1
2
The friendly and impartial proper interests of the merchants of the various Powers. interest, which various Powers have shown towards this question is highly appreciated by China.
However, in the 9th moon of this year (October) the Russian Minister, M. Korostovetz, forwarded a copy of a notification which had been published by his Government. An examination of this document showed that it contained not only many misinterpretations of the meaning of the original agreement with the Chinese Eastern Railway Company, but that also it was at variance with the main points of the recent agreement respecting municipalities. Moreover, it contravened the spirit of the treaty concluded in America between Japan and Russia. The Chinese Govern- ment therefore cannot but criticise it point by point.
The Board accordingly have prepared a circular for communication to the representatives of the Powers in Peking and have also replied to the Russian Minister.
1 have the honour therefore to transmit a copy of this circular for your Excellency's information, and would request that it may be communicated to His Majesty's Government,
I avail, &c.
(Translation.)
Enclosure 2 in No. 1.
Prince CHING.
Circular addressed to Foreign Representatives by Wai-wu Pu.
THE Board has received a note from the Russian Minister, M. Korostovetz, as follows:--
Recently several Governments have adversely criticised the preliminary agreement drawn up between China and Russia on the question of the establishment of municipalities in the railway territory as seeming to infringe the extra-territorial rights enjoyed by the subjects of all nations. The Russian Foreign Office has now published a special notification enumerating the privileges enjoyed by the subjects of all nations residing in the railway territory in Manchuria and at the same time stating the meaning of the rights which they possess under international law. Further, I have the honour to forward a copy of the notification in question.”
On examination, the Roard find that the contents of this notification are of such a nature that the Chinese Government cannot possibly recognise them, and therefore they put forward the following detailed explanation and criticism.
The Russian notification states- The trading marts opened by China are not on the same footing as the territory belonging to the Chinese Eastern Railway. The lands of the Chinese Eastern Railway are governed by article 6 of the agreement and the railway company have absolute powers of administration within the territory it occupies." Subsequently the notification again explains--"That the preliminary agreement on the question of municipalities greatly strengthens and extends the rights conceded by the original agreement, and that after the conclusion of the two agree- ments the Chinese Government had conceded to the railway company her sovereign rights of control within the railway territory. The proceedings of the company within their territory resemble those of a private tenant, and there is a reason for any administrative powers which they may wield.”
The notification further states-"When the Japanese and Russian plenipoten- tiaries were discussing the peace treaty, a statement was published to the effect that the Chinese Eastern Railway Company, which had territory given to it during construction, could not be put on a footing of comparison with the treaty ports which But that within the had been opened, and would not be treated on the same terms. limits of the occupied territory Japanese subjects and the subjects of the other great Examination therefore Powers would enjoy the same rights as Russian subjects.
plainly shows that the only obligation resting on the Russian Government is to permit foreigners to enjoy their public rights and to take some part in the machinery of the administration.
The Board has carefully examined the contents of this notification, and its meaning is simply this, that within the territories of the Chinese Eastern Railway Russia Moreover, possesses the powers of carrying on the administration of those districts.
3
the two agreements as well as the declaration made by the Japanese and Russian plenipotentiaries are relied on in proof of this. The Russian Government cannot know the additions and misinterpretations made in these agreements, their number being incalculable. The Chinese Government, in reply to the clauses quoted above, have an extremely strong case to present on their side, and they beg to clearly set it down point by point.
In the first clause of the Chinese Eastern Railway agreement it is stated that the Chinese Government will establish a business in partnership with the Russo-Chinese Bank. The words to establish a business in partnership clearly denote that the business is of a commercial nature, and therefore the rights of administering the Government must not be encroached upon. The first clause states this very clearly, and there is no possible room for doubt. However, the Russian Government quote article 6 of the above agreement, in proof of their statement that the expression "under the sole management of the company" means absolute power of administra- tion. They seem not to know that below the words "sole management
" it is explained clearly that the company may erect any buildings and carry on all kinds of work, and further, that they may establish a telegraph line, to be worked by the company, especially for the use of the railway, &c. Therefore, the places over which they have powers of management are those lands which the agreement points out as being required for railway work. But as regards the limit of the company's powers of management, they must not go beyond matters which the railway can properly undertake. Their powers of absolute management stop here, and they certainly must not transfer them into the field of administration. To our surprise, the Russian Government actually connect the two, and assert that the 6th article of the agreement gives absolute power of administration, and, although the Board has for years argued the question, yet they still hold to their statement, which is a great mistake on their part. The Chinese Government cannot accept this point of view.
Again, on the 10th May, 1909, China and Russia concluded an arrangement for establishing municipalities in the railway territories in Manchuria, and in the 1st article down to the 5th article it was distinctly stated that there was no idea of infringing China's sovereign rights in the railway territory. It was thus evident that in the railway territory, as regards the actual administration, China still preserved her rights. But the Russian notification, on the other hand, asserts that this arrange- ment greatly strengthens and extends the rights conceded by the former agreement. One does not know how they arrive at this conclusion! How can it be said that China's sovereign rights have not suffered any infringement when Russia obtains special powers of administration? This is another point to which the Chinese Government cannot consent. Again, in 1905 Russia and Japan concluded a treaty in America, article 3 of which states that the Russian and Japanese Governments would hand back in toto to China her exclusive sovereign rights of government over the whole of Manchuria. Farther, the Russian Government has declared that she has obtained no territorial advantages in Manchuria, nor does she hold any preferential or exclusive concessions which infringe China's sovereigu rights or are at variance with the principle of equal opportunity for all (ie., open door). Russia says, in toto, "the whole of Manchuria,' complete sovereignty," "no territorial advantages
How strong these expressions are! infringing China's sovereign rights."
How,
then, can she insist on her interpretation of a commercial agreement. Besides, how can she quote as evidence a published statement which has never been recognised by China, and turn round and ignore the solemn treaty made between the two countries. This is another point to which the Chinese Government cannot consent. A consideration of the above points will show that the evidence quoted by the Russian Government are merely additions which she has insisted on making to support the statement on her side of the case. The Board has explained matters with great clearness, as they considered that the Governments of the Powers would thus be better able to fully understand all the circumstances of the case.
Again in article 5 of the Chinese Eastern Railway agreement it is stated that the Chinese Government will take measures for the protection of the line and of the men employed thereon. Again, it states that all crimes and lawsuits arising on the railway land will be dealt with by the local officials in accordance with the treaty. Thus the sovereign rights of affording protection and keeping the peace entirely belong to China. There is no room for any doubt which could lead to misunder- standing on this point. The railway lands, then, in Manchuria are entirely Camese territory, and there is the clearest proof of this which cannot be shaken.
B 2 [2605 c-8]
it is
140
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.