¹ Among English language works on Chinese law and judiciary in traditional and Republican China are Jean Escarra (trans. Gertrude R. Browne), Chinese Law (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1936); Van Der Sprenkel, S., Legal Institutions in Manchu China (London: Athlone Press, 1962), Derk Bodde and Clarence Morris, Law in Imperial China (Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvania Press, 1973); Marinus J. Meijer, The Introduction of Modern Criminal Law in China (Arlington, VA: University Publications of America, 1976); Joseph D. Lowe, The Traditional Chinese Legal Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); Leon Vandermeersch,“An enquiry into the Chinese conception of the law,”in S. R. Schram (ed.), The Scope of State Power in China (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1985); Geoffrey MacCormack, Traditional Chinese Penal Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990); Michael R. Dutton, Policing and Punishment in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Kathryn Bernhardt and Philip Huang (eds.), Civil Law in Qing and Republican China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994); Geoffrey MacCormack, The Spirit of Traditional Chinese Law (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996); Philip Huang, Civil Justice in China: Representation and Practice in the Qing (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

² See Shetreet, Shimon and Dechenes, Jules (eds.), Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate (Boston: Klumwer Academic Publishers, 1985), especially the chapter by Shimon Shetreet,“Judicial independence: new conceptual dimensions and contemporary challenges,”pp. 590–681.Google Scholar

³ Cohen, Jerome A.,“The Chinese Communist Party and judicial independence: 1949–1959,”Harvard Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 5 (March 1969), pp. 972–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Meijer, The Introduction, pp. 38–43; Cameron, Meribeth E., The Reform Movement in China, 1898–1912 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1930), pp. 100–135.Google Scholar

⁵ MacMurray, John V. A. (ed.), Treaties and Agreements with and concerning China, 1894–1919 (New York: Howard Fertig, 1973), pp. 351, 414, 431Google Scholar

⁶ Meijer, The Introduction, pp. 13, 64–65; Cameron, The Reform Movement, pp. 171,173; Douglas R. Reynolds, China, 1898–1912: The Xinzheng Revolution and Japan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 181; Benjamin H. Williams,“Extraterritoriality in China,”China Weekly Review (CWR), Vol. 21, No. 12 (19 August 1922), p. 450.Google Scholar

⁷ In 1908–11 he presided over the revision of the Great Qing Legal Cases (Daqing luli), which was enacted in 1910 under the title of Current Law of Punishment of Great Qing (Daqing xianxing xinglu), and the drafting of the New Criminal Code of Great Qing (Daqing xin xinglu), the Criminal Litigation Law (Xingshi susong Iti) and the Civil Litigation Law (Minshi susong lii), among a dozen legal codes. Minguo renwu dacidian (Who′s Who of the Republic of China) (Hebei: Renmin chubanshe, 1991). For Shen′s role in late Qing reform, see Chung-hui, Wang ,“Law Reform in China,”The Chinese Social and Political Science Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (June 1917), pp. 13–21; Leonard S. Hsu,“The Chinese legal system,”CWR, Vol. 24, No. 1 (3 March 1923), pp. 12–16. C.Y.W. Meng,“Modern judicial reform in China,”CWR, Vol. 55, No. 6 (10 January 1931), pp. 236–37, Vol. 55, No. 7 (17 January, 1931), p. 256; Meijer, The Introduction; Cameron, The Reform Movement, pp. 171–75.Google Scholar

^8. Pan Nianzhi et al., Zhongguo jindai falii sixiang shi(A History of Legal Thought in Modem China)(Shanghai: Shanghai shehui kexueyuan chubanshe, 1992), pp. 199–201.Google Scholar

^9. For the attacks on the New Criminal Code, see Meijer, The Introduction,pp. 43–44, 79–93; Yang Hongli, Zhongguo falii fada shi (A History of the Development of Chinese Laws)(Shangwu yinshuguan, 1930; Shanghai shudian, 1990), p. 894; Meng,“Modem judicial reform,”p. 256.Google Scholar

^10. Meijer, The Introduction,pp. 40–41; Yang Hongli, Zhongguo falii,p. 919.Google Scholar

^11. The China Yearbook, 1913,pp. 396–97; Chang Yao-tseng,“The present conditions of the Chinese judiciary and its future,”The Chinese Social and Political Science Review,Vol.Google Scholar

^10. No. 1 (January 1926), p. 172.Google Scholar

^12. Youjiong, Yang ,“Zhongguo sifa zhidu zhi zongde guancha”("Chinese judicial system in retrospect") Zhongguo faxue zazhi (Journal of Chinese Legal Studies),new edition, Vol. 1, Nos. 5–6 (February 1937), p. 28; Pan Nianzhi, Zhongguo jindai,p. 305.Google Scholar

^13. Minguo renwu dacidian,p. 212.Google Scholar

^14. Pan Nianzhi, Zhongguo jindai,pp. 340–42.Google Scholar

^15. Yang Hongli, Zhongguo falii,pp. 1032–35.Google Scholar

^16. The institution was first called the Commission for Compiling and Examining Laws (Falii biancha hui).In 1918 it was changed back to the late Qing name of Law Codification Commission (Xiuding falii guan).See Yang Hongli, Zhongguo falii,p. 1032Google Scholar

^17. Yang Hongli, Zhongguo falii,pp. 1039–94.Google Scholar

^18. Liang Yueng-li (Liang Yunli),“Judicial reform under the Nationalist Government,”New China Edition of the China Weekly Review,(10 October 1928), p. 105.Google Scholar

^19. Zhengfu gongbao(Government Bulletin), No. 142 (19 September 1912), pp. 108–113.Google Scholar

^20. North China Herald (NCH)11 January 1913, p. 75; Williams,“Extraterritoriality,”p. 451. For detail of what transpired during that trial byjury, see AO/, 9 August 1919,pp. 326, 369–370.Google Scholar

^21. Zhengfu gongbao fenlei huibian (Government Bulletin Compiled in Categories),No. 36, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

^22. Zhengfu gongbao fenlei huibian.No. 36, p. 11.Google Scholar

^23. Zhengfu gongbao,No. 301 (9 March 1913), p. 136–141.Google Scholar

^24. Zhengfu gongbao fenlei huibian,No. 36, p. 4.Google Scholar

^25. Zhengfu gongbao.No. 961 (11 January 1915).Google Scholar

^26. In July 1913 Yuan Shikai signed an order to prohibit military personnel from joining political parties. In September the Ministry of the Navy issued an order to the same effect. Meanwhile the Ministry of the Interior ordered police officers not to get involved in political parties. In December 1913 Yuan Shikai signed another order barring both the military and the police from joining political parties. See Zhengfu gongbaofenlei huibian,No. 36, pp. 3–4, 12–13.Google Scholar

^27. Zhengfu gongbao,No. 281 (16 October 1916).Google Scholar

^28. It pointed out that during recent years some such lawyers had used their connections to get inside information and advertised such connections to attract clients. Zhengfu gongbao.No. 942 (8 September 1918), pp. 121–22; Shi bao (Eastern Times),16 September 1918, p. 5.Google Scholar

^29. Shi bao,28 October 1918, p. 5.Google Scholar

^30. These judicial workers argued that the rule did not make sense, since it only covered three years and since Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Justice as well as teaching staff of the Judicial Training Institute (Sifajiangxi suo)were not subject to the rule, while they had much closer connections with judges. See Falii pinglun (Law Review),No. 185 (16 January 1927, p. 18.Google Scholar

^31. Zhengfu gongbao,No. 595 (29 December 1913); No. 1069 (30 April 1915).Google Scholar

^32. Zhengfu gongbao,No. 302 (10 March 1913); No. 446 (31 July 1913).Google Scholar

^33. Falupinglun,No. 1 (1 July 1923), pp. 1, 5.Google Scholar

^34. Hollington K. Tong,“China′s progress toward legal reform,”Millard′s Review,Vol. 6, No. 2 (14 September 1918), p. 53.Google Scholar

^35. Falupinglun,No. 1 (1 July 1923), p. 3.Google Scholar

^36. Wang Chonghui, the first Minister of Justice in Beijing (March-July 1912) was a J. D. from Yale University and admitted into English bar. Xu Shiying, who succeeded Wang (July 1912-September 1913), was not trained in foreign schools but was the deputy head of the mission sent to Europe and America by the Qing court to study Western laws in 1910. Liang Qichao (September 1913-February 1914) had a similar background and inclination. Zhang Zongxiang (February 1914-June 1916) was a graduate from Meiji University in Japan. Zhang Yaozeng (June 1916-June 1917), Zhu Shen (March 1918-May 1921) and Cheng Ke (January 1923-January 1924) graduated from Imperial University of Tokyo. Lin Changmin (July- November 1917), Jiang Yong (December 1917-March 1918) and Yao Zheng (June 1927-February 1928) were graduates from Waseda University in Japan. Dong Kang (May-December 1921) also studied law in Japan in 1912–14. Zhang Shizhao (November 1924-July 1925) studied law at Edinburgh University in 1908–11. Ma Junwu (December 1925-March 1926) was a Ph. D. in engineering from Industrial University in Berlin. Luo Wengan (July 1926-June 1927) held a Master′s degree in law from Oxford University. See Geng Wentian, Zhongguo zhi sifa (China′s Judiciary)(Shanghai: Minzhi shuju, 1933), pp. 27–29; Qian Shifu, Beiyang zhengfu zhiguan nianbiao (A Chronology of the Beiyang Government Officialdom)(Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 1991); Mingguo renwu dacidian.37. Millard′s Review,Vol. 6, No. 8 (26 October 1918), p. 300.Google Scholar

^38. Andrew J. Nathan, Peking Politics, 1918–1923(Berkely: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 72–74.Google Scholar

^39. F. T. Cheng,“The Supreme Court in China,”Millard′s Review,Vol. 16, No. 13 (28 May 1921), p. 673.Google Scholar

^40. Francis Zia,“A Chinese jurist′s views on extraterritoriality,”CWR,Vol. 23, No. 5 (30 December 1922), p. 169.Google Scholar

^41. A native of Hexian, Anhui, Xu obtained ajinshidegree in 1903 and then studied law and government in the Translation and Study Institute (Yixue guan)in 1904–07. He joined the Law ^Codification Commission for a short period and was then appointed the chief justice in the district court in Beijing in 1908 and chief procurator of the high court in Beijing a year later.Google Scholar

^42. Minguo renwu dacidian,p. 703; Millard′s Review,Vol. 10, No. 12 (22 November 1919), pp. 506–07; George T. Yu, Party Politics in Republican China: The Kuomintang, 1912–1924(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), p. 97.Google Scholar

^43. Falupinglun,No. 168 (19 September 1926), p. 7.Google Scholar

^44. Falupinglun,No. 185 (16 January 1927), p. 17.Google Scholar

^45. The judicial practices under the CCP evolved from the Soviet Republic era through the Maoist era to the present. The principle of party dominance over the judiciary has hardly changed, though its forms varied with political climate from period to period. See Trygve Lotverit, Chinese Communism 1931–1934: Experience in Civil Government(Lund: Studentlitterature, 1973), pp. 106–144; W. E. Butler (ed.), The Legal System of the Chinese Soviet Republic, 1931–1934(Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1983); Franz Michael,“The role of law in traditional, Nationalist and Communist China,”The China Quarterly,No. 9 (March 1962); pp. 124–148; Shao-chuan Leng, Justice in Communist China(Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1967); Jerome Alan Cohen, The Criminal Process in the People′s Republic of China, 1949–1963(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 483–506;“The Chinese Communist Party and ‘judicial independence’ : 1949–1959,”Harvard Law Review,Vol. 82, No. 5 (March 1969) pp. 967–1006; Liao Kuangsheng,“ ‘ Independent administration of justice’ and the PRC legal system,”Chinese Law and Government,^bl. 16, Nos.2–3 (Summer-Fall 1983) pp. 123–152; Shao-chuan Leng and Hung-dah Chiu, Criminal Justice in Post-Mao China(Albany: SUNY Press, 1985); Laszlo Ladany, Law and Legality in China(London: Hurst & Co., 1992), pp. 52–70.Google Scholar

^46. During the transition period when the National Government moved from Guangzhou to Wuhan (13 December 1926-21 February 1927), with the approval of Borodin, the Comintern adviser, a ‘ Temporary Joint Council of the KMT Central Committee and the National Government Commissioners”was organized to function as the supreme authority. Xu Qian was the chairman of this KMT-left-dominated joint council. When the KMT Second Central Committee Third Plenum was convened in Wuhan in March, Xu was one of the nine elected members of the Central Committee Standing Committee. The Plenum also produced a new National Government, of which Xu was one of the five standing commissioners. See Xu Mao, Zhonghua minguo zhengzhi zhidu shi (A History of the Political Institutions of the Republic of China)(Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe 1992), pp. 187–191.Google Scholar

^47. Falupinglun,No.206(13 June 1927), pp. 7–9;AO/,9July 1927,p. 48;Minguorenwu dacidian,p. 703.Google Scholar

^48. Falupinglun,No. 198 (17 April 1927), p. 8.Google Scholar

^49. After the Communist-led workers uprising drove away the warlord forces from Shanghai, the Nationalist Revolutionary Army entered the city on 22 March. The Provisional Municipal Government of Shanghai was elected by a meeting of over 4,000 people representing over 1,000 organizations. Zheng was one of the 19 municipal government commissioners, the majority of whom were Communists and labour union representatives. When Chiang Kai-shek decided to get rid of this provisional government, Zheng, along with other commissioners of KMT ties, withdrew from the government. See Tang Zhengchang, Shanghai shi (A History of Shanghai)(Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1989), pp. 623–26; NCH,2 April 1927, p. 16.Google Scholar

^50. CWR,Vol. 18, No. 10 (5 November 1921), p. 448; NCH,21 May 1927, p. 330; Minguo renwu dacidian,p. 1520.Google Scholar

^51. North China Daily News,17 May 1927, p. 12; NCH,21 May 1927, p. 330.Google Scholar

^52. North China Daily News,19 May 1927, p. 6.Google Scholar

^53. The dismissal of Lu turned out to be a mini-saga. After the Jiangsu Provincial Government ordered his dismissal, Lu refused to step down and appealed to the National Government arguing that the order of the Provincial Government was in violation of the Provisional Constitution which guaranteed the tenure of judges and of the Law Governing Discipline of Judicial Officers which provided procedures for dismissing judges. He issued a statement to refute the accusation that he was not active in suppressing Communists. Lu successfully petitioned the Military Commission in Nanjing to restrain local military authorities from demanding for extradition of persons prosecuted at the Provisional Court, but only to see the commission′s decision in his favour overturned after the counter-petition of the garrison headquarters. Finally, when the National Government created the Committee of Disciplinary Punishment for Judicial Officers in mid-1928, the Jiangsu Provincial Government laid five charges against Lu before the committee. Lu was found guilty and removed from the post in August 1928. CWR,Vol. 42, No. 8 (22 October 1927), p. 216; NCH,22 October 1927, p. 144; 5 November 1927, p. 231; 19 November 1927, p. 317; 26 November 1927, p. 360;7 July 1928 , pp. 12–13; 14July 1928,p. 60;21 July 1928,p. 103;4August 1928, p. 198.Google Scholar

^54. NCH,11 August 1928, p. 234; Thomas B. Stephens, Order and Discipline in China: The Shanghai Mixed Court, 1911–1927(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992), pp. 117–18.Google Scholar

^55. NCH,10 August 1929, p. 218.Google Scholar

^56. Falii pinglun,No. 199 (24 April 1927), p. 13.Google Scholar

^57. Falii pinglun,No. 206 (13 June 1927), p. 7; No. 207 (20 June 1927), pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

^58. Falii pinglun,No. 207 (20 June 1927), p. 14. It was Chen Hexian who initiated and finally succeeded in dismissing Lu Xingyuan.Google Scholar

^59. Falii pinglun,No. 214 (7 August 1927), p. 6.Google Scholar

^60. Shi bao,22 February 1929, p. 4.Google Scholar

^61. Sifagongbao (Judicial Bulletin),^io. 9(9 March 1929), back cover; No. 12(30 March 1929), p. 1.Google Scholar

^62. Sifa gongbao.No. 29 (25 March 1935), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

^63. The actual impact of the Training Institute for Judges appears to have been limited. From 1930 to 1935, it graduated 428 judges, 75 prison officers and 61 judicial secretaries. By comparison, the total number of judges in the country in 1936 was 2,382 and of procurators, 1,071. See Sifa yuan faguan xunliansuo gailan (An Overview of the Judicial Council′s Training Institute for Judges)Nanjing, 1935), p. 66; Fating zhoukan,No. 335 (2 December 1936), Legal News, p. 2; The International Relations Committee, Twenty-Five Years of the Chinese Republic(Nanjing, 1937), p. 23.Google Scholar

^64. Shi boo,17 December 1928, p. 6.Google Scholar

^65. Shanghai liishi gonghui baogao shu (The Report of the Shanghai Bar Association),No. 30 (April 1932), p. 146.Google Scholar

^66. NCH,5 April 1930, p. 94; Zhonghuafaxue zazhi,Vol. 5, No. 7 (July 1934), pp. 18–19; New edition, Vol. 1, Nos. 5–6 (February 1937), pp.Google Scholar

^67. NCH,30 November 1932, p. 334.Google Scholar

^68. Fata pinglun,No. 214 (7 August 1927), p. 6.Google Scholar

^69. Falti pinglun,Vol. 6, No. 29 (28 April 1929), pp. 19–22.Google Scholar

^70. Zhonghua faxue zazhi,Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 1930), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

^71. Liang Yueng-li,“Judicial reform,”p. 106.Google Scholar

^72. Minguo renwu dacidian,pp. 543–44.Google Scholar

^73. Zhonghua faxue zazhi,Vol. 5, Nos. 11–12 (November-December 1934), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

^74. p. 3.Google ScholarIbid.

^75. p. 7.Google ScholarIbid.

^76. pp. 7–9.Google ScholarIbid.

^77. p. 23.Google ScholarIbid.

^78. Di'er lishi dang'an guan, Zhonghua minguo shi dang ‘ an ziliao huibian (A Compilation of Archival Materials on the History of the Republic of China)(Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1986), Vol. 4, pp. 1555–58.Google Scholar

^79. pp. 1558–62.Google ScholarIbid.

^80. p. 1562.Google ScholarIbid.

^81. For the KMT government′s repeated and failed efforts to revise treaties and abolish extraterritoriality, see Wesley R. Fishel, The End of Extraterritoriality in China(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952); Wu Dongzhi, Zhongguo waijiao shi: Zhonghua minguo shiqi, 1911–1949 (A Diplomatic History of China: The Period of the Republic of China, 1911–1949)(Kaifeng: Henan renmin chubanshe, 1990), pp. 198–207.Google Scholar

^82. Falupinglun,No. 214 (7 August 1927) p. 4.Google Scholar

^83. Suisheng Zhao, Power by Design(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996); Guo Xuyin, Guomindang paixi douzheng shi (A History of the KMT Factional Strife(Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1992), pp. 116–6.Google Scholar

^84. Quanguo sifa huiyi huibian (A Compilation of the National Judicial Conference Proceedings(Nanjing, 1935Google Scholar

^85. To cite a few, Tao Huizen, Zhonghua sifa zhidu (China′s Judicial System)(Shanghai: Shanwu yinshuguan, 1926), p. 6; Wang Chengzhi, Zhonghua sifa wenti (Issues Concerning China′s Judiciary(Shanghai: Sanmin shudian, 1929), p. 5; Wan Deyi, Zhonghua sifa zhidu yipie (A Glance at China′s Judicial System)(Hangzhou: Zhejiang faxue yanjiuhui, 1931), p. 8.Google Scholar

^86. Chang,“Present conditions,”p. 172–73; Yu Qizhang,“Minguo yilai xin sifa zhidu”(The new judicial system since [the founding of] the Republic), Falii pinglun,No. 244 (27 February 1928), pp. 1–2; Tao Huizeng, Zhonghua sifa zhidu,p. 10; Wang Zhengji, Zhonghua sifa wenti,pp. 9–10; C. Y.W. Meng,“Modern judicial reform in China,”CWR,Vol. 55, No. 6(10 January 1931), p. 214.Google Scholar

^87. Zhonghua minguo fagui daquan (A Complete Compilation of Laws and Regulations of the Republic of China)(Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1936), pp. 5555–57. 88. Tao Huizeng, Zhonghua sifa zhidu,p. 11; Meng,“Modern judicial reform in China,”p. 235; Zhonghua minguo xianxing fagui daquan (A Complete Compilation of the Laws and Regulations in Effect of the Republic of China)(Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1934), pp. 1127–28.Google Scholar

^89. Chang Yao-tseng,“Present conditions,”pp. 172–73; Yang Youjiong,“Zhonghua sifa zhidu,”pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

^90. Zhengfu gongbao.No. 280 (16 February 1913), p. 114; Zhengfu gongbao fenki huibian.No. 36, p. 14; Fating daquan (A Complete Compilation of Laws)(1914), p. 915.Google Scholar

^91. Zhengfu gongbao fenlei huibian,No. 16, pp. 4, 14–15, No. 17, pp. 86–87. These and other abuses were also testified to by foreign observers. For example, see“Dollar and tael in Shansi,”NCH,24 July 1915, p. 219; ‘ Tortures of prisoners,”30 June 1917, p. 753;“Yamen harpies of Kuechow,”3 November 1917, p. 267;“Scandal of Chinese ‘ justice',”10 August 1918, p. 331;“China′s judicial atrocities,”26 April 1924, p. 127.Google Scholar

^92. Chang Yao-tseng,“Present conditions,”p. 172–73; Dongfang zazhi (Eastern Miscellanies),Vol. 12, No. 2 (the section of Chinese chronicles).Google Scholar

^93. Shi boo,5 November 1914, p. 5.Google Scholar

^94. Shi bao,24 December 1914, p. 5.Google Scholar

^95. Zhengfu gongbao fenlei huibian,No. 17, p. 87.Google Scholar

^96. Deng Changyao, Xianshu zhi baibi (One Hundred Abuses at the County Office)(Guihuacheng qinglongzai, 1925). This general picture of the judicial process at the county level at that time makes a revealing comparison with the Qing period. A recent study on the role of yamen runners in the county judicial process during the Qing is Bradly W. Reed,“Money and justice: clerks, runners, and the magistrate′s court in late Imperial Sichuan,”Modern China,Vol. 21, No. 3 (July 1995), pp. 345–382.Google Scholar

^97. Fatingzhoukan,No. 148 (3 May 1933), p. 3; LiuZhen, Lushidaode lun (OnLawyer′s Ethics(Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1934), p. 34. 98. Shanghai lushi gonghui huiyuan yingxing zhuyi shixiang,p. 17; Fating zhoukan,No. 87–90 (23 March 1932), p. 1; Sifa gongbao,No. 18 (29 January 1935), pp. 17–18; Sifa xingzheng gongbao (Bulletin of Judicial Administration),No. 2 (15 February 1932), p. 53.Google Scholar

^99. Falii pinglun,No. 238, (22 January 1928), pp. 24–26.Google Scholar

^100. Hung-mao Tien, Government and Politics in Kuomintang China, 1927–1937(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972), pp. 130–31.Google Scholar

^101. According to the statistics of 1932, 25.1% of them were graduates of colleges; 23% were from schools of law and government; 16.1% from military and police academies; and 35.8% had lower level of education. pp. 137–38. Appointed by provincial governments, magistrates were to be approved by the Ministry of the Interior and later the Examination Council, but because provincial governments rarely submitted lists of magistrates in office and candidates for the position to Nanjing, the central government actually had little role in selecting and evaluating county magistrates. 135.Google Scholar

^102. Guomin zhengfu neizhengbu, Xianzhang xuzhi What County Magistrates Ought to Know)(Nanjing, 1928), pp. 75–77.Google Scholar

^103. Sifa gongbao,No. 74 (5 November 1935), p. 8.Google Scholar

^104. Sifa gongbao.No. 83 (20 December 1935), pp. 46–47. Falupinglun,Vol. 6, No. 43 (4 August 1929), pp. 16–17 contains a report of the investigation in the court at Zhongshan County, Guangdong province, where abuses were rampant. After litigants submitted lawsuits, they would have to wait one week in criminal cases and five weeks in civil cases to get a first hearing, then it would be at least seven to eight weeks before the next hearing was held. A case could run several years, but its speed depended on how much money the litigant spent and how many connections he or she had. Once accused, criminal defendants were automatically detained and some defendants were gaoled for years without being convicted. Judicial police would give false information without having done any investigation, and the judge would not check the report for accuracy. Judicial police were responsible for checking the creditability of property owners who put up bail for defendants, and this gave them opportunities to extort money. Secretaries, record keepers and judicial police would advertise their connections to take bribes and bend rules. Gaol guards would mistreat inmates and allow old inmates to abuse new ones. The report was published, said the editor, because the same problems must have existed to a greater extent in those counties where there were no courts. It also shows that even the presence of a county court would not necessarily end all the injustice in the county judicial process.Google Scholar

^105. Falii pinglun.No. 215 (14 August 1927), p. 8; NCH,8 December 1928, p. 385.Google Scholar

^106. Falupinglun,Vol. 6, No. 31 (20 May 1929), pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

^107. Zhonghuafalu zazhi,Vol. 5, Nos. 8–9 (September 1934), pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

^108. Wang Chengzhi, Zhonghua sifa wenti,p. 50.Google Scholar

^109. Peng Shi,“Lun xian sifa gaige zhi yaodian”("On the key points of county judicial reform"), Falupinglun,Vol. 6, No. 34 (2 June 1929), pp. 3–8.Google Scholar

^110. Falii pinglun,No. 215 (14 August 1927), p. 8.Google Scholar

^111. Jia Dehuai, Minguo caizheng shi(A History of the Finance of the Republic)(Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1941), p. 234.Google Scholar

^112. Hung-mao Tien, Government and Politics in Kuomintang China,pp. 73–78,151–53.Google Scholar

^113. Jia Dehuai, Minguo caizheng shi,p. 235.Google Scholar

^114. Ibidem.pp. 229, 239; another source indicates that the military spending for 1934 was 373,000,000 yuanor 48.5% of total government expenditure. See“Minister Kung in report says military expenditures are crux of China′s financial problem,”CWR,Vol. 72, No. 12(18 May 1935), pp. 386–88.Google Scholar

^115. Jia Dehuai, Minguo caizheng shi,pp. 645–48. In Jiangsu province for example, the judicial outlay was 2,932,302 yuan,or 10.51% of the total outlay (27,889,938 yuan),which was slightly over the expenditure on administration (9.75%) but lower than the expenditures on education and cultural affairs (20.59%), public security (13.22%), construction (19.87%), and debt payments (14.38%).Google Scholar

^116. Falii pinglun,No. 216 (21 August 1927), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

^117. Sifa yuan, Ershisan niandu sifa tongji (Judicial Statistics for the Year of Twenty-three)(Nanjing, 1936), p. 41; Zhonghua falti zazhi,Vol. 6, No. 10 (1935), p. 73.Google Scholar

^118. Quanguo sifa huiyi huibian.119. Ibidem.;Anna Ginsbourg,“First national judicial conference in China,”CWR,Vol. 74, No. 11 (16 November 1935), pp. 388–89.Google Scholar

^120. Wu Xueyi, Sifajianshe yu sifa rencai (Judicial Constructionand Judicial Personnel)(Chongqing: Guomin tushushe, 1941), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

^121. The document appeared in Fating zhoukan,No. 303 (22 April 1936), Law and Ordinance, pp. 1–2; Xiandai sifa (Modem Judiciary),Vol. 1, No. 8 (1936), pp. 179–81.Google Scholar

^122. Fating zhoukan.No. 314 (8 July 1936), Law and ordinance, pp. 7–9; No. 329 (21 October 1936), Law and ordinance, p. 3; Shen bao (Shanghai News),4 December 1936, p. 10; 25 February 1937, p. 16.Google Scholar

^123. Faling zhoukan,No. 331 (4 November 1936), Comments, p. 2.Google Scholar

^124. Falii pinglun,No. 326 (12 January 1930), pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

^125. The Editor,“Judicial administration in China,”The Chinese Social and Political Science Review,Vol. 14, No. 4 (October 1930), pp. 432–33.Google Scholar

^126. Sifa yuan, Ershisan niandu,pp. 41–71; Twenty-Five Years of the Chinese Republic,p. 22.Google Scholar

^127. Faling zhoukan.No. 295 (26 February 1936), Legal News, p. 1.Google Scholar

^128. NCH,24 February 1937, p. 346.Google Scholar

^129. This part of the story is to be told elsewhere.Google Scholar

^130. Recent studies on Taiwan′s political changes tend to neglect this issue. The following books, for example, have no discussion of it: Harvey J. Feldman (ed.), Constitutional Reform and the Future of the Republic of China(New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1991); Tun-jen Cheng et al.(eds.), Political Change in Taiwan(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992); Peter R. Moody, Jr., Political Change on Taiwan(New York: Praeger, 1992); Janshieh Joseph Wu, Taiwan′s Democratization: Forces Behind the New Momentum(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

^131. Seen.45.Google Scholar

^132. Shao-chuan Leng and Hung-dah Chiu, Criminal Justice in Post-Mao China,pp. 98- 104.Google Scholar