Tue correspondence which we published last week, between the Municipal Council and the Treaty Consuls, is rather unsatisfactory. Weset aside the merit of the particular question raised; it is immaterial whether the Council's view as to the probably effect of the new wharf was correct, or otherwise. What is unsatisfactory is, that they failed to obtain a hearing for their remonstrance. They do not attempt to prejudge the case, and say the wharf must necessarily be stopped. They only say: we are advised by our Engineer that the influence of the new wharf would probably be detrimental to the river channel and to our bund line; we beg therefore that steps may be taken to delay the work until this opinion can be verified or negatived. They appeal in the first instance to the Treaty Consuls, as a representative body; but are repelled by them on two grounds: First, because the work in question has received the approval of H. M. Consul and the Chinese Authorities; second, on the plea that "the Consuls collectively cannot well deal with individual cases of the sort. They may as a body take steps to establish a Bund line or to make rales for the care of a river, but the enforcement of such rules or system must inevitably rest with the several officers (? Consuls) and the native authorities." We do not see the inevitability. The fact that individual action had already been taken in this case, by one member of their body, perhaps made them feel delicacy in interfering in this particular instance; and restrained them to the opinion implied in their expression of belief that reference to H. M. Consul " would be altogether likely to serve the requirements of the situation." But in principle it seems to us that the Treaty Consuls form a natural Court of appeal in such case. The river channel does not interest exclusively any one nationality; its maintenance is important to all; and any question affecting it should be considered by the Consuls, as a representative body.
Still less can we agree in the logic of Mr. Medhurst's letter. It does not all follow, because the " sanction of the Chinese Authorities" was obtained to the scheme, that it is a desirable one; or that it should not be reconsidered in the face of weighty objection. That this sanction was obtained through "the usual official channel" is no, reason why the Council's request for delay and reconsideration should not be forwarded through the same channel. Because a man is condemned to death, sentence is not inexorably carried out. Ifcircumstancescometolight which tend to show that the verdict was mistaken, a reprieve is given to permit consideration of these circumstances, Nor do we see why a river should.be inexorably condemned to injury because permission to injure it has been once given—in good faith, no doubt, but without knowledge or thought of the objections to the course proposed. The Chinese Authorities would sanction any such application, backed by official support; but they would be equally ready to delay the work if a request to that effect were subsequently made. And we are clourly of opinion that the Council's request in that sense should have been laid before them. The three reasons alleged by the projectors, according to Mr. Medhurst's letter, against interference, show thatthe latter took every proper and necessary step to procure sanction before beginning their Wharf; but do not conclusively show that the River will not be damaged by their proceeding. And it is on this latter ground, not on that of illegal procedure, that the Council asked for reconsideration.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.