31
empowered to appoint professors, lecturers and other aca-
It is clear from the ac-
demic officers of the University,
tion which the Council did take in the matter that that body
could not possibly have authorized any such reply as that
which according to Dr. Wang Chung-hui was sent to Edinburgh Paragraph 4 of statute 8 of the University Ordinance which places the right of appointment in the hands of the Council,
contains a proviso to the affect that no appointment shall
be made by the Council without due consideration of the
claims of any candidate who may be recommended by the
Genate. There is evidence that the senate was at the
time a little inclined to go beyond its statutory powers
in the matter of appointments, but there is nothing in the
file to suggest that the Senate ever communicated to
Edinburgh such a reply as is now assigned to the University
by Dr. Wang Chung-hui. If such a reply was ever commuuni-
cated to dinburgh it looks as if this must have been done
by the London Committee. All I can say as regards that
is that I have before me the statement of the qualifications
etc., required in the new professor and the letter from the
Pro-Vice Chancellor to Sir Charles Addis the Chairman of
the London Committee. Not a word is said in either of
these documents about the axclusion of Chinese.
I must,
however, confess that the story of the incident, so far
as it can be told from the resolutions passed in the Senate
and in the Council, does Biggest that the London Commit toe
was under the impression that a Chinese professor would not be acceptable and that the London Committee who advertised
How the post, was approached on D. C.Y. Wang's behalf.
the Jamittee got that impression, if it did get it, I can
not say.
But the whole incident was most regrettable.
Dr. C.X.#ang had excellent specialist qualifications;
Parker had none
Moreover Section 18 of the University ür
dinance maots that 1-
"No distinction of ruce or nationality shall be