CO129-331 - Public Offices - 1905 — Page 111

R

W the Property of

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]

SOUTH-WEST CHINA,

CONFIDENTIAL,

No. 1.

23251

RECE

1:09

SECTION 2.

Consul-Ginerat Wilkinson to the Marquess of Lansdowne.--- (Ricewed June 19.)

Yunnan-fu, April 30, 1905.

(No. 9.) My Lord,

I HAVE the honour to inclose copy of a despatch which I have addressed to His Majesty's Minister covering transliteration of a code telegram from Mr. Litton, who, as your Lordship is aware, is engaged with the Acting Taotai of Western Yünnan (Shih Hung-shao) and Mr. Leveson, Deputy Commissioner at Bhamo, in investigating the physical and other conditions of the watershed between the N'maikha and the Salween.

I have, &c. (Signed)

W. H. WILKINSON.

(N. 179) Sir,

Inclosure in No. 1.

Consul-General Wilkinson to Sir E. Satow.

Yunnan-fu, April 28, 1905.

I HAVE only this morning received a telegram, in code, from Mr. Litton, dispatched on the 17th instant from Pienma, on the head-waters of the Ngawchang, the real Hsiao Chiang ("little river") of the Chinese correspondence. The telegram is of great length, and its contents would not appear to be of such immediate importance as to justify its transmission to you by wire. I am accordingly contenting myself with forwarding to you a transliteration.

The only novel information contained in the telegram is (1) Mr. Litton's conclusion that "

the claims of China to Hparé and Tzuchu are wholly unfounded, and are positively denied by the Kachins"; (2) tut the average levy by Tengkeng from villages on the west of the watershed anxunts to some 350 rupees a-year.

In bis report to you of March 1904 (p. 10 of the printed copy), Mr. Litton bad already given some details of the claims of Mingkuang to Hpare and Tzuchu, and of Tengkeng to Pienma. It is, I think, certain that Acting Taotai Shih will defend those claims in his forthcoming report to this Provincial Government; and if I am authorized to discuss them with the Governor-General, I must wait until I have before me the particulars of the "careful inquiry" which has led Mr. Litton to conclude that, as far as Hparé and Tzuchu are concerned, the claims are "wholly unfounded."

As regards the claims to villages on the right bank of the Ngawchang, Mr. Litton's telegram is somewhat confusing. He first states that "the Taotai has abandoned claims to the villages on the right bank of the Ngawchang, based on ancient documents of Ch'ienlung's reign" (1736-1796). Later on, however, he says, "The Taotai is afraid to accept responsibility for recommending abandonment of claims on account of above- mentioned documents.' Here again it would seem necessary to await further particulars from Mr. Litton.

There can be uo question that, even for China, the watershed would form the most satisfactory frontier. The Chinese, however, possess rights, tenuous enough, but not to be altogether denied, on the west of the watershed, and in the nature of things will not relinquish these willingly except for a consideration. Mr. Litton's suggestion that we should invoke the precedent of the Assigned Tract (Article 2 of the Agreement of the 4th February, 1897) to take over these rights on a perpetual lease, paying rent, has much to commend it. The annual rent we now pay for the assigned tract is a most useful fund on which we can draw for indemnities for raids on, or thefts in, Burmese territory by Kachins and others from across the Chinese border. On the other hand, it might be more convenient both for Burial and for Yuuuan that the clains, when ascertained and estimated, should be purchased outright.

[2050 1--2]

7.