This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
577
18960
[A]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[14789]
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Bryce.
(No. 108. Confidential.) Sir,
REC [April 30 26 MAY 08
SECTION 1.
Foreign Office, April 30, 1908.
IN the course of conversation on the 28th instant, Mr. Whitelaw Reid spoke to me about the Russian difficulty at Harbin.
He showed me a letter which Mr. Root had written, expressing very much the same view as is taken in Sir John Jordan's last despatch on the subject, holding that it was a mistake to construe the cession of land to a Company for railway purposes as giving sovereign rights, and pointing out that there was in both Chinese and French texts an Article which appeared to reserve Chinese jurisdiction. Mr. Root therefore thought the Russian contention was inconsistent with Chinese sovereignty and equal opportunity.
It was inconsistent with the United States' Treaty with China, under which the United States had extra-territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Root considered that the state of things at Harbin, which was unsatisfactory and irregular, should be regulated by extra-territorial international jurisdiction in the same way as had been done at other Treaty ports in China.
I told him that both my view and that of Sir John Jordan at Peking were the same as that of Mr. Root with regard to the principle involved. But we had not yet taken any action in the matter, and I was replying to other inquiries that in our view the Russian claims were not consistent with Chinese sovereignty and equal opportunity, and that, when British interests were involved, this was the view on which we should act. We had, however, no Consul at Harbin, and as British interests were not yet involved in practice I had as yet taken no action, and was anxious to know the views of the other Powers. I observed that it had been reported in the press that the United States had settled this question with Russia, but Mr. Whitelaw Reid said he had not heard that a settlement had been made. If any had been made, it must have been during the last few days; he would certainly let me know if any settlement was come to.
I told him I should be very glad to know what happened, because though British interests were not yet involved, the extension of the principle further south might affect them materially; and any settlement which was made with regard to one part of the railway might be considered a guide for the whole.
Mr. Whitelaw Reid then informed me that the United States had reason to suppose that there was a Secret Agreement between Japan and Russia. M. Isvolsky had been questioned, and had denied the existence of any such Agreement. But it looked to the United States as if some Secret Agreement must exist, because the Russian contention at Harbin was being actively supported by the Japanese Consul there. Mr. Whitelaw Reid did not wish to press me to say anything which I did not feel at liberty to tell him, but he would be very glad to know whether I had any information about such a Secret Agreement.
I said that in such a case we could only accept the account given of the matter by the Governments themselves. It was always a very difficult point to know what to say about any Secret Agreement, and there had been cases in which such questions had been put in Parliament here and great inconvenience had been caused.
I was not in a position to say that no Secret Agreement did exist, but I did not believe that any Secret Agreement was the cause of the Japanese support given to Russia in this matter at Harbin. It had seemed to me that the obvious community of interest of Russia and Japan in this case was quite sufficient cause for their joint action. For whatever claim Russia could succeed in establishing on the northern part of the railway would serve as a precedent for Japan on the southern part; and
[2921 gg-1]
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
577
18960
[A]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[14789]
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Bryce.
(No. 108. Confidential.) Sir,
REC [April 30 26 MAY 08
SECTION 1.
Foreign Office, April 30, 1908. IN the course of conversation on the 28th instant, Mr. Whitelaw Reid spoke to me about the Russian difficulty at Harbin.
He showed me a letter which Mr. Root had written, expressing very much the same view as is taken in Sir John Jordan's last despatch on the subject, holding that it was a mistake to construe the cession of land to a Company for railway purposes as giving sovereign rights, and pointing out that there was in both Chinese and French texts an Article which appeared to reserve Chinese jurisdiction. Mr. Root therefore thought the Russian contention was inconsistent with Chinese sovereignty and equal opportunity.
It was inconsistent with the United States' Treaty with China, under which the United States had extra-territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Root considered that the state of things at Harbin, which was unsatisfactory and irregular, should be regulated by extra-territorial international jurisdiction in the same way as had been done at other Treaty ports in China.
I told him that both my view and that of Sir John Jordan at Peking were the same as that of Mr. Root with regard to the principle involved. But we had not yet taken any action in the matter, and I was replying to other inquiries that in our view the Russian claims were not consistent with Chinese sovereignty and equal opportunity, and that, when British interests were involved, this was the view on which we should act. We had, however, no Consul at Harbin, and as British interests were not yet involved in practice I had as yet taken no action, and was auxious to know the views of the other Powers. I observed that it had been reported in the press that the United States had settled this question with Russia, but Mr. Whitelaw Reid said he had not heard that a settlement had been made. If any had been made, it must have been during the last few days; he would certainly let me know if any settlement was come to.
I told him I should be very glad to know what happened, because though British. interests were not yet involved, the extension of the principle further south might affect them materially; and any settlement which was made with regard to one part of the railway might be considered a guide for the whole.
Mr. Whitelaw Reid then informed me that the United States had reason to suppose that there was a Secret Agreement between Japan and Russia. M. Isvolsky had been questioned, and bad denied the existence of any such Agreement. But it looked to the United States as if some Secret Agreement must exist, because the Russian contention at Harbin was being actively supported by the Japanese Consul there. Mr. Whitelaw Reid did not wish to press me to say anything which I did not feel at liberty to tell him, but he would be very glad to know whether I had any information about such a Secret Agreement.
I said that in such a case we could only accept the account given of the matter by the Governments themselves. It was always a very difficult point to know what to say about any Secret Agreement, and there had been cases in which such questions had been put in Parliament here and great inconvenience had been caused.
I was not in a position to say that no Secret Agreement did exist, but I did not believe that any Secret Agreement was the cause of the Japanese support given to Russia in this matter at Harbin. It had seemed to me that the obvious community of interest of Russia and Japan in this case was quite sufficient cause for their joint action. For whatever claim Russia could succeed in establishing on the northern part of the railway would serve as a precedent for Japan on the southern part; and
[2921 gg-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.