File No. 893.77/1652
Minister Reinsch to the Secretary of State
Peking, November 26, 1917.
Sir: Supplementing my despatch No. 1736 of the 19th instant, in regard to the protest of the British Government against the proposed construction by an American corporation of certain railways in the Provinces of Hupeh and Hunan, I have the honor to enclose herewith, as a matter of record, a translation of the letter from Viceroy Chang Chih-tung to British Consul General Fraser, under date of September 9, 1905, embodying the assurance upon which the British protest is based. The correctness of this translation has been unofficially confirmed by the Chinese secretariat of the British Legation, with particular reference to the stipulation (contained in the final paragraph of the body of the text) that half of the engineers required for the construction of the railways contemplated would be Japanese.
From Mr. Mayers of the British and Chinese Corporation, it is learned that this provision in favor of the Japanese was inserted in the viceroy’s letter at the last moment, and quite unexpectedly to the British authorities concerned in the negotiations, to which this [Page 206] assurance was incidental, for the loan from the Hongkong Government for the redemption of the China-American Development Company’s concession for the Canton-Hankow Railway: the existence of this provision in their favor was for a long time suspected by the Japanese without their having any evidence thereof; subsequently, however, having learned of its existence, they based upon it a request for participation in the construction of the Pukow-Sinyang Railway (the loan contract for which, dated November 14, 1913, was forwarded to the Department in the Legation’s No. 3 of November 18, 1913); but this claim was not very strongly urged at the time, and was shortly relinquished.
In my despatch of the 19th instant, above cited, I stated that a copy of the enclosed translation of the viceroy’s assurance had been presented to the British Legation here for purposes of verification by Mr. MacMurray, “who took this copy to the British Legation purely for his own purposes * * *, and not in any sense as seeking information for the American Legation.” Lest this statement should lend itself to the misconstruction that in doing so Mr. MacMurray had acted in pursuance of his own interests as editor of a compilation of China agreements, in disregard of his responsibilities to the Legation, I feel it is only fair for me to add that the statement referred to merely dissociates Mr. MacMurray’s inquiry from any action taken by the Legation in the matter of the British protest.
I have [etc.]