to leave Shanghai, as also of their inability or unwillingness to drive the Russians from the region on the west side of the Liao river.1 We are not sufficiently informed as to the facts in order to pass judgment upon all of these charges, but the sinking of a ves sel in Chinese waters by either belligerent would be a gross violation of Chinese neu trality for which ample apology or repara tion should at once have been made. The refusal of a Russian war vessel to leave a Chinese port at the request of the Chinese Government would be wholly unwarranted and would constitute a serious breach of Chinese neutrality. But these are questions which, even assuming the facts to be as re ported, might easily be settled without a re sort to arms. As to the inability of the Chinese to secure the evacuation by Russia of the region west of the Liao river, or to protect that region from a possible Japanese invasion, these are points which require a closer examination and a fuller discussion. There has been a considerable newspaper controversy in respect to the neutrality of that portion of Manchuria which lies west of the Liao river, and of the treaty-port of Niu-Chwang, an important strategic point east of the Liao river and one of tfie termini of the Northern China Railway system. It is in this region that China's neutrality has been "subjected to the severest strain and to the closest scrutiny and criticism," as a recent writer in the Contemporary Relien? predicted would be the case. This region, like the rest of Manchuria, was fully occupied by Russia in consequence of the Boxer uprising in 1900." On April 8, 1902, Russia agreed to a gradual evacuation of Manchuria within 1 The Russians on their side have suspected China of a willingness to aid the Japanese to land in this region. 1 See article on "The Neutrality of China" by D. C. Boulger in the Contemporary Review for April, 1904. 3 This region had. however, been practically, though not definitely, under Russian control since
eighteen months, and of this particular re gion within six months, although she re served to herself the right to guard the Russian railways. According to this treaty, Russia agreed to the "reëstablishment of Chinese authority in Manchuria," which was to remain "an integral part of the Chinese Empire," and also consented to "restore to China the right to exercise sovereign and administrative powers. * This arrangement, however, never seems to have been fully car ried out, owing, as Count Cassini says,5 to the "failure of China to furnish the required guarantees."0 China claims that this region is neutral and has included it in her declaration of neutral ity. Russia has, however, declined to re spect its neutrality, and has gone so far as to proclaim martial law at Niu-Chwang. She has re-occupied (?)7 this district and has forbidden China to station troops within its borders. Yet, on the other hand, she has shown a disposition to hold China responsi ble for the preservation of order in this territory and is said to have intimated that 1898, when China leased Port Arthur and the Kay of Ta-lien to Russia, and at the same time granted her a railway concession through Man churia from Siberia, including the right to garri son and govern the territory along the line. A similar railway concession in Northern Man churia had been obtained by Russia as earlv as 1896. 4 Art. I. of the treaty. See Current History (XII., pp.- 202ff) for June, 1902. 5 See article on "Russia in the Far East" by Count Cassini in North American Review for May, 1904. 6 A portion of the Russian army seems, in deed, to have been withdrawn, but the remainder were simply stationed at important places along the Manchurian railways. The Northern Chinese railway to Niu-Chwang was restored to China. In September, 1903, Russia undertook to restore Niu-Chwang and to evacuate Mukden on Oct. 8, 1903. but this never seems to have been done: for, on Dec. 28, 1004. the Russian Minister at Peking informed the Chinese Foreign Office that "no further steps towards evacuation can be undertaken at present." See Statesman's Year Book for 1004, p. 516. 7 The question mark indicates a doubt as to whether it had ever been really and wholly evacuated.
