Japanese spokesmen continue to refer to the terms of the Ho-Umetsu agreement of 1935 in reinforcement of their contention that certain actions of the Chinese authorities in the North and at Nanking are in contra vention of the understanding embodied in that pact. Chinese denials of the accuracy of these aspersions on their good faith appear to sug> gest, first, that the so-called agreement does not exist in writing, and, secondly, that it is purely verbal and relative to a specific situation and to specific formations involved in that {uation at a time which has now passed. If it is seriously argued that the agreement has a direct bearing on the. present differences in the North it is difficult to see why the Japanese cannot produce its actual text or purport, and so solve doubts on either side. It has to be remembered that General Ho Ying-chin who one of the parties ta the document is still Minister of War, General Umetsu being Vice-Minister of War in Tokyo, If some of the Japanese statements regarding the effect of the agreement are correct then it would seem that a serious misunderstanding exists for they do not appear to tally with the definition policy propounded by General Chiang Kai-shek and presumably supported by General Ho Ying-chin, Publication of the agreement should clear the air in more ways than, one.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.