10
Note on the Informal Exposé of Views of the Japanese Government.
After speaking of Article 6 of the Eastern Chinese Railway Agreement, his Excellency the Baron Takahira has inadvertently referred to the second paragraph of Article 8 of the same instrument as stipulating "that the protection of the order and security of the land conceded to the Company for the construction of railways and other purposes connected therewith shall be intrusted to the police guards appointed by the Company." His Excellency was evidently under the momentary misapprehension that this provision was in the contract sanctioned by the Chinese Government, whereas in reality it is not there to be found, but, on the contrary, it only stands in Article 8 of the "Statutes of the Chinese Eastern Railway Company." These Statutes, however, are a unilateral act of the Company, and naturally since their provisions have not the authority of the Chinese Government, and are not within the scope of what has been conceded in the contract—the only source of their authority—they cannot be looked to as of validity.
The Ambassador cites Article 3 of the Russo-Chinese Agreement regarding Manchuria, signed at Peking the 26th March, 1902, which provides for a Chinese police guard for the maintenance of order along the lines outside those parts allotted to the Railway Company, as necessarily going to show that the police authority within the allotted zone does not belong to China. It would seem, however, that any such inference should be sought only in the light of the first and third paragraphs of Article 5 of the original contract.
As the Ambassador observes, his Government would advocate nothing which would interfere with the Treaty rights of foreigners generally on lands connected with the railway lines. This would naturally involve the fact that no police connected with the railway would have the right of authority over foreigners, the exercise of police over whom would of course rest of right with their own Governments, to be exercised through their Consular officers.
As for police authority over Chinese subjects by police connected with the railways or with the Governments interested in the railways, such right does not seem deducible from the original contract, nor from anything agreed to by the Chinese Government and known to the Department of State.
Moreover, an analogy between a Railway and a Mining Concession would seem to afford all the power really necessary for the practical business of protecting property and maintaining order under the general authority that any owner of land would have to the exercise of a sort of police power for those practical purposes, and with no semblance of the assumption of political right, and would seem unobjectionable from every point of view.
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government
[B]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[22020]
No. 1.
60
25071
16 JUL 08
[June 27.]
SECTION 1.
Consul Carlisle to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received June 27.)
(No. 6. Confidential.) Sir,
Hanoi, May 18, 1908. THE outbreak against Chinese authority which has occurred on the frontier of Yunnan and to which I have had the honour to refer in my despatch No. 5 of the 15th instant and previous despatches is likely to give rise to complaints on the part of the Chinese Government against the Government of French Indo-China.
I am inclined to think that some remonstrances have already been addressed to the Government here on the subject, from expressions used by M. Bonhoure, the Acting Governor-General, in conversation with Mr. Consul-General Wilkinson during the latter's stay here.
I would mention in this place that the local authorities received Mr. Wilkinson extremely well on his arrival. I refer to this because they are generally somewhat careless in such matters. An Italian Consul who was proceeding up to Yunnan recently through Tonquin, and who from courtesy called upon the Acting Governor-General, did not even receive in return the latter's card, as he had expected, at the hands of an Aide-de-camp or Secretary. M. Bonhoure, however, returned Mr. Wilkinson's call in person, accompanied by his Chef de Cabinet, and gave an official dinner in his honour, at which the General Commanding-in-chief was present. The Résident Supérieur of Tonquin, on whom Mr. Wilkinson also called, likewise asked him to dinner, but Mr. Wilkinson's departure for Hong Kong prevented him from accepting the invitation.
M. Bonhoure in conversation several times put forward the theory, which he said he had formed from the information at his disposal, that the rising at Hokou on the night of the 29th April was the work of only fifty men, and that they were armed with nothing but revolvers. After they had opened fire they were joined at first by a part and subsequently by the bulk of the troops and finally after the capture of Hokou obtained possession of all the arms in the place. According to this theory, the rebels, if they came across from French territory at all, came singly or in small groups with nothing about them to show their nature, but with revolvers concealed on their persons. All the rifles now in the possession of the insurgents would be those taken from the garrison of Hokou. M. Bonhoure was visibly pleased to hear therefore that the rifles seen in the hands of the rebels by Mr. Wilkinson's party while descending the Namti Valley were Mauser rifles, for it appears that the Hokou garrison were also armed with Mausers.
Unfortunately while it is quite probable that the first shots were fired by a group of not more than fifty men, and while it is indisputable that the Hokou Government armament is now in the hands of the rebels, there seems to be a good deal of evidence that the latter violated the Tonquin frontier in a much more definite manner than M. Bonhoure would like to believe.
On the 5th May the following passage occurred in the "Avenir du Tonkin" report by its correspondent at Laokay:
Pendant la journée du 30 écoulé, des bandes de révolutionnaires armés traversaient tranquillement Laoky et se rendaient à Hokéou; le 1er Mai trente et un réformistes, venant de Phomoi, avec armes et bagages, ont traversé en file Indienne le pont du Namti; il nous semble que pareille démonstration dans nos rues ne devrait pas être permise.
On the 8th May the same correspondent wrote:----
A Laokay on voit de-ci de-là quelques Chefs rebelles qui se promènent, revolver en bandoulière; il y a eu également des révolutionnaires en armes qui ont parcouru Laokay sans aucune précaution; leur audace a complètement dérouté ceux qui avaient obligation d'interdire cette exhibition. On se demande quelles mesures...