INTRODUCTION
Formal appeal by China, September 21st, 1931.
On September 21st, 1931, the representative of the Chinese Government at Geneva wrote to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations asking him to bring to the attention of the Council the dispute between China and Japan which had arisen from the events which took place at Mukden on the night of September 18th—19th, and appealed to the Council, under Article 11 of the Covenant, to “take immediate steps to prevent the further development of a situation endangering the peace of nations”.
Resolution of the Council, September 30th.
On September 30th, the Council passed the following resolution:
“The Council:
“（1）Notes the replies of the Chinese and Japanese Governments to the urgent appeal addressed to them by its President and the steps that have already been taken in response to that appeal;
“（2）Recognizes the importance of the Japanese Government's statement that it has no territorial designs in Manchuria;
“（3）Notes the Japanese representative's statement that his Government will continue, as rapidly as possible, the withdrawal of its troops, which has already been begun, into the railway zone in proportion as the safety of the lives and property of Japanese nationals is effectively assured and that it hopes to carry out this intention in full as speedily as may be;
“（4）Notes the Chinese representative's statement that his Government will assume responsibility for the safety of the lives and property of Japanese nationals outside that zone as the withdrawal of the Japanese troops continues and the Chinese local authorities and police forces are re-established;
“（5）Being convinced that both Governments are anxious to avoid taking any action which might disturb the peace and good understanding between the two nations, notes that the Chinese and Japanese representatives have given assurances that their respective Governments will take all necessary steps to prevent any extension of the scope of the incident or any aggravation of the situation;
“（6）Requests both Parties to do all in their power to hasten the restoration of normal relations between them and for that purpose to continue and speedily complete the execution of the above-mentioned undertakings;
“（7）Requests both Parties to furnish the Council at frequent intervals with full information as to the development of the situation;
“（8）Decides, in the absence of any unforeseen occurrence which might render an immediate meeting essential, to meet again at Geneva on Wednesday, October 14th, 1931, to consider the situation as it then stands;
“（9）Authorizes its President to cancel the meeting of the Council fixed for October 14th, should he decide, after consulting his colleagues, and more particularly the representatives of the two Parties, that in view of such information as he may have received from the Parties or from other Members of the Council as to the development of the situation, the meeting is no longer necessary.”
In the course of the discussions that preceded the adoption of this resolution, the Chinese representative expressed the view of his Government that “the best method that may be devised by the Council for securing the prompt and complete withdrawal of the Japanese troops and police and the full re-establishment of the status quo ante is the sending of a neutral commission to Manchuria”.
Session of the Council, October 13th—24th.
The Council held a further session for the consideration of dispute from October 13th to the 24th．In consequence of the opposition of the Japanese representative, unanimity could not be obtained for resolution proposed at thus session.
Session of the Council at Paris, November 16th—December 10th.
The Council met again on November 16th in Paris and devoted nearly four weeks to a study of the situation．On November 21st, the Japanese representative, after stating that his Government was anxious that the resolution of September 30th should be observed in the spirit and letter, proposed that a Commission of Enquiry should be sent to the spot．This proposal was subsequently welcomed by all the other Members of the Council and, on December 10th, 1931, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
Resolution of December 10th.
“The Council:
“（1）Reaffirms the resolution passed unanimously by it on September 30th, 1931, by which the two Parties declare that they are solemnly bound; it therefore calls upon the Chinese and Japanese Governments to take all steps necessary to assure its execution so that the withdrawal of the Japanese troops within the railway zone may be effected as speedily as possible under the conditions set forth in the said resolution;
“（2）Considering that events have assumed an even more serious aspect since the Council meeting of October 24th, notes that the two Parties undertake to adopt all measures necessary to avoid any further aggravation of the situation and to refrain from any initiative which may lead to further fighting and loss of life;
“（3）Invites the two Parties to continue to keep the Council informed as to the development of the situation;
“（4）Invites the other Members of the Council to furnish the Council with any information received from their representatives on the spot;
“（5）Without prejudice to the carrying out of the above-mentioned measures;
“Desiring, in view of the special circumstances of the case, to contribute towards a final and fundamental solution by the two Government of the questions at issue between them:
“Decides to appoint a Commission of five members to study on the spot and to report to the Council on any circumstance which, affecting international relations, threatens to disturb peace between China and Japan, or the good understanding between them upon which peace depends;
“The Governments of China and of Japan will each have the right to nominate one Assessor to assist the Commission;
“The two Governments will afford the Commission all facilities to obtain on the spot whatever information it may require;
“It is understood that, should the two Parties initiate any negotiations, these would not fall within the scope of the terms of reference of the Commission, nor would it be within the competence of the Commission to interfere with the military arrangements of either Party;
“The appointment and deliberation of the Commission shall not prejudice in any way the undertaking given by the Japanese Government in the resolution of September 30th as regards the withdrawal of the Japanese troops within the railway zone;
“（6）Between now and its next ordinary session, which will be held on January 25th, 1932, the Council, which remains seized of the matter, invites its President to follow the question and to summon it afresh if necessary.”
Declaration of the President.
In introducing this resolution, the President, M．Briand, made the following declaration:
“It will be observed that the resolution which is before you provides for action on two separate lines:（1）to put an end to the immediate threat to peace;（2）to facilitate the final solution of existing causes of dispute between the two countries.
“The Council was glad to find during its present sittings that an enquiry into the circumstances which tend to disturb the relations between China and Japan, in itself desirable, would be acceptable to the Parties．The Council therefore welcomed the proposal to establish a Commission which was brought before it on November 21st．The final paragraph of the resolution provides for the appointment and functioning of such a Commission.
“I shall now make certain comments on the resolution, paragraph by paragraph.
“Paragraph 1.—This paragraph reaffirms the resolution unanimously adopted by the Council on September 30th, laying particular stress on the withdrawal of the Japanese troops within the railway zone on the conditions described therein as speedily as possible.
“The Council attaches the utmost importance to this resolution and is persuaded that the two Governments will set themselves to the complete fulfilment of the engagements which they assumed on September 30th.
“Paragraph 2.—It is an unfortunate fact that, since the last meeting of the Council, events have occurred which have seriously aggravated the situation and have given rise to legitimate apprehension．It is indispensable and urgent to abstain from any initiative which may lead to further fighting, and from all other action likely to aggravate the situation.
“Paragraph 4.—Under paragraph 4, the Members of the Council other than the Parties are requested to continue to furnish the Council with information received from their representatives on the spot.
“Such information having proved of high value in the past, the Powers which have the possibility of sending such representatives to various localities have agreed to do all that is possible to continue and improve the present system.
“For this purpose, these Powers will keep in touch with the two Parties, so that the latter may, should they so desire, indicate to them the localities to which they would desire the despatch of such representatives.
“Paragraph 5 provides for the institution of a Commission of Enquiry．Subject to its purely advisory character, the terms of reference of the Commission are wide．In principle, no question which it feels called upon to study will be excluded, provided that the question relates to any circumstances which, affecting international relations, threaten to disturb peace between China and Japan, or the good understanding between them upon which peace depends．Each of the two Governments will have the right to request the Commission to consider any question the examination of which it particularly desires．The Commission will have full discretion to determine the questions upon which it will report to the Council, and will have power to make interim reports when desirable.
“If the undertakings given by the two Parties according to the resolution of September 30th have not been carried out by the time of the arrival of the Commission, the Commission should as speedily as possible report to the Council on the situation.
“It is specially provided that, ‘should the two Parties initiate any negotiations, these would not fall within the scope of the terms of reference of the Commission, nor would it be within the competence of the Commission to interfere with the military arrangements of either Party’．This latter provision does not limit in any way its faculty of investigation．It is also clear that the Commission will enjoy full liberty of movement in order to obtain the information it may require for its reports.”
Reservations and comments of the two Parties.
The Japanese representative, in accepting the resolution, made a reservation concerning paragraph 2 of the resolution, stating that he accepted it on behalf of his Government, “on the understanding that this paragraph was not intended to preclude the Japanese forces from taking such action as might be rendered necessary to provide directly for the protection of the lives and property of Japanese subjects against the activities of bandits and lawless elements rampant in various parts of Manchuria”.
The Chinese representative, on his part, accepted the resolution, but asked that certain of his observations and reservations on points of principle should be placed on record as follows:
“Ⅰ．China must and does fully reserve any and all rights, remedies and juridical positions to which she is or may be entitled under and by virtue of all the provisions of the Covenant, under all the existing treaties to which China is a party, and under the accepted principles of international law and practice.
“Ⅱ．The present arrangement evidenced by the resolution and the statement made by the President of the Council is regarded by China as a practical measure embodying four essential and interdependent elements:
“（a）Immediate cessation of hostilities;
“（b）Liquidation of the Japanese occupation of Manchuria within the shortest possible period of time;
“（c）Neutral observation and reporting upon all developments from now on;
“（d）A comprehensive enquiry into the entire Manchurian situation on the spot by a Commission appointed by the Council.
“The said arrangement being in effect and in spirit predicated upon these fundamental factors, its integrity would be manifestly destroyed by the failure of any one of them to materialise and be effectively realised as contemplated.
“Ⅲ．China understands and expects that the Commission provided for in the resolution will make it its first duty to enquire into and report, with its recommendations, on the withdrawal of the Japanese forces, if such withdrawal has not been completed when the Commission arrives on the spot.
“Ⅳ．China assumes that the said arrangement neither directly nor by implication affects the question of reparations and damages to China and her nationals growing out of the recent events in Manchuria, and makes a specific reservation in that respect.
“Ⅴ．In accepting the resolution laid before us, China appreciates the efforts of the Council to prevent further fighting and bloodshed by enjoining both China and Japan to avoid any initiative which may lead to further fighting or any other action likely to aggravate the situation．It must be clearly pointed out that this injunction should not be violated under the pretext of the existence of lawlessness caused by a state of affairs which it is the very purpose of the resolution to do away with．It is to be observed that much of the lawlessness now prevalent in Manchuria is due to the interruption of normal life caused by the invasion of the Japanese forces．The only sure way of restoring the normal peaceful life is to hasten the withdrawal of the Japanese troops and allow the Chinese authorities to assume the responsibility for the maintenance of peace and order．China cannot tolerate the invasion and occupation of her territory by the troops of any foreign country; far less can she permit these troops to usurp the police functions of the Chinese authorities.
“Ⅵ．China notes with satisfaction the purpose to continue and improve the present system of neutral observation and reporting through representatives of other Powers, and China will from time to time, as occasion requires, indicate the localities to which it seems desirable to dispatch such representatives.
“Ⅶ．It should be understood that, in agreeing to this resolution which provides for the withdrawal of the Japanese forces to the railway zone, China in no way recedes from the position she has always taken with respect to the maintenance of military forces in the said railway zone.
“Ⅷ．China would regard any attempt by Japan to bring about complications of a political character affecting China's territorial or administrative integrity（such as promoting so-called independence movements or utilising disorderly elements for such purposes）as an obvious violation of the undertaking to avoid any further aggravation of the situation.”
Appointment of the Commission of Enquiry.
The Members of the Commission were subsequently selected by the President of the Council, and, after the approval of the two parties had been obtained, the membership was finally approved by the Council on January 14th, 1932, as follows:
H.E．Count ALDROVANDI（Italian）,
Général de Division Henri CLAUDEL（French）,
The Rt.Hon．The Earl of LYTTON, P.C., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E．（British）,
Major-General Frank Ross McCoy（American）,
H.E．Dr．Heinrich SCHNEE（German）.
Organisation of the Commission.
The European members, with a representative of the American member, held two sittings in Geneva on January 21st, at which Lord Lytton was unanimously elected Chairman and a provisional programme of work was approved．The Governments of Japan and China, each of which had, by virtue of the resolution of December 10th, “the right to nominate one Assessor to assist the Commission”, subsequently appointed as their Assessors H.E．Mr.Isaburo Yoshida, Ambassador of Japan in Turkey, and H.E．Dr.Wellington Koo, a former Prime Minister and former Minister for Foreign Affairs of China.
The Secretary-General of the League designated M.Robert Haas, Director in the Secretariat of the League, to act as Secretary-General of the Commission./1
In the course of its work, the Commission was assisted by the technical advice of Professor G．H．Blakeslee, Professor at the Clark University, U.S.A., Ph.D., L.L.D.; M．Dennery, Agrégé de l'Université de France; Mr.Ben Dorfman, B.A., M.A., William Harrison Mills Fellow, University of California, U.S.A.; Dr．A．D．A．de Kat Angelino, Colonel T．A．Hiam, assistant to the Chairman of the Canadian National Railways; G．S．Moss, Esq., C.B.E., H.B.M．Consul in Weihaiwei; Dr．C．Walter Young, M.A., Ph.D., Far Eastern Representative of the Institute of Current World Affairs, New York City.
The European members of the Commission sailed from Le Havre and Plymouth on February 3rd, and were joined by the American member at New York on February 9th.
Chinese Appeal to the League of Nations under Articles 10, 11 and 15 of the Covenant.
Meanwhile, the development of the situation in the Far East caused the Chinese Government, on January 29th, to submit a further appeal to the League of Nations under Articles 10, 11 and 15 of the Covenant．On February 12th, 1932, the Chinese representative requested the Council to submit the dispute to the Assembly in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 15 of the Covenant．Since no further instructions were received from the Council, the Commission continued to interpret its mandate according to the resolution of the Council of December 10th．This included:
（1）An examination of the issues between China and Japan, which were referred to the Council, including their causes, development and status at the time of the enquiry;
（2）A consideration of a possible solution of the Sino-Japanese dispute which would reconcile the fundamental interests of the two countries.
This conception of its mission determined the programme of its work.
Arrival of the Commission at Tokyo, February 29th, 1932.
Before reaching Manchuria, the main theatre of the conflict, contact was established with the Governments of Japan and China and with representatives of various shades of opinion, in order to ascertain the nature of the interests of the two countries．The Commission arrived in Tokyo on February 29th, where it was joined by the Japanese Assessor．It had the honour of being received by His Majesty the Emperor．Eight days were spent in Tokyo, and daily conferences were held with members of the Government and others, including the Prime Minister, Mr.Inukai, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr.Yoshizawa, the Minister of War, Lieutenant-General Araki, the Minister of Navy, Admiral Osumi．Interviews were also held with leading bankers, business-men, representatives of various organisations and others．From all of these we received information regarding the rights and interests of Japan in Manchuria and her historical associations with that country．The Shanghai situation was also discussed．After leaving Tokyo, we learned while in Kyoto of the establishment of a new “State” in Manchuria, under the name of “Manchukuo”（the Manchu State）．In Osaka, conferences were arranged with representatives of the business community.
Shanghai, March 14th—26th.
The Commission reached Shanghai on March 14th and was joined there by the Chinese Assessor．Here a fortnight was occupied, in addition to our general enquiry, in learning as much as possible about the facts of the recent fighting and the possibility of an armistice, which we had previously discussed with Mr.Yoshizawa in Tokyo．We paid a visit to the devastated areas, and heard statements from the Japanese naval and military authorities regarding recent operations．We also interviewed some of the members of the Chinese Government and leaders of business, educational and other circles, including Canton.
Nanking, March 26th—April 1st.
On March 26th, the Commission proceeded to Nanking, some of its members visiting Hangchow on the way．During the following week, it had the honour of being received by the President of the National Government．Interviews were held with Mr.Wang Ching-wei, President of the Executive Yuan; General Chiang Kai-shek, Chairman of the Military Council; Dr．Lo Wen-kan, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Mr．T．V．Soong, Minister of Finance; General Cheng Ming-chu, Minister of Communications; Mr.Chu Chia-hua, Minister of Education; and other members of the Government.
Yangtze Valley, April 1st—7th.
In order to acquaint ourselves more fully with representative opinion and with conditions existing in various parts of China, we proceeded on April 1st to Hankow, stopping en route at Kiukiang．Some representatives of the Commission visited Ichang, Wanhsien and Chungking in the province of Hupeh and Szechuan.
Peiping, April 9th—19th.
On April 9th, the Commission arrived at Peiping（as Peking is now called）, where several conferences were held with Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang and with officials who had been members of the administration in Manchuria until September 18th．Evidence was also given by the Chinese Generals who had been in command of the troops at the barracks at Mukden on the night of September 18th.
Our stay in Peiping was prolonged owing to a difficulty which arose regarding the entry into Manchuria of Dr．Wellington Koo, the Chinese Assessor.
In proceeding to Manchuria, the Commission divided into two groups, some of the party travelling to Mukden by rail via Shanhaikwan, and the remainder, including Dr．Koo, by sea via Dairen, thus remaining within the Japanese railway area．The objection to Dr．Koo's entry into “Manchukuo” territory was finally withdrawn after the arrival of the Commission in Changchun, the northern terminus of the Japanese railway area.
Manchuria, April 20th—June 4th.
We remained in Manchuria for about six weeks, visiting Mukden, Changchun, Kirin, Harbin, Dairen, Port Arthur, Anshan, Fushun and Chinchow．We had intended to visit Tsitsihar as well, but, while we were in Harbin, there was continuous fighting in the surrounding districts, and the Japanese military authorities stated that they were unable at that moment to guarantee the safety of the Commission by rail on the western branch of the Chinese Eastern Railway．Accordingly, some members of our staff visited Tsitsihar by air．From there they travelled by the Taonan-Angangchi and Ssupingkai-Taonan Railways and rejoined the main body in Mukden.
During our stay in Manchuria we wrote a Preliminary Report, which we despatched to Geneva on April 29th./1
We had numerous conferences with Lieutenant-General Honjo, Commander of the Kwantung Army, other military officers, and Japanese consular officials．At Changchun we visited the Chief Executive of “Manchukuo”, the former Emperor, Hsuan Tung, now known by his personal name of Henry Pu-yi．We also had interviews with members of the “Manchukuo” Government, including officials and advisers of Japanese nationality, and Governors of Provinces．Delegations were received from the local population, most of which were presented by the Japanese or “Manchukuo” authorities．In addition to our public meetings, we were able to arrange interviews with a great number of individuals, both Chinese and foreign.
Peiping, June 5th—28th.
The Commission returned to Peiping on June 5th, where an analysis of the voluminous documentary material collected was begun．Two more conferences were also held with Mr.Wang Ching-wei, President of the Executive Yuan; Dr．Lo Wen-kan, Minister for Foreign Affairs; and Mr．T．V．Soong, Minister of Finance.
Tokyo, July 4th—15th.
On June 28th the Commission proceeded to Tokyo via Chosen（Korea）．Its departure for Japan was delayed by the fact that no Foreign Minister had yet been appointed in the Cabinet of Admiral Viscount Saito．After their arrival in Tokyo on July 4th, conferences were held with leaders of the new Government, including the Prime Minister, Admiral Viscount Saito; the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Uchida; and the Minister of War, Lieutenant-General Araki．From these we learned the present views and policy of the Government regarding the development of the situation in Manchuria and Sino-Japanese relations.
Peiping, July 20th.
Having thus renewed contact with both the Chinese and the Japanese Governments, the Commission returned to Peiping, where the drafting of the Report was undertaken.
Assessors.
The two Assessors, who throughout spared no effort to assist the work of the Commission, presented a great amount of valuable documentary evidence．The material received from each Assessor was shown to the other, and an opportunity given for subsequent comment．These documents will be published.
The large number of persons and organisations interviewed, as listed in the Appendix, will illustrate the amount of evidence examined．Further, in the course of our travels, we have been presented with a great quantity of printed pamphlets, petitions, appeals, and letters．In Manchuria alone, we received approximately 1,550 letters in Chinese and 400 letters in Russian, without mentioning those written in English, French or Japanese．The arrangement, translation and study of these documents involved a considerable labour, which was carried out in spite of our continual movement from place to place．It was finally completed on our return to Peiping in July and before our last visit to Japan.
The conception of its mission under resolution of December 10th, determined the plan of the Commission's Report.
The Commission's conception of its mission, which determined the programme of its work and itinerary, has equally guided the plan of its Report.
First, we have tried to provide an historical background by describing the rights and interests of the two countries in Manchuria, which provide the fundamental causes of the dispute; the more recent specific issues which immediately preceded the actual outbreak were then examined, and the course of events since September 18th, 1931, described.
Throughout this review of the issues, we have insisted less on the responsibility for past actions than on the necessity of finding means to avoid their repetition in the future.
Finally, the Report concludes with some reflections and considerations which we have desired to submit to the Council upon the various issues with which it is confronted, and with some suggestions on the lines on which it seemed to us possible to effect a durable solution of the conflict and the re-establishment of a good understanding between China and Japan.
(1) 原编辑者注：The Secretary-General had put at the disposal of the Secretariat of the Commission:
Mr.Pelt, member of the Information Section; Mr．von Kotze, assistant to the Under-Secretary-General in charge of International Bureaux; Mr.Pastuhov, member of the Political Section; the Hon．W．W．Astor, temporary member of the Secretariat acting as Secretary of the Chairman of the Commission; and M．Charrère, of the Information Section.
Major P．Jouvelet, Army Medical Corps, French Army, acted as personal assistant to General Claudel, and Lieut．Biddle as personal assistant to General McCoy, and collaborated also in the general work of the Secretariat.
M．Depeyre, French Vice-Consul at Yokohama, acted as interpreter in the Japanese language.
Mr.Aoki and Mr.Wou Sao-fong, members of the Information Section, collaborated with the Secretariat of the Commission.
*Note by the Secretariat: For the itineraries of the Commission, see the Appendix, page 140, and Map Nos.13 and 14．
(2) 原编辑者注：See Appendix I（separate volume）.