Let it be granted that China} because the administration of suffers a grievance in the mainten justice in those two countries was nance of extrality. Extrality is a' brand of inferiority. It would be a very wrong thing to maintain extrality if the cause of it were removed. Of course there is something true in saying that extrality is imposed on China because it is weak. Whether Japanese administration is or is not improved, there can be no question of ie-imposing extrality on Japan if only because to-day Japan is too strong to allow of such a thing.
But with all her strength, Japan will find that it does not pay to treat foreigners as Mr. Shaw was treated last year. An exceptional case is bad enough; a general custom of such a thing would result in a boycotting of Japan which would affect that sensitive nation far more deeply than extrality affects such a nation as China, The fact that China is not a strong nation does not justify China in advancing a claim that might have to be conceded to a strong country and arguing that non-compliance to her request is due to her weakness rather than to her lack of justice.
A Marter or Face.
Chinese objections to the maintenance of extrality and foreign objections to its abolition are not based on similar grounds. The Chinese objection is merely a matter of ''face'; the foreign objection is a real matter of probable injury to person and property. No serious complaint against the administration of law in consular courts can be substantiated. The worst example of want of justice that could be raked up would be a mere shadow compared with the cases that can ne shown to exist in the same line in Chinese law courts. It may well be doubted whether there has been a case of an innocent Chinese being condemned in any Mixed Court procedure: it certainly cannot be doubted that innocent Chinese have been condemned in ordinary Chinese law courts. Possibly there are cases in which guilty foreigners have got free in consular courts. Such cases are not many; moreover they are to be met with in all civilized countries—and the more civilized the country is, the more frequently such cases are met with. In America and Britain especially we are much more concerned at the condemnation of the innocent than at the escape of the guilty. Unless it could be shown that the escape of the guilty was the usual result of trials in consular courts, there would Fe no argument worth making that could be founded on o few isolated cases. China's grievance in the maintenance of ex: trality is entirely due to the bad administration of her law courts and the corrupt character of her officials. Foreign objection to the removal of extrality is equally due to the same cause. If the cause be removed, the foreign objection will cease to hold and the Chinese object will be attained.
Mopirications WiTHoct CHANGE.
One false notion ought to e ruled out of discussion. The establishment of special courts in which foreign laws would be administered by Chinese officials is not an
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.