Chen would have been indicted. "At the moment of indictment, his counsel would have had an opportunity to force a clear definition of the charge on which he was held. He could only be held for a specific breach of the law and in the indictment that breach would have had to have been stated in the clearest Hegal phraseology. Even a misstatement in the indictment might ead to freedom. After the indictment, in @ case such as this, there would be bail, so that the person might go about his affairs, might raise funds for his defence, consult with his counsel, gather evidence and advise with his witnesses. 'The trial would have been in the open court, probably before a jury, and, again, the defendant would have every' protection of the law. The prosecution could not ask him of his witnesses improper questions, they could not trick him into an admission of guilt, they could not ignore his rights as a free man, If found guilty, he might appeal to a higher tribunal. He might be foreed to serve his sentence. Then that sentence would have to be for specific period. There would be no whimsicality about it. "No outsider could interfere with the court No man could say to the judge or the jury, "We don't like this man, please sentence him, Anyone} making such a suggestion would himself be imprisoned for contempt of court.
All this intricate procedure of the law has been devised to prevent a guiltless man from suffering. Many. guilty men benefit through it, but, on the other hand, there is no orbitary throwing of men into gaol because they are fools, because they' talk too much, because some militarist does not like the -bend of! their noses or the colour of their hair. That is the sort of thing which is now going on in China, and it is perhaps poetic justice that one of the sufferers should be a British barrister who renounced his British citizenship and who has. spent years in extolling the pro-_ gress of the law in China,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.