Evening Post. FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1931. A MOMENTOUS REPORT

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 143, 19 June 1931, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1931. A MOMENTOUS REPORT

Mr. Justice Feetham, who in 1925 was brought from South Africa to London to settle one apparently insoluble problem, was brought last year to Shanghai to settle another. In 1925, after the Commission of which he was chairman had* as the result of many months' deliberations, arrived at a provisional award fixing the disputed boundary between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, its proceedings were brought to a dramatic close by the resignation of the Free State's representative, but the settlement of a dispute which in its early stages had led hotheads to talk of war was nevertheless effected a month or two later. At Shanghai there was no risk of a disagreement, because Mr. Justice Feetham was the* sole Commissioner. Speaking broadly, the problem submitted to him there was how to reconcile the government of the largest city in the Far East, and next only to the three chief European, capitals and to two American cities the largest city in the world, with the Nationalist aspirations of China and in particular with her demands for exterritoriality. It is obviously a problem of extraordinary magnitude and complexity, and one of supreme importance both to a country whose 445,000,000 inhabitants, represent nearly a quarter of the world's population and to the rest of the world.

The responsibility for the selection of Mr. Justice Feetham for both these undertakings may be safely assigned to Mr. Lionel Curtis. They had been associated:in the work of ' South African reconstruction after the great Boer War, and also, we may assume, in its magnificent culmination in South African Union—a solution which the politicians, who had previously talked vaguely of federation, very wisely adopted after it had been cut and dried for them by the unofficial and unacknowledged labours of Mr. Curtis and a band of fellowworkers. Mr. Curtis's work in the Dominions Office (Irish Branch) at the' time of the Irish Treaty makes it safe to conjecture that he was responsible for the appointment to the Boundary Commission of a South African Judge who had not then voh the international fame as a jurist assigned to him in our message from Shanghai yesterday. The origin of the Judge's Shanghai appointment has been clearly explained by Mr. Curtis himself. His thoughts which had been turned from Imperial to international politics by the chaos resulting from the World War were centred upon China by his attendance at the Pacific Relations Conferences at Honolulu in 1927 and Kyoto in 1929. And so from Kyoto he passed on to China.

One could sec, said Mr. Curtis, that tho contact of Chinese and foreign merchants and teachers was closest along the line of the Yangtze, but closest of all at its mouth at Shanghai. I came to feel that the question of how the teachers and merchants of China and thoso of the rest of the world aro to live and work together in Shanghai is the hard knot at tho centre of the problem—that until wo untie that knot we cannot begin to unravel the problem' o* China' as a whole. So I made up; my mind to devote my limited time to tho study of Shanghai.

Our quotation is taken from the speech delivered by, Mr. Curtis at the farewell banquet given in his honour by the Municipal Councillors and leading Chinese citizens of Shanghai on the 12th February, 1930. It was apparently*at Kyoto that he had been invited to discuss with the Shanghai Municipal Council the,crux of what he had come to regard as one of the world's crucial problems.

On arrival here, he said, I suggested that the first, necessary step was to ascertain and place beyond dispute the actual facts, and also to state the principles which ought to govern, the handling of those facts. Then, and then only, the time would be ripe to discuss how ■ to' apply the principles to the facts; how, in short, to produce a practical and constructive scheme. . . .

I found that Judge IFlcetham's name was already in your minds, and expressed the opinion that you would be wise, to secure him, if only because he happens to bo the most truthful man I have ever known. . . You have asked me to stay in Shanghai and collaborate with the Judge in his task. No invitation I have ever received has given me quite so much pleasure, and none so hard to refuse. There have been no happier days in our lives than those that my wife-and I have spent as your guests in Shanghai. To mo its problems are at onco the most difficult, important, and fascinating that I know.

The burden of this "fascinating but onerous and intricate study was therefore,.loft to.Mr. Justice Feclham, to carry alone. He was certified by his friend to possess-"three necessary qualifications—municipal, political, and judicial experience," and also a fourth of at, least equal importance as "the most truthful man I have ever known." The Judge, who was present at the Curtis banquet, evidently set to work at once, and the publication of his final report at Shanghai on Wednesday means that he. has devoted nearly eighteen months to the task. The instalment which was published in April and dealt with the origin and develop--ment and its immense importance as a strategic centre of commerce may be said to have covered the facts. The issues of law, diplomacy, <md administration have now been disposed of, and the thoroughness of the

work may be inferred from ihc fact that the whole report extends lo 300,000 words. But, as judges are sometimes just as clever as lawyers or politicians in saying much and meaning little, we are glad to be able to add that the candour and the decisiveness of the report are just as remarkable as its length. The most fundamental of the problems on which Mr. Justice Fcclham's opinion was sought is whether the International Settlement of Shanghai should retain its municipal independence, or whether by the abolition of its exterritorial rights it should become subject to the ordinary law and the ordinary Courts of China; and this question could only be decided on principles which would be equally applicable to the other Treaty ports. On this point there is no "on the one hand" and "on the other" .about the Judge's decision. He declares emphatically in favour of things as they are. ; The abolition of exterritoriality at tho . present time is, he says, unthinkable. The maintenance of a foreign military defence force is essential, states Mr. Justice Feetham. The Chinese must not secure a majority vote in the administration of the International Settlement, owing to inevitable interference from the military, from the National Government, and from the Kuomintang. If the Chinese gained control of Shanghai, there would bo no guarantee that tho incidents of 1927 would not be repeated. Mr. Justice Feetham does not deny that the abolition of exterritoriality is "eventually inevitable"—British diplomacy has already gone 100 far for that-—but in its application to Shanghai at any rate he says that it "must be considered in terms of decades, not years." Further comment on this momentous document is impossible beyond an expression of regret that it has not been more fully reported, and that the advice which has now been given by the Shanghai Municipal Council was not sought by the British Government four or five years ago.