Sept. 7.
"Lo Journal de Shanghai" has cast a stone at the Shanghai Municipal Council and a bouquet—with strings attached—at this journal's proposals for constitution al reform of the Foreign Settlement. In that graceful literary style, which the initials "G.M." so surely guarantee and to which a translation, However faithful, can scarcely do justice, the mentor on the cther side of Avenue Edward VII énjterprets recent Shanghai history' }with astonishing perversity. With-Jout being churlish, it is necessary, {from a position of less detachment than can be vouchsafed in the French Concession, to disclaim support on the terms so offered. Endorsement of the plea that the peculiar conditions created by the inadequacy of the Land Regulations Jand by the forces of attrition constantly at work in undermining the JCouneil's authority is turned by the French critic to account for [formulating against the Council charge of exceeding its terms of reference and of pursuing a policy Jwhich has been solely responsible [for the present situation. Such [view cannot be allowed to pass, Jeven though it ostensibly adopts a progressive intent. Briefly the [Council is blamed for the "inop~ Jportune" rendition of the Mixed [Court and to that decision, on the basis of an alleged statement by General Macnaghten, is attributed the Sino-Japanese hostilities of 1932, Moreover those hostilities are considered to have been precipitated by the Council's action in establish-jing an International Defence Committee which "prematurely declared fa state of emergency." Reluctance {to rake up old controversies cannot be allowed to overbear the importance of basing future decisions Jon realist conceptions of past history. To those ingenious Gallic theories prompt and emphatic exception is taken. The Defence Committee was composed of the commanders of all the international forces here—French included. On its recommendation the Council declared the state of Jemergency. It is difficult to see Jhow the Council could be expected to ignore the expert opinions of military authorities who, in ace cepting responsibility for the defence of the Settlement and Concession, were in no sense under the orders of the Council. In regard to General Macnaghten's alleged statement let it be quoted from the off cial report of his speech to the Ratepayers on Aprit 13, 1932, when he commented on the Special District Courts' failure to deal effactively with the anti-Japanese agitation in 1931; 'This attitude was undoubtedly one of the contributing factors in the cumulative causes' which led to actual warfare between the Chinese and Japanese military forces in the. Chapel area with all ite disastrous consequences, It is a preposterous extension of [the General's meaning to represent him as endorsing the view that the Court Agreement of 1930 (which presumably "Lo Journal de Shanghat" really means when it writes "the negotiations for the rendition of the Mixed Court") "rendered possible the troubles which took place in Shanghai prior to the Sino-[Japanese hostilities."
On the demerits of the Mixed JCourt and, indeed, of the Provisional Court which functioned in its place from January 1927 to April 1930, it is hardly necessary todilate, 'The Feetham Report gives unquestioned authority for the view that the changes in 1927 and 1930 were inevitable and just. While this journal strongly maintains that the present system requires considerable improvement—for which' purpose the Chinese authorities have assigned high judicial officers of their service and have, it is understood, availed themselves of the experience of the distinguished French jurist, M. G. Padoux, who is an adviser to the Legislative Yuan and actually a resident in Shangtiai—it cannot agree that the /Mixed Court would, under modern conditions, have better served the Judicial requirements of the Set-{tement. The realists of French) Jdiplomacy, in negotiating their! Court agreement, went even further} than their British confreres in "undermining" the authority of their Municipal Council. And here it is pertinent to point out that the Council of the Foreign Settlement was not responsible for the rendition and its relevant -agreements. Its representatives, indeed, in 1930 were consulted only on four specific points at a time when they were presented with virtual fait accompli. That was a malter of public comment at the time. However that may be, the: newcomer to Shanghai, confronted with authoritative analyses of the state. of affairs under the old system, is sometimes amazed to find
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.