To the Editor of the "Nortu-Cama Dairy News."
Srr,—Will you allow me space in which to comment oni your leading article in Saturday's paper on the Moral Welfare League, and to state a few facts which may not yet be clear to you or some of your readers? I think you will agree that in view of your wide circulation they are demanded by common justice.
To begin} at the end. You state that the present policy with regard of evidence toto brothels was adopted "by a vote at a Ratepayers' Meeting when the room contained practically nobody but those who were for that vote (How do you know?), and in defi-unco of the urgently expressed opinion of the Council."
This statement deserves' fuller and fairer treatment; This fairer treatment we have a right to expect from the leading Shanghai newspaper. The facts are as follows. The M. W. L. several times requested the S. M. CE. to appoint a Vice Commission. This was refused. A resolution was then presented to the Ratepayers' Meeting that a Vice Commission be appointed. Sir Edward Pearce said it was not needed as he thought the M. W. L. could do the work as well and the Council would assist them. The ratepayers, however, voted to appoint the Vice Commission. This was not very strong protest. The Vice Commission after a year's work presented a unanimous report. This was presented to the ratepayers in the 1920 meeting. The Council put forward certain objections to the report. To these objections Judge Skinner Turner, Chairman of the Vice Commission and mover of the resolution to adopt the report, replied, "Every one of the objections put forward by the Council were considered by the Committee before they issued their report." This statement was greeted with applause The report was then adopted. Thus_ collective public opinion in the International Settlement has three tines expressed itself in favour of the general policy of the M. W. L., once through the Vice Commission and twice through the Ratepayers' Meeting. The opposition has not expressed itself except in a few disconnected newspaper utterances. Opposition that as neither desire nor strength enough to attend meetings and vote is after all a myth.
(2). The correspondence which you call controversy for controversy's sake is.no deliberate effort to entrap or harass the administration or the Council. It came about thus:—The police report said that the dispersion of prostitutes eliminated police control (which sounds plausible) and we asked "What is meant by police control?" in view of the fact that in the houses which apparently, being segregated, were under this control liquor was sold under their very eyes. thus violating the Law (1) by selling without a licence and (2) by violating the condition of the brothel licence, which expressly forbids it. But the Council does not answer.
Again we asked how it was estimated that -'prostitution had not decreased." But we can get no plain answer.
Again we asked whether the ordinary legal definition of a brothel, which would include a house where two practise. was what was meant in its correspondence. But we can get no clear answer. We only want to know.
(3). You are of course at liberty to dislike the methods of the M. W. L. Can you suggest a superior method of getting commercialized vice broken? If so, will you offer it for the public good to a competent administration?
(4) Before perpetuating the uneasy rumours about "'spies" and chits, you might have guided your readers with definite information. Of course you may call all detectives spies, but you have no hesitation using them when your house has been burgled and you want your goods back. The "trick that decent people dislike' is now this very night being employed by the universal consent of the whole community for its welfare and security.
As to the liquor chits let me say that every one was signed with a perfectly correct name and that name was seen in Court by the Bench, the defending counsel, and the defendants. There were no chits signed by the "spies" which were not redeemed by them the same evening.
(5). It is fair that all should know the part the M. W. L. has played in getting these houses closed, and the reason for it.
The League had repeatedly asked the police to move in the matter. Two of the three houses concerned had no licences and for about two years had flatly refused to take one or to close down. The third licence was withdrawn last December, but the house was still going strong in July. Evidence was necessary that it was not a case of a boarding house and the Police Department requested the cooperation of the M.W.L, to secure the evidence. Legal advice was taken as to the type of evidence required to prove a case. It was secured. The police prosecuted and won their case. Hintce iliac lacrymae.
(6). Whoever was the instigator of that article has a perfect right to his own opinions, but, Sir, we are astonished to find a British newspaper solemnly reminding us that, living as we do amongst Asiatics, we should -toe the line with your view of their morality. We can at least present ideals even if
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.