What President Monroe's ultimatum in 1823 meant to the Holy Alliance and Fillmore's mes sage through Webster to Austria in 1850, and Cleveland's word in 1895 to Great Britain in the Venezuela matter — all of them republishing the Monroe Doctrine— Japan's actions have meant to all conquering nations who talk about such monopolies as 'the control of the Pacific,' 'British Supremacy,' or "interests* of any sort, which are opposed to international law. Seeing that it was highly probable that, after the waste of the Great War, European nations would expect to do what Holland did with Java, Britain with India, and France with Africa— pay their national debts by grinding the faces of the Asiatics — Japan took opportunity by the forelock. Her motives in the China affair of 1916 were at least as honorable and even as altruistic — so far as intelligent self-interest would allow — as were the motives of the European powers that once seized America, Africa, Asia and Polynesia. The actual result, for the benefit of mankind, was to awaken China from her almost soulless slumber and to give her a new soul, uniting the nation as never before and replacing race pride with patriotism.
That this idea of defense against the land hungry nations of Europe was not a new or even recent one, born of the ambitions of an upstart people who had borrowed modern artil lery and diplomacy, is clear to all familiar with that notable body of historical literature, pro duced in Japan since the Russian descents on Saghalien, in 1807. How thoroughly the Japanese fear of European conquest— with the example of subjugated India and Java and the humbled China of 1860 before them is seen in the answer Liven to Dr. T. M. Ferris in New York, in 1866, when questioning the first two students arriving from Japan, as to what brought them so far, even to America. 'We came to learn how to make big cannon, so that we shall not be conquered' was their instant and ingenuous reply.
In contrasting the relative action and pro longed policy of Japan and China, in their first meeting with the nations of the West, we note a startling difference. Building another Great Wall of conceit, trusting to her traditions and choosing intrigue as her chief weapon of de fense, by playing off one selfish power or sordid interest against another, China made, during the decades of her humiliation, no serious effort, as did Japan, to win and hold a place of honor among the nations, by interior reformation and appropriate outward respect. Never, until late in the 19th century, did China make decent recognition of either foreign governments or international law, ignoring even the existence of her people abroad, and so ultimately had to yield in impotent fear to all threats. On the other hand, Japan acknowledged the age-long folly of her isolation, broke the crust of in herited conceit, confessed her defects, sought for alien talent and industry over all the world according to the mikado's oath of 186£3, abol ished feudalism, recreated her industries and kept most scrupulously all her engagements, whether of treaties, agreements' or Open Door arrangements, as those who deal with facts not fears agree. Had China awak
ened, 70 years ago, from sloth, ease and age crusted conceit, as she did awake after 7 May 1915, there would have been, for neither Japan or China, any Anglo-Japanese Alliance, or Russo-Japanese War, and no German-Japanese War. It has been the supreme purpose of Japan to have China realize these truths. The very fact that the Japanese have felt the wounds and retain the scars at which others jest, ex plains her terrible sincerity in teaching Ohina the lesson of 7 May 1915. That China should employ Japanese political, financial and mili tary advisers (Japan having already employed and benefited by over 5,000 of them, chosen from at least 20 nations) is in no way strange. Of the 3,938 foreign employees in China there were, is 1914, 1,105 British, 1,003 French, 533 German, 463 Russian, 174 Americans and others, but only 245 Japanese. As for partial control of China's armed forces, why should not China profit from the Japanese, as well as from Occi dentals, to gain what she has never had — uni formity and the best results—in place of the waste, inefficiency and the confusion arising from the variety of arms and ammunition, in cluding infantry rifles of 10 or a dozen calibres? As for the right to propagate religion, only the decadent and bigoted nations still in mediaeval darkness would think of opposing the proposi tion. Japan, since she opened her ports, and especially since 1873, has far surpassed some European nations in freedom of conscience. The hostile critics of Japan, who argue from fore bodings rather than realities, seem to forget the history of European, British or American aggressions from Monroe to McKinley, or else they imagine that one code of morals rules the West and another the East.
One may perhaps sum up the newspaper re ports, magazine articles and those recent books which journalism but not literature, ex aggerating the diplomatic demands of Japan and giving a sinister interpretation to all her acts and motives, in the proverb, *a guilty con science needs no accuser,' since the only new element in the case of 1915 was that it was Japan, and not an Occidental power, that by provocation roused China to new life. It is reasonably certain that those who fatten on Chinese love of conservatism who °land* big contracts, or enrich themselves or debauch the Chinese with opium, liquor and drugs, want to keep things as they are and misrepresent Japan, whose first purpose is to change things for the better. So far from China having been nationally *awakened* before 7 May 1915, the mass of her people are still like those Amer icans who, while their feet are wet with the slush of Inauguration Day, want the date changed, but forget all about the matter when their feet are dried. Yuan Shi Kai is reported to have said in 1916, °As soon as the trouble is over, we indulge in all kinds of pleasure for getting all the former humiliations.* Notwith standing all that has been said, China's terri torial integrity has not been disturbed by Japan, even though other powers have not only threatened but have also seriously injured and even mutilated it.