in this respect only weten Kowloon and the leases
containing two other walled cities
Wei-hai-wei
(British, and Kinchow (Russian) and in regard to them
the Chinese statement is true. The case of the Seran
lease is different because there a zone was specially
excepted from the lease altogether. in the case of
the two British and of the bussian leases the waliod
cities (Kinchow, Kowloon and "ei-hai-vei; wero
included within the territory lessed but in the case of
Kowloon and wei-hai-wei provision was made, subject to
military requi uments, for the cont nued excrcise of a
easure of chinese jurisdiction. in the case of
Kinchow (Russian) there was no provision for continued
Chinese jurisdiction in the valled city in the original
lease at first; it was inserted in an additional
U.5.
Agreement later but so many dificulties arose in
practice that after a Russian de and in 1901 for the
abolition of Chinese administr tion, the Chinose
abandoned in 1903 their attempts to exurcise it. In
any case there is not in this provision the overriding
limitation which is found in both the Le aes to the
"except so far as may be inconsistent with
neval and military requirements for the defence of
the territory Leased." Purther, if the negotiations
regaruing kowloon are looked at (aper para.5, it
will be seen that the Chinese at first refused to
include the City of Kowloon in the leaac, and were
only induced to do so by the provision und r discussion.
In the case of the lease to mncs, there 38 no
walieu city and no area within which chinese jurisuiction
was to continue.
‚ani exolusive
aduition at end of Fura, ch.
jurisdiction over the city. While not denying the
qualification of " .ritish military requirements for
tue vefence of long Long, the Chinese do not make
it clear precisely whit saanɛing they give to this
Qualification....