The claim of the Japanese Army to have; discovered documents proving that foreign correspondents have been paid subsidies by the Chinese Government, according to the report published in Wednesday's issue of this journal is apparently something in the nature of a very damp squib, and Reuters by carrying the story against itself, has completely proved the bona fides of that famous news-gathering organization. Mr. C. J. Chancellor, general manager for Reuters in the Far East, on Wednesday characterized the charge that, of Yuan 40,580 set aside monthly for the purpose of encouraging the newspaper industry, Yuan 10,000 had been earmarked for Reuter as an absurd one. The facts are that Reuters having news for sale, sell their service to the Central News Agency for distribution to the Chinese press, in exactly the same way as they sell it to Domei, the Japanese news agency, and it cannot be believed for one moment that Domei would descend to such conduct as bribing Reuters.
When that fact is realized, that the relation between Reuter and the Central News Agency is a perfectly proper and businesslike one, the Tokyo "Nichi Nichi's" attack upon the agency is reduced to its proper perspective, and its charge that Reuters have departed from their traditional policy of impartiality through bribery by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek is proved to be just as absurd as Mr. Chancellor says it is. So is the charge made by the same paper that two foreign journalists have been bribed by the Nationalist Government to proceed to Hankow and fabricate news concerning conditions in Shanghai, Nanking, Hangchow and Wuhu for the purpose of injuring the honour of the Japanese Army. There is nothing unethical in foreign journalists who believe in China's case receiving payment for whatever assistance they may be able to render the country. It is no more improper than for other foreign journalists, believing in the cause of Japan, to accept fees for working in Japanese interests, and the Japanese accusation of those two journalists by inference suggests something guilty in the conduct of journalists doing similar work for Japan At the Press Conference on Wednesday morning a foreign correspondent pointed out to the Japanese spokesman that the report in question puts all other foreign correspondents under suspicion of having received bribes from the Chinese government, for the imputation was that they were in receipt of a portion of the remaining Yuan 30,000. The suggestion, and it is a particularly evil one, is that journalists in China representing various newspapers in this country and abroad have allowed themselves to be suborned by the Chinese Government to disseminate false news for the purpose of presenting China's case in a manner detrimental to Japan. It amounts to an accusation that these men, against whom it is levelled, are false to the traditions of their profession, and playing a double game between their employers and the Chinese government. That is an intolerable suggestion, and it was but natural the foreign correspondents should demand the production gf the proof which it was said was in the session, of the Japanese Army officials. The reply-of the Japanese spokesman was "The documents upon which the allegation is based are available, and steps will be taken to have them brought here and presented to you for your inspection." They were produced at the evening Press Conference on Wednesday, and it turned out that the documents in question were the Budget estimates of the Kuomintang for 1936 revealing that large sums of money had been set aside for newspaper and journalistic enterprises in China and abroad. The sum paid to Reuters was therein stated, but no mention was made of any paynienis to foreign.correspondents. If the proof of the allegations were available, as the spokesman said it was on Wednesday morning, it "should have been produced, together with the Budget estimates, at the evening conference. If proof is still available it should be immediately submitted to the scrutiny of the profession which is being maligned in this manner. The longer the delay in producing something, which it is stated is available, the greater the doubt which will be cast upon it if and when it is eventually produced. Let there be no doubt about it, the honour of foreign journalists has been impugned both by Japanese officials and newspapers. The onus is upon those, who have made these vague, and up to the present unsubstantiated charges to prove them up to the hilt, and failure to do so can lead to but one conclusion, and that one which certainly will not reflect upon foreign journalists in China.
If there are indeed men in Shanghai or China guilty of the misdeeds alleged against them members of the profession would like to know who they are, for they consider their profession to be an honourable one, and would naturally like to know who they have in their midst. Honour is not solely peculiar to the military and naval professions and journalists are just as jealous of theirs as are those in other and perhaps more spectacular callings. And there is still another point, if it could be proved to journals in other countries that their representatives in China were prostituting their calling in the way it is alleged, there would be but one course to take, and it is not to be believed for one moment that any respectable journal would hesitate to take it. From that it is apparent that if the Japanese authorities do in fact have the proof which they say they have, its production would lead to the purging of the local ranks of foreign correspondents. They would in fact be doing journalism here an enormous service which would evoke the gratitude of the whole profession. But if the Japanese authorities fail to produce their evidence which they say is available, or delay its production these charges must recoil upon themselves. For the time being the innocence of foreign correspondents in this matter must be accepted until guilt is proved. It is unfortunately true that a considerable amount of what foreign correspondents have cabled abroad has reflected upon the Japanese. It is unfortunate, but, it has also to be pointed out, most regrettably inevitable. The facts of the case have required the recounting of the truth, and that has not always been entirely pleasant. To retaliate by alleging that these men, who seek to make their reports as fair as possible, are nothing more than a set of paid liars, may seem an effective tu quo que, but, until it is proved, it must be regarded, as Mr. Chancellor so aptly said, as absurd.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.