589
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
16
eu lieu dans les eaux Chinoises. Dans sa seconde lettre il déclare able to furnish the desired information" (l'endroit précis où se trouvait ancré le that I am not yet bateau Japonais au moment de sa capture). Et à la troisième lettre du Gouverneur de Macao il ne répond plus!
Le fait de la saisie du bateau Japonais "Tatsu Maru No. 2" n'a aucune excuse. Les cannonières du Vice-Roi et de la Douane ont vu parfaitement les canots à vapeur du Gouvernement de Macao se diriger au bateau à vapeur Japonais. Du fait même que ces canots à vapeur appartenaient au Gouvernement de Macao il s'ensuit qu'il est parfaitement absurde, et qu'on a fait preuve de la plus insigne mauvaise foi, de vouloir prétendre qu'on voulût faire de la contrebande.
Et c'est seulement, quand par suite de la très mauvaise mer les canots du Gouvernement ont dû se retirer et se réfugier à Macao, que les cannonières de la Douane Chinoise et du Vice-Roi ont osé s'emparer du bateau Japonais.
Depuis 1902 il n'y a jamais eu de plainte du Vice-Roi de Canton au Gouvernement de Macão à propos de contrebande. S'il avait des raisons de soupçonner qu'il y eût de la contrebande projetée il n'avait qu'à se plaindre au Gouverneur de Macao ou à en référer au Quai-ou Pu, pour que celui-ci réclamât à la Légation de Portugal à Pékin. L'acte commis par la Douane Chinoise et par le Vice-Roi de Canton, en pleine paix, sans aucune raison justifiable, contre la Colonie d'un pays ami, mérite les plus sévères blâmes et doit entraîner les plus amples réparations et les plus sévères châtiments.
Légation de Portugal, Pékin.
[A]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[13288]
(No. 97.) Sir,
No. 1.
18960
REC [April 18-RZE MAY 08
SECTION 3,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received April 18.)
Peking, March 2, 1908.
I HAVE the honour to report the further developments which have taken place in the question of the establishment of Administrative Councils on the territory occupied by the Chinese Eastern Railway Company, which formed the subject of my despatch No. 82 of the 17th ultimo.
In a despatch dated the 19th ultimo, copy of which I have the honour to inclose, Mr. Willis forwarded to me copies of further correspondence which he had received from the Taotai at Harbin. This comprised an interesting letter from the Manager of the Chinese Eastern Railway Company, in which he set forth the grounds of the Company's claim. In establishing an elective Council for the management of local affairs the writer argues that the Company is merely delegating to this body the functions which it had acquired the right to exercise under the Agreement of 1896. The Taotai, in reply, points out that the Agreement in question did not partake of the nature of a Treaty between the two Governments, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that a Government, in making an Agreement with a public Company, would abandon its rights of territorial sovereignty. He holds that "the exclusive right of administration means the exclusive right of managing all matters pertaining to the railway.
"
On the 25th ultimo the Wai-wu Pu addressed a Circular to the foreign Representatives on the subject, copies of which, as also of my reply, I have the honour to inclose. They state that, on learning towards the end of last year that the Russians were establishing Administrative Councils in the railway territory, they wrote to the Russian Minister protesting against the step, and that M. Pokotilow justified it by appealing to the 6th Article of the Railway Agreement, which gave the Company the absolute and exclusive right of administering the territory held by them.
The Board, in reply, repeated the arguments used by the Taotai at Harbin to show that no powers of local administration had been conferred on the Railway Company, and they supported their contention by a reference to the 5th Article of the Agreement, which provides that crimes and law-suits arising upon the land of the Company will be dealt with by the Chinese local authorities in accordance with Treaty stipulations. The Board concluded by stating that the establishment by the Company of these Administrative Councils was a clear infringement of Chinese sovereign rights to which they could in no circumstances give their assent.
I have obtained from my Russian colleague the full French text of the 1896 Agreement, copy of which is inclosed herewith, and it will be seen that it corresponds in all material particulars with the version quoted by the Wai-wu Pu, the only difference being the omission in the latter of the words "contre toute attaque." The Chinese argument appears to me to be the stronger of the two, and to sustain the contention that it was never intended that the Railway Company should convert their railway land into Concessions to be occupied by people of all nations living under municipal Regulations administered exclusively by Russian authorities. Article 6 of the Agreement contemplated that for at least part of the railway territory an annual rental should be paid to the proprietors, and supports the Chinese view that nothing in the nature of a Concession was contemplated.
Apart from the question of principle, there are, it appears to me, grave objections to the Russian procedure in practice. My German colleague, who is inclined to question both the principle and the practice, has furnished me with a translation of the undertaking (copy inclosed) which one of his nationals was asked to give as a condition of his receiving permission to occupy property in the railway Settlement at Harbin,
In discussing the matter with my Russian colleague I pointed out to him that the terms of this document contrasted unfavourably with those which governed the
[2921 $-3]
B
589
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
16
eu lieu dans les eaux Chinoises. Dans sa seconde lettre il déclare able to furnish the desired information" (l'endroit précis où se trouvait ancré le that I am not yet bateau Japonais au moment de sa capture). Et à la troisième lettre du Gouverneur de Macao il ne répond plus!
Le fait de la saisie du bateau Japonais "Tatsu Maru No. 2" n'a aucune excuse. Les cannonières du Vice-Roi et de la Douane ont vu parfaitement les canots à vapeur du Gouvernement de Macao se diriger au bateau à vapeur Japonais. Du fait même que ces canots à vapeur appartenaient au Gouvernement de Macao il s'ensuit qu'il est parfaitement absurde, et qu'on a fait preuve de la plus insigne mauvaise foi, de vouloir prétendre qu'on voulût faire de la contrebande.
Et c'est seulement, quand par suite de la très mauvaise mer les canots du Gouvernement ont dû se retirer et se réfugier à Macao, que les cannonières de la Douane Chinoise et du Vice-Roi ont osé s'emparer du bateau Japonais.
Depuis 1902 il n'y a jamais eu de plainte du Vice-Roi de Canton au Gouvernement de Macão à propos de contrebande. S'il avait des raisons de soupçonner qu'il y eût de la contrebande projetée il n'avait qu'à se plaindre au Gouverneur de Macao ou à en référer au Quai-ou Pu, pour que celui-ci réclamât à la Légation de Portugal à Pékin. L'acte commis par la Douane Chinoise et par le Vice-Roi de Canton, en pleine paix, sans aucune raison justifiable, contre la Colonie d'un pays ami, mérite les plus sévères blâmes et doit entraîner les plus amples réparations et les plus sévères châtiments.
Légation de Portugal, Pékin.
[A]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[13288]
(No. 97.) Sir,
No. 1.
18960
REC [April 18-RZE MAY 08
SECTION 3,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received April 18.)
Peking, March 2, 1908. I HAVE the honour to report the further developments which have taken place in the question of the establishment of Administrative Councils on the territory occupied by the Chinese Eastern Railway Company, which formed the subject of my despatch No. 82 of the 17th ultimo.
In a despatch dated the 19th ultimo, copy of which I have the honour to inclose, Mr. Willis forwarded to me copies of further correspondence which he had received from the Taotai at Harbin. This comprised an interesting letter from the Manager of the Chinese Eastern Railway Company, in which he set forth the grounds of the Company's claim. In establishing an elective Council for the management of local affairs the writer argues that the Company is merely delegating to this body the functions which it had acquired the right to exercise under the Agreement of 1896. The Taotai, in reply, points out that the Agreement in question did not partake of the nature of a Treaty between the two Governments, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that a Government, in making an Agreement with a public Company, would abandon its rights of territorial sovereignty. He holds that "the exclusive right of administration means the exclusive right of managing all matters pertaining to the railway.
"
On the 25th ultimo the Wai-wu Pu addressed a Circular to the foreign Repre sentatives on the subject, copies of which, as also of my reply, I have the honour to inclose. They state that, on learning towards the end of last year that the Russians were establishing Administrative Councils in the railway territory, they wrote to the Russian Minister protesting against the step, and that M. Pokotilow justified it by appealing to the 6th Article of the Railway Agreement, which gave the Company the absolute and exclusive right of administering the territory held by them.
The Board, in reply, repeated the arguments used by the Taotai at Harbin to show that no powers of local administration had been conferred on the Railway Company, and they supported their contention by a reference to the 5th Article of the Agreement, which provides that crimes and law-suits arising upon the land of the Company will be dealt with by the Chinese local authorities in accordance with Treaty stipulations. The Board concluded by stating that the establishment by the Company of these Administrative Councils was a clear infringement of Chinese sovereign rights to which they could in no circumstances give their assent.
I have obtained from my Russian colleague the full French text of the 1896 Agreement, copy of which is inclosed herewith, and it will be seen that it corresponds in all material particulars with the version quoted by the Wai-wu Pu, the only difference being the omission in the latter of the words "contre toute attaque." The Chinese argument appears to me to be the stronger of the two, and to sustain the contention that it was never intended that the Railway Company should convert their railway land into Concessions to be occupied by people of all nations living under municipal Regulations administered exclusively by Russian authorities. Article 6 of the Agreement contemplated that for at least part of the railway territory an annual rental should be paid to the proprietors, and supports the Chinese view that nothing in the nature of a Concession was contemplated.
Apart from the question of principle, there are, it appears to me, grave objections to the Russian procedure in practice. My German colleague, who is inclined to question both the principle and the practice, has furnished me with a translation of the undertaking (copy inclosed) which one of his nationals was asked to give as a condition of his receiving permission to occupy property in the railway Settlement at Harbin,
In discussing the matter with my Russian colleague I pointed out to him that the terms of this document contrasted unfavourably with those which governed the
[2921 $-3]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.