In order to regulate the estuary of the Yangtze we have to study the three channels which form its mouth and to find out which of these channels is to be selected as the regulated entrance into the sea. In Mr. Von Heidenstam's proposal for the improvement of the approach of Shanghai Harbor, he recommends two alternatives, viz., either to block up the North and Middle Channels and to leave the South Channel only for the mouth of the Yangtze, or to train the South Channel only and leave the other two alone. For the present, he thinks, perhaps for the sake of economy, the latter scheme would be enough. But the training of the South Channel alone as the approach to Shanghai would leave it in a state of perpetual anxiety as has been apprehended by Mr. Von Heidenstam and other experts, for the main volume of the water of the Yangtze may be diverted into either of the other two channels and leave the Southern one to be silted up at any time. Therefore to make the approach of Shanghai once for all safe and permanent, it is necessary to block up two of the three channels, leaving only one as an approach to the port. This is also the only feasible way of regulating the estuary of the Yangtze. In our scheme of regulating the Yangtze Estuary I should recommend using the North Channel only and to block the other two. Because the North Channel is the shortest way to the deep-sea line and by using it as the only mouth of the Yangtze, we have on both sides of it more shallow banks to be reclaimed by its silt. Thus the expenditure would be less and the results greater. But this would leave Shanghai in the lurch. Therefore in a coöperative scheme like this I would apply the theory of killing two birds with one stone by using the Middle Channel, since it would suit both of our purposes. The reason for this is because the regulating of the Yangtze Estuary and the securing of a Shanghai approach have different purposes, hence we must consider them differently.