Asked if any foreigner were to resist the Japanese forces would his extraterritorial rights be respected. the spokesman pointed out that in any case of a person threatening the safety of the Japanese forces in occupied territory it was only natural that his extraterritorial rights would be limited. As a matter of principal extraterritorial rights would be respected but in any case where action taken was of a character to endanger the safety of the Japanese forces in occupied territory such rights would be subject to limitation.
It would not be a question of application to law but of direct action necessary to maintain the safety of the Japanese Forces, It would be an act of law but a summary act, Asked if after investigations had been concluded would a detained person be handed over to his own authorities, the spokesman said "Such action would be the ordinary procedure and the most desirable, but there are cer. tain circumstances in which individual cases must 5e considered on their merits, and in such circumstances I am not prepared to gen-oralize on the matter and give you u sweeping conclusion."
if action was not summarily executed extraterritorial rights would be respected. There was no difference as to the time limit between a summary action and a legal action. The question of extraterritoriality was a question which involved China and not Japan and should be considered in an entirely different light. Extraterritoriality would be taken into consideration and duly respected by Japan
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.