[430]. Ibid., No. 66, inclosure.
[431]. The Tō-A Dōbun-kwai Hōkoku, No. 38 (January, 1903), pp. 105–106.
[432]. E. g., 400 men from (probably) Shan-hai-kwan, June 24.—China, No. 2 (1904), No. 58, inclosure. Also some from Liao-yang, in August.—Ibid., No. 61, inclosure.
[433]. E. g., from Kin-chou-Fu early in September.—Ibid., No. 62, inclosure.
[434]. Cf. Dr. Morrison’s articles in The Times, January 3 (p. 8) and 14 (p. 5), 1903.
[435]. China, No. 2 (1904), No. 56, inclosure (Hosie to Satow).
[436]. Ibid., No. 63, inclosure (Hosie to Satow, September 9).
[437]. Cf. ibid., No. 61, inclosure (Hosie to Satow, August 21), which says: “I have the honor to report that a considerable town, to consist of some 300 cottages, of which about 100 have already been built, is in course of construction on both sides of the Russian railway to the immediate northwest of the city of Liao-yang Chou. These cottages, which when completed will occupy a large piece of land bought from the Chinese proprietors by the Railway Company, are intended for the residence of railway employees and of the artisans who will be engaged at the cleaning and repairing shops to be established at this important depot.
“While this foreign town is growing outside, the Chinese Government buildings inside the city of Liao-yang are being rapidly evacuated, in many cases the only vestige of the Russian occupation being a solitary sentry keeping guard over the property. Russian troops are also being withdrawn from Liao-yang and conveyed by rail to Port Arthur.”
A more direct testimony came from the Russian diplomats, probably M. Lessar himself, who, even so late as at the beginning of September, 1903, or a month before the end of the stipulated period for the complete evacuation of Manchuria, intimated to Prince Ching that the reason for the delay of the actual evacuation was “that the barracks for the railway guards were not ready.”—China, No. 2 (1904), No. 156.