（一）致The New Republic书

Sir:

I read with great interest the letter from "A Friend of China", published in your Journal for February the sixth. I heartily share his optimism that "the situation now developing may be of decided advantage to all concerned", but I entirely disagree with him in his notion of the ways in which his optimistic dreams are to be realized. He seems to hold that the solution of the Far Eastern question lies in Japan's taking a "responsible and effective direction of China's affairs". That, in my humble judgment, can never be the real solution of the problem.

"A Friend of China" seems to have ignored the important fact that we are now living in an age of national consciousness. He forgets that even the Philippines can not rest contented under the apparently "beneficial" rule of the United States. In this twentieth century no nation can ever hope peacefully to rule over or to interfere with the internal administrative affairs of another nation, however beneficial that rule or that interference may be. The Chinese rational consciousness has exterminated the Manchu rule, and, I am sure, will always resent any foreign rule or "direction".

Moreover, your correspondent has been too drastic in his estimation of the capacity of the Chinese people for self-government and self-development. "The Republic," says he, "held up to the world as evidencing the regeneration of the East has proved, as was bound to be the case, a dismal failure…China as a progressive state has been tried and found wanting. She is incapable of developing herself." So runs his accusation. But let me remind him that the transformation of a vast nation like China cannot be accomplished in a day. Read such books as John Fiske's "The Critical Period of American History", and it will be clear that even the establishment of the American Republic was not achieved by a sudden and miraculous fiat. The Chinese republic has been no more a failure than the American Republic was a failure in those dismal days under the Articles of Confederation. The Chinese Revolution occurred in October, 1911. Three years have hardly passed since the formation of the republic. Can we yet say, O ye of little faith! That "China as a progressive state has been tried and found wanting," and that "she is incapable of developing herself"?

I sincerely believe with President Wilson that every people has the right to determine its own form of government. Every nation has the right to be left alone to work out its own salvation. Mexico has the right to revolution. China has her right to her own development.

Ithaca, N. Y., Feb. 27.

Sub Hu

致《新共和国周报》书

主笔先生：

余拜读了贵刊二月六日所刊署名“一位中国朋友”的来信，甚感兴趣。余对该作者之乐观主义深表赞同，即认为“目前形势之发展必将有利于各有关方面”，然而，对其所提出的实现乐观主义梦想之方法，则不敢苟同。该君似乎主张：解决远东问题之关键，在于日本对中国事务之管理是否负责、有效。依在下之愚见，这不是解决问题的根本方法。

这位“中国朋友”似已忘记这样一个重要事实：吾辈正生活于一国民觉醒之时代。该君甚至也已忘记，就连菲律宾也不甘受制于美国之“有益”统治。在二十世纪之今日，任何国家皆不该抱有统治他国或干涉别国内政之指望，不管该统治或该干涉如何有益。中国国民之觉醒意味着满洲统治之结束，余深信，对任何外来之统治或“管理”，国人定将忿懑不已。

更有甚者，贵刊记者对于中国国民自治和自我发展能力之估计偏执一端。该君指责说：“有人把共和国视作东方复兴之例证，事实上该共和国是注定要惨遭失败的……以一先进国家之标准来衡量中国，是完全不够格的。她不具备自我发展之能力。”然余亦要提醒该君，像中国这样一个泱泱大国，其改革决不会是一蹴而就的。奉劝他多读一些书，譬如约翰·菲斯克的《美国历史的关键时刻》，如此他便会明白：即便是像美国这样一个共和国，也不是单凭一项突然颁布的、神奇般的法令即可建成。试想一想，美利坚合众国在沮丧的十三州邦联宪法时期，其遭受之重创则比中华民国所遭受的更甚。辛亥革命发生于公元1911年10月，创立共和国至今还不足三载，岂能说已决无希望！岂能说“以一先进国家之标准来衡量中国，是完全不够格的”？又岂能说“中国不具备自我发展之能力”？

余完全信奉威尔逊总统所言：各国人民皆有权利决定自己治国之形式，也唯有各国自己才有权利决定自救之方式。墨西哥有权革命，中国也有权利来决定自己的发展。

胡适 纽约，绮色佳，2月27日

（二）致The Outlook书

Dear Sir:

Permit me to say a few words concerning your editorial onJapan and Chinawhich appeared on Feb. 24, 1915. As your editorial was largely based udon a letter tothe New Republicfrom a man who signs himself "A Friend of China", I beg to enclose a letter in which I have endeavored to show the fallacies in his arguments. In my humble judgment,the New Republiccorrespondent can not be a true "friend of China", nor can he be "an expert in Eastern affairs", asThe Outlookseems to think.

As one who comes from among the Chinese people and who knows their inspirations and aspirations, I declare most emphatically that any attempt to bring about a Japanese domination or "direction" in China is no more and no less than sowing the seeds of future disturbance and bloodshed in China for the countless years to come. It is true that at the present moment China is not capable of resisting any "armed" demands, however unreasonable they may be. But whosoever seeks to secure "the maintenance of stable conditions in the East" by advocating Japanese assumption of the directorship or protectorship of China, shall live to see youthful and heroic, though not immediately useful, blood flow all over the Celestial Republic! Have we not seen anti-Japanese sentiments already prevailing in many parts of China?

I sincerely believe that the ultimate solution of the Far Eastern question must be sought in a mutual understanding and co-operation between China and Japan. But that mutual understanding and cooperation cannot possibly be brought forth by any armed conquest of the one by the other.

As to China's capacity for self-development, I refer you to the enclosed letter tothe New Republic, which you may reproduce, if you so desire.

Very sincerely yours,

Suh Hu

致《外观报》书

尊敬的先生：

就贵刊1915年2月24日发表的社论《日本与中国》，余请惠允啰嗦几句。由于该社论之大部分论据皆取自于发表在《新共和国周报》上的一封信，该信署名为“一位中国之朋友”，特附上余“致《新共和国周报》书”。在此信中，余已证明此君之高见纯系谬论。以吾之陋见，此《新共和国周报》之访员根本不能算是一位真正的“中国之朋友”，也决谈不上是一位“东方事务之专家”，如贵刊所推崇的那样。

余作为一名中国人，深知同胞之志气与抱负，因此余敢断言：任何想要在中国搞日本统治或“管理”之企图，无异于在中国播下骚乱和流血的种子，未来的一段岁月中国将鸡犬不宁。目前之中国，对于任何外来“武装”之要求，不管其是如何的不近情理，确实没有能力去抵抗。然而无论是谁，如果他想要鼓吹以日本对中国的管理权或保护权来求得“维持东方局势之稳定”，那么，他定将看到年青而英勇的热血流遍我华夏之共和国！尽管这在当前奏效不大。君不见反日之仇恨已燃遍了神州大地么？

余诚以为，远东问题之最终解决乃在于中日双方之相互理解、相互合作。然此种理解与合作决不是由一次次之武装征服所带来的。

至于中国自我发展之能力，余已在附信“致《新共和国周报》书”中阐明，君若愿意，当可在信中找到答案。

胡　适　谨上