Senator JOHNSON of California. Does the possession of the harbor and of the economic rights that have been referred to give Japan practical control of the entire Province of Shantung?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; because it gives her the right to police the railroad, which she has already exercised by the appointing, not of ordinary police but of gendarmes, a part of her army organization. That scatters troops along the whole line of the railway for 256 miles. Senator JOHNSON of California. Can you tell us something about the economic resources of Shantung?

Mr. FERGUSON. The output of the three coal mines, one at Fangtsze, one at Hungshan, and one at Kin-ling-hsien, is about 1,000,000 tons of coal per annum. There are iron mines at Poshan, the possibilities of which have been variously estimated. A German engineer made a fairly low estimate of the possible output of them. They have not been developed. A Japanese expert engineer made a much higher estimate of the possible output of iron. There are also silicate deposits which are used in the manufacture of glass, a very old manufacture in that Province.

The cultivation of silk in the northern part of the Province is one of the great industries. For a very long time a large portion of the silk imported into the United States came from Chefoo. In the northwesterly part of the Province the cotton industry has been recently developed.

The Province is a very rich one, both agriculturally and in minerals. Senator JOHNSON of California. In comparison with other Provinces in China, what would you say of the productivity and richness in resources of the Province of Shantung?

Mr. FERGUSON. It is in the second class of China Provinces. The most productive Provinces are Kiangsu and Cheh-king. Then, I should say next to those two Provinces would come this Province of Shantung.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Are there any possibilities of commerce or trade in which the United States might be interested with Shantung Province ?

Mr. FERGUSON. The United States has very large commercial interests, in the sale of United States exports, and in the imports from that Province.

Senator JOHNSON of California. The distributing point being what? Mr. FERGUSON. Formerly the distributing point was entirely Chefoo, but after the German occupation of Kiaochow and the development of that harbor and the building of the railroad in 1904, a good many of the products were diverted to the port of Tsingtau.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Then, we have a material interest in Kiaochow and in the Province of Shantung?

Mr. FERGUSON. A very large interest; I should say, proportionately to other Provinces in China, a larger interest than the average interest of the United States in the Provinces of China.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you know whether or not the request was made by our Government of the Chinese Government to enter the war? I think the President testified to that yesterday, and your statement would be only cumulative.

Mr. FERGUSON. I might say that I was one of the persons who communicated that request on behalf of the minister to the Chinese Government, and was cognizant of the request and saw the request.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Will you state whether or not in pursuance of the request of the United States China did enter the war? Mr. FERGUSON. It was at the request and on the continual urging of the United States officials in Peking that China entered the war. Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you know whether or not any representations were made to China by the United States Government that the United States would safeguard Chinese interests at the peace conference?

Mr. FERGUSON. I never heard officially of any such statements, though I am cognizant of the fact that the United States promised China-that is within my own personal knowledge-promised to support China in her claim to being represented at the peace conference. There was doubt as to whether China would be given a seat in the peace conference previous to her entering into the war, and I know that the United States promised to use her best offices to secure a seat for China, even before she had entered the war, in view of this Kiaochow incident.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And when those representations were made, they were based upon the Chinese viewpoint that she wanted the Kiaochow matter determined at the peace conference? Mr. FERGUSON. At the peace conference and not by virtue of the treaty of 1915.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you know whether or not any of the Chinese in Shantung Province went to the war in any capacity? Mr. FERGUSON. Great Britain and France' both approached the Chinese Government early in 1915 for the purpose of recruiting laborers, and although China had not declared war against Germany her position relative to the Allies was well known, and the Allies were given permission openly to send officers into Shantung and other provinces to recruit Chinese laborers. As a result of that stations were established for the shipment of these laborers at Wei-hai-wei and at Tsingtao, and from those two stations about 175,000 Chinese laborers were sent via Canada and the Atlantic Ocean to France and England, where they dug trenches, worked in munition factories, and did many other forms of labor.

I might say that the work that was done by these Chinese laborers is well known to the Young Men's Christian Association organization of America, which organized a band of Chinese secretaties to work among those men, and they have the full details of what they did in France and England.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did a large part of those laborers come from the Province of Shantung?

Mr. FERGUSON. Practically all those that were recruited by the British Government came from the Shantung Province. About 20,000 of them went from a southern Province via the Suez Canal, but they were not as strong, able-bodied men as those from Shantung Province.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you know whether any of them were killed over there?

Mr. FERGUSON. A great many of them were killed; and I might say from my personal knowledge in crossing the Pacific with one boatload of them, consisting of 2,300 men, and talking with them, that they all hoped they were going into the war, and not simply to go there as laborers, and were anxious to be in the war.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Has Japan since 1914 secured any rights in addition to those which Germany had formerly in the Shantung Province ?

Mr. FERGUSON. Oh, yes; great rights.

Senator JOHNSON of California. State briefly and generally what they are.

Mr. FERGUSON. The 1915 treaty and notes referred to four geographical groups, of which Shantung was only one; and by that same treaty and by those same notes Japan acquired in Manchuria and eastern Inner Mongolia new rights of residence, rights of purchasing agricultural lands, rights to construct five railroads which I could indicate on the map if it was any benefit

Senator JOHNSON of California. It will not be necessary to do that. Mr. FERGUSON. Rights over six mining districts in Manchuria and three mining districts in the Province of Kirin, the right to connect the Kirin-Changchun Railway with the Korean border, the right to extend the railway westward into Chao-yang, the great mart of eastern Inner Mongolia, and greatly strengthening her claim upon Manchuria and eastern Mongolia. In one way those claims were extended most markedly by the extension of the lease of Port Arthur and Kiaochow for 99 years, the extension of the lease of the Southern Manchurian Railway for 99 years, and the extension of the Antung-Mukden Railway to 99 years, so that those leases do not expire until the twentyfirst century. She acquired in addition certain rights in the Yangtse Valley, chiefly those in reference to the Han-yeh-ping Iron & Steel Co., which she obtained the right to make a joint concern between Japanese and Chinese. Under this company is owned the Ta-yeh iron mine from which Japan obtains nearly all of her supply of iron ore for the use of her iron factories.

She obtained also the promise from China in reference to the Province of Fu-kien, opposite Formosa, that no docks or harbors should be leased to any power, or that China would not borrow money from any power for developing docks there but herself.

I might state that in reference to the railways which Japan acquired in Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia, they are nearly all strategic military railroads and not needed for present commercial purposes. Senator MOSES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Senator HITCHCOCK. We would like to ask the witness some more questions.

Senator HARDING. I think the testimony of this witness is interesting to all of the committee, and we would like to hear it.

Senator HITCHCOCK. The examination has been almost wholly on one side of the table.

Senator HARDING. I want to continue it to-morrow morinng. I move that we adjourn.

Whereupon (at 12 o'clock noon) the committee adjourned until Thursday, August 21, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1919.

UNITED STATES SENATE.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., in room 426 Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge presiding.

Present, Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Brandegee, Knox, Harding, Johnson, Moses, and Swanson.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN C. FERGUSON—Resumed.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Ferguson.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Senator McCumber have you some other questions you wish to ask?

Senator MCCUMBER. Nothing further now, Senator.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, before anything else is asked me I want to insert what Senator Hitchcock, I think it was, asked me about yesterday. I spoke from memory, and I have since consulted my authorities and found that my memory had not served me right in the matter, and I want to make it clear in my testimony if possible. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. FERGUSON. This is in regard to the convention between China and Germany respecting the lease of Kiaochow to Germany. I was asked yesterday as to whether or not it was definitely specified in that convention that Germany could not sublet the leased territory to any other power, and I said that according to my memory there was no provision in the treaty, but that I spoke simply from memory in the matter.

I have since looked up my records and find that under article 5 of section 1 of that treaty, which was translated and inserted in the British official treaty compilation, and also in the compilation made for our own Government by Mr. W. W. Rockhill and printed in the United States Government Printing Office in 1905, called "Treaties and Conventions with or Concerning China and Korea, 1894-1904, Washington, 1905 (U. S. Government Printing Office)," article 5 of section 1, in the second paragraph, states

Senator MCCUMBER. That is of what treaty? Will you state the year?

Mr. FERGUSON. That is of the treaty of March 6, 1898.
Senator MCCUMBER. Between China and Germany?

Mr. FERGUSON. Between China and Germany, respecting the lease of Kiaochow to Germany. It states:

Germany engages at no time to sublet the territory leased from China to another power.

I might state that in Mr. Rockhill's edition of the treaties he appends a footnote to the paragraph beginning "The Chinese Gov

ernment sanctions the construction of Germany," headed in the Rockhill translation "sections 2 and 3.' This is the footnote:

The following sections of the German-Chinese agreement of March 6, 1898, have never been made public by the German Government, but have been privately communicated to persons interested in the development of the protectorate. See Proceedings before the Budget Commission of the Reichstag April 29, 1898, in Brit. Blue Book, China No. 1 (1899), p. 67. See also Precis of these sections of the agreement, Brit. Blue Book, China No. 1 (1899) p. 152. The text as given here of these sections of the agreement is based on unofficial publications, but is, it is believed, substantially correct.

That is the whole of Mr. Rockhill's footnote. Senator BRANDEGEE. Excuse me. Was that publication that you speak of as having been printed in the Government Printing Office in 1905, with the title which you gave it, printed as an executive document or as a State Department paper?

Mr. FERGUSON. As a State Department paper, as I remember. I speak of that simply from memory.

Senator BRANDEGEE. It is easy to identify that, I think.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You read some provision there from Mr. Rockhill's statement, as I recall it, stating that China had objected to the German interpretation of the treaty?

Mr. FERGUSON. No, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Did you not read something about China not agreeing to an interpretation?

Mr. FERGUSON. No, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I have a memory that you said something about the German interpretation of the treaty, did you not?

Mr. FERGUSON. No, sír.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Then I am mistaken about that.

Mr. FERGUSON. I might say that the official text of the treaty, in German, was published by the Imperial Maritime Customs as volume 2 of "Treaties, Conventions, etc., between China and Foreign States." Senator BRANDEGEE. As of what date?

Mr. FERGUSON. In 1908. I have a photographic copy of the original convention in the German language and in Chinese, which I will hand over to the committee for any future reference, although it may not be, I suppose, convenient to incorporate it in my testimony. I will hand it over so that the committee will always have it.

I would say that in reference to this paragraph 2 of article 5, the provision in the German text of the treaty is

Deutschland verplichtet sich das von China gepachtete Gebiet niemals an andere Macht weiter zu verpachten.

A literal translation of these words would seem to be

Germany obligates itself never to extend farther the leasing process, as respects the territory leased from China, to any other State.

Senator MCCUMBER. That is substantially the same that he has given here.

Mr. FERGUSON. The expression "weiter zu verpachten" in the Rockhill translation, which is the English translation, is translated "sublease." Taking the literal meaning of the German words, however, this provision seems clearly to cut off all privilege of transfer of the territory, whether by assignment or sublease.