C
454
ל
*15306
Jo
Company and reached Canton from Hong Kong on the 22nd April
by the river-steamer, whence they were transferred on the
same day to the "Toyo Maru". On the following morning all
these 27 men were removed from the "Toyo Maru" by strike pickets and taken to the city, where (according to Mr.
Breman's despatch No. 41 of the 26th April to HMMinister
at Peking) they were probably maltreated. The Japanese appear to have submitted to this tyrannical and illegal
interference.
10.
In spite of these occurrences the Japanese now, contrary to their former practice, maintain no gunboats on the West River and no Japanese gun boat has visited Canton for about two months. It seems reasonable to infer
that the Japanese policy is to submit to any interference by strike pickets at Canton as well as to attacks by pirates in the West River and to pay any blackmail to the Canton Strike Committee, rather than be involved in a boycott. I understand also that recent Russian advice to the Canton authorities was not to attempt a boycott of the Japanese until the anti-British boycott had been pressed
to a successful conclusion.
11.
In conclusion it is interesting to observe that, according to a despatch No. 49 of the 16th April from H.Consul General at Hankow to HMMinister at Peking, Marshal Wu P'ei-fu maintained that Japan is just as much responsible for the anti-British campaign in Canton as is Russia, that it is Japan's desire to cripple Hong Kong as a counter blow to our Singapore naval base scheme, and that it is Japan's policy to continue to foment civil war in China so as to render any and every
Government