Dr. Rawlinson, in his unusual role of champion of missionaries, in his reply to Mr. Gilbert might have been left alone if he had not made certain statements that are open to question. He says:
"The National Christian Council has for 15 months been conduct a scientific inquiry into what Christians do think on the problems of China's treaty situation. Most of the readers of the "North-_
China Daily News" will agree that) 'a scientific inquiry requires a full, patient and exhaustive attempt to get at all the facts, without previous bias and to withhold judgment until all the facts are in. "With due respect to Dr. Rawlinson the writer! maintains "that the N.C.C. not only has done no such thing but is, incapable of so doing. Dr. Ra son's own words in the letter under' discussion disprove his claim to a scientific inquiry when he says that the majority of Christians, Westera, and Chinese, have said nothing."
Horns of 2 Dilemma From this important admission Dr. Rawlinson's readers will draw i evitably one +f two conclusions:
Either the N.C.C. made no effort to get the opinion of the majority; The majority of Christians, Western and Chinese, refused to give any answer.
On whichever horn of thi the N.C.C, chooses to roost they will be equally uncomfortable. If they admit the former, they criticism against them lists are "hand-picked."
If the latter be true, their claim to be representative of the majority falls with a great crash. Dr. Rawli son apparently concludes that the majority share his opinions.
Many will form exactly the opposite conclusion.
'The claim the N.C.C. has made a scientific inquiry' " when thole published utterances have bon loudly and frankly in support of "Young China" is laughable. made diligent effort to ments from those known to be in atrong opposition to their views? Have they not rather appeared in the rile of an advocate recking esses to prove their ease?
The writer believes that an immense number of men would sign up on the other side if their votes were canvassed. The great majority prefer to remain silent, as is their right, but it is pure presumpfon to count them without getting. their votes.
Any questionnaire that the N.C.C.. can send out will be coloured by their known attitude. Their supporters) will probably take the trouble to) answer, but their opponents will not. give them that much notice.
Two Ways of Inquiring No matter now how they might word, a questionnaire its real spirit would read like this. "Are you ing to forsake your straddling, attitude, one foot on Extraterritoriality and the other on trust in God: to refuse any longer to force the—Gospel down Chinese throats at the cannon's mouth: to suffer with those people to whom you picech: to treat them as equals and not as slaves: to gain their eternal respect and confidence! by trusting your all to them?"
Every question devised to put the] objector in the wrong!
But how would the seo the same question exactly different terms. "A: you forsake your Christian friends in country where no government wut off hope of ever helping the Chinese out of their horrible mess: remove the last restraining' influence in a country given up to wholesale murder, and pillage: to place your Christian friends under so-called government from which even high: Chinese officials are foreed to flee; to shut up the schools) where hundreds of thousands are) being instructed, and all for the what he is about to drink will eon-jure up for him a vision of the lovely Ah Sheeza Pippin as she was stepping into the contrivance that was the gift of the evil stranger to the Emperor Ong My Word." sake of a few sentimentalists that do not at present care to come out bravely and fight for reform in their Jown country?"
There is only one fair square method of conducting a scientific inquiry on this subject and that is send out an unbiased, simple question: "Do you favour. post Poncment or immediate withdrawal of Extraterritoriality, and treaty revision?"
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.