other nations has the unimpeachable right, because of the propinquity of her territory to that of China, to safeguard her special interests therein if any power is permitted to retain its vested interests at all. I daresay that Japan will follow the suit of other powers if they decide to give up the leaseholds and settlements they maintain in China; if they return to her the rights and concessions they have secured therein and withdraw their troops now quartered at Peking, Tientsin, and other places; and, further, if China sufficiently demonstrates her ability to defend herself and maintain her integrity by her own arms instead of shifting the burden to Japan to stand in the Far East as a bulwark against outside aggression. Then Japan is safe, China free and will have attained all that she is clamoring for to-day. Among the great five the United States is the only disinterested power, free from the web which history has woven. This, if I am not mistaken, is the reason why China, backed by scores of foreign advisers, is moving heaven and earth to persuade America to come to her own views, and is putting to a test the talent of intrigue and persuasion, which she has inherited through centuries, against hard realities. I am, however, inclined to think that the American people, who, however idealistic, hold as their first principle the doctrine of independence and "self-help," will first see, before they commit themselves and take upon themselves the burden of China, what she has done to help herself. The history of the past few decades is a sad commentary upon China's lack of "self-help." In fact, the genius of intrigue and wrangling, with which the Chinese are so strikingly endowed, is rending the country into factions and leading it to disintegration and disaster. I shall go no further upon this subject, for it would be un-Christian to try to pick a beam in another's eye. Japan's shortcomings and blunders, especially in her dealings with China, have been many and grievous-this I would be the first to admit. At the same time I hold that in the adjustment of international issues we should plant our feet upon firm ground of facts, not upon the Utopian plane. "That the millenium has come neither to the world nor to the Paris conference is sufficiently demonstrated by the defeat of the Japanese proposal to put among the articles of the covenant of the league of nations the principle of equality of nations and fair treatment of their nationals. Nothing could be more in accord with the principle of justice and humanity than this proposal. Its defeat shows that we have to take into consideration the idiosyncrasies, temperaments, and prejudices prevailing among different races, and the actual conditions ruling in the world, in order to build up a safe and solid foundation for international order. If we apply one principle of our liking to solve a problem, we should be ready to accept the application of the same principle in the unraveling of other problems. If we refuse to accept Japan's proposal above mentioned on the ground that the world, as it is, is not ready for its adoption at the present time, we can not consistently decry the Shantung settlement, which, however imperfect it may seem from a purely idealistic standpoint, rests upon hard realities-the world as it is-that is to say, international agreements, historical precedents, and the existing state of affairs in China. JAPAN'S PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHINA'S RESOURCES. Japan has a good cause for her participation in the development of China's resources. She has a crowded population, which is increasing approximately at the rate of 800,000 per annum. Furthermore, this crowded and ever-increasing population is debarred by some nations of white race from seeking its fortune in the most favored and sparsely populated regions of the globe. How, then, can Japan feed, clothe, and shelter her people? The best and safest road leading to the solution of this pressing problem lies in the development of her industries and expansion of her commerce. In pursuing this policy, Japan is sadly handicapped by the lack of raw material. But in her neighbor's territory there are vast resources, untouched and unused, the unfolding of which will not only meet Japan's wants but will equally benefit China and the world at large. Japan maintains that she is entitled to the privilege of cooperating with China in the unearthing of the treasures that lie unutilized. America, I am confident, will not grudge to see justice in Japan's claims. It is just as wrong to impute America with the thought of obstructing Japan in every avenue of her growth as it is unjust to charge Japan with harboring sinister designs upon the Philippines or Hawaii. The sooner these unwarranted suspicions and fears are set at rest the better for the future of both countries. : PRESENT SITUATION AND AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS. I am supremely confident of the continuance of amicable relations between America and Japan. Speeches might be made denouncing Japan worse than the Satan of Milton's creation: intrigues might be attempted to embroil the United States in trouble with Japan: but I am sure that these labors will come to naught. For the interests and forces, inherent and dynamic, which bind the two great nations on the opposite shores of the Pacific, are so manifest that no amount of scheming could alienate their friendship. These interests and forces can not, of course, be estimated in terms of dollars and cents. But to give one illustration: America's trade with Japan amounts to $400,000,000 annually, while her trade with China. which has a population five times larger than that of Japan is valued at $200,000.000. Notwithstanding this bond of amity across the Pacific, I can not shut my eyes to the dangers involved in the present situation. I fear that there might be a temporary lapse of mutual good feeling between America and Japan, with no slight consequence upon the Chinese-Japanese relations, if the present campaign of slander, abuse, and misrepresentation of Japan is left unbridled, for it not only poisons the minds of the American people but is bound to react on Japan. Japan is now as democratic as America is. Militarism has been dethroned. Autocracy is a name alien to the Japanese people. The party government has come to stay. Public opinion there now wields a great influence. But public opinion is not always intelligent. It is often swayed by demagogues who might seize such an opportunity as this to ply their trade and to incite suspicions and fears of the good American people by propagating similar false stories about America, which we hear so often about Japan nowadays. The result may be the creation of a most unwholesome atmosphere where mutual trust and confidence-the heart of the league of nations can hardly live. I have faith in the sound common sense of the Japanese people, which will enable them to remain calm and to rightly understand the origin and worth of the present entirely unexpected anti-Japanese wave. At the same time I beg permission to appeal most earnestly to the statesmen and leaders of public opinion in this country to vivify and strengthen those permanent interests and forces that make for peace, and thus paralyze the evil elements that act to bring discord. (Thereupon, at 12.55 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, Sept. 3, at 10 o'clock a. m.) TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1919. UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment at 10 o'clock a. m., in room 426 Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge presiding. Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Brandegee, Knox, Harding, Johnson, of California, New, Moses, Swanson, and Pomerene. Senator BRANDEGEE (acting chairman). Senator Lodge has requested the committee to proceed with the hearing. He will return in a few minutes. Who is here to represent the question of the disposition of the Island of Aland? Mr. JOHNSON. I represent the people of that island. STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER J. JOHNSON, EDITOR OF THE SWEDISH COURIER. Senator BRANDEGEE. Please state your full name. Mr. JOHNSON. Alexander J. Johnson. Senator BRANDEGEE. And your residence? Mr. JOHNSON. Chicago, Ill. Senator BRANDEGEE. You may proceed. Mr. JOHNSON. Gentlemen, the courtesy of your committee in affording me a hearing is highly appreciated. When the newspapers announced that a number of subject nations had been permitted to present their respective claims of recognition on the ground of self-determination before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, it occurred to me that the Aland question might also properly be called to the committee's attention by the same opportunity. Unofficially, I have already taken the liberty to present to each member of the Committee on Foreign Relations a review of the Aland question, condensed in a pamphlet entitled "The Aland Question Before the Peace Conference." All the facts of this particular case are there brought forward, and in order not to abuse your kindness in listening to me, I respectfully refer you to this exposé. I will also take the liberty of asking your permission to have this little pamphlet included in the record. Senator BRANDEGEE. It will be so done. (The statement referred to is as follows:) THE ALAND QUESTION BEFORE THE PEACE CONFERENCE. Among questions coming up before the peace conference is the settlement of a group of islands, situated at the entrance of the Gulf of Bothnia and known as the Aland Islands from the name of the principal member of the group, which is surrounded by a crown of innumerable smaller islands and reefs. The distance from Aland to the coast of Uppland (Sweden) is about 25 American miles (40 kilometers) and to the continent of Finland 50 Ameri1041 135546-1966 can miles (80 kilometers). Aland has fifteen rural communities and one port, Mariehamn. On the 31st of December in the year 1913, the population amounted to 26,849, all counting themselves as Swedes and using the Swedish language. The principal exports consist of firewood, beef, and fresh fish, almost the entire output going to Stockholm, Sweden. The community of origin, language, sentiments, and customs have led the Alanders to desire a reunion with Sweden, and they have now finally petitioned the peace conference to sanction their request. FINLAND OPPOSES. This desire of the Alanders to determine their own fate is opposed by Finland, which new independent State has just recently been recognized by the great powers. In this connection, it should be stated that the Swedish Government was instrumental in bringing the then existing Russian Government to consent to Finland's independence. The Government of Sweden was the first to give Finland recognition as a new independent State, which action was then followed by Norway and Denmark. The Swedish Government also tried to persuade the great allied powers and the United States to extend such recognition to Finland. but in vain for a long time, until the efforts were finally crowned with success. In face of these facts, it is hard to believe that the Finland Government and people would continue their opposition to Aland's independence and reunion with Sweden, when they themselves have successfully claimed such independence on the very same principle of self-determination for all peoples. big or small. NOT UNIMPORTANT. To an American public it may seem unimportant what becomes of "a few thousand people" in a settlement of such magnitude as is now before the high council of the nations assembled in Paris. But there are no small or unimportant questions before that body. We have the word of no less a personage than David Lloyd-George to that effect. In his great speech before the House of Commons on the 16th of April, 1919, the great English statesman made the following confession: "I have never heard of Teschen, but it nearly produced an angry conflict between two allied States, and there are many questions of that kind where missions have been sent and where we had to settle differences in order to get on with the different problems of war, and those questions are of importance to the small States. And it was the quarrels of the small States that made the great war." ONCE PART OF SWEDEN. After the fall of the autocratic government in Russia and during the course of the revolution, Aland seceded from Russia at the same time as Finland, the latter, however, now disputing the Alanders' claim to determine their own fate. In order to make clear the grounds on which this claim rests, it is necessary to pass in review the nature and the circumstances of both Aland's and Finland's separation from Sweden, of which kingdom they had been parts for hundreds of years. When in 1809, by the Peace of Fredrikshamn, Sweden ceded Finland to Russia, it was not a cession of a distinct territory bearing that name. By the expression Finland was understood a number of governments (lan) and territories (landskap), which for the sake of convenience or brevity were so nominated in block. This expression did not mean anything more than the names of other parts of the Swedish Kingdom, such as Svealand," "Gotaland," and "Norrland." In the treaty of peace, not " Finland," but the governments (lan) thus ceded were named. And in no other than a general sense were there ever any boundary lines limiting the extension of Finland, more than the frontiers of Svealand, etc. NEW BOUNDARIES. In the north, the Finland frontier passed a little west of the Kemi River in a northerly direction to Porkavara, and from there east to the frontier of Russia. Otherwise, the frontier between Finland, on one side, and Svealand and Norrland, on the other side, was the Gulf of Bothnia. Concerning the Aland Islands, we have the official map of the Swedish Bureau of Land Surveyors fran 1714, where the line of demarcation is drawn from the mouth of the |