Chapter XXIII: The Attitude of the Tibetans Since 1904 (2)

The Viceroy sent instructions to the authorities at Darjiling to show him every courtesy on his arrival there, about the 27th, but to treat his visit as private. The effect of the flight of the Lama and his Ministers, not only in Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, but also on Indian opinion, would, Lord Minto said, be profound, for in all these countries he was regarded with veneration and awe. He thought it of the first importance, therefore, to treat the Dalai Lama with high consideration.

At Darjiling, on March 3, Mr. Bell, the Political Officer in Sikkim, had an interview with him. The Lama rose from his seat to receive Mr. Bell, and shook hands with him. He asked him to telegraph and thank the Viceroy for the arrangements for the comfort of himself and his party. Then, when he had dismissed his attendants and given an account of his flight and his reasons for leaving Lhasa, he told Mr. Bell that when Ugyen Kazi, the Bhutan agent, had presented him with Lord Curzon’s letter, before the time of the Mission, he would not receive it, since he had agreed with the Chinese to conduct his foreign affairs through Chinese intermediaries only. In like manner, when I had written to him in the course of the Tibet Mission, the Chinese refused to let him send a reply. Now the Chinese had broken their promises, as already related, and he had come to India for the purpose of asking the help of the British against the Chinese. He stated that unless the British Government intervened, China would occupy Tibet and oppress it, would destroy the Buddhist religion there and the Tibetan Government, and would govern the country by Chinese officials. Eventually, he added, her power would be extended to India: there were already 2,000 Chinese troops in Lhasa and its neighbourhood, others were following, and it was not for Tibet alone that so large a number of troops were required.

This statement of the Dalai Lama’s was borne out by information received from Gyantse, which said that 2,000 Chinese troops from Chiamdo had arrived at Lhasa in February, and that the Tsarong Sha-pé (the General who had met Mr. White and me at Khamba Jong, and who afterwards, raised to the position of Councillor, was one of those who negotiated the Treaty) was the only high Tibetan official left in Lhasa, and had to obtain the Resident’s permission for all his acts. The Gyantse report added that the chief opponent of the Tibetans was the Resident Len, who, according to the common talk of Lhasa, desired to take the entire administration into his own hands, and was very suspicious of British influence in Tibet. The Tibetans believed that the first thing he would do if the Ministers returned would be to cut their heads off and force the Dalai Lama to give him the power. Chinese soldiers had been posted on each side of the Brahmaputra at Chaksam to prevent any Tibetan crossing without a pass signed by the Resident.

Later information received from the Ministers showed that whereas the normal Chinese garrison of Lhasa and surrounding country was only 500, there were now altogether 3,400 Chinese soldiers there—viz., 2,400 in Lhasa; 500 at Gyamda, ten days’ journey east of Lhasa; and 500 at Lharigo, fourteen days’ march north-east of Lhasa. The Ministers also stated that the intention of dismissing the Ministers who accompanied the Dalai Lama to India had been announced by Amban Len. The Dalai Lama’s palace near Lhasa, known as Norbaling, was stated to have been taken possession of by Chinese soldiers, who were endeavouring to construct barracks capable of holding 1,000 Chinese troops at Lhasa.

Besides this, the Minister reported that Chinese police were being posted throughout the country by the Amban, and where Tibetan police existed they were being dismissed. The Amban had removed thirty good rifles from the Tibetan armoury, had closed the Tibetan arsenal and Tibetan mint, and proposed the confiscation of all rifles throughout the country in the possession of Tibetans. The Regent had been forbidden by him to perform his religious duties, the Amban saying another Lama would be chosen for this purpose. The Amban had broken open the sealed doors of the Dalai Lama’s palace at Norbaling, near Lhasa, was taking steps to deprive the Ministers who accompanied Dalai Lama to Darjiling of their appointments, and had posted soldiers in most of their houses.

From Darjiling the Dalai Lama proceeded to Calcutta, where, on March 14, after an exchange of formal visits, he had a private interview with the Viceroy. He expressed his reliance on the British Government and his gratitude for their hospitality. The difficulties between Tibet and Britain in 1888 and 1903 had been caused by China. The promises of the Emperor and Dowager Empress had been disregarded by the Amban, who had clearly shown that he would leave the Tibetans no power. He appealed to us to secure the observance of the right which the Tibetans had of dealing direct with the British. But he further desired the withdrawal of Chinese influence, so that his position might be that of the fifth Dalai Lama who had conducted negotiations, as the ruler of a friendly State, with the Emperor. There should also be withdrawal of Chinese troops. The Treaties of 1890 and 1906, to which they were not parties, Could not be recognized by the Tibetans. He was cut off from communication with the Regent whom he had left at Lhasa, although he and his Ministers were the Government of Tibet, and had the seals of office. All travellers were stopped and searched by the Chinese, and, unless sent secretly, no official letters got through. He had received some private letters. He would not return to Lhasa unless this matter was settled satisfactorily. What his eventual destination would be he could not say; he wished to return to Darjiling for the present. After the violation of the promises which the Dowager Empress gave him, he would not trust the Peking Government’s written assurance. Intrigue on his part against the Chinese he denied. The Amban was altogether hostile, and a hostile policy had been adopted by the Chinese. He repeated his statement that the Chinese had designs on Sikkim, Bhutan, and Nepal. So far as Tibet was concerned, there was no need for the large force of 2,700 troops which, according to his information, the Chinese had in and round Lhasa. The Lama also gave his account of his relations with Dorjieff, who, he said, was a purely spiritual adviser, and of the treatment of the letter from Lord Curzon. He inquired, at the conclusion of the interview, how his appeal was answered. In reply Lord Minto said that at present he could give no reply at all, but that he was very glad to make his acquaintance, to extend hospitality, and to hear his views, which would be placed before His Majesty’s Government. The Dalai Lama again thanked Lord Minto warmly for his hospitality and took his leave.

On the return of the Dalai Lama and his Ministers to Darjiling further representations were made by the latter to Mr. Bell. They said that the only offence of themselves and the Tibetan people was the struggle to maintain the freedom of their country, and they asked[58] that a British officer might be sent to Lhasa or Gyantse to inquire into Chinese conduct, and that “an alliance under which each party should help the other on the same terms as the arrangement which they said exists between the Government of India and Nepal might be concluded by the Government of India with Tibet.”

A few days later, on April 18, they requested[59] that the aggression of the Chinese might be stopped while discussion between the British and Chinese Governments was in progress, and that permission to communicate with their deputies at Lhasa might be given to the Tibetan Government in Darjiling. Failing this, they requested the despatch to Lhasa of British officers with soldiers to inquire into and discuss the present condition of affairs with the Chinese.

Was there ever a more tragic reversal of an old position? Warren Hastings, Bogle, Turner, Lord Curzon, and we in 1904, all trying to induce the Tibetans to be ordinarily civil! And now the Grand Lama and his entire Government come to _us_, come to beg us to uphold their _right_ of communicating direct with us, and to send British officers—and not merely officers, but soldiers—to Lhasa, and to form an alliance. In all history there can hardly be a case of a more dramatic turning of the tables. Yet, when all we had been striving after for a century and a half was now being pressed upon us, we informed the Dalai Lama we were precluded from interfering. When the Tibetans did not want us we fought our way to Lhasa to insist upon their having us; when they did want us, and had come all the way from Lhasa to get us, we turned them the most frigid of shoulders.

The reason for this attitude was said to be[60] that the Anglo-Tibetan and Anglo-Chinese Convention specially precluded us from interfering in the internal administration of the country. But if the Tibetan Government themselves wished a change, there was no reason why the first objection should hold; and if the latter was the obstacle, it is inconceivable why we ourselves should have made it, and thus in yet one other way tied our own hands. It was because the Chinese had so grossly mismanaged Tibetan affairs that the Indian Government had to undertake two expeditions on the Tibetan frontier. And we must have taken some unfortunate step if, when the Chinese were again mismanaging Tibet, we were precluded by an engagement with them from taking what action we liked to keep this frontier quiet.

We were, however, not altogether inactive. On January 31, 1910, the Government of India, when they had first heard through the official sent by the Dalai Lama to our agent at Gyantse that the Chinese were advancing into Tibet, had suggested[61] that a representation should be made at Peking pointing out that disorder on our frontier could not be viewed by us with indifference, resulting as it possibly might in the _status quo_ being entirely changed, and in conditions being set up wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our agreements with Tibet and China, agreements by which the continuance of a Tibetan Government was recognized. The Chinese Government might also be told, they considered, that we should be compelled in self-defence to strengthen our escorts at Yatung and Gyantse if unsettlement of the country continued, though assurance might at the same time be given to both China and Russia that the maintenance of the _status quo_ under the Treaties and Trade Regulations was all that we desired.

There was nine days’ delay—perhaps due to the General Election—in considering this telegram in the India Office, and during those fateful days events were advancing apace at Lhasa. But on February 9, the day when the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Associate Resident were consulting together in the Potala, Lord Morley informed[62] Sir Edward Grey that he would be glad if he would see fit to address the Chinese Government in the sense suggested by the Indian Government.

Sir Edward Grey fully appreciated[63] the serious complications which might arise upon the Indian frontier as the result of an attempt on the part of the Chinese to deprive the Tibetans of their local autonomy, but before deciding on the course to be adopted he thought it desirable to ascertain the views of Sir John Jordan, who was accordingly telegraphed to in this sense on February 11, the day before the Dalai Lama fled from Lhasa.

Sir John Jordan, one of the best Ministers we have had in Peking, had unfortunately to leave Peking at this time, and since the reply of the Chargé d’Affaires, Mr. Max Müller, was received the situation had so altered that the terms in which the Chinese were to be addressed had to be reconsidered. It was true, said Lord Morley, in addressing the Foreign Office, that, in view both of our Treaty relations with China and Russia and of the history of our past policy in regard to Tibet, the position of Great Britain is somewhat delicate, and that it is difficult for us to make an effective protest. But he was strongly of opinion that it should be pointed out emphatically to the Chinese Government (1) that Great Britain, while disclaiming any desire to interfere in the internal administration of Tibet, cannot be indifferent to disturbances of the peace in a country which is both our neighbour and is on intimate terms with other neighbouring States upon our frontier, and especially with Nepal, whom we could not prevent from taking such steps to protect her interests as she might think necessary in the circumstances; (2) that, in view of our Treaty relations with both Tibet and China, His Majesty’s Government had the right to expect that the Chinese Government would at least have tendered friendly explanations before embarking on a policy which, in the absence of such explanations, could not but appear intended to subvert the political conditions set up by the Anglo-Tibetan Convention and confirmed by the Anglo-Chinese Convention; and (3) that His Majesty’s Government must claim that, whatever the intentions of the Chinese Government might be as regards the future of Tibet, an effective Tibetan Government should be maintained, with whom we could, when necessary, treat in the manner provided by those two Conventions.

Sir Edward Grey concurred in Lord Morley’s views, and directed Mr. Max Müller on February 23 to make a representation to the Chinese Government in the above sense. In reply to this, Liang-tun-yen, the President of the Wai-wu-pu, informed Mr. Max Müller on February 25 that the force despatched to Lhasa consisted of not more than 2,000 men, under a Brigadier, but not under Chao Erh Feng, who was apparently still at Chiamdo. He wished to assure the British Government that the Chinese intentions were merely to enable the country to be policed and more effective control than formerly to be exercised, particularly in regard to Tibet’s obligations to neighbouring States. The Chinese desired no modification of the _status quo_, and no alteration in any way of internal administration. It had not been their intention that the Dalai Lama should be deprived of his power, and repeated messages to that effect had been sent him. His title had already been taken from him in 1904, and subsequently restored to him. He would now be punished personally by deposition and by a new Dalai Lama being appointed; but unless unforeseen circumstances rendered such a course necessary, no further aggressive action in Tibet was contemplated.

On returning home from his interview Mr. Max Müller found a note from the Chinese Government communicating the terms of an Imperial Edict issued that morning deposing the Dalai Lama and giving instructions for the election of a successor. This note said that “the Dalai Lama had flown from Tibetan territory in the night of February 12; he [the Resident at Lhasa] knew not whither, but that officers had been sent in all directions to follow him up, attend upon him, and protect him.”

The Imperial Decree said that the Dalai Lama had been the recipient of Imperial favour and abounding kindness, but that since he assumed control of the administration he had been proud, extravagant, lewd, and slothful beyond parallel, and vice and perversity such as his had never before been witnessed. Moreover, he had been violent and disorderly, had dared to disobey the Imperial commands, had oppressed the Tibetans, and precipitated hostilities. In July, 1904, he had fled during the disorders, and was denounced by the Imperial Resident in Tibet as of uncertain reputation, and a Decree was issued depriving him temporarily of his title. When he came to Peking he was received in audience, given an addition to his title, and presented with numerous gifts. Every indulgence was shown to him in order to manifest the Emperor’s compassion. The past was forgiven in the hope of a better future, and the Emperor’s intention was generous in the extreme. The present entry of Szechuan troops into Tibet was specially for the preservation of order and the protection of the trade-marts, and the Tibetans should not have been suspicious because of it; but the aforesaid Dalai, after his return to Tibet, spread reports and became rebellious, defamed the Resident, and stopped supplies to Chinese officers. Numerous efforts were made to bring him to reason, but he would not listen; and when Lien-yü telegraphed that, on the arrival of the Szechuan troops in Lhasa, the Dalai Lama, without reporting his intention, had fled during the night of February 12, and that his whereabouts were unknown, the Emperor commanded the Resident to take steps to bring him back and make satisfactory arrangements for him. The aforesaid Dalai Lama had been guilty of treachery over and over again, and had placed himself outside the pale of the Imperial bounty. To his superiors he had shown ingratitude, and he had failed to respond to the expectations of the people below him. He was not a fit head of the saints.

He was, therefore, to be deprived of the title of Dalai Lama as a punishment, and to be treated as an ordinary person, and the Resident in Tibet was to at once institute a search for a number of male children bearing miraculous signs, to inscribe their names on tablets, and, according to precedent, place them in the golden urn, from which one should be drawn as the true re-embodiment of the previous generations of Dalai Lamas.

In a written communication to the British Minister, dated February 27, the Chinese confirmed their verbal reply. They were sending troops “to tranquillize the country and protect the trade-marts.” The troops which were entering Tibet were “in no way different from a police force,” and were to protect the trade-marts and “see that the Tibetans conformed to the treaties.” “But the Dalai Lama does nothing but run away on one pretext or another,” continued the note “and must really be considered to have renounced his position voluntarily.” But “under no circumstances would the dismissal or retention of a Dalai Lama be used to alter the political situation in any way.”

In a further interview which Mr. Max Müller had with the Chinese Grand Councillor, Natung, on March 5, the Chinese position was again stated. He showed, by sketching his career, how impossible it was to place any confidence in the Dalai Lama. Ever since the Lama assumed direction of affairs in 1895 he had been a constant source of trouble to China, and our expedition in 1904 was the result of his intrigues and wild disregard of Treaty obligations. On that occasion he had fled from Tibet without permission, but all along he had been treated with consideration, and his insubordination borne with, by the Chinese Government; the latter had, however, been compelled to depose him and appoint another, owing to his proceedings since his return to Lhasa territory and his flight from Lhasa without just cause. On Mr. Max Müller asking for definite instances of insubordinate conduct, Natung said that although, on the Lama’s arrival, the Amban had gone to meet him, yet the former, during the fifty days he was in Lhasa, had refused to see the Amban again to discuss matters amicably; had prevented the Amban and his escort from obtaining the usual supplies, and by refusing transport according to regulations had endeavoured to cut communications with China. Bodies of Tibetans had impeded the march of the troops from the first, and finally the supplies collected for the Chinese troops were burnt, although it had been carefully explained to the Dalai Lama that the troops were coming as police and to protect trade-marts, and that no alteration whatever in the internal administration or interference with the Church was in contemplation. On Mr. Max Müller telling Natung of the incidents reported to have occurred in Lhasa at the time of the flight of the Dalai Lama, he said that no such information had reached the Chinese Government; he would not assert that no incidents had accompanied the entry of the Chinese troops, but, seeing that the strictest orders to the contrary had been given to the troops, he could not credit statements as to the unprovoked attacks on Tibetans. It was not true, moreover, that there had been any diminution of position or power of the Dalai Lama, and he could not believe that a promise that only 1,000 troops would came to Lhasa had been made by the Amban; without the Chinese Government’s authorization, which had not been given, such a promise could not be made.

Natung emphatically stated that newspaper reports as to the proposal by the Viceroy and Chao Erh-feng for conversion of Tibet into a province of China were without a shadow of foundation. His Excellency said that the Chinese Government entertained no thoughts of such a course, which would be a contravention of the treaty stipulations between England and China. Mr. Max Müller was reminded by Natung that blame was formerly imputed to the Chinese Government because they did not enforce observation of Treaty engagements on the part of the Tibetans, and that the signature of the Trade Regulations of 1908 by a Tibetan delegate had been insisted on by His Majesty’s Government, because they thought that Regulations would otherwise not be conformed to by Tibetans. He stated, as regards troops in Tibet, that none of Chao Erh-feng’s force had entered Lhasa territory, that force being still in Derge and Chiamdo. The 2,000 men sent to Lhasa were a separate body of troops from Szechuan, and, beyond the Amman’s normal escort and the guard at the post-stations, these were the only additional troops in the country. The right to station troops in Tibet had always rested with China, and the object of sending the recent reinforcements was merely to secure observance of Treaty obligations, to protect the trade-marts, and to maintain peace and order. The person of the Dalai Lama himself, he assured the Minister repeatedly, was alone affected by the steps which the Chinese Government had taken. Precedents for removing Lamas were numerous; in 1710, owing to misconduct, the sixth Dalai Lama had been removed. No action would be taken which would disturb the Lama Church or the existing administrative system in Tibet. It was absurd to suppose that the Chinese Government would interfere with Lamaism, as there were Lamaist functionaries at the Peking Court, and millions of Lamaists among the Mongol subjects of China. With regard to the charges that monasteries had been burnt, one only had been destroyed by Chao Erh-feng, more than a year previously, because a Chinese Amban had been ambushed and killed, together with thirty of his escort, by the Lamas.

On the receipt of the Chinese reply, Lord Morley telegraphed to the Viceroy for the views of the Government of India; but at the same time he impressed on them that they should bear in mind that it was essential that a strictly non-committal attitude on all points at issue between China and Tibet should be observed.

The Viceroy replied on March 12[64] that it appeared that all power at Lhasa had been taken by the Chinese into their own hands. The only high official left could not act without consulting the Chinese Resident. Reports from Trade Agents stated that the Chinese did not allow the Tibetans to deal with them direct. Various reports as to Chinese aggressive and oppressive action were in the possession of Government, but their authentication was difficult. It appeared to be the case, however, that there was no longer any Tibetan authority in existence, and it was impossible to reconcile with established facts the statements of the Chinese that the power and position of the Dalai Lama had not diminished, and that no alterations in internal administration were contemplated. Copies of the correspondence that had passed between the Dalai Lama and the Assistant Minister at Lhasa had been given to Mr. Bell. This correspondence, in the genuineness of which there was every reason to believe, showed (1) that the intention was that the Dalai Lama’s temporal power should be taken from him; and (2) that the despatch of only 1,000 troops was contemplated. Lama Buddhists and Tibetans would not recognize that the Dalai Lama had been deposed spiritually, and the latter would, therefore, be a source of trouble to the Chinese. There was no reason why the Dalai Lama should have our support, but confidence would be restored on the frontier by his restoration, and it would be proof of a desire to maintain the _status quo_. The Suzerainty of China was denied by Tibetan Ministers in conversation with Mr. Bell, but if China wished to be friendly it might still be possible to bring about a _modus vivendi_.

The Viceroy suggested that in any case our own interests must be protected. There was unsettlement in our frontier States. Rumours of location of a garrison at Yatung and the number of troops in Tibet constituted, in the opinion of the military authorities, a menace to the peace of our border. The reform, not the abolition, of the Tibetan Government was contemplated in the edict of March 9, 1908. The Trade Regulations of 1908 had been violated in the following respects: Administration and policing of trade-marts had, inconsistently with Article III., been taken over by Chinese, and direct dealings between our Agents and Tibetans had been prevented. The Tibetan Government was recognized by the Convention of 1904, which was recognized by Article I. of the Convention of 1906. A large slice of Tibetan territory had been lopped off by the Chinese, who had forcibly occupied and dispossessed the Tibetans of Chiamdo, of Troya, and of Tsa Kalho—provinces of Eastern Tibet. It seemed necessary in any case, therefore, that the Chinese Government should be required to give definite assurances on the following points: (1) The limitation of the Chinese garrison in Tibet to a number adequate for maintenance of order internally. (2) The maintenance of a real Tibetan Government. (3) The policing of the trade-marts by Tibetans under Chinese officers, if necessary. (4) The appointment at Lhasa of an Amban less hostile to British interests. (5) The issue of instructions to Chinese local officers to co-operate with British Trade Agents and not to hinder our officers and the Tibetans from dealing direct with one another. It might be advisable that at this stage the Chinese Government should be informed that the British Government must reserve the right to retain and increase the escorts at Yatung and Gyantse, if necessary, in view of the change in the _status quo_, unfriendliness of local Chinese officers, and disturbed state of Tibet. Individual Chinese might get out of hand, though it was improbable that our agencies would be attacked by the Chinese.

Lord Morley, in forwarding these views of the Indian Government to the Foreign Office, observed that it appeared that the Chinese Government was deliberately making its suzerainty over Tibet effective, and that the result of its proceedings would be the substitution of a strong internal administration for the feeble rule of the Dalai Lama. It was necessary, therefore, to consider how this change would affect, in the first place, British-Indian relations, commercial and political, with Tibet; and, secondly, the relations of the three States of Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, lying outside the administrative border of British India, but under British control or protection, with the Government of India and with their neighbour in Tibet. As to the first of these questions, it seemed to be sufficient at this stage to take note of the assurance of the Chinese Government that it would fulfil all treaty obligations affecting Tibet, and to inform it that His Majesty’s Government would expect that pending negotiations and representations on the subjects of tariff, Trade Agents, monopolies, tea trade, and so forth, would not be prejudiced by delay or by any change of administration. The second question was, however, one of greater urgency and importance, because delay might create mistrust in the States concerned, and even encourage China to raise claims which would hereafter lead to trouble. It seemed to be advisable that a clear intimation should at once be made to China that the British Government could not allow any administrative changes in Tibet to affect or prejudice the integrity of Nepal or the rights of a State so closely allied to the Government of India. Sikkim had long been under British protection. By a recent Treaty the foreign affairs of Bhutan were under the control of the British Government. The communication, therefore, which it was proposed to make to the Chinese Government relative to Nepal might well cover the other two States on the borders of British India. While, then, it was suggested that the Chinese Government should be informed that the British Government expected the Treaty obligations of Tibet and China in respect to Tibet to be scrupulously maintained, and, moreover, were prepared to protect the integrity and rights of their allies, the States of Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, the Secretary of State for India proposed to instruct the Viceroy to check any action on their part which was not authorized by the Government of India.

Should China fail in performing her Treaty obligations in Tibet after the receipt of the intimation, the breach of agreement could form the subject of precise protest and negotiation. But in the meantime it was undoubtedly desirable to press the Chinese Government to send strict orders to their local officials to co-operate with our own officers in a friendly manner, since without such friendly relations (of which there had recently been a marked absence), friction between the two Governments was certain to arise. It might also be well, thought Lord Morley, to impress upon the Chinese the inadvisability of locating troops upon or in the neighbourhood of the frontiers of India and the adjoining States in such numbers as would necessitate corresponding movements on the part of the Government of India and the rulers of the States concerned. The Tibetans, though ignorant, were peaceable people, and it was unlikely that a very large Chinese force would be necessary for such simple police arrangements as were contemplated by Article 12 of the Trade Regulations.

Adopting these proposals, Sir Edward Grey telegraphed to Mr. Max Müller on April 8, to make a representation to the Chinese Government in their sense.

* * * * *

All we know further than this is that two battalions of infantry, four guns, and some sappers have been sent by us to the Sikkim frontier, to be ready, if necessary, to proceed into Tibet to protect the Trade Agents. And so the story ends much as when it began, except that while formerly it was the Tibetans who were supposed to be the most impenetrable and unsociable, it is now the Chinese who are presenting the real obstacles to any reasonable intercourse between India and Tibet.

-----

Footnote 54:

Blue-book, IV., p. 98.

Footnote 55:

Blue-book, IV., p. 185. It is not clear whether this was Mr. Toller or
someone else.

Footnote 56:

Blue-book, IV., p. 41.

Footnote 57:

Blue-book, IV., p. 136.

Footnote 58:

Blue-book, IV., p. 215.

Footnote 59:

_Ibid._, p. 217.

Footnote 60:

Blue-book, IV., p. 218.

Footnote 61:

_Ibid._, p. 188.

Footnote 62:

Blue-book, IV., p. 189.

Footnote 63:

_Ibid._

Footnote 64:

Blue-book, IV., p. 205.

-----

------------------