July *, 1903.]
MANCHURIA.
THE STATE OF TE QUESTION IN PEKING.
Peling, 24th June.
to
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
more pedantic than the pedants and to prove by book or e ook that the popular use is right because the pets say it is wrong.-Yours, etc.,
INTERROGATIVE,
[The matter is not of grave importano to Hongkong, bat we must agree with our corres- pendent 1hst the interrogative "whom?" and not "who?" is the corree form in the phrases- quoted above. The the ry about contraction seems anreasonable.-ED. D.P.;
1
COLONIAL TARIFFS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS,'
+
Primrose Club,
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 29th June.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIE Wm. M. GO. DEAN (Chief Justice).
ALLEGED subornatION OF A WITNESS.
Lan Mui pleaded not guilty to charges of suborning a witness to commit perjury in con- nection with a case heard before the Land Court on or about 11th November, 1902.
The Hon. Sir H. 8. Berkeley, K.C., Attorney- General (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor), prosecuted, and Mr. E. H, Sharp, K.C. (instructed by Mr. P. W. Goldring, solicitor, of Messrs. Deacon & Hastings), defended.
The following jury was empanelled :- Messrs. F. E. Suster (oreman), A! M'Coll, W. C. D. Tarner, W. H. Purcell, A. Beattie, C. König, aud G. Bru 80.
18
cld
I learn from a most reliable s urce that the settlement of the Manchurian Convention between Russia and China is proceeding with unexpected rapidity and calmness. The new agreement, containing four articles, pr posed by the Russiau Minister Mr. Lessar has already been sent to St. Petersburg with Prince Ching's concurrence, and if the Russ an Government makes no objection, it will ba promptly signed. It is not definitely ascer tained how far the four articles of the new agreement concur with the former agree- ment. The. English and Japanese Ministers seem to be quite in the dark 8.3
S. James's, London, 2 ̈ird May. them, as Prine, Ching, who used to consult SIR, The time is ripe whilst Imperial with them when China was urging him to Federation is in the air to drive home the agree to the former seven articles, has suddenly advantages Mr. Chamberlain has pointed out. changed his attitude towards them since bis Now is a grand opportunity for the Primrose sick leave, and has given them no information and Empire leagues to emphasise the fact our as to the progress of the negotiations, which Empire can and should be self-supporting our he has kept quite sebret It is certain Colonies should support the Mother Country
The Attorney-General stated the case to the that Prince Ching grows day by day more and not rest satisfied till our Empire is self-jury, and said that the indio ment, stripped disposed toward Russia, for the following contained and independent of the world, then of its legal technical reasons-First, he has been persuaded that
larbey," charged the our supplies during war would be assured. Let defendant with inoiling and encouraging and he cannot rely on the Japanese Government, us grasp the opportunity. Imperial Federation procuring one Lan Man to give false evidence notwit standing the steady assurances of Mr. based on the principles one flag, one law, one before the Land Court on the occasion of the Uchida, the Japanese Minister, while the Prince monetary standard or system and uniformity hearing of a claim to a certain piece of land in was between the devil and the dep sea, with in coinage, weights, measures, etc.-the metric the New Territory. The facts were, simply, Russia urging him on the one hand and Japan system for ch ice-unity in hearts and methods. that the land in question, which had belonged on the other, fostering s irresoluteness Our colonies are ripe for expatsion of trade. t a family named Lau, was sold in 1892, three Secondly, Russia has at last made Prince Ching Let our Colonial Governments lead the way by ears after the death at Singapore of the recognise that it will be better for him to rely upon offering prizes for the best suggestions for the head of the Lau family, to one Ng Lo Sam, by Russia than upon Enginad and Jap n, through extension of trade in their respective colonies. the surviving members of the the assistanceof H.H. Yong Bha, the Imperial I can point out two articles which could be Following the discovery subsequently-nine family. Princes with the greatest infeliceat Court, whose grown sucessfuly in most colonies for our
years later, to be precise of ag goodwill Russia has succeeded in securing. mutual gain, viz., flax and ramie. The former deed referring to the piece of land in question, Thirdly, it is stated that Prince Ching himself is grown for seed and the straw wasted; this the prisoner, it was alleged, induced the widow bas received substantial favours from Russia. could yield enormous returns if roperly handled. and youngest son of the deceased head man Russia, availing herself of the present oppor- Ramie is the strongest of all fibres and can be Lau, both of whom were signatories to the deed tanity, is hurrying on the construction of a easily grown in most of our colonies. It is a
of sale to Ng Lo Sam, to commence an act on railway from Lianyang to Antung, at the mouth substitute for cot'on sud ffers en rmous in the Land Court to regain ownership of the of the Yalu. The compradore of the Russo-possibilities, it is undoubtedly the textile of the land. Lau Mau, the widow's swoond son, was Chiness Bank is reported to have taken the future, and if our Colonial Governments would suborned by the prisoner, it would be sh wn in contract for the work, and is now enlisting foster the growth of this grand material we evidence, to give false evidence destructive of coolies at Tientsin so that the work may be should be independent of America for cotton, no the claim of Ng Lo Sam and the validity of the proceeded with at once.-N. C. Daily News. more rings or corners, a Lancashire famine e uld deed which he had received he (Lun Mau) was not again happen, the sugar-planters should not sentenced eventually to three months hard be ruined to let a foreign nation prosper. Such a
labour for perjury. policy as Mr. Chamberlain suggests would enable our Colonies to make use of the bounties the geographical position has given them and onst the "bounty" by which foreign Governments crush tem. There is a vast Empire and opportunity offers the chance of making our Empire self-contained and independent of the world. Can we embrace it ? By all means, yes And let us not rest till w、 bave done so. are not aggressive, and British prosperity is a safeguard to peace. As one family let or Colonies join us for our mutual support; any adverse tariffs fore gu nations choose to put où will be to their own cost as they will soon feel on Mr. Punch's part. Who is it by?' is abso the loss of our money and offer us such goods lutely correct; and Whom is it by ?- hich as we must (P) have from them at fair rates in the Sage of Bouverie Street evidently prefers-exchange for ours. Re'aliation is a cird we is simply wrong. It has to be remembered that in English, the interrogativewho?' is used as a contraction for who is it that?" (like the French Qu'est ce que). Who was it written by?' is an elliptical way of Baying Who is it that it was written by?' and it would be wrong to say 'Whom was it written by ? It is a tolerably safe rule, Mr. Puch, to use who' in n-arly all cases where the governing verb or proposition follows the interrogative, especially when it follows at a cons derable distance. It is correct to sy 'who did he marry?' though many prefer whom did he marry?" For whom did he buy the bracelet?' is right; but whom did he buy the bradalet for' is wrong, besides being inelegant." I cannot conceive what the writer of the above means when he says that it must be remembered" that the interrogative who is used as a contraction for "who is it that." Why should we remem- bar any such absurdity? What, I should like to know, is the "who" in who is it that P" Is it in turn "a contraction," etc., and must we go on expanding "who is it that is it that” ad infinitum ? In that case we might be
ragnhiệt, at who the tempted to write
as a more forcible contraction. I suspect that the Singa- pore writer is one of those who likes to be.
CORRESPONDENCE.
WHO OR WHOM?
TO THE EIITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS.'
Hongkong, 29th June.
SIR. In a recent number of a Straits paper the writer of a "topical" column observes:- "Punch poses as an authority on English grammar, and g atly hints that the sentence Who is it by?' is angrammatical. To some this savours of pedantry-to as it
21
an error
+
We
can always play. Free trade is grand where all the nations play level, but to handicap our own people, and enrich the foreigner at our own expense, is folly. Give our colonies the chance and let our money go to enrich them and pros, erity will bless our Empire. The theme is wide enough to fill columns, but I will no longer trespass on your patience and space, but conclu le by offering my services to anyone wanting particulars as to flax and ramie-growing and manufacture. There is a vast opening for capital, and I see no reason why not only should our colonies grow flax and ramie but on account of its simple treatment even start manufac ́uring for their owo use. It is only a question of money. I hope others will take up the spirit of this letter and point out to our colonial brethren how they can expand in other directions. Invite our capitalists to come forward and invest in our home and colonial trades and not foster foreign railways (Bagdad) and manufacturers in the ultimate rivalry to our own industries. If the capitalists will support our colonies it will all help towards the advancement of our great Empire and bring Imperial Federation in the range of un fait accompli.-Yours, etc.,
D. EDWARDS-RADCLIFFE.
Evidence was called, and was not completed when the court adjourned.
Tuesday, 30th June.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE IS HONOU& SIR WM, M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
ALLEGED SUBOENATION. The hearing was continned. Evidence having been o1ncluded, counsel addressed the jury.
The Court adjourned shortly after four o'clock.
I
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS Hoyour A. G. Wise (PuisNE JUDG 3).
!
ACTION AGAINST THE DOUGLAS 8,8. CO., LD, Kan Poo, merchant, Foochow, sued the Douglas Steamship Co., Ld., for $1,000 da mages. Mr. M. W. lade, barri ter-at-law (instructed by Mr. E A. Bonner of Messrs. Dennys & Bowley, solicitors), appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. W. Looker of Messrs. Deacon Hastings, solicitors, was for the defence.
Plaintiff in his statement of claim said. be was a merchant in Foochow. On or about 11th May, Lau Seung Min shipped on board the defendant company's 8.8. Haimun at Foochow 7 cases of silk cocoons in good order and condition, to be carried to and delivered to Lau Seung Min in Hongkong, upon the terms of a bill of lading, in like good order and condition certain perils, etc., only exceptd. None of the 83 contingencies sross, but the defendant company did not deliver the goods in good order. and condition to Lau Seung Min. The HaiwAN arrived in Hongkong on 16th May, and the plaintiff by his agent on the same day applied.