Sessional_Paper_1926 — Page 98

94

In reasserting that there was not and could not have been any intention to attack Shameen, we have categorically to state that the firing on June 23 was first opened from the Shameen side. This point, of course, is of vital importance. And in view of its pre- sentation by the British delegation, it now appears necessary for the Conference to con- sider whether the question of responsibility for the Shameen-Shakee shooting should not form the subject of a properly constituted international enquiry. We have, however, to point out that it was to avoid the necessity of such an enquiry that the Chinese delegation argued in their statement that the point is of "secondary importance" and "is not a capital issue, since "all the relevant facts of the case support the view that, even if the Shameen firing were done in the first instance in so-called defence (which is categorically denied), it was EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIED.'

*

་ ་

While we are prepared to agree to the holding of an enquiry to determine the "question of whose act gave rise to the tragedy," we cannot in the meantime allow to go unchallenged the "written statements by the Danish and Swedish Consuls and American citizens who were present at the same time, and assert definitely of their own knowledge that the first shots were fired from Shakee.' These men formed part of the population or of the garrison of Shameen on June 23 and they are no more disinterested witnesses than is Sir James Jamieson. In principle their testimony is just as tainted as that of the men who actually shot down Chinese students and others on the Shakee bund. Nor can we refrain from instantly repelling the attempt to fasten responsibility for the Chinese dead and wounded on the Chinese authorities who, it is alleged, "disregarding the folly and danger of their action, allowed inflammable material to be placed ready to the hands of the agitators seeking for an opportunity to cause a conflagration." There is a familiar ring in these words. It is always heard when men's folly and unwisdom plunge them into deeds of blood and a scapegoat must be tracked. But the real reply to this charge is that the Chinese Authorities did not interfere with the demonstration because, as a fact, they were absolutely satisfied that no attack would or could be made on Shameen. A host of responsible witnesses can attest to this fact.

We note that the British delegation challenge our definition of the anti-British boycott as a patriotic abstention from all commercial relations with the British and assert that "it is imposed on an unwilling people by a small but powerful organisation of per- sons who maintain the boycott by force of arms." A complete reply to this British con- tention would necessarily involve the discussion of questions which, though we are ready and prepared to discuss them, do not come within the ambit of this Conference. But we have to emphasize the grave insult to the Chinese nation that is implied in the British view. To believe that the Chinese people are incapable of mass indignation and mass ac- tion for acts of death and violence of the type enacted on the Shakee Bund is not only to- err grievously but to imply that we are a people with the stuff of slaves in us. It is doubt- less true that there have been incidents in our relations with the British, in the past, which may explain the persistence of this British belief. But great tidal waves of change have swept across the world; and men's work and action in this region of Asia are to-day inspired by ideas of freedom and human dignity which will not suffer them tamely to sub- mit to violence and injustice. Unless this is grasped and understood by the British and translated into their policy and action, the future of our relations with them will be but a repetition of the past with its misunderstandings, its riots, its tumults and its wars. We speak gravely. We are on the eve, if not already in the midst, of events that may cut out in the rocks of destiny a new road for our people. It is not our wish that we should enter on this new road with the British at variance with us. But we are in a situation in which the decision as to the future is largely theirs.

As regards the blockade by Hongkong, we have to reiterate that whatever, sub- jectively, it was intended to compass, the general prohibition was interpreted as a finan- cial and economic blockade of Canton and the rest of the province and that, objectively, it worked out in this sense, since Hongkong as the whole transhipment port in South China, was the only gateway through which supplies of food could then reach our people. This interpretation of the embargo is not affected by either its modification on August 11 or its removal on October 9. By these dates it appears to have been realised that the relief measures instituted by Canton for the importation of food from other cen- tres had deprived the blockade of its effectiveness.