the menace. Japan recognized her opportunity, and has since struggled hard to replace Germany and everybody else, thanks to England's solicitude of soul.

In these two years and more, American merchants, and all other Americans with American ideas, have found themselves hampered, opposed, condemned, boycotted, ostracised, not so much by the Japanese, as by the Britons. The claim is that it is all legitimate, though the law set in motion is English, in contradistinction to fundamental international laws embodied in Hague Conventions, in the Declaration of Paris, and even in Viscount Grey's Declaration of London.

As between the Entente Powers and the Central Powers, American interests of the regular, permanent kind have been, in countless ways, hindered by the former, but not by the latter. As between the European members of the Entente, and Japan, the one outside member, unless we include therein British colonies, American interests have been checked and hampered by all of them, but more by Britain, France and Russia (the others are rather negative factors) than by Japan. It is therefore a question of proportions. The situation needs to be analyzed, and each separate element needs to be weighed in the scales, and then the comparison made.

Politics touch commerce. Diplomacy and business go together. American business men, in pushing new enterprises in China, need to have a thorough knowledge of the situation, and not be carried off their feet by war passions, which should be left to the belligerents. They should know what rights they have and do not have, and, having taken proper action and a correct position, should with resolution hold on, with full backing of the American Government, in the face of all kinds of opposition.

SHALL CHINA ENTER THE WAR?1

By Gilbert Reid, D.D., Director-in-Chief of the International Institute of China

A MEMORANDUM PRESENTED TO THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT IN FEBRUARY

To this question which I place at the head of this discussion I reply with full force of conviction, after over thirty years of hard work in China's behalf: "A thousand times No."

China has in the past escaped many threatening dangers, sometimes from within, sometimes from without. The escape has generally come through a few Chinese in high places of authority remaining cool and level-headed. Where dangers have not been averted, as in the Boxer year, it has been because the number of such men has been insufficient; the few sensible and patriotic ones have often offered up their lives as martyrs.

The present danger, the new form of temptation, is so different from anything known in the past, that it will be easy for the Chinese who are now in high places of authority to be beguiled, or, to use an Americanism, to be "gulled."

There is nothing new in the mere attempt to persuade China to join the Entente Allies against the two Central Powers represented diplomatically in Peking. It has been conjectured that the proposals were also aimed against Japan. Both President Yuan and President Li in these previous attempts had enough sense to reject the proposals and enough patriotism and unselfishness to spurn the enticements accompanying the proposals.

The attempt today, with the same object in view, comes to us in another form, with a far more innocent air, and

1 This article was written before the United States declared war against Germany.-EDITORS.

with a greater capacity to inspire confidence, than all the previous futile attempts.

The American government, at least the diplomatic part of the government, is now taking the lead in enticing China to imitate the noble example of a sister republic and a former neutral—a neutral whose neutrality has been of the first magnitude. I do not say that China is now urged to join the Entente, particularly England and France, but that she is most affectionately and respectfully recommended to join with the United States against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Properly, the exhortation to practise the old and easy art of imitation can only mean that China, out of mere desire to imitate, and with no other possible reason, shall also break off diplomatic relations with Germany. I do not know whether China has been counselled, as by a friend, to do more. President Wilson in making the break with Germany made the declaration, according to Reuter, "that he took it for granted that all neutrals would follow the example of the United States in severing diplomatic relations with Germany." We have a right to suppose that only this request, which in appearance is most innocent, has been made known to the Chinese Government, and nothing more.

There is a danger of taking exaggerated views concerning this request of the American President as concerning every thing else connected with this last lamentable clash.

Three proposals for action by the Chinese government in relation to Germany are being widely discussed. The one is to break off diplomatic relations with Germany; the second is to send a protest to Germany for her "new measures of submarine warfare;" and the third is to join the Entente in war against Germany. These three propositions are quite distinct, but in the minds of many they are getting sadly mixed. Even so keen a mind as Putnam Weale, who now longs to place "a garland round the Republic," says concerning China's protest to Germany:

In taking this first step China has opened a new and important chapter in her foreign relations; for although the maximum so far contemplated by her is simply rupture of diplomatic relations

with Germany, it is quite certain that she will not hesitate to follow wherever America may lead; and that the United States will be involved in open warfare almost immediately is certain.

This settles the matter so far as China and the United States are concerned, if Putnam Weale, a Britisher, has any chance of settling the matter. China's action of protesting is taken to be the same as the United States' action of severing diplomatic relations; and the American action is taken to be the same as entering upon open warfare. If all advice to China is thus muddled, China will find it hard to walk in the straight and narrow way of neutrality, justice and good-will.

Personally, as one concentrating attention on China's interests alone, I give no support to either of the three proposals, as bearing on China's international obligations.

The first proposal, that made by the United States government to China, that she, too, sever diplomatic relations with Germany, ought to be rejected.

I am looking at the effects on China, while President Wilson was thinking only of American interests. Whether he was right, fair and prudent in the position taken, I do not here discuss; a few weeks will show whether all Americans agree with President Wilson. Already we learn that ex-Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, does not agree with the President, though both are of the Democratic party.

Even supposing that President Wilson's move is wiser than what Solomon ever made or longed for, the inference does not follow that the Chinese republic, away out here on the Asiatic continent, would be equally wise in rushing into making the same move. Let Americans all by themselves derive all the blessings that are possible from this great transaction, but let China strive for no prize till duty alone calls her to it.

China can well wait till all the neutral governments in Europe, and then all in Central and South America, imitate the United States in breaking off diplomatic relations with Germany, before she makes the same big jump. Thus far the neutral nations showed themselves more ready to sup

port President Wilson in his plea for peace than they are now doing in his action that borders on war. China at that time did not go as far as America went or as she, a neutral nation, ought to have done. In any thing approaching the countenance of war with all its calamities, China may well find it her duty to do less, very much less, than the United States.

When President Wilson became a leader in the cause of peace, it was fitting for China and all neutrals to follow suit. When he, the head of a neutral nation, tries to place the full power of the American people to the side of war, though professing a passion for ultimate peace, and against one side in the great conflict, without being against the other side, in equally good reason, I sincerely hope that the last effort will come to naught, and the former effort, through other hands, be blessed of Heaven. Still more I hope that China will cleave fast to ways of peace and eschew war, unless and until China's own rights are trampled upon by whomsoever the offender.

Thus far no other neutral nation has adopted this plan of dealing with Germany; this is good reason for China to go a little slow. And yet the Peking Gazette in magnifying China's act speaks of her "entry into Welt-politik," and of "China associating herself with the United States" -as all "a victory of the younger intellectual forces." China is not in line with the United States, until she, too, severs connections with Germany. When China breaks off friendly relations with one group of Belligerents, she at the same time makes an entry into the Entente, but not into "welt-politik."

For an ambassador or minister to be given his passport with the request to leave for home, is not an unknown occurrence in international law. This happens in case of improper conduct on the part of the diplomat. A rare occurrence, and a more serious affair is that of severing all relations with another government. This is a break in friendship, a cessation of cordiality; it is very close to actual hostilities. Unless the reasons for so acting are very strong -unless there is no alternative-the action by every possible means should be avoided.