Everyore has had experiences of these prominent personages who have travelled go extensively in China and spread broadcast their reports of conditions and their wise remedies therefor. T for one supposed that this unnamed evangelist had happened in West China in some such time as a Lincheng affair and made a general conclusion there from, but alas for these two editors! He cannot show a single case. These editors have been forced to admit that there is not a word of truth in the statement of this "'prominent evangelist" whom they brought upon the stage to blow a great blast on. their anti-extraterritorial horn. When a reformer has to admit that the chief witness for the prosecution is wholly discredited his case is in a sad mess.
The excuses given by these editors make interesting reading. The "Advocate" editor shoulders the blame for the disturbance upon the N.-C.D.N. who quoted him. With one statement we agree heartily, and that is that it-was "very unfortunate'—for Mr. Yard—that his paper.was copied so widely.
The "Recorder," sco page 691 of the November issue, first falls back on the monthly statement the he "docs not assume responsibility for views expressed by writers of articles published," which is conceded in the case of ordinary contributed articles. But this is something very different. The "Recorder" is engaged (or was) in a fervid campaign for the abolition of extraterritorality and he brings over this editorial from another paper to support his case.' In denying responsibility he is on very thin ice. In addition he makes the astounding statement that the article "did not convey to him any lack of appreciation of the missionaries or any impugnment of their motives."'" What kind of Janguage would accomplish that result with the "Recorder
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.