In an enthusiastic defence of journalistic honour—including that of Reuters Agency—the "North-China Daily News" this morning intimated that the Japanese Army spokesman had made statements impugning the integrity of all foreign correspondents in China, and called upon him to present proof that two foreign jour-rialists had been bribed by the Hankow authorities to disseminate information unfavourable to the Japanese.
"We feel that in his enthusiasm to defend Reuter's, the learned writer of the editorial let accuracy fall by the wayside.
"The editorial, it seems, was based upon a Reuter report from Tokyo purporting to be a translation of a dispatch appearing in the Tokyo "Nichi-Nichi" It may have been a misunderstanding caused by the tenor of this report or brought about by the lack of information in the hands the "North-China Daily "At no time have the Japanese military authorities—here dr else where—accused two foreign coi pondents' of receiving bribes from the Chinese.
"The introduction to the dispatch referred to the discovery by tht Japanese military authorities of the documents—which, prima f: ndicate that Reuter's was being direct. ly subsidized by the Kuomintang.
"Nothing to Add"
"We have made public ow views with regard to these documents and to Mr. Chancellor's explanation published in Shanghai yesterday. We have nothing to add on this point, "But, we must remind the writer of the editorial of the "North-China Daily News" that, when questioned on Wednesday with regard to the charges against the two' unnamed foreign correspondents, we plainly stated that the charges had been made by the "Nichi-Nichi" on the basis of its own information. If we may use professional terms, the facts gleaned by the Japanese military authorities with regard to Reuter's provided a good lead' for some material the Tokyo daily had obtained m its own sources of information.
"When we stated: "The documents upon which the allegation is based are available, and steps will be taken to have them brought and presented to you for your inspection,' we referred only to the facts regarding Reuter's. Since we never have made the reported charges against the two correspondents we find no cause to trove them.
"The learned writer of the editorial, to which we are referring, garbled his facts—either from mising formation or a lack of information. We cannot belie' that the garbling was done in malice.
Speaking of a lack of information, the editorial writer also seems to have been unaware of the statements made here yesterday evening, which answered several of the points which he raised in the course of his most dignified editorial.
"Also were we unable to find in this morning's issue of the "N.C.D.N," our statement countering the absurd' one published by Mr, Chancellor esterday.
In view of the fact that the editorial is more than misleading, and in order to dispel any misunderstanding, we wish to make these points clear, not only for the sake of the integrity of you, gentlemen, but also in order to maintain the integrity and the honour of this spokesman, Hence this statement at this time."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.