American English means, giving the under dog a chance.

China became a Republic just a few years ago and in our struggles toward unity we are having many of the troubles that every nation has gone through in the fight for liberty. It required America more than three quarters of a century to accomplish national unity after the Colonies achieved independence. Americans of all peoples should have sympathy with other peoples who are trying to accomplish the same thing that you have accomplished. I ask you especially to bear these things in mind when you read newspaper stories, which are often exaggerated, regarding disorders in China. Bear in mind especially that internal troubles are more often signs of growth and development-certainly they are not indications of stagnation. Our chief difficulty in China has been that we have not had a free opportunity to work out our own national salvation; we have constantly been subject to the worst forms of foreign aggres sion and exploitation. Powerful nations with covetous eyes upon our rich undeveloped resources have used the modern weapons of civilization to hinder our growth and befog our purposes. America has never entered into this struggle for territory and political economic domination in China. On the contrary the policy of your country has always been one of helpful sympathetic interest and need I do more than point to the attempt of the present Administration to bring about through peaceful discussion a settlement of the troublesome questions affecting the future peace of your country, of my country, and of all other countries having interests in the Pacific.

The return of the surplus of the American portion of the Boxer indemnity payments, is a shining example of your altruistic interest in helping my people. And my Government in its decision to use that money in the education of her young men and young

women in your institutions of learning is but showing the gratitude of the people of China toward America. We want our young men and women to learn your methods of development and your spirit of freedom in order that they may return home and apply these vital things to the development of our institutions and country to the end that the result may be a unity of ideas, ideals, and ambitions on both sides of the great Pacific Ocean that will resu't in untold blessings in the future peace of the world.

In a wild country where there has been no development of law, men are accustomed to going about armed. If Smith purchases a new revolver, then Brown, his nearest neighbor, purchases a rifle. Some day trouble starts and there is much shooting and men are killed. The number killed depends upon the number involved and the strength of their armament. The greater armament, the greater destruction, might be considered a settled principle. In their every day relations modern men have found that it doesn't pay to depend upon brute strengh in settling their differences. They have adopted certain principles of justice which draw the line between right and wrong and they abide by the decisions. In America this has been especially true not only among individuals, but among the various states of the American commonwealth. Why shouldn't the same principles of justice apply in relations of the various nations in the Pacific?

Surely there is sufficient wealth and room for all of us. The European War demonstrated that no single nation can ever expect to dominate the world and use its resource of treasure and man power for selfish ends, and to the detriment of other nations. It required a terrible war to demonstrate that in Europe. With this horrible example ever present in our minds, why can't we use our good common sense and settle our troubles in the Pacific by peaceful means?

C

OLOSSAL changes have taken place in China since I first saw it twenty-two years ago. Then, the Manchus were in power and the Empire, which had already lasted for ages, seemed secure for the future; today, China is a Republic. Then, also a system of education was in operation, which for many centuries had supplied the governing officials of China; today, that classical system of education is gone and Western education has taken its place. Then,one heard everywhere that while the Chinese were very democratic in their local affairs, they were not animated by

a national consciousness and were lacking in patriotism for the country as a whole; today, despite serious divisions, a strong national consciousness is in existence and an aggressive patriotism is actuating the leaders of China and the rising generation.

Disraeli used to say that in politics it is the unexpected that happens. What we have seen in China confirms that dictum. A score of years ago, even the wildest dreamer at the height of his most fantastic imaginings could not have forecast what has actually taken place in China.

Fortunately, no change has taken place in the relations between China and the United States. These are today relations of peace and friendship. China has always been a pacifist nation, and America at least pacific. We both cherish and practice the ideals of peace and with peace unbroken it has been easy to maintain friendship.

While officially the relations are the same practically, I think they are more

cordial than ever before. This is due to the fact that China has, as it were, come our way; has adopted our political ideas in the establishment of her new Republic; and the educational system of America is, I suppose, having more influence on modern China than that of any other country. Ours is the oldest large Republic in the world, and it would be strange if out of the wealth of our experience we were not able to furnish help to the youngest of Republics. Such questions as the framing of a Constitution, the relations of the States to the

Central government, the rights and liberties of individual citizens, which have been thrashed out and settled in

the United States, are still burning issues in China. The history of the United States cannot fail to prove illuminating and instructive to the Chinese people as they face an attempt to settle these great issues.

There is one peculiarity in the relations of the United States to China. which deserves to be specially signalized. The service we have rendered and are rendering to China is as disinterested and altruistic as any service can be on the part of beings who act under the stress of complex motives. No doubt Americans are selfish as other people are selfish but the point I am making is that in our relation to China our conduct has been largely determined by unselfish considerations. We ask nothing of China for ourselves; we want none of her territory; we

An address before the American Association and the American Chamber of Commerce of China at a dinner in Minister Schurman's honor, Shanghai, August 26, and reprinted with permission from the Weekly Review of the Far East, Sept. 3, 1921.

desire no special concessions; and whatever comes to us, we are willing to share on equal terms with others. The political altruism of the American people in relation to China is nobly illustrated in the self-sacrificing devo tion of the thousands of American Missionaries and teachers who have come here to dispense to the Chinese people the blessings of the Christian religion and modern knowledge and science.

I once heard President McKinley's great Secretary of State, John Hay, say before a dinner of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, that the foreign policy of the United States was summed up in two principles: the Monroe Doctrine and the Golden Rule. Under the Monroe Doctrine, we have protected the independence of the peoples of Central and South America against aggressions on the part of foreign nations. I think I may say without boasting, that towards China our national conduct has very largely illustrated the principle of the Golden Rule.

What is the policy of the United States toward China?

I answer in a word: We stand for the integrity of China and for the Open Door. We want China to remain in possession and control of her own territory and to be mistress in her own house, and we want in China the open door to the trade and commerce of all nations on equal terms.

When I first visited China in 1899, its territorial integrity and independence were menaced by the so-called policy of "Spheres of Influence." The partition of China was openly discussed and different parts were assigned to different European nations as areas of predominant influence. The sphere of one European nation was in the South; the sphere of another in the Yangtsze valley; while two or three other nations were contending for exclusive spheres in North China.

We can see how this policy, so dangerous to the integrity of China, grew out of the existence of treaty ports and leased territories. From the

point of view of the foreigner, it was not unnatural extension and development of an existing situation. For China, however, the result would have been a fatal infringement of her sovereignty. Those spheres of foreign influence would have been so many enclaves virtually outside of Chinese jurisdiction and beyond Chinese control.

Happily the carving of foreign provinces out of the Manchu Empire was prevented by the Revolution of 1911 with the concomitant acceptance by the Chinese people of Western ideas of popular government.

But even before this menace to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of China had disappeared another instrument of disintegration had been devised far less crude, more subtle, and equally effective. The new weapon was the enforced railway concession with the "railway-zone" and the estab lishment of foreign police control and military garrisons. I need not dwell on the unhappy effects of this practice, for you are all familiar with them. It is more agreeable to ask how China may get back her territory unencumbered and be re-instated in her sovereignity unimpaired.

I note that eminent publicists in China are not agreed in the solution of this problem. One school recommends the internationalization of all Chinese railways. Another school advocates their nationalization on the ground that as things are today, all railways on Chinese soil are a vital portion of Chinese sovereignty.

I shall not enter with my limited knowledge into the discussion of this issue, which, however, I deem of momentous significance. The end aimed at by both schools is the safeguarding of China against foreign aggression and the restoration to China of her full sovereign rights. Both would make China absolute mistress in her own unabridged domain. And what I am especially concerned to emphasize is that this object coincides with the standing American policy of the terri

torial integrity and unimpaired sovereignty of China.

The divorce of foreign political preorganized last year by the banking tensions from financial claims against Chinese railroads is in harmony with the American policy and also with both the program of internationalization and that of nationalization. To this result the newly established Consortium has contributed, as it will also effectually contribute to the prevention of foreign one-nation control of Chinese railways.

The Consortium, as you know, was organized last year by the banking groups of the United States, Great Britain, France and Japan to make loans for public utilities in China. The bankers of any one particular nation-so far as they are included in the constituent banking group-are estopped from making loans for these purposes without offering participation in them to the other banking groups. So far, indeed, the Consortium has not made any loans for Chinese railroads or other public utilities. But the Consortium even though inactive has produced two favorable results. In the first place, its mere existence has prevented the bankers of any partic ular nation making such loans. The value to China of this deterrent result may be determined by the magnitude and character of the one-nation foreign loans contracted prior to the organization of the Consortium. And, secondly And, secondly the cessation of loans from abroad has stimulated the Chinese bankers themselves to furnish capital for new railroads.

No result could be more fortunate for China than this development of financial independence. And the more it is practiced the safer will be her sovereignty and territorial integrity.

I now pass from that feature of American policy to its counter-partthe Open Door. This is peculiarly an American policy. It was first formulated by Secretary Hay. It demands equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of all nations in China. It

is pre-eminently a policy of fair play. America asks nothing for herself which she is not ready to concede to others.

The policy of the Open Door may be looked at from the point of view of its prohibitions. It forbids monopolies. If the merchants or financiers of one nation acquired a monopoly in China, it would be in derogation of the equal rights of the citizens or subjects of other nations. The same thing holds true of discrimination. If any favors are shown, for example, in railroad service or railroad charges on Chinese soil they constitute a violation of the Open Door.

Discrimination sometimes openly but oftener in subtle and underhand ways, has been constantly charged. Whenever it occurs it may be an injury to American business and it is a violation of treaty rights and a contravention of the American policy of the Open Door. I need not add that such discrimination has been the prolific source of criticism and all feeling, which begining with business men here have gradually spread to wider circles of public opinion at home. I venture to assert, without fear of challenge, that nothing would contribute so much to the maintenance of good feeling between the nationals of countries having business in China as the absolute cessation of discrimination and the strictest and most conscientious practice of the policy of the Open Door in every part of China.

The governments of the Great Powers gave their assent to the American policy of the integrity of China and the Open Door in 1899. That policy, declared Secretary Hay in 1900 in a communication to our diplomatic representatives in European countries and in Japan, was "to preserve China's territorial and administrative entity, protect all rights guaranteed to friendly powers by treaty and international laws, and safeguard for the world the principle of equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese Empire."

In the treaty of alliance between Great Britain and Japan one of the

objects is declared to be the following:

"The preservation of the common interests of all the powers in China by insuring the independence and the integrity of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China."

This emphasizes, in connection with the Open Door and independence and ntegrity of China, the common interest of all the powers in China. It is the opposite of particularism on the part of any nation. China is the concern of all nations. And if any one nation should violate the integrity and independence of China or the principle of equal opportunities in trade and commerce that nation would, according to the terms of the British-Japanese treaty of alliance invade "the common interests of all the powers in China." The same thought may be expressed in another way. All nations have "common interests" in China. How are these "common interests" to be preserved? The answer is-by the maintenance of the independence and integrity of China and the principle of the Open Door. Per contra any infringement of these is a blow at "the common interests of all the powers in China."

It is the policy of a free field and no favors that controls American trade with China. We are aware that there are nations who have directed their diplomacy to securing for their nationals here special economic privileges.

China offers incalculable commercial prizes to those who can win them. But under the established policy of the United States, Americans must win them, if at all, in a free, fair and open struggle with competitors from all the world. All we ask is that our rivals in this friendly competition shall not be granted special advantages over us. We demand common and equal economic conditions, and the common and equal accessibility to markets. I can assure American business men in China that American diplomacy under the administration of President Harding

will be vigilant in the protection of the rights and interests of America and of American citizens. American business is entitled to the same treatment as all other foreign foreign business in China, whether in respect of production, transportation, distribution or in any other regard. The instrumentalities of communication are of immense value to modern business, as are also of course the oceanic landing-places which are indispensable to their operation. The attitude of the American government towards our rights and interests in this part of the world may be clearly discerned in that important document in which Secretary Hughes, with reference to one of these stations, declared that "there would be no valid or effective disposition of the overseas possessions of Germany now under consideration without the assent of the United States."

With adequate protection on the part of the government I suppose the next essential to the successful prosecution of business in China is cooperation with the Chinese. The representatives of large American concerns declare that if American business in China is to compete successfully with that of other nations, it must freely cooperate with native business in local enterprises, and secondly, it must liberally invest its surplus capital in the development of industries, natural resources, and public worksthus taking an active part in the industrial and commercial life of China.

I have no doubt that it is sound advice in ordinary times. And it has further recommendation in its favor that American business men in benefiting themselves also benefit equally their Chinese partners, to say nothing of the indirect advantages that flow to the Chinese consumer. And I must add that it is perhaps possible even today to carry out the first direction, namely, cooperation with the Chinese in local enterprises. But when it coms to investing surplus capital anywhere, the decline in the price of silver and the world wide depression in business