New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-08-10
TIE SHANGHAI SEDITIoN CASE.


The Shanghai sedition case is a perplexing
one. and ii is not strange that differences of
opinion over it have arisen among the con-
suls. Briefly stated IT is as follows: The Editor
of the ''Su-Pao' newspaper and his associates
were arrested for publishing seditious matter,
to wit, calling the Emperor a petty thief, re-
minding him that the penalty for loss Of Chinese
territory is death. and demanding the expul-
sion Of the Manchu dynasty. The alleged Of
fences had, however. been committed within
the foreign settlement and, accordingly, the
Taotai himself proposed to the consuls that
the prisoners should be tried by the mixed
court, and, if convicted should serve their
sentences in the foreign settlement. That pro-
posal was unquestionably correct. and was at
once agreed to by the consuls. But then the
VicerOy repudiated the Taotai's proposal. and
demanded that the men should be given up to
the Chinese authorities "for execution"-not for
trial! To this the consuls demurred. The men
were arraigned before the mixed court and
two of them pleaded guilty. Thereupon the
Chinese Imperial Government automatically
demanded their surrender
To this demand the foreign ministers at
Picking gave careful consideration, but were
unable to agree upon an answer The French
Minister thought the men should be surren-
dered, and that to make the foreign settle
ments an asylum for Chinese lawbreakers
would be a violation OF the terms on which
those settlements were held. The Russian Min
lister was even more emphatic in favOring their
surrender. The United States Minister is re-
ported to have held that the men should be pun
ished, but that they should be dealt with by
the mixed court, within the settlements as the
Taotai had proposed. The other ministers gen.
orally agreed with the French Minister, except
ing those Of Great Britain and Japan. These
asked for instructions from home. and received
them, to the effect that the prisoners should not
be given up. So there the matter stands at the
present time. The men cannot be given up
without the unanimous consent of the minis
tiers, and the consent Of the British Minister
cannot be secured. Therefore the men remain
in asylum, within the foreign settlements.
1t does not seem right that tract Of land
granted by China to foreigners for the latter
to settle upon should be made asylum for
native Chinese lawbreakers. Neither were the
mixed consular courts constituted for the try
ing of Chinese accused of violation Of Chinese
law Nevertheless, it would seem reasonable
that an offence committed within the settle
ments should be judicialy dealt with there.
There is the fndisputable fact that the Taotai,
the chief local official Of the Chinese Govern
ment, voluntarily proposed and explicitly prom
Used that the latter should be done. There is
also the fact that the men who pleaded guilty
did so on the expectation and assurance that
they were to be dealt with by the mixed court.
And there is above all, the insuperable Objec-
ton which men of the Anglo-Saxon race have
to giving any one over to horrible tortures such
as the Chinese have already inflicted upon one
'reformer," and such they would doubtless
in1ct upon all these men if they were surren-
dered. Whatever may be the strict law Of the
case-and it seems to be as much against as for
surrendering the men-the elemental feelings Of
humanity must strongly sympathize with the
British Government in the resolute attitude it
has assumed.