The Washington Conference of 1921
By invitation， China was represented at the WashingtonConference for Armaments Limitation held in November， 1921.
Her representatives went there hoping to gain from the Conferencethe removal of all existing restrictions upon the political， economic，juridical and administrative activities of their country， but in this theywere disappointed.
Agreements were reached in regard to doing away with theforeign post offices. A commission was to be appointed to take upimmediately the matter of tariff revision， and another commissionwas to be appointed to visit China， for the purpose of studying thejudicial system of the country with a view to determining whenextraterritoriality might safely be a bolished. Japan definitely withdrewGroup V. of the Twenty-one Demands， and Great Britain agreed toreturn Weihaiwei.
The delegates from China and Japan met separately to considerthe question of the return of Kiaochow. Japan finally agreed to giveback the leased territory， but asked payment for the improvementsmade in Tsingtao， and the redemption of the Kiaochow-Tsinan （ Kiao-
Tsi）Railway.
The real power behind the Chinese delegates at Washington wasnot the Government， which was disunited， but Chinese public opinionwhich had been created by the student class in the Treaty Ports， andespecially in Shanghai. This was a new factor in international politics，which had first become articulate in Peking in 1919. Shanghai wasbecoming a centre of new political life in China， and of a new nationalmovement.
Municipal Affairs
The proposal to widen The Bund and to throw into the roadwaya section of the Public Gardens met with much criticism from theforeign Ratepayers. The objectors were right in regretting the sacrificeof some beautiful trees and a portion of the garden， but were unwisein resisting what， with the rapid increase of traffic， had become a realnecessity.
The Council found itself stirring up a hornet"s nest when itproposed to license the rice shops of the Settlement. It was led to takethe step， owing to the attempt on the part of the native dealers tocorner the rice market and charge exorbitant prices. As a result of theproposal， the rice shopkeepers instituted a strike， and of the 45 0 riceshops in the Settlement about sixty per cent were closed. One of theobjections to the licensing measure was that it involved inspection bythe Municipal police. There was no disorder in connection with themovement， and as it was not backed by the people， it soon collapsed.
The Council agreed to an arrangement by which the licences might betaken out through the guilds， and by which the police inspection mightbe dispensed with， provided certain conditions were observed.
Continued OppositionThe Municipal Council advocated the passing of bye-laws bywhich some control might be exercised over the press and by whichthere might be an increase in the wharfage dues. In regard to both thesemeasures it encountered strong hostility on the part of the Chinesecommunity， as well as with apathy on the part of the forign Ratepayers.
Licensing of the PressThe proposal in regard to the licensing of the Press was briefly asfollows： “Printers and publishers shall register with their Consul if theyhave one， or with the Council， if they have not. Having registered，printers must print their names and places of business on theirpublications. Nobody must publish or disperse any printed matterwhich does not bear the name and place of business of the printer.“The object of the registration was to suppress the disseminationof libelous， seditious， and Bolshevistic literature. Whether， if passed， itwould have had the desired effect， is doubtful， as it would have beencomparatively easy to print such literature outside the Settlement limitsand smuggle it in for secret distribution.
The Chinese residents regarded it as interfering with their rights，and as too far-reaching in its scope. They feared， if it were passed， allconcerned in printing “would find themselves constantly entrammelledin the meshes of the law.“The Chinese General Chamber of commerce and otherassociations brought the matter to the attention of the Waichiaopu（Ministry of Foreign Affairs）， who addressed the Consular Body on thesubject， through the commissioner of Foreign Affairs， asking that theproposed bye-law be cancelled.
A protest was also signed by the Booksellers Guild， the BooksellersAssociation， the Press Association， and the Booksellers and JournalistsUnion of Shanghai.
At the special meeting of Ratepayers held on April 15th， 1921， aquorum was lacking， and the Council was unable to pass a bye-law forlicensing the press.
Further attempts were made in 1923， 1924 and 1925 to pass thesame measure with the same result.
In 1924 the Chinese Advisory committee passed a resolution inopposition to the proposed bye-aw.
Increase of Wharfage DuesIn regard to the proposed bye-law increasing the wharfage dues，the right to levy such a tax was obtained from the Land Regulationspromulgated in 1845 and 1854， and amplified in the subsequent LandRegulations of 1869 and 1898.
The amount of the wharfage dues levied on imports was fixed in1854 as one tenth of one per cent of the value of the goods passing theImperial Maritime Customs at Shanghai.
There had been much difficulty in collecting the wharfage duesfrom the Chinese merchants doing business in the Settlement， andan arrangement had been arrived at by which the Taotai undertook tomanage the collection， and to pay a certain definite sum annually tothe Council in commutation for wharfage dues.
In course of time the fixed sum of commutation came to Tls.
