[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government}
)
[B]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[40895]
No. 1.
K-2 DECOS
182
[November 8.]
SECTION 2,
i.
Sir A. Nicolson to Sir Edward Grey,--(Received November 8.)
(No. 588.) Sir,
St. Petersburgh, November 3, 1909, THE Japanese Ambassador asked me yesterday whether we had sent any reply to the Russian memorandum in regard to Harbin. I said that I had handed M. Isvolsky a reply a few days ago. He asked if I could tell him its substance, and I did so. Baron Motono replied that we seemed to take as our premise that Harbin was an international concession or settlement, which was the very point which the Russian Government disputed. I observed that I did not pretend to have any opinion on the legal aspect of the question, but that it seemed to me that the Russian Government had, in a measure, recognised themselves the international character of the concession by admitting foreigners to a participation in the municipal administration, and it would appear clear that the assent of the Powers interested was necessary to the imposition of rates and taxes on foreign subjects. Baron Motono said that he considered that the Russian Government had somewhat weakened their case by admitting foreigners to participate in the municipal administration, and if he had been in their place he would not have made that concession. The Chinese Government had delegated a portion of their rights to the railway company, who had acquired the property, and who had made Harbin in reality a Russian town. He could not see how it could be argued that the railway company had not a perfect right to levy rates for the proper administration of its own property on those foreigners who might find it convenient to settle within its limits. It was true that the sovereignty of China had been recognised, but in fact this sovereignty had already been encroached upon when railways existed in Manchuria administered by foreigners and guarded by foreign troops. It could hardly be maintained that Manchuria was in fact Chinese territory when a war had been waged there between two foreign Powers and no protest had been made. I observed that force sometimes overrode, but did not necessarily extinguish right. The sovereignty of China had, I understood, been formally recognised in the Sino- Russian Convention, and Harbin was at present administered, I believed, by Chinese and Russians conjointly. The railway company was a private legal personality, and I should have thought that as such could not claim to ignore the rights posssessed by foreigners under treaty with China. Baron Motono asked what about British chartered companies? I pointed out to him that the case of British chartered companies had no analogy with the case of Harbin. He asked if the United States had replied to the Russian memorandum. I said that I believed that the United States Ambassador had as yet not received any instructions; and in reply to a further enquiry, I said that I was unaware what steps the German Government had taken. I added that the matter was being discussed in a perfectly amicable manner and that I had no doubt that an arrangement would be reached. Baron Motono observed that the interests of foreigners in Harbin were so small that he wondered that any difficulty was being raised. I said that the interests might at present be sinall, but they might grow in the immediate future, and, moreover, there was a principle involved in the question.
[2495 h-2]
I have, &c.
A. NICOLSON,
:
se June
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.