Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Mr. FERGUSON. It would have come back in another 8 or 10 years. Senator Knox. That is what I thought-a very short time.

Mr. FERGUSON. When I was referring to what Japan had got yesterday, in answer to Senator Johnson's question, apart from the German rights in Shantung, I referred to that question of the extension of the leases of the South Manchurian Railway and of the AntungMukden Railway, and also the extension of the lease of Port Arthur and Dalmy. Those were all extended to a period of 99 years instead of the original period which was granted.

Senator Knox. And all under the treaty of 1915 ?
Mr. FERGUSON. All under the treaty of 1915.
Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you speak Japanese as well as Chinese ?
Mr. FERGUSON. No, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The written characters of the two languages
are the same, are they not?
Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.
Senator BRANDEGEE. So that you read Japanese ?
Mr. FERGUSON. I can read documents in Japanese.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The other day Mr. Millard testified in substance that when the Lansing-Ishii agreement was made, the Japanese translated it into words in their language which signified, in addition to a “special interest" on account of geographical contiguity, something in the nature of "paramountcy."

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. That it was so understood generally by the Chinese people, and by the Chinese to whom the Chinese translation carrying the same idea had been submitted. Is that practically the effect of the translation, in your opinion?

Mr. FERGUSON. I might state that the official language of that treaty, of course-of the Lansing-Ishii agreement-is the English language, and that the official copy of it transmitted to the Chinese Government must necessarily be the English copy; but that concurrently with its transmission to China by both the United States and Japan, a Chinese translation was appended, and the translation given by the American legation in Peking was different from that given by the Japanese legation in Peking

Senator BRANDEGEE. But what I understood Mr. Millard to say was that the Japanese gave out the Lansing-Ishii agreement to the Russians several days before the date when it was understood that it should be given out, and that they furnished to China a Japanese translation and a Chinese translation for use in China.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. That was the Japanese translation of the English official text into Japanese and Chinese both?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.
Senator BRANDEGEE. For the benefit of China ?
Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Did that Chinese translation which the Japanese made and which was given to China carry the idea of anything mose than the special interests of geographical propinquity or contiguity ? Mr. FERGUSON. It did. It gave the idea of special interests.

Senator McCUMBER. Do you mean by that, "paramount interests?", That is, the real question is whether the translation really meant "paramount interests" or simply "special interests ?''

Senator Moses. Dr. Millard's testimony was that the translation amounts to "paramountcy.” I think that was his exact language.

Mr. FERGUSON. I should have said rather that it was more correct to say that it was “special interests" rather than "paramountcy."

Senator McCUMBER. That is, the Chinese--

Mr. FERGUSON. The Chinese translation of that document as furnished by the Japanese Government to China conveyed the idea of special interests.

Senator McCUMBER. Rather than paramount interests?
Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You have read Mr. Lansing's testimony before this committee?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You remember he stated that Viscount Ishii wanted him (Lansing) to agree to the insertion in the understanding, in addition to the words “special interests," of the words "and influence.”

Mr. FERGUSON. And influence.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Which Lansing would not agree to because he thought the words and influence" would carry the idea of some political interest.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. But you say the English was the official text of the understanding.

Mr. FERGUSON. The English was the official text; and I might say that for its own guidance the Chinese Government has made its own official translation of the text and that this translation agrees much more nearly with that made by the American legation than that made by the Japanese legation.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Did they dispute the interpretation put upon it by the Japanese foreign office or Government?

Mr. FERGUSON. They changed it.
Senator BRANDEGEE. The Chinese changed it?
Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; the Chinese changed it.

Senator BRANDEGEE. But did they resent or repudiate the understanding that Japan has as to her interest in China ?

Mr. FERGUSON. China officially communicated both to the Government of Japan and to this Government that it did not consider itself bound, so far as its relations with either of the two contracting powers were concerned, by any contract which they made between themselves. That was the summary of the position that China took in the matter.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Senator McCumber makes the suggestion that I should have first asked whether you knew what the Japanese interpretation of the agreement was.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCUMBER. And what was it with reference to the special or paramount interest?

Mr. FERGUSON. I should say that the Japanese interpretation of it was that Japan has special influence in the affairs of China. I have not the Lansing-Ishii agreement before me at the moment to quote exactly the wording of it, but that phrase was translated in such a way that it became a recognition on the part of the United States that Japan has special influence in China.

Senator McCUMBER. I understood by the testimony of Mr. Millard-and Senators may correct me if I am in error---that the Japanese agreement as translated by them used the word or words as meaning not that Japan had a special influence, but that Japan had a paramount interest, and what we would like to get from you--and I think that is what the Senator from Connecticut means to get at-is whether your understanding is that the Japanese translation uses a word that is equivalent to the word "paramount”?

Mr. FERGUSON. Might I explain, sir, that I place no importance upon the question one way or another, the English text being the official text as communicated to the Chinese Government; and the Chinese, recognizing the probable effect, that it would minimize the effect of that agreement and that the Japanese Government would make it as great as possible, to protect its own interest, made its own translation, which it considers, as far as it is concerned, its interpretation of the meaning of these notes which were exchanged in the English language..

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lansing, when he testified, emphasized the point that he had declined to admit the word "influence.” He thought "influence" would convey far more than he intended, and it was kept out. Was there anything in the Chinese translation furnished by the Japanese and published in China which conveyed the idea that the word “influence” was in the treaty? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir; distinctly.

Senator JOHNSON of California. That is the point of the present inquiry, as I understand it.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. What claim is made by the Japanese under this particular agreement; not what is the real construction of the agreement, and not what the United States thinks concerning it, but what is the claim of the Japanese under that agreement ?

Mr. FERGUSON. That is stated by the chairman, that the idea of "influence” was included in the Japanese translation.

The CHAIRMAN. In the Japanese version published in China ?
Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Inasmuch as the English is the official text of the understanding, I would like to insert a brief extract from the Lansing-Ishii agreement which appears on page 225 of these hearings, part 7. Secretary Lansing put that in. This reads as follows:

The Governments of the United States and Japan recognize that territorial propinquity creates special relations between countries, and consequently the Government of the United States recognizes that Japan has special interests in China, particularly in the part to which her possessions are contiguous.

The territorial sovereignty of China, nevertheless, remains unimpaired, and the Government of the United States has every confidence in the repeated assurances of the Imperial Japanese Government that while geographical position gives Japan guch special interests, they have no desire to discriminate against the trade of other nations or to disregard the commercial rights heretofore granted by China in treaties with other powers.

The Government, of the United States and Japan deny that they have any purpose to infringe in any way the independence or territorial integrity of China, and they declare, furthermore, that they always adhere to the principle of the so-called “open door" or equal opportunity for commerce and industry in China.

Moreover, they mutually declare that they are opposed to the acquisition by any government of any special rights or privileges that would affect the independence or territorial integrity of China, or that would deny to the subjects or citizens of any country the full enjoyment of equal opportunity in the commerce and industry of China.

And Japan wrote an identical note agreeing to that.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir. Might I say to the Senator in reference to that, that the Chinese Government was much embarassed by the conflict of the interpretations which were given to it by the two legations, the American legation and the Japanese legation, the American legation emphasizing that the purport of the Lansing-Ishii agreement was to confirm the principle of the “open door” and equal opportunity, and the Japanese Government emphasizing the fact that the purport of the agreement was to recognize Japan's special interests in China. For that reason the Chinese Government issued the statement which it did.

Senator JOHNSON of California. At the time the Lansing-Ishii agreement was made, China and the United States were on the most friendly terms, were they not?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And at that time we had already stated to the world our principles in the new world era of self-determination of the rights of weak nations, their protection, and that they should not be permitted to be traded upon by the strong. Do you recall those circumstances, which in substance I have stated, but not verbatim ?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir; those were given out through the American legation in Peking and published widely through the Chinese press.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Now during the time of the negotiations between Secretary of State Lansing and Ishii, was China invited to participate?

Mr. FERGUSON. Not to my knowledge, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. In determining the interests of Japan of one sort or another, as the case may be, and of China, was China consulted at all by the United States, its friend ?

Mr. FERGUSON. At the time of the Lansing-Ishii agreement, you mean?

Senator JOHNSON of California. Yes, sir.
Mr. FERGUSON. No, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And did China know anything about the disposition of China, so far as she was disposed of in the Lansing-Ishii agreement, until after it had been consummated, signed, and executed ? Mr. FERGUSON. Absolutely not.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You recall, of course, the 21 demands that were made by Japan upon China ?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you remember that at the time of the first suggestion of those demands, Japan enjoined upon China silence, and asked or demanded that China should not make known the demands?

Mr. FERGUSON. That was an explicit demand by the Japanese minister who presented them to the President of China.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you recall subsequently, when they had been published or had become known to other powers, a

specific public denial made by Japan that any such demands had been made?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir.
Senator JOHNSON of California. Was there such denial ?
Mr. FERGUSON. There was.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you recall that subsequently to that time, when the matter had become sufficiently public so that the other nations were inquiring, Japan stated to the other nations the demands that had been made?

Mr. FERGUSON. It gave a version.
Senator JOHNSON of California. That is what I mean.
Mr. FERGUSON. Those were communicated to several powers.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Will you state whether or not that version was an accurate one or an entirely distorted version of the 21 points or demands?

Mr. FERGUSON. There were three versions of the 21 demands. There was the original version as handed to the President of China, January 18, 1915, by the Japanese minister; there is an incorrect version as communicated by the Japanese Government to the other powers in response to their inquiries; and there is the third version, which is Japan's revised demands as presented to China, April 26, 1915.

Senator JOHNSON of California. This last revised version omitted some of the original demands, did it not?

Mr. FERGUSON. It omitted Group 5, but provided that several of the items under group 5 should be arranged by the exchange of notes between China and Japan. The most notable omission in the third version of these demands was in reference to nothing being given to any third power. I should say the most notable omission or change in the second and third versions from the first version was the omission of what was recognized everywhere to be a very objectionable phrase, and that is reference to any third power.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Let me chronologically state the situation, and then will you please say whether or not I state it accurately. Japan presented, in January, 21 demands to China.

Mr. FERGUSON. Under five groups.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Under five groups. At the time of the presentation of those demands Japan commanded China to keep still about it and not to communicate them to the world. Thereafter they were either communicated by China or learned by other powers, who requested of Japan a statement concerning the demand, whereupon Japan, to the powers thus asking, communicated a statement of the demands at variance with the fact and not the demands that she had presented to China. Thereafter protests were made and group 5 of the demands was withdrawn by Japan. Thereafter an ultimatum was issued by Japan to China concerning the other demands, backed up by preparation of its military and its naval forces, and then China yielded to the demands, with the elimination of group 5, because of the military and naval preparations which were about to carry into effect Japan's intentions. Have I stated it correctly?

Mr. FERGUSON. I should say yes, sir, with the exception of this fact, that from the presentation of the demands—the first instance until the final agreement which led up to the ultimatum-to the final

« ПретходнаНастави »