only the overthrow of the base possessed by enemy, but also to cause the control and administration of this inseparable railway to fall into our possession.

It is argued that, as the railway was built by a company under the control of the German Government, the railway is in reality “one with the leased territory.” It was strongly urged by the Chinese Government that as the Shantung railway was the property not of the German Government, but of a stock company organized by individuals who had furnished the capital and who were deriving dividends from the enterprise, it could not legally be seized by the Japanese any more than other private property of belligerents situated in China. The Chinese Government also offered to exercise a sufficient control to prevent any unneutral use of this railway controlled by German capital. The statements made by the Japanese Government indicate a desire permanently to confiscate this property as in some way connected with the lease of Kiaochow. A the Shantung Railway Company since February 12, 1913, has also taken over the property of the Shantung Mining Company against a compensation to the owners of the latter of 5,400,000 marks, for which new capital shares were issued, it is here feared that the Japanese will also seek to seize the German-owned mines in Shantung. The broad expression from the Japanese official reply, cited above, could be brought into harmony with fundamental principles of international law only if the control and administration” asked for were to be confined purely to the duration of the war, as made necessary by military operations, and if the rights of the owners were to be restored at the conclusion of the war.

The final sentence of the Japanese official reply, The Imperial Government will not give its consent, no matter what facts are held up before us,” has left a very bad impression with the Chinese, as it seems to indicate that any plan decided upon by the Japanese Government will be carried out regardless of any arguments as to legal right which may be advanced against such a course of action.

The deep concern felt by Chinese officials and the Chinese people with respect to the situation was voiced in the discussions in the Tsan Cheng Yuan, of which reports are enclosed. Aside from the fact that the seizure of the Tsinan Railway by Japan constitutes a serious attack upon China’s sovereignty, the feeling is common among the Chinese, and has been expressed to me again and again by high Chinese officials during the past week, that the course of Japan in this and in incidental matters is consciously calculated to stir up the Chinese to commit some act of opposition; the fear is universal that Japan would take advantage of any such incident to extend her authority, supported by armed force, far into the interior of China. The Chinese feel that the present situation constitutes the most serious crisis which they have yet encountered.

The conditions of the Japanese occupation of the Tsinan Railway are as follows, as stated to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs: The administrative control, as well as military occupation, will be exercised by the Japanese. They will, however, for the time being allow the Chinese engaged in the handling of the traffic to continue the work of their employment with the exception that Japanese conductors are to be placed on the trains. With respect to the ultimate disposal of the railway, the Japanese have not given any expression of their intention. The Chinese Government to the last continued its active protests on the ground that the property in question, being situated on Chinese territory, it was not permissible for a belligerent to interfere with or seize it, especially as the Chinese Government stood ready to prevent any unneutral use being made of the property.

I have [etc.]

Paul S. Reinsch

[Enclosure I]

Extract from the “Peking Gazette,” October 5, 1914—The Kiaochow–Tsinan Railway—Japanese official reply

Regarding the occupation of the whole line of the Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway, the Japanese Minister in Peking delivered the following communiqué to the Chinese Government on Saturday:

I have the honor to state that I have duly received your despatches of September 27 and September 29 in which your honorable Ministry made protests regarding the occupation of the Weihsien railway station by the troops of our country, and regarding the request for your approval, which I made at the instruction of my Government, to your honorable Minister in person on September 29, for the transfer of that part of the railway between Weihsien and Tsinan to the control and management of my country, which documents I have telegraphically communicated to my Government. Telegraphic instructions have been received from my Government on the same day, and I have the honor to transmit the original text for your perusal. The instructions read:

In pursuance of the policy of the Imperial Government definitely to uphold the peace of the entire Far East, and for, the purpose of weakening the fundamental influence of Germany in the Far East, the German-Japanese war was declared. The war now declared has for its aim not only the attack on the men-of-war and forts of the enemy in the leased territory of Kiaochow Bay, but also the elimination of the base of German activities in the Far East, which aim has been repeatedly communicated to the Government of China, and we hope, has received its consideration.

Regarding the Shantung Railway, it was the outcome of the treaty of lease of Kiaochow Bay between Germany and China in the year 1898. It was in consequence of this treaty that Germany secured the right of building this railway, the company of which is entirely under the control of the German Government, and its nature is in no way different from a purely German company. In reality it is one with the leased territory, which fact is definitely proved beyond dispute by its intention, its fundamental right of existence, the special permit given by the German Government and the way in which the company draws its funds.

When speaking of a railway it is absolutely impossible to separate it from its practical purpose as a separate thing. Therefore, this purely German-owned railway although situated on the west of Weihsien, cannot be held as having changed its nature through the excuse that it is in neutral territory. Besides, the aim of the Imperial Government is not only the overthrow of the base possessed by the enemy, but also to cause the control and administration of this inseparable railway to fall into our possession. In view of the war, this does not seem to be beyond propriety. It is, therefore, not necessary to secure the approval of the Chinese Government as to execution of this principle. But in order to avoid misunderstanding, we have made friendly request for approval regardless of the urgency or otherwise of the situation. It is surprisingly beyond the comprehension of the Imperial Government for the Chinese Government to be suspicious of Japan’s every movement. We regret such a condition.

Regarding the points misunderstood by Chinese Government as shown in the two documents, we point out as follows:

1. Whether the Shantung Railway is a German railway or a joint-interest railway can only be determined substantially by the special permit given by Germany. As to the governmental nature of the railway there is no doubt as to the correctness of what has been said above.

2. If the Shantung Railway cannot be held as being the property of a neutral, how can it be said that we are violating neutrality if it is transferred to our control? Now China, in consequence of the limitation of the war zone, suggests simultaneously to change the nature of the Shantung Railway. The Imperial Government cannot see the reason why China should do so. Furthermore, the question of limiting the war zone and the question of the nature of the Shantung Railway, as well as its control and administration, are clearly two separate questions which cannot be amalgamated into one.

3. The Chinese Government holds that under the present condition the Shantung Railway cannot be profitably used by German troops if its connection with Tsingtao is severed. But from the attacking troops’ point of view, Weihsien, being situated immediately behind it and in view of the present situation, it is a serious danger to the military operations to leave a railway owned by the enemy perfectly free. We are, therefore, compelled to secure the railway with energy. Moreover, the Chinese Government has often failed to stop the assistance of the enemy on this railway, which fact is beyond our understanding.

4. In the documents the Chinese Government emphatically declared its readiness to protect Weihsien and Tsinan and asked our Government to recognize its requests, etc. The Imperial Government will not give its consent, no matter what facts are held up before us. In this wise we reply.

The second day of the tenth month of the third year of Ta Cheng.

Hioki
Minister, etc., of Imperial Japanese Government

[Enclosure 2]

Extract from the “Peking Gazette,” October 5, 1914—The Tsan Cheng Yuan—Interpolation regarding Japanese action in Shantung

The Tsan Cheng Yuan held its fifteenth sitting on the 2d October at 2:50 p.m. The meeting was presided over by the chairman, General Li Yuan-hung, and the bill under discussion was the committee report on the bill requesting recognition of the law on the punishment for using morphia.

Mr. Liang Ch’i-ch’iao moved that in accordance with the provisions made in the eighth clause of the 31st Article of the Constitutional Compact an interpellation be addressed to the Government regarding the actions of Japan in Shantung. Upon the authority of the Legislature an answer should be demanded from the President. It is hereby moved that the program of the day be altered to discuss this most urgent problem. The motion was seconded by five other Tsan Cheng and unanimously carried.

mr. liang ch’i-ch’iao’s speech

At the request of Wang Chia-hsiang, Mr. Liang Ch’i-ch’iao delivered the following speech:

After the outbreak of the great European War the President once gathered all the Tsan Cheng in his residence and gave a detailed report on the circumstances. Although some points regarding the President’s report were not satisfactory, however, on account of the present situation of China, and the skill in management shown by the Government to cope with its difficulties, the Government might be considered to have done all that was possible, therefore the report was unanimously passed. However, from our observation of what has passed in the last few days, we feel that the confidence expressed in the said report is rather unreliable. The future is therefore gloomy, and the change wrought in the past twenty days, is sufficient to show the fact that the future will be unthinkable. On account of the necessity of strict secrecy in connection with diplomatic affairs it is natural that many things should have been kept secret from the public. In view of the intense indignation existing among the people of the country, this Yuan, as representing the people of this country, deems it absolutely necessary to show the Government their points of doubt and their expectations of the Government under such circumstances, and respectfully to demand a reply from the President.

According to my opinion, there are many points which require explanations from the Government, but in order to be concise, let me dwell on the following most important points:

The first notifications of the Waichiaopu fixing the war zone. Three times the Waichiaopu sent out notifications, first, the declaration of neutrality; then the declaration of partial neutrality owing to war operations of Japan and Germany in Shantung; and then the declaration of the extension of the war zone to Lungkow and Laichow when Japanese troops were landed there. It is possible that the text of the declaration sent to the belligerent powers by the Waichiaopu was not very definite in terms, but we think that it would have been absurd if the Waichiaopu should have failed to give despatches or verbal statements to belligerents regarding the same, so that some definite proof may be had. It is now generally known that the Japanese troops have not acted in accordance with the limits set. A few days ago the railway station of Weihsien was occupied by them. Let us look at the reports of the foreign and Chinese newspapers. It is recorded in the Shun Tien Shish Pao that a special telegram was received from Tsinan to the effect that the Japanese residents there were preparing for a reception (to Japanese troops) for the capture of the Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway. In the Peking Gazette it is stated that the Japanese Minister has in his private capacity informed the Waichiaopu to the effect that Japan is going to occupy the whole Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway. Although these are reports of newspapers, it must be borne in mind that the former is the organ of a party which is known to every man; the latter paper has an Englishman for editor, therefore the reports contained in that paper cannot be mere forgeries., Again, according to reports received from various quarters, the Japanese troops have been all the time marching towards the west, where not a single German soldier could be found. Therefore the reason must be found why the Japanese troops have been marching to the west of Weihsien instead of towards their objective, Tsingtao. Geographically speaking, the Japanese troops should march towards Kiaochow through Ping-tu after landing at Lungkow and Laichow, thus reaching their destination without any obstacle from German troops. When the Waichiaopu sent out its notification it only gave consent to the Japanese troops to move between Laichow and Lungkow, and does not the Waichiaopu now notice that the Japanese troops have marched to places which have not been included in the fighting zone? Judging from the action of the Japanese troops, it is not Kiaochow alone which they have set their mind on, but they are going to convert Shantung province into their military base of operations, making it a second Three Eastern Provinces. He who runs may read the intentions of the Japanese. As our Government had sent to the Japanese authorities the notification beforehand limiting the war zone, has the Government lodged any protest in the Japanese Legation?

The responsibility of Great Britain. Japan has more troops marching to Kiaochow, but being an ally of Great Britain, the movements of the Japanese troops in Shantung must have first been arranged with the British authorities. Hence regarding the actions of the Japanese troops in Shantung, Great Britain must share the responsibility. It must be remembered that the cause which actuated Great Britain to take up arms in Europe, was respect for the neutrality of Belgium. When the British Premier made a speech in Parliament about the war, he said that there were no other reasons for the British nation to take part in the war than to enforce respect for international law, the cause of humanity and the civilization of the world. We Chinese have hitherto admired Great Britain for her principles, and we have admired her more on account of her recent actions in the war. Unfortunately, Britain has held to the above principle in Europe but has not done so in the Far East. In Shantung the allied army has done everything to break the neutrality declared by our nation. We have failed to find out the cause why her attitude towards China has been so contradictory to that she maintained towards the European nations. When our Government lodged a protest in the Japanese Legation did we also lodge a similar protest in the British Legation?

With regard to the lawlessness practiced by the Japanese troops in Shantung, the Government has already received a joint petition from the natives there. We hesitated, to believe all the atrocities and so forth, because we thought that Japan claimed to be a civilized, nation; but in the petition the names and addresses of the persons who were murdered or injured have been plainly set forth. The circumstances of molestation have been minutely described, and does our Government take notice of them? We wonder whether these most pitiable appeals embodied in this petition have reached the ears of the Government. It may be said that a little loss to the inhabitants in the fighting zone does not matter much; but the point we want to emphasize is that such lawless actions are open defiance to the authority and rights of our Government. Should they consider us as their equals they would not have done so. It is therefore imperative for the Government to find out the real intention of the British and Japanese allied army, when they have indulged in atrocities. It will be remembered that last year when we were engaged in the suppression of internal rebellion, and when a few Japanese ventured into the fighting area and were accidentally killed, the Japanese Minister demanded that the commanders of the regiment be disgraced and our most respectable troops submitted to the humiliation of making apologies. We are not going to remember our former grievance, but what we want to say is that Japan would not act lawlessly, if she had any respect for our nationality. As the Government has the responsibility to protect the life of the people, it should make a protest against such actions. Has the Government made any decision regarding this matter?

Japanese military notes. Great amounts of military notes have been issued by the Japanese army in Shantung. According to usage during the time of war a belligerent nation may exercise temporary control over the places occupied, and issue temporary paper money. But with the case of Japanese troops in Shantung the Japanese have only the right to pass our territory on account of the circumstances. What right have they to force so large an amount of paper money into our market? Who knows when these paper notes will be allowed to exchange for ready money? During the time of the Russo-Japanese War an amount of $50,000,000 of such paper money was circulated in the market of Fengtien by the Japanese military authorities, and these notes were only exchanged for the notes of Yokohama Specie Bank instead of ready money. Therefore the influx of Japanese military notes will do great harm to Shantung, making the prices of articles much dearer than before, and causing great consternation in the market. Does the Government approve such actions?

The above are a few points which have roused the indignation of the people. People may say that on account of weakness we have to bear these things patiently; but the persons who represent the powers that be should not adopt such an attitude as they are the persons responsible for all these troubles.

In conclusion Mr. Jiang said that:

According to my opinion the first thing we should do is to address an interpellation to the Government demanding an immediate reply, and at the same time this House should offer suggestions to the Government, rendering all assistance we can. It is necessary that a protest should be addressed to the Japanese authorities, but we have entertained greater doubts regarding the action of the Great Britain, which has adopted a very different policy between the neutrality of Belgium and that of China. Why has our Government not yet made any protest to Great Britain? The interpellation should show that the House, in its capacity as the representatives of the people, is perfectly willing to take any responsibility. Should the Government recognize its responsibility, this House will render all assistance required. If the Government should adopt an indifferent attitude, this House though acting as representatives of the people, will not be able to effect anything. This is my opinion, and should my fellow Tsan Cheng have the same feeling, we should proceed to frame the interpellation and consider the suggestions.

Mr. Liang’s long speech was greeted with frequent applause all the time.

the interpellation drafted

The Chairman then asked the opinion of the House regarding motion of Tsan Cheng Jiang, and Teng Yung said that he fully agreed with the views of Mr. Jiang. When the Government issued the regulations governing neutrality, it was then hinted by some more experienced men that such regulations would not be able to attain their desired end. The Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway is an enterprise started by the merchants of Germany and China, therefore it must be pointed out that this line has not been owned by the German Government. Hence the Japanese can have no excuse for capturing it. Mr. Liang suggested that the interpellation be signed by ten. Tsan Cheng and addressed to the Government, according to the procedure set forth in the regulations governing the organization of the House; but the best way is that the interpellation should be sent in the name of the whole House, so as to invest it with greater weight. Therefore the Chairman is requested to appoint some members to draw up a draft of it.

Chu Wen-shao said that Mr. Liang’s opinion has not only received the unanimous approval of the House but it should be agreed to by all Chinese in this country, therefore the only thing left is for the Chairman to appoint the members immediately to make the draft. The motion was unanimously carried, and Messrs. Liang Ch’i-ch’iao, Chen Kun-hsiang, Hsiung Hsiling, Wang Chiahsiang, and Pao Hsi were appointed. An interval of 30 minutes took place, and the meeting was resumed at 4:15 p.m.

When the Chairman called for the draft, Mr. Chen Kuo-hsiang read the interpellation aloud.

GENERAL TSAI AO

Upon the opinion of the members regarding the draft of interpellation being called for, General Tsai Ao said that the interpellation contained all questions put to the Government regarding the present diplomatic dealings. It must not be forgotten that all diplomatic dealings of the nation must be backed by military prowess, otherwise there will be no good result. With regard to the case of Tsingtao, the attitude of Japan is known to everybody. She wants to enforce her continental policy, which has been cherished for the last twenty years. Japan is confined by sea from every side, therefore in order to get room for extension, she must adopt an aggressive policy. Accordingly her object is to swallow up China. The first master stroke dealt to this country by her was the occupation of Formosa, and at that time she was reluctantly obliged to give up Liaotung at the request of Russia, France, and Germany. The second master stroke was the occupation of Southern Manchuria, which though it nominally belongs to China, is in fact Japanese territory. Now the third master stroke is to seize the rare opportunity for the occupation of Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway. When the war is over she will include the control of the northern Tientsin-Pukow Railway by Japan in the treaty of peace. With so great an aggressive desire, wherever there are Japanese troops stationed the place will become another Eastern Provinces. Moreover the war in Europe will drag on for a long period of at least one or two years, therefore the Japanese would like to act freely during this busy time. In view of the above what should our country do? Now the balance of power in the Far East will exist no longer, and the only nation which can play a check to the ambition of Japan is the United States. The United States have a much superior navy to that of Japan, and they have a large army of men; but their army has to be distributed in Mexico, Philippines, etc. Nor have they a good harbor in the East. If Japan should land 300,000 men in China before the influence of the United States reaches here, China will be conquered. Should the United States then try to come to help China, they will be of very little use. It is therefore idle to look to the United States for assistance in our present diplomatic intercourse with Japan. The situation of China to-day is tenfold more critical than at the time of the Boxer Rising, Russo-Japanese War, or the Revolution. If nothing can be had from diplomatic intercourse, we are then thrown upon own resources. Of course there is not the least objection to the draft of the interpellation; but we should also like to know what provisions have the Government made regarding the military and financial affairs of the nation. What would the Government do if the Japanese should try to convert Shantung into another Three Eastern Provinces? At this most critical juncture of the nation, unless the hearts of the people of the country be bound together in one accord to effect the national salvation, there will be no hope. Therefore we want to know what the Government has decided to do in connection with the above points.

GENERAL HSU’S SPEECH

General Hsu Hsao-cheng then spoke as follows:

I fully agree with the view of General Tsai Ao. This is indeed a day of life and death to China. Since the year 1894 Japan has been entertaining the ambition of swallowing up China. What enabled China to remain until this day has been the counterbalancing and counterchecking influence of the powers and not the successful workings of Chinese diplomats. But this factor is no longer reliable at the present moment because the effects of the European war are world-shocking and the losses and destructions to the different powers are beyond imagination. The defeated nation naturally has no strength to cope with the affairs of China but the victorious nations, being pressed by the affairs of their own countries, also have not sufficient strength to pay attention to Chinese affairs at once. The European powers will surely incur enormous expenses for the war and in consequence some one is bound to be in an exceedingly difficult financial condition. The so-called counterbalancing and counterchecking influence will just as surely disappear. Under such circumstances Japan has an excellent opportunity to fulfil her wild ambition. Therefore, to China this day is the most critical and most dangerous. What we fear is not only the occupation of the Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway and its consequent occupation of Shantung, but also the safety of the whole of China will be threatened. The Government, which carries the important responsibilities of the nation for the citizens, carries also an immense personal responsibility. It is its unshakable duty to plan for the safety of the citizens. The view, expressed by General Tsai Ao that the people, high and low, should be one in mind is truly an important point. I presume the Government must have definite views regarding the points emphasized in this interpellation but it is also the duty of this Yuan to supply the Government with what we know to be helpful in saving the dangerous situation. May this be the last interpellation.

MR. CHAO WEI-HSI

Mr. Chao Wei-hsi then rose and delivered the following speech:

I endorse the interpolation because I believe that the principal support to diplomacy is military strength and national spirit. Indeed we have nothing to fall back on as far as military strength is concerned, but we have ample national spirit to rely upon. Formerly we were defeated in war because the people had no patriotism but now the patriotic spirit of the people has made quick strides. This fact is amply proved by the successful issue of the domestic loan. When it was first proposed those who knew very little of the real conditions predicted that it would be a failure. At that time I declared that it would be a success, and lo, the whole amount was subscribed for before one month had elapsed. This is only looking at the situation so far as China is concerned. Now let us look at Japan. Japan is a small country of three islands. Within 20 years, however, it has three times plunged into war. The Chinese proverb says, “warfare is like fire; if not extinguished it will burn you.” Napoleon though winning victory after victory, finally was defeated at Waterloo. This shows that military strength, when overtaxed, becomes unstable. Japan secured financial recuperation, after the 1894 war, from the indemnity paid by China but the Russo-Japanese war was a serious financial loss to Japan. Her soldiers have become arrogant, and arrogance is bound to result in defeat. With the national spirit of China of the present day I don’t see wherein we lack hold of the situation if compared with Japan. I fully agree with what General Tsai Ao said about a nation’s asset in self-maintenance. But in order to be independent we must have the means to achieve it. I am a simple student and not an expert of military affairs, but I know a few military principles. The means to achieve independence is to be willing to sacrifice one’s life. In the event of final severance of diplomatic relations I am willing to sacrifice my life though it may be of little value. As all of us are earnestly patriotic I predict there would not be a single person who is not willing to sacrifice his life. Jet us carefully consider the steps we are going to take after the presentation of the interpellation, so that one day China may become strong. The population of China is ten times that of Japan. If everyone is patriotic and unwilling to become slaves and beasts of burden, who shall say we a big nation, are unfit to be independent and incapable of independence? Death would be sweeter than to be humilated by Japan (Applause).

STRENGTH AND DIPLOMACY

Mr. Wang Yi-tang then said:

Mr. Tsai has spoken well. What I wish to ask is about our diplomacy but diplomacy must have military strength as its reserve support. Whether the question of military affairs should be included in the same or a separate interpellation we must carefully consider. Mr. Chao’s words are indeed soul-stirring and stimulating but my idea is that we should present the interpellation as it is without any addition and only discuss it after we receive the reply of the Government.

Mr. Wang Yin-chuan spoke to the following effect:

The interpellation as presented by Mr. Liang contains important points but what Mr. Tsai said is of even more importance, because military strength and financial ability are two mainstays of diplomacy. Unless we stand on sound ground in these two things we will meet with disaster. The result of a disaster after so many disasters would be indeed disastrous. Now Japan has already captured the Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway, though situated in neutral territory, as a war prize. If this action is right, then what else cannot be held as a war prize? To hold a place in the world we need to have a permanent goal but under the present urgent situation long and permanent schemes are not suitable to save the emergency. We have, therefore, to look for a method that will save us for the moment. Although our military strength is not so efficient as that of the foreign countries, when we are hard pressed by a powerful neighbour it would be better to make a last effort than to sit down to wait for the inevitable death. If we fight we may be vanquished; if we do not fight we will also be vanquished, but our name will be preserved if we are vanquished after we have fought. However, it is necessary to make the necessary preparations before we can say that we will stake everything. What have we to stake if we make no preparations? Military efficiency is of course the first consideration but in order to make military strength achieve success we need to have adequate financial support. The question of finance, therefore, must receive our serious attention. And if we are to succeed in this instance we must use the citizens’ patriotism to a good purpose. It is truly important that we should lodge an interpellation but we must not forget that it behooves us to be of one mind and soul at this life and death moment.

Mr. Wang Yu-lin then rose and brought the meeting to a close by suggesting that the interpellation should be presented as it was and a special meeting be held on the next day (Sunday) to discuss the necessary military and financial preparations to be made. The suggestion was loudly approved by the members. The chairman then put the original interpellation to vote. It was unanimously passed. Motions were then made to postpone the discussion of the bill on the punishment for the sale of morphia and immediately adjourn the session to begin the secret session. The motions were passed and the meeting adjourned at 4.50. The hall was cleared and the secret session began.

THE SECRET SESSION

At the secret session of the Tsan Cheng Yuan it is understood that the discussions were confined to the points brought up by Mr. Tsai Ao regarding the necessary steps which must be taken in view of Japanese aggressive movements. For a time it looked as if a separate interpellation was to be lodged regarding the preparedness, military and financial, of the Chinese Government, but finally it was decided that this should be postponed until the reply of the Government to the first interpellation had been received. The majority of the members seemed to hold the view that the only solution is an appeal to arms, and in this connection the discussions drifted into the military and finally financial conditions of China. There were a few, however, who expressed the view that China is in no circumstances to take up arms. They were unanimous in maintaining that Japanese arrogance is becoming unbearable and hostile measures can only be abandoned for lack of money. The view was expressed that the occupation of the railway would mean military occupation of Tsinan, and the occupation of Tsinan by a belligerent country would result in the disregard of China’s neutrality by all the other nations. Intense feeling of indignation was shown to a marked degree and bitterness in speech was characteristic throughout the meeting. “Fight we will if forced to fight” may be said [to be] the keynote to the general opinion.

[Enclosure 3]

Editorial from the “Peking Gazette,” October 5, 1914—The interpolation

After the outbreak of the European war, our country declared strict neutrality according to international usage. Unfortunately on account of the war at Tsingtao, we have had to declare neutrality towards the belligerents in our territory. After this on account of the extension of the war zone we had again to compromise and the Waichiaopu issued a notification fixing the fighting zone. At this juncture the indignation and fear of the people were aroused, and public opinion was extraordinarily excited. A meeting of Tsan Cheng was called in the President’s office to discuss the situation, and they were told that as the situation had become more and more critical they should persuade the people to be patient, and to leave the responsibility of diplomatic affairs to the Government, etc. The members of this House then thought that the officials who were responsible for the diplomatic dealings would be able to follow out the desire of the President by arriving at a friendly settlement of the diplomatic questions involved and the preservation of the integrity of the country and that they would be able to manage diplomatic intercourse with the belligerents without failure. However we have been surprised to receive all kinds of alarming reports from Shantung.

First, the Japanese troops have occupied the railway station at Weihsien, and are now marching to the west of it in the notification of the Waichiaopu, the fighting zone is limited to Lungkow, Laichow and the minimum area in the vicinity of Kiaochow Bay absolutely necessary for military operations. Weihsien is 400 li distant from Kiaochow, therefore it is plain that it is not a point where the troops should pass, hence it is undoubtedly neutral ground, pure and simple. Now the actions of the Japanese troops are unexpected. With regard to the notification sent out by our country, it was approved by the Japanese Minister in an official reply. We want to know whether our Government made any protest; what was the reply given by the Japanese authorities; whether a reply was received; if there is no reply, or if the reply be unsatisfactory or be not intended to be carried out, what measures would be adopted by our Government. In order to clear the doubt’s of the people let the Government make answers to the above queries.

Secondly, in the Shun Tien Shih Pao, it is recorded that a special telegram was received from Tsinan to the effect that on account of the forthcoming arrival of the Eighth Regiment of the Japanese troops there the Japanese residents have made preparations for a reception. According to the Peking Gazette the Japanese Minister has communicated to the Waichiaopu the intention of Japan to occupy the Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway. We want to know whether these reports are true. The objective of the war is Tsingtao and why should the Japanese troops march towards Tsi, Ching and thereabouts? Did our Government hear anything about it? And did it make any protest? In the Kiaochow-Tsinan Railway the merchants of this country have many shares and how can it be regarded as a war prize? Should this line be fully recognized as the property of the German Government, we should like to ask whether Japan, has any right to, occupy all the German settlements in Chinese territory, or capture the German men-of-war which have been dismantled in Chinese waters, and their arms which have been detained? If she has such rights, then Great Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, will have the similar right of free movements in the territory of China. Are then the Japanese actions regarded as a respect for, or a breach of neutrality? Did our Government receive any assurance from Japan guaranteeing not to repeat such actions in future? And should such actions occur again, what measures would be adopted by the Government?

Thirdly, when Great Britain declared war against Germany, she announced that the cause was to maintain the neutrality of Belgium. She has staked her revenue, lives and everything on that issue. With regard to Tsingtao, it is plainly a war between the allied forces of Japan and Great Britain, and those of Germany. The high officials of Japan have declared in Parliament that the declaration of war was made after consultation with Great Britain. Hence it is plain that Great Britain is equally responsible for the actions done in Shantung. It is surprising to note that in Europe Britain has done her utmost to maintain international law, but in China she has leagued herself together with Japan to break the neutrality of China. Did our Government lodge a protest in the British Legation regarding the above? And if it has, what has been the result of the diplomatic intercourse?

Fourthly, wherever the Japanese troops passed, they have always murdered innocent people and outraged women and girls. As the members of this House have always had a great respect for the civilization of Japan, we did not give credit to such reports; but according to the joint petition of the natives of these places, the names, age, addresses, and the, circumstances of the sufferers have been plainly set down. Did our Government institute any investigation? Did it make any complaint for redress? If it be said that the unintentional carelessness of the troops does not require severe censure, but it still lingers in our memory that last year when our country was engaged in the suppression of rebellion at Nanking, where some Japanese were accidentally wounded and killed because of their venturing into the fighting zone, the Japanese forced us to undergo severe humiliation. Now on account of the preservation of the general situation we have been obliged to compromise and let the Japanese troops pass through our territory; and we have been most benevolent and amenable. Had such actions of the Japanese troops been true, did our Government protest strongly against them so that they might not be repeated again, and our people henceforth might have a little more peace?

Fifthly, wherever the Japanese come they have issued freely military notes, and what right have the Japanese to force into the market in our territory such notes of uncertain price? If it be said that the same may be exchanged into specie, where is the ready money and when can these notes be exchanged? It will be remembered that during the Russo-Japanese War the Japanese issued a great amount of such notes in Fengtien, and when the war was over, they were exchanged for the notes of the Yokohama Specie Bank. At present there are tens of millions of dollars of the bad notes of this bank in Fengtien, and was there any real exchange for ready money? They were only issuing inconvertible paper money in our market, making the prices of articles very high and the conditions of living harder for the people. The wound is now felt to be a terrible one. Now the same thing is repeated in Shantung. Did the Japanese Government notify us beforehand? Did our Government protest against the issue of such notes? The opinion of this House is that a strong protest should be lodged in the Japanese Legation, demanding that all the articles bought by the troops should be paid for with ready money. If it be inconvenient to bring with them ready money, they should fix the amount of the military notes issued, and send to our Government an equal amount of money as security against the redemption of same in the future, before the amount is issued.

All the above points represent the doubts and fears of the people of the whole country. On account of our regret for the diplomatic failure of the Government, and the fear that our national existence may cease in the near future, the troops and people of all localities have organized for themselves bands of dare-to-dies for the salvation of the country, or have agitated for a boycott. The more experienced scholars have planned daily to stop them, and after great exertions they have almost succeeded in persuading them from such actions. If the officials who have the charge of diplomatic affairs, are unable to show to our people the real measures for the protection of national rights, who shall be responsible, if forced by indignation and doubts, the people should, resort to violence? This House is now acting for the Li, Fa Yuan, which represents the opinion of the people, therefore it cannot remain silent with regard to the present political situation. Therefore in accordance with the provisions made in clause 8 of Article 31 of the Constitutional Compact and Article 39 of the Regulations governing the session of the Tsan Cheng Yuan, we hereby request the President to give explanations regarding the foregoing points.