This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government
O. 14055
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
20 APR 08
[April 4.]
SECTION 1.
[11447]
(No. 82.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received April 4.)
Peking, February 17, 1908.
I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a despatch from His Majesty's Acting Consul-General at Mukden inclosing translation of a note from the acting Taotai at Harbin, in which the latter records a protest he has made against the claims which the Chinese Eastern Railway Company have advanced in connection with the administration of the railway settlement at that place.
Before this communication reached me I had already received a letter on the subject from my Russian colleague, copies of which and of my reply are likewise inclosed.
After stating that there are unauthorized versions of the Agreement of the 8th September, 1896, between the Chinese Government and the Russo-Chinese Bank—a reference which is doubtless intended to apply to Rockhill's "Collection of Treaties"—M. Pokotilow quotes the original French text of the 6th Article of that Instrument, in accordance with which the Railway Company has the absolute and exclusive right of administering its railway territory. He asks me to bring this Article to the knowledge of British subjects who may have interests in the land belonging to the Railway Company, and to instruct the British Consular authorities to address themselves to the Russian Consul-General at Harbin in the matter of any explanations or representations connected with the interests of their nationals in the railway territory.
M. Pokotilow called a few days later, and, alluding probably to the incident mentioned by Mr. Willis, explained that the German Minister had misunderstood the nature of the claim advanced with official sanction by the Railway Company, which did not aim at asserting any jurisdiction over non-Russian residents in its territory beyond that arising out of their interests therein. M. Pokotilow assured me that the Agreement of 1896 had been signed in French only, and that the translation of the document which the Chinese had made for their own use was entirely without authority.
I pointed out to him that, even granting this to be the case, I could not accept a unilateral interpretation of an international instrument, and added that, as a question of principle was involved, I should be obliged to ask your instructions. This course was unlikely, I added, to entail any practical inconvenience, as there were no British Consular Representatives or British residents at Harbin.
By its agreement with the Chinese Government, the Chinese Eastern Railway Company had the right of acquiring land which was really necessary for the construction, "exploitation," and protection of the line, and, acting on this authority, it acquired an area of some 47 square miles at Harbin, which it now proposes to convert into a Russian Concession under a code of Municipal Regulations and Obligatory Rules, translations of which are inclosed herewith in full.
The Chinese objection to the Russian administration of the railway territory at Harbin and other places may possibly be one which a strong Government would be justified in enforcing, but as China is not in a position to do so, the question arises how far other Powers, in the interests of their nationals, should fight her battle for her. Harbin and fifteen other places in Manchuria were opened under the Japanese Agreement of the 22nd December, 1905, as places of international residence and trade, and the principle of equality of treatment might justify exception being taken to the privileged position claimed by Russia. On the other hand, the Railway Company is in full possession of the land, and is in a position to exclude all but Russians from settling there unless they accept the terms prescribed by the Russian authorities. International residence and trade at Harbin are, in other words, practically conditional upon the acceptance of the Russian regulations, as all the best ground for commercial purposes is, I understand, comprised in the railway settlement. Russia is, in fact, following the example in these inland places which we set her at the Treaty ports some fifty years ago, with this difference, that we obtained our Concessions with the direct sanction of the Chinese Government.
[2921 d-1]
B
!
[A]
373
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government O.
14055
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
20 APR 08
[April 4.]
SECTION 1.
:
[11447]
(No. 82.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received April 4.)
Peking, February 17, 1908. I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a despatch from His Majesty's Acting Consni-General at Mukden inclosing translation of a note from the acting Taotai at Harbin, in which the latter records a protest he has made against the claims which the Chinese Eastern Railway Company have advanced in connection with the administration of the railway settlement at that place.
Before this communication reached me I had already received a letter on the subject from my Russian colleague, copies of which and of my reply are likewise inclosed.
After stating that there are unauthorized versions of the Agreement of the 8th September, 1896, between the Chinese Government and the Russo-Chinese Bank--a reference which is doubtless intended to apply to Rockbill's "Collection of Treaties "- M. Pokotilow quotes the original French text of the 6th Article of that Instrument, in accordance with which the Railway Company has the absolute and exclusive right of administering its railway territory. He asks me to bring this Article to the knowledge- of British subjects who may have interests in the land belonging to the Railway Company, and to instruct the British Consular authorities to address themselves to the Russian Consul-General at Harbin in the matter of any explanations or representations connected with the interests of their nationals in the railway territory.
M. Pokotilow called a few days later, and, alluding probably to the incident mentioned by Mr. Willis, explained that the German Minister had misunderstood the nature of the claim advanced with official sanction by the Railway Company, which did not aim at asserting any jurisdiction over non-Russian residents in its territory beyond that arising out of their interests therein. M. Pokotilow assured me that the Agree- ment of 1896 had been signed in French only, and that the translation of the document which the Chinese had made for their own use was entirely without authority.
I pointed out to him that, even granting this to be the case, I could not accept a unilateral interpretation of an international instrument, and added that, as a question of principle was involved, I should be obliged to ask your instructions. This course was unlikely, I added, to entail any practical inconvenience, as there were no British- Consular Representatives or British residents at Harbin,
By its agreement with the Chinese Government, the Chinese Eastern Railway Company had the right of acquiring land which was really necessary for the construc- tion, "exploitation," and protection of the line, and, acting on this authority, it acquired an area of some 47 square miles at Harbin, which it now proposes to couvert into a Russian Concession under a code of Municipal Regulations and Obligatory Rules, translations of which are inclosed herewith in full.
The Chinese objection to the Russian administration of the railway territory at Harbin and other places may possibly be one which a strong Government would be justified in enforcing, but as China is not in a position to do so, the question arises how far other Powers, in the interests of their nationals, should fight her battle for her. Harbin and fifteen other places in Manchuria were opened under the Japanese Agree- ment of the 22nd December, 1905, as places of international residence and trade, and the principle of equality of treatment might justify exception being taken to the privileged position claimed by Russia. On the other hand, the Railway Company is in full
possession of the land, and is in a position to exclude all but Russians from settling there unless they accept the terms prescribed by the Russian authorities. International residence and trade at Harbin are, in other words, practically conditional upon the acceptance of the Russian regulations, as all the best ground for commercial purposes is, I understand, comprised in the railway settlement. Russia is, in fact, following the example in these inland places which we set her at the Treaty ports some fifty years ago, with this difference, that we obtained our Concessions with the direct sanction of
[2921 d-1]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.