Page:League of Nations-Appeal by the Chinese Government.pdf/50

 as between themselves, reserved the right to maintain railway guards "not to exceed 15 men per kilometre". But in the subsequent Treaty of Peking, signed by China and Japan later in the same year, the Chinese Government did not give its assent to this particular provision of the agreement between Japan and Russia. China and Japan, however, did include the following provision in Article II of the Additional Agreement of December 22nd, 1905, which is an annex to the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peking of that date:

""In view of the earnest desire expressed by the imperial Chinese Government to have the Japanese and Russian troops and railway guards in Manchuria withdrawn as soon as possible, and in order to meet this desire, the Imperial Japanese Government, in the event of Russia's agreeing to the withdrawal of her railway guards, or in case other proper measures are agreed to between China and Russia, consents to take similar steps accordingly. When tranquillity shall have been re-established in Manchuria and China shall have become herself capable of affording full protection to the lives and property of foreigners. Japan will withdraw her railway guards simultaneously with Russia.""

It is this article upon which Japan based her treaty right. Russia, however, long since withdrew her guards and she relinquished her rights to keep them by the Sino-Soviet Agreements of 1924. But Japan contended that tranquillity had not been established in Manchuria and that China was not herself capable of affording full protection to foreigners; therefore she claimed that she still retained a valid treaty right to maintain railway guards.

Japan has appeared increasingly inclined to defend her use of these guards less upon treaty right than upon the grounds of "absolute necessity under the existing state of affairs in Manchuria

The Chinese Government consistently controverted the contention of Japan. It insisted that the stationing of Japanese railway guards in Manchuria was not justified either in law or in fact and that it impaired the territorial and administrative integrity of China. As to the stipulation in the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peking, already quoted, the Chinese Government contended that this was merely declaratory of a de facto situation of a provisional character and that it could not be said to confer a right, especially of a permanent character. Moreover, it claimed that Japan was legally obliged to withdraw her guards, since Russia had withdrawn hers, tranquillity had been re-established in Manchuria, and the Chinese authorities were able to give adequate protection to the South Manchuria Railway, as they were doing for other railway lines in Manchuria, provided the Japanese guards would permit them to do so.

The controversies which arose regarding the Japanese railway guards were not limited to their presence and activities within the railway area. These guards were regular Japanese soldiers and they frequently carried their police functions into adjoining districts or conducted manœuvres outside the railway areas, with or without the permission of, and with or without notification to, the Chinese authorities. These acts were particularly obnoxious to the Chinese, officials and public alike, and were regarded as unjustifiable in law and provocative of unfortunate incidents.

Frequent misunderstandings and considerable damage to Chinese farm craps resulted from the manoeuvres, and material remuneration failed to alleviate the hostile feelings thus aroused.

Closely associated with the question of the Japanese railway guards was that of the Japanese consular police. Such police were attached to the Japanese consulates and branch consulates in all the Japanese consular districts in Manchuria, not only along the South Manchuria Railway, but in such cities as Harbin, Tsitsihar and Manchouli, as well as in the so-called