The Council based its right of unlimited construction of roadsbeyond the settlement limits on Land Regulation VI of 1898， whichreads as follows： “It shall be lawful for the land-renters， and others whomay be entitled to vote as hereinafter mentioned， in public meetingassembled， to purchase land leading or being out of the Settlement，or to accept land from foreign or native owners upon terms to bemutually agreed upon between the Council and such foreign or nativeowners， for the purpose of converting the same into roads or publicgardens and places of recreation and amusement， and it shall be lawfulfor the Council from time to time to apply such portion of the fundsraised under Article IX of these Regulations， for the purchase， creation，and maintenance of such roads， gardens， etc.， as may be necessaryand expedient. Provided always that such roads and gardens shallbe dedicated to the public use， and for the health， amusement andrecreation of all persons residing within the Settlement.“Foreign Policing of Roads outside the SettlementThe foreign policing of the roads goes back to 1884 ， when， onaccount of the disturbed condition of the country during the warbetween China and France， the Council determined to give someprotection to the residents outside of the Settlement. Sixteen Sikhconstables were engaged to police the Bubbling Well and other roads，and these measures did not at that time meet with opposition on thepart of the Chinese， and the policing of the roads after the country hadquieted down was continued for some time without protest from thelocal authorities.
Chinese Police on the Roads outside the SettlementThe Taotai in 1907 claimed that the Chinese police had theright of functioning on the outside roads constructed and ownedby the Council according to Land Regulation VI， and the Chineseauthorities laid particular stress on the fact that “in localities outsidethe Settlement all matters affecting law uniformly revert to the controlof the Chinese Police Bureau， and the Mixed Court， and the MunicipalCouncil cannot encroach or interfere. If therefore there is land ownedby foreigners， it enjoys， together with the native population， theadvantages which accrue from the Chinese Police Bureau within thepowers of which it is situated， and must therefore， in like manneracknowledge the police regulations of the place.“This position theoretically was strong， in spite of the claim thatthe protection of foreign property by the Chinese police was inefficientand unreliable.
In 1908 the Taotai protested against the filling of the Shanghai-
Paoshan boundary creek and construction there on of a road， althoughthe construction of such a road was for the public benefit.
Protest and counter-protests were the order of the day.
Friction in Regard to Rights of Native PressThere was still a further cause of friction， full of interest， especiallywhen we compare its earlier and later developments. This was in regardto the Native Press.
The first Chinese newspaper published in Shanghai was the ShunPao （the Shanghai Journal）， which appeared in 1872. It was succeededin 1880 by the Hu Pao， the Chinese edition of the North-China DailyNews， which soon discontinued publication， the Sin Wan Pao （theNew News Journal） in 1893， and the Shih Pao （the Eastern Times） in1904. The first three papers were founded originally by foreigners， andregistered as foreign companies.
They all enjoyed the freedom of the press and naturally wereunrestrained in their utterances in regard to political affairs. During theperiod 1902–1907， when the anti-monarchical movement in Chinaassumed serious proportions， they exerted a powerful influence onpublic opinion， and the Central Government made strenuous efforts tosuppress them.
In their endeavour to close up the premises of certain newspapersprinting seditious and libellous articles， the Chinese authorities actedcontrary to the Municipal Regulations and attempted to carry outtheir purpose without holding trial of the accused at the Mixed Court.
Against this method of procedure the Council vigorously protested，and would not allow the premises of the newspapers to be sealed， untilthe cases had been given a proper trial in the Mixed Court.
In one instance， the Shun Pao case of 1903， six editors mighthave been summarily executed， without an opportunity to provetheir innocence， had it not been that the Council insisted on the legalmethod of procedure.
The Council realized that in affording protection to newspapereditors it incurred the danger of making the Settlement a place wherethe liberty of the press might be greatly abused， and saw the necessityof a bye-1aw for licensing the native press， so that it might be broughtunder a reasonable amount of control. This early effort was， however，unsuccessful. At a later period， as we shall see， the Council endeavouredagain to obtain authority to license the native press， not because of theprinting of seditious articles and attacks on the Chinese Government，but because of its agitation against the Municipal Council， and its antiforeignpropaganda.
During the period we have been describing， the following eventsof importance to the Municipality occurred.
