"The Japanese spokesman appears to be equally oblivious of the. fact that the reference in the ath Par graph of the Note exchanged between China and the Powers to the right of carrying on field exercises and rifle practice, ete, without arming the Chinese Authorities except in the case of feux de guerre' applied, by the very terms of the Note, only to troops stationed Tienisin and not to troops. stationed fu the other eleven points specified {n the final Protocol, "Stil less could it have applied to Lukouchigo, a place not situated along the Peking /Mukden Railway, "It may also be observed that eld exercises and rifle practice' can way be interpreted to mean Mmanceuvres on the scale of those which the Japanese have been In the habit of carrying on during the last couple of years in spite of repeated strong protests from China."
Tu conclusion, the jurist said that, in his opinion, "the Japanese "not Jonly have no legal basis for the holdimg' of manceuvres near Lukuochino, but appear to have betrayed a com= plete lack of any sense of propriety.
they had sought to oust Chinese soldiers from Fengtai after illegally Jgending troops there ay they did September 18, 1936, they should at feast have had enough consideration to eave them alone In Lukouehlaa fsstead of following them' up there under the cover of manguvres, This would appear to be another instance of the fact that aggressors are never able to set a limit to their own acts."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.