CHINA'S FIGHT FOR SHANTUNG

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 9, 6 October 1919, Page 5

CHINA'S FIGHT FOR SHANTUNG

AN AMERICAN VIEW NO MORAL STRENGTH ON JAPAN'S SIDE Mr. Harry H. Merrick, president of tho Chicago Association of Commerce, the largest organisation of business men iu tho West, in a recent statement to a representative of "The Christian Science Monitor.'i spoke strongly against American acquiesence in the wresting of the province of Shantung from China. "It. would be a contravention of justice and a violation of the rights of weak .nations," he said. "The United States entered the world war, not for gain, not for territory, but to uphold a principle which this action of the Peace Conference undeniably violates. ' "Can there be a greater injustice under the new moral code which we are led to believe has resulted from tho war than to place under foreign dominion 35,000,000 Chinese, without, their consent? What about self-determination?. Are not the people of Shantung entitled to as much in the matter' of self-determination as the peoples of the small States of Europe? ' Historical Comparison. "Shantung was taken from China by Germany by force. It should' be returned to China just as SehleswigHolßtein is to be Teturndd to Denmark. Morally there is no difference between tho two propositions. ' "The Chinese, like the other nations associated against tho Central Powers, believed, as they were fully justified in doing, that the peace treaty when finally drafted would fullv protect their rights equally with the rights of other nations, and in harmony with the principles which banded together the countries allied against Germany. "The administration of Shantung by an alien country must inevitably result in unrest and friction and become a fruitful causa for war in the future, from which the United States can hardly be expocted to escape. Duty of Friendship. "The United States has always stood for the integrity of Chinese territory. This policy possesses greater significance since China became a republic. Wo Bhould not relax in our efforts to mainfain Chineso integrity. We owe that much at least, as the traditional friends of China. Entirely apart from the commercial significance of our action, wo should 6tand firmly opposed to any'foTced disruption of the Chinese Eopublic. No other position is tenable with our previous attitude toward China, which has learned to look to America for sympathy, guidance, and support in the development of its national life. The. Chinese people lmve come to regard tho United States as tfro one nation whoso dealings with them were free from suspicion, doubt, or the taint of self-interest. For tho United States to agree to the ceding of Shantung, or even stand by and allow that to tako place without protest, would never be understood by tho people of China. They would feel that nil confidence in the word of America had been misplaced. The only position, consistent with our relations • ith China, is to stand firmly for absolute justice for the Chineso Republic in this question."

(The cable news in this issue accredited to the London "Timea" has appeared in that journal, but only -where cipresjly Btated Ib such news tho editorial opinion of the "Timei,")