See _China, No. 1 (1898)_, Nos. 13, 38, 26, 43, 111, 113, 115, 117, 121; _China, No. 2 (1899)_, Nos. 2, 9, 10, 52, 65; _China, No. 1 (1900)_, No. 321. Footnote 158: _China, No. 2 (1899)_, No. 138. Footnote 159: _China, No. 1 (1900)_, No. 148. Footnote 160: _Ibid._, pp. 112, 116, 120, 132, 160, 180, 214–215. Footnote 161: _China, No. 1 (1898)_, Dispatch No. 37, pp. 12–13, Goschen to Salisbury. Footnote 162: _China, No. 1 (1896)_, p. 6, Conversation on October 18, 1897. Footnote 163: See _Tokushu Jōyaku_, pp. 274–275. Footnote 164: See _Tokushu Jōyaku_, pp. 274–275. Footnote 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.” Footnote 166: The _North American Review_ for May, 1904, p. 683. Footnote 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. Footnote 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. Footnote 169: “Of her own volition,” as Cassini added. See the _North American Review_ for May, 1904, p. 683. Footnote 170: According to Art. 12, these 5,000,000 _taels_ were to be returned to the Chinese Government as soon as the line was in running order. It will be remembered that the government was responsible for the contribution of an equal amount of money to the capital of the Russo-Chinese Bank. It is probable that the money has been transferred from the Company to the Bank, so as to make it pay two bills, the one after the other. It has already been reported that the money was originally paid out of the Russo-French loan of 1895. If this report is true, the whole arrangement may be characterized as extremely clever on the part of Russia. Cf. p. 84, note 4, above. Footnote 171: