CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904 — Page 58

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Chinese, Sir Hugh Barnes considers that we may be content with it on the ground that it will settle finally a long-pending and troublesome question. If the Chinese Government should refuse to accept Sir George Scott's line, Sir Ernest Satow considered that he should be instructed to inform them that, nevertheless, we should continue to regard this line as the provisional boundary pending a final settlement, and to warn them plainly that Chinese officials and troops cannot be allowed to transgress it.

Sir Ernest Satow was also of opinion that, in the circumstances supposed, he should also be instructed to warn the Chinese Government that as they refused our proposal to accept finally Sir George Scott's line, we should not consider ourselves bound by it if a formal demarcation were subsequently agreed upon, but should consider ourselves at liberty to contend for any modification of the line which further inquiry on the spot might show to be desirable. A glance at the line as shown on the map will show that there are places where the boundary could be greatly improved, as, for example, by straightening the line in the neighbourhood of Mengma, and so avoiding the re-entering angle which has its apex at Nalawt. This re-alignment was suggested by Sir George Scott on p. 15 (under 5 (b)) of the Report forwarded with his letter of the 28th May, 1900. The Lieutenant-Governor agrees on all points with Sir Ernest Satow.

It certainly seems very advisable that our view, namely, that Sir George Scott's line must either be finally accepted as the boundary, or must be regarded and strictly observed as the boundary pending other arrangements, should be pressed as clearly and forcibly as possible on the attention of the Chinese Government. Otherwise, it is inevitable that encroachments will continue, and that the result will be pointed to at a later date as grounds for a rectification of the Agreement boundary and as proofs of the extent to which that boundary will be said to have violated Chinese local rights. If the Government of India concurs in this view, Sir Hugh Barnes recommends that His Majesty's Government should be asked to instruct Sir Ernest Satow to the effect suggested.

I am, &c. (Signed) C. C. LOWIS,

then stated that the Chinese were worsted. Hin Sao Hpa are in British territory.

Both the Shwe Thamin Chaung and Sa

It seems, therefore, clear that the Chinese, instead of respecting the boundary line, are pushing forward into British territory.

Inclosure 5 in No. 1.

Assistant Political Officer, Keng Tung, to Sir G. Scott.

September 2, 1903. (Telegraphic.)

TRAVELLERS, Keng Tung, report fight between Chinese and Was at Sau Hin Sao Pa, or in Burmese, Shwe Thamin Chaung. Chinese victorious. whatever.

No details

Officiating Chief Secretary.

(Confidential.)

Inclosure 3 in No. 1.

Government of Burmah to Government of India.

Rangoon, September 22, 1903. IN continuation of this Office letter, dated the 4th instant, I am directed to forward, for the information of the Government of India, a copy of a letter, dated the 3rd instant, from the Superintendent and Political Officer, Southern Shan States (with inclosure), reporting a fight between the Chinese and the Was in the vicinity of the undemarcated frontier between Burmah and China lying between the Namting River and Nalawt.

Captain Drage's diary referred to is the summary of events in the Northern Shan States for the period ending the 20th May last.

Inclosure 4 in No. 1.

Sir G. Scott to Government of Burmah.

September 3, 1903.

I HAVE the honour to forward herewith copy of a telegram received from the Assistant Political Officer, Keng Tung. His geography is lamentably at fault. The Shwe Thamin Chaung is about 20 miles from Mong Lem town, while Sao Hin Sao Hpa is quite 100 miles farther north. The report, however, seems to confirm the news given by Captain Drage in a diary a couple of months ago, except that it was

Edit History

2026-06-02 04:13:31 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

4 Chinese, Sir Hugh Barnes considers that we may be content with it on the ground that it will settle finally a long-pending and troublesome question. If the Chinese Government should refuse to accept Sir George Scott's line, Sir Ernest Satow considered that he should be instructed to inform them that, nevertheless, we should continue to regard this line as the provisional boundary pending a final settlement, and to warn them plainly that Chinese officials and troops cannot be allowed to transgress it. Sir Ernest Satow was also of opinion that, in the circumstances supposed, he should also be instructed to warn the Chinese Government that as they refused our proposal to accept finally Sir George Scott's line, we should not consider ourselves bound by it if a formal demarcation were subsequently agreed upon, but should consider ourselves at liberty to contend for any modification of the line which further inquiry on the spot might show to be desirable. A glance at the line as shown on the map will show that there are places where the boundary could be greatly improved, as, for example, by straightening the line in the neighbourhood of Mengma, and so avoiding the re-entering angle which has its apex at Nalawt. This re-alignment was suggested by Sir George Scott on p. 15 (under 5 (b)) of the Report forwarded with his letter of the 28th May, 1900. The Lieutenant-Governor agrees on all points with Sir Ernest Satow. It certainly seems very advisable that our view, namely, that Sir George Scott's line must either be finally accepted as the boundary, or must be regarded and strictly observed as the boundary pending other arrangements, should be pressed as clearly and forcibly as possible on the attention of the Chinese Government. Otherwise, it is inevitable that encroachments will continue, and that the result will be pointed to at a later date as grounds for a rectification of the Agreement boundary and as proofs of the extent to which that boundary will be said to have violated Chinese local rights. If the Government of India concurs in this view, Sir Hugh Barnes recommends that His Majesty's Government should be asked to instruct Sir Ernest Satow to the effect suggested. I am, &c. (Signed) C. C. LOWIS, then stated that the Chinese were worsted. Hin Sao Hpa are in British territory. 5 Both the Shwe Thamin Chaung and Sa It seems, therefore, clear that the Chinese, instead of respecting the boundary line, are pushing forward into British territory. Inclosure 5 in No. 1. Assistant Political Officer, Keng Tung, to Sir G. Scott. September 2, 1903. (Telegraphic.) TRAVELLERS, Keng Tung, report fight between Chinese and Was at Sau Hin Sao Pa, or in Burmese, Shwe Thamin Chaung. Chinese victorious. whatever. No details Officiating Chief Secretary. (Confidential.) Inclosure 3 in No. 1. Government of Burmah to Government of India. Rangoon, September 22, 1903. IN continuation of this Office letter, dated the 4th instant, I am directed to forward, for the information of the Government of India, a copy of a letter, dated the 3rd instant, from the Superintendent and Political Officer, Southern Shan States (with inclosure), reporting a fight between the Chinese and the Was in the vicinity of the undemarcated frontier between Burmah and China lying between the Namting River and Nalawt. Captain Drage's diary referred to is the summary of events in the Northern Shan States for the period ending the 20th May last. Inclosure 4 in No. 1. Sir G. Scott to Government of Burmah. September 3, 1903. I HAVE the honour to forward herewith copy of a telegram received from the Assistant Political Officer, Keng Tung. His geography is lamentably at fault. The Shwe Thamin Chaung is about 20 miles from Mong Lem town, while Sao Hin Sao Hpa is quite 100 miles farther north. The report, however, seems to confirm the news given by Captain Drage in a diary a couple of months ago, except that it was 56

Baseline (Original)

4 Chinese, Sir Hugh Barnes considers that we may be content with it on the ground that it will settle finally a long-pending and troublesome question. If the Chinese Government should refuse to accept Sir George Scott's line, Sir Ernest Satow con- sidered that he should be instructed to inform them that, nevertheless, we should continue to regard this line as the provisional boundary pending a final settlement, and to warn them plainly that Chinese officials and troops cannot be allowed to transgress it. Sir Ernest Satow was also of opinion that, in the circumstances supposed, he should also be instructed to warn the Chinese Government that as they refused our proposal to accept finally Sir George Scott's line, we should not consider ourselves bound by it if a formal demarcation were subsequently agreed upon, but should consider ourselves at liberty to contend for any modification of the line which further inquiry on the spot might show to be desirable. A glance at the line as shown on the map will show that there are places where the boundary could be greatly improved, as, for example, by straightening the line in the neighbourhood of Mengma, and so avoiding the re-entering angle which has its apex at Nalawt. This re-alignment was suggested by Sir George Scott on p. 15 (under 5 (b)) of the Report forwarded with his letter of the 28th May, 1900. The Lieutenant-Governor agrees on all points with Sir Ernest Satow. It certainly seems very advisable that our view, namely, that Sir George Scott's line must either be finally accepted as the boundary, or must be regarded and strictly observed as the boundary pending other arrangements, should be pressed as clearly and forcibly as possibly on the attention of the Chinese Government. Otherwise, it is inevitable that encroachments will continue, and that the result will be pointed to at a later date as grounds for a rectification of the Agreement boundary and as proofs of the extent to which that boundary will be said to have violated Chinese local rights. If the Government of India concurs in this view, Sir Hugh Barnes recommends that His Majesty's Government should be asked to instruct Sir Ernest Satow to the effect suggested. I am, &c. (Signed) C. C. LOWIS, then stated that the Chinese were worsted. Hin Sao Hpa are in British territory. 5 Both the Shwe Thamin Chaung and Sa It seems, therefore, clear that the Chinese, instead of respecting the boundary line, are pushing forward into British territory. Inclosure 5 in No. 1. Assistant Political Officer, Keng Tung, to Sir G. Scott. September 2, 1903. (Telegraphic.) TRAVELLERS, Keng Tung, report fight between Chinese and Was at Sau Hin Sau Pa, or in Burmese, Shwe Thamin Chaung. Chinese victorious. whatever. No details Officiating Chief Secretary. (Confidential.) Inclosure 3 in No. 1. Government of Burmah to Government of India. Rangoon, September 22, 1903. IN continuation of this Office letter, dated the 4th instant, I am directed to forward, for the information of the Government of India, a copy of a letter, dated the 3rd instant, from the Superintendent and Political Officer, Southern Shan States (with inclosure), reporting a fight between the Chinese and the Was in the vicinity of the undemarcated frontier between Burmah and China lying between the Namting River and Nalawt. Captain Drage's diary referred to is the summary of events in the Northern Shan States for the period ending the 20th May last. Inclosure 4 in No. 1. Sir G. Scott to Government of Burmah. September 3, 1903. I HAVE the honour to forward herewith copy of a telegram received from the Assistant Political Officer, Keng Tung. His geography is lamentably at fault. The Shwe Thamin Chaung is about 20 miles from Mong Lem town, while Sao Hin Sao Hpa is quite 100 miles farther north. The report, however, seems to confirm the news given by Captain Drage in a diary a couple of months ago, except that it was 56

2026-06-02 04:13:31 · Baseline

View content

Chinese, Sir Hugh Barnes considers that we may be content with it on the ground that it will settle finally a long-pending and troublesome question. If the Chinese Government should refuse to accept Sir George Scott's line, Sir Ernest Satow con- sidered that he should be instructed to inform them that, nevertheless, we should continue to regard this line as the provisional boundary pending a final settlement, and to warn them plainly that Chinese officials and troops cannot be allowed to transgress it.

It certainly seems very advisable that our view, namely, that Sir George Scott's line must either be finally accepted as the boundary, or must be regarded and strictly observed as the boundary pending other arrangements, should be pressed as clearly and forcibly as possibly on the attention of the Chinese Government. Otherwise, it is inevitable that encroachments will continue, and that the result will be pointed to at a later date as grounds for a rectification of the Agreement boundary and as proofs of the extent to which that boundary will be said to have violated Chinese local rights. If the Government of India concurs in this view, Sir Hugh Barnes recommends that His Majesty's Government should be asked to instruct Sir Ernest Satow to the effect suggested.