Mar, 14.
At a certain missionary gathering in North America the following action was taken: "Resolved that in the opinion of this conference the use or threat of foreign military force for the protection of missionaries ix, in general, a serious hindrance to. missionary work and that the effort should be made to secure, for those missionaries desiring it, the privi lege of waiving their right to such protection." We have no desire, as we have no right, to criticize the action of a responsible body of a-nation, other than our own, for any' action it may take vis-d-vis of its own Government; that is its own and its Government's affair. As, however, the missionary body is international in its composition and action taken by one section bound to have a repercussion on others, ws may be allowed, as a matter of general interest, to devote a little space to consideration of the issues involved in. this announcement. First, then, we would question the wisdom of ising this debatable question at the present time, We remem"
band of 127 American' missionaries, in Nanking - sent telegram to its Government pr testing against the use of fo in dealing with China and, on the 24th day of March following, these same missionaries were saved from death only by. the barrage put around Socony hill by the allied warships in the harbour, In matters of such grave importance as is, contemplated in the above resolution ft is well to make haste slowly, Secondly it seems a doubtful policy to separate the missionaries of a nation from its other nationals. Are not the objections urged in this resolution against the use of force in the settlement: of international disputes equally valid in those in which non-missionaries are involved? Why not take the broader view and urge that the use or threat of force should not be resorted to in any international dispute? Possibly the world is not ready to adopt such an idealistic attitude, but what is heaven for if a man's rench does not exceed his grasp? We note that the opinion of eminent jurists has been sought on the question whether a section of [tne nation can divest itself of certain attributes of citizenship and whether a government can assent to such a negation of national rights. The gentlemen consulted have delved deep into legal lore and, as is the way of the craft, have marshalled such array' of pros and cons that neither they nor any of those who read their learned opinions is carried a step nearer to the solution of the problem pro" pounded, But the most serious objection to this proposal is that it verges very closely on being an insult to China, True, it is meant quite otherwise, in fact, meant as a compliment, but really the reverse, This will be clear if we turn the proposed action round about and put China the place of America and Amer= fea in the position of China, Suppose that the Chinese com munity in San Francisco were to decide to send an identical note to the Government of China and ask it to notify the President of the United States that though its nationals had some times suffered wrong at the hands of lewd fellows of the b er sott in America, the Chines in America did not desire that henceforth any threat of rotalia. tion should be addressed to aby the Government of What the Chinese Government would say in reply to this request we do not know. But we feel quite sure that we know what the reply of the American Government would be. It would reply that always, in the past, the Government of the United States had given to all aliens in its territory the same protection to life and property as it gave to its own citizens, and that no threat of any kind was necessary to ensure that it would continue to treat Chinese and all other nationalities with equal-handed justice, Even to suggest that in any contingency America would act otherwise was to cast a slur on the honour and dignity of the United States. If Chinese in America suffered wrong, the whole might of the United States would be exerted to redress'that wrong; any other course of action would denial of the foundation prin+ ciples enunciated in the constitution of the United States. All China asks of the nations of Europe and America is to be treated as an equal. To ask the Government of the United States to say to China that which she /would resent if said by China to America is to assert, in the most unequivocal manner, the inferiority of China.
In our opinion all this pother is much a-do about nothing, The Tegal question does not neces-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.