and also in respect of foreign ships. For example, article 21 of the British treaty of 1858 provides that, "if Chinese offenders take refuge in the houses or on board the vessels of British subjects at the open ports, they shall not be harboured or concealed, but shall be delivered up on due requisition by the Chinese authorities addressed to the British consul." Article 24 of the Japanese treaty of 1896 is even more extensive. It provides that, if Chinese subjects in China who have committed offences or have failed to discharge debts and fraudulently abscond should take refuge in houses occupied by Japanese subjects in China or on board of Japanese ships in Chinese waters, they shall be delivered up at the request of the Chinese authorities made to the Japanese authorities."

As a consequence, the practice has grown up that the consul of the foreigner concerned or the foreigner himself is to be informed beforehand if a Chinese is to be delivered to the Chinese authorities.

The treaty of 1858 between China and France provides a further condition that proof of the guilt of the person to be arrested is required (sur la preuve de la culpabilité des prévenus") (Art. 32).

VI.-Issue of Foreign Nationality Certificates to Chinese Citizens.

It has not infrequently happened that foreign nationality papers have been issued by foreign consular officers in China to Chinese citizens, with the result that the latter, whenever they find it convenient to seek foreign protection, have claimed exemption from Chinese jurisdiction upon the production of such nationality papers.

Similar to this practice is that of registration of Chinese ships and companies at the foreign consulates. On the strength of such registration it has been claimed that ships and companies so registered are not subject to Chinese jurisdiction.

The extension of extra-territorial rights to Chinese citizens, ships and companies has given rise to complications and misunderstandings between Chinese and foreigners. It is questionable whether such practices were originally within the contemplation of the extra-territorial clauses in the treaties.

VII.-Claim of Foreigners to Exemption from Taxation.

In recent years, when the Chinese Government introduced a new fiscal régime and endeavoured to enforce its revenue laws, foreigners in China declined to fulfil their fiscal obligations on various pretexts, one of which relates to the interpretation of certain treaty stipulations.

It is to be noted that in no treaty between China and foreign countries is there to be found any provision which expressly confers on foreigners an exemption from taxation.

The right of taxation is an inherent right of every State, and this right can from time to time be exercised in accordance with the economic and social needs of the country.

The attitude of foreigners in this regard has unfortunately encouraged Chinese residents in the settlements and railway zones to evade payment of Government taxes. Repeated efforts have been made by the Chinese Government to put an end to this state of things, but without avail. Consequently, the Chinese Government has been compelled to establish provisional barriers around the settlements and railway zones for the collection of taxes and duties. Such an anomalous situation is detrimental to the administrative authority of the Chinese Government.

VIII.-Special Areas.

(a.) Foreign Settlements.

Under the treaties, special areas are reserved in the open ports for foreign residence and trade. These are known either as concessions or as settlements.

In both the concessions and settlements administrative agencies in the form of municipal councils are permitted to function for police purposes, sanitation, making of roads and drawing up of building regulations, &c. There is a Chinese element in the membership of some of these municipal councils, but as a rule the controlling power remains in the hands of foreigners.

In disregard of the formal declarations of the foreign Powers, the Chinese residents, notably in one of the settlements, have even now been denied representation on the municipal council, notwithstanding the fact that they contribute the greater portion of the rates and taxes for the maintenance of the local government.

In the ports which have been opened to foreign trade on the initiative of the Chinese Government, independent of any treaty, or in the ex-concessions which have been restored to China, the power of control and administration remains with the Chinese authorities.

Although China's residuary rights of sovereignty over the concessions and settlements are admitted, both expressly in the treaties and tacitly by the payment of the usual land tax to the Chinese Government in respect of the landed property held therein, the establishment of special areas removed from the control of the territorial sovereign is an impairment of China's sovereignty. The administrative and police functions exercised by the foreign municipalities diminish pro tanto the administrative integrity of China.

(b.) Leased Territories.

In 1898 China was compelled to lease various territories to several Powers for definite periods. Details of these leases are well known to the world, and there is no need to describe them here. The territories so leased are Port Arthur, Dairen, Weihaiwei, Kwangchow-wan and Kowloon.

Inasmuch as the territorial sovereign has been obliged to waive his right of control and administration therein, such waiver diminishes pro tanto his right of dominion over portions of his own territory.

In more than one instance have these areas been made the base of hostile operations or even the scene of hostilities in which the territorial sovereign had to play the difficult rôle of a neutral.

For all practical purposes such areas are treated by the lessee States as their own territories, and their courts exercise complete jurisdiction over all persons therein, irrespective of nationality.

(c.) The Legation Quarter at Peking.

By the Final Protocol of 1901, the quarter occupied by the foreign Legations at Peking has been "specially reserved for their use and placed under their exclusive control, in which the Chinese shall not have the right to reside and which may be made defensible." The same protocol recognises the right of each of the foreign signatory Powers "to maintain a permanent guard in the said quarter for the defence of its Legation.'

This area is administered by a commission composed of members of the Legations, which levies taxes for the maintenance of roads and bridges, and for the employment of police. There are various regulations in force which restrict the liberties of Chinese who pass through the quarter, thus making the area practically foreign territory.

(d.) Railway Zones.

The subject of railway zones needs a brief historical explanation. Under an agreement dated the 8th September, 1896, made between China and Russia, a concession for the construction and operation of the railway now known as the Chinese Eastern Railway was granted by the Chinese Government to the Russo-Chinese Bank. Section V of the said agreement provides that "the Chinese Government will take all measures to assure the safety of the railway and of the persons in its service against any attack . . . . criminal cases, law suits, &c., upon the territory of the railway must be settled by the local authorities in accordance with the stipulations of the treaties." Section VI provides that the lands actually necessary for the construction, operation and protection of the line, as also the lands in the vicinity of the line necessary for procuring sand, &c., will be turned over to the company freely, and that the company will have the absolute and exclusive right of administration of its lands (la société aura le droit absolu et exclusif de l'administration de ses terrains"). The Russian Government proceeded to establish railway guards, and exercised political jurisdiction over all persons within the railway zones, contending that this action was justified by an interpretation of the term "absolute and exclusive right of administration."

In a treaty dated the 22nd December, 1905, made between China and Japan, the Chinese Government consented to all the transfers and assignments made by Russia to Japan by articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905, and the Imperial Japanese Government agreed that in regard to the leased territory, as well as in the matter of railway construction and exploitation, they would, as far

as circumstances permitted, act in conformity with the original agreements between China and Russia, and that should any question arise later with regard to these matters, the Japanese Government would decide it in consultation with the Chinese Government. In this way the railway zone in South Manchuria arose.

Under the supplementary agreement made on the same date (22nd December, 1905) between China and Japan, the Chinese Government agreed "to the military railway constructed between Antung and Mukden being transformed into a line for the transmission of merchandise of all nationals and conducted by the Japanese Government.'

At present, lands along these lines have been purchased by the railway companies concerned, and within the zone of the AntungMukden Railway, political jurisdiction similar to that existing in the railway zone in South Manchuria is exercised by the Japanese Government.

In addition to the political jurisdiction in the railway zones, the Japanese Government maintains police forces at numerous points in the provinces of Fengtien and Kirin.

March 23, 1926.

Additional Memorandum of the Chinese Commissioner on the Present Practice of Extra-territorial Jurisdiction in China.

(Presented to Commission, April 28, 1926.)

THE memorandum presented by the Chinese commissioner at the meeting of the 23rd March enumerates eight subjects for the consideration of the commission. After some discussion at a subsequent meeting it was unanimously decided that items I to IV should be included in the investigation. As regards the remaining subjects V to VIII, the opinion of the commission was not unanimous. With the exception of one or two of its members, the idea of the commission was that items V to VII might form the subject of investigation, but the majority of the commissioners appeared to regard item VIII as beyond the scope of the enquiry.

At this subsequent meeting the Chinese commissioner asked leave to bring forward supplementary observations on any of the eight subjects listed in his memorandum. There being unanimity of opinion concerning the competence of the commission in regard to subjects I to IV, the Chinese commissioner now avails himself of the opportunity to amplify his memorandum with reference to items V to VIII.

Objection has been taken to the inclusion of items V to VIII because they are of a political or diplomatic, and not of a juridical character, and should therefore be discussed by diplomatic means. In the opinion of the Chinese commissioner, the very subject now under discussion, namely, extra-territorial jurisdiction. is, in the nature of things, of a politico-juridical character. A hard-and-fast

distinction between these two aspects is not easy to maintain, and an undue insistence upon either of these aspects to the exclusion of the other would leave many of the problems connected with extraterritoriality unsolved. In view of the fact that the report and recommendations of this commission are not binding upon any of the Governments concerned, it is submitted that an impartial study of the different aspects of the problem before the commission would materially assist the respective Governments in readjusting their treaty relations with China.

Proceeding from these general observations, the Chinese commissioner will now take up the consideration of subjects V to VIII:

V. Quasi Right of Asylum in Premises Occupied by Foreigners and on Foreign Ships.

According to international law, the right of asylum can be claimed only by foreign Legations and by warships in the territorial waters of a given State. Although the fiction that confers extraterritoriality on Legations and warships is too well known to require any comment, it is worthy of note that the modern tendency is to limit the exercise of this privilege. According to Hall, it has been completely established in Europe that the house of a diplomatic agent gives no protection either to ordinary criminals or persons accused of crimes against the State." It is not suggested here that the right of granting asylum to Chinese is expressly claimed by foreigners in respect of the premises they occupy or of vessels they own, still less that such right has been conceded to them under any treaty provisions; but according to existing treaty stipulations the practice is to inform the consul of the foreigner concerned or the foreigner himself before a Chinese who has taken refuge in the premises or ship of the said foreigner can be handed over to the Chinese authorities. This practice virtually confers on such premises or vessel what, for want of a better term, is called here a "quasi right of asylum," a practice which seriously impedes the full exercise of jurisdictional rights by the territorial sovereign.

In the opinion of the Chinese commissioner, this is a fit subject for the commission to consider, inasmuch as this so-called " quasi right of asylum" is so closely related to the question of jurisdiction that an enquiry into the latter cannot be said to be complete without an enquiry into the former.

VI.-Issue of Foreign Nationality Certificates to Chinese Citizens.

Naturalisation, being an act of sovereignty, can be effected only by those duly authorised by the State for such purpose. It is open to question how far the consuls of the treaty Powers are justified by their domestic laws in granting certificates of citizenship to aliens.

Every certificate issued by a foreign consul to a Chinese citizen. means the possible withdrawal of one person from the jurisdiction of the Chinese courts. The motive of those applying for such certificates is, generally speaking, the evasion of Chinese jurisdiction,