File No. 793.94/345.
[Inclosure.]
[Untitled]
memorandum on rights of residence in south
manchuria, handed to the japanese minister by the minister for
foreign affairs on april 3, 1915.
It is evident that the intention of Articles 2 and 3 in the second
group of demands asking for an unhampered right of residence, trade,
farming, and ownership of land in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner
Mongolia, is to obtain for Japanese subjects in those regions a
status beyond the terms of the treaties now existing between the two
nations; and to give them a freedom of action which will be a
restriction on China’s sovereignty and a serious infringement of her
administrative rights. Should Japanese subjects be granted the
[Page 123]
right of owning land, it
means that all the landed property in the aforesaid regions might
fall into their hands, thereby endangering China’s territorial
integrity. Moreover, residence in the inland is incompatible with
the existence of extraterritoriality, the relinquishment of which is
necessary to the actual enjoyment of the privilege of inland
residence, as evidenced in the practice of other nations.
Japan’s unconditional demand for the privilege of inland residence,
accompanied with a desire to extend extraterritoriality into the
interior of China and to enable the Japanese subjects to monopolize
all the interests in South Manchuria, is also palpably
irreconcilable with the principle of equal opportunity. For this
reason the Chinese Government were, in the first instance, unable to
accept this demand as a basis of negotiation. Their profound regard
for the friendly relations of the two countries, however, persuaded
them to exert their utmost efforts, in spite of all the inherent
difficulties, to seek a solution of a question which was practically
impossible to solve. Knowing that the proposal made by Japan was
incompatible with treaties, they nevertheless sought to meet her
wishes within the limits of treaties; accordingly they submitted a
counterproposal to open more places in South Manchuria to
international trade and to establish Sino-Japanese joint reclamation
companies.
This suggestion was made in the thought that the places to which
Japanese subjects would desire to resort for purposes of trade could
not be other than important localities; if all these localities were
opened to commerce, then they could go there and reside, trade, and
lease land for joint reclamation within any of them. Thus Japanese
subjects might enjoy the essence of the privilege of inland
residence and would still be able to reconcile their position with
China’s treaties and the principle of equal opportunity.
After the Japanese Government declined to accept this suggestion,
China withdrew it and replaced it with an amendment to the original
articles. It was proposed in this amendment to grant to Japanese
subjects the extra-treaty privilege of inland residence with the
provisos that Japanese subjects in places outside of trade marts
should observe Chinese police regulations and pay taxes in the same
manner as Chinese, and that civil and criminal cases of such
Japanese subjects should be adjudicated by Chinese authorities, the
Japanese Consul attending merely to watch the proceedings. This
suggestion was not an innovation; it was based upon the modus
operandi now in force as regards the Korean settlers in inland
districts of Chientao. But the Japanese Government again declined to
accept it.
The Chinese Government thereupon made a third proposal along the
lines of what constitutes the present practice in Turkey and Siam,
making a distinction, however, in favor of Japanese subjects, in the
exercise of jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases. This was
once more objected to by the Japanese Government.
Now the Chinese Government proposes to concede another step—the
fourth time. They propose to agree to the full text of Articles 2
and 3 relative to the question of inland residence, except that “the
right of owning land”, is changed into “the right of leasing land”,
and to the phrase “cultivating land” is added this clause: “the
regulations for which shall be determined separately”; and, further,
to add a supplementary article which embodies a modus operandi which
the Chinese Government has constrained itself to make, out of a
desire to come to a settlement over this question. The view advanced
in this supplementary article is based upon your excellency’s
declaration made on March 6, 1915, that a separate article embodying
some compromise might be added to the original Articles 2 and 3 for
the purpose of avoiding any conflict with China’s sovereignty or the
system established by treaties.
Since China now agrees to Articles 2 and 3; since there already
exists a harmony of views on the question of observing Chinese
police regulations and paying taxes; since as regards the question
of jurisdiction criminal cases are to be dealt with as heretofore
and civil cases in a slightly different way from what prevails
now—since this is a concession which the Chinese Government feels
unable to improve upon, they request your excellency to be so good
as to inform your Government of its nature and extent and invite
them to agree thereto, to the end that this question may be brought
to a conclusion.
As regards Eastern Inner Mongolia, there is altogether a different
state of things there, quite different from what exists in South
Manchuria. I have stated on several occasions that these two regions
could not be discussed together, and I am glad to recall that your
excellency has already given your endorsement of my views.
