CHINA AND KOREA.
well as into the duties and obligations a depen-
dent state owes to its suzerain, in order to more
clearly determine the political status of Korea. In
general terms, a sovereign or independent state is
defined by almost all authors on international
jurisprudence to be, any nation or people, whatever
the character or form of its constitution may be,
which governs itself independently of other nations ;
while WHEATON, who ought to be the best authority
in this case, as China has adopted him as her stan-
dard author, says:"sovereignty is the supreme
“power by which any state is governed : this
supreme power may be exercised either internally
or externally. Internal sovereignty is that which
“ is inherent in the people of any state or is
“ vested in its ruler by its municipal constitu-
“ tion or fundamental laws. External sovereignty
consists in the independence of one political
society in respect to all other political societies ;
“ and it is by the exercise of this branch of so-
“vereignty that the international relations of one
" political society are maintained in peace and in
" war with all other political societies.” A nation
which has always managed its internal as well as
external concerns in its own way, free from the
interference or dictation of any foreign power, is
juridically independent, and must be ranked in the
category of sovereign states. The unerring test,
however, of a sovereign and independent state, is
its right to negotiate, to conclude treaties of friend-
ship, navigation and commerce, to exchange public
e


14
CHINA AND KOREA.
ven
fuge “Residency," and in the most insolent way
claimed to advise and even direct the King in
long but empty memorials, and, upon public and
official occasions, to assume the role of host instead
of guest, on the flimsy pretext that he is “at home”
in Korea. But it is asserted that vassalage is dis-
tinctly acknowledged by Korea in the treaty some-
times called "the overland trade regulations,” above
alluded to. Now I assert with much confidence
that, if that convention establishes anything so far
as this question is concerned, it is exactly the
contrary to this. While there are only eight rather
lengthy articles in that treaty, yet, as already
observed, they cover about all that is necessary in
an ordinary treaty of friendship, commerce and
navigation. Under the first article China has
dispatched her Commissioner with diplomatic
powers to Seoul, and consuls to all the open ports
to guard the interests of Chinese merchants. The
second article yields to China ex-territorial privi-
leges for her subjects, similar to those enjoyed by
the citizens and subjects of the most favored
nations. Article third permits the inerchant-ships
of both countries to visit the open ports of the
other, fixes the duties to be paid, provides for
relief in case of shipwrecks, regulates the conduct
of fishing-vessels, etc. Article fourth permits
inerchants of either country to visit the open ports
of the other, for the purposes of trade, where they
may purchase lands and houses, provides tonnage-
dues as well as re-export tariff, inhibits trade at


CHINA AND KOREA.
sons
the capital of both countries, compels merchants
wishing to purchase native produce in the interior
to first obtain permits of their consuls, while
persons desiring to travel in either country for
pleasure, must be provided with passports. Article
seventh provides for the dispatch once a month to
Korea of a vessel belonging to the China Merchants
Company, and permits Chinese men-of-war to repair
to the open ports of Korea for the purpose of
protecting Chinese consuls and other residents.
In the text of this treaty there is not only no
reference to vassalage or dependency, but the de-
mands and concessions made exclude the existence
of such relations at the time it was concluded. If
China believed in the validity of vassal relations,
can it be supposed that provisions would have been
made for ex-territorial privileges and passports for
Chinese subjects in Korea ? Certainly not, for to
have done so would have presented the spectacle
of a sovereign state demanding ex-territorial rights
and privileges for her own subjects within her own
sovereignty, which is the very acme of absurdity.
The only reference to vassalage, as interpreted
even by the Chinese, is in a preamble, published at
the head of this treaty, which may or may not have
been in its present form at the time the treaty was
signed. This extraordinary preamble rendered as
follows:-“Korea has long been one of our vassal
“states, and in all that concerns rights and obser-
“vances there are already fixed prescriptions which
"require no change.” Can this be the language of
OV


18
CHINA AND KOREA.
1 CO
statesman of the Celestial Empire recently, “Korea
“ is a vassal of China's because upon the conclusion
“ of treaties with Western countries the King gave
“ to the plenipotentiaries who conducted the
“negotiations autograph letters to be conveyed
“ to the heads of their respective Governments, in
" which such relations were admitted.” Here
again I must take issue with the assertion, even
though it is made by so eminent a personage as
LI CHUNG Tang. It is true that, just prior to
signing the American treaty, an autograph letter
was handed down by the King to be delivered
with the treaty to the President of the U.S., but
that letter admitted nothing more than the King
now asserts, namely, that Korea is a tributary state
of China, but which, as I have endeavored to point
out, does not affect, much less destroys, the sover-
eign rights of a state, while it asserts in language
that cannot be misunderstood the sovereign and
independent character which the Korean Govern-
ment has always maintained, and upon the con-
ditions of which rest all the treaties concluded
with Western powers. Subsequent autograph
letters given by His Majesty were in effect the
same as the first one, so far at least as the relations
of Korea to China are concerned. The following
is a correct translation of the letter of the King to
the President of the U.S.:-
“His Majesty, the King of Chosen, herewith
“ makes a communication. Chosen has been, from
"ancient times, a state tributary to China; yet


CHINA AND KOREA.
23
says:-" Inasmuch as sovereignty tends to
"unity, such distinctions between vassal sover-
“ eignty and sovereign sovereignty cannot subsist
“ long. History shows us the truth of this prin-
“ciple. During the middle ages a number of
“ vassal states existed both in Europe and Asia.
“ To-day they have nearly all disappeared because
they have been transformed into sovereign
states or have been absorbed by more powerful
states. International law ought to keep an
account of their development. It ought to
respect it. It ought not to contribute to retard
“it by seeking to perpetuate the unsustainable
“ formalities of an antiquated jurity.” Interna-
tional law will keep an account of their develop-
ment too, and in its vigilance for the rights of the
weak, will keep an account of Korea also in her
struggle for the maintenance of independent state-
hood. After having been by the great nations of
the international world literally dragged from that
seclusion which had for so many centuries enveloped
the little kingdom in mystery, to join the family of
civilized nations, under the expressed guarantee of
assistance in the event of oppression or unjust
treatment, those powers will surely not permit the
stultification of this assurance by allowing their
younger member to be strangled at the very
threshold of its international life.
China's friend and ally Korea desires to be, but
her voluntary slave she never will consent to
become. The Austro-Hungarian Minister of State,


30
CHINA AND KOREA.
tability, jealous of its national honor, that will care
to attempt to set the absurd and unprecedented
example of receiving a plenipotentiary, envoy or
minister of any sort from a vassal state. Even the
so-called memorial (letter) which the King addres-
sed to the Emperor of China, in answer to questions
from Peking, explaining his reasons for as well as
his right to send Ministers to Europe and America;
is regarded by China and by vassalage advocates as
another link in the chain by which they hope to
bind Korea irretrievably to the Celestial Empire.
The trouble seems to arise from this: the language
used by the King to express his tributary relations,
is persistently and erroneously interpreted to mean
vassal relations by China and her supporters.
When the King refers, in the so-called memorial to
the Emperor, to tributary envoys and plenipoten-
tiaries, he is entirely consistent with international
jurisprudence as interpreted and followed by other
nations in their intercourse with each other,
while China's appellation of vassal envoys and
plenipotentiaries is a misnomer because entirely
inconsistent with the laws of civilised nations.
Such laws do not recognise vassal envoys, pleni-
potentiaries or ministers of any kind, for the reason
that vassal states have the power to create only
consuls and commercial agents. In this connection
there is another device which deserves attention,
and that is this: letters or documents, written or
translated to suit the occasion, are frequently
published by the press in China, purporting to be


CHINA AND KOREA.
37
and the Taotai who has just been appointed at Che-
foo, but that both had declined. On the occasion
of my second visit, in October of last year, to discuss
Korea's right to send public ministers abroad and
to open ports in the interest of trade, as well as to
protest against Yuan's latest conspiracy against the
King, if it became necessary, in one interview,
finding that the Viceroy turned a deaf ear to every-
thing reflecting in any way upon that official, I was
about to dispose of him once for all, as I supposed,
by presenting the indisputable evidences of his
recent treasonable conduct, when, to my amaze-
ment, the Viceroy coolly informed me that he
knew all about the dethronement scheme; that
while YUAN was in it, yet it was all the fault
of Min YONG IK, who laid the plot and induced
YUAN to go into it, and that for his stupidity in
letting himself be drawn into such a thing he had
been severely reprimanded. And still, in the face of
this criminal record, YUAN continues the represen-
tative of China to Korea, in violation of the closing
paragraph of the first article of the treaty between
the two countries, which says:-“ Should any such
“ officer disclose waywardness, masterfulness or
“ improper conduct of public business, the Superin-
" tendent of Trade for the Northern Port and the
“ King of Korea respectively will notify each
“other of the fact and at once recall him." In
view of all this the inquiry naturally suggests
itself, why is the Commissioner kept in Seoul ? Is
it because China, desiring to take possession of