July 24, 1985.}
CHINA'S INDISCRETION.
(Daily Press 21st July.)
28
The Tokyo telegram we reproduce from a contemporary, mentioning Japan's per- emptory refusal to recognise China's right to Intervene at the peace negotiations"in America, may give some readers the impression that the Japanese are indifferent to the merits of China's case as their enemies have invariably been. This view, or any like it, should not be enter- tained. The circumstances, and con- sequently the cases, are entirely dissimilar. Superficially considered, China having been the shuttlecock in the vigorous kriegspiel played by Russia and Japan, it would seem that the request of China to be represented at the negotiations which must inevitably affect her future existence was neither pre- sumptuous nor unreasonable. It was, none the less, decidedly non-permissible, and under all the circumstances, it was also very indiscreet. It seems to be well understood that had the late M. LESSAR been still to the fore at Peking, such a demand might not have been made. In other words, it was a Russian, and not a Chinese demand; and the ulterior designs of the understrappers acting at the Russian Legation are not difficult to discover. It is one of those ad coplandum appeals to the crowd which Russia, failing at all other points to circum veut her enemy, has so persistently been making. Of course the risk of embroilment with such a nonentity as China was unlikely to deter Japan from refusing as promptly and as emphatically as she has done; but she might well have had to consider how the world would view her lack of complais- ance. Everyone has seen how important is the opinion of the crowd to two Chinese street disputants, and during the current war we have seen the curious feature on an
international scale. In the same way, it was thought, and in some quarters sug- gested, that Japan must grant an armistice in deference to supposed public opinion; but all the public opinion that has so far received trustworthy expression has leaned to the view that it would have been most unfair to expect such a
sacrifice by the conquering side. Japan's quiet answer to all this talk of an armistice was the capture of Saghalien; and to the latest sub-rösa manoeuvre of Russia, she has replied as unequivocally Why should China, who, nolens-volens, on account of her general impotence, and by the expressed wishes and advice of all the powers, bas had to be absolutely neutral while the fate of her territory was being submitted to the arbitrament of battle-why should she, whose procrastinating and devious diplomacy is notorious, be allowed to intervene in negotiations of such a critical nature? She has seemed well content to let Japan do her fighting, and it does not look well that she should now wish to step in, before the hard fighting is really over, to take her place as a principal party to the suit. China's methods of making war are obsolete, and her ideas of conducting negotiations of this kind are no more likely to achieve success. Her present action, in a private individual in like case, would have been in the worst possible taste, and the only excuse to be found for her is that the proposal must have been cunningly suggested to her. Peking has played with fire too often, meaning Russia, and it is just as well perhaps that at this time Japan is in a position to withhold her too clever neighbour from further mischief in that direction. The late LI HUNG CHANG's policy of playing Russia against Japan was smart enough, but he knew that there must come
CHINA OVERLAND TRADË REPORT.
a time when China must climb down from the fence. Had he been still behind the Wai-vu-pu, it is probable he would before this have recognised that the cat has made its jump, and that it is supreme folly to engage in any further traffic with the power that was and is not. Also, he must be a very obtuse Chinese statesman who cannot see that the interests of Japan must be for some time the interests of China, and that consequently the latter
has the best of human reasons
for trusting to the former The most See DIS traceable as exact analogy between China and the man who has engaged a lawyer to plead for him. The advocate has prepared the briefs, the case is called, and the foolish client wishes to address In both instances, he would the court. "make a mess of the case," and in both a peremptory refusal is the kinder course take.
ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
to
(Daily Press, 22nd July) The announcement of our London corres. pondent, subsequently confirmed by Reuter, that the House of Commons had actually a Bill for the restriction of passed Alien immigration, was more than mildly sensational. To begin with, Parliament has been latterly in such a flurried condi. tion, with the Opposition openly watching for dissolution, and as openly trying to engineer some pitfall that would bring about the speedier downfall of the Government, that there were few expecta- tions that the fag end, or the supposed fag end, of the Session would see any decisive legislation. Certainly, so far as opinion in these remoter parts of the Empire is was little expectation concerned, there of anything happening so historically revolutionary as the passing of an Alien Immigration Restriction Bill be remembered that the policy and principles of such a piece of legislation are in violent opposition to some of the oldest traditions of the United Kingdom For long it was a British boast that the island kingdom was an asylum for all who needed it, and that under the Union Jack all men might walk, in perfect freedom from any form of molestation whatsoever. Such is
ส
For it must
apparent in speeches made when the desirability of protecting JOHN BULL against some of the inevitable consequences of his own good nature was first mooted. Lord ROTHSCHILD, opposing the identical Bill, at its first appearance last year, said it proposes to establish in this country a loathsome system of police interference and espionage of passports, and arbitrary power exercised by police officers who will not understand the language of those upon whom they are called to sit in judgment." Lord ROTHSCHILD, by the way, was a member of the Royal Commission appointed, in 1902, to investigate the whole matter. That Commission agreed that the number of alien immigrants was becoming excessive,
40
that the better way would be to make special regulation “for the purpose of pre- venting aliens at their own will choosing their residence within districts already so overcrowded that any addition to dwellers within it must produce most injurious re- sults." While "it was conclusively proved that it was wrong to say these aliens were filling the workhouses and asylums main. tained by the state, it was not shown how many of the native born paupers were so, at a result of the competition of these wage- cutting invaders. Also, a point dwelt upon by those alarmed by the rising tide of new blood was the threatened contamina
As usual, there was a tion of the race. good deal of wild exaggeration, but the fact remains that, chiefly owing to the fact that Russia is still several centuries behind the times in its social system, the British people were suffering real injury because the noise of their more perfect state had gone abroad, and attracted all them that were oppressed, much as the porch of an undiscriminating philanthropist attracts all the tramps and beggars of the neighbourhood, or as the eleemosynary "easiness of the Far East Once admit that attracts beachcombers. even an altruistic country like England has a right to consider its own interests, and to take steps to safeguard them (and the Commission of which Lord ROTHSCHILD was a member admitted that), and it follows, as
"
the night the day, that the latest act of the British Parliament was fair and reasonable. A mother who refuses a crust to a beggar child is regarded as unnatural, unwomanly, no doubt, but not when her own brood happens to be starving. The fact that the poorer classes in Great Britain have been feeling the pinch more than usual for some time sufficiently accounts for the widespread agitation which has apparently brought about this new enactment.
SUPREME COURT.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
Monday, 17th July.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.)
the
CHEUNG FOOK V. DENNIS O'KEEFE. The hearing of this case, in which plaintiff claimed from the defendant the sum of $200 for alleged illegal arrest, was con- tinued.
Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon
Looker and Deacon) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. P. Hett (of Messrs. Bratton, Hett and Goldring), represented the defendant.
The case for the prosecution was that the defendant paid the conductor 45 cents, and declined to pay the remaining thirty, declaring that he had done so, and that he would get him (the plaintiff) six months imprisonment and six hours in the stocks for, trying to steal the 30 cents. When the tramcar reached No 2 Police Station defendant gave the plaintiff in charge, but the sergeant refused to take the charge, advising the defendant to see the tramway manager.
complete denial.
The case for the defence was practically a
His Honour awarded the plaintiff $25 damages and costs.
Wednesday, 19th July.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTI N.
mostly Russian and Polish Jews, and that under existing arrangements there was no prospect of the numbers diminishing. The Commission, while setting its face against total exclusion, or even severe restrictive measures, had to admit that it was necessary and right to make some change that would ! restrict the inconveniences caused by the BEFORE ME. A. G. WISH (PUISNE Judge). sudden increase of foreign immigrants. Some of these were undoubtedly "undesir. ables," whom it was only right, and very necessary, to exclude, and where necessary deport. But as the principal evil they were able to discover was the overcrowding caused in certain parts of London, they suggested
of
ERNST WOHLFAHET ;. THE HONGKONG
HOTEL CO., LD.
This was a claim by the plaintiff for the sum $1,000 from the defendant company for alleged wrongful dismissal.
Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintT
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.