National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

> > > >
Color New!IIIF Color HighRes Gray HighRes PDF   Japanese English
0438 Tibet and Turkestan : vol.1
Tibet and Turkestan : vol.1 / Page 438 (Color Image)

New!Citation Information

doi: 10.20676/00000231
Citation Format: Chicago | APA | Harvard | IEEE

OCR Text

 

30o   Tibet and Turkestan

pressure to bear on the Chinese Resident in order to secure reparation. There is, however, at present no evidence that the mischief is to be directly attributed to Tibetan officials, and it is in our opinion necessary to make allowances for the difficulties of the Chinese Resident's position in respect to the Tibetans.

  1.  

Letter from the Government of India, in the Foreign Department, to the Right Honourable Lord George F. Hamilton, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, the 3rd September, 1895. (Received the 23rd September, 1895.)

Our Despatch, dated the 25th June, 1895, informed Her Majesty's Government of the position of affairs on the Sikkim-Tibet border. We have since been in further correspondence with Sir Nicholas O'Conor, and on the loth August instructions were issued that our demarcation party should break up and that Mr. White should return to Gantok.

2. The Chinese Resident in Tibet suggested postponement of demarcation until after five years from the date on which the Trade Regulations attached to the Convention of 1890 came into force. His Excellency the Viceroy has declared his inability to seriously discuss such a suggestion and has communicated to the Chinese Resident a hope that nothing will prevent the work being carried out amicably next year.

  1.  

From the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated 15th February, 1896.

(Telegraphic)

Please see our letter of 3rd September, 1895, and your despatch of 6th December, 1895. There are grounds for believing that the Tibetans possess reasonable claims in the extreme north of Sikkim to a tract of land which is excluded from Tibet by the boundary line laid down in the Convention. The tract in question is of no value to Sikkim. Would you