Aug. is hard. to convince some idealists that, human nature being what it is, all national progress if it is to be enduring must) necessarily be slow. It is a mistake to think a nation can change its ways of thinking, its customs. and mantlers, and clothe itself with the civilization of another country as easily as a man changes his garments, Particularly is this true of law and its administration. At the present time the laws and system of legal procedure of China are being revised so as to bring them into greater harmony with those of other countries. But it is vain to expect that the great mass of the Chinese people, accustom ed to primitive laws and puni ments primarily enacted to maintain authority rather than to ensure justice between man and man, will be able without a long period of gradual education and general enlightenment, to understand and observe new laws derived from the West, which are based on abstract principles of]
Justice and the progressive experience of centuries of Western lization. As Mr. David Landale said recently at the annual meeting of the China Association in London, "if China wishes to modify: her present international status, her first duty to put her house in order and then undergo a long course of preparation not merely in remodelling her legislation, but also in training officials who can be trusted to have it honestly enforced." The latter task alone is most difficult and will take a very' Jong time to accomplish, unless there is a sudden and astonishing change of heart and moral reformation among the official classes. But unpractical political idealists wish to thrust legal reforms suddenly on a people which is not ready for them, and to entrust power over foreigners to officials who care far more for personal gain than for law and justice.
Various ides on this subject, more or less idealistic, have appeared in the "Chinese Recorder," which usually advocates: the abolition of extraterritoriality—a word which the editor and some of the contributors so detest that they have shortened it to the graceful form, "extrality," an extraordinary (or shall we say "extranary"?) proceeding. It is therefore most refreshing to come across an article in the July issue, which takes the other side. It i written by an experienced missionary who knows the Chinese well, admires them for their good qualities, but has no illusions: concerning—recent political changes. Indeed, after many. years of visitation of Chinese Prisons he has come to the serious conclusion that there are more innocent men in Chinese prisons to-day than there used to be in Manchu days, and that, in the matter of torture, while there has been some improvement, it still exists and there is need of, further improvement. He opposes the abolition of extraterritoriality on three grounds: (1) the abandonment of it at present would inflict a wrong on those! who now possess the privilege; (2) the retention of extraterritoriality for the time being is no wrong to China as a republic or to any individual Chinese; (8) the retention of extraterritoriality is the best lever there is at present for raising the Chinese people.to a higher level; its abandonment is more likely'than any other movement to confirm the Chinese on their present level. He contends that "extraterritoriality is concerned only with a man's status in matters of law and legal administration. It is intended to mark the country on which it) is imposed as one which has not! prudence which the country imposing it has established. It ts jot 50 much. an infringement of sovereign rights" as a denial that the country on which it.is imposed possesses a particular sovereign right which is attached to a just Jaw and a just admini tration. (the two clauses must both be used.)"
Probably most of our readers will agree with this argument. It seems strange that moral reformers, influenced by war-time propaganda, should apparently, lay such slight weight on the moral power and educational value of laws administered with equity, justice and mercy. "A foreign missionary was asked to settle a dispute between Chine Christians. He had lived long and intimately with the Chinese which was not without its. effect upon his own character. He proceeded to settle the affair in Chinese fashion by compromise and "saving the face" of all concerned, But the Chinese protested, saying they could easily settle the matter in this way themselves; what they wanted was the strict impartial justice of the foreigner. So they went to another foreigner. The Chinese may not admire foreign: ers for the manner, somewhat lacking in repose, with which they meet, the provocations and mishaps of daily life; but in their hearts they do admire them for their justice, their fair-play, their respect for law and orde! Why should such a moral lever as extraterritoriality with its moral and legal object lessons to the Chi be prematurely surrendered? The concluding words of the "Recorder" article are those of a true and wise friend of China: "To abolish extraterritoriality now would be to pull us down to the Chinese level, Would that my Chinese brethren would raise the ery, Abolish extraterritoriality, but never till we have just lars and a just administra-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.