The Japanese claim is based on the Treaty Respecting South
Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia signed in May, 1915, article
5 of which provides that civil and criminal cases in which the
defendants are Japanese shall be tried and adjudicated by the
Japanese consul.
The Chinese view is that this article is inapplicable to Koreans
in this region and that the Tumen Kiang Agreement continues in
force. This view is based on a saving clause in article 8 of the
Treaty of 1915 which says that "all existing treaties between
China and Japan relating to Manchuria shall, except where
otherwise provided for by treaty, remain in force."
In the first place, the origin of the Tumen Kiang Agreement
supports this view. When the Japanese assumed suzerainty over
Korea they raised certain questions as to the boundary between
China and Korea. There were also outstanding several questions
regarding railways and mines between China and Japan. Japan
insisted that the boundary question and the railway and mining
questions be settled at the same time. As a result, two agreements
were concluded in 1909 one respecting the boundary question, the
Tumen Kiang Agreement, and the other respecting railways and mines
whereby Japan obtained many new and valuable privileges and
concessions, such as the extension of the Kirin-Changchun Railway
to the Korean frontier, the option on the Hsinminfu-Fakumen line,
and the working of the Fushun and Yentai mines, while in return
China obtained a bare recognition of existing rights, namely the
boundary between China and Korea and the jurisdiction over the
Koreans in the Yenchi region.
Pages:
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603