File No. 893.77/1578
Minister Reinsch to
the Secretary of State
[Extract]
No. 1282
American Legation,
Peking,
November 28, 1916.
Sir: Supplementing previous correspondence
concerning the protest made by the Russian Minister against the
construction of a railway from Fengchen to Ninghsia, I have the honor to
enclose translations of the following Chinese documents, which have been
handed to the Legation:
Note from Russian Minister to Chinese Foreign Office, October, 1916.
Memorandum of conversation between French Chargé d’Affaires and Secretary
of American Legation, on October 20, 1916.
The result of all the conversations, reported in this and former
despatches, is that, with the exception of the Russian Legation, no
representative has entered a protest against the American railway
contract. On the contrary, the representatives of Great Britain, France,
Japan and Belgium have expressed themselves in a favorable sense to the
undertaking of this enterprise.
I have [etc.]
[Page 208]
[Inclosure 1—Translation]
The Russian Minister to
the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a note, No. 165 of the
23rd instant, from the former Acting Minister, Ch’en, in reference
to the interpretation of the railway agreement of the 25th year of
Kuanghsu (1899).
In reply I have to state that the view of the former Acting, Minister
was based entirely on the Tsungli Yamen’s note of the 23rd day of
the 4th moon (June 1, 1899). Actually, however, that note is not in
entire accord with the agreement entered into between the former
Minister, Mr. de Giers, and the Tsungli Yamen, which was later
confirmed by an exchange of notes.
This question has since been settled in accordance with the view of
the former Minister, Mr. de Giers. For, in a note of the 12th day of
the 11th moon of the 25th year of Kuanghsu (December 14, 1899), the
Peking-Kalgan Railway, which runs from Peking to the northwest, was
included within the application of the said agreement, and it was
stated that Chinese or Russian capital would be used in the
construction of the railway, and that no loan from another country
should be made.
The loan recently made by China from an American company for the
construction of the Feng-Ning Railway appears to be especially for
the extension of the Peking-Kalgan Railway. In the opinion of my
Government, since the agreement of the 25th year of Kuanghsu
includes the Peking-Kalgan Railway, therefore, all extensions
thereof, no matter in what direction, are also Included therein.
Having now received instructions from my Government I would again
state that the Russian Government protests against the surrender by
China to a company of another nationality of its right to extend the
Peking-Kalgan Railway, that it considers such surrender to be a
violation of the agreement of the 25th year of Kuanghsu, and that it
will hold the Chinese Government responsible therefor.
[Inclosure 2]
Memorandum of a conversation between Count D. de
Mart el, French Chargé d’Affaires, and Mr. J. V. A. MacMurray,
Secretary of Legation
Peking,
November 23, 1916.
On October 20th last, Count Martel called to ask of me such
information as I could give him in regard to the rumor that the
Siems-Carey Company railway contracts contemplated the building of a
line in the Island of Hainan. I told him that among the lines
specified as part of the available mileage in that contract, was one
from Chungchow to Lu Wei. He then asked the general character of the
agreement, and I told him that it was of the same general character
as the Pauling contracts, providing for a commission on the basis of
the actual cost of construction: and in reply to his inquiry as to
the nature of the securities, I read him the terms of the article
(VII of the contract of May 17th last) covering that question.
He then said that this seemed to him quite unobjectionable from the
viewpoint of French interests; and recalling that the newspapers
that morning had stated that he had protested to the Foreign Office
against the construction of such a line, he said that he wanted our
Legation to know that he had not made any such protest—that, with a
view simply to drawing out the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Dr. Chen Chin-tao), he had in conversation said that he had heard
that such a line was contemplated in Hainan, and that while he knew
nothing about it he felt obligated to call attention to the
non-alienation agreement of March 15, 1897, and to reserve any
French rights which might prove to be affected; that Dr. Chen had
professed ignorance of the matter, and that he had therefore dropped
the subject with him and decided to come to our Legation for
definite information.
Count Martel said that in view of the information I had given him he
felt, for his own part, that the proposed construction of the line
in Hainan did not affect any French rights; and that while, of
course, he could not state in advance the position of his
Government, he did not foresee that it would entertain any
objections to the project.
[Page 209]
He then inquired concerning the proposed section from the
neighborhood of Changsha to Nanning: and, again referring to the
newspaper reports that he had protested against the construction of
that section as infringing upon the rights of the Banque
Industrielle under its contract of January 21, 1914, for the
construction of a railway from Yamchow to Yunnanfu, he stated that
he had made no such objection, and that he in fact saw no reason for
any such objection, inasmuch as the proposed American line would
serve a wholly different territory and would rather contribute to
the business of the proposed Yamchow-Yunnanfu railway, than detract
from it.
Count Martel commented in similar terms upon the proposed American
line from Fengchen to Ninghsia, in its relation to the concession
for the line from Tatungfu to Chengtu, in which French financiers
have a part interest.
