In Korea with Marquis Ito

by George Trumbull Ladd

The laws of the land may be enlightened in their construction, and the police thoroughly well organized and efficient; but if the courts of justice are not intelligent and honest, the public justice is not secure. In Korea, as in China, from which country she derived her administrative and judicial system, two principal evil influences have prevented any effectual reform in the judiciary. These are the failure to separate the executive and judiciary branches of government, and the fact that officials generally have not been dependent upon sufficient salaries for their reward, but, chiefly, upon the amounts which could be squeezed out of the offices.

“The way in which justice has been administrated in Korea,” says the Report, “is too revolting to all sense of decency to be told in detail. Her political development has never yet attained that stage when the executive and judiciary branches of government separate and become independent of each other. The privilege of meting out justice has always been in the hands of executive officials, and abuses have grown up in consequence of this. Justice, which should always be fair and upright, has generally allowed itself to be influenced by the amount of bribe offered, and right or wrong often changed places according to the power and influence of the parties concerned. The conviction of innocent people, the confiscation of their property, and the liberation of the guilty, all under a travesty of trials, have been common occurrences; very frequently, too, contributions in money or in kind have been extorted under threats of litigation. Korea, indeed, possesses a law court organization by virtue of a law promulgated in 1895, and according to it the courts are of the following descriptions: 1. Special Court of Law (tries crimes committed by members of the Imperial family). 2. Court of Cassation. 3. Circuit Courts. 4. (Seoul) The Trade Port Courts (courts of first resort). 5. District Courts (courts of first resort), and their branches (when needed).”

“The truth is, however, that this organization exists merely on paper, the only courts in actual existence being the Court of Cassation and the Seoul Court. In the provinces, the governors, commissioners and superintendents are, as of old, also judges and hear and judge both civil and criminal cases. The Kun magistrates, too, retain their judiciary powers, which are, however, limited in extent. Even at the independent courts, such as the Court of Cassation and the Seoul Court, judges and prosecutors are men totally deficient in legal knowledge and training, and their judgments often end in the miscarriage of justice. It is not surprising that justice is generally made the object of ridicule and contempt in Korea both by the natives and by foreigners. Treaties give foreigners from the West the right to bring an action against the natives in the Korean Courts in cases of a certain description; but none of them has ever made use of such a right. When any legal dispute arises, these foreigners always make an international question of it and bring it before the Residency-General. Leave the situation as it at present is, and the day will never come when Korea may be freed from the system of extra-territoriality. It being evident that the chief cause responsible for this regrettable state of things lies in the judiciary in force and the incompetency of judges, the Resident-General has decided first to effect reform on these two points, with others to follow gradually. The reforms he has already put in practice for this purpose may be outlined as follows” [Here given only in summary form]:—

The creation of the office of Chief Councillor in the Department of Justice (the incumbent to be a Japanese); increase in the number of judges, procurators, and clerks; the constituting of the Prefects of the eleven Prefectures to act as Judges; provision for proper offices and for the travelling and other expenses of the Judges and the Law Courts; the introduction of rules of the civil service order, so that care may be exercised in the appointment of judiciary officials, etc.

It has already been made sufficiently clear, however, that the one instrument of the public justice which comes closest to the common people of Korea, and which determines more than any other the spirit of satisfaction with their condition or of unrest and revolt, is the local magistracy. On the “Reform of Local Administration” the Report remarks as follows:

One thing that has defied satisfactory solution ever since the beginning of the present Yi dynasty is the problem of the political division of Korea. Soon after the Japan-China war, Pak Yong-hyo, who was then Minister of Home Affairs, tried a radical change by turning the country into 23 prefectures. It was an innovation indeed, but short-lived, for not long after the country returned practically to its former division of 13 provinces, one crown district, three prefectures and 341 districts (excepting Han-Yang pu), with a Governor for each province, a Crown Commissioner for the crown district, a Magistrate for each district, a Prefect for each prefecture, and a Superintendent for each open port. Nor has this division seen much change since then. It is true that the question of local administration was one of the many that confronted the Residency-General when it set out on its work of politically regenerating Korea. A special Commission was instituted, and under the direction of the Resident-General its members carried investigations deep into the root of the evils and abuses to be removed. As the result all changes, sudden and radical, from fear of unnecessarily provoking popular excitement, were carefully avoided. Having in view, however, the new condition of things, the Commission decided on a plan of provincial reforms, which took the form of an Imperial Ordinance proclaiming a “New Official Organization” and “Detailed Rules” for its operation. These were issued on the 28th of September last and put in force on the 1st of October.

The more detailed features of the reforms proposed are uninteresting and difficult to understand for one not making a special study of Korean local administration from the expert’s point of view. In general, the reforms are intended to separate the appointment and control of the local magistracy from Court and other corrupt official influences; to put a stop to the evil practice “of selling offices by holding examinations for official candidates”; to reduce the temptation to increase the squeezes, by increasing the legitimate salary and by providing properly for office, travelling, and other expenses; and to adopt and install “a new official organization for the provincial governors and their subordinates, classifying the nature of the business to be managed by them and defining their powers of issuing administrative orders, of levying local taxes and of conducting other affairs.” These reforms require a considerable increase in the number of officials in both the Do (or Province) and Pu (or Prefecture); but they leave the Kuns (or smaller districts) substantially unchanged in this regard.

Besides the above changes, the Residency-General has already established a Residency or a Branch Residency in each of the provincial capitals. Further, the Local Administration Investigation Commission is now making enquiries into village constitutions, village assembly regulations, and other village association systems, handed down from olden times. From the data thus obtained, a plan will be drawn up for the ultimate introduction of the system of local autonomy. As to the reorganization of the Law Court system, the independence of the Department of Justice, the separation of tax collection from routine executive business as the result of the establishment of a new Taxation Bureau with a chief of its own, etc., these form, no doubt, a part of local administration reform.

Only the result can tell how far, and how soon, these plans for the reform of the public justice in Korea can so change its present deplorable condition in this regard as to satisfy the reasonable wishes of the Marquis Ito, and the Japanese Government, so far as it is supporting him in his peaceful and benevolent plans. The events which have occurred since this Report on Administrative Reforms was composed, have, on the one side, given to the Resident-General and his helpers a freer hand in a more open field, but on the other they have augmented the responsibilities and in some respects increased the difficulties of their task.