OCR Text |
Show (EDITORIALS) "The Tucker case does not present the official chicanery which is the dominant feature of the Thorburn affair. But the difference is one only of degree. It bespeaks the same spirit of defiance. Until we have relinquished the rights which we were compelled to claim nearly a century ago, those rights must be upheld at all costs. The Thorburn document is our reward for cooperation with Dr. C. T. Wang, The arrest and detention in Tsinanfu of Dr. Tucker, and the refusal to hand him over to his own Authorities, are the reward meted out to a veteran missionary who has for the greater part of his life ministered to the sick and wounded of this country, and thereby saved countless lives. He has unwittingly caused the death of one Chinese-a servant who turned out to be a traitor and thief. It is too much, perhaps, to hope that the lives he has saved in a generation of service to the Chinese will be taken into account for a moment, or that the new Codes of Nanking will prevail against ancient, ingrained ideas. Dr. Tucker's freedom and fair trial by his own authorities will depend solely upon the energy and determination of the American Authorities. For though he may have been taken to Tsinanfu to avert mob action by the Tangpu at Tehchow, the agitators will doubtless transfer their activities to the provincial capital, and only powerful counter-pressure will avail against the notorious susceptibilities of even the strongest Chinese officials (o mob clamour. "As for the Tucker case, and the manifesto of the 27 comrades of the veteran doctor thereon, the view of the average man has been emphatically expressed in the first two letters we published on the matter. There is a certain type of person who has a genius for saying his piece at the wrong time. We had instances of this in 1925. There was no necessity to rush into print, or even to pass "informal" resolutions which, moreover, more or less commit those who happened to be at their posts instead of at Peitaiho. The signatories did not even have the patience to wait until the annual gathering of their Mission at Peitaiho, which was to have been held three days after the "informal" gathering. They profess to express no opinion on the "legal" aspects of the case. They have nevertheless denounced their colleague, and virtually repudiated him. Dr. Tucker is under arrest and, as we have every reason to know, suffering mentally a good deal over the distressing results of his action in defence of the property of his hospital. The case is sub judice, but the legal liability under which these signatories lie for committing contempt of Court is nothing compared with this shocking desertion of a comrade who has devoted the greater part of his life to the most commendable of all foreign ministrations. To us it appears shockingly like the attitude of the chief priests and elders: "Not Christ but Barabbas." Have they ever passed resolutions when fellow-missionaries have met with death not by accident but by brutal design at the hands of the lawless in this country? Could they not watch with him one hour in his need, and wait until the Authorities had passed judgment, before launching out upon so singular an exemplification of the Christian spirit and so"absolute" a disapproval? "The loftier loyalty must surely include the lesser loyalty of man to man in fellow-service. We can build nothing unless we build on that anyhow. The feeling is very general that the 27 have let Dr. Tucker down in order to forestall criticism by the Chinese, even to toady to them. Indiscretion or otherwise, it was an individual act, and Dr. Tucker is ready to answer for it. It was an outrage against the fundamental tenets of personal loyalty to kick him when down. And it was a gratuitous interference with a man who is a fellow citizen with sovereign rights and purely personal responsibilities before he is a missionary and a member of their own sact. Obviously any foreigner who uses firearms in the interior is asking for trouble in the present temper of the people. It is an incitement to the lowest instincts of the mob and imperils the user and his fellow-workers in the immediate vicinity as well. The question of right need not be debated here. Whether a foreigner belongs to a special caste of humanity or not, he can use lethal weapons only at great personal risk, to be taken only if the immediate risk is commensurable to that run after its use. It is, we agree, a pity that this had not been "thought through" beforehand. And a still greater pity that when it was, it was not kept for the private and peculiar instruction of the people solely concerned, and not for the world at large." Aug. 11, 1931. Just thirty one days that have been as thirty one years. But today, the expected though long-delayed, God-given rift in the clouds appears,- in the long repoit just received by the American Legation at Peiping from the U.S.A. District Attorney for China, Dr. George Sellett, of Shanghai. The gist of said repoit is: That neither under Chinese nor American law was an offence committed. (The law being that any private person present when a felony is committed is baund to use all necessary force to arrest and detain the culprit.) That since the District Attorney in his official capacity in China takes the place of the Grand Jury in the U.S.A., it is his conclusion, after meticulous investigation, and hearing of all witnesses having knowledge of the affair, both at Tehchow and Tsinan, Chinese and foreign, that it would be CONTRARY TO LAW AND JUSTICE to hold a court hearing. (In explanation it may be said that the Legation at Peiping under pressure from the Chinese press, and the Tangpu, who had been further incited by the Manifesto from Peitaiho, had formerly felt that a court hearing should ba held). "Fear thou not, for I am with thee . . . . . . Though we fall, we shall not be utterly cast down, for the Lord upholdeth us with His hand". |