FAR-REACHING STEP

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 257, 28 July 1939, Page 9

FAR-REACHING STEP

Interpretations Are Varied SIX MONTHS’ TEST OF JAPAN’S CONDUCT Decision Outstandingly Political By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright. (Received July 27, 10.50 p.m.) WASHINGTON, July 27. In the sudden dramatic move expressive of displeasure at Japan s course in China and what is considered in some quarters as. a counter-move to the ostensible efforts by Britain to conciliate Japan, the United States’ abrogation of the 28-year-old commercial treaty with Tokio left Americans wondering what exactly will be the ultimate repercussions of this farreaching step. It can generally be said that the step will have the wide approval of the nation, but the precise bounds in which its effects will fall must still be a subject of guesswork. Experienced observers here show considerable variance in their interpretations. Thus the “New York Times’s" Washington correspondent stresses that the implications of the abrogation were more political than economic, and that it would be necessary to go back to the French Revolution, with the French raids on American commerce, to find a close parallel to what is so obviously a retaliatory political measure. Limitless Penalties. The Washington correspondent of the Associated Press of America insists that it “gives the United States six months in which to make up its mind about an embargo and also gives Japan a similar period to alter her course.” Officials hope it will have a beneficial effect in bringing Japan to her political senses so that an embargo will not be necessary. The Washington correspondent of the United Press says the abrogation has put the United States not only in a position to impose a war materials embargo but also to impose virtually limitless economic penalties. Japan would be in a position to retaliate, but, since she is less self-sufficient than the United States, experts believe she would suffer far more in a struggle of embargoes and trade restrictions. Japan’s Six Months. The news of the abrogation came so late and with such surprising suddenness that both editorial comment and expressions of Congressional opinion—the latter so necessary for backing up the President’s policy—were generallylacking. However, from leading figures of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which apparently had debated so vainly all day while Messrs. Hull and Roosevelt waited till the last moment before releasing their bolt, there were some significant observations. Senator Vandenberg said he was glad Messrs. Hull and Roosevelt did what they did. “Japan now has six months in which to justify a continuation of friendly American relations. I expect the net result to be a new agreement which will vindicate American rights.” Senator Pittman said: “It is a wise and justifiable act. You can hardly expect our Government to conform to all the requirements of amity under one treaty while the other Government does not conform to all the requirements of amity under another (the Nine-Power Treaty).’’