States, and are also in the nature of agreements for the maintenance of the status quô. The Anglo-Japanese Treaty of August 12, 1905, in setting out its objects as follows: “(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and India; "(b) The preservation of the common interests of the Powers in China, of insuring the independence and the integrity of the Chinese Empire, and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China; "(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Contracting Parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India, and the defence of their special interests in such regions," is a treaty for the maintenance of the status quô in certain parts of Asia, in which the parties to it have dominant interests. The same principle underlies different other self-denying arrangements and declarations made by the Powers with reference to Chinese integrity. The Treaty of Algeciras is essentially a generalisation of the Franco-German agreement of September 28, 1905, by which all the Powers represented agree to respect the territorial integrity of Morocco, subject to a possible intervention limited to the purpose of preserving order within it. The Conference and Treaty are of the greatest value for international stability as an acknowledgment by the Great Powers of the common rights of all States, great and small without distinction, in the available markets of the world, an assertion of the principle that they cannot be closed for the benefit of any single nation. With these precedents and current instances of tendency to place the territorial relations of the Powers on a permanent footing of respect for the existing status quô, it seems possible for an International Conference to go beyond the mere enunciation of principles, and to take a step towards their practical realisation, by agreeing to respect the territorial status quô throughout the world during a period of years. Such an agreement would necessarily be coupled with a provision for the calling together of the Powers at the instance of any Power whom circumstances compelled to interfere with it, and for arbitration, in accordance with the Rules laid down in the Treaty on any question of its construction (interpretation), or on any details of carrying out its provisions.1 1 See suggested form of treaty on the subject, p. 153. XXII PRINCIPLE OF THE "OPEN-DOOR" THE discussion on the question of the "open-door" in connection with the Morocco difficulty, has been useful in calling general public attention once more to the undesirability of allowing any single Power to exclude other nations from trading on territory, over which it may be called to exercise a protectorate, especially if equality of treatment of foreign trade was practised by the authority ruling over the territory in question before the practical annexation which goes by the name of protectorate. The habitable parts of the world are a limited area, exclusion from any of which is a diminution of the available markets of the nations excluded. Every Power is, therefore, rightfully interested in the prevention of such exclusion. The United States Government in 1899 called attention to the subject as regards China, without, be it said however, going into any question of principle. In a communication to the Foreign Office, dated September 22, 1899, Mr. Choate reminded Lord Salisbury that the British Government, while conceding to Germany and Russia the possession of "spheres of influence or interest" in China, in which they were to enjoy special rights and privileges, particularly in respect of railroads and mining enterprises, had at the same. time sought to maintain the "open-door" policy, that is, to secure to the trade and navigation of all nations equality of treatment within such "spheres." The maintenance of this policy, Mr. Choate said, was equally desired by the United States Government. Though the latter would not commit itself to the recognition of any exclusive rights of any Power within, or control over, any portion of the Chinese Empire under such agreements as had been made, it could not conceal its apprehension that difficulties might arise between the Treaty Powers, imperilling the rights secured to the United States by its Treaties with China. His Government thought that danger of international irritation might be removed by declarations being made by each Power claiming a "sphere of interest" in China, in some form to this effect:: "1. That it will in no wise interfere with any Treaty port or any vested interest within any so-called 'sphere of interest' or leased territory it may have in China. "2. That the Chinese Treaty Tariff for the time being shall apply to all merchandise landed or shipped to all such ports as are within such 'sphere of interest' (unless they be free ports), no matter to what nationality it may belong, and that duties so leviable shall be collected by the Chinese Govern ment. "3. That it will levy no higher harbour dues from another nationality, frequenting any port in such 'sphere,' than shall be levied on vessels of its own nationality-and no higher railroad charges over lines built, controlled, or operated within its 'sphere' on merchandise, belonging to citizens or subjects of other nationalities, transported through such spheres, than shall be levied on similar merchandise belonging to its own nationals transported over equal distances." There was strong reason, Mr. Choate continued, to believe that the Governments of Russia and Germany would co-operate in such an understanding. Under a recent Ukase the Emperor of Russia had declared the port of Talienwan open to the merchant ships of all nations during the whole term of the lease under which it was to be held by Russia, and Germany had declared Kiao-Chao a "free port." On September 29, 1899, Lord Salisbury replied that the policy consistently advocated by Great Britain was one of securing equal opportunity for the subjects or citizens of all nations in regard to commercial enterprise in China, and that from this policy H.M. Government had no intention or desire to depart. On November 30, 1899, Lord Salisbury informed Mr. Choate that H.M. Government were prepared to make a declaration in the sense desired by the United States Government "in regard to the leased territory at Wei-hai-Wei and all territory in "Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Imperial German Government, being desirous to maintain their interests in China and their rights under existing Treaties, have agreed to observe the following principles in regard to their mutual policy in China : "1. It is a matter of joint and permanent international interest that the ports on the rivers and littoral of China should remain free and open to trade and to every other legitimate form of economic activity for the nationals of all countries without distinction; and the two Governments agree on their part to uphold the same for all Chinese territory as far as they can exercise influence. "2. Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Imperial German Government will not, on their part, make use of the present complication to obtain for themselves any territorial advantages in Chinese dominions, and will direct their policy towards maintaining undiminished the territorial condition of the Chinese Empire. "3. In case of another Power making use of the complications in China in order to obtain under any form whatever such territorial advantages, the two Contracting Parties reserve to themselves to come to a preliminary understanding as to the eventual steps to be taken for the protection of their own interests in China. "4. The two Governments will communicate this agreement to the other Powers interested, and especially to Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States of America, and will invite them to accept the principles recorded in it." This agreement was simultaneously communicated by the British and German Governments to the Powers mentioned in Clause 4. The principles "recorded in it" were duly accepted by them all. The "open-door" question was brought up again in connection with Morocco. Under Article IV. of the joint declaration |