In the years 1925 to 1928 relations between China and the foreign Powers were strained. Because of this the period was marked by an unusual amount of diplomatic activity. Many foreigners, moreover, became deeply involved in China's struggle and expressed their opinions with far greater freedom than had been their custom in quieter times. As a result, the student of American policy during the Chinese Nationalist Revolution finds a wealth of first-hand material.
The chapters of this volume that deal with the activities of officials in the State Department are largely based on the 1925 to 1928 volumes of Foreign Relations of the United States. As far as the author is aware, to study of Sino-American relations during this period has been made since the release of the State Department papers. Records such as that which appears in the minutes of the Special Conference on the Chinese Customs Tariff, October, 1925 -- August, 1926, unfortunately a rare item in the book collections of the United States, are exceptionally useful. Material indicating the trends of missionary opinion exists in abundance as missionary organizations have issued many periodicals, bulletins and reports. While less information is available concerning the views of American businessmen in China, publications such as those of the American Chamber of Commerce at Shanghai supply most of the essential data. The files of newspapers published in the United States from 1925 to 1928 are an indispensable guide to press opinion in this country.
The author did not, however, have to rely exclusively on printed documents but received invaluable assistance from many people who generously gave of their time and attention. It is in recognition of the service they rendered that this preface is written with deep appreciation.
The trying task of commenting in detail on so long a study was undertaken by several persons. Mr. Clarence E. Gauss, at the request of the American Institute of Pacific Relations, read the manuscript before publication and wrote a critical memorandum for which the author is especially grateful. Mr. John Van Antwerp MacMurray also read the entire manuscript and, although frankly disagreeing with the writer's views on a number of fundamental issues, made valuable suggestions that have substantially contributed to the text. Professor Nathaniel Peffer of Columbia University followed the manuscript through three separate drafts which he commented upon with patience and discernment. Similarly Pro fessor . . .