2
reciprocal residence of our nationals in Russian and British Concessions in other parts of China, and added that they appeared to me such as no Representative could authorize his people to accept. I reminded him that the Russian Government had declared in the Treaty of Portsmouth that they had not in Manchuria any territorial advantages or preferential or exclusive Concessions in impairment of Chinese sovereignty or inconsistent with the principle of equal opportunity, and I said that it seemed hard to reconcile the present situation with that declaration.
M. Pokotilow gave me to understand that, if the principle were admitted, the practice could readily be modified, and he pointed out that the declaration in the IIIrd Article of the Portsmouth Treaty had been given only to Japan, who was quite satisfied with the Russian interpretation of it. That this latter statement is only too well founded will be seen from Mr. Willis' two despatches of the 17th February last, copies of which I have the honour to transmit to you herewith. The Japanese are reorganizing and modelling their railway settlements in the south on the lines of the Russian ones in the north, and also contemplate the establishment of Councils appointed by the Company, That these railway Settlements will, as Mr. Willis predicts, prove in the long run a considerable obstacle to any future development of the commercial interests of the other Treaty Powers in Manchuria seems to me hardly to admit of doubt.
In reporting on this question, I have laboured under the disadvantage of our having no Consul at Harbin; and the United States' Government, who have a Consul there, could probably supply fuller information than that which I have been able to procure.
(No. 16.) Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Acting Consul-General Willis to Sir J. Jordan.
Mukden, February 19, 1908. WITH reference to my despatch No. 9, Confidential, of the 11th instant, I have the honour to inclose, in Chinese and in translation, copy of a further despatch, with inclosures, which I have recently received from the Acting Taotai at Harbin.
I have, &c. (Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Taotai of Harbin to Acting Consul-General Willis.
R. WILLIS,
(Translation.)
February 15, 1908. SINCE the dispatch of my protest against the establishment of a Russian Settlement, I have received a despatch from the Railway Board in which Article 6 of the Agreement for the construction of the Eastern Chinese Railway is quoted in support of the Russian contention-viz., "the Railway Board has exclusive rights of administration within the boundaries of land purchased by the railway."
Having referred the question to the Viceroy and Governor, I received telegraphic instructions as follows:-
"The correct interpretation to be placed on Article 6 of the Railway Agreement clearly is that the rights of territorial administration are to be retained by China. The Railway Board have misunderstood the meaning of the term 'administration' as used in the Agreement, and the Chinese Government cannot possibly accept their contention."
I have replied in this sense to the Railway Board, and have further the honour to inclose for your information copies of correspondence which has passed between the Railway Board and myself.
3
Inclosure 3 in No. 1,
Manager of the Eastern Chinese Railway Company to the Kirin and Heilungchiang Railway Boards.
January 26, 1908. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the Kirin Board's despatch of the 18th and of the Heilungchiang Board's despatch of the 22nd instant.
I would observe that I have the greatest respect for the sovereign rights of China, but at the same time I cannot agree with the views advanced in the despatches under acknowledgment, viz., that the consent of the Chinese authorities must be obtained for the establishment of a Public Council at Harbin.
Under clause 1 of the Regulations for the establishment of the said Council, it is clearly set forth that the said Council is under the control of the President of the General Railway Board at St. Petersburgh.
Now in the 6th Article of the Agreement for the construction and management it is laid down that the Company has exclusive rights of administration inside the territory acquired by the Company. The Company, having these rights, has a corresponding responsibility, and for many years past they have appointed officials for the management of these territorial affairs, and have thereby been put to great trouble and expense. As, however, the railway territory has increased in extent and population, the staff of the Company is barely sufficient for the proper discharge of these administrative duties and the numerous improvements that are required.
The President of the General Board of St. Petersburgh and myself, as temporary Manager of the Company, have therefore decided that it will be for the general interests of the inhabitants of the railway Settlement to establish an elective Council for the management of local affairs.
From what I have stated the Boards can see that the administrative rights still remain with the Railway Company, and that none of the special powers granted in the Agreement to the Company have been parted with. The Council simply takes over part of the duties of the Company, just as in other matters the Company delegates its functions to subordinate offices. The only difference under the new scheme is that the officers appointed for the administrative business of the territory will be elected by the inhabitants in place of being nominated by the Company
By references to clauses 1, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 39, 40, 45, it may be seen that the Council is under the control of the General Management. Thus, if the consent of the Chinese officials is required for the establishment of the proposed Council, their consent must be equally necessary for the establishment of any subordinate office.
The despatches of the Boards also advance the arguments that the name of the Railway Company-Eastern Chinese Railway Company-shows the interest of China in the enterprise, and that half the population in the Settlement is Chinese. This is true enough, but the Boards' inference that therefore the Railway and its land should be administered jointly by Russian and Chinese railway officials is hardly in accordance with the Railway Agreement of 1896, and I cannot subscribe to it.
As regards the contention of the Kirin Board that M. Pokotilow has consented to add certain clauses to the Agreement, my information is to the effect that such additional clauses only apply to newly acquired land, and not to Harbin, and that a settlement cannot at present be arrived at, because of the difficulty of determining the boundaries of the said land.
Having brought these considerations before the notice of the Boards, I would express the hope that the matter will be reported to the Viceroy and that there will be no further arguments of this nature.
Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
Taotai of Harbin to Acting Manager of the Eastern Chinese Railway Board.
(Translation.)
[Undated.]
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt, on the 29th January, of your despatch No. 140.
570
і