Evening star., 1922-01-18

ulCI Win some OtncE CoASSSSioAs eAcA =
would be an opportunity to see what
the conflict amounted to, what the
merits Of 1t might be. and to endeavor
to obtain an adjustment. Now what
was the harm in that7 No power. or
party. was compelled to submit any
thing. II 1t was referred. no power
was bound by the report. 1t was
pose here was an existing conces-
sion and another concession was
deemed to conflict with it? What
vas to be done about 1t? What did
they do now about It? Notes were
written; answers were received;
grounds were stated: objections were
advanced in reply to these grounds.
for an indefinite time, with no re-
suits. And why were there no re-
suits? Sometimes because there was
no adequate machinery to obtain re-
suits.
that I'VE will have its benefits as to
confessions that exist 'nsxt year, but
we will not have the benefit OF 1t as
to Concessions that exist now. II
1t was a good thing with regard to
q conflict OF concessions for the year
1875, he thought it was q good thing
with regard to a conflict of conces-
sions. in the same way, in the year
1922.
Sarraut Fears Changes.
Mr.. Sarraut said that he was per-
fectly satisfied by the explanations
given by Mr.. Hughes with regard to
the first two questions put by him.
However. he feared that the changes
proposed for article ~ might give
feared, in fact, that any contract
might be questioned by the mere fact
that new contract had been granted
on the same subject, possibly in bad
faith. with the sole object of having
a ground for contest. OF course. the
not be suspected Of taking any such
steps: but the government might
change Moreover. there was mention
IN the first article of concessions
granted by the provincial govern
,ments. Every one knew that there
were now several provincial govern
ments which might be tempted to
evade the central authority and which
might purposely seek complications
by questioning existing rights.
The chairman said he was very
much gratified at Mr.. Sarrauts ac-
quiesence in the provisions of the
resolution in the first three articles
and that Mr. Sarraut had found salts
factory the explanation which he had
endeavored to give upon those points.
With respect to article ~, Mr..
Sarraut's suggestions were very i'm
receive the most careful consideration.
He had thought the reference to
existing concessions would not have
quite the effect which Mr.. Sarraut
seemed to anticipate. In other words.
If there was an existing concession and
another concession was made which
was inconsistent with 1t he should
suppose it more likely that the at
tack would be made upon the latter
concession than upon the former, and
that instead of being regarded as a
facility for attacks upon existing
rights, the provision would have the
effect Of providing an opportunity for
inquiry. consideration and explana-
ton.
df a concession, whether it had
been granted in the past or should
be granted in the future. was
this declaration, then. Of course, it
did invite scrutiny. There was no
reason whatever for not approaching,
with absolute frankness, the consid-
Grafton of this question. II there was
a challenge of any existing conces-
sion on the ground that it conflicted
with the principles which all had as
an inquiry 1.-THE result of which
bound no one: which could not dero-
gate from any right: which could not
affect any legitimate position; and
which could invalidate nothing, but
simply threw a flood of light upon
conditions?
For Delegates 10 Decide.
The point to which he thought Mr..
Sarrauts observations applied with
the greatest force was not with re-
fspect to concession that might be
found Ito be inconsistent with the
principles stated. but to the case OF
a concession which would appear to
he inconsistent with the provisions
! Of another concession. Whether that
case should be embraced in the reso-
luton was matter for the judgment
of the delegates. II there were such
conflict there would be difficulties In
the carrying out of the concessions
| There would certainly be contro.
I versies that would arise from the
| conflict The question was whether
! it was not desirable to have some
| means at hand for an examination
| of the facts. always on the supposi-
| ton that governments dealing with
the government of China intended
to be entirely fair with China, and, in
their dealings. to regard each Others
1