99
2
was made to the Russian Government on the 4th January, 1910, at the instance of some Chinese merchants to postpone the enforcement of the Russian tariff, and that the request was partly granted. There was no intention of limiting the autonomous rights of Russia.
The second point on which the Russian note insists is the enjoyment of extra- territorial rights, administrative and judicial, by Russian subjects in China.
The Chinese reply is that this is expressly provided for by article 11 of the 1881 treaty which has always been observed, and that the Wai-wu Pu does not dissent from the Russian view.
The third clause of the Russian note asserts the right of Russian subjects to reside and trade in Mongolia and in the regions adjoining the Tien Shan range free from all taxation, direct or indirect, and exempt from monopolies and other restriction.
The Chinese answer simply consists of a recital of the 12th article of the 1881 treaty, the provisions of which have, it is added, been strictly observed.
The Russian reference to monopolies is ignored, doubtless because the treaty itself seems to be silent on the point.
The creation of Russian consulates at Kobdo, Hami, and Gutchan forms the fourth Russian demand.
China admits that she is bound by the 10th article of the 1881 treaty to accede to this request as soon as the development of trade justifies the step and signifies her willingness to undertake an investigation into the question in conformity with the terms of the treaty.
They state, however, semi-officially, that while the treaty stipulates Kobdo, the Russians have asked for the establishment of a consulate at Cheng Hsin Shih, a town some 500 miles distant, to which the Amban of Kobdo has recently transferred his residence.
The fifth and sixth Russian demands relate to the proper recognition of Russian consuls in their official capacity, and to the right of Russian subjects to acquire land in places where the right to establish consulates exists, as also at Kalgan, which is now connected with Peking by railway and is becoming a commercial centre of some importance.
China's answer is the usual quotation from the treaties admitting these contentions and stating that they are, have been, and will be enforced in practice.
The exchange of these notes would seem, therefore, to have had little practical result so far as the actual interpretation of the treaty is concerned. It does little to redress the alleged violations of the treaty of which M. Korostovetz and his predecessors have so frequently complained. It does not remove the indirect taxation of Russian goods, it affords little satisfaction to Russian Buriats who have been treated as Chinese in Chinese courts, and it probably will not prevent China from continuing to hold, as she has done in the past, that the expression Mongolia," as used in the treaty, does not include portions of that vast region which have been brought under Chinese settlement and administration.
*<
It seems almost inconceivable that Russia, with all her knowledge of Chinese ways, would have addressed an academic representation of this kind to the Chinese Government had her object been the attainment of satisfaction for concrete violations of treaty rights.
Two explanations of this unusual exhibition of Russian diplomacy are offered here, neither of which may prove to be correct. One is that Russia wished to fortify her position in anticipation of the forthcoming negotiations for the revision of the 1881 treaty, and was especially anxious to clear the way by a declaration which would prevent China from entering upon the negotiations with all her infringements of the treaty unchallenged. China is at liberty to denounce the treaty on and from the 25th instant, and the friction which has arisen in connection with plague measures in Manchuria may have influenced the Russian decision. When the treaty of 1881 was signed Russia was the only Power which had a frontier co-terminous with China, and the retrocession of Ili naturally gave her compensating advantages which she can scarcely expect to retain now that Great Britain, France, and Japan are all limitrophe Powers with China. If she is to concede the principle of an overland tariff, she doubtless wishes to make sure that the appointment of consuls and other privileges secured by the 1881 treaty shall no longer be denied her, and this somewhat demonstrative protest may help to achieve these objects.
Another explanation of the Russian move, to which, however, less credence is attached, is that Russian action has been considerably restrained by the moderating influence of Japan. So far as my limited opportunities for judging extend, the
3
Japanese do not seem to have given the Russians the support which the recent understanding with regard to Manchuria might have led the latter to expect. The Japanese Minister is absent on leave, but from expressions which the Russian Minister has let drop it is evident that he thinks that the Japanese would prefer to have a monopoly of initiative in Chinese questions,
It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the American legation has viewed the Russian action with much disfavour, although Mr. Calhoun, short as his experience in China has been, frankly admits that Chinese inaction and obstruction are sufficient to provoke the hostility of any Power, however peacefully inclined.
I am forwarding a copy of this despatch to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo.
I have, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
May