FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1934, VOLUME III



May 2, 1934,1 which pointed out that the general tone of the responsible
daily press (likewise prevalent in conversations) was an attempt to
whitewash the intent of Japanese policy because of the alleged satis-
factory assurances that have been received in reply to inquiries made
at Tokyo and especially because of specific assurances that in any event
Japanese policy was not directed against Great Britain. A contrary
view is expressed in the Economist of May 5th (copy attached).' An
Evening Standard cartoon (copy attached)' is also an unconscious
endorsement of this contrary point of view.
  Sir John Simon's statement to the House of Commons on April
30th contained the reference which gave rise to question 3 in the De-
partment's telegraphic instruction No. 176, May 2, 4 p. m. When a
written question is asked of the Foreign Secretary in the House of
Commons it is submitted to the geographical department of the
Foreign Office to frame a reply in the first instance. The present
head of the Far Eastern Department, Mr. Orde, is away on leave and
his assistant apparently drafted the reply Simon made (my No. 213,
April 30, 5 p. m.). Since then the Chinese Legation and the press
have been closely questioning the Foreign Office as to the particular
significance of the phrase. In every case it has been pointed out that
the phraseology had no hidden meaning and was intended merely
to describe certain rights and concessions which Japan enjoyed and
were not shared by other Powers, as, for instance, Japanese conces-
sions in Hankow and Tientsin and certain policing rights with rail-
ways (i. e., the South Manchuria Railway was tentatively mentioned
on one occasion; on another occasion the Kiukian Railway). When
the Acting Chief of the Far Eastern Department was asked by a
member of my staff about this particular phrase he was obviously
pervious on this point and conveyed the impression that he had in
truth framed the draft reply for Sir John Simon to read in the House
of Commons. "Obviously the phrase was an unfortunate one, but
not intended to cover any special significance, for", said this Acting
Chief, "Great Britain has certain rights in China that are not shared
by other countries, as we know France has, etc., and we wanted merely
to make clear that whatever Japan had in this category of rights were
,also excepted."
  The above, I believe, is the correct interpretation of this phrase and,
in my opinion, no particular significance should be attached to it.
  In presenting this chronological diary of official statements and
press reports on the Japanese statement I venture also to set forth
certain points of view that have been expressed repeatedly as con-
siderations the Government had in mind in reaching its determination
of policy.
  The two compelling problems before the British Government are,
  Not printed.



168