Majesty's Legation at Peking had made any representation on the subject. We have not overlooked the fact that the boundary laid down by Sir George Scott extends in parts beyond that shown on the map appended to the Agreement of 1897. The reasons for this divergence, however, are clearly stated in the report of Sir George Scott's operations on this portion of the frontier, and we agree with the Lieutenant-Governor in considering it desirable to secure a formal recognition of the boundary which we claim. That the apprehensions expressed in the penultimate paragraph of the Burmah letter are by no means imaginary is shown by the list of Chinese forts given at p. 43 of the Annual Report on the Administration of the Northern Shan States for the year 1902-1903. Of the posts* there mentioned, all except the first (Kawng-Hso) are on the British side of the boundary, and should be removed without delay. We accordingly commend Sir Hugh Barnes' proposals for the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government.
3. A later letter from the Burmah Government, of which copy is inclosed, gives cover to a report of a fight between Chinese and Was in the neighbourhood of the undemarcated frontier.
4. A copy of this despatch, with inclosures, is under transmission to Sir E. Satow.
(Confidential.)
Sir,
We have, &c. (Signed)
CURZON.
T. RALEIGH.
E. F.-G. LAW.
E. R. ELLES.
A. T. ARUNDEL.
DENZIL IBBETSON.
Government of Burmah to Government of India.
Rangoon, September 4, 1903.
I am directed to address you regarding that portion of the Burmah-Chinese frontier between the Namting River on the north and Nalawt on the south, which has not yet been finally demarcated in agreement with the Chinese. The position on this part of the border was discussed with Sir Ernest Satow during his recent visit to Rangoon.
2. The existing state of affairs and the events that immediately led up to it may be summed up as follows:-
In the third season (1899-1900) of the operations of the Burmah-China Boundary Commission, the section of the frontier that remained for demarcation was the country between the confluence of the Nam Hsang with the Namting on the north and Pangsang-Nalawt on the Nam Hka to the south. After three cairns had been erected, which determined the spur up which the boundary should proceed from the Namting towards the Salween-Mekong watershed, the British and Chinese Commissioners failed to agree.
The latter maintained that the "lofty mountain range called Kong-ming-shan," mentioned in Article 3 of the Agreement of the 4th February, 1897, was the hill known to us as Loi Mu, which is a peak and not a range, while the former declared it to be the Salween-Mekong watershed as is obviously the intention of Article 3 of the Agreement, and as is clearly shown in the map that is attached to it. The contention of the British Commissioner was also supported by the figures of latitude and longitude given in the text of the Agreement, but the Chinese Commissioners refused to accept these arguments, and advanced the counter-claim that the integrity of the Sawbwa-ships of Kengma, Mengtung, and Mengko which are left to China by the Agreement must be maintained. As regards these three States it was ascertained that Kengma does not touch the boundary at all. On the other hand, Mengko and Mengtung, which is subordinate to Mengko, undoubtedly possess small settlements in distant valleys within the Wa country on the British side of the frontier,
Kawng-Hso, Yong Hkam, Mang Nawng, Long Kan, Pang Long, Kan Lan, Mong Hka, Tamlaolong, and Pupang six of these posts are marked on the inclosed map, the last two are believed to be in the unsurveyed blank area to the north of Mông Hka.the inhabitants of which act as middlemen in matters of trade with the Wa hillmen. But it was found impossible to exclude all these settlements from British territory by any boundary line that followed natural features or conformed to the line laid down by the Agreement, nor did they appear to be of much importance. Some compromises were, nevertheless, suggested by Sir George Scott both in the north and south, but they were refused by the Chinese Commissioners, who persistently declined to accept the map attached to the Agreement, and produced an inaccurate map of their own on which they professed to rely. The British Commissioner therefore adopted eventually the course which Sir Claude MacDonald foreshadowed in his despatch No. 187, dated the 15th September, 1898, and proceeded to ascertain the boundary single-handed. A single cairn (numbered 4) was erected to the south at a point where the frontier reaches the Nam Hka, and the line adopted between that point and the third cairn on the spur touching the Namting was drawn as nearly as possible in accordance with the Agreement of 1897, and was indicated on a map, and explained by a written description. Copies of both the map and the description were furnished to the Chinese Commissioners with the request that the local Chinese officials might be instructed to respect this frontier. The Chinese Commissioners declared, in reply, that cairn No. 4 had been destroyed, and they refused to accept the line indicated to them.
At the time that the Boundary Commission withdrew, Mengko, according to Sir George Scott, possessed a few villages inside the frontier; Mengtung had complete control of Mong Hsaw; Chinese miners were working silver mines on the Mong Hka hill; Mong Hka itself, on the upper waters of the Nam Hka, was held by a few Chinese soldiers, and a line of Chinese stockades stood on the Wa Pet Ken, or 'gold tract boundary, some in British territory, some in Chinese. There is no reason to suppose that this situation is in any way changed, and reports have been received in the Northern Shan States that the Chinese have recently had engagements with the Wa "above Mong Hka," and near the sources of the Nam Hka, that is to say, well inside the British boundary.
Since April 1900 no British officer has visited any portion of this border.
A letter from Mr. Litton, dated the 18th May last, reports risings in the district of Chen Pien, and raids by the Wa above Mengtung on Kengma. The Chinese claim to have driven them back. The truth probably is that the Wa, having made their raid, retired to their hills, and that the subsequent attempt of the Chinese to punish them has resulted in the Chinese crossing the frontier. It may be regarded as certain that these encroachments will from time to time be repeated, and as we do not administer the Wa country we have no means locally of preventing them.
3. In the despatch from His Majesty's Secretary of State for India, dated the 2nd November, 1900, it was decided that the provisional line of frontier, namely, either that indicated on the map attached to the Agreement of 1897, or any line on the British side of it which has been formally pointed out to the Chinese Government as the British frontier may be provisionally regarded as the frontier of British Burmah pending a final settlement of the matter.
It is understood from this despatch, and also from Sir W. Cunningham's letter, dated the 27th July, 1900, that on the particular part of the frontier now under consideration, namely, from the Namting to Nalawi, the line of border decided upon is that which, as described in the preceding paragraph, was ascertained and marked on a map by Mr. (now Sir G.) Scott and explained by him to the Chinese Commissioners. But although the Chinese officers on the Commission were plainly requested to respect this boundary, it does not appear that any communication has been made to the Chinese Government on the subject, and Sir Ernest Satow stated that he did not recollect that the matter had ever been brought to his notice, or that he had at any time received instructions to address the Chinese Government in regard to it. Satow was of opinion that he should now be instructed to explain the position fully to the Chinese Government, and to invite them to accept finally the line laid down by Sir George Scott which, as it will be easy to show, is in accordance with the Agreement of 1897.
The Lieutenant-Governor concurs in this recommendation. Although the line in question is not a very good line from an administrative point of view, in that it intersects the country of the Was,* nevertheless it represents all, or nearly all, that we are entitled to claim under the Agreement of 1897, and if it is accepted by the Chinese...
* Vide Mr. Bayne's letter, dated June 23, 1900, paragraph 6.
Page 55