}
349
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government. CO
[B]
CHINA RAILWAYS.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[3510]
No. 1.
5654
(January 3Rac
SECTION 6.
24 FEB 10
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received January 31.)
(No. 13. Confidential.) Sir,
Peking, January 8, 1910. I HAD the honour to receive on the 29th December your telegram No. 204, in which you informed me that I was authorised to concert with the United States chargé d'affaires in endeavouring to induce China to accept Japanese participation in the Chinchow-Aigun railway project.
My United States colleague, who had been making enquiries on the subject for a few days previously, was duly informed of the receipt of these instructions, and we agreed, as suggested in my telegram No. 198 of the 18th December, to make a joint verbal communication to our Japanese colleague before taking any action with the Wai-wu Pu.
Mr. Fletcher and I accordingly called upon the Japanese Minister on the 31st December, and explained fully to Mr. Ijuin the nature and scope of the instructions we had severally received. Mr. Fletcher reviewed the measures which his Govern- ment had taken in connection with the proposal for the internationalisation of Manchurian railways, and stated that while the Chinchow-Aigun project had been included in the general scheme which had been submitted to Japan and the other interested Powers, it had been subordinated to the main proposal in his communica- tions with the Chinese Government. He had furnished the Wai-wn Pu with a memorandum on the subject on the 21st December, and he proposed to send them a supplementary note dealing more especially with the Chinchow-Aigun project. In this he would state that if the larger and more comprehensive scheme was found to be impracticable, the same object might perhaps be gradually attained by participation in the Chinchow-Aigun project and using it as a basis for the absorption on commercial lines of other Manchurian railways.
I explained to Mr. Ijuin that my instructions did not, I conceived, embrace the larger scheme of which Mr. Fletcher had spoken, but merely authorised me to do what I could to persuade the Chinese Government that the Japanese claim to participation in the Chinchow-Aigun line was one which could reasonably be conceded. Mr. Ijuin thanked us for our communication. He said that he had received information but no instructions with regard to the larger proposal put forward by the United States Government. His instructions respecting the Chinchow-Aigun enter- prise dated some time back, and he would have to ask for fresh ones, but lie could at once say that our proposal to urge the advisability of Japanese participation upon the Chinese Government had his cordial approval. He had told the Wai-wa Pu that Japan would wish to be consulted before the matter was finally arranged. Personally, he thought it would be advisable to keep the project, as far as possible, a British- American one. Russia had possibly a claim to a voice in the matter, but the inclusion of other Powers would, he feared, only complicate matters and not facilitate the practical execution of the undertaking.
Some days later Mr. Fletcher furnished me with the enclosed copy of a note which he had addressed to the Wai-wu Pu on the 31st December in the sense of the language which he had used in speaking with the Japanese Minister, and yesterday he and I had an interview on the subject with his Excellency Liang Tun-yen at the Wai-wu Pu, in which our observations followed largely the lines of our previous interview with the Japanese Minister.
Mr. Fletcher explained the American scheme for the internationalisation of all Manchurian railways, and stated that Great Britain and Germany had expressed their agreement with the proposal. The Chinchow-Aigun line might, however, be utilised as an alternative measure for the gradual attainment of the same object, and he suggested that the Chinese Government should proceed to ratify the Chinchow-Aigun preliminary agreement. He asked that if the Chinese Government hesitated to
[2581 hh-6]