CHAPTER XV

DEMANDS IN SEVEN ARTICLES

The most important section of Manchuria, strategically, namely, that part of the Province of Sheng-king which lies east of the Liao River and the entire Province of Kirin, was to be evacuated, according to the Agreement, before April 8, 1903. As that date drew near, and long afterward, the disposition of the Russian forces appeared incompatible with even the nominal withdrawal which characterized the first period of evacuation. It is true that in the Sheng-king Province, except the regions bordering on the Yalu River on the Korean frontier, the Russian troops began to withdraw soon after the end of the first period, but only “to the railway line.”[445] The important border regions, especially Fêng-hwang-Chêng and An-tung, however, remained in Russian occupation, the former still holding 700 cavalry in June.[446] From March, there had been mysterious movements of small detachments of troops toward this frontier,[447] of which Count Lamsdorff and M. Witte alike professed a complete ignorance,[448] but concerning which M. Plançon, the Russian _Chargé d’Affaires_ at Peking, had made an explanation which seemed utterly unintelligible, that the Russian troops had been moved in order to counteract a threatened Japanese movement. It soon appeared, however, that the Russians had begun to cut timber on both sides of the Yalu River,[449] and, with the consent of Admiral Alexieff, had hired the services of some Russian soldiers,[450] some of whom had gone to Yong-am-po on the Korean side of the Yalu.[451] The detachments outside of Fêng-hwang-Chêng, amounting at first to only five men at Tatung-kao and twenty at Yong-am-po, would have been small enough to be ignored, had it not been for the significant fact that the occupation of Yong-am-po, which will be discussed later on,[452] constituted a menace to the integrity of the Korean Empire similar to one which threatened China when Russia leased Port Arthur; for a railway concession granted in the Russo-Chinese Agreement of March 27, 1898,[453] would bring this port into connection with the entire railroad and military system of Manchuria and the great Russian Empire. Further west, at Liao-yang, except the nominal withdrawal reported in the previous August,[454] there was no indication of its evacuation,[455] and at Mukden, the capital of Sheng-king, 3200 soldiers, who constituted the major part of the forces, were reported to have evacuated,[456] but the remainder, after proceeding to the train, suddenly returned and took up their old quarters,[457] some or all of them wearing civilian dress.[458] It is unknown whither the 3200 men had gone, but the Russian Consul merely moved to the railway outside the town.[459] To the north, it was evident in May that the Province of Kirin had hardly begun to be evacuated even in the nominal sense, as in parts of the Sheng-king Province.[460] So late as in September, the Russian authorities at Peking talked to Prince Ching of leaving 6000 or 7000 troops in the Kirin and Hei-lung Provinces for another year.[461]

Long before September, however, it had become apparent that the delay in the second part of the Manchurian evacuation was due to no casual event. The appointed time-limit, the 8th of April, had hardly been twenty days past, with no signs indicative of a possible speedy withdrawal, when new demands in seven articles of an highly exclusive nature, which the Russian _Chargé d’Affaires_ had lodged at the Foreign Office of Peking,[462] leaked out,[463] were confirmed by Prince Ching,[464] and spread broadcast over the astonished world. Further evacuation was probably implied, if not declared, to be dependent upon the acceptance of these demands,[465] the most authentic version[466] of which is here subjoined:—

“1. No portion of territory restored to China by Russia, especially at Niu-chwang and in the valley of Liao-ho, shall be leased or sold to any other Power under any circumstances; if such sale or lease to another Power be concluded, Russia will take decisive steps in order to safeguard her own interests, as she considers such sale or lease to be a menace to her.

“2. The system of government actually existing throughout Mongolia shall not be altered, as such alteration will tend to produce a regrettable state of affairs, such as the uprising of the people and the disturbances along the Russian frontier; the utmost precaution shall be taken in that direction.

“3. China shall engage herself not to open, of her own accord, new ports or towns in Manchuria, without giving previous notice to the Russian Government, nor shall she permit foreign consuls to reside in those towns or ports.

“4. The authority of foreigners who may be engaged by China for the administration of any affairs whatever, shall not be permitted to extend over any affairs in Northern Provinces (including Chili), where Russia has the predominant interests.

“In case China desires to engage foreigners for the administration of affairs in Northern Provinces, special offices shall be established for the control of Russians: for instance, no authority over the mining affairs of Mongolia and Manchuria shall be given to foreigners who may be engaged by China for the administration of mining affairs; such authority shall be left entirely in the hands of Russian experts.

“5. As long as there exists a telegraph line at Niu-chwang and Port Arthur, the Niu-chwang-Peking line shall be maintained, as the telegraph line at Niu-chwang and Port Arthur and throughout Sheng-king Province is under Russian control, and its connection with her line on the Chinese telegraph poles at Niu-chwang, Port Arthur, and Peking is of the utmost importance.

“6. After restoring Niu-chwang to the Chinese local authorities, the customs receipts there shall, as at present, be deposited with the Russo-Chinese Bank.

“7. After the evacuation of Manchuria, the rights which have been acquired in Manchuria by Russian subjects and foreign companies during Russian occupation shall remain unaffected; moreover, as Russia is duty-bound to insure the life of the people residing in all the regions traversed by the railway, it is necessary, in order to provide against the spread of epidemic diseases in the Northern Provinces by the transportation of passengers and goods by railway train, to establish at Niu-chwang a quarantine office after the restoration of the place to China; the Russian civil administrators will consider the best means to attain that end. Russians only shall be employed at the posts of Commissioner of Customs and Customs Physician, and they shall be placed under the control of the Inspector-General of the Imperial Maritime Customs. These officials shall perform their duties conscientiously, shall protect the interests of the Imperial maritime customs, and shall exhaust their efforts in preventing the spread of those diseases into the Russian territories. A permanent Sanitary Board, presided over by the Customs Tao-tai, shall be established. The foreign Consuls, Commissioner of Customs, Customs Physician, and Agent of the Chinese Eastern Railway Company shall be Councilors of the Board. As regards the establishment of the Board and the management of its affairs, the Customs Tao-tai shall consult with the Russian Consul, and the Customs Tao-tai shall devise the best means to obtain funds necessary for the purpose.”

These demands, as will be seen, comprised, besides the non-alienation of Manchuria to any other Power, and the _status quo_ in Mongolia, drastic measures of closing the former territory against the economic enterprise of all nations but the Russians; and, in that respect, were supplementary to the Agreement concluded a year before, which studiously omitted clauses prejudicial to the principle of the open door. From the standpoint of this last principle, therefore, no demands could be more objectionable than those now presented by M. Plançon. The Empress Dowager of China was said to have sneered at the report, and to have remarked that, if she had been disposed to grant such demands, she would never have requested the Powers to withdraw as soon as possible their forces from North China.[467] Prince Ching not only considered the Russian terms quite unacceptable, but failed to see any reason or right on the part of Russia to impose fresh conditions which infringed China’s sovereign rights. He accordingly refused to entertain these conditions, perhaps on April 23.[468] The Japanese Government had already entered a firm protest,[469] and was followed by that of the British Government, which considered the demands as violating the most-favored-nation clause, and otherwise highly inadmissible.[470] Before the British protest reached him, Mr. Townley, the British _Chargé_, had assured Prince Ching that the latter would receive from Great Britain similar support in resisting the Russian demands to that which was given him during the negotiation of the Manchurian Convention.[471] Soon afterward, the United States Government also instructed Mr. Conger to urge on the Peking Foreign Office the advisability of refusing the first and second of the conditions laid down by Russia, and, moreover, made direct inquiries at the Russian Government in a friendly spirit, pointing out that the reported demands were not in accordance with the proposed stipulations contained in the new draft treaty between the United States and China, a copy of which was communicated to Count Lamsdorff.[472] This latter act of Secretary Hay was promptly followed by Great Britain, whose Government instructed its Ambassador at St. Petersburg to address the Foreign Minister in language similar to that used by the American Representative.[473] It may be safely inferred that the Japanese Government also took a similar step. There thus resulted a natural coöperation between the three Powers, whose straightforward policy was clearly expressed by Lord Lansdowne as follows: “To open China impartially to the commerce of the whole world, to maintain her independence and integrity, and to insist upon the fulfillment of treaty and other obligations by the Chinese Government which they have contracted towards us.”[474]

According to the instructions he had received from his Government, Mr. MacCormick, the United States Ambassador, had an interview with Count Lamsdorff in the evening of April 28. The Count at once denied in the most positive manner that such demands as were rumored had been made by the Russian Government. He expressed surprise that they should have been credited in any quarter, and that a friendly government like that of the United States should be the only one to question him as to whether Russia could have made demands some of which were on the face of them ridiculous, as, for instance, those for the right of using China’s telegraph poles and for the restriction of foreign trade in Manchuria. It may be questioned whether Count Lamsdorff has ever made to a strong Power another denial in as positive language, which was, one will soon observe, as quickly falsified by subsequent events, as this remarkable disclaimer of April 28, 1903. He went on to say that he could give the United States Government the most positive assurances that Russia would faithfully adhere to its pledges regarding Manchuria, and to her assurances to respect the rights of other Powers. Moreover, American capital and commerce were what Russia most desired to attract in order to develop Manchuria. The Count also intimated that any delay in the evacuation was due to the natural necessity of obtaining assurances that China was fulfilling her part of the agreement. This could be better ascertained by the Russian Minister, M. Lessar, who had been absent from Peking on sick leave, but was about to return to his post, than by an acting _Chargé d’Affaires_.[475] A careful reading of this disclaimer will show that it denied that the reported demands had been made by Russia, but it did not establish that no demands whatsoever had been made by her. This consideration would seem to make it truly remarkable that Mr. MacCormick should have been, as he was, entirely satisfied with the result of the interview, and should have had no further remark to make. He could perhaps have inquired whether M. Plançon had acted without authorization, what were the conditions he had proposed, and by what means M. Lessar was expected to obtain the assurances from China that her obligations would be fulfilled.[476]

The positive statements of Count Lamsdorff were partly reinforced and partly neutralized by the clever remarks made on April 29 by Count Cassini, the Russian Ambassador at Washington, which appeared in the New York _Tribune_ of May 1. He considered it unfortunate that Mr. Conger should have been misinformed, by unreliable parties, of Russia’s intentions in Manchuria, of which they were grossly ignorant,—a matter which was regretted, he was sure, no less by the American Government than by Russia. He, however, not only intimated that some sort of negotiation was in progress between Russia and China regarding Manchuria, but was bold enough to say that the United States would assist Russia in quieting the uneasy sentiment caused by false reports. He said:—

“Because of the singularity of the interest held by the United States in Manchuria—for all the world realizes that yours is a trade, not a territorial one—it lies within the power of your Government to exert a powerful influence in the preservation of peace there. Russia’s desire is also for peace, not disturbances, in Manchuria, and it is to this end that negotiations are now proceeding in Peking in the effort to establish a condition of evacuation, and to safeguard Manchuria against a recurrence of the troubles of 1900.

“Striking evidence of the direct effect in this country caused by unrest in China was seen in 1900, when, I am told, many cotton mills in the United States were forced to shut down until conditions in China were again normal. This fact and the evidence the United States has already given of its desire to make for peace are sufficient assurance that the Washington Government will lend its strong moral support to calm excitement wherever it has been aroused by the incorrect reports from Peking.”

According to Count Cassini, it was “because of the long standing and genuine friendliness which, without exception, had characterized the relations of these two great countries, as well as in recognition of the frankness with which the American Secretary of State had dealt with my Government in all diplomatic matters,” that the latter took pleasure in assuring the United States regarding negotiations pending with another Power, “even though in so doing all diplomatic precedent was broken.” “I am not aware,” he said, “that any other Powers have received from the Foreign Office [of St. Petersburg] such a statement as was handed your Ambassador.” In referring to Mr. MacCormick’s interview, however, it will be seen that Count Lamsdorff made no direct reference to the negotiations at Peking, still less to their contents, and the assurances he gave had before and have since been frequently and in similar terms repeated to other Powers by Russia.

By far the most illuminating part of M. Cassini’s conversation was its practical confirmation of the truth of one of the reported demands of Russia which were considered the most objectionable, and which Count Lamsdorff specifically denied, characterizing them “as on the face of them ridiculous,” namely, that no new ports should be opened in Manchuria for the world’s trade. “Of the opening of new treaty ports in Manchuria,” said M. Cassini, “it is impossible for me to speak at present, but it is the earnest conviction of those best acquainted with the state of affairs there that such a move will not be to the best interest of the territory. Were the question solely a commercial one, it would be different. But open a treaty port in Manchuria, and close upon the heels of commerce will follow political complications of all kinds, which will increase the threats to peace.” In this statement Count Cassini not only virtually contradicted Count Lamsdorff, but also, as we shall soon see, was subsequently contradicted by the latter.

A careful reader of these words uttered by one of Russia’s greatest diplomatic agents abroad will feel satisfied that, despite Count Lamsdorff’s elastic statement to the contrary, Russia was actually proposing some terms to China, and that one of those terms probably was that Manchuria should have no more treaty ports. When diplomacy relies, even to a slight extent, upon subterfuges, it risks a certain lack of consistent unity among its exponents, and the rule could hardly have for exceptions even such highly trained diplomats as Lamsdorff and Cassini.

Count Lamsdorff’s disclaimer was uttered on April 28, and Count Cassini’s statement was dated April 29 and appeared in the press on May 1. In the mean time, the Foreign Office of Peking had refused the Russian conditions in an official note. Yet, on April 29, M. Plançon suggested that each condition might be answered separately, and the suggestion was verbally refused by Prince Ching. Thereupon the Russian _Chargé_ presented a note intimating that his Government wished to be assured on the first three of the original demands, namely, whether a territorial cession to another power in the Liao Valley was contemplated by China; whether there was an intention to assimilate the administration of Mongolia to that of China proper; and whether China would permit the appointment of foreign Consuls in Manchuria in other places than Niu-chwang. In reply, Prince Ching stated, naturally, that there had never been any question of ceding territory in the Liao Valley to a foreign Power; that the question of altering the administrative system of Mongolia had been discussed, but it had been disapproved by the Throne, and was not under consideration for the present; and that, in regard to the appointment of new Consuls in Manchuria, it depended upon the opening of new ports, which would be decided only by the extent of the commercial development of Manchuria.[477] On the next day, or, as the late Sir M. Herbert rather inaccurately wrote to Lord Lansdowne, “two days after the Russian Government had categorically denied that the demands had been made,” M. Plançon reiterated to Prince Ching, not three, but all, of the seven conditions, and, consequently, the Chinese treaty commissioners at Shanghai were instructed, for the present, to refuse to their American colleagues the opening of treaty ports in Manchuria, which the latter had been demanding. The United States Government, however, taking little heed of M. Cassini’s argument, instructed its commissioners at Shanghai, on the strength of Count Lamsdorff’s denial, to insist upon the opening of new Manchurian ports.[478] Against this demand, M. Plançon seems to have renewed his pressure upon the Chinese Government several times during May,[479] saying that he had received no instructions from St. Petersburg to revoke his opposition.[480] At last, Secretary Hay instructed Mr. Conger to suggest to M. Lessar, on the latter’s arrival at Peking, that a simultaneous communication should be made by them to the Peking Foreign Office to the effect that the Russian Government had, as Count Lamsdorff had said, no objection to the opening of the treaty ports.[481] The Russian Minister returned to Peking toward the end of May, and telegraphed to his Government the suggestion made by the American Government.[482] He, as well as M. Cassini, renewed the assurance that Russia was not opposed to the opening of the ports, and Mr. MacCormick, who returned on leave to Washington, confirmed the assurance.[483] Secretary Hay now hoped that the only possible opposition to be met would come from none but the Chinese Government, and requested the support in the matter[484] of the British and Japanese Ministers at Peking, which was willingly given. So late as on June 5, however, M. Cassini addressed a note to Mr. Hay, inquiring what was the meaning attached by the United States Government to the term “treaty port,” and what action it wished Russia to take. Mr. Hay could only refer, in answer to the first query, to the correspondence which passed between the Russian and the United States Governments in 1899,[485] and request, in reply to the second, that Russia should inform China that it was untrue that the former was, as had been stated by China, preventing the opening of the treaty ports.[486] Secretary Hay was so urgent about this matter that he considered it indifferent whether the opening was granted in a treaty or, as a compromise, by a special Imperial edict.[487] M. Lessar had the first interview after his return with Prince Ching on June 10,[488] and, according to the Japanese press, renewed the original seven conditions,[489] including the refusal of ports. The Prince was believed to have refused to discuss any of the conditions except those regarding the establishment of a sanitary board and the payment of customs duties into the Russo-Chinese Bank at Niu-chwang, which might be reconsidered. The Prince was then granted another five days’ sick leave, returned to the summer palace, and declined to see any foreign Minister.[490] Rumors were then afloat which would have one believe that the Prince, in spite of the earnest protests of the British and Japanese Representatives, was gradually yielding to Russian influence. It is at least significant that at this critical point he informed Mr. Townley, the British _Chargé d’Affaires_, on June 19, that an agreement would soon be arrived at with Russia whereby Manchuria would be preserved to China without any loss of sovereign rights. He added that China would open treaty ports in Manchuria, if she saw fit, after the Russian evacuation.[491] The significance of these remarks could easily be read between the lines. Not only was the Russian evacuation uncertain, but also it was no less patent to Russia than to China that, in the marts, the opening of which was under discussion, namely, Mukden and perhaps Harbin, as well as An-tung and Tatung-kao near the Korean boundary, the immediate trade prospects were not considered so great as the political danger which their opening might to some degree avert. Had the evacuation been certain, and had the commercial consideration been the sole question involved, it would have been unnecessary either to hasten their opening or even to select those very places. Nor would MM. Cassini, Lessar, and Plançon have been so strongly opposed to the proposition. Seen in the light of these considerations, Prince Ching’s new position appeared plainly to indicate the gaining of Russian influence upon the helpless Foreign Office of Peking.

Nor for two years and a half since the first agreement was reported to have been concluded between Admiral Alexieff and Tartar General Tsêng-chi, had the Manchuria question vexed the world. If the question had concerned none but Russia and China, and the former had been slow to promise and loyal to her pledges and the latter strong enough to guard her own interest, the uncertain conditions in Manchuria would not have constituted, as they did, a grave and continual menace to the general peace of the Far East. Unfortunately, the Russian pledges, on the one hand, were attended by serious conditions, some of which it seemed impossible to fulfill and others contrary to the recognized principles of international intercourse to which Russia had professed constant devotion, and, on the other, China had again and again shown herself impotent to resist what she would otherwise reject. Above all, Great Britain and the United States were, both from interest and from principle, firmly committed in the East to a policy which was in constant danger of being undermined by the conduct of Russia. For Japan, however, the Manchurian question possessed an even graver significance, for, with the fall of the Three Eastern Provinces into the Russian hands, the independence of Korea, as well as the security of Japan herself, would be threatened, while a consequent closure of Manchuria against Japan’s economic activity would seriously maim her growth and life as a nation. It was now considered, therefore, that the irritating situation should no longer be allowed to continue, and that the time had at last come when Japan should with determination deal _directly_ with Russia, in order to effect once for all an arrangement satisfactory and beneficial to all the parties concerned and to the world at large.

Footnote 445:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 57, inclosure (Hosie to Satow, November 7, 1902). Also No. 106 (Townley to Lansdowne, May 5, 1903).

Footnote 446:

_Ibid._, No. 128 (Hosie, June 22, 1903).

Footnote 447:

_Ibid._, No. 116 (April 8).

Footnote 448:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 75 (April 15); 113 (May 14).

Footnote 449:

For the Manchurian side, see p. 227, above. The timber concession on the Korean side will be taken up in a later section.

Footnote 450:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, Nos. 75, 115, 128.

Footnote 451:

_Ibid._, Nos. 115, 129.

Footnote 452:

Pp. 289 ff., 318 ff., below.

Footnote 453:

Article 8. See pp. 130–131, above.

Footnote 454:

See p. 235, note 4, above.

Footnote 455:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 130, inclosure (May 4, 1903).

Footnote 456:

_Ibid._, No. 71 (April 14).

Footnote 457:

_Ibid._, No. 122.

Footnote 458:

_Ibid._, No. 130, inclosure (May 4).

Footnote 459:

_Ibid._

Footnote 460:

_Ibid._, No. 137, inclosure (Consul Fulford at Niu-chwang, May 19).

Footnote 461:

_Ibid._, No. 156 (Satow to Lansdowne, September 10).

Footnote 462:

The author has been informed from a reliable source that the _Chargé’s_ note containing those demands was dated April 5, 1903.

Footnote 463:

Again the revelation must have emanated from the Chinese official circle. M. Lessar is said to have, about June 4, bitterly complained at the Peking Foreign Office of their breach of faith, and requested that there should be appointed two special Chinese negotiators, who should be entirely responsible for the secrecy of the matter.

Footnote 464:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 81 (Townley to Lansdowne, April 24).

Footnote 465:

_Ibid._, No. 127.

Footnote 466:

_Ibid._, No. 94. Also see Nos. 77, 78, 81, 82, 86.

Footnote 467:

The _Kokumin_.

Footnote 468:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, Nos. 78, 81, 127.

Footnote 469:

Perhaps on April 21.

Footnote 470:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, Nos. 79 and 80 (April 23).

Footnote 471:

_Ibid._, Nos. 81, 82 (April 24).

Footnote 472:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, Nos. 83, 85 (April 26 and 27). Cf. No. 82.

Footnote 473:

_Ibid._, No. 89 (April 28). It does not appear that this instruction was carried out, for when Count Lamsdorff gave to the American Ambassador a positive denial of the truth of the current reports, the British Ambassador deemed it unnecessary to repeat the inquiry. See _ibid._, No. 91 (April 29).

Footnote 474:

_Ibid._, No. 90, Lansdowne to Herbert (April 28).

Footnote 475:

Namely, M. Plançon. The same M. Plançon stated the next day to Prince Ching that the delay in the evacuation was due to the military party in Russia.—_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 95. The statements of the two diplomats are not necessarily contradictory to each other.

Footnote 476:

For the interview between MacCormick and Lamsdorff, see _ibid._, Nos. 91, 92, 103.

Footnote 477:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 95.

Footnote 478:

_Ibid._, No. 98.

Footnote 479:

_Ibid._, Nos. 110 (May 8); 114 (May 19); 117 (May 23).

Footnote 480:

_Ibid._, No. 114 (May 19).

Footnote 481:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 117.

Footnote 482:

_Ibid._, No. 119.

Footnote 483:

_Ibid._, Nos. 119, 120.

Footnote 484:

_Ibid._, No. 120 (June 4).

Footnote 485:

See Chapter V., above.

Footnote 486:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 121.

Footnote 487:

_Ibid._, Nos. 117, 121.

Footnote 488:

_Ibid._, No. 123.

Footnote 489:

Cf. _ibid._, No. 125.

Footnote 490:

_Ibid._, No. 123, and the Japanese press.

Footnote 491:

_China, No. 2 (1904)_, No. 126.