Liao-Tung

The refusal by Japan to abrogate the 1915 treaty--extending the leases of Port Arthur and Dalny on the Liao-Tung peninsula -- is creating a furore in China. University students are clamoring for a boycott of all Japanese goods, advising the Government to send a second note to Tokyo and to prepare for war in the meantime. Public opinion is, however, indifferent to their demands, and, from recent reports, the agitation is dying a natural death.

The British attitude is expressed in the Peking Times: "It is plain the boycott agitation is being engineered by interested parties. . . . Under the guise of pseudo-patriotism it is possible for the student and political agitators to intimidate the merchant classes and cause a very serious commercial loss. . . . It (Japan) has made immense and far-reaching concessions to China. . . . It is sheer effrontery . . . for the student politicians to clamor for the unconditional restoration of Liao-Tung's leased territory." The French newspaper, the Evening News, endorses the British viewpoint.

China has, of course, never ratified the treaty of 1915 and as a corollary she now bases her protest on "forcible restraint." This question of duress is in itself a nice point; much can be said both pro and con. As a matter of strict fact, China has never ratified agreements and concessions to foreign powers since she became a republic, a little over eleven years ago. That is an important factor in the argument.

It is indisputable that Port Arthur and Dalny have been greatly developed by the Japanese, and that any interruption now would mean the total destruction of valuable institutions that have taken years to establish.