In Korea with Marquis Ito

by George Trumbull Ladd

We desire, the memorialists go on to say, now to state the actual facts of the conclusion of the new Treaty:

When the Japanese Envoy arrived in Korea all the people, even the children, knew that a grave crisis had arisen. And on the 15th of November when Your Majesty received the Envoy he presented a most important document. On the following day the Prime Minister, with the other members of the Cabinet, except the Minister for Foreign Affairs, conferred with the Envoy; while the Minister for Foreign Affairs did the same with the Japanese Minister. At the former conference Sim San-kiun, Imperial Treasurer (former Prime Minister and one of the Emperor’s favorites), was also present. We discussed the matter fully with the Envoy, but did not agree to the proposals he made. In the evening we were received in audience by your Majesty and reported all that had occurred. We stated to your Majesty that if we went to the Japanese Legation the next day, as had been proposed, we should continue to refuse to accede to the Japanese proposals. On the next day, we went in a body to the Legation and there conferred at length with the Minister upon the subject. Finally, as we still refused to concur in what the Minister proposed, he stated that further conference would be a waste of time; that your Majesty alone had authority to decide, and that he had asked for an audience through the Minister of the Imperial Household. Thereupon the whole party repaired to the Palace. Your Majesty received the members of the Cabinet in audience, and we reported what had happened at the Legation, and assured Your Majesty that we were still prepared to continue to refuse to accede to the Japanese demands. Your Majesty expressed anxiety regarding the course to be adopted, and said that, as we could not refuse positively, it would be better to postpone negotiations.

Then Yi Wan-yong addressed Your Majesty. He said that the matter was one which vitally affected the state; and that all of the vassals and servants of Your Majesty must refuse to accept terms injurious to the state. But the relationship of the monarch to his vassals is like that of a father to his sons, and therefore the members of the Cabinet were bound by every tie of duty to speak frankly to their Master. He must, therefore, call His Majesty’s attention to the fact that the visit of the Envoy to Korea, and the coming of the Japanese Minister to the Palace that evening, had one object—and one only—namely, the conclusion of the Treaty. Therefore it was necessary to decide at once upon what was to be done; the matter did not admit of procrastination. It is easy for us eight Ministers to say “No”; but our refusal alone does not decide the matter. We are vassals merely, and only the word of the monarch is final. The Envoy will undoubtedly ask for an audience. When that occurs, if Your Majesty continues firmly to refuse to the end, it is all right. But if Your Majesty’s generosity should at last induce you to yield, what shall be done then? This is a question which we must consider and settle beforehand. When Your Majesty received us in audience last evening you expressed no opinion.

As the other Ministers said nothing, Yi Wan-yong went on to explain that what he meant by studying the subject beforehand was to examine the provisions of the Convention, several of which he was of opinion should be changed. Concerning such matters it was necessary to consult and to come to some decision beforehand.

Then Your Majesty said that Marquis Ito had informed you that if we wished to modify the wording of the Convention there was a way to do so. Your Majesty thought that if we rejected the Convention categorically, the good relations of Korea and Japan could not be maintained, and, in Your Majesty’s opinion, it was possible to have some of the Articles changed. Therefore, what Yi Wan-yong had proposed was proper.

Upon that Kwan Chung-hiun said that the Minister of Education had not advised His Majesty to accept the Convention, but to consider the matter upon the supposition that some amendment was possible. Your Majesty replied that you understood that, but that the difference was not of practical consequence. The other Ministers expressed the same opinion. Your Majesty then called for a draft of the Convention and asked for opinions regarding the amendments which should be made.

The memorial then goes on to consider the amendments[41] which it was thought would be desirable, and which were those subsequently proposed at the conference with Marquis Ito. The Emperor approved these amendments and himself suggested an amendment to the effect that in Article I of the convention the word “sole” in the sentence “shall have sole control” should be omitted. [This word, it may be remarked in passing, appeared in the original draft, but was not included in the Article as finally agreed to.]

Finally, when these deliberations terminated, the Ministers collectively addressed the Emperor, and stated that although they had conferred upon the adoption of possible amendments, they were still prepared, if His Majesty so ordered them, to refuse altogether to accept the Japanese proposals. In reply the Emperor commanded them not to reject the Treaty finally and conclusively. On leaving, Mr. Han, speaking as Prime Minister, and Mr. Pak, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated that they would not disobey His Majesty’s commands.

Then follows the account of the Conference with Mr. Hayashi, in which it is stated that the Prime Minister, while acknowledging that the Emperor had ordered him and his colleagues to come to some arrangement with the Japanese Minister, refused to consider any of the various proposals made by the latter. After that Marquis Ito arrived and the account of what happened subsequently, as given in the memorial, is the same in all essential details as that related in the first part of this chapter.[42]

With regard to this Treaty as a whole no advocate of Japan will, of course, claim that it was entered into by Korea with a willing heart—much less, in a jubilant spirit. It is seldom, indeed, that treaties of any sort are concluded between two countries with apparently conflicting interests, where both are equally well satisfied with their terms. In all cases in which one party is compelled on grounds of expediency, or of fear that greater evils will follow the rejection of the terms proposed by the other party, there is a sense in which it may be said that the will is not free, but that the deed is done “under a sort of compulsion.” But if all treaties made under such conditions may be repudiated when conditions are changed, or if either of the parties to a treaty may act with treachery, and without punishment, when called upon to carry out faithfully the contracts thus entered into, the peace of the world cannot be secured or even promoted by any number of treaties. A feeling of regret and chagrin, especially on the part of the official classes and, indeed, of the educated men of Korea in general, was to be expected. So far as it was sincere and unselfish, the feeling was honorable; and for it the Resident-General and all those agreeing with his policy have never shown any lack of respect. But, as has already been made clear, the important thing with the millions of Korea is not, who are Cabinet Ministers, or who manages the foreign affairs of the country, or even who is Emperor; for them the important thing is the character of the local magistrates and the amount of their “squeezes.”