To the Editor of the "Nonru-Emma Dam News"
Sir—In your issue' of February 2, Mr, E. 8. Little say:
'In the early French 'Treaty. a clause was inserted in, the French text which Yeas not found in the Chinese version; but since the treaty provided that the French version waa to be the teal tone i the event of a discrepancy be: tween' the two. versions the inserted clause Became effective and has hed Fotent influence on succeeding events That clause enacted that Frenchy navies, Were lege of Tew where in the interior and were to {felly "protected: in their Te was' freely "stated atthe time, and war current "in my. early days; Seeing the advantage that was being Governments. principally of course the ined by. thole rivals, moved. thole British and" American," to. obtain. the Same privileges for. themselves, with The result that they. were. able "and aid spread all'over Chinn.
inthe "Chinese Recorder" of November, 1925, page 723, article signed by Mr, Frank Raw. "The French text accepted fas authoritative. When this came to: be translated into Chinese a spurious clause was added giving French Roman Catholics" the right' of renting and purchasing land and erecting. buildings thereon {in all of the provinces, 'And it shall be lawful for French missionaries in any of the provinces to Tease or buy land and build houses.' But. the Chinese version of the treaty not being authoritative the French Government repudiated this clause and other governments de-lined to take advantage of it. The source of this spurious clause has not been determined, " Wellington Koo says that the Chinese Government did not discover its spurious ness for a number of years,"
Cannot some scholar who has access to the original documents settle this very interesting historical point? Mr Little is generally Guite accurate and Mr, Rawlinson quotes" Willoughby, Which is Tight?
Tam, ete,, Haichow, Ku, Feb. 5, 1926,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.