.
OCT 11.1919
WHY CHINA REFUSED
TO SIGN THE PEACE
Det TREATY
255
Published by
CHINESE PATRIOTIC COMMITTEE
New York City
:
::
July, 1919
IMPORTANT -ANNOUNCEMENT
Owing to the absence of Mr. K. P. Wang, the
Secretary of the Committee, please address all
communications temporarily to
MR. Q. K. CHEN
1ogo Amsterdam Avenue
New York City
6 см , .
MAY 24 1944
WHY CHINA REFUSED TO SIGN THE
PEACE TREATY
China's refusal to sign the Peace Treaty seems
to have somewhat surprised the whole world.
Some people may scoff at her action but many
more have openly admired her stand. The reason
for China's refusal is very simple. She refused to
sign the Treaty because she could not recognize
nor acquiesce in the perpetuation of a crime com-
mitted by Germany in 1898. China has no objec-
tion to the Treaty except the unjust Shantung
clauses which read as follows:
ARTICLE 156.-Germany renounces, in favor of
Japan, all her rights, titles and privileges--partic-
ularly those concerning the territory of Kiao-Chau,
railways, mines and submarine cables, which she
acquired in virtue of the treaty concluded by her
with China on March 6, 1898, and of all other
arrangements relative to the Province of Shantung.
All German rights in the Tsing-tao-Tsinan-Fu
Railway, including its branch lines, together with
its subsidiary stock of all kinds, stations, shops,
fixed and rolling stock, mines, plant and material
for the exploitation of the mines are and remain
acquired by Japan, together with all rights and
privileges attaching thereto.
The German State submarine cables from Tsing-
tao to Shanghai and from Tsing-tao to Che Foo,
with all the rights, privileges and properties at-
taching thereto, are similarly acquired by Japan,
free and clear of all charges and incumbrances.
ARTICLE 157.—The movable and immovable
property owned by the German State in the terri-
tory of Kiaochow, as well as the rights that Ger-
rnany might claim in consequence of the works or
improvements made or of the expense incurred by
her, directly or indirectly, in connection with this
territory, are and remain acquired by Japan, free
and clear of all charges and incumbrances.
ARTICLE 158.--Germany shall hand over to
Japan within three months from the coming into
force of the present treaty the archives, registers,
plans, title deeds and documents of every kind,
wherever they may be, relating to the administra-
tion, whether civil, military, financial, judicial or
TY
Within the same period Germany shall give par-
ticulars to Japan of all treaties, arrangements or
agreements relating to the rights, title or privileges
referred to įn the two preceding articles.
These are the objectionable articles which China
considers to be unfair and unjust. To understand
the facts of the case. In the year 1898 China was
forced to grant to Germany the so-called lease of
Kiao-Chau, and economic rights or concessions in
the province of Shantung, the Holy Land of China.
After the World War broke out Japan captured
Kiao-Chau and seized the economic rights. There
Japan remains, as she claims, a military occupant.
On August 14, 1917, China declared war against
Germany and abrogated all her treaties with Ger-
many, including those relating to the leased ter-
ritory and the German economic rights in Shan-
tung. This declaration of abrogation was officially
notified to and taken cognizance of by the allied
and associated powers at war with Germany. As
a result of this declaration, the territory of Kiao-
ritany, inciand abronz chinas, a mili rights.
Chau and all the German rights in Shantung have
automatically reverted to China. *
While the Chinese Delegates were presenting
China's claims to the Peace conference for the re-
storation of Kiao-Chau and German rights in Shan-
tung, Japan suddenly theatened war on China, if
China should fail “to make Japan the successor of
Germany in rights, property, and concessions held
by Germany at the outbreak of the European War.”
On February 10, 1919 the Japanese minister at
Peking was instructed by his government to remind
the Chinese Foreign Minister that "Japan had an
army of more than a million men idle at home,
fully equipped with arms and ammunition enough
to conduct a long war, and to have pointed out
that Japan had more than half a million tons of
shipping, with the intimation that this would be
ready on short notice for active work." Owing to
the firm stand of the 400,000,000 Chinese people
the threat of war on China was denied by the
autocratic Japanese government.
However, the Council of Three was frightened
by the intimation that Japan would desert the
Peace Conference, that she would combine with
Germany, and possibly Russia, if her demands
relating to Shantung were not to be complied with.
On April 30, 1919, they were hypnotized and com-
pelled to adopt the clauses drafted by Japan, name-
ly, Articles 156, 157 and 158 of the Treaty without
any regard to justice and righteousness. These
unjust articles virtually transfer to Japan the for-
mer German leased territory and rights in Shan-
tung which have already reverted to China, the
rightful owner. The statement of the Chinese
Delegation at Paris declares:
It appears clear, then, that the Council has been
bestowing on Japan the rights not of Germany, but
of China; not of an enemy, but of an ally. The
more powerful ally has reaped a benefit at the ex-
pense, not of the common enemy, but of the weaker
ally.
Who can explain to the Chinese people what
the Peace Conference really means by Justice? It
has been intimated that the decision of the
Council in granting Japan's claim was for the pur-
pose of saving the League of Nations. Here again
the statement of Chinese Delegation is worthy of
quoting:
If the Council has granted the claims of Japan in
full for the purpose of saving the League of Nations,
as is intimated to be the case, China has less to com-
plain of, believing, as she does, that it is a duty to
make sacrifices for such a noble cause as the League
of Nations. She cannot, however, refrain from
wishing that the Council had seen fit, as would be
far more consonant with the spirit of the League
now on the eve of formation, to call upon strong
Japan to forego her claims animated by a desire
for aggrandizement instead of upon weak China to
surrender what is hers by right.
The action of the Council provoked a nation-wide
protest in China. Peace Societies and individuals
poured in cablegrams and letters by the hundreds
protesting against the proposed Shantung settle-
ment and requesting the Peace Conference to re-
consider the Shantung question with due regard to
justice. On May 4, the Chinese Delegation lodged
with the Council a protest against the transfer to
Japan of the leased territory of Kiao-Chau and
certain economic rights formerly held by Germany
in Shantung. Again on May 6, H, E. Lou Tseng-
tsiang, head of the Chinese Delegation, read to the
members of the Peace Conference the following
declaration:
e Shanth, the test agahof Kaaby Geis
The Chinese delegation beg to express their
deep disappointment at the settlement proposed by
the Council of the Prime Ministers. They also
in all its intensity by the Chinese nation. The
proposed settlement appears to have been made
without giving due regard to the consideration of
right, justice and the national security of China-
consideration which the Chinese delegation em-
phasized again and again in their hearings before
the Council of the Prime Ministers against the pro-
posed settlement, in the hope of having it revised,
and if such revision cannot be had, they deem it
their duty to make a reservation on the said clauses
now.
Unbiased spectators naturally think that all these
protests, reasonable as they are, would meet with
the approval of the Council, or, at least, receive
proper consideration at the Peace table, and China
should be allowed to make the reservation she sug-
gested. But to the surprise of the whole world the
protests were cast away into the waste basket-a
strong indication that the Peace Conference was
hoodwinked and swayed by the wilful few. The
Chinese Peace Delegation, however, still pinned
faith to the Peace Conference as is evinced by the
fact that just three hours before the Versailles
meeting on June 28 they addressed the following
correspondence to M. Georges Clemenceau, Presi-
dent of the Peace Conference:
Paris, June 28, 1919.
His Excellency, Georges Clemenceau,
President of the Peace Conference:
In proceeding to sign the treaty of peace with
Germany today, the undersigned, plenipotentiaries
of the Republic of China, considering as unjust
Articles 156, 157, and 158, therein, which purport to
transfer German rights in the Chinese province of
Shantung to Japan instead of restoring them to
China, the rightful sovereign over the territory and
a loyal co-partner in war on the side of the allied
and associated powers, hereby declared in the name
and on behalf of their Government, that their sign-
ing of the treaty is not to be understood as preclud-
ing China from demanding at a suitable moment
the reconsideration of the Shantung question, to
the end that the injustice to China may be rectified
in the interest of permanent peace in the Far East.
Lou Tseng Tsiang
Chenting Thomas Wang.
In a few minutes M. Dutasta, Secretary of the
General Peace Conference reported that none of
the Big Three would consent to allow China to sign
the Treaty with the above declaration,
It is seen that the Peace Conference has denied
to the Chinese Delegates the privilage of making
any suggestions. Their proposal for revision was
rejected. Their request for making a reservation
was turned down. And their plea to make a
declaration was disregarded. Thus the Chinese
Delegates had no alternative but to refuse to sign
the treaty. Mystery still looms over the manner
in which the Council of Three decided to bestow
Chinese territory and Chinese rights in Shantung
upon Japan. It may be that the Council was cajoled
into accepting the Japanese viewpoint. Or it may
be that the Council was bulldozed into confirming
Japan's loot. Whatever may have been the method
with which Japan approached the leading per-
sonages at the Conference the Council of Three
was entirely responsible for the perpetuation of a
crime which ought to have been rectified in the
interest of justice and world peace. Japan's suc-
cess at the Peace Conference smirches the honor
and dignity of all the nations of the world. The
subtle methods of Japan have shocked the whole
civilized world and turned the tide of sentiment
China's refusal to sign the Treaty without a reser-
vation or a declaration as to Shantung clauses is a
protest against injustice as well as an appeal for
justice. The statement of the Chinese Delegation,
issued on the evening of June 28, reads in part as
follows:
After failing in all earnest attempts at con-
ciliation, and after seeing every honorable com-
promise rejected, the Chinese delegation had no
course open save to adhere to the path of duty to
their country.
Shantung articles in the treaty against which their
sense of right and justice militated, they refrained
from signing the treaty altogether. The Chinese
plenipotentiaries regret having to take a course
which appears to mar the solidarity of the allied
and associated powers, but they are firmly of the
opinion, however, that responsibility for this rests
not with themselves, who had no other honorable
course, but rather with those who, it is felt, unjustly
and unnecessarily deprived them of the right of
making a declaration to safeguard against any inter-
pretation which might preclude China from asking
for reconsideration of the Shantung question at a
suitable moment in the future, in the hope that the
injustice to China might be rectified later in the
interest of permanent peace in the Far East.
The Peace Conference having denied China
justice in the settlement of the Shantung question,
and having today, in effect, prevented the delegation
from signing the treaty without sacrificing their
sense of right, justice, and patriotic duty, the
Chinese delegates submit their case to the imperial
judgment of the world.
Now the case is at the bar of Public Opinion. The
facts of the case are already apparent. Is it right
for the Big Three to take away the Chinese terri-
tory and rights just recovered from Germany and
give them to Japan? Is it justice for the Big Three
to deny to the Chinese people affected by this Shan-
tung settlement the right of self determination ?
Is the Shantung award compatible with the world
profession for a just and stable peace?
These are the questions to which the attention
of the world is called in making its sound, impartial
and final judgment on the case.
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. China vs. Japan, February, 1919.
2. China's. Claims at the Peace Table, March, 1919
3. The Kiao-Chau Settlement. May, 1919.
4. Might or Right? May, 1919.
5. Why China Refused to Sign the Peace Treaty.
July, 1919.
These publications will be mailed upon application to
Mr. Q. K. Chen whose address is given on the second page of
the cover.