JX 
 
 197* 
 
 IC-NRLF 
 
 8 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
67TH CONGRESS 1 Q-pvATP 1 /DOCUMENT 
 
 2d Session / SENATE 4 No. 109 
 
 KOREA'S APPEAL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CONFERENCE ON 
 LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT 
 
 PRESENTED BY MR. SPENCER 
 DECEMBER 21, 1921. Ordered to be printed 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1922 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL TO THE CONFERENCE ON LIMI- 
 TATION OF ARMAMENT. 
 
 KOREAN MISSION TO THE CONFERENCE 
 
 ON LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT, 
 Washington, D. C., December 1, 
 
 All of us demand liberty and justice. There can not be one without the 
 other, and they must be held the unquestionable possession of all peoples. In- 
 herent rights are of God, and the tragedies of the world originate in their 
 attempted denial. The world to-day is infringing their enjoyment by arming 
 to defend or deny, when simple sanity calls for their recognition through com- 
 mon understanding. (President Harding in opening address to the con- 
 ference. ) 
 
 To the CONFERENCE ON LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT: 
 
 Prior to your assemblage and organization we presented to the 
 delegation from the United States an appeal on behalf of the Korean 
 people for an opportunity to present their plea to its consideration, in 
 the hope that we might, through its good offices, be granted the op- 
 portunity to obtain a hearing before the conference. A copy of that 
 appeal is hereto attached. (Appendix No. 1.) 
 
 All of the conferee nations, with one exception, are in a similar 
 situation to the United States, for they have agreed by treaty with 
 Korea to use their good offices in case of her oppression per conse- 
 quence we have resolved to also present Korea's appeal for justice 
 to the conference as a whole. 
 
 Assuredly, we can assume that all of the ambassadors, delegates, 
 and advisors who participate in the grave responsibilities of your 
 task are familiar with those treaties and with the interpretative 
 diplomatic correspondence relating to them. However, for conven- 
 ience of reference we have prepared an abstract of the governmental 
 records, documents, and treaties pertaining to the relations of each 
 conferee nation with Korea, which is attached as Appendix No. 2, 
 under the title, " What the conferee nations have said and pledged." 
 
 We solemnly affirm that justice to Korea constitutes an indis- 
 pensable requisite to the permanent adjustment of far eastern affairs. 
 How can there be peace in the Orient if a nation of 25,000,000 people 
 are left to smart with the injustice of treaties " unkept " ? 
 
 When Her Majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland arid Empress of India, through Her Majesty's 
 envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, Sir Harry Smith 
 Parkes, knight of the Grand Cross and knight commander of the 
 Most Honorable Order of the Bath, said in the treaty of 1883 that 
 there shall be perpetual peace and friendship with Korea, and that 
 in case of difference with a third power Great Britain would step 
 in to exert its good offices to bring about an amicable arrangement, 
 Korea saw back of those covenants the integrity of England. 
 
 M52,' 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 When His Majesty, the King of Belgium, through M. Leon Vin- 
 cart, chevalier of the Order of Leopold of Belgium, said in the 
 treaty of 1901 that the good offices of Belgium would be extended to 
 Korea in case of need, Korea knew that the honor of Belgium had 
 been pledged. 
 
 When His Majesty, the King of Italy, through Chevalier Ferdi- 
 nand De Luca, knight commander of the Mauritian Order and of the 
 Order of the Crown of Italy, decorated by China with the order of 
 the two dragons, said in the treaty of 1884 that the good offices of 
 Italy would be available to Korea in case of differences with a third 
 power, she knew that she could rely upon the pledges of Italy. 
 
 The pledges of Denmark were hers through the treaty of 1902, 
 when His Majesty, the King of Denmark, through Monsieur A. 
 Pavlow, commander of the Order of Sainte Anne, signed the treaty 
 with Korea. 
 
 What confidence must have been Korea's when she read the proc- 
 lamation of the President of the United States that "every clause 
 and article "of the treaty of 1882 'must be observed and fulfilled 
 with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof." 
 
 Can you say to Korea that these pledges are meaningless? That 
 she can be annexed by her own ally, whom she assisted to win a 
 great war? That against the will of her people she can be stripped 
 of all sovereignty, freedom, and liberty? That her people can be 
 taxed without representation, oppressed and annihilated, without 
 even a protest? If you say that; if that is your position can you 
 expect to have world peace result from such a conference? Will 
 any agreement that you make here have any more binding force or 
 effect than the agreements that you have already made, and will the 
 world at large, or even yourselves, have any respect for them ? 
 
 The United States should assist China, as she is doing. She is 
 hearing China's cry for justice, because in 1858 the United States 
 pledged to China her good offices in the treaty then proclaimed by 
 President Buchanan. (12 Stat., 1023.) For the same reason she 
 should assist Korea, because in 1882 the United States pledged to 
 Korea her good offices in the treaty then proclaimed by President 
 Arthur. (23 Stat,, 720.) 
 
 An American writer of the highest repute has recently declared 
 that 
 
 In the list of commitments, our pledged support to China and our guaranty of 
 her territorial and administrative integrity, now greatly menaced, will bulk 
 large. Our pledge to support China goes back to the treaty of 1858, in which we 
 pledged ourselves to use our good offices in case any nation acted unjustly 
 toward China. To-day that pledge is China's main hope of salvation from the 
 many dangers by which she is threatened. Should we be blind to our own 
 interests, the appeal to our national honor will not be made in vain nor go 
 unheeded. 
 
 Korea, yielding to the persuasion of America, emerged from the 
 solitude of her hermit life and timidly joined the family of nations. 
 She differs from China to-day only in that the processes of foreign 
 intrusion have fully accomplished in Korea what are still in progress 
 in China. Confronted with their menace, Korea vainly invoked the 
 covenant for her protection. Her " appeal to the national honor " 
 was made in vain, for it went unheeded. 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 If the observance of this pledge be now essential to the preserva- 
 tion of China, it is the more essential for the restoration of Korea, 
 which presents in concrete form the fruitage of every policy which 
 threatens China's economic or political integrity. The processes in- 
 volving China are those which submerged Korea. They are identi- 
 cal in origin, in purpose, and in result. They can not be thwarted in 
 China if they are to be disregarded in Korea. 
 
 Because China still retains the external forms of government she 
 is rightly given a place at your council board. Because Korea has 
 been deprived of all forms of government is she to be denied even a 
 hearing before a tribunal which " is an earnest of the awakened con- 
 science of twentieth century civilization," the call for which " is the 
 spoken word of a war- wearied world struggling for restoration, hun- 
 gering and thirsting for better relationship of humanity, crying for 
 relief and craving assurances of everlasting peace " ? 
 
 We venture the assertion that our appeal for your consideration 
 can be denied only from motives of expediency. But this conference, 
 rich with the sad experiences of its many predecessors, should pro- 
 vide no place for an expediency which excludes the seat of justice. 
 Expedients are palliatives which postpone but never correct; always 
 convenient, sometimes necessary, seldom conclusive. They are the 
 bane of treaties, the most fruitful, if not the only cause of their mis- 
 carriage. 
 
 If it be argued that the absorption of Korea by the Empire of 
 Japan be a fait accompli, and therefore beyond your consideration, 
 we may reply by the assertion that no such act is ever final, when the 
 result is oppression or breach of treaty covenants. History supplies 
 us with many illustrations of this inexorable truth, of which Poland, 
 Greece, Finland, Bohemia, and others are exemplars. The conscience 
 of the world sustains the cause of such people, and its peace is im- 
 periled until justice hears and responds to their appeals. 
 
 Korea is the most ancient of nations. Until compelled by the force 
 ma j ear of the United States she was wholly self-contained. She was 
 the hermit nation. She was content with her own aifairs. She en- 
 vied her neighbors neither their commerce nor their domains. She 
 sought no conquests. She committed no aggressions. 
 
 From 1882 to 1907 she maintained diplomatic relations with all 
 nations under treaties which, without exception, covenanted for the 
 exercise of their good offices, should any nation deal unjustly with 
 her. She relied upon these covenants for her security, since her geo- 
 graphic position exposed her to the perils of conflict between her 
 more powerful neighbors. 
 
 Her domain commands the entrance to the Yellow Sea, whose hin- 
 terland teems with vast populations eager for the trade of the world. 
 It constitutes a tempting, if not essential, basis for extensive schemes 
 of Asiatic conquest, whether military or commercial. 
 
 Korea's 20,000,000 people are united in their protest against the 
 domination of Japan. That protest has crystallized into the forma- 
 tion of a Republic. Their resistance to the dominant authority is 
 necessarily passive, yet constant and persistent. They are without 
 arms and without money, yet not without organization. Their faith 
 is in the wisdom, the discernment, and the sense of justice of this 
 great conference. They ask to be heard. They are prepared to ac- 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 cept your decree upon the hearing with all the facts before you. Tho 
 future peace of the world is in your hands, but it will not be attained 
 until the cry of Korea for justice has been answered. 
 
 If it be contended that to grant our appeal would be to intrude 
 a domestic or internal affair of Japan into an international discus- 
 sion, we answer that the more serious problems affecting China are 
 subject to the same criticism. Yet China participates in the deliber- 
 ations of the conference, and it is universally recognized that the 
 adjustment of her affairs is the sine quo non of any effectual scheme 
 for reducing armaments. And China's principal right to considera- 
 tion rests upon treaty covenants identical with our own. 
 
 It is because the nations with whom we covenanted disregarded 
 our appeals for the exercise of their good offices in our behalf when 
 Korea was unjustly dealt with that we are compelled to present this 
 petition. Had the least of them responded, the eyes of the world 
 would have been turned upon Japan, whose gaze would have stayed 
 her hand. Surely you will not turn away from us when you con- 
 sider how indispensable is your favor to our national rehabilitation 
 and to the accomplishment of your great objective. 
 
 Japan can not defend nor mitigate her forcible dominion over 
 Korea upon the plea of needed territory for her expanding popula- 
 tion. Korea can be used for colonization only by exterminating the 
 Korean people, which is beyond her power. Korea comprises but 
 84,400 square miles, with a population of some 20,000,000, or 239 to 
 the square mile. This density of population forbids any other alter- 
 native. The policy has been attempted, yet during the comparative 
 long period of Japanese occupation only 300,000 Japanese have made 
 Korea their abode. They came not to develop but to exploit. 
 
 We are aware of the fact that Japan has claimed that certain 
 treaties were made after the treaty of alliance between Korea and 
 Japan in 1904 by which Korea voluntarily gave up her sovereignty 
 to Japan. 
 
 If we but consider what must have been the attitude and the temper 
 of the Korean people at this time we realize how absurd and im- 
 possible this would be. How could the Koreans forget the murder 
 of their Queen and the poisoning of their Emperor '? Could they 
 forget how Japan came into Korea, protesting love and friendship 
 under a treaty of alliance, and how, flushed with the victory over 
 Russia, which the Koreans themselves made possible, the Japanese 
 threw off the guise of friendship and violated their treaty of alliance, 
 refusing to withdraw their troops, and have continued their military 
 possession to this day? Korea has never been put back in the posi- 
 tion she was in before the treaty of alliance, where she could defend 
 herself. Japan never placed her in statu quo. Consequently, noth- 
 ing that Japan has done or that she has procured to be done under 
 the menace of this military occupation can be used by Japan to 
 justify her retention of Korea. The facts regarding the treaties 
 said to have been made during this term of duress were covered in 
 the " Brief for Korea " which was filed with the Hon. Charles Evans 
 Hughes in April, 1921, and for convenience we attach hereto a copy 
 of that brief as Appendix No. 3. 
 
 Should this conference complete its labors and adjourn without 
 heeding the plea of Korea, its work, however beneficent otherwise, 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 will leave to posterity an Asiatic Alsace-Lorraine problem to plague 
 its conscience, threaten its peace, and disturb the finality of every ad- 
 justment of international relations. 
 
 Finally, it may be asserted that Korea's right to be heard by this 
 conference rests upon the solemn sanction of treaty obligations. 
 Apart from the failure of the members of this conference to observe 
 their covenants with Korea when called upon to exercise their good 
 offices in her behalf when unjustly assailed by Japan at the threshold 
 of her aggressive policies, there remains the fact that Korea is the 
 uphappy victim of her abiding trust in the sanctity of international 
 agreements. Not force, but fraud, gave Japan possession of Korean 
 territory and Korean sovereignty. Her treaty of alliance with Korea 
 against Russia in 1904 made Korea her indispensable base of opera- 
 tions against the common enemy, in acknowledgment for which great 
 advantage she covenanted to safeguard Korea's independence and ter- 
 ritorial integrity for all time. Then, victorious over Russia, she 
 forged her treaty into a weapon for the undoing of Korea. The 
 burden of the yoke then fashioned for the necks of her unhappy 
 people has been made heavier by the indifference of the nations to 
 their obligations. This great conference, whose convocation has been 
 greeted as the harbinger of a new era in world affairs, constitutes the 
 final tribunal of appeal for Korea. She asks for justice and nothing 
 more. 
 
 Hers is the far eastern problem in all its phases. She is both its 
 exponent and the finished example of Japanese ambitions. Her fate, 
 if permitted to remain unremedied, will be the fate of Asia unless 
 prevented by a resort to the ultimo ratio of nations. 
 
 By direction of the Korean Mission to the Conference on Limitation 
 of Armament: 
 
 SYNGMAN RHEE, Chairman. 
 
 PHILIP JAISOHN, Vice Chairman. 
 
 HENRY CHUNG, Secretary. 
 
 FRED A. DOLPH, Counsellor. 
 
 CHARLES S. THOMAS, Special Counsel. 
 
APPENDIX No. 1. 
 
 KOREA'S APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN DELEGATION TO THE 
 CONFERENCE ON LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT. 
 
 KOREAN MISSION TO THE 
 CONFERENCE ON LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT, 
 
 Washington, D. C., October 1, 1921. 
 To the Hon. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, Hon. HENRY CABOT LODGE, 
 
 Hon. ELIHTJ BOOT, and Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Members of 
 
 the Delegation from the United States of America to the Confer- 
 
 ence on Limitation of Armament. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: We have been delegated by the people of Korea to 
 present their cause to you and to the Conference on Limitation of 
 Armament. 
 
 The Korean question is one of the vital far eastern questions. As 
 such it should be considered by the conference. Korea should not be 
 held up merely as an object lesson to illustrate the possibilities of 
 ruthless and aggressive oppression. Her wrongs should not simply 
 be commiserated. They should be righted if the objects of the con- 
 ference are to be attained. Twenty million people, clamoring for 
 restored independence and freedom and craving the justice to which 
 they are beyond all question entitled, can not be denied a hearing 
 without a reflection upon the worthy objects which you are appointed 
 to secure. 
 
 This conference soon to be held may prove to be the most important 
 that the world has ever knoAvn. To accomplish its end it must pro- 
 ceed upon the fundamental premise that the covenants of treaties 
 and agreements between nations are, and must, until formally repu- 
 diated by recognized processes, be faithfully observed by their re- 
 spective signatories. 
 
 Viewed in the light of this principle, the Korean problem is very 
 simple. Japan holds military possession of, and forces its sover- 
 eignty upon Korea, without her consent, in violation of the terms 
 of her treaty of alliance with Korea, and in direct conflict with 
 other treaties that were made by her at different times with that 
 nation. This military possession and enforced sovereignty without 
 consent is due to the *f act that neither the United States nor any of 
 the great powers invited to participate in the coming conference used 
 their " good offices " to prevent it, as by several of their treaty cove- 
 nants with Korea they solemnly engaged themselves to do. 
 
 The United States in 1882; Great Britain in 1883; Italy in 1884; 
 France in 1886; China in 1899; Belgium in 1901; and other powers 
 riot yet officially invited to this conference, each deliberately cove- 
 nanted with Korea, that 
 
 If other powers deal unjustly and oppressively with either Government, the 
 other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about 
 an amicable arrangement. 
 
 8 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 9 
 
 Each one of the nations named below knew that in 1904 Japan and 
 Korea, just prior to the Russo-Japanese war, entered into the treaty 
 of alliance to which we have referred, and that by virtue of such 
 treaty Japan was permitted to occupy Korea with her military 
 forces and to use Korea as a military base in her operations against 
 Siberian Russia. 
 
 But for that treaty the war would have ended disastrously for 
 Japan, who without it would have been compelled to attack Port 
 Arthur with her navy only. Had she been compelled to land her 
 troops from transports, that stronghold might have proven im- 
 pregnable. Or if Japan had not been permitted- to surprise the 
 Russian fleet in the waters of the Yalu, history might have recorded 
 a story far different from that which Japan achieved. Korea, rely- 
 ing upon the honor of Japan, fulfilled her engagements and kept 
 her covenants to the letter, thereby powerfully contributing to the 
 defeat of Russia. Of these undoubted facts the great powers are 
 well aware. 
 
 The compensating clause to Korea in that treaty of alliance was 
 Japan's guaranty of her territorial integrity and independence. It 
 was negotiated at the instance of Japan. Yet she has never recog- 
 nized the sanctity of that clause, although she probably owes to it 
 her very existence, and certainly her greatness, as a nation. It is 
 by virue of that treaty and Korea's liberal observance of it that 
 Japan is to-day one of the great powers and a chief participant in 
 this conference. 
 
 With the conclusion of the Russo-Japanese War Japan, instead 
 of removing her troops and armed forces from Korea, as the treaty 
 contemplated, established permanent military bases at Seoul, the 
 capital, at Peng Yang in the northwest, at Nannam in the northeast, 
 and at Taiku in the southeast, with naval bases at Fusan on the 
 southern coast and Wonsan on the eastern, notwithstanding her 
 naval base at Darien and Port Arthur sufficiently guarded the west- 
 ern coast. 
 
 Thus the temporary military possession of Korea, which Japan 
 obtained by reason of the treaty of alliance, has been perpetuated. 
 Korea has never been placed status in quo, free to act without co- 
 ercion or duress. She has always been, and is now, subject to the 
 menace of troops and war vessels of a nation which secured initial 
 possession of Korea, not by conquest, but by a treaty, to tide her over 
 a vital crisis, which has long since disappeared. Had the American 
 troops remained in France, or the English in Belgium, and through 
 the menace of their presence wrested sovereignty from these nations, 
 the wrong would have been no greater nor more palpable. 
 
 Nothing that Japan has done or that she has procured to be done 
 during the menace and duress of this unlawful military occupation 
 toward securing an apparent or alleged acquiescence in her occupa- 
 tion and sovereignty over Korea should be of lawful force or effect, 
 and especially in a congress of nations deliberating to secure the 
 enduring peace of the world. 
 
 The people of Korea vigorously challenge the assertion that they 
 or their Government ever acquiesced in or consented to the assump- 
 tion of the sovereignty of Japan over Korea. In this they are sup- 
 ported by the recorded facts of history, by the declarations and writ- 
 S. Doc. 109, 67-2 2 
 
10 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 ten protests of the ex-Einperor, by the testimony of your own min- 
 isters to Korea, by the statements of a horde of outside witnesses, 
 and by a convincing array of circumstances. That their position is 
 correct is evidenced by the conditions existing at the time of the 
 alleged acquiescence. You have but to read the dispatches from 
 your own diplomatic representatives covering the murder of the 
 Queen of Korea at the instance of the Japanese ambassador, Viscount 
 Miura, and the account of your own military attache to be convinced 
 that no people with those experiences could 'possibly voluntarily sub- 
 mit themselves to any authority imposed through the agency of such 
 appalling deeds. Had Korea's submission been voluntary, these deeds 
 would have been as useless as they are horrible. 
 
 Following this assumed sovereignty under military coercion there 
 has been much oppression. The people are taxed without representa- 
 tion and have absolutely no voice in their own government. They 
 are oppressed economically and have no redress. Their courts are 
 presided over by Japanese judges and clerks. Japanese teachers 
 installed in their schools compel their children to learn a foreign 
 language. Immoral practices are imposed upon them that they abhor. 
 Intellectually they are being strangled and are being reduced to the 
 position of ignorant serfs and slaves. The people and the country 
 are being exploited for the sole benefit of a foreign power and a for- 
 eign people. 
 
 Although the world's press has placed before the public thousands 
 of columns of news reciting brutalities and atrocities in detail 
 hundreds murdered, thousands wounded and maimed; young girls, 
 school-teachers, and nurses stripped and paraded before Japanese sol- 
 diers and officers; churches and schools burned; thousands placed in 
 prison and more thousands flogged, with death resulting from the 
 severity of the punishment in over 10 per cent of the cases; and 
 although the great powers solemnly agreed to use their " good offices " 
 in any case of unjust dealing, not an official word uttered by a single 
 treaty power has thus far been heard. Is it not for you to challenge 
 the attention of the conference to these conditions and, by recognizing 
 your country's obligation, renew a much needed confidence in the 
 binding force of treaty stipulations? 
 
 Japan justifies her conduct by contending that her occupation of 
 Korea has conferred a material boon upon Koreans. But investi- 
 gation demonstrates that harbors have been deepened and improved 
 for war vessels and that railways and roads have been extended and 
 improved with special reference to military and not for economic 
 uses. Afforestation is claimed, but the facts are that the 101,000 acres 
 afforested are belittled by the 5,391,000 acres of virgin timber cut 
 over. In terms of dollars and cents, there has been $168,000,000 
 spent in Korea by Japan for improvements, and $418,000,000 has been 
 taken out of Korea by Japan through increased taxes over normal 
 Korean taxes and increase of the Korean national debt. Japan has 
 taken out of Korea $250,000,000 to assist in the support of her mili- 
 tary machine. If you would limit armament, take away this support. 
 Korea can use her own money to better advantage. But if we con- 
 cede that Japan, since her occupation of Korea, has conferred mate- 
 rial advantage upon her unhappy people, we may well ask whether 
 the destruction of that ancient kingdom and the enslavement of her 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 11 
 
 subjects can be thus compensated. Germany defended her world war 
 of aggression by proclaiming her purpose to spread the blessings of 
 her kultur over the surface of the globe, and Poland was once parti- 
 tioned for Poland's good. But the world's sense of justice repudiated 
 these hypocrisies and resisted the former to the uttermost. Korea 
 does not ask for her country's improvement. She demands the exer- 
 cise of those treaty covenants with other nations upon which she has a 
 right to rely for her protection. 
 
 The first of these was negotiated with the United States, upon its 
 own request and initiative. The other powers came afterwards. 
 Korea for centuries preferred isolation to the society of other peoples. 
 Until induced to reverse her ancient policy she was successfully self- 
 reliant. She changed it, relying upon the integrity of your assur- 
 ances. Did the United States persuade Korea to seek American 
 society only to abandon her to the aggression of a formidable neigh- 
 bor ? We can not believe it. 
 
 In a communication of this kind the Korean situation can only be 
 sketched. Many reasons why it should be considered by you and by 
 the conference have not been touched upon at all, and many facts 
 have not been mentioned. But we feel that this outline amply sustains 
 our assertion that the plight of Korea involves one of those far eastern 
 problems the solution of which by the conference has been wisely 
 suggested by the United States as a precedent condition to the reduc- 
 tion of armaments and the future peace of the world. 
 
 We appeal to you for an opportunity to fully present the cause of 
 the Korean people to your delegation, to the end that you will then 
 either present it to the conference or that you will create an oppor- 
 tunity for us to do so. 
 
 With assurances of our profound respect and esteem, we present this 
 appeal. 
 
 By direction of the Korean mission to the Conference on Limitation 
 of Armament: 
 
 SYNGMAN RHEE, C/icdrman. 
 PHILIP JAISOHN, Vice Chairman. 
 HENRY CHUNG, Secretary. 
 FRED A. DOLPH, Counsellor. 
 CHARLES S. THOMAS, Special Counsel. 
 
APPENDIX No. 2. 
 
 KOREA WHAT THE CONFEREE NATIONS HAVE SAID AND 
 
 PLEDGED. 
 
 All the world needs the example of kept obligations. (President Harding in 
 speech delivered Nov. 14, 1921.) 
 
 Korea presents to the conference the bare record without comment. 
 If obligations are to be " kept " she will be content. 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 Be it known that I, Chester A. Arthur, President of the United States of 
 America, have caused the said convention (treaty between United States and 
 Korea) to be made public, to the end that the same and every clause and article 
 thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and 
 the citizens thereof. 
 
 Proclamation of President Arthur with respect to treaty with 
 Korea, dated May 22, 1882, ratified by the Senate January 9, 1883, 
 containing the following obligations to be " kept " : 
 
 ARTICLE I. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the Presi- 
 dent of the United States and the King of Chosen (Korea) and the citizens and 
 subjects of their respective governments. If other powers deal unjustly or 
 oppressively with either government, the other will exert their good offices, on 
 toeing informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus show- 
 ing their friendly feeling. 
 
 Provisions follow that each shall appoint diplomatic representa- 
 tives to reside at the court of the other. That residents of each may 
 reside in the country of the other and shall be freely permitted to 
 pursue their various callings. That students of either may proceed 
 to the country of the other in order to study the language, literature, 
 laws, or arts, and shall be given all possible protection and assistance. 
 
 Taking everything into consideration, the legation will hear with pleasure 
 that the Shufelt Convention (treaty with Korea) has been ratified. I think It 
 very important that the United States should have a footing in Korea, and that 
 having opened the door, we should not close it, or give any other power prece- 
 dence. (Hon. John Russell Young, minister to China, in diplomatic report to 
 Secretary of State Frelinghuysen, Dec. 26, 1882.) 
 
 The existence of international relations between the two countries (United 
 States and Korea) as equal contracting parties is an accepted fact. (Secretary 
 of State Freylinghuysen, in ruling dated June 9, 1883.) 
 
 The position assumed by this Government toward Korea since contracting 
 the treaty with it in 1882 has in nowise been affected by recent events.. Korea's 
 treaty independence since then has been for us an established and accepted fact. 
 (Acting Secretary of State Alvey A. Adee, in ruling dated July 9, 1885.) 
 
 Mr. Inouye, His Majesty's minister of foreign affairs, took occasion to say 
 that the reason of our Government in so promptly ratifying its treaty with 
 Korea and accrediting a minister to that country gave satisfaction to his Im- 
 perial Japanese Majesty's Government, and was accepted as an evidence of 
 the policy of justice so often manifested by the United States toward the eastern 
 States of Asia. It was considered an act of friendship toward Japan as well as 
 Korea. (Mr. Bingham. minister to Japan, in diplomatic report to Secretary of 
 State, Apr. 14, 1883.) 
 
 12 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 13 
 
 The intentions of the Japanese Government with regard to Korea seem to be 
 clearly expresed in this protocol (treaty of alliance between Japan and Korea, 
 djited Feb. 2S, 1904), and all my information leads uie to believe that it has 
 every intention of respecting the integrity of the Korean Empire. (Mr. Gri-scorn, 
 minister to Japan, to Secretary of State, dated Mar. 17, 1904.) 
 
 The Marquis (Ito) was emphatic in pronouncing all annexation talk as absurd. 
 (Diplomatic report by American charge d'affaires at Tokyo to Secretary of 
 Slate, Sept. 19, 1907.) 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 The treaty between Korea and Great Britain was negotiated on 
 behalf of Great Britain by Sir Harry Smith Parkes, and is dated 
 November 26, 1883. Its provisions are in substance the same as the 
 treaty with the United States, and its diplomatic correspondence 
 duplicates the correspondence between Korea and the United States. 
 
 The high contracting parties having mutually recognized the independence 
 of China and Korea, declare themselves to be entirely uninfluenced by any ag- 
 gressive tendencies in either country. (First Anglo- Japanese Alliance, Jan. 
 30, 1902.) 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 The diplomatic correspondence and treaty relations between France 
 and Korea presents a third reiteration in substance of the same treaty 
 relations and the same diplomatic representations as with the United 
 States. 
 
 The treaty between France and Korea bears date June 4, 1886. 
 
 ITALY. 
 
 The treaty between Italy and Korea is elated June, 1884, and 
 presents a fourth reiteration of the same treaty and diplomatic rela- 
 tions as with the United States. 
 
 BELGIUM. 
 
 The treaty and diplomatic relations between Korea and Belgium 
 presents another and a fifth reiteration of the treaty relations with 
 the United States. The treaty with Belgium was made at a later 
 date, March 23, 1901. 
 
 CHINA. 
 
 China recognizes definitely the full and complete independence and autonomy 
 of Korea. (Article I of the treaty between Japan and China (Shimoneski 
 treaty), dated Apr. 20, 1895.) 
 
 There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the Empire of Korea 
 and the Empire of China, and between their respective subjects, who shall en- 
 joy equally in the respective countries of the high contracting parties full pro- 
 tection and the advantages of favorable treatment. If other powers should 
 deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government the other, on being in- 
 formed of the case, will exert their good offices to bring about an amicable ar- 
 rangement, thus showing their friendly feelings. (Article I of the treaty be- 
 tween China and Korea, dated Sept. 11, 1899.) 
 
 JAPAN. 
 
 Chosen (Korea), being an independent State, enjoys the same sovereign rights 
 as does Japan. (Treaty between Japan and Korea, dated Feb. 26, 1876.) 
 
 The independence of Korea is declared confirmed and established. (Treaty 
 between Japan and Korea, dated July 14, 1894.) 
 
14 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 The following telegrams, received by the State Department on 
 their respective dates, were sent by United States diplomatic repre- 
 sentatives regarding the murder of Queen Min of Korea, showing the 
 Japanese conception of the independent rights of a sister nation : 
 
 TOKYO, October 9, 180.1. 
 
 The following telegram has been received from Allen, dated Seoul, October 9 : 
 " Yesterday morning King's father, with the assistance of Japanese, forcibly 
 entered royal palace. Two officers killed in attempting to save Her Majesty. 
 Queen and three ladies murdered. Murderers were Japanese in civilian dress." 
 
 DUN. 
 
 TOKYO, October 12, 1895. 
 
 The following telegram has been received from Allen, dated October 11 : " I 
 have received to-day a detachment of marines from the York town.- Charge 
 d'affaires Russia the same. English consul sent immediately for war vessel. 
 Missing queen deposed." 
 
 DUN. 
 
 TOKYO, October 14, 18H.1. 
 
 The following telegram has been received from Allen, dated October 13 : " This 
 Government is now under control of King's father and five traitors, under the 
 guidance of Japanese. The condition of His Majesty pitiful. Queen murdered ; 
 murderers in full power. His own life in imminent peril. * * * Japanese 
 minister states that atrocities were committed by natives disguised to repre- 
 sent Japanese. It is absurd. Charge 1 d'affaires of Russia and myself saw 30 
 of them leaving royal palace just after atrocities armed with swords. They 
 were Japanese. Also a reliable American military officer of the Government 
 saw Japanese troops enter royal palace in advance of insurgents, and they wit- 
 nessed atrocities, but made no attempt to prevent them. Sufficient evidence 
 implicating Japanese minister overwhelming." 
 
 DUN. 
 
 SEOUL, October 2G, 1895. 
 
 Japanese minister and officers of his legation and army have been sent to 
 Japan. Count Inouye is coming to Seoul as special ambassador. The King is 
 under strict duress. His life in peril. I do not recognize decrees forced t'ronr 
 him. Allen's conduct affairs excellent. 
 
 SILL. 
 
 The Japanese ambassador, Viscount Miura, was recalled and was 
 subjected to the form of facing a Japanese court of inquiry. The 
 following excerpts from the court's findings show a very crude ex- 
 ample of " whitewash " : 
 
 The accused, Miura Goro (Japanese ambassador to Korea), assumed his 
 official duties September 1, 1895. According to his observations, things in 
 Korea were tending in a wrong direction. The accused felt it of the utmost 
 importance to apply an effective remedy to this state of things, and a confer- 
 ence was held at the legation. It was further resolved that this opportunity 
 should be availed of for taking the life of the queen, who exorcised over- 
 whelming influence in the court. Miura Goro decided to carry out the plan by 
 the middle of the month. (Reference is here made to a visit of the Korean 
 minister of war to the legation, demanding the disbandmeut of the Japanese 
 troops.) It was now evident that the moment had arrived and that no more 
 delay should be made. Miura Goro consequently determined to carry out the 
 plot on the night of that very day. (Here the findings of the court of inquiry 
 abruptly end.) Notwithstanding these facts, there is no sufficient evidence to 
 prove that any of the accused actually committed the crime. 
 
 The Imperial Government of Russia and of Japan recognize definitely the 
 sovereignty and entire independence of Korea and pledge themselves mutually 
 to abstain from all direct interference in the internal affairs of that country. 
 (Treaty between Russia and Japan, dated Apr. 25, 1898.) 
 
 ART. II. The Imperial Government of Japan shall in a spirit of firm friend- 
 ship insure the safety and repose of the Imperial House of Korea. 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 15 
 
 ART. III. The Imperial Government of Japan definitely guarantees the inde- 
 pendence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire. (Treaty of alliance 
 between Japan and Korea, dated Feb. 23, 1904.) 
 
 In a circular letter to the powers, sent out through the various 
 diplomatic agencies of the Japanese Government, it was stated: 
 
 You are instructed to communicate to the Government to which you are 
 accredited that the occupation of some ports and territory of Korea is found 
 inevitable in the prosecution of the present war ( Japanese-Russo ) , but that 
 such use is not in disregard of or in violation of her independence or territorial 
 integrity, and that the Japanese Government has concluded with the Korean 
 Government the following protocol. (Here followed the treaty of alliance con- 
 taining the provision above quoted.) 
 
 It will be conceded by everyone that if Japan had not made this 
 treaty of alliance with Korea, and if Korea had not permitted Japan 
 to occupy " some ports and territory," so as to enable it to strike a 
 quick and unexpected blow at Russia, Japan would not have been 
 the victor in the Japanese-Russo War. 
 
 We are quite sure that if Japan had not hastened to assure the 
 nations of the world by the circular letter that we have quoted that 
 its military occupation of Korea was " not in disregard of or in vio- 
 lation of her independence or territorial integrity," and if Japan had 
 not hastened to place in the hands of the powers copies of the treaty 
 of alliance by which Japan solemnly " guaranteed the independence 
 and territorial integrity of Korea," that the powers would have pro- 
 tested and would not have permitted that military occupation. They 
 would have considered it a violation of Korea's right to neutrality 
 and would have stepped in, under the terms of their various treaties 
 with Korea. 
 
 If these promises and these assurances had not been made by 
 Japan, and if these written solemn treaty covenants had not been 
 made by Japan guaranteeing Korea's independence, will anyone sup- 
 pose for a moment that Japan would have been permitted to occupy 
 Korea as a military base without a fight? Koreans would have 
 fought as they did 300 years before when the Japanese samurai, 
 under Hideyoshi, invaded the country, and the Japanese would have 
 been repulsed, just as they were then. Korea is an oppressed nation, 
 but history shows that it is not inferior. Where did the potter's 
 wheel, the loom, movable type, 24-letter alphabet, ironclads, bomb- 
 shells, early bronzes, under-glazed pottery, and the main principles 
 of the calendar that you are using to-day come from ? Your museums 
 and the British museum will show that they came from Korea. The 
 symbols on Korea's flag inspired Confucius to write his first classic, 
 and the great walls, of which traces can still be found in Korea, built 
 centuries before Emperor Chin's time, were the inspiration and pat- 
 tern from which that self-styled " First Emperor of Chin-a " built 
 the great wall of China. 
 
 We refer to these things simply to emphasize the fact that we are 
 really an intelligent people with initiative, and if not oppressed, 
 we could take our place in world affairs with some degree of con- 
 fidence. 
 
 In 1904 we were not so spiritless or so helpless or so lacking in 
 intelligence that we would have permitted Japan to occupy our 
 country with its military forces unless under a solemn treaty declara- 
 
16 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 r' 
 
 tion recognizing and guaranteeing our independence. We trusted 
 Japan then, it is true. We relied upon her guaranty. We relied 
 upon the numerous other treaties that have been cited in this article, 
 and we believed then, as President Harding does now, in the sanctity 
 of " kept obligations'." Are we wholly to blame for our trust or for 
 misplacing our confidence ? 
 
 The Eusso-Japanese war came to an end. The necessity for 
 Japanese military occupation of Korea has long since ceased. The 
 purpose for which the treaty of alliance between Japan and Korea 
 was made has terminated. Yet Japan remains and has increased 
 her military forces and has established permanent bases, both for 
 land and naval forces. If we continue to rely on others we will 
 perish, unless the great nations of the world respond to President 
 Harcling's noble and just sentiment that obligations are to be " kept." 
 
APPENDIX No. 3. 
 BRIEF FOR KOREA. 
 
 (Presented to the Hon. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, Secretary of State.) 
 PART I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 
 
 The consideration of the case of Korea rests almost entirely on 
 conceded facts, and the principles of international law involved are 
 elementary, requiring but casual mention. 
 
 There are three periods in Korean history, considered with refer- 
 ence to her foreign relations: (1) The period of 4,215 years prior to 
 1882, during which she maintained her own independence and integ- 
 rity by her own unaided efforts, though China claimed suzerainty; 
 (2) the period of 23 years, from 1882 to 1905, in which she sustained 
 diplomatic relations with all the world, relying more or less at first, 
 and in the end wholly, upon the powers to sustain her entity, pursu- 
 ant to the treaties they made with her; and (3) the period from 
 1905, in which she has suffered from usurpation at the hands of 
 Japan. 
 
 In a strict legal sense we need not concern ourselves with the 
 national status of Korea prior to 1882. However, the situation 
 prior to 1882 bears upon the equities of the case, and should be kept 
 in mind. 
 
 It is certain that in 1882 the United States recognized the inde- 
 pendence and territorial integrity of Korea by entering into a treaty 
 of amity and commerce with her as a separate national entity. The 
 treaty was in due form. It was ratified by the Senate and in regular 
 course it was formally " proclaimed " by President Arthur. Japan 
 was the first nation to officially " congratulate " both Korea and the 
 United States upon its consummation. This fact is noted in the 
 report of Hon. John A. Bingham to Secretary Frelinghuysen, 
 April 14, 1883. 
 
 As though to emphasize the international effect of this treaty in rec- 
 ognizing this national entity, China protested the sending of Korean 
 ministers to the United States, claiming suzerainty over Korea. The 
 protest was patiently and fully considered on its merits and was 
 overruled. Later China, conceding the position of the United States, 
 also recognized by specific treaty the independence and separate 
 entity of Korea. 
 
 Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Bel- 
 gium, Denmark, and Italy, following the course of the United States, 
 also made treaties of amity and commerce with Korea as a separate 
 nation. 
 
 Japan not only recognized diplomatically and with finality the 
 
 independence of Korea by officially "congratulating" both Korea 
 
 and the United States on the execution of the treaty of 1882, but 
 
 emphasized the fact by treaties made with Korea direct and by 
 
 S. Doc. 109, 67-2 3 17 
 
18 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 recitals of the fact in treaties made with China, Russia, and Great 
 Britain. We need only quote at this time the treaty of February 23, 
 1904, between Korea and Japan, in which by Article III 
 
 The Imperial Government of Japan definitely guarantees the independence 
 and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire. 
 
 The United States, with all the other nations named, including 
 Japan, established diplomatic relations with Korea. Ministers were 
 sent to Korea and Korean ministers were received and acknowl- 
 edged by the various countries with which the treaties had been 
 made. 
 
 These treaties have never been abrogated by the direct positive 
 act of all of the high contracting parties thereto. They were 
 lived up to and worked under in entire good faith until 1905, and 
 have been ignored since that date only because of the assertions and 
 assertive attitude of Japan. With all due respect to Japan, it is now 
 known that those assertions of Japan are untrue and that her assert- 
 ive attitude is without foundation. The conceded facts now known 
 are not consistent with the representations made to the powers by 
 Japan in 1905 and since. 
 
 It is one of the purposes of this brief to recall and emphasize that 
 fundamental principle of all law, whether international or of what- 
 ever class, that a contract or a treaty is not abrogated by the mere 
 assertions or desires of a third party or nation not a party to the 
 original contract or treaty. 
 
 The things that happened to Korea since 1905 and the prior 
 related conditions leading to its present predicament could have 
 happened to any other nation in the world of the same size and 
 military strength. 
 
 Citizens in private life have been held up and robbed because all 
 wise laws have been enacted preventing them from carrying weapons 
 with which to protect themselves. They have also been deprived of 
 their property by the fraudulent intrigue of trusted partners and 
 agents. The citizen is not censured because he is the victim of cir- 
 cumstances or has been too trusting, rather he has the sympathy 
 and secures the aid of all other good citizens. The highwayman is 
 punished and ostracised and the property of the defrauded citizen 
 is returned to him by due process of law. 
 
 These principles and conditions in private life hold true and exist, 
 or at least should hold true and exist, in international relations. The 
 illustration is given because the writer believes it to be an exact par- 
 allel to the present situation in Korea. 
 
 Prior to 1882, for 4,215 years, Korea had maintained her own in- 
 dependence and integrity by means of her own unaided strength, 
 activity, and nationality. At times, it is true, she was overwhelmed 
 by Tartar and Mongolian hordes, but she always eventually emerged 
 a free and independent nation. 
 
 In this period, from 1595 to 1597, she was also for the time being 
 overwhelmed by the invasion of the Japanese Shogun Hideyoshi, 
 but Korean inventive genius and initiative came to her aid. The 
 first ironclad ever used in the world was designed and used by Korea 
 during this invasion, and with it the great Japanese fleet of the times 
 was driven from Korean waters. Another Korean genius designed 
 the first bombshell, which was used against the land forces, and 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 19 
 
 spreading consternation among the Nipponese warriors, it drove 
 them from the land of the " morning calm." Korea was again free 
 and independent by her own acts, superior intellectual strength, and 
 inventive genius. 
 
 Following this Japanese invasion, statesmen of Korea concluded 
 that the only way to have peace was to isolate their country from 
 the rest of the world, and it became the hermit Kingdom. It must 
 be said in justice to the wisdom of their course that the little King- 
 dom did have profound peace for 300 years. Korea remained iso- 
 lated until 1882, when, at the bidding of the United States, she opened 
 her doors to the world. 
 
 From 1882 to 1905, a period of 23 years, Korea maintained her 
 national independence, not so much through her own acts as there- 
 tofore, but more through the moral force and supposedly binding 
 provisions of the various treaties she had made with the nations of 
 the world, including the United States. 
 
 She began to trust and to rely upon these treaties, gradually weak- 
 ening and giving up her own methods of defense, until ultimately 
 she found herself in a position where she was forced to entirely rely 
 upon foreign powers and their solemnly made agreements to use 
 their " good offices " in case of oppression. 
 
 No one should criticize Korea for this attitude or this trust, for 
 in our innermost consciousness 'we must admit that if the United 
 States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, 
 Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and China had come forward to do just 
 the literal, identical thing, and nothing more, that they had all 
 agreed to do, namely, to use their "good offices" in protest against 
 her oppression, Korea would not have been in her present predica- 
 ment. 
 
 She would still be free and independent and one of the nations 
 of the world; and with her 4,000 years of history, her 20,000,000 
 people, her record of accomplishment in the industrial arts, and her 
 intellectual achievements, would at least par in importance to the 
 great world brotherhood, with Hejaz, Liberia, Hayti, Honduras, 
 Guatemala, and many others recognized by the League of Nations. 
 
 We can not conceive of a single occurrence in Korea that could 
 not have taken place in any other small nation under the same 
 conditions and opposed by the same unscrupulous forces. Early 
 in the year 1904 Japan was at war with Russia and sought the 
 assistance of Korea as an ally. It succeeded in obtaining coopera- 
 tion on the representation that Japan would definitely guarantee 
 Korean independence. Korea insisted that the pact should be in 
 writing, resulting in the treaty between Japan and Korea dated 
 February 23, 1904. By that treaty, as we have already seen, Japan 
 did that very thing. She specifically guaranteed the independence 
 and territorial integrity of Korea for all time. 
 
 Accordingly Japanese troops were permitted to land in and 
 traverse Korea as a short route to Siberia, including Russian posi- 
 tions in Manchuria, and the Japanese Navy was permitted to use 
 Korean waters as a near-by base of operations. If Korea had not 
 consented to this military occupation and use of her territory; if 
 she had taken the same position toward Japan that Belgium did 
 toward Germany, another history would have been written for the 
 
20 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 Russo-Japanese War. Such a course would have impeded Japanese 
 progress sufficiently to have enabled Russia to mobilize her Army 
 and Navy in the Far East. Korea contributed to, if she was not in 
 fact wholly responsible for, the success of Japan in that war. 
 Japan's treachery and ingratitude can not be adequately expressed. 
 
 The Imperial Government of Japan has never to this day with- 
 drawn her military occupation of Korea that was obtained under 
 the treaty of 1904, by which it guaranteed the independence and 
 territorial integrity of Korea, and Korea has never since been 
 placed in statu quo, free to act without the dominating and menac- 
 ing presence of Japanese troops. 
 
 Military possession for a given purpose, obtained by permission 
 and specific treaty, has arbitrarily been turned into adverse pos- 
 session in opposition to the original purposes, which were to guaran- 
 tee and further the independence of Korea. 
 
 It is impossible to apply any other principle of law than the 
 obvious and fundamental one, that initially permitted possession 
 under contract can not be turned into adverse possession, without 
 surrender and placing the parties in statu quo. So long as such 
 initially permitted possession under contract is maintained, it is in 
 law, international as well as private, considered as in pursuance 
 of the purposes of the original permission. 
 
 Japan can not claim sovereignty which she obtained during the 
 menace of military possession, when the very purpose of the original 
 military entry and possession, never surrendered, was to protect 
 the independence and territorial integrity of Korea. This was the 
 covenant and condition exacted by Korea as a consideration for her 
 assistance and her agreement of alliance with Japan against Russia, 
 and Korea has performed her covenant. 
 
 Japan can only be considered as a steward and guardian for her 
 ward, Korea, holding the possession that she has, and that she has 
 retained without surrender, in furtherance of the declared purpose 
 at the time, to guarantee and protect the independence of Korea. 
 No act or thing that Japan has done, nor any act or thing that Japan 
 has procured to be done, during the presence and menace of military 
 possession can change this fundamental rule. 
 
 This all being absolutely true, the nations of the world who made 
 treaties with Korea, including the United States, must still regard 
 Korea as a separate entity and the treaties in force, irrespective of 
 any assertions or claims of Japan to the contrary. 
 
 If there are those who would justify the acts of Japan in seizing 
 Korea on the grounds of expediency, we can still ask, "Expedient 
 for whom Japan or Korea ? " They were both separate entities and 
 both had sustained diplomatic relations with all the rest of the world. 
 They were neighbors owning separate properties. 
 
 It might be expedient, from the standpoint of one neighbor, for 
 him to confiscate the property of his fellow. He might even say 
 that he was a better farmer than his neighbor and could raise 
 greater crops, and that by having authority over the person of his 
 unfortunate fellow worker he could make him get up earlier in the 
 morning and work longer hours, and thus the community would be 
 benefited. But in ordinary affairs NQ do not consider such things; 
 we call it stealing. 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 21 
 
 There may still be those not versed in the fundamentals of law 
 and justice, or being versed, that for the time being forget, who 
 still wish to justify Japan's action. They wish to consider the de- 
 tailed acts of Japan. So be it. We need only -to recite the facts, 
 without comment or argument, and even these curious doubters will 
 be convinced. We give notice in advance that it is a tale of horror 
 and tragedy, and of greed and exploitation, repulsive in the extreme. 
 
 In July, 1894, Japan and Korea signed a treaty of alliance against 
 China, providing that Korea should facilitate the movement of 
 Japanese troops to China and should assist in their sustenance, and 
 that the treaty should determine with the conclusion of peace with 
 China. Having made this treaty, which was necessary to her suc- 
 cess, Japan formally declared war against China on August 1, 1894. 
 History records that Japan was victorious and the treaty of Shimo- 
 noseki, April 20, 1895, concluded that war. 
 
 The successful outcome of that war to Japan gave birth to her 
 ambition to control Asia. She claimed credit for the victory, ignor- 
 ing the help given to her by Korea, and sought to strengthen her 
 position in the Far East by acquiring absolute control over her ally, 
 Korea. Although the war was concluded, Japan did not withdraw 
 her troops from Korea and the Queen was using all her power, and 
 the power of the great Min family of which she was a member, to 
 oppose Japan's encroachments and purposes. Japan determined 
 upon her removal. 
 
 The Japanese minister to Korea, Viscount Miura, worked out the 
 details and arranged for her murder. The palace was surrounded 
 by Japanese troops and thugs were sent to perform the act. They 
 murdered the commander of the palace guard and two ladies in wait- 
 ing before they finally found the Queen. She was cut down, her 
 body hacked in pieces, wrapped in woolen blankets, saturated with 
 kerosene oil, and burned in the courtyard. 
 
 Volumes have been written about the tragedy, but we omit further 
 
 frewsome detail. Our purpose is to state, as simply as we can, what 
 apan did. Her reasons for doing this thing, and the attitude of a 
 nation in causing or permitting it to be done, is outlined in the de- 
 fense interposed at the trial of Viscount Miura. This was the justi- 
 fication presented by his counsel : 
 
 He did only his duty, as he was in charge of peace and order in Korea. The 
 root of political trouble, the effects of which would have lasted for a long time 
 to come, was torn up. Considering the class of diplomacy prevailing in Korea, 
 Viscount Miura has accomplished only a triumph. 
 
 This justification was adopted by the Japanese court in which he 
 was tried. No other inference is permissible. The court, though 
 finding him to be the conspirator who planned the murder, never- 
 theless discharged him. 
 
 This murder and this brazen defense of it was such an atrocious 
 thing that the conscience of the world was aroused in protest and 
 Japan was forced to live up to her treaty obligations for this once. 
 For the time being Japan seemingly acquiesced in the world's deci- 
 sion, but in fact sat back, watching for a new ju jitsu hold on the 
 diplomatic situation. 
 
 Conditions were slow in materializing for Japanese purposes and 
 she started a propaganda in Korea to the effect that Korea was being 
 
22 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 menaced by Russia, aided by China. This propaganda was success- 
 ful, even in face of the fact that it was seemingly apparent that 
 Russia had already obtained and established her objectives in the 
 Far East. She had reached the eastern seas with railroad termi- 
 nals established at Vladivostok on the Japan Sea and at Port Arthur 
 and Dairen on the Yellow Sea. Korea would be an unnecessary 
 adjunct. 
 
 In spite of this obvious situation Japan was successful in her plans, 
 and there was a second alliance between Korea and Japan, this time 
 against Russia. We have already had occasion to detail the facts 
 as to this alliance and the making of the treaty of 1904, by which 
 Japan definitely guaranteed the independence and territorial in- 
 tegrity of Korea, in return for which guaranty Korea allowed her 
 territory to be used as a base of operations against Russia and Siberia. 
 This is the military possession, under treaty for a specific purpose, 
 that Japan has retained to this day. 
 
 The treaty terminating the war with Russia was consummated 
 at Portsmouth in September, 1905, and its was no sooner signed and 
 out of the way than Japan began her aggressive activities in Korea. 
 A treaty establishing a protectorate by Japan over Korea was pre- 
 pared and Marquis Ito was sent to Seoul to secure its signature. 
 For days he importuned the Emperor and the cabinet ministers to 
 carry out the will of his imperial autocratic master, but they flatly 
 refused. There were stormy sessions. Threats and cajolery were 
 used to no avail ; finally it was apparent that more vigorous methods 
 must be adopted. 
 
 The palace was a second time surrounded by Japanese troops 
 and was invaded with swaggering officers and their conspicuously 
 armed guards. The Emperor and the ministers had been assem- 
 bled at the peremptory order of Marquis Ito. They were argued 
 with en masse with no result, and then the three ministers who 
 were the most outspoken in their condemnation were taken out, one 
 by one. Japanese officers returned, sheathing swords and buckling 
 holsters, saying to those who still sat in council, " Now will you 
 sign?" The Emperor and his remaining ministers had every reason 
 to believe that their absent colleagues had become martyrs to Korean 
 freedom as had their beloved Queen Min. Still they stubbornly 
 refused. 
 
 The details of this conference have been recorded in numerous 
 historical works. They are common knowledge. The protectorate 
 treaty never was signed or legally executed, although Japan an- 
 nounced to the world that it had been. Even if actually signed, 
 it would still be invalid because -of personal duress. 
 
 There were present at the opening of this conference on behalf 
 of Korea the Emperor and his eight ministers: Hahn Kin-sul, 
 premier; Park Chee-soon, vice premier and minister of foreign 
 affairs; Min- Young-kee ; Lee Ha-young; Yi Won-yong; Yi Kun- 
 tak; Yi She-yong; and Kwon Choong-hyun. The status of the 
 ministers was, of course, advisory. The final decision and the exe- 
 cution of the document rested with the Emperor. The Emperor 
 did not sign, nor was he ever advised to sign by a majority of his 
 ministry. 
 
 The three Yi's did sign. One of their rewards for this act of 
 treachery to Korea was that Yi Won-yong was given the title of 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 23 
 
 count, with a bribe of 1,000,000 yen ($500,000). It is claimed that 
 Lee and Kwon consented without signing. Others claim that these 
 two simply refused to participate. In any event, the Emperor, the 
 premier, the minister of foreign affairs, and Minister Min did not 
 sign or acquiesce in the protectorate in any manner or form, but 
 were all outspoken and courageous in their denunciation and repu- 
 diation of the acts of the Japanese. 
 
 The Imperial Government of Japan reported this thing consum- 
 mated on November 17. 1905. and the world for the time being ac- 
 cepted this misstatement as the truth. It was plausible enough, for 
 the traitor, Yi W n ~y on g? was quoted to substantiate their state- 
 ment. In fact, Yi Wong-yong, fraudulently signing himself as act- 
 ing minister of foreign affairs, although Park Che-soon was the min- 
 ister, instructed Kim Yun-chung, another Korean traitor, then sta- 
 tioned at Washington as charge de affaires for Korea, to announce the 
 treaty to the United States and to turn the legation over to the Japa- 
 nese. This Kim did, and returning to Korea was rewarded by Japa- 
 nese for his treachery by being made prefect of Chemulpo, later coun- 
 sellor in Chula Province, and was given a vast estate of several thou- 
 sand acres. 
 
 Secretary of State Root had no means of knowing, at the time, that 
 Japan's statement of the signing of the protectorate treaty was un- 
 true, nor that Yi Won-yong and Kim Yun-chung had been bribed to 
 misrepresent the facts to him, and accordingly recognized the Japa- 
 nese protectorate of Korea and withdrew the diplomatic representa- 
 tives of the United States to Korea. 
 
 In the meantime the Emperor had become convinced by the atti- 
 tude of Japan of its ultimate purposes and in October, 1905, had dis- 
 patched his faithful friend and confidant, Prof. Homer B. Hulbert, 
 an American, to Washington with a protest to the United States and 
 asking its aid and " good offices." 
 
 Prof. Hulbert arrived in Washington almost on the very day it is 
 alleged the treaty was signed. It was useless for him to attempt to 
 get Kim Yun-chung, the acting charge de affaires for Korea, to pre- 
 sent the protest, because the charge was in Japan's pay, and he was 
 delayed in seeing Secretary Root until after the formal recognition 
 of the Japanese protectorate had taken place. 
 
 He did finally see Secretary Root, however, but under the circum- 
 stances was not formally received as a representative of Korea. The 
 protest of the Emperor was delivered to the State Department and 
 simply became a part of its confidential files. The next day Prof. 
 Hulbert received a cable from the Emperor denying the execution of 
 the protectorate treaty and it was promptly delivered to the State 
 Department and it. too, became a part of the files of the department. 
 
 After the announcement of the protectorate the Emperor for all 
 practical purposes was a Japanese prisoner, confined in his own 
 country. No one, except that he was a pronounced pro-Japanese, 
 was allowed to see him. Seasoned and experienced correspondents 
 from the leading world's newspapers were sent to interview him, but 
 without success. Prof. Hulbert, his faithful friend, did manage to see 
 him in spite of Japanese espionage, and the Emperor delivered to him 
 credentials to the powers with which Korea had made treaties, reciting 
 the fraudulent character of the protectorate and asking the "good 
 offices" of those nations to assist Korea in her predicament. 
 
24 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 However, Prof. Hulbert, alone and unaided, could not accomplish a 
 great deal, except to persist in his efforts to inform the world, in season 
 and out, of the f audulent character of Japanese usurpation in Korea. 
 This he did with a faithfulness and self-sacrifice that we may expect 
 from a red-blooded American, fighting for the weak and oppressed. 
 
 Supplementing the protests and credentials delivered to Prof. 
 Hulbert, the Emperor did succeed in getting out credentials to pleni- 
 potentiaries to appear before The Hague Internatioanl Peace Con- 
 ference. They bore date April 20, 1907, and were issued to Ye Sang- 
 sul, an official of the second rank; Ye Choon, ex-judge of the Su- 
 preme Court of Korea, and Prince Ye We-chong. Prince Ye was the 
 son of Ye Pom-chin, former Korean Minister to Washington from 
 1896 to 1900 and the grandnephew of the Emperor. Upon learning 
 of this act the Imperial Government of Japan promptly caused 
 Prince Ye to be condemned to death, and Ye Sang-sul and Ye Choon 
 were sentenced to life imprisonment. 
 
 Japan sought to, and for all practical purposes did, vitiate the 
 credentials issued to Prof. Hulbert and the envoys to The Hague 
 conference, by announcing the abdication of the Emperor who had 
 signed the credentials. Those who believed the announcement, of 
 course, considered the credentials automatically canceled. This 
 announcement was made July 19, 1907, and five days later, on the 
 24th, the subsidized Korean traitor, Yi Won-yong, purporting to act 
 for Korea, signed a treaty with Marquis Ito, representing Japan, 
 turning over to Marquis Ito, as Japanese resident general, the entire 
 governmental functions of Korea, internal and otherwise. 
 
 It is impossible to believe, in view of the Emperor's attitude 
 and many public protests, that the Emperor ever actually and of 
 his own volition consented to any of these acts that Japan an- 
 nounced that he had promulgated. In any event, on the theory 
 that " dead men tell no tales," he was poisoned on January 24, 
 1919. His death was kept a secret for some days and finally it was 
 officially announced that he had died of apoplexy. 
 
 The crown prince was an unfortunate a mental deficient and 
 being born of Queen Min in those troublesome times preceding her 
 murder he came into the world with no chance. The very terrors 
 and ordeals through which his mother had passed were to shield 
 him. He was born without means of ordinary comprehension and 
 he believes to-day the irrefutable proof before the world by which it 
 will condemn Japan's duplicity. 
 
 Japan did not balk at making use of this unfortunate to further 
 her purposes. Late in August, 1907, after the Japanese had an- 
 nounced the abdication of Emperor Yi, the crown prince was 
 crowned Emperor, " amid the sullen silence of a resentful people." 
 One historian records : 
 
 " The Japanese authorities who controlled the coronation cere- 
 mony did all they could to prevent publicity. In this they were 
 well advised. No one who looked upon the new Emperor as he en- 
 tered the hall of state, his shaking frame upborne by two officials, 
 or as he stood later with open mouth, fallen jaw, indifferent eyes, 
 and face lacking even a flickering gleam of intelligent interest, could 
 doubt that the fewer who saw this the better." 
 
 He was known throughout the world as the " puppet Emperor," 
 and, of course, the Japanese did with him as they willed. Edicts 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 25 
 
 were issued in his name that probably never saw, or, seeing them, 
 could not comprehend beyond the bright red seals and yellow ribbon. 
 
 The first order was to disband the Korean army, small as it was 
 and as helpless as it was, with the more numerous Japanese troops 
 occupying all places of vantage. The different detachments were 
 ordered to report at a given point ; ' without arms,'- and the order 
 of disbandment was read to them. Many of them refused and fought 
 with bare hands. They were shot down, dying as a final protest 
 against this usurpation of their country's freedom. 
 
 Eventually the Japanese tired of the red tape necessary to con- 
 tinue the form and pretense of a Korean Government with this un- 
 fortunate puppet Emperor and in 1910 came out boldly with their 
 rescript of annexation. . 
 
 Of course, this was their objective and their intention trom the 
 beginning. Yet up to the very day of annexation they had always 
 denied it to the world. At each aggressive step plausible excuses 
 were given, and the nations of the world were reassured time and 
 again that Japan had no intention of finally annexing Korea. 
 Marquis Ito, the first governor general, characterized " all annex- 
 ation talk as absurd " and this cry was taken up and reiterated by 
 all Japanese officials and diplomats with a perfect hypocrisy that 
 misled the world. 
 
 It has sometimes been urged that Korea by the treaty of February 
 23, 1904, and a supplemental treaty made in August of that same 
 year, after Japanese troops had invested the country, placed hejjself 
 so completely under Japanese control as to destroy the provisions of 
 the various treaties with other powers, including the treaty with 
 the United States. Just how the making of a treaty, in which Korea 
 exacted that Japan should guarantee her independence and integrity, 
 should affect Korean treaties with other powers we can not com- 
 prehend. 
 
 In any event, Japan did not make any such claims at the time. 
 Mr. Takahira in transmitting a copy of the August, 1904, treaty to 
 Mr. Adee, of the State Department, on August 30, 1904, said : 
 
 "SiR: Under instructions from His Imperial Majesty's minister 
 for foreign affairs, I have the honor to transmit, etc. * * * In 
 communicating this agreement to the Government of the United 
 States, I am instructed to say that it is nothing more than the natural 
 consequence or development of the protocol concluded between the 
 Japanese and Korean Governments on February 23, 1904, which I 
 had the honor to transmit at that time for the information of the 
 Government of the United States. I am further directed to say that 
 the agreement does not in anywise interfere with the full operation 
 or validity of Korea's existing treaties." 
 
 To which Mr. Adee replied, September 2, 1904 : 
 
 " SIR : * * * In reply I have the honor to say that the depart- 
 ment has taken note of your statement of your Government's purpose 
 in negotiating the agreement and its views regarding the effect of the 
 agreement." 
 
 The foregoing is a bare outline of the Korean situation from a 
 purely legal standpoint. It is but the preliminary statement of the 
 case, that the international jurist would make in support of his final 
 conclusions. Within its compass all other questions are but collat- 
 eral and incidental. 
 
26 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 The methods used by Japan, whether humane or otherwise, in 
 dominating and controlling Korea, and whether good or bad eco- 
 nomically, are immaterial. The gist of the situation is the domi- 
 nation and control without right the destruction of the indepen- 
 dence and freedom of a nation. 
 
 There may still be those who will say that Japanese domination 
 has been a boon to Korea, and that she has profited in a material 
 way by improvements and economic development. But the Korean 
 living in a mud hovel on the hillside, driven there from his fertile 
 little field in the valley, or his comfortable home in the city by the 
 ruthless hand of the usurper, can not acquiesce in this statement. 
 What profit is it to him, whether there are more miles of railroad, 
 more waterworks, more good roads, and more commercial activity, if 
 he has no part in the common prosperity, and if all the benefits go 
 to the foreign usurpers? It was his land. The natural resources 
 were his and it was his little country. He can not help but reflect 
 that, after all, it was his property, and his taxes, and the sweat of his 
 brow that created this prosperity, and for whom? For a foreign 
 usurper that he hates with all his soul. There are 20,000,000 people 
 in Korea thinking of just these things, along with thoughts of dear 
 ones killed, flogged, and maimed, and of women outraged in the 
 process. 
 
 As a matter of fact, Japan does not claim to have expended over 
 $75,000,000 in the material improvements of Korea by way of rail- 
 roads, good roads, and public improvements. Yet she has increased 
 the Korean national debt to $60,000,000 more than it was when she 
 seized Korea, and has collected $55,000,000 in excess taxes from 
 Koreans over and above the average normal taxes in Korea prior to 
 her occupation. The Korean feels that with $115,000,000 he could 
 have made $75,000,000 of improvements just as well and with a 
 better understanding of his own wants and desires. 
 
 Japan, in trying to govern 20,000,000 people against their will, all 
 thinking these thoughts and with this hate in their hearts, has exe- 
 cuted 50,000, has placed over 700,000 in jail at one time and another, 
 and has flogged close to 300,000 all because they did think those 
 thoughts and did resent this treatment just as we would have done 
 under the same conditions. From Korea have come such gruesome 
 tales of murder, maiming, rape, injustice, and oppression as come 
 from all militaristic governments of an unwilling people. The re- 
 sults are horrifying, but the primary cause is very simple. The in- 
 herent right of a whole people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 happiness is being violated. 
 
 Japan has been relentless in her oppression. Koreans have no vote 
 and no voice in their own government. Yet they must pay taxes at 
 a rate twelve times as great as it was when Japan took possession 
 of governmental affairs. The railroads, iron mines, coal mines, for- 
 ests, and other economic resources have been seized and are being 
 operated without compensation, and without credit being given, to 
 Korea as a Province or district. 
 
 Crown lands and public lands have been seized to be exploited for 
 Japanese settlers, and private lands have been wrested from their 
 owners by devious ways to become property of the Japanese-owned 
 Oriental Development Co. Thousands or acres of poppy fields 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 27 
 
 flourish where rice and grain once grew to enrich the Government 
 opium monopoly of Japan. 
 
 The courts are presided over by Japanese judges with Japanese 
 clerks and bailiffs, and over 200,000 Koreans have been convicted, 
 without trial, by summary judgment, presumed to be guilty when 
 charged. 
 
 Schools are plentiful for Japanese, but few and far between for 
 Koreans. One code of law applies to Koreans and another to Jap- 
 anese, and so on down through all of the things that go to make up 
 life and liberty. All are denied to Korea. 
 
 The question may be running in the reader's mind as to what the 
 Koreans have been doing. We have already detailed what the mem- 
 bers of the royal house did. They did everything that mortal man 
 could do. They resisted, protested, and finally Queen Min and 
 Emperor Yi died martyrs to their country. 
 
 The people themselves were held in leash during the lifetime of 
 the old Emperor by their trust in him and their hope that he would 
 be able to find a way to right their wrongs. 
 
 Upon his death, on January 24, 1919, all restraint was thrown off, 
 and the societies for Korean freedom, secretly organized, began to 
 function. They included in their membership at least 95 per cent of 
 all Korean men and women. Plans had been discussed for many 
 months and were complete in every detail. 
 
 The people had determined to demand of Japan the restored inde- 
 pendence of their country, and had agreed upon the republican form 
 of government patterned after that of the United States. The dec- 
 laration of independence and the constitution had been drawn and 
 agreed to, as to form, by referendum to all the people. 
 
 The 33 men who were to sign the declaration and deliver it to 
 Japan had been elected. Every one of them knew that it meant 
 death or life imprisonment unless the movement should prove suc- 
 cessful. Yet there were contests for the place of honor, finally ad- 
 justed by impartially dividing the men among the different sects 
 and walks of life according to numerical strength. 
 
 There had been heated discussions as to the method to be adopted 
 in asking for their restored independence. There were advocates of 
 force who argued that the 20,000,000 Koreans could seize the 300,000 
 Japanese, and triumphing in a hand-to-hand struggle, regain pos- 
 session of their Government by quick and decisive action. 
 
 These advocates were opposed by those who insisted upon literally 
 following the doctrines of Christianity. They were idealists. They 
 would not resort to force, but would make their demands and hold 
 passive demonstrations. Surely their cause was right, and the world 
 would take notice. The countries that had at least bound them- 
 selves morally to protect them from oppression would step forward, 
 and by their protests and influence with Japan procure restored in- 
 dependence for Korea. 
 
 They did not believe that international justice was dead, or that 
 the powers would be forgetful of their covenants if the facts were 
 pressed home. The practical side of their argument was that to 
 resort to force would alienate the sympathies of the powers, and 
 even though they might be temporarily successful, they would even- 
 tually lose the support of the nations of the world. 
 
28 KOBE A 'S APPEAL. 
 
 It was finally decided that they would stand up before the bar of 
 justice of the world as dignified gentlemen, presenting their case in 
 regular orderly manner without, in any sense, taking the law in 
 their own hands. 
 
 Reflecting upon it we know they are right, and that their final 
 decision as to the methods of presenting their case to the world was 
 right from both a practical and an ideal standpoint. In private 
 life we give little consideration to the man who takes the law in 
 his own hands, no matter what the provocation. We must com- 
 mend their judgment and their discretion as well as their idealism. 
 
 Promptly at an appointed hour the men selected to sign the decla- 
 ration of independence met at a well-known restaurant in Seoul, held 
 a farewell banquet, signed the declaration, and then, advising the 
 Japanese officials of what they had done, calmly waited. They were 
 arrested. No man resisted; in fact, two who were late in arriving 
 subsequently presented themselves and insisted upon being placed 
 with their fellow countrymen. 
 
 This occurred on March 1, 1919, and the 33 patriots are still in prison, 
 except one who subsequently escaped and two who have since died 
 from the exposure and privations of their prison life. The chair- 
 man or leader, Son Pyung-hi, died March 1, 1921, on the second 
 anniversary of the independence movement that he helped to 
 inaugurate. 
 
 This independence movement had been timed and prearranged. 
 The declaration was signed at 1 o'clock, and promptly at 2 o'clock 
 322 men arose in 322 districts throughout the length and breadth of 
 Korea and commenced the formal reading of the declaration of 
 independence before assembled crowds of Korean citizens. Korean- 
 boy scouts began the delivery of copies of the declaration to every 
 household and to every Japanese official in the district. If a reader 
 or a boy scout was shot down there was always another to take his 
 place. 
 
 The world is familiar with the methods adopted by Japan in her 
 attempts to suppress this movement. Notwithstanding the aroused 
 watchfulness and activity of Japan, the constitution of the Republic 
 of Korea was adopted and representatives to the Korean Congress 
 elected. These representatives assembled on April 22, 1919, and 
 unanimously elected Dr. Syngman Rhee president, and his cabinet 
 ministers were nominated and confirmed. In clue course the Korean 
 commission to America and Europe was selected, and your humble 
 servant, the writer of this brief, was made legal adviser. 
 
 It must be remembered that during all this time Korea was under 
 the most strict censorship. Free speech was denied ; public gather- 
 ings were prohibited ; newspapers were suppressed. Yet the Koreans 
 did meet and did discuss their political predicament and the proper 
 remedies for it with a thoroughness and attention to detail that is 
 astonishing. They formulated a declaration of independence and a 
 constitution for the government of their country that are models, 
 and arranged for their promulgation and adoption down to the last 
 legal formality. The constitution was engraved by hand on blocks 
 of wood, and millions of copies were printed by presses located in 
 caves and sometimes in tombs of secluded graveyards, and were 
 distributed broadcast, together with like copies of the declaration of 
 independence, ballots, and other necessary literature. 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 29 
 
 We wonder how this could be done; yet consider that there are 
 thousands of educated Koreans graduated from American and Euro- 
 pean universities. It is not a disorganized mob with ignorant lead- 
 ers. It is a thoughtful, studious people with just grievances; they 
 know they have been wronged and propose that the world shall 
 know it. 
 
 Dr. Khee, the President, is a graduate of Harvard, and holds a de- 
 gree from Princeton. It is said that there are as many Korean con- 
 gressmen in proportion to their number who are graduated from 
 English, American, French, and German universities as there are 
 university graduates among our own Congressmen. It is no longer 
 a question whether Koreans have the ability to govern themselves. 
 They have demonstrated that fact by their activities and organizing 
 ability in this independence movement in the face of such obstacles. 
 
 All of these things being true what can be done ? There is one thing 
 the United States should do in any event. It made a treaty with. 
 Korea which provides : 
 
 " If other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Govern- 
 ment the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the 
 case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their 
 friendly feelings." 
 
 Korea performed her part of that treaty and gave to the United 
 States many commercial advantages that are now denied our citizens. 
 All of her so-called western improvements were initiated by Ameri- 
 cans during their diplomatic relations with us under that treaty. The 
 kindliest feeling of friendship and cooperation between Koreans and 
 Americans existed, and still exists, but the Koreans are helpless. It 
 seems to us that the United States is bound to interpose its " good 
 offices " in protest to Japan against this oppression of Korea, and it 
 should in good faith use all of its powers of persuasion and argument 
 to induce Japan to remedy the wrongs that she has done Korea. 
 
 PART II. REFERENCES AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE TEXT 
 
 OF PART I. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 
 
 KOREA. 
 
 PROCLAMATION BY PRESIDENT CHESTER A. ARTHUR, DATED JUNE 4, 1883. 
 
 Whereas a treaty of peace and amity and commerce and naviga- 
 tion between the United States and the Kingdom of Korea was 
 concluded May 22, 1882, as follows : 
 
 (Treaty is here inserted verbatim.) 
 
 And whereas the Senate of the United States by resolution of 
 January 9, 1883, did advise and consent to the ratification of said 
 treaty, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring, 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I, Chester A. Arthur, President 
 of the United States of America, have caused the said convention to 
 be made public, to the end that the same and every clause and article 
 thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United 
 States and the citizens thereof. * 
 
 CHESTER A. ARTHUR. 
 
 By the President, 
 
 FREDK. T. FRELINGHUYSEN, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
30 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 ABSTRACT TREATY THUS PROCLAIMED. 
 
 Article 1 provides: 
 
 There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the President of the 
 United States and the King of Chosen and the citizens and subjects of their 
 respective Governments. If other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with 
 either Government, the other will exert their good offices on being informed of 
 the case to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly 
 feelings. 
 
 Article 2 relates to exchange of diplomatic and consular repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 Article 3 provides that United States vessels wrecked on coast of 
 Corea shall be carefully salvaged by Corea. 
 
 Article 4 grants to the United States exterritorial jurisdiction over 
 its citizens in Corea. 
 
 Article 5 provides that merchants and merchant vessels shall 
 reciprocally pay duties and tonnage established at the port of entry 
 no higher than those levied against citizens of most favored nation. 
 
 Article 6 provides for reciprocal rights of residence and pro- 
 tection of citizens of both nations in the territory of the other. 
 
 Article 7 is prohibitory of the exporting or importing of opium, 
 in either country. 
 
 Article 8 reserves to Corea the right in case of famine to forbid 
 the importation of breadstuffs, and prohibits the United States 
 from trading in red ginseng. 
 
 Article 9 regulates the purchase and importation of arms and 
 ammunition. 
 
 Article 10 grants reciprocal rights to citizens of the other to 
 employ native labor while residing in the territory of the other. 
 
 Article 11 provides: 
 
 Students of either nationality who may proceed to the country of the other, 
 in order to study the language, literature, laws, or arts shall be given all pos- 
 sible protection and assistance in evidence of cordial good will. 
 
 Article 14 contains the usual " most-favored-nation " clause. 
 
 LIST OF AMERICAN MINISTERS TO KOREA. 
 
 Hon. L. H. Foote, appointed in 1883. Staff, Gustave Goward, 
 secretary; Charles L. Scudder, private secretary, with Piere L. 
 Juoy of Smithsonian Institute as attache. Purchased legation resi- 
 dence and title later placed in United States. 
 
 Hon. William H. Parker, appointed in 1886 ; Hon. Hugh A. Dins- 
 more, appointed in 1887 ; Hon. Augustine Heard, appointed in 1890 ; 
 Hon. John M. B. Sill, appointed in 1894; Dr. Horace N. Allen, ap- 
 pointed in 1897; Hon. Edwin V. Morgan, appointed in 1905. 
 
 AMERICAN ACTIVITIES IN KOREA DURING DIPLOMATIC PERIOD. 
 
 July 25, 1883, United States asked to supply advisers and military 
 officers. 
 
 December 18, 1883. Korea purchased American breech-loading 
 rifles. 
 
 May 31, 1884. U. S. S. Trenton arrived with returning Korean 
 embassy, headed by Min Yong-ik. 
 
 July 26, 1884. Middleton & Co. given concession to navigate 
 Korean waters. 
 
KOREA S APPEAL. 31 
 
 July 31, 1884. The American Trading Co. was given right to 
 cut timber and made contract to furnish Korea Gatling guns and 
 rifles. 
 
 July 31, 1884. Joseph Rosenbaum started plant to manufacture 
 glass. 
 
 September 20, 1884. Dr. H. N. Allen appointed physician to 
 the Korean Government. 
 
 February 25, 1885. Korean Government Hospital opened under 
 direction of Dr. Allen. 
 
 1885. Rev. H. G. Underwood, for Presbyterian missions, and Rev. 
 H. G. Appenzeller, for Methodist missions, arrived and began their 
 organization work. 
 
 1886. Water power powder mill erected for Korea by W. D. 
 Townsend. 
 
 1886. Government medical school established by Dr. Allen. Heron, 
 and Underwood. 
 
 1886. Mr. O. N. Denny, an American, made vice president of the 
 home office and director of foreign affairs. 
 
 1886. Korean Government bought steamer Hairiong. 
 
 1886. Profs. Hulbert, Gilmore, and Bunker, sent by United States 
 at request of Korea, arrived and established schools. 
 
 1886. Dr. Amie Ellers was appointed physician to the Queen. 
 Succeeded later by Dr. Lillias Horton, later Mrs. Underwood. 
 
 1886. American schooner Pearl engaged in pearl fisheries. 
 
 1886. Edison Co. erected electric light plant. 
 
 September 27, 1886. Korean mission to United States turned back 
 by Chinese men-of-war. Later were escorted past Chinese men-of- 
 war by U. S. S. Ossi-pee. 
 
 1888. Cols. Neinstead, Dye, Cummins, and Lee, Americans, ar- 
 rived to drill Korean troops. 
 
 1888. Korean telegraph line from Seoul to Fusan completed by 
 T. E. Hallifax. 
 
 1889. Williard Pierce, American mining engineer, arrived for 
 Korean Government, and American experts built quartz mill. 
 
 1890. Hon. Clarence R. Greathouse made legal adviser to Korean 
 Government. Later made postmaster General. 
 
 1892. Gen. Legendre, an American, sent to Tokyo to represent 
 Korea in fisheries' negotiations. 
 
 1893. Korean commission sent to "World's Fair at Chicago. 
 
 1895. Mining concessions granted to James R. Morse. Conveyed 
 to Korean Mining & Development Co. of New Jersey, and Oriental 
 Consolidated Mining Co. of West Virginia, and to Hunt Fassett & Co. 
 
 1896. Concessions for railway from Seoul to Chemulpo granted to 
 Americans. 
 
 1896. J. H. Dye, American civil engineer, appointed to do engi- 
 neering work for Korea. 
 
 1897. Work begun on Chemulpo Railway with Collbran & James 
 as contractors. Management of H. R. Bostwick. 
 
 1897. Standard Oil Co. built warehouse at Chemulpo. 
 
 1898. Seoul Electric Co. organized and work of building electric 
 railway, lighting plant, and Avaterworks, begun by Collbran & 
 Bostwick. 
 
 1S99. Seoul electric street railway completed and manned by 
 American motormen. 
 
32 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 1899. Tramway concession granted to Collbran & Bostwick. 
 
 1900. Bank and office building erected by. Americans. 
 
 1902. Commissioners named to be sent to Louisiana Purchase 
 Exposition at St. Louis. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BK1TATN AND KOREA. 
 
 Treaty between Korea and Great Britain, negotiated on behalf 
 of Great Britain by Sir Harry Smith Parkes, and dated Novem- 
 ber 26, 1883. 
 
 Provisions in substance the same as treaty with the United States. 
 
 Ministers from Great Britain to Korea: Sir Harry Parkes, ap- 
 pointed in 1884 ; Sir John Walshan, appointed in 1885 ; Et. Hon. Sir. 
 Nicholas K. O'Conor, in 1892 ; Sir Claude MacDonald, in 1896 ; J. N. 
 Jordan, C. M. G., in 1898. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN KOREA AND FRANCE. 
 TKEATY OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE, AND NAVIGATION DATED JUNE 4, 1886. 
 
 Provisions in substance the same as treaty with the United States. 
 Ministers from France to Korea : V. Collin cle Plancy, appointed 
 in 1888; H. Fradin, in 1892; V. Collin de Plancy, in 1901. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN KOREA AND ITALY. 
 
 TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND COMMERCE DATED JUNE 26, IS 84. 
 
 Provisions in substance the same as treaty with the United States. 
 Ministers from Italy to Korea: Duties performed by consul gen- 
 erals at Shanghai, China. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN CHINA AND KOREA. 
 CHINA'S CLAIMS OF SUZERAINTY OVER KOREA. 
 
 Such claims were made by China for many centuries. Historians 
 clo not all agree as to the validity of these claims. In any event the 
 claims were not asserted in any practical way and that question is 
 now internationally res adjudicata. 
 
 The following is quoted from instructions given by Acting Secre- 
 tary Alvey A. Adee, to Minister Sill, dated July 9, 1895 : 
 
 The position assumed by this Government toward Korea since contracting 
 the treaty with it in 1882 has in no wise been affected by recent events. Korea's 
 treaty Independence since then has been for us an established and accepted fact. 
 
 CHINA'S ATTEMPT TO STOP FIRST KOREAN ENVOYS TO UNITED STATES UNITED STATES 
 
 ESCORT FURNISHED. 
 
 See report Xo. 53 of Mr. Dinsmore to Mr. Bayard, dated September 
 30, 1887, with inclosures 1 to 4, inclusive. 
 
 Following is quoted from Korean Chronological Index by Horace 
 N.Allen: 
 
 September 27. 1S87. Korean mission started for Washington accompanied by 
 H. N. Allen. The Koreans were turned back by Chinese interference. 
 
 November 13, 1887. The Korean mission to Washington sailed from Che- 
 mulpo on U. S. S. Osaipee, Capt. McXair. They passed six Chinese men-of-war 
 Bent to stop them. 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 33 
 
 COMMERCIAL TREATY BETWEEN KOREA AND CHINA. 
 
 Dated September 11, 1899. Provisions identical with the treaty 
 made with the United States. 
 
 Ministers to Korea under above treaty : Hsu Sou Peng, appointed 
 December 14, 1899 ; Hsu Tai Shen, appointed November 12, 1901. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN KOREA AND RUSSIA. 
 
 TREATY OF AMITY AND COMMERCE. 
 
 Dated June 25, 1884, and ratified October 14, 1885. Provisions in 
 substance same as United States treaty of 1882. 
 
 Ministers from Russia: C. Waeber, appointed October 14, 1885; 
 A. N. Speyer, appointed March 28, 1898 ; A. Pavlow, appointed De- 
 cember 13, 1898. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN KOREA AND GERMANY. 
 
 TREATY BETWEEN GERMANY AND KOREA OF AMITY AND COMMERCE, DATED NOVEMBEB 
 23, 1883, RATIFIED APRIL 28, 1SS4. 
 
 Provisions are substantially the same as the treaty with the United 
 States of 1882. 
 
 German ministers to Korea : Capt. Zembisch, appointed November 
 18, 1884 ; T. Kempermann, appointed May 17, 1886 ; H. Weipert, ap- 
 pointed September 29, 1900. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN KOREA AND AUSTRIA. 
 
 TREATY OF AMITY AND COMMERCE SIGNED JULY 23, 1S92, AND RATIFIED OCTOBER 5, 
 
 1893. 
 
 Provisions substantially the same as those of the treaty with the 
 United States in 1882. 
 
 Diplomatic matters handled through Germany. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN KOREA AND DENMARK. 
 
 TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE, AND NAVIGATION, DATED JULY 15, 1902. 
 
 Diplomatic relations handled through Belgium. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN KOREA AND BELGIUM. 
 
 TREATY OF AMITY AND COMMERCE, DATED MARCH 23, 1901. 
 
 Ministers from Belgium to Korea: Leon Vincart, consul general, 
 October 17, 1901, with Maurice Cuvelier as vice consul. 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETW T EEN JAPAN AND KOREA PRIOR 
 TO PRESENT MILITARY OCCUPATION. 
 
 TREATY BETWEEN JAPAN AND KOREA, DATED FEBRUARY 26, 1876. 
 
 ARTICLE 1. "Chosen (Korea) being an independent State enjoys 
 the same sovereign rights as does Japan." 
 
34 KOKEA'S APPEAL. 
 
 TREATY BETWEEN JAPAN AND KOREA, DATED 24, 1876. 
 
 Provides 10 trading rules under the previous treaty of February 
 26, 1876. 
 
 TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN JAPAN AND KOREA, DATED JULY 14, 1894. 
 
 ARTICLE I. That the independence of Korea is declared confirmed 
 and established and in keeping with it the Chinese troops are to be 
 driven out of the country. 
 
 ART. II. That while war against China is being carried on by 
 Japan, Korea is to facilitate the movement and to help in the food 
 supplies of the Japanese troops in every possible way. 
 
 ART. III. That this treaty shall only last until the conclusion of 
 peace with China. 
 
 TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN JAPAN AND KOREA, DATED FEBRUARY 23, 1904. 
 
 ARTICLE I. For the purpose of maintaining a permanent and solid 
 friendship between Japan and Korea and firmly establishing peace 
 in the Far East the Imperial Government of Korea shall place full 
 confidence in the Imperial Government of Japan and adopt the 
 advice of the latter in regard to improvements in administration. 
 
 ART. II. The Imperial Government of Japan shall in a spirit of 
 firm friendship insure the safety and repose of the Imperial Hou-e 
 of Korea. 
 
 ART. III. The Imperial Government of Japan definitely guaran- 
 tees the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire. 
 
 ART. IV. In case the welfare of the Imperial House of Korea or 
 the territorial integrity of Korea is endangered by aggression of a 
 third power or by internal disturbance, the Imperial Government of 
 Japan shall immediately take such necessary measures as the cir- 
 cumstances require, and in such cases the Imperial Government of 
 Korea shall give full facilities to promote the action of the Imperial 
 Japanese Government. The Imperial Government of Japan may, 
 for the attainment of the above mentioned objects, occupy, when the 
 circumstances require it, such places as may be necessary from 
 strategical points of view. 
 
 ART. V. The Government of the two countries shall not in future, 
 without mutual consent, conclude with a third power such an 
 arrangement as may be contrary to the principles of the present 
 protocol. 
 
 Ministers from Japan to Korea in period prior to present military 
 occupation.: Y. Haiiabusa, appointed charge, November 25, 1877; 
 S. Takesoye, appointed minister, January 7, 1883; K. Takahira, ap- 
 pointed charge, June 23, 1885; T. Kajiyama, appointed minister, 
 April 17, 1891; M. Oishi, appointed minister, January 25, 1883; K. 
 Otori, appointed minister, September 28, 1893; Count Inouye, ap- 
 pointed minister, October 26, 1894; Viscount Miura, appointed 
 minister, September 1, 1895 ; J. Koinura, appointed minister, 
 October 19, 1895; K. Hara, appointed minister, July 7, 1896; M. 
 Kato, appointed minister, February 24, 1897 ; G. Hayashi, appointed 
 minister, June 25, 1899; Y. Yamaza, appointed charge, February 6, 
 1901; G. Hayashi, appointed charge, February 13, 1903. 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 35 
 
 TREATY AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN JAPAN AND KOREA DURING 
 MENACE PRESENT MILITARY OCCUPATION. 
 
 ALLEGED TREATY, DATED AUGUST 22, 1904. 
 
 Requiring Korea to engage financial and diplomatic advisers 
 designated by Japan, and requiring Korea to consult with Japan 
 before making treaties with foreign powers, and before granting 
 concessions or making contracts with foreigners. 
 
 ALLEGED TREATY, DATED APEIL 1, 1905. 
 
 Transferring post, telegraph, and telephone service jto Japan. 
 Includes right of eminent domain or condemnation against public 
 property without compensation and against private property with 
 indemnification. No compensation or payment, except that Japan 
 " shall deliver to the Korean Government a suitable percentage of 
 the profit." 
 
 ALLEGED TREATY, DATED AUGUST IS, 1905. 
 
 Granting concession to Japanese vessels to navigate coast and 
 inland waters. 
 
 ALLEGED TREATY, DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1905. 
 
 This is the treaty under which Japan claims a " protectorate " over 
 Korea and by which it is alleged Japan took over the foreign relations 
 of Korea. (Korea denies execution of this treaty, and facts show 
 duress. See subsequent titles alleged treaties since February 23, 1904, 
 void for duress and coercion.) 
 
 ALLEGED ABDICATION OF EMPEROR YI IN 1907. 
 
 The following is the substance of a typical report of the facts, in 
 Current Literature, volume 43, page 252, September, 1907 : 
 
 Yi, it is explained, brought this upon himself by sending delegates to The 
 Hague, which act was considered high treason. Saiouji cabled to Ito in unmis- 
 takable language. Ito went to the palace. He discovered that the Emperor had 
 arranged to flee to the protection of Russia. The palace gates were doubly 
 guarded, and in another 24 hours Korea had a new Emperor. Yi was thus 
 summarily disposed of for reasons far more weighty than his sending envoys to 
 The Hague. 
 
 In an article entitled " The extinction of Korea," published in the 
 Independent, volume 63, page 230, 1907, the writer ridicules the 
 Japanese version that the Emperor advised with Ito about whether 
 he should abdicate ; that the ministers came to Ito for protection, and 
 that Ito promptly and generously acceded to their request and used 
 the armed forces of Japan to that end. 
 
 As to the fact that the crown prince who succeeded Emperor Yi 
 was mentally incompetent, we have already stated the facts in the 
 statement of the case at page 17. 
 
 ALLEGED TREATY, DATED JULY 24, 1907. 
 
 Provides that Korea shall act under guidance of Japanese resident 
 general and turning over administration of internal affairs to Japan. 
 Executed by Korean traitor, Yi Won-yong, as minister resident of 
 
36 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 state ; afterwards given title of count and bribe of $500,000 ; never 
 authorized or executed by Emperor. 
 
 ALLEGED TREATY, DATED AUGUST 20, 1910. 
 
 Annexation treaty, providing for permanent cession to the Em- 
 peror of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea. 
 Executed by Korean traitor, Yi Won-yong, purporting to act as 
 minister president of state of Korea; never authorized or executed 
 by Emperor. 
 
 OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS BY JAPAN THAT HER TREATIES WITH KOREA SHALL NOT 
 INTERFERE WITH EXISTING TREATIES BETWEEN KOREA AND OTHER POWERS, INCLUD- 
 ING UNITED STATES. 
 
 Official rescript issued by Japan, November 22, 1905, declares : 
 
 In bringing this agreement to the notice of the powers having treaties with 
 Korea, the Imperial Government declares that * * * they will see that 
 these treaties are maintained and respected, and they also engage not to 
 prejudice in any way the legitimate commercial and industrial interests of 
 those powers in Korea. 
 
 Mr. H. Percival Dodge, American charge de'affaires at Tokyo, 
 reported to the State Department on September 19, 1907, that Mar- 
 quis Ito, resident general for the Japanese Government in Korea, 
 in a public address at a banquet tendered him by the House of 
 Peers, " was emphatic in pronouncing all annexation talk as absurd. 
 The new agreement furnished a streak of hope and led by it he was 
 striving for the permanency of the Yi dynasty and the preserva- 
 tion of Korea." 
 
 See also communication to State Department by Minister Takahira 
 and reply by Mr. Aclee, already quoted at page 18 of the statement 
 of the case. 
 
 ALLEGED TREATIES SINCE FEBRUARY, 1904, VOID FOR DURESS AND COERCION. 
 
 In Hershey's International Law and Diplomacy, at page 75, the 
 author refers to the fact that the treaty of February 23, 1904, was 
 valid because coercion was not used, and then writes: 
 
 The same statement can not be made in respect to the convention of No- 
 vember 17, 1905. In the case of the latter treaty, it is charged that the signa- 
 tures of the Emperor of Korea and the Korean ministers were obtained by 
 Ito and Hayashi, the Japanese plenipotentiaries, as the result of force and 
 intimidation due to the presence of Japanese soldiers. (See London Times, 
 Dec. 5, 1905.) This treaty was also invalid from a strictly legal point of 
 view for another reason. It formally extinguished the independence of Korea 
 by transferring this country into a protectorate, for the direction of Korean 
 foreign affairs was placed under the control and direction of representatives 
 of the Japanese Government. 
 
 The same author discussing the circular note to the powers by 
 Count Lamsdorff, dated February 22, 1904, protesting for Russia 
 against the occupation of Korea by Japan, said on page 71 of his 
 work : 
 
 There can be no doubt but that according to strict letter of the law Japan 
 was guilty of a violation of one of the most fundamental rules of international 
 law, viz, the right of an independent State to remain neutral during war 
 between other members of the family of nations, and to have its neutrality and 
 territorial sovereignty respected by the belligerent States. 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 37 
 
 In a note the author says further : 
 
 This may now be regarded as one of the best established and most funda- 
 mental rules of international law. 
 
 ******* 
 
 In order to raise her position in Korea above that of a mere military occupant, 
 on the one hand, or a vulgar conqueror on the other, Japan negotiated the treaty 
 with Korea in which she guaranteed the independence and integrity of the 
 Korean Empire. (The treaty of Feb. 23, 1904.) 
 
 The following may be said to be a composite of all the statements of 
 the rules relating to duress in international affairs : 
 
 It (international law) regards all contracts as valid, notwithstanding the use 
 of force and intimidation, which do not destroy the independence of the State 
 which has been obliged to enter into them. When this point is past, however, 
 constraint vitiates the agreement, because it can not be supposed that a State 
 would voluntarily commit suicide by way of reparation or measure of protec- 
 tion to another. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The only kind of duress which justifies a breach of treaty is the coercion of 
 the sovereign or plenipotentiary to such an extent as to induce him to enter into 
 arrangements which he never would have made but for the fear on account of 
 his personal safety. Such was the renunciation of the Spanish Crown extorted 
 by Napoleon at Bayonne in 1807 from Charles the Fourth and his son Ferdi- 
 nand. The people of Spain broke no faith when they refused to be bound by it 
 and arose in insurrection against Joseph Bonaparte who had been placed upon 
 the throne. (Hershey's International Law and Diplomacy, page 75; Lawrence 
 Principles, p. 287 ; Hall International Law, p. 326 ; Bluntschili, sec. 409 ; Rivier 
 II, p. 55; Bonsfils-Fauchille, sec. 818; Despagnet, sec. 455.) 
 
 MURDER OF THE QUEEN. 
 
 Though this incident occurred prior to February 23. 1904, it gave 
 force to subsequent threats. The following telegrams were received 
 at the State Department on their respective dates, sent by United 
 States diplomatic representatives: 
 
 TOKYO, October 9, 1895. 
 
 The following telegram has been received from Allen, dated Seoul, October 9 : 
 
 " Yesterday morning King's father, with the assistance of Japanese, forcibly 
 
 entered royal palace. Two officers killed in attempting to save Her Majesty. 
 
 Queen and three ladies murdered. Murderers were Japanese in civilian dress." 
 
 DUN. 
 
 TOKYO, October 12, 1895. 
 
 The following telegram has been received from Allen, dated October 11 : 
 " I have received to-day a detachment of marines from the Yorktoicn. Charge 1 
 d'affaires Russia the same. English consul sent immediately for war vessel. 
 Missing Queen deposed." 
 
 DUN. 
 
 TOKYO, October l.' h 1895. 
 
 The following telegram has been received from Allen, dated October 13 : 
 " This Government is now under control of King's father and five traitors, 
 under the guidance of Japanese. The condition of His Majesty pitiful. Queen 
 murdered ; murderers in full power. His own life in imminent peril. * * * 
 Japanese minister states that atrocities were committed by natives disguised 
 to represent Japanese. It is absurd. Charge d'affaires of Russia and myself 
 saw 30 of them leaving royal palace just after atrocities armed with swords. 
 They were Japanese. Also a reliable American military officer of the Govern- 
 ment saw Japanese troops enter royal palace in advance of insurgents, and 
 they witnessed atrocities but made no attempt to prevent them. Sufficient evi- 
 dence implicating Japanese minister overwhelming." 
 
 DUN. 
 
38 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 SEOUL, October 26, 1S9~>. 
 
 Japanese minister and officers of his legation and army have been sent to 
 Japan. Count Inouye is coming to Seoul as special ambassador. The K ug 
 is under strict duress. His life in peril. I do not recognize decrees forced from 
 him. Allen's conduct affairs excellent. 
 
 SILL. 
 
 See full text of court record of trial of Viscount Miura Ap- 
 pendix I. The case of Korea by Henry Chung, pp. 322 to 328. 
 
 MILITARY OCCUPATION. 
 
 Japan at the present time has established three military sta- 
 tions in Korea at Penyang, Seoul, and Taiku, and has two naval 
 bases, one at Masanpo and the other in the bay near Wonsan. Tim ; 
 land forces are established with bases in the north, central, and 
 southern portions of Korea, and the south and east coast is guard-" I 
 by naval bases at the southeast and the northeast. The west coast 
 is sufficiently patrolled from Dairen and Port Arthur. 
 
 In the same manner the whole of Korea has been occupied and 
 dominated by Japanese militaristic forces ever since they were per- 
 mitted to land by Korea under the terms of the treaty of February 
 23, 1904, in which Japan guaranteed the independence and territorial 
 integrity of Korea. 
 
 OCCURRENCES DURING NEGOTIATION OF ALLEGED TREATY CREATING A PROTECTORATE, 
 DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1.905. 
 
 We quote the following from pages 131 to 137 of Mr. Macken- 
 zie's work, " The Tragedy of Korea r ' : 
 
 Early in November the Marquis Ito arrived in Seoul as special envoy of the 
 Emperor of Japan, and he brought with him a letter from the Mikado saying 
 that he hoped the Korean Emperor would follow the directions of the Marquis 
 and come to an agreement with him, as it was essential for the maintenance 
 of peace in the Far East that he should do so. On November 15, Marquis 
 Ito was received in formal audience and there presented a series of demands 
 drawn up in treaty form. These were, in the main, that the foreign relations of 
 Korea should now be placed entirely in the hands of Japan, the Korean diplo- 
 matic service be brought to an end, and the ministers recalled from foreign 
 courts. The Japanese minister to Korea was to become supreme administrator 
 to the country under the Emperor and the Japanese consuls in the different 
 districts were to be made residents, with the powers of supreme local gov- 
 ernors. In other words, Korea was entirely to surrender her independence 
 .as a .State and was to hand over control of her internal administration to the 
 Japanese. The Emperor met the request with a blank refusal. The con- 
 versation between the two, as reported at the time, was as follows : 
 
 The Emperor said : 
 
 " Although I have seen in the newspapers various rumors that Japan pro- 
 posed to assume a protectorate over Korea, I did not believe them, as I placed 
 faith in Japan's adherence to the promise to maintain the independence of 
 Korea which was made by the Emperor of Japan at the beginning of the war 
 and embodied in .a treaty between Korea and Japan. When I heard you were 
 coming to my country I was glad, as I believed your mission was to increase 
 the friendship between our countries, and your demands have therefore taken 
 me entirely by surprise." 
 
 To which Marquis Ito rejoined : 
 
 " These demands are not my own ; I am only acting in accordance with a 
 mandate from my Government, and if Your Majesty will agree to the demands 
 which I have presented, it will be to the benefit of both nations, and peace in 
 the East will be assured forever. Please, therefore, consent quickly." 
 
 The Emperor replied : 
 
 " From time immemorial it has been the custom of the rulers of Korea, when 
 confronted with questions so momentous as this, to come to no decision until 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 39 
 
 all the ministers, high and low, who hold or have held office, have been con- 
 sulted and the opinion of the scholars and the common people have been ob- 
 tained, so that I can not now settle this matter myself." 
 
 Said Marquis Ito again: 
 
 " Protests from the people can be easily disposed of, and for the sake of 
 friendship between the two countries Your Majesty should come to a decision 
 at once." 
 
 To this the Emperor replied : 
 
 " Assent to your proposals would mean the ruin of my country, and I will 
 therefore sooner die than agree to them." 
 
 The conference lasted nearly five hours, and the Marquis had to leave, having 
 accomplished nothing. He at once tackled the members of the cabinet, in- 
 dividually and collectively. They were all summoned to the Japanese Lega- 
 tion on the following day, and a furious debate began, starting at 3 o'clock 
 in the afternoon and lasting till late at night. The ministers had sworn to 
 one another beforehand that they would not yield. In spite of threats, 
 cajoleries, and proffered bribes, they remained steadfast. The arguments 
 used by Marquis Ito and Mr. Hayashi, apart from personal ones, were two- 
 fold. The first was that it was essential for the peace of the Far East that 
 Japan and Korea should be united. The second appealed to racial ambition. 
 The Japanese painted to the Koreans a picture of a great united East, with 
 the Mongol nations all standing firm and as one against the white man, 
 who would reduce them to submission if he could. The Japanese were deter- 
 mined to give the cabinet no time to regather its strength. On the 17th of 
 November another conference began at 2 in the afternoon at the legation, 
 but equally without result. Mr. Hayashi then advised the ministers to go 
 to the palace and open a cabinet meeting in the presence of the Emperor. 
 This was done, the Japanese joining in. 
 
 All this time the Japanese army had been making a great display of mili- 
 tary force around the palace. All the Japanese troops in the district had 
 been for days parading the streets and open places fronting the imperial 
 residence. The field guns were out and the men were fully armed. They 
 marched, countermarched, stormed, made feint attacks, occupied the gates, 
 put their guns in position, and did everything short of actual violence that 
 they could to demonstrate to the Koreans that they were able to enforce their 
 demands. To the cabinet ministers themselves and to the Emperor all this 
 display had a sinister and terrible meaning. They could not forget the night 
 in 1895 when the Japanese soldiers had paraded around another palace and 
 when their picked bullies had forced their wny inside and murdered the Queen. 
 Japan had done this before; why should she not do it again? Not one of 
 those now resisting the will of Dai Nippon but saw the sword in front of his 
 eyes and heard in imagination a hundred times during the day the rattle of 
 the Japanese bullets. 
 
 That evening Japanese soldiers, with fixed bayonets, entered the courtyard 
 of the palace and stood near the apartment of the Emperor. Marquis Ito now 
 arrived, accompanied by Gen. Hasegawa, commander of the Japanese army in 
 Korea, and a fresh attack was started on the cabinet ministers. The Marquis 
 demanded an audience of the Emperor. The Emperor refused to grant it, 
 saying that his throat was very bad and he was in great pain. The Marquis 
 then made his way into the Emperor's presence and personally requested an 
 audience. The Emperor still refused. " Please go away and discuss the 
 matter with the cabinet ministers," he said. 
 
 Thereupon Marquis Ito went outside to the ministers. " Your Emperor has 
 commanded you to confer with me and settle this matter," he declared. A fresh 
 conference was opened. The presence of the soldiers, the gleaming of the bayo- 
 nets outside, the harsh words of command that could be heard through the 
 windows of the palace buildings were not without their effect. The ministers 
 had fought for days, and they had fought alone. No single foreign representa- 
 tive had offered them help or counsel. They saw submission or destruction 
 before them. "What is the use of our resisting?" said one. "The Japanese 
 always get their way in the end." Signs of yielding began to appear. The 
 acting prime minister, Han Kew Sul, jumped to his feet and said he would go 
 and tell the Emperor of the talk of traitors. Han Kew Sul was allowed to 
 leave the room and then was gripped by the Japanese secretary of the legation, 
 thrown into a side room, and threatened with death. Even Marquis Ito went 
 out to him to persuade him. " Would you not yield." the Marquis said, " if your 
 Emperor commanded you ?" " Xo," said Han Kew Sul, "not even then !" 
 
40 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 This was enough. The Marquis at once went to the Emperor. "Han Kew 
 Sul is a traitor," lie said. " He defies you and declares that he will not obey 
 your commands." 
 
 Meanwhile the remaining ministers waited in the cabinet chamber. Where 
 was their leader, the man who had urged them all to resist to death? Minute 
 after minute passed, and still he did not return. Then a whisper went round 
 that the Japanese had killed him. The harsh voices of the Japanese grew still 
 more strident. Courtesy and restraint were thrown off. "Agree with us and 
 be rich or oppose us and perish." Pak Che Sun, the foreign minister, one of the 
 best and most capable of Korean statesmen, was the last to yield. But even lu> 
 Finally gave way. In the early hours of the morning commands were issued 
 that the seal of state should be brought from the foreign minister's apartment 
 and a treaty should be signed. Here another difficulty arose. The custodian 
 of the seal had received orders in advance that, even if his master commanded, 
 the seal was not to be surrendered for any such purpose. When telephonic 
 orders were sent to him he refused to bring the seal along, and special messen- 
 gers had to be dispatched to take it from him by force. The Emperor himself 
 asserts to this day that he did not consent. 
 
 We could quote extensively from other works and contemporary 
 reports on the subject, but the above quotation contains the facts that 
 can not be controverted. 
 
 REVIEW OF FACTS ON DUEESS. 
 
 The old Emperor's protest to the United States gave notice of 
 Japan's oppression and selfish motives as evidenced by her acts, and 
 sought assistance and the good offices of the United States to prevent 
 the consummation of the Japanese threatened destruction of the in- 
 dependence of Korea. This protest was prepared and dispatched be- 
 fore the alleged protectorate had been asserted by Japan, although its 
 delivery was prevented by wily, crafty, diplomatic Japanese intrigue 
 until after Japan had asserted its alleged protectorate. 
 
 The official record shows you that this protest was prepared in 
 October ; that the protectorate was asserted November 17, 1905 ; that 
 Japan gave out notice on November 22, 1905, to the powers that this 
 protectorate was entirely agreeable to the Korean Government and 
 the Korean people, now known by the world to have been a false an- 
 nouncement, but then taken without proof to be true ; that on Novem- 
 ber 25, 1905, the Emperor's protest, prepared and dispatched in Octo- 
 ber to the United States, was delivered to the State Department ; and 
 that on November 26, 1905, the cable from the old Emperor asserting 
 that the protectorate was obtained at the point of a sword and was 
 null and void and that he had not consented to it and never would 
 was also filed with the State Department of the United States. 
 
 The old Emperor found that a further appeal was necessary. On 
 June 22, 1906, he commissioned a special envoy to the United States, 
 Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, 
 Belgium, and China, with full authority to represent the interests of 
 the Korean Empire at the seat of each of those Governments, and 
 instructed him to deliver to each of those Governments a document 
 relative to the political situation in Korea, and to take such steps as 
 might lead to the peaceful settlement of the difficulties which had 
 arisen with Japan. He was also given special authority to secure an 
 adjustment of the matter before the peace conference at The Hague. 
 
 This document which the special envoy was instructed to present 
 to the powers recited the fraudulent character of the asserted pro- 
 tectorate by Japan, declared that it was invalid, and that under no 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL. 41 
 
 circumstances would the Government of Korea voluntarily consent 
 to the ratification of any instrument which would impair the inde- 
 pendence of Korea, and that if any power claimed that the pro- 
 tectorate had been with the consent of Korea that such claim would 
 be wholly false; and in view of the fact that Korea was a de jure 
 independent power and nation the powers were requested to reassert 
 their right to establish diplomatic relations with Korea, and were 
 also requested to aid Korea in bringing the matter before The Hague 
 tribunal in order that Korea's legal and just claim might be legally 
 established. 
 
 This is the official record, and it might Avell be said that it is 
 sufficient in and of itself, without reference to extraneous proof 
 to establish that the asserted protectorate of November 17, 1905,. 
 was void. The old Emperor, the acknowledged and recognized 
 ruler of the Korean nation, that has had a national independent 
 existence for over 4,000 years to be exact, ever since 2333 B. C. 
 officially denounces the announcement of the asserted protectorate 
 as false. His denouncement and his assertions should be taken as 
 true. 
 
 Japan herself up to this time had been loudest in asserting to the 
 world that Korea w T as an independent nation. 
 
 For the purposes of proper explanation of the questions here in- 
 volved we have not deemed it necessary to go back in the political his- 
 tory of Korea of 1876. 
 
 By solemn treaties and conventions Japan reiterated again and 
 again the sovereign independence of Korea. In the treaty with 
 Korea, dated February 26, 1876, Japan says: "Chosen (Korea) 
 being an independent State, enjoys the same sovereign rights as 
 Japan." In her treaty with China, dated April 18, 1885, Japan 
 agreed to withdraw her troops, then stationed in Korea, and forced 
 China to agree to the same stipulation ; and forced China to a mutual 
 agreement to invite Korea to instruct and drill a sufficient armed 
 force, to the end that she might herself protect her national security 
 and to invite Korea to engage the services of officers of a third power 
 to instruct such armed force, both China and Japan binding them- 
 selves not to send any of their officers to Korea for the purpose of 
 giving such instruction. 
 
 By Japan's treaty with Korea, dated July 14, 1894, Japan cov- 
 enanted " That the independence of Korea was declared, confirmed, 
 and established, and in keeping with it the Chinese troops were to 
 be driven out of the country." 
 
 By her treaty with China, dated April 1, 1895, Japan forced China 
 to recognize definitely the full and complete independence of Korea. 
 
 By her treaty with Russia, dated June 9, 1896, Japan forced Russia 
 to consent to the formation and maintenance by Korea of the na- 
 tional armed force. 
 
 In the treaty with Korea, dated February 23, 1904, Japan solemnly 
 covenants by article 3 of that treaty as follows: "The Imperial 
 Government of Japan definitely guarantee the independence and 
 territorial integrity of the Korean Empire." In the same year that 
 a protectorate was asserted Japan recognized the independent 
 national existence of Korea by making two treaties with Korea by 
 which she and her subjects acquired economic rights in Korea. On 
 
42 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 April 1, 1905, she covenanted with Korea for the purpose of acquir- 
 ing the post, telegraph, and telephone lines in Korea, and on August 
 13, 1905, only a brief period of three months before asserting the 
 alleged protectorate, she entered into a treaty with Korea, thereby 
 recognizing the national independent existence of Korea and recog- 
 nizing the right and jurisdiction of Korea to control navigation 
 within her territorial limits, to permit Japanese vessels to navigate 
 along the coast and in inland waters of Korea for the purpose of 
 trade. 
 
 So it appears that within a few months of the asserted protectorate 
 that Japan recognized the national independent existence of Korea 
 and had proclaimed that national independent existence to the world 
 by her solemn treaties and covenants, and in more than one instance 
 had forced other powers to do the same. 
 
 Under such circumstances, why should not the protestation and 
 written assertion of the recognized ruler of Korea, that the asserted 
 protectorate was invalid, be accepted? 
 
 If we were to consider what must have been the attitude and temper 
 of the Korean Government and of the Korean people at the time that 
 Japan asserted the protectorate of 1905, we realize how absurd and 
 impossible it would be for the Korean Government and the Korean 
 people to voluntarily consent to this protectorate. 
 
 The Koreans could not but remember, and we can not but re- 
 member, that in 1894 Japan procured permission to occupy Korea 
 with troops during her war with China, under the expressed promise 
 to withdraw the troops at the conclusion of the war, and how at the 
 conclusion of the war with China Japan violated her treaty in this 
 respect and entered upon a campaign of threats to secure economic 
 privileges and to dominate Korea. 
 
 How could Koreans forget, or we forget, that awful night in 
 October, 1895. when, by Japanese instigation, the queen, who, with 
 all the power and influence with which she was endowed, was seeking 
 to protect her beloved people from Japanese aggression, was ruth- 
 lessly murdered in cold blood and her body burned, and how the 
 grief -stricken emperor was finally obliged to flee from his own palace 
 and from Japanese domination and threats and to take refuge in the 
 Russian embassy, a fugitive in his own country and among his own 
 people. 
 
 How can Koreans forget or we forget how intensively the 
 Japanese then brought into play all their abilities of diplomatic 
 craft and intrigue, and finally succeeded in getting the Emperor 
 (then holding the title of King) to return to his palace, upon joint 
 assurances of both Russia and Japan, and how for the time being 
 Japan protested a love and friendship for Korea that Korea, to her 
 sorrow, and the world, to its horror, has since learned to be insin- 
 cere. 
 
 Koreans must have had in mind and must bear in mind how Korea, 
 in February, 1904, again gave permission to Japan to occupy Korea 
 with troops during the war with Russia, and how, flushed with her 
 success in the Russian war, Japan, throwing off the guise of friend- 
 ship, again violated her treaty and refused to withdraw her troops, 
 virtually imprisoning the Emperor and boldly set about to confiscate 
 
KOREA'S APPEAL,. 43 
 
 the economic resources of the country and to dominate its govern- 
 mental policies. 
 
 It was fresh in the Korean mind that Japan at the end of a great 
 Avar had defeated Eussia and that in lieu of indemnity she had 
 forced Eussia to acknowledge her " paramount rights " in Korea. 
 
 It is impossible to conceive that Korea should forget all of these 
 things and that it should voluntarily and of its own free will con- 
 sent to, much less welcome, a protectorate from a country by whom 
 she had been so misused. 
 
 As we go back over the sltucvL'-.u us it must have been in November, 
 1905, it becomes clearer and .clearer that the crafty Japanese an- 
 nouncement of November 22', idufe," that Korea had consented to and 
 welcomed the asserted protectorate, was absurdly and ridiculously 
 false, and we became more and more convinced of the truth and 
 sincerity of the old Emperor's protestations that the protectorate had 
 not been consented -to and would never be consented to by the Korean 
 Government and Korean people. 
 
 It seems so needless to present outside evidence ; the most that can 
 be said is that it is cumulative. We hesitate to burden the reader 
 with a volume of outside proof on this matter. 
 
 There is available the statement of Prof. Hulbert, which appears 
 on pages 4194 to 4196 of the Congressional Eecord, in issue of 
 August 18, 1919, to which you can refer. 
 
 We have already quoted from the " Tragedy of Korea," a contem- 
 poraneous history of current events by Mr. F. A. MacKenzie, cover- 
 ing the crowning of the new Emperor and the disbanding of the 
 Korean Army. Mr. MacKenzie is a writer of note and a man of 
 unimpeachable integrity, thoroughly familiar with the Korean 
 question. 
 
 Prof. Hulbert, to whom we have had occasion to refer so many 
 times in this statement and brief, is also the author of a work on 
 Korean history, entitled " The Passing of Korea." His thorough 
 and intimate knowledge of the subject can not be questioned. 
 
 There are many other authors and historians of note who have 
 written of and treated the Korean question. The limited space 
 to which we must confine ourselves prevents reference to or quo- 
 tations from all. 
 
 JAPANESE ATROCITIES IN KOREA. 
 
 See Appendix VII, The Case of Korea, by Henry Chung, pages 
 846 to 358, containing tabulations and daily occurrences arranged 
 chronologically from March 1, 1919. See also chapters from the 
 same authority, entitled " Political and Judicial Oppression," page 
 61 ; " The Official Paddle," a chapter on the horrors of flogging, 
 page Y4; "Prisons and Prison Tortures," page 86; " Japan Amuck," 
 page 214, and " Massacres," page 231. 
 
 See also Eeport of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ 
 on Korean atrocities, read into the Congressional Eecord, July 
 17, 1919, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, pages 2845 to 2865, in- 
 clusive. 
 
4:4 KOREA'S APPEAL. 
 
 INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT AND FORMATION REPUBLIC OF KOREA. 
 
 Over 9,000 news items and special articles have appeared in 
 the public press of the United States since this movement 
 was started, on March 1, 1919, covering every phase and detail. 
 We, therefore, consider it only necessary to refer to such formal 
 things as directly concern and relate to facts already known. 
 
 See formal notice to the United States, dated June 14, 1919, filed 
 with the President and Secretary of State, of the formation of the 
 republic, giving names of officialsj^geted, etc. 
 
 See formal appeal, dated Jung -<'!' 1019, filed Avith the Secretary 
 of State by the Republic of KorelfBBfc'^y detailing acts of oppres- 
 sion and asking aid of " good offices^ of the United States under 
 treaty of 1882. Attached as exhibits are copies of the treaty and 
 the formal demand upon Japan to withdraw military forces. 
 
 The foregoing are in addition to the appeal of the Emperor of 
 Korea, filed in the State Department on November 25, 1905, and 
 his cable notice of the illegality of the claimed protectorate, filed 
 in the State Department on November 26, 1905. 
 
 o 
 
*\/l r*AV TTCT7 
 
 RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 
 University of California 
 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 
 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 APRT21003 
 OCT 1 6 2003 
 
 DD20 15M 4-02 
 
Manufactured by 
 
 6AYLORD BROS. Inc. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 M523632