In Korea with Marquis Ito

by George Trumbull Ladd

After some further deliberation the treaty in its amended form was agreed to. The Minister of the Household, accompanied by Mr. Yi Chi-yung, Minister of Home Affairs, then took the document to the Emperor. After a time they returned, saying that His Majesty was satisfied with the instrument as amended and gave it his sanction. He instructed them to say, however, that he desired to add one more amendment. It was to insert in the preamble a stipulation to the effect that when Korea became able again to exercise the functions surrendered to Japan by the Treaty, she would be entitled to resume the control of her foreign relations. To this proposal Marquis Ito assented, and again wrote the amendment with his own hand. The two Ministers took the completed instrument to His Majesty, and in a short time returned saying His Majesty was “quite satisfied and approved the Treaty.”

The copyists then began preparing the copies for signature, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs went to the telephone and ordered the clerk in charge to bring the seal of the Foreign Office to the Palace.

The Minister of the Household, who had again repaired to the Imperial presence, returned while this was going on with the following message from the Emperor to Marquis Ito, which is here repeated verbatim:—“Now that this new Agreement has been concluded our countries should mutually congratulate each other. We feel tired, as we are not well, and shall retire. You, who have reached an advanced age and have remained awake until this late hour, must also be greatly fatigued. Please, therefore, return to your home and sleep well.”

Marquis Ito returned thanks for this gracious message, but remained until the Treaty had been copied and duly signed by Mr. Pak, the Korean Minister for Foreign Affairs, and by Mr. Hayashi, the Japanese Minister. He then returned to his hotel. In a short time the seal of the Foreign Office was brought to the Palace, and Mr. Pak, with his own hand, affixed it to the four copies of the instrument which had been made.[38]

The conclusion of the Treaty was not followed by any noticeably great public excitement in Seoul. Crowds collected in the streets, and there were one or two trifling brawls, but nothing of great consequence. The policing of the streets was entirely in the hands of the Korean gendarmes and the mixed force of Korean and Japanese police under the direction of Mr. Maruyama, Police Adviser to the Korean Government. Nor, in order to preserve the public peace, was there at any time necessary any exhibition of a large force, either of police or of gendarmes in any one locality. They went about singly or in twos or threes, and the crowds were, as a rule, orderly.

The Convention thus concluded on November 17, 1905, with the object of strengthening the principle of solidarity which unites the two Empires, provides that the complete control and direction of Korean affairs shall hereafter rest with the Japanese Government, and that a Resident-General shall reside in Seoul, “primarily for the purpose of taking charge of and directing matters relating to diplomatic affairs.” It also provides for the appointment of Residents, subordinate to the Resident-General, who shall occupy the open ports and such other places in Korea as the Japanese Government may deem necessary. Article IV stipulates that all treaties and agreements subsisting between Japan and Korea, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention itself, shall continue in force. Furthermore, Japan engages to maintain the welfare and dignity of the Imperial House of Korea.

This is the substance of the Convention of 1905. Its effect was to substitute Japan for Korea in all official relations with foreign Powers, past as well as future. In other words, foreign nations must hereafter deal directly and exclusively with Japan in everything affecting their diplomatic relations with Korea. Japan, on her part, is equally bound to respect and maintain all treaty rights and all treaty engagements granted by Korea in the past. The “principle of solidarity which unites the two Empires” implies, and in fact actually includes, even more than this. While the functions of Japan’s direct and exclusive control were primarily confined to matters connected with the direction of foreign affairs, some measure of control over Korea’s domestic affairs also is necessarily implied. It is not to be supposed, for example, that Japan could permit internal disorders, or the perpetuation of domestic abuses, or, in brief, any of those disturbing conditions which had hitherto prevented Korean progress and development. International control, dissociated from an orderly and progressive domestic policy, is not practicable; it is not even conceivable. The complications and embarrassments which would inevitably arise from such a complete dissociation of the two functions of government would far outweigh the advantages. One of the most fruitful sources of international difficulties in Korea has always been found in domestic misgovernment. Having assumed the responsibility and the obligations incident to the direction of foreign affairs, Japan has the right to ask, and, if need be, to insist, that her task shall not be made heavier by Korea herself. This did not, indeed, imply, that Japan should assume charge of the administrative machinery of the Korean Government, but that she should enjoy the right to have recourse to those measures of guidance which naturally and properly fall within the sphere of the duties she had assumed. Fortunately, however, any discussion relating to this question must of necessity be purely academic; since not only the Convention of November 17th, but also the Protocols and other Agreements concluded before that time give ample warrant for everything Japan has attempted or accomplished in this regard.

If corroborative evidence is needed for the account just given of the negotiations which ended in the Convention of November, 1905, and upon the basis of which Marquis Ito, as the Representative of the Japanese Government, had been conducting his administration in Korea up to the time of the new Convention of July, 1907, it is afforded in fullest measure in the following manner. A notable “Memorial” regarding the circumstances under which the earlier agreement was formed was presented to the Korean Emperor on the fifteenth of December of the same year; this document lends the authority of all the other chief actors in this event to every important detail of the account as already given.[39]

The memorialists were Pak Chi-sun, former Minister for Foreign Affairs; Yi Wan-yong, Minister of Education; Kwan Chung-hiun, Minister of Agriculture, Commerce and Industry; Yi Chi-yung, Minister of Home Affairs; and Yi Kun-tak, Minister of War. The occasion of the memorial was the agitation against the Treaty which was then at its height, and on account of which these five Ministers were being denounced in petitions to the Throne, and in the public press, as traitors to their country. The purpose of the memorial was to show that the actual responsibility for the conclusion of the Treaty rested with the Emperor himself. By relating all the circumstances in detail (in particular the occurrences at the conference on the evening of November 17th) the memorialists brought this fact out into the boldest prominence. Their memorial was, in effect, both a charge which fixed the responsibility for the Treaty on the Emperor, and a challenge to the Emperor to deny that the Treaty was concluded in accordance with his own orders. It was a challenge which His Majesty did not accept; on the contrary, by approving the memorial, as he did formally, he acknowledged the truth of the statements it contained. It was, indeed, officially published at the time, as approved by the Emperor.[40] Moreover, this memorial was prepared by its authors and presented to the Throne without the previous knowledge of the Japanese authorities. In fact, it contained certain interesting and important details of which they then learned for the first time.

The memorialists began with the statement that, by reason of His Majesty’s generosity, they are entrusted with the responsibilities of Ministers of State, although they do not merit such distinction. They have seen the petitions denouncing them to the Emperor as traitors. Those petitions affirm that the state has been destroyed; that the people have become slaves; and that Korean territory is now the property of another state. These opinions are indeed almost too absurd to be noticed; but since they affect the independence and dignity of the nation, the memorialists cannot permit them to pass without protest. The new Treaty with Japan does not change the title of the Empire or affect its real independence. The prestige of the Imperial House remains as before; the social fabric of the Empire is unaffected; and the country is in a peaceful condition. The only change is that the management of the foreign affairs of the country has been placed under the control of a neighboring state. Besides, the Treaty which brings about this result is by no means a new arrangement. It is the direct result of the Protocols concluded in 1904, and does not differ from them in object or in principle. If these persons who now so loudly proclaim their patriotism are really sincere and courageous men, why did they not denounce those Protocols when they were made and maintain their opposition with their lives? None of them did that then; yet now they clamor for the abolition of all these arrangements and for the restoration of the old order of things. It is impossible to agree with them.