In their reply to the ultimatum a serious tactical mistake was made. I had been informed that it would be accepted in simple and brief language; that the Chinese Government would say it had made certain grants to the Japanese, which would be enumerated, making no mention of Group V. Toward evening of the 9th a member of the Foreign Office came to me, quite agitated, saying that the Japanese Legation insisted that the demands of Group V be specifically reserved for future discussion. "What form," I asked, "has the Chinese answer taken?" "This," he replied: "'The Chinese Government, etc., hereby accepts, with the exception of the five articles of Group V, all the articles of Group I, etc.' But," he added, "when the draft was submitted to the Japanese Legation, they insisted that after the words 'Group V' there be added the clause 'which are postponed for later negotiation.'" It had been thought necessary, my visitor explained, to state in the reply that something had been refused, in order to save the face of the Government. But it is perfectly plain that if Group V had not been mentioned at all, the Japanese would have found it hard to insist upon its being kept open; for it could not be avowed before other nations as part of the matter covered by the ultimatum. As it was, the demands in Group V were given the character of unfinished business, to be taken up at a future date. Thus portentously, they continued to hang over the heads of the Chinese.
Partly in an exchange of notes, partly in a convention, the concessions exacted through the ultimatum were granted. None of these was ever ratified by the parliamentary body, as the Constitution requires. Because of their origin and of this lack of proper ratification, the Chinese people have looked upon the agreements of 1915 as invalid.
The State Department had cabled on May 6th counselling patience and mutual forbearance to both governments. The advice was needed by Japan, but the instructions came too late; the ultimatum had been presented. I should have found that its delivery would have seemed like whispering a gentle admonition through the keyhole after the door had been slammed to.
The Department cabled on May 11th an identical note to both governments, which I delivered to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the 13th. It was published in the Peking papers on the 24th, together with a telegram from Tokyo asserting "on the highest authority" that the report of the existence of such a note was only another instance of machinations designed to cause political friction.