At the risk of appearing to use the poland-kettle argument, we are bound to point out that Dr. Warnshuis's letter contains quite as. many misconceptions as those he seeks to fasten on us. The report of the Detroit meeting whicn appeared in our columns early in December, was not "apparently cabled," but obviously mailed: it bears the date plainly "Washington Oct. 25" Nor was it "sent by a. political organization." It is signed, the usual way at the end, "Kuo Min," which, though Dr. Warnshuis may not know it, everybody in China knows as a Chinese news agency of high class. As this agency's reports are circulated to Practically every newspaper of Standing in China, there appears no ground for Dr. Warnshuis's insinuation that this particular message was deliberately concocted "to bait the editor" of the "N.C. Daily News" and entrap him into "exposing his attitude to some of the questions of Chinese politics." This is insulting to the Kuo Min, which respects itself too well to play such tricks, and is most unfair to us. We did not comment Thad already in any way on this or any other subject related to Chinese' politics." But who ever said it dic did? We did rot, nor did Kuo Min, which states Clearly that the resolution to request the United States Govern-tent to appoint plenipotentiaries to revise the existing treaties with China was adopted by the National Gouneil of Congregational Churches, and sent to all missionary workers in China, (The last sentence also! sets Dr. Warnshuis right on another! point on which he seems to have! misread Kuo Min's report.) Dr. Warnshuis suggests that out columns are not an open forum for! views with which we disagree, can scarcely have read us with the assiduity he claims, or he would know that difference of opinion lene never causes a letter to be} rejected from our correspondence columns, which are, and are well-known' in China to be, open to all and sundry. In conclusion Dr. Warnshuis objects to some com-sents that have been passed upon unself, We should Mot quarrel with him for that. But his letter to-day certainly suggests that he one, to put it mildly, who rather ays himself open to' be violently, disagreed with by others, bon eri of view in two letters to the edi for the opinions of which w was only referred to in passing, was directed generally to the question of missionaries and politics; and we would cheerfully submit' it to any unprejudiced reader to say whether it was not couched in studiously restrained and fair-minded terms, Dr. Warnahuis writes: "The simple truth is that the Conference (ie, the Foreign American Committee of Reference and Council) did not express itself ate. All she could claim would be the land itself; and for what foreign energy has put! upon it and the increased value thereby given to it she should be required to pai Furthermore, no foreign Government has any right to take any step in its private negotiations with China which might directly or indirectly affect Shanghai's position. That is an international affair with which only the Powers jointly can deal. But these are difficult questions to get clearly understood abroad. We have but too) much reason to know how easily Chinese propaganda is swallowed in Europe and America and the Street Unions' letter, which by the way can never have been written by a Chinese, is a dangerous document. Incidentall; it is an apt illustration of the almost universal Chinese belief that the abolition of extraterritoriality means that all foreign property in this country imme: diately lapses to the Chinese.
It cannot be too strongly urged that the committees of chambers of commerce and kindred organizations will use every means their disposal to impress upon their respective Governments the vital importance of "going slow and that, in so doing, they will not allow themselves to be put off by fair speeches, or put, down by official retorts that these things do not concern them; or muzzled by confidential interviews with their Ministers. In the horrid story of the murder of Bishop Versiglia and his companions and_of the "three Finnish ladies in Kiangsi; in the outrage near Chinkiang on the Tuckwo; in the enforced transport of huge consignments - of Jjopium by every river steamer, which officers and Customs men fare powerless to perform, we have an unanswerable argument. for declining all further discus-Fsion of treaty while such mockery of order and government continues to be practised: with impunity.
Rebellion and Rel Twice within the last few days have we read statements that] Mahatma Gandhi was religion to the solution of political] problems—once in last Sunday's magazine section from Upton Close, and once yesterday in the cabled report of a speech delivered in Bombay by Dr. Herbert Miller, a professor of sociology of Probably there could be no bette twist given to the propaganda d signed to enlist the sympathy of the western world on Gandhi's behalf peal to religion, for we in spite of evidences to the contrary the world has soldo been #0 religiously minded as today. Bubis it true? To the best of our knowledge there is no religion in the world, worthy of the which does not in some way or another preach obedience to the: powers that be as one of its principal practiced, The religion which, presumably, Dr. Miller and Mr.
jose themselves profess Render unto Caesar the igs which are Caesar's": it does not encourage disobedience or rebellion. And if there is any re-Ligion that does, we have yet to hear of it. What Mr. Gandhi has done is to raise the standard of! revolt: in what way, then, is this bringing religion to the solution of ical problems? If logists attributed to Gandhi patriotism his motive, we should understand: it and respect, it, But this new pretext causes us to ask whether in this modern age we must parody Dr. Johnson's famous mot and say patriotism but religion "is the: Feaource of scoundrels'
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.