April 14.
Whatever disagreement there may be among foreigners in rerisis and to to safeguard Shanghai against its repetition, there is complete unanimity over the part played by the Special District Courts in precipitating that crisis. In his, forceful speech to the Annual Meeting of Ratepayers yesterday, General Macnaghten did well, therefore, to devote considerable time to exposition of that que: ion, It has this definite i portance: the agreement for the establishment, of the " Special District Courts comes up. for revision during the course of the year. Article X runs:
"The present Agreement and the attached Notes "shall enter. into effect on ApH 2, 1090, and shall continue in'foree for a period of three years from that" date, provided that they may be extended for an additional" period upon mutual, consent of the parties therer The retiring Chairman frankly admitted that his previously expressed satisfaction with ' the Administration of the criminal law in the Special District Courts thad been sadly falsified by subsequent events, With no desire to indulge in captious eritfeism, surprise may be recorded that he was, even at that time, induced to give the Courts such' a te Imonial. Mr. Justice Feetham's Report was presented to him on April 23 last. It contained. the following warning on the basis lof facts which must have been in the possession of the Council long before that date:
"The Report of the Municipal Advocate for the year 1980): shows that there are comparative Few subjects of complaint, Nevertheless," dimsuivin which indicate the existence. of serious dangers present. situation, no adequate safeguards have yet been provided."
That was in regard to Criminal work, Mr. Justice Feetham bluntly added that the prospect of winning the confidence of the foreign community in the Civil side of the Courts' functions still seems remote." In general the Report went on to so, until it has been definitely recognised that' the Courts can assume administrative. functions in the Settlement, there is a risk that attempts may be made by the "Bureaux (of the Chinese municipality) to push their inter-'Yention further, in which case, i the Courts were not in a position effectually to discourage. such attempts, difficult ion of the most serious character might. result."
Prophetic vision could hardly have gone further in warning the Council of the difficulties which came to light so clearly before the year was out. It true that, in the now famous Chapter on the "Foundations of Security," Mr. Justice Feetham came to the conclusion that the [Settlement enjoyed a_ greater degree of security than "at resent provided in centres under purely Chinese control." That, unfortunately, was not, saying much; it expressly was based on the assumption that treaty provisions would be sufficient to preserve the "rule of law" in the Settlement. Ever since Scptember last the Council has been prevented from taking fully satisfactory measures for the mitigation of gro Sino-Japanese friction by the failure the Courts to divorce the administration of justice from political considerations. 'The fault, in part, may be sai technically, to' have lain in the drafting of the Agreement of 1980 which, by failing properly to dissociate "bureaucratic law" from the term "Chinese law," exposed the judges to difficulties from which they should have been saved. Tt requires but the most superficial knowledge of past" events arrive at the conclusion that, immediately political factors intruded into a case, justice could not be secured. The result Iwas that the Counci} had to reffrain from action when it knew that conviction was out of the question and it also cuffered re~
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.