the Editor of the Nortu-Curva Dany News, 'Sin,—I trust you will permit one who has been a constant subscriber to, and xn admirer of your paper to express' surprise at the attitude you have, adopted in regard to the Ningpo Joss-house dispute, a surprise which I believe Iam right in saying is shared by a large portion of the community.
Thave no desire to go into the merits of the case on either side, especially since, as you admit, the document published in Mr. Drummond's letter leaves no room for further discussion, What I wish to point out is that in the face of this eoncluding epis de, in what is rightly described as a deplorable incident, the manner in which you treat the question does not appear to be as consistent with the Englishmuan's watehword—fairplay—as the tradi. tions of your paper Ieud us to expect.
From the outset it lins seemed that your sympathies in this unfortunate business have been, irrespective of the facts of the case, against the Chinese, and while fully prepared to admit that nothing could be worse for the foreign community than a mph of mob law, it seems to me that a spirit of partisanship in the present case can under no circumstances be productive of good.
Phe incident is one to be judged purely on the evidence and on its merits, and the whole afinir is too intricately bound up with the welfare of the Foreign Community asa whole for. it to be considered as outside of the criticism of this Settlement.
My object.in writing this letter is to point out what appears to me to be a "spirit of partiality in your leading article of to-day.
Wien," some "days ago, the French Authorities. published in your columns the text of several letters bearing on the points at issue, you remarked in a leading article devoted to the subject that no one on this side of the Yangking-pang had ever doubted the justice of the French claims, etc.; to-day, when you give place in your columns to documentary evidence "which apparently shows} the action of the French to have been unjustifiable, you remark editorially that the publication of this document is inopportune because there was at the moment every probability of an amicable arrangement between the French and the Chinese authorities. You do not indicate the terms of the settlement, but can it be doubted that public: opinion would have supported an arrangement more to the disadvantage of the Chinese, if this evidence had been suppressed, than it is likely to do now, that i been given to the world? Is there anything open to criticism inthe Chinese publishing documents which tend to influence public opinion in their favour when a similar step had been taken only a few days before by the French? Finally, permit me to point out that in one paragraph you state that in the French version of the dispatch referred to the words for ever" do not. occur, while in another, it is stated that the French have no records and no knowledge of the agreement in question.
Tam, ete, Iurantiat sor Nevrran, 2nd August.
[The agreement in question, har, of course, been shown to the French Consul-General, and he has satisfied himself that the words for ever" do not' occur in the French version of the document discovern! at the last moment by the Taotai. It is obvious that if the Taotai had produced it two months the whole of the recent trouble would' have been avoided. We say that the publication of the document is inopportune, because it has resulted in the dispute being remitted to Peking.—Ep.]
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.