Landmarks of Chinese Law. And seize and 1 Shanghai, 1878.hold their men in durance till they Unless ransom you soon pay. redress our wrongs, the village of Will the have Stones no habitant.
Oh! Sire, we wait you,
night and day!" make plan verse. Plums The came abegan magistrate This counter-statement, to he them to fear wasof was for happy bribing their impressed to also the lives do in
- Scholar
until and faultless the to
"One village with another vies, and each its strength As rival displays of its neighbor. Clans of Plum and Stone, Its region. each sways Though the Plums be many, and the Stones be few, A single Stone, if great enough, ten thousand Plums outweighs." The magistrate, deciding that the Stones were quite powerful enough in possessing this brilliant and resourceful Scholar, took no action, and consequently the Stones were nearly exterminated by the Plums. Some of the Stones entered other clans and assumed new names; some went into volun tary exile; the women and children died, or were sold, until only the family of the Scholar remained. The Plums naturally had a fond ness for him, yet at the same time they feared he might unexpectedly use his talents against them. Indeed, so conflicting became their feelings toward this remarkable man that at length they bore him for three days in a Sedan chair as though he had been a god : then they killed him. The Stone clan now no longer exists; not even the village remains. The Peking Gazette, the oldest newspaper in the world, is a daily " record of official acts, promotions, decrees, and sentences, without any editorial comments or explana tions; and, as such, of great value in under standing the policy of the Government." The following is a translation ■ of an entry of
July 1, 1877, reprinted from the North China Herald and Supreme Court and Consular Gazette : Chung Hai, acting Governor-General of Sheng-king, with his colleague Ming Ngan, Vice-President at the head of the Monkden Board of Punishments, memorializes report ing the result of a trial held in the case of an imperial clansman named Ming Hai, accused of causing the death of a Buddhist priest named Wang Sing-tsing by stabbing. The case goes back to 1870, in the autumn of which year, it appears, the priest Wang pro posed to an acquaintance named Lin Siang that they should combine to open a gambling house at Monkden, which they forthwith proceeded to do. Wang provided a brass bowl, which he had in his possession, and one hundred dominoes, each of which was to be reckoned (for gaming purposes) at one thousand current cash,' and Lin Siang hav ing got ready a table, benches, and other appurtenances, the establishment was opened the same day. Lin Siang acted as croupier and Wang undertook the task of passing around the bowl and collecting the dominoes. Persons, by name unknown, were in the habit of coming in daily to gamble, and up to the day on which the accused was appre hended on the charge of murder, the keepers of the table made a profit of from ten to thirty tiao of current cash per diem. On the 2d. October, 1870, three imperial clansmen, viz., one named Sung Tien, Ming Hai, who was under conviction for an offence com mitted, and Ming Shen, since deceased, came in one after the other to do some betting. Shortly afterwards, the bowl being with Sung Tien, he was a loser to the extent of four dominoes; but the priest Wang believed that the number was in reality five. When the bowl was lifted, Sung Tien concealed one of the dominoes, whereupon an alterca1 A cash is equivalent to one-eleventh of a cent.
