To the Editor of the "NonrH-CHina Datty News."
Sin—There seems to be some confusion of thought as to the right of the Chinese Government to demand a revision of foreign treaties, The following statement may mal the position clearer.
In the treaties between China and Great Britain (1858), Denmark (1863), France (1885 and 1886), Italy (1866), Japan (1896), Portugal (1887), Spain (1864), and at stated intervals of the tariff and commercial articles, but in none of these treaties or' in any other treaties with these countries. (save France) is there aay provision for 'a revision of any clauses conferring extraterritorial privileges on foreigners.
In the treaties between China and Belgium (1865) and France (1844 and 1858) provision ie made for the revision of the whole treaty (including the clauses conferring extraterritorial rights), but the unilatevial' in so far in tive towards revision with the foreign power.
In the treaties between China and Brazil (1898), Mexico (1874), and the United States (1903) provision is made for the revision of tae whole treaty, both parties having equal rights of initiative. The ox-tra territorial rights of United States citizens, however, are not based on this treaty.
In every case, it must be borne in mind, there Ib a "most favoured ation" clause protecting the foreign contracting party from any unfair discrimination, Tam, ete, Up Country, Nov. 8, 1926,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.