10. We have no reliable evidence that Mount Loi-mu has ever been known as Kung-ming Shan, but only the assertion of General Liu, who never visited it. Sir George Scott, who did visit it, and who could interrogate the natives, declares that such a name as Kung-ming Shan is not applied to it. Even if it were, Mount Loi-mu cannot be the "very lofty mountain range" of the Convention, for this last runs, according to the Convention, from longitude 99° 40′ to longitude 99° 30′, whereas Mount Loi-mu is a solitary peak in longitude 99° 0′.
11. From point (c) the Convention boundary "descends the western slope of the hills to the Namka River." If point (c) were Mount Loi-mu the only possible slope by which to reach the Namkha would be the eastern. It is perfectly clear that the Convention boundary approaches the Namkha from the east and not from the west.
12. The point where the boundary between Munglem and Kiang Tong diverges from the Namka River" is admitted by both parties to be "Cairn 1 on the south, where the Namyung stream debouches into the Namkha River"-to quote from Shih's Memorandum. To find point (d), therefore, all we have to do is to measure 10 minutes of latitude (or 113 geographical miles) in a straight line to meet the Namkha on the north. This falls in the near neighbourhood of the Su-hsing (Hsuphse) stockade. It cannot possibly fall, where Shih's map makes it fall, at Nungkiu (Nawnghkio), for that is 45 minutes (or some 52 miles) north of Cairn 1.
13. It will thus be seen that all the arguments from the (a) latitudes and longitudes, (b) watersheds and rivers, mentioned in the Treaty support Scott's Line," and do not agree with Shih Taotai's line, still less with that of Lin and Ch'en-tajen.
There remains the argument employed in Shih Taotai's Memorandum, namely, "according to the Treaty Chenpien is left to China, as is also Menglem, and this implies that all territory controlled by Chenpien or Menglem is left to China.'
Now by Article V of the Convention of March 1, 1894, Great Britain agreed for certain considerations to renounce in favour of China all the suzerain rights in and over the State of Menglem, formerly possessed by the Kings of Ava concurrently with the Emperors of China. China, by officially accepting this renunciation, formally admitted that Great Britain had possessed such suzerain rights up to that date, March 1, 1894. The asserted surrender to China by its Sawbwa, Li Tungming, of Hsi-ming (Mongkha) in 1891, the "recovery by Imperial troops" of Menghsaw in the same year, and the Memorial and Rescript that ensued--all of which are brought forward as arguments in Shih Taotai's Memorandum-cannot possibly be admitted to prove China's claim, since they took place previous to the above date. Menglem could not extend its territory, whether at the expense of Hsi-ming and Menghsaw or otherwise, in 1891 without the consent of its co-Suzerain Great Britain, This consent was never given; on the contrary, we have consistently protested against Chinese troops being sent to, or stationed in, Isi-ming and Menghsaw.
14. As regards Chenpien, this Sub-Prefecture was not created till 1887, after the British succession to the suzerain rights of the Kings of Ava had been recognized by China, China, therefore, could not include in Chenpien, which was to be directly administered by Chinese officials, any territory over which Burmah in 1886 had possessed suzerain or co-suzerain rights. Accordingly the expression "Chenpien "as used in the Convention of 1894 does not, and cannot, comprise any territory, such as Hsi-ming, Menghsaw, Menglem, or Kiang Tung, that came under either of these categories. It is not, however, necessary now to argue this point, for Shih Taotai's map distinguishes clearly between the district directly administered by the Sub-Prefect of Chenpien and the territory subject to the Hsi-ming Sawbwa." Chenpien proper, in short, is left by "Scott's Line" entirely to China.
Page 44
15. A similar argument applies to the districts marked in Shih Taotai's map as appertaining to:--
(a.) Upper Hulu, south of the watershed between the Great and Little Nam-kun Rivers (the Nam-kun and Nam-kawn); and
(b.) Mengtum, west of the watershed between the Namt'ung (Namtum) and the Great Nam-kun (Nam-kawn).
Any advance subsequent to the 1st January, 1886, made by Mengtum, Mengkaw, Kengma, or Mengting across their frontier lines as these stood on that date cannot be admitted by Great Britain as valid. If the above States can prove that certain villages were really administered by them south or west of those lines before 1886, then by Article VI of the Treaty of 1894 the alignment as laid down in that Convention may be altered "on the principle of equivalent concessions.”
Page 5
I shall be glad to learn whether it is the desire of your Government that the above arguments, or any modification of them, should be communicated to the Government of Yunnan.
I have, &c. (Signed)
W. H. WILKINSON.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Memorandum on the Yunnan-Burmah Boundary, from the Namting to Nalawt, by Shih Hung-shao, formerly Acting Intendant of the Southern Circuit, and now Intendant of the Eastern Circuit.
(Translation.)
(Handed to Consul-General Wilkinson, July 25, 1906.)
THE present Memorandum deals with the undelimited frontier from Cairn 3 at Lai-bsing Shan (Loi Hseng), by the junction of the Namting and Nampa streams on the north, to Cairn 1 on the south, where the Namyung stream debouches into the Namkha River.
This boundary, it is to be observed, includes certain stockaded villages under the jurisdiction of the Mu-nai Tussu (Sawbwa), territory that has for many years paid land tax and "corvée" to the Chenpien Sub-Prefecture. There is Hsi-ming (Mengkha), originally subject to Menglem, but which later on seceded under Lo(hei) insurgents. Its Sawbwa, Tunguning, in the seventeenth year of the Kuang Hsi (1891) gave in his allegiance at the head of his men, and it has long been subject to the control of Chenpien. It has for years paid land tax and "corvée." A Memorial that received the Imperial assent is conspicuous in men's eyes and ears. There is Mengso (Menghsaw), which also was originally subject to Menglem. It seceded under Han Ping-chao, but was recovered in the seventeenth year of the Kuang Hsu (1891) by Imperial troops and reverted to the control of Menglem, which receives land tax and * corvée," For all the above are records that may be consulted.
Further, this boundary follows the Namkha River from places east of the Namıkhan River, such as Namping, Kuauteh, Lungkhan, Fulang, Moyang, Lengkhau, Suhsing (Hsuphse), Kunghsin, Wengwo, and Manpien, some dozens of stockaded villages that were either old Menglem territory which for years paid land tax and provided labour and has never seceded, or which, having seceded under the rebels Cha and Han, has long since been recovered by the Imperial troops and for years been garrisoned. This is undoubtedly territory controlled and governed by Chenpien and Menglem (or, by Menglem in Chenpien).
According to the Treaty, Chenpien is left to China, as is also Menglem; and this implies that all territory controlled by Chenpien or Menglem is left to China.
Again, the Treaty reads, "shall follow the course of the river forming the boundary between Somu, which belongs to Great Britain, and Meng Ting, which belongs to China. It shall continue to follow the frontier between these two districts, which is locally well known, to where it leaves the aforesaid river and ascends the hills." If the boundary-line follows the Namting River, that forms the boundary, then not only the whole of Panbung, in the Upper Hulu, would be left to China, but Hn-pan (Hopang), belonging to Pank'uang (Pangkuan), in the Lower Hulu, and other places, would all have to be marked off as Chinese.
If this is abandoned and another boundary-line proposed, it would not follow the Namting River, but would start from the south bank of that river, west of Tungkha Hill, and go by Kungmeng (Kawngmawng) and the Menglin (Mongling) Hills to the Pach'ang Hills. To make a division by the Panhung and Pankuang Hills (2.q., to divide along the line of hills forming the frontier between Panbung and Pank'uang) would leave Panhung, in the Upper Hulu, to China, and Pank'uang, in the Lower Hulu, to Great Britain.
Again, it was originally suggested to leave the parts of the Kawa (Vü) territories bordering on Yünnan to Yunnan, and those bordering on Burmah to Burmah. This suggestion was very fair. The Wild Was' lands lie between Yünnan and Burmah. When delimited, account should be taken of local conditions. In short, Yunnan cannot overstep the Wild Was' lands and occupy districts controlled by Burmah Sawbwas; nor can Burmah overstep the Wild Was' lands and occupy districts controlled by Yunnan T'ussu. This is equitable dealing.
Page 729
4
10. We have no reliable evidence that Mount Loi-mu has ever been known as Kung-ming Shan, but only the assertion of General Liu, who never visited it. Sir George Scott, who did visit it, and who could interrogate the natives, declares that such a name as Kung-ming Shan is not applied to it. Even if it were, Mount Loi-mu cannot be the "very lofty mountain range" of the Convention, for this last runs, according to the Convention, from longitude 99° 40′ to longitude 99° 30′, whereas Mount Loi-mu is a solitary peak in longitude 99° 0'.
11. From point (c) the Convention boundary "descends the western slope of the hills to the Namka River." If point (c) were Mount Loi-mu the only possible slope by which to reach the Namkha would be the eastern. It is perfectly clear that the Convention boundary approaches the Namkha from the east and not from the west.
12. The point where the boundary between Munglem and Kiang Tong diverges from the Namka River" is admitted by both parties to be "Cairn 1 on the south, where the Namyung stream debouches into the Namkha River"-to quote from Shih's Memorandum. To find point (d), therefore, all we have to do is to measure 10 minutes of latitude (or 113 geographical miles) in a straight line to meet the Namkha on the north. This falls in the near neighbourhood of the Su-hsing (Hsuphse) stockade. It cannot possibly fall, where Shih's map makes it fall, at Nungkiu (Nawnghkio), for that is 45 minutes (or some 52 miles) north of Cairn 1.
13. It will thus be seen that all the arguments from the (a) latitudes and longitudes, (b) watersheds and rivers, mentioned in the Treaty support Scott's Line," and do not agree with Shih Taotai's line, still less with that of Lin and Ch'en-tajen.
There remains the argument employed in Shih Taotai's Memorandum, namely, "according to the Treaty Chenpien is left to China, as is also Menglem, and this implies that all territory controlled by Chenpien or Menglem is left to China.'
Now by Article V of the Convention of March 1, 1894, Great Britain agreed for certain considerations to renounce in favour of China all the suzerain rights in and over the State of Menglem, formerly possessed by the Kings of Ava concurrently with the Emperors of China. China, by officially accepting this renunciation, formally admitted that Great Britain had possessed such suzerain rights up to that date, March 1, 1894. The asserted surrender to China by its Sawbwa, Li Tungming, of Hsi-ming (Mongkha) in 1891, the "recovery by Imperial troops" of Menghsaw in the same year, and the Memorial and Rescript that ensued--all of which are brought forward as arguments in Shih Taotai's Memorandum-cannot possibly be admitted to prove China's claim, since they took place previous to the above date. Menglem could not extend its territory, whether at the expense of Hsi-ming and Menghsaw or otherwise, in 1891 without the consent of its co-Suzerain Great Britain, This consent was never given ; on the contrary, we have consistently protested against Chinese troops being sent to, or stationed in, Isi-ming and Menghsaw.
14. As regards Chenpien, this Sub-Prefecture was not created till 1887, after the British succession to the suzerain rights of the Kings of Ava had been recognized by China, China, therefore, could not include in Chenpien, which was to be directly administered by Chinese officials, any territory over which Burmah in 1886 had possessed suzerain or co-suzerain rights. Accordingly the expression "Chenpien "as used in the Convention of 1894 does not, and cannot, comprise any territory, such as Hsi-ming, Menghsaw, Menglem, or Kiang Tung, that came under either of these categories. It is not, however, necessary now to argue this point, for Shih Taotai's map distinguishes clearly between the district directly administered by the Sub-Prefect of Chenpien and the territory subject to the Hsi-ming Sawbwa." Chenpien proper, in short, is left by "Scott's Line" entirely to China.
44
15. A similar argument applies to the districts marked in Shih Taotai's map as appertaining to :--
(a.) Upper Hulu, south of the watershed between the Great and Little Nam-kun Rivers (the Nam-kun and Nam-kawn); and
(b.) Mengtum, west of the watershed between the Namt'ung (Namtum) and the Great Nam-kun (Nam-kawn).
Any advance subsequent to the 1st January, 1886, made by Mengtum, Mengkaw, Kengma, or Mengting across their frontier lines as these stood on that date cannot be admitted by Great Britain as valid. If the above States can prove that certain villages were really administered by them south or west of those lines before 1886, then by Article VI of the Treaty of 1894 the aligument as laid down in that Convention may be altered "on the principle of equivalent concessions.”
5
I shall be glad to learn whether it is the desire of your Government that the above arguments, or any modification of them, should be communicated to the Government of Yunnan.
I have, &c. (Signed)
W. H. WILKINSON.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Memorandum on the Yunnan-Burmah Boundary, from the Namting to Nalawt, by Shih
Hung-shao, formerly Acting Intendant of the Southern Circuit, and now Intendant of the Eastern Circuit.
(Translation.)
(Handed to Consul-General Wilkinson, July 25, 1906.)
THE present Memorandum deals with the undelimited frontier from Cairn 3 at Lai-bsing Shan (Loi Hseng), by the junction of the Namting and Nampa streams on the north, to Cairn 1 on the south, where the Namyung stream debouches into the Namkha River.
This boundary, it is to be observed, includes certain stockaded villages under the jurisdiction of the Mu-nai Tussu (Sawbwa), territory that has for many years paid land tax and "corvée" to the Chenpien Sub-Prefecture. There is Hsi-ming (Mengkha), originally subject to Menglem, but which later on seceded under Lo(hei) insurgents. Its Sawbwa, Tunguning, in the seventeenth year of the Kuang Hsi (1891) gave in his allegiance at the head of his men, and it has long been subject to the control of Chenpien. It has for years paid land tax and "corvée." A Memorial that received the Imperial assent is conspicuous in men's eyes and ears. There is Mengso (Menghsaw), which also was originally subject to Menglem. It seceded under Han Ping-chao, but was recovered in the seventeenth year of the Kuang Hsu (1891) by Imperial troops and reverted to the control of Menglem, which receives land tax and * corvée," For all the above are records that may be consulted.
Further, this boundary follows the Namkha River from places east of the Namıkhan River, such as Namping, Kuauteh, Lungkhan, Fulang, Moyang, Lengkhau, Suhsing (Hsuphse), Kunghsin, Wengwo, and Manpien, some dozens of stockaded villages that were either old Menglem territory which for years paid land tax and provided labour and has never seceded, or which, having scceded under the rebels Cha and Han, has long since been recovered by the Imperial troops and for years been garrisoned. This is undoubtedly territory controlled and governed by Chenpieu and Menglem (or, by Menglem in Chenpien).
According to the Treaty, Chenpien is left to China, as is also Menglem; and this implies that all territory controlled by Chenpien or Menglem is left to China.
Again, the Treaty reads, "sball follow the course of the river forming the boundary between Somu, which belongs to Great Britain, and Meng Ting, which belongs to China. It shall continue to follow the frontier between these two districts, which is locally well known, to where it leaves the aforesaid river and ascends the hills." If the boundary- line follows the Namting River, that forms the boundary, then not only the whole of Panbung, in the Upper Hulu, would be left to China, but Hn-pan (Hopang), belonging to Pank'uang (Pangkuan), in the Lower Hulu, and other places, would all have to be marked off as Chinese.
If this is abandoned and another boundary-line proposed, it would not follow the Namting River, but would start from the south bank of that river, west of Tungkha Hill, and go by Kungmeng (Kawngmawng) and the Menglin (Mongling) Hills to the Pach'ang Hills. To make a division by the Panhung and Pankuang Hills (2.q., tọ divide along the line of hills forming the frontier between Panbung and Pank'uang) would leave Panhung, in the Upper Hulu, to China, and Pank'uang, in the Lower Hulu, to Great Britain.
Again, it was originally suggested to leave the parts of the Kawa (Vü) territories bordering on Yünnan to Yunnan, and those bordering on Burmah to Burmah. This suggestion was very fair. The Wild Was' lands lie between Yünnan and Burmah. When delimited, account should be taken of local conditions. In short, Yunnan cannot overstep the Wild Was' lands and occupy districts controlled by Burmah Sawbwas; nor can Burmah overstep the Wild Was' lands and occupy districts controlled by Yunnan T'ussu. This is equitable dealing.
729
{
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.