Mr. Reader-Harris then dealt at Jength with the evidence that had been given in regard to the actual event. He referred initially to that of Messrs. Covey, Cline and Anier-son, What Mr. Covey had more or less inexplicable, British Inwyer, and perhaps he was 's0 imbued with the justice of his it's ease that he could not believe anything wrong of him. Counsel reminded the Commission that it was known that Mr. Covey held retainer from the Shanghai University and that he represented the four students brought up at the Mixed Court on the morning of May 80, Mr. Covey went so far as to say that at about the time, of the firing the traffic in Nanking Road was normal. "Neither Bt, Che nor Mr, Anderson, continued counsel, could be said to be entirely unbiassed witnesses. Both were missionaries in China, and as such it would be their duty to teach the Chinese the tenets of Christianity, one being the principle of meekness and tarning the other cheek when struck. they most presumably hated the idea of bloodshed.
After referring to other evidence, particularly to that of the police witnesses, which he said was given in a straight-forward manner coun-el said that his duty now was to id up a case against Everson and then proceed to knock it down, The President—Do Inspectors have any knowledge of the Dally Reports hen they had no general know. occurred in their own district—Ne official knowledge.
Building Case Counsel thereupon proceeded deal with a number of suggestions which had been advanced in explana tion of the' crowd's attitude before the firing on May 30, To hold students by the collar was the usual way when arresting them, snd counsel did not think there was any reason why this should have infuriated the crowd. The second suggestion was that the original arrests were wrong. Counsel contended that they were legal, and therefore right. Inspector Everson could do nothing else but arrest the students, He was simply doing his duty. The third suggestion that the 18 and 20 students who followed the first and second Jot of arrested men into the charge room should have been ejected and not detained, Counsel contended that it would have caused more trouble to have put them out. Another suggestion was that it was wrong to have cleared the charge room at about 8.15 p.m. This was necessary in view of the definite instructions of the Commissioner of Police and the evidence of Sergt. Willgoss, who declared that it was essential to lear the place. Then it had been put forward that too much force was used to eject the students. The oom, said counsel, was cleared with considerable dificulty—and wien he said considerable difficulty he meant considerable difficulty. According to the evidence nothing happened cept that one man got a slight cut on the forehead. No subsequent complaints were made.
Then there was the suggestion that Inspector Everson might have asked for assistance. It was known only have got assistance from he, did not do #0, because he could
other station through the interven tion of a commissioned.police officer, Then there was the question of the tes in Nanking Road. Tt had been suggested that it would have been wise to close them. Counsel differed {in his opinion. The gates would have afforded no protection, and the huge crowd, if not held back. by some means or other would have swarmed over them or through them or over the walls. Their closing would not have prevented in any way that which happened. In regard to the use. of bayonets, there was an order forbidding their employment. Besides which, sid counsel, they were not effective as firing." They would do more damage, with Tous results.
Dealing with the affair of May 30 in a general way, Mr. Reader-Harris assorted that, Jt, was not very and: den. Thee bad been fo teding in existence. opinion, the, were for, trouble, and. ap soon as, they
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.