tanking, Nov. 1
It ig stated in official quarters that, Mr. Moh Teh-hui, China's! [chief delegate in Moscow to discuss. terms for @ settlement of the C.
R. controversy, bes addressed] jo note to M, Karskhan protesti: s against M, Karakhan's recent not. lia which the Russian Vice-Conmissar for Foreign Affairs stated that Mit Mob had agreed to maintain the stale quo of the Chinese "Eastern Railway, Mr. Moh in his note points our that M. Karakhan is misrepresenting him in saying this. Mr. Moh /says he agreed "to maintain the status quo of the railway in accord-Jance with the Peking and Mukden Sino-Russian agreements relative to the railway" and that he did not} agree to the maintain ance of "the present status quo of the railway" as the Russians had not fully carried out the Peking and Mukden agreements, Moscow, Nov. 23.
Foreign Commissary Karakhan today replied to. the note of the Chi-nose delegate Mx, Moh Teb-hui of November 17 as follows: ""Acknow-edging receipt of your letter of November 171 am obliged to ox-press extreme amazement concern: ing the fact that you consider your own statement of November 6 as quoted in my letter of November 10 as contradicting your actual statement on the basis of which you protest against its publication.
"Your statement of November 6 as quoted in my letter represents nothing new as you reiterated it in your negotiations with me on June 8, June'21, July 4 and October 8. During these negotiations you attempted to convince me that the Chinese Government and particularly the Chinese authorities of the Three Eastern Provinces observed and continue observing the Habarovak Protocol so that there was no need for a new and formal re. cognition of the Habarovk Protocol at the present Soviet-Chinese conference.
"The Soviet Government could not however content itself with the mere statement of the folfillngnt of the Habarovik Protocsl and, insisted that this statement be actually ear ied out. 'Therefore, when the Chi-bose Government and particularly the authorities of the Three East jem Provinces began to full the previously unfulfilled points of the Habarovsk Protocol and you told me'
our conversation of November that there is and can be no doubt garding the necessity of preserving he present regime of the Chinese Eastern Railway as restored in conformity with the Peking and Muke den treaties by the Habarovsi Protocol, the Soviet Government found it possible to go over to the discus: slob of further questions which form the subject of the deliberations of the Soviet-Chinese conference.
"Your statement of November 6, against the publication of which you! protest, is also in full formal agreement with the document quoted below and signed by you as the representative of the Government of the (Chinese Republic.
The note than quotes the minutes of the resting of the directorate of the Chinese East. em Railway held on January 10, 1930, presided over by Mr, Moh Te nui sind whick decided: "The articles Jof the Soviet-Chinese agreement Jeoncluded in Habsrovsk on December 22, 192%, to be, accepted for guidance and execution by the directorate and minegement of the Chinese Eastern Railway."
The note then continues as fol-hows:
"In view of the above I cannot} accept your protest because it is completely unfounded. T must 3 press perplexity over the explana. tions given in your letter about your! tatement of November which are in surprising and inexplicable contradiction of the reiterated state, nents of the Chinese party and the official documents, which you a1 aware of.
At the same time, I must note that your letter of November 17 [does tot contain 2 suffsiently com plete end clear statement to the Jefect that by virtue of the Peking Jand Makden treaties the present administration of the Chinese Eastern Railway in the whole ang in!
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.