To the Editor of the "Norra-Cuina Dainty News."
Sir,—The recent opium smuggling case tried before the International Mixed Court, in which a foreigner came into the limelight, involves a question of international ethics which is of considerable interest. The facts as known are that the Assessor dismissed the case against. the Chinese boy who was arrested With the goods on him, and ruled that the opium be turned over to the foreigner in question on ex parte proceedings. The police refused to turn the prohibited drug over, or in other words, refused to comply with the Court's decision. Under the circumstances, in the regularly constituted court of any civilized country, the police would have been "ty of contempt of court, and an order from the Bench to that effect generally is not appealable. The wisdom of such jurisprudence and its applicability to +he particular case under review is quite appar. ent, because the police have shown defiance and wilfully refused to carry out the Court's mandate. The decision of a Court, whether fair or unfair, is certainly not to be questioned by subordinate officials charged with its execution, unfortunately, due to the multi-of jurisdictions in China, we are confronted with precisely such an anomaly, which involves a question of international ethics. It is a dangerous precedent to establish, and it becomes the duty of every foreign national enjoying the extraterritorial rights in China to see that it is not established, for obvious reasons.
In the case under review there is no doubt but what the action of the police was defiant and in direct. contempt of court, whose decision, whether fair or unfair, should have been carried out, and it appears to me that the proper procedure, in case of dissent, would have been for the police to secure a conviction of the ex parte claimant of the smuggled drug in his own court before attempting ito carry the case: before the Consular Body, thereby offering a further contempt to a sovereign power to which it owes obedience, Since such a case has occurred, it is to ba hoped that when it comes before the Consular Body a definite ruling will be made to avoid the repetition of a conflict of this nature, which can only convey wrong impression in the minds of the Chinese, who certainly, under the circumstances, look upon our police force as autocratic to which the judicial power is subordinate, when in reality it should be the vice-versa, Tf the ruling of the Consular Body is adverse to the police, and if it is shown that by reason of the illegal retention of the properly the claimant had suffered-pecuniary damages, the question arises as to what redress at law he would have and how to recover it. Under such circumstances, the police may be administratively dealt with, but how and where to recover pecuniary damages is another phase of the controversy which should be of -interest to watch.
Thanking you for the publication of the above, I am, etc.,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.