I have been asked by the Editor of the North-China Daily News to contribute an article on some of the outstanding questions between China and foreign powers, instancing Tibet, Manchuria, Mongolia, and to give the Chinese point of view on these questions. Although the subject is a delicate one to handle, particularly in the press, being as it is one in which international susceptibilities are apt to be aroused, I have yet accepted the invitation in the belief that a calm and temperate statement of the Chinese case will hurt no one whose case will bear public discussion but will perhaps do some good by bringing about a clear understanding of the points at issue between China and the foreign Powers concerned, and thus facilitating an early settlement which is so earnestly desired by China. I may say that I have appreciated the British sense of justice and fairplay displayed by the “North-China Daily News” in inviting a statement of the Chinese case in its own columns on questions one of which concerns British interests in no small degree, and the discussion cannot be conducted under a better spirit than that expressed in the motto of the senior British journal in the Far East: “Impartial not Neutral.”
The treaty between China and Japan of 1915 respecting South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia giving that power special rights and privileges in those regions has given rise to many knotty problems for the diplomatists of the two countries to solve. Two of such problems are mentioned here.
Since the last days of the Tsings, the Japanese have been establishing police boxes in different parts of South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia always under protest of the local and Peking authorities. Since the treaty of 1915, a new reason has become available in the right of mixed residence given to Japanese in these regions. It is said that for the protection and control of their subjects, and indeed for the interest of the Chinese themselves, it is best that this measure should be taken. It is further contended that the stationing of police officers is but a corollary to the right of exterritoriality, and that it is in no way a derogation of Chinese sovereignty.
It is pointed out by the Chinese Government that in the treaty of 1915, express provision is made for Japanese in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia to submit to the police laws and ordinances and taxation of China (Article 5). This leaves the matter in no doubt. If the Japanese wish to facilitate the Chinese police in their duty of protection and control of the Japanese, they have many means at their command for so doing. It is unnecessary to point out that the establishment of foreign police on Chinese soil (except in foreign settlements and concessions where it is by the permission of the Chinese Government)