March 19.
The argument that the Japanese bid for three seats on the Shanghai Municipal Council is a perfectly in= nocuous demonstration of solicitude for the Settlement's welfare is not impressive, The Japanese candidates, presumably, have the courage of their convictions. Their submission to nomination must be taken to imply a belief that they' can secure sufficient support to carry them to election. They cannot} rely on British voters for, unless the British community is merely triting with public affairs, its elec toral countenance can be given only, to the seven non-Japanese candidates, Any vote given for w Japanese candidate is, by the exorable laws of arithmetic and not, out of any personal animosity, a vote given against the British interest, as represented by the five British candidates and their two, American colleagues... Mr. M. Fu in a letter published to-day, endeavour somewhat quaintly to traverse this view. He ventures to' ___assert, that the Japanese intend 10; to do so by the challenge which has east their votes for the British and American candidates as well as to support the three Japanese nominees, He does not explain how the Japan- beer ese voter can perform the feat with only nine votes, for the operation which he prescribes would require ten votes. But even if Mr. Fujil's statement means that the Japanese voter, after voting for the three Japanese candidates, will vote for six out of the seven candidates, it stilt is unacceptable on practical grounds, for its adoption would contribute to the defeat of the very object at which the triple candidature is aiming. That point has been made clear to British voters who know that, unless they are prepared to support the change In status quo by permitting the three Japanese candidates to secure election, they must confine their voting to the seven non-Japanese candidates. This, indeed, does not in anyway damage the chances of two Japan~ ese candidates who will automatic cally be elected to the remaining two seats.
The Japanese ratepayers cannot have it both ways. They cannot take action to challenge the status quo and then complain if the chal-Tenge be accepted. Had the British or American communities felt that the Japanese claim to three seats should be favoured at British or American expense, the obvious course would have been to with= draw one of the seven candidates, whether British or American. There then would have been no election.
There is not the slightest quarrel with Japanese aspirations or with the attempt to mobilize electoral support for them. This does not necessarily impel acceptance of those aspirations or acquiescence in the arguments adduced on their behalf. And, once it be held that the status quo should be supported, the elector possessing that point of view has only one choice: he should vote for the seven non-Japanese can= didates and climinale the three Japanese candidates from his voting ist. Again lot it be reseated this Is not a nationalist or sentimental argument: it is simply a matter of arithmetic. Mr. Fujii says that his Jcommunity does not wish to "undermine British representation," that it wants five British members of the Council, but the preservation of that state' of things cannot be secured by putting up and voting for three Japanese candidates. Mr. Fujii, apparently, implies that the how Japanese seat should be won at American expense, but he does not explain by what scientific process that nice adjustment of voles can be obtained. He Is, of course, merely begging the question and docs less than justice to his community's commonsense and sturdy independence In putting forward so palpably disingentious a disclaimer.
The British community and this {journal have consistently maintained the international spirit of the elections annually held to decide the composition of the Shanghai Mun!~ cipal Council. The British community has bees the last of the three to adopt menrus- f." formally ranging {ts candidate" under a national banner, It has been forced now been flung down by the Japan-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.