Evening star., 1937-09-12

anese. Even IN those days the p0pu-
lation of the settlement exclusive of
the French Concession) numbered al
most million, of which more than
100000 were Chinese. No less than
so per cent of the taxes levied by
the Municipal Council was paid by
the Chinese. And yet the Chinese
had no voice in the expenditure Of
the revenue or in the general adj
ministration of the municipality.
The executive section of the settle
ment government was overwhelmingly
British. OF LOTS municipal employees
in 1926 no less than 965 we're British.
None of the higher posts was held
by a non-British person. A very
small number of Chinese were en-
ployed in minor capacities.
Small wonder that the Chinese had
nursed grudge against the settle
ment. Not until 1926, when South
China seethed with anti-British agi-
tation, did the Municipal Council
grant three seats to Chinese. This
does not satisfy the Chinese. They
think they should have more men,
bers on the council.
The judiciary system in the set
tlement is another thing which long
ranked in the native mind. Up to
August, 1926, the settlement had the
so-called Mixed Court. 1t was pre-
sided over by Chinese magistrate,
but his decisions we're invalid unless
approved by foreign assessor, who
was usually Of the nationality OF the
foreign plaintiff or complainant and
who sat with the magistrate in the
court. The Mixed Court claimed
jurisdiction over all cases originating
in the settlement, except those in
which the defendant was a foreigner
and which, under the extraterritorial
agreements between China and the
powers, was handed over to the con-
sular court of the country of which
the defendant was citizen Origi-
nally the court concerned itself with
civil cases in which the plaintiff was
foreigner and the defendant
Chinese, as well as criminal cases in
which the defendant was a Chinese.
Gradually. however, it extended its
jurisdiction over cases between Chi
nese only with no foreigner involved
in them.
Impartiality Denied.
Against this system China con-
tended that the foreign assessor was
concerned with the interest Of the
plaintiff, who was of the same nation
ality as he, rather than with impair
tial administration of justice, which
often resulted in an unfair decision
Tor the Chinese. They contended,
furthermore, that where both the
plaintiff and the defendant were
Chinese the Mixed Court should
have no jurisdiction, but that such
cases should be handed over to the
Chinese court, even though they oc-
CURED within the settlement.
In August, 1926, when anti-Brit-
tsh agitation was at its height, China
forced the powers to accept an agree
ment abolishing the Mixed Court of
Shanghai and substituting a provi-
sional court whose decision was no
longer subject to the examination
and approval of the foreign assessor,
but in which a foreign consular rep
resentative was to sit only ito watch
the proceedings"
The provisional court was, to the
Chinese, only a step toward the in
stltution OF an entirely Chinese court
with no vestige of foreign super
vision attached to it. Alarmed by
this Chinese movement, the foreign.
especially British, residents in the
settlement sent to London a rep
resentative, Mr.. Huntly Davidson.
with the mission of enlisting the SUD-
port of British statesmen and pub
hcists, If not Of the British govern
ment, for their avowed intention Of
keeping the settlement from further
Chinese inroads. That was in 1929.
Meanwhile Lord Hailsham and Mr..
Lionel Curtis went to Shanghai, and
acting partly upon their advice the
Municipal Council of the settlement
invited Justice Richard Feetham of
the Supreme Court of South Africa
to come to Shanghai to make an i'm
partial study of the judiciary prob
lem OF the settlement. After l8
months study Justice Feetham came
to the conclusion that the transition
from the foreign supervised court
then existing to purely Chinese
court was matter mot of years but
of decades" His report contained
such passages as these:
The main cause of the concen-
tration of trade and industrial and
banking enterprises within the area
of the settlement and its immediate
vicinity has been the security of life
and property afforded there, and it
is matter of vital Importance that
this security be maintained in the
future"
THE question is asked whether the
rule Of law prevails in China, and
the answer it Not yet, because the
government has to rely very largely
upon the military prowess of its COM
manders to dominate the situation
and not only set up military courts
but also intimidate and otherwise
interfere with the ordinary civil
courts"