380
!
2
the Chinese Government for specific commercial use, whereas she has procured her settlements apparently from the provincial authorities under the cover of railway exploitation.
As Mr. Willis points out, the question, so far as British interests are concerned, is largely an academic one in North Manchuria, but it may prove to be of considerable practical importance in the South, where the Japanese will, of course, follow the example of Russia.
At the open ports of Mukden, Antung, and Newchwang, the Japanese hold very large tracts of land, and all along the South Manchurian Railway they have inherited the territory acquired by the Chinese Eastern Railway Company. It is estimated that the aggregate of these holdings is considerably over 10,000 acres, and as the railway settlements are always situated between the railway and the native cities served by the railway, their position is naturally the most favourable one for purposes of trade.
The political importance of such settlements is, perhaps, even greater than their commercial. Japanese communities spring up at them with surprising rapidity, and have a great faculty for expansion.
In the course of a few years Japan will have a chain of these settlements extending 600 miles through the heart of Corea from Fusan to the Yalu, from the Yalu to Mukden, or some other point on the South Manchurian Railway, and from thence north and south along the whole course of the railway.
Mr. Willis informs me that the situation in Manchuria bears a striking resemblance to that in Corea ten years ago, and having watched the progress of some so-called railway settlements in the latter country, I can testify to their efficacy as a means of territorial absorption.
The American Chargé d'Affaires takes much the same view of the question as I do, and has referred it to Washington for instructions. The French Minister acquiesces in the Russian contention, and the German attitude I have not yet learnt.
I am forwarding a copy of this despatch to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tôkið.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Acting Consul-General Willis to Sir J. Jordan.
(No. 9. Confidential.) Sir,
J. N. JORDAN.
Mukden, February 11, 1908. I HAVE the honour to inclose copy and translation of a despatch I have received from the Acting Taotai of Harbin, in which he informs me that he has protested against the claims the Chinese Eastern Railway Company are advancing in connection with the administration of the railway settlement at that inland mart.
I have replied to the Taotai merely acknowledging the receipt of his despatch. As far as I am aware, there are no British subjects settled at Harbin, and I have no reason to suppose that our commercial interests there at present are of any importance. I did not, therefore, think it advisable to question the Chinese or Russian authorities as to the state of affairs, and I am without means of obtaining independent information.
However, the following report, which has been gathered from conversations with, and information given me by, my American and German colleagues, may be of interest. America has a Consul stationed at Harbin, but there are no American merchants, and their trade in kerosene oil, flour, and piece-goods, has, Mr. Fisher, their Consul, maintains, been strangled by the exorbitant freights demanded by the Russian railway between Vladivostock and Harbin.
Germany has no Resident Consular official, but some sixty or seventy German merchants, mostly Jews of mediocre class, have established themselves there, and as Dr. Mezger, my German colleague, admits are for the most part prepared to accept Russian administration,
The railway settlement at Harbin is approximately 47 square miles in extent, 19.50 square miles on the right bank and 27.50 square miles on the left of the Sungari. This land has been acquired by the railway partly by purchase from private persons, partly by grants from the Chinese Government or the Governor of Kirin Province. The term for which the land is held is identical with the Concession for the railway, purchasable by China after thirty-six years, and reversion after eighty years.
3
The conditions of the lease are, I presume, based on the Agreement of the 8th September, 1896, translation of which from the Chinese text is given in "Rockhill's Treaties," pp. 212, et seq. On the face of it this Agreement does not seem to have been framed to meet the possibility of the Company claiming administrative rights over a large area; it appears, however, that in addition to the Russian and Chinese texts of this Agreement, there was also a French text, which was the only one signed, and which contains an interpolated clause to Article 6 to the effect that the Railway Company should have le droit absolu et exclusif de l'administration de ses terrains.
Mr. Straight, who gave me this information, also told me that his Excellency Tong Shao-yi had assured him that neither of the Chinese signatories, both of whom are now dead, understood any French, and the clause, his Excellency thought, must have been inserted by M. von Grote. Read in the light of this information the note at the bottom of p. 213 in Rockhill's version is interesting.
The Chinese Government, not being able to go back on the signatures of their Representatives, base their present opposition to the Russian claims on the grounds outlined in the Taotai's letter to me, namely, that the Chinese Eastern Railway is a Commercial Concession, and that China has not yet parted with any of her territorial rights except to foreign Governments; consequently the word “administration" cannot be construed in the sense of territorial administration.
I inclose an abstract of a translation of the Regulations issued for the establishment of a municipal administration in the railway settlement, from which the powers claimed by the Railway Company may be more clearly perceived. These Regulations are not dated, but were issued towards the end of December 1907. Further obligatory Rules, of which I also inclose a brief abstract, were issued on the 23rd January last.
It does not seem that as yet the Railway Company or the Russian Government on their behalf has claimed jurisdiction over the subjects of other Powers resident in the settlement, but signs are not wanting of a tendency in that direction. The property of a German subject was recently attached by the Russian Consul at the suit of a Russian subject, but a strongly-worded telegraphic protest seems to have been effective. Further, the arrest of an American at Harbin station by the Chinese police at the request of the American authorities seems to have drawn a verbal protest from the Russian Civil Administrator of the railway.
Dr. Mezger also informed me confidentially that M. Pokotilow, in answer to some objections the German Minister advanced, replied brusquely, "Well, if your people do not like our regulations, they can go away."
I have, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
ROBERT WILLIS,
Tu, Acting Taotai at Harbin, to Consul-General Fulford.
(Translation.)
January 29, 1908. WITH reference to the establishment of a Russian Administration at Harbin I have already addressed the Russian Consul and the Railway Company protesting against the proposal.
The Eastern Chinese Railway Company is of the nature of a commercial enterprise, and they have no powers as to the protection of their property except under the terms of their Agreement; they have no rights of territorial administration. The proposed inauguration of an administration is entirely out of the scope of their Agreement, and it is out of the question that it can be recognized by the Chinese Government.
The Chinese local authorities are at present taking steps for the establishment of a local government, and there is no need for Russian merchants to interfere in matters which do not concern them.