[160]. Ibid., pp. 112, 116, 120, 132, 160, 180, 214–215.
[161]. China, No. 1 (1898), Dispatch No. 37, pp. 12–13, Goschen to Salisbury.
[162]. China, No. 1 (1896), p. 6, Conversation on October 18, 1897.
[163]. See Tokushu Jōyaku, pp. 274–275.
[164]. See Tokushu Jōyaku, pp. 274–275.
[165]. The Times, March 20, 1901, p. 5. This evidence, however, cannot for a moment be considered equivalent to the others which have been cited. Not only is it silent about the contents of the agreements, but also the “assent” of the Prince may be due to some misunderstanding. In the same article, Dr. Morrison goes on to say: “I have reason to believe that the original Russian draft promised China protection only against Japan, but was modified at the request of the Chinese to include protection against aggression by all foreign Powers. China invoked its provisions after Germany seized Kiao-chau, but Russia turned a deaf ear.” This statement is again as vague as the reported text of the treaty of alliance of 1896. It is to be regretted that the writer did not explicitly state his “reason.”
[166]. The North American Review for May, 1904, p. 683.
[167]. Tokushu Jōyaku, pp. 495–498 (a Japanese translation). The present writer is also in possession of the Chinese text. He is not aware that its European translation has ever been published. Its contents are found in Alexander Hosie, Manchuria, pp. 43–44.
[168]. The Manchurian provinces are called “the Chinese Eastern Three Provinces,” and hence the name of this railway and of the Company. It is essential to keep this line in mind apart from the Chinese Northern railway system referred to on pages 156–157.
[169]. “Of her own volition,” as Cassini added. See the North American Review for May, 1904, p. 683.