THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1929. EXTRATERRITORIAL RIGHTS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20892, 5 December 1929, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY , DECEMBER 5, 1929. EXTRATERRITORIAL RIGHTS.

The reference in the House of Commons by Mr Arthur Henderson, Foreign Secretary, to the British Government’s attitude in the matter of tire declared intention of the Chinese Government to abolish extraterritoriality is in keeping with the friendly spirit in which Britain has always shown herself to be prepared 'to discuss this question. It is to be noted that the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Chinese Nationalist Government has stated that, though an announcement of the abolition of extraterritoriality will possibly be made, he does not see how it can be enforced without the consent of the Powers concerned. That would seem to indicate that ’the Chinese Government clearly recognises the facts of the situation. The Powers have no desire, as they have repeatedly affirmed, to assert indefinitely their claim to extraterritorial rights in China, but reasonably enough have taken up the attitude that they cannot make the concession of the abolition of these rights all at once or before they are sure that their nationals will receive justice in the Chinese courts. Mr Arthur Henderson’s declaration that the British Government desires to enter into negotiations on the subject in a liberal and friendly spirit may be accepted as indicative of Britain’s preparedness to consider the possibility of further modifications and concessions pending such time as the Powers can regard the entire abolition of extraterritoriality as fair and practicable. Now that tariff autonomy has been conceded to China extraterritoriality is the outstanding issue between herself and the Treaty Powers. The system under which foreigners are entitled to the protection of their own laws and courts, instead of being amenable to Chinese laws and courts, dates back more than eighty years. The Chinese maintain that, whatever the reasons for its introduction were at that time, the retention of it is an anachronism and no longer justifiable, since the Chinese Government has made changes in its laws, its courts, and its judicial procedure such as warrant the abolition of the whole system. But the facts of the present-day situation are not regarded by the Powers as entirely justifying such a claim. China has now her National Government, which is acknowledged by the Powers and speaks on behalf of the Chinese people, but its task of national consolidation and reform is anything but yet completed. In the light of recent cable messages it is obvious that the spectre of civil war has by no means been yet laid in China. An extraordinary position, in view of the Government’s claims, was recently revealed in the report that a truce had been declared between the Kuominchun and the Government forces through the payment of huge sums of money to the military leaders who had been attacking the Government. Early in - the present year a Note was addressed by the Nanking Government to the Powers that exercise extraterritorial rights urging that the time had arrived for their abrogation of those rights. Their reply was friendly, but firm on the point that the time had not yet arrived for this step. The British Government’s Note on the subject was a temperate and lucid justification of Great Britain’s unwillingness to abolish the extraterritorial system under existing conditions. The abolition of the system is anything but a simple matter. Much of what’ China has been asking for has been already conceded by the British Government, and it is prepared to consider further modifications in the system that may be suggested by China. But it is not prepared to agree to the immediate abolition of extraterritoriality and to the placing of British subjects and property throughout China under the jurisdiction of Chinese courts. In dealing with this issue the British Note made reference to the Commission on Extraterritoriality of 1926 and its findings, in the light of which the proposal for the abandonment of Consular jurisdiction had to be regarded as a proposal to replace the security which foreigners get from their courts by the insecurity of a judicial system pronounced,' after full and impartial inquiry, to be unsatisfactory in various vitally important ways. The Chinese Nationalist Government has been applying itself to the abolition of the abuses to which the Commission made reference, but it probably claims to have, made greater headway in this matter, than it has really done. The onus is upon China to demonstrate to the foreign Powers that they have no need to be apprehensive concerning the of the abolition of extraterritoriality. Since she has. failed to satisfy them as yet in that respect, has her Government any substantial cause for complaint? The attitude of the British Government towards extraterritoriality is far from being negative. Its invitation to China to make suggestions for further modifications of the system, and the nature of those already made, should satisfy moderate Chinese opinion on that point.