The conclusion of the centuries of intricate and unsatisfactory relations between these two countries was, to quote the words of another, that “Japan saw herself deposed from the position in Korea to which her victories entitled her, by a nation which appeared to be both an upstart and a usurper on the Sea of Japan.”[22] For three and a quarter centuries Russia had been advancing through Asia at the average rate of 20,000 square miles annually; and now, in the endeavor, in itself laudable, to secure an outlet on the Pacific for her Asiatic possessions, she began extending her customary policy over Manchuria and the Peninsula. It is doubtful whether the Korean King, when he took refuge in the Russian Legation at Seoul, was really alarmed for his personal safety; it is certain that he hated intensely the reform measures which had been forced upon him, and the men among his own subjects who were committed to those measures. His life was, however, never in any real danger at this period. His presence and his position at the Russian Legation, during his entire stay there, was lacking in all semblance of royal dignity. He was himself in the virtual custody of a foreign power. The different Cabinet Ministers had their places assigned in the dining-room of the Legation, behind screens;—“all except one lucky individual who secured quarters for his exclusive use in an abandoned out-house where wood and coal were usually stored.”

There began now a game of manœuvring and intrigue in which, for some years to come, the Japanese were to be at a large disadvantage. The King, who has always shown himself irrevocably committed to the peculiar methods of Korean politics, within two weeks of the day on which he had taken refuge in the Russian Legation, began secretly communicating with the Japanese Minister. The Russian Minister at that time, who has been pronounced “probably the most adroit representative of her interests whom Russia ever had in Korea,” proclaimed himself an unwilling victim of the King’s fear, which he regarded as hysterical, but could not, in common decency, fail to respect. The Japanese were in no position to resent the insult or to foreguard against the menace which all this involved.

Not unnaturally, the Russian representative undertook promptly to avail his country of the especially favorable opportunity for promoting its interests in the Far East which was offered by the intimate relations of protection established over the Korean Government. For it should never be lost out of mind that until years after these events, whoever had dominating influence with the Korean monarch controlled, in largest measure, the Korean Government. M. Waeber, among other material benefits, secured valuable mining and timber concessions for his countrymen; it was also, probably, due to his influence that the Korean troops which had been trained by the Japanese, were disbanded. There then followed a radical change in the policy of Japan, which is described as follows by Hershey:[23]

The Protocol of June, 1896, was no sooner signed than Russia proceeded to violate its terms. In the same month she tried to gain control of the Korean army by placing it under Russian instruction and discipline; in the same year, she urged the request that the disposal of all the Korean taxes and customs be placed in the hands of M. Kir Alexeieff. This plan was partly carried through the following year, and Mr. J. McLeavy Brown was dismissed from the position of Financial Adviser and General Director of Customs for Korea, although he was soon after formally restored to the latter office, the control of which he had never been, in fact, induced to surrender. In August of 1897, M. de Speyer succeeded M. Waeber as the Representative of Russia (Conseiller d’Etat) in Korea; his conduct of Russian affairs, which seems to have been quite devoid of the conciliatory policy of his predecessor, lost for his country many of the advantages which had already been secured. Besides the inducement from this fact, the recent acquisition of Port Arthur and Ta-lien-wan seemed to make it desirable for Russia, for the time being at least, to conciliate Japan. And Japan, on her part, definitively committed herself to the effort to conciliate Russia, while at the same time safeguarding her own important, and indeed essentially vital, interests in the Peninsula. Accordingly there was concluded between the two nations the Nishi-Rosen Protocol of August 25, 1898.

That instrument was as follows:

Five days later—namely, on August 30th—Marquis Ito, who was visiting in Korea, and had been cordially received by the Emperor and invited to dine with him, publicly reaffirmed the policy for which His Imperial Majesty of Japan and he himself, as His Majesty’s subject, wished to be responsible, in a speech delivered at a dinner given at the Foreign Office. On that occasion the Marquis spoke as follows:

With the coming of M. Pavloff to Korea as its Representative, in December, 1898, the diplomacy of Russia in this part of the Orient abandoned the traditional method of patient, persistent effort at advance, together with more or less perfect assimilation of the new tribes and peoples brought under its control, and adopted the more brilliant but dangerous policy of a swift promotion of obviously selfish schemes by a mixture of threats and cajolery. It is not even now certain how far this policy was supported by, or even known to, the home government of Russia. The war with Japan, to which these acts led steadily and irresistibly forward, seemed, only in its actual results, to reveal at all fully to this Government what its representatives had been doing in the Far East.

Among the various attempts of M. Pavloff and his coadjutors to obtain concessions for themselves and for their country, those which looked toward the establishment of a Russian naval base in certain localities of the Korean coast were threatening to Japan. “But Russia’s conduct on the Northern frontier of Korea along the Tumen and Yalu rivers was”—to quote again from Hershey—“the greatest source of anxiety to Japan.”

In this connection it should be said, that while the Korean Government did not formally renew the lease, the Emperor did secretly enter into an arrangement with M. Pavloff concerning Yong-am-po, practically conceding all that was asked on Russia’s behalf. This document was discovered after the war began and hastily cancelled by the Emperor, of his own accord, upon the recommendation of the Korean Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Meantime another conflict of interests between Russia and Japan was developing and contributing to the same result—namely, the Russo-Japanese war. This was the so-called “Manchurian Question.” It is not necessary for the purposes of our narrative to trace with any detail the origin and different stages of that succession of successful intrigues and encroachments upon foreign territory which had been for some time carried on with the Chinese by methods similar to those now being employed in Korea. Some of the more salient points in the history of the preceding period of nearly a half-century need, however, to be called to mind. In 1860, when the allied forces occupied Peking, the Russian Minister, General Ignatieff, by a brilliant stroke of diplomacy, secured for his country the cession of the maritime province of Manchuria, with 600 miles of coast, and the harbor of Vladivostok, down to the mouth of the Tumen. For this he gave nothing in return beyond the pretence that it was in his power to bring pressure upon the allies and thus secure their more speedy evacuation of the Chinese capital.

Thirty years later, after the new province had been developed and the harbor of Vladivostok converted into a powerful fortress, Russia determined upon building an all-rail route across Siberia, and immediately began to press for other concessions in Chinese territory that in 1897 resulted in the association which constructed what is now known as the Manchurian Railway. This enterprise was ostensibly a joint affair of the two countries; but it has been fitly described as “only a convenient bonnet” for an essentially Russian undertaking. Russian engineers now came in large numbers to Manchuria; Russian Cossacks accompanied them for purposes of their protection. Later in the same year the seizure by Germany of Kiao-chau, in satisfaction for outrages committed upon German missionaries, was followed by Russia’s request to the Chinese Government for permission to winter her fleet at Port Arthur. In March of the next year Japan had the added mortification, bitterness, and cause for alarm, of seeing Russia demand and obtain from China a formal lease of the same commercial and strategic points of the peninsula of Liao-tung of which Russia, by combining with Germany and France, had deprived Japan when she had won them by conquest in war. These enterprises in Manchuria were financed by the Russo-Chinese Bank, an institution which had recently been founded in the Far East as a branch of the Russian Ministry of Finance. So important is this last-mentioned fact that one writer places upon M. Pokotiloff, Chief of the Russo-Chinese Bank in Berlin, the responsibility for the whole Port Arthur episode, and declares it was he who dictated the policy of Russia in Manchuria after the Boxer uprising.[24]

The occupation of Port Arthur and Ta-lien-wan (renamed Dalny) was accompanied by assurances from the Russian Government—chiefly designed to quiet Great Britain and Japan—that it had “no intention of infringing the rights and privileges guaranteed by existing treaties between China and foreign countries;” and that no interference with Chinese sovereignty was contemplated. To the objections raised when it proceeded to fortify Port Arthur, the reply was made that Russia “must have a safe harbor for her fleet, which could not be at the mercy of the elements at Vladivostok or dependent upon the good-will of Japan.” Under this plea she refused to change the status of Port Arthur as a closed and principally military port. The effect of all this upon the attitude of public feeling in Japan toward Russia can easily be imagined. Even when, in August, 1899, the port of Dalny was declared “open” by an Imperial ukase, regulations with respect to passports and claims to a monopoly of mining rights continued to lessen the confidence of other nations in Russia’s good faith with respect to the occupation of Manchuria. It is now sufficiently well established that during this period secret agreements between Li Hung Chang and the Russian Government were made which enlarged the special privileges of Russia in Manchuria. Meantime, also, her military hold was being strengthened; so that by December, 1898, she had 20,000 men at her two ports, while Cossack guards—“the pennons on their lances showing a combination of the Russian colors and the Chinese dragon”—were patrolling the railway line and protecting the work of fortification at Port Arthur.

During these years the Japanese Government was watching with quiet but painful solicitude the movements going forward in China. When Marquis Ito visited Peking and the Yangtse provinces in the summer of 1898, he was received with marked attention, especially by the reform party among the leading Chinese officials; but the baleful influence of the Dowager-Empress, and of the party opposed to everything likely to curtail their power, arrested the attempts at rapprochement between China and Japan. It was the so-called “Boxer Movement,” however, which gave to Russia a new claim of right to interfere in Chinese affairs and to establish more firmly than ever before her special privileges in Manchuria. The history of this movement—of the way in which Russia dealt with its extension into Manchuria, of the siege of Peking and the doings of the allied forces, and of the subsequent behavior of the Russians with regard to the evacuation of Manchuria—is now well known, or easily accessible, by all students of the period.

In spite of repeated promises to evacuate the points seized and held by Russian forces when, after the relief of the Legations, these forces were withdrawn from Peking and Chi-li to be concentrated in Manchuria, and in disregard of the interests of the other allies, the policy of keeping all that she had gained, and of gaining more as far as possible, was steadily pursued by Russia. On November 11, 1900, an agreement was made between the Representative of Admiral Alexeieff and the Tartar General at Mukden, the most significant point of which was the promise of the Chinese official to provide the Russian troops with lodging and provisions, to disarm and disband all Chinese soldiers and hand over all arms and ammunition to the Russians, and to dismantle all forts and defences not occupied by the Russians.

It was the probable effect of a continued occupation of Manchuria by Russia upon their business interests which led Great Britain and America to wish that the repeated Russian assurances of good faith toward China and toward all foreign nations should manifest themselves in works. The case could not be wholly the same with Japan. Her interests of trade were, indeed, if not at the time so large, more close and vital than those of any other nation outside of China. But her other interests were incomparable. So that when Russia failed to carry out her engagements, even under a convention which was so much in her favor, there was a revival of suspicion and apprehension on the part of the Japanese Government and the Japanese people. Manchuria and Korea both pointed an index finger of warning directed toward Russia.

It was to further a peaceful adjustment of all the disturbed condition of the interests of Russia and Japan in the Far East that Marquis Ito went, on his way home from his visit to the United States, at the end of 1901, on an unofficial mission to St. Petersburg. The failure of the overtures which he bore discouraged those of the leading Japanese statesmen who were hoping for some reconciliation which might take the shape of allowing Russian ascendency in Manchuria and Japanese ascendency in Korea. It also strengthened the conviction which prevailed among the younger statesmen that the St. Petersburg Government regarded Manchuria as not only its fortress in the Far East, but also as its path to the peninsula lying within sight of Japan’s shores. “The Japanese Government,” says Mr. D. W. Stevens, “at last felt that the vital interests of Japan might be irrevocably jeopardized in Korea as well as in Manchuria, if it continued to remain a mere passive spectator of Russian encroachments; and in August, 1903, it resolved to take a decisive step. In the most courteous form and through the usual diplomatic channels Japan intimated at St. Petersburg that her voice must be heard, and listened to, in connection with Far Eastern questions in which her interests were vitally concerned.” The answer of Russia was the appointment of Admiral Alexeieff as Viceroy over the Czar’s possessions in the Far East, with executive and administrative powers of a semi-autocratic character.

But let us return to Korea and inquire: What was the policy with which its Emperor and his Court met the exceedingly critical situation into which the country was being forced by the conflict going on between Russia and Japan both within, and just outside of, its borders? The answer is not dubious. It was the policy, in yet more aggravated form, of folly, weakness, intrigue, and corruption, both in the administration of internal affairs and also in the management of the now very delicate foreign relations. The Emperor was—to use the descriptive phrase of another—enjoying “an orgy of independence.” The former restraints which had been imposed upon him by Chinese domination, by the personal influence of the Tai Won Kun, or of the Queen, by his fears of the reformers, and even by any passive emotional impulses of his own, leading to reformation, were now all removed. While he was a “guest” at the Russian Legation there was certainly no direct influence exerted by his hosts, to assist, advise, or guide him into better ways. It was not the policy of Russia to effect—at least for the present or immediately prospective occasion—any moral betterment of the administration of Korean home and foreign affairs. Under the regency of his father, the Government had been cruel, despotic, and murderous toward both native and foreign Christians. But the Tai Won Kun had some regard for ancient common laws and usages. Under him the people were reasonably sure of such rights, protection, and privileges of public domain, as their ancestors had enjoyed. The public granaries were kept full against the time of famine. The timber and fire-wood on the hills was not given over to any one who could bribe or cajole the corrupt officials; and the line of demarcation between royal and popular rights was more clearly drawn and better understood. But now all this was changed for the worse. The King declared himself the sole and private owner—to dispose of as he saw fit—of all the properties which had formerly been considered as belonging to the state. Low-born favorites appropriated or laid waste the public domain. The country’s resources were wasted; the people were subjected to new and irregular exactions, levied by irregular people for illegal purposes. A succession of the most consummate rascals which ever afflicted any country came into virtual control. They were endowed with offices purchased or extorted from the head ruler. Eunuchs were sent out from the palace on “still hunts,” so to speak, to discover any kind of property which, by any pretext whatever, could be claimed; and to seize such property in the name of His Majesty, or of the King’s concubine, Lady Om, or of some one of the Imperial Princes. Laws which were intended to promote the ends of justice were twisted from their purpose and made to serve the ends of plunder. Such privileges as that of coining and counterfeiting the currency were sold to private persons.

Then began also that squandering of the nation’s most valuable resources which, under the name of “concessions” to foreigners who generally allied themselves for this end with corrupt Korean officials, has continued down to the present time; and the adjustment of which is still giving the Resident-General and his judicial advisers some of their most serious problems. To quote the description of this period by a distinguished foreigner, long in the Korean service: “Nothing in this country is safe from the horde which surrounds His Majesty and seemingly has his confidence. Public office is bought and sold without even the pretence of concealment. Officials share with the palace the plunder which they extort from the people. So and So (naming a prominent Korean Official) is said to owe his influence there largely to the fact that out of every ten thousand yen which he collects he surrenders seven thousand to the Emperor, retaining only three for himself. With his colleagues it is usually the other way, about.” According to the same authority, many kinds of property which were formerly regarded as belonging to the state were now being appropriated to the Emperor’s use, or to that of his favorites, without any pretext, under the rule that “might makes right.” Torturing, strangling, and decapitation, were no infrequent methods of accomplishing the imperial will; though it should be said that these favors were somewhat impartially distributed. Sometimes it was the secret strangling in prison of such patriots as An Kyun-su and Kwan Yung-chin, on the night of May 27, 1900—than which, it has truly been said, “no more dastardly crime ever stained the annals of this or any other government”: sometimes it was the torturing and execution of such unspeakable rascals as the ex-court-favorites, Kim Yung-chun (1901), Yi Yong-ik, and Yi Keun-tak (1902). In a word, the period of “independence,” to which the Emperor has been lately imploring his own subjects and the civilized world to restore him, was the period in which he took what, and gave away what, and did what he chose, under the basest influences; for the most worthless or mischievous ends, without law or pretence of justice or goodness of heart, to the lasting disgrace and essential ruin of the nation.

Such is a summary of the doings during the years preceding the Russo-Japanese war, on the part of the Korean Emperor and his Court. “Through all this period,” says Mr. Hulbert,[25] “Russian influence was quietly at work securing its hold upon the Korean Court and upon such members of the government as it could win over. The general populace was always suspicious of her, however, and always preferred the rougher hand of Japan to the soft but heavy hand of Russia.” The threatening nature of the situation created by these Russian encroachments was as well understood at Washington and London as at Tokyo. It was intimately connected with the Manchurian question to the untangling of which Mr. Hay had devoted so much thought.

But Russia’s action in Manchuria, threatening as it was to the interests, not alone of Japan but also of other foreign powers, did not call upon the Japanese Government for armed interference.[26] As the behavior of Japan showed during the Boxer troubles in China, she had learned caution with respect to fighting the battles of civilized Europe and America, at her own expense and without show of gratitude from others.

As we have already seen, the most threatening feature of the situation for Japan was Russia’s activity upon the Yalu, especially at Yong-am-po. In the interests of peace Mr. Hay supplemented his efforts to maintain the principle of the open door and equal opportunity in Manchuria, by an earnest endeavor (which had Lord Lansdowne’s cordial support) to fend off the impending quarrel between Japan and Russia. Since all the Treaty Powers were interested in the matter of treaty ports in Korea, the method that most readily suggested itself was the opening of Wiju and Yong-am-po, which would remove any question of the latter place being used as a military or naval base. The request was reasonable from every point of view, since Wiju, as the market town, and Yong-am-po, as the port, were naturally the complement, on the Korean side of the Yalu, of Antung then recently declared an open port on the Manchurian. Indeed, other considerations apart, some such action was imperatively necessary from the Korean standpoint, inasmuch as an open port in Chinese territory, without a corresponding port of entry in neighboring Korean territory, could not fail to be prejudicial to the interests of Korea. Accordingly the American and British representatives at Seoul were instructed to urge upon the Korean Government the necessity of opening these ports.

This was done, but the attempt to persuade the Emperor met with strenuous opposition on M. Pavloff’s part, and finally failed, apparently because of the incapacity of His Majesty’s nearest advisers to grasp the real significance of the crisis and the momentous effect which the decision must have upon Korea’s fortunes. The struggle was a fierce one while it lasted and, among other minor results, led to the resignation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The gentleman who succeeded him, as Acting Minister, was disposed to favor the opening of the ports, in spite of the strong opposition of the palace coterie. He went so far as to prepare letters to the foreign representatives declaring the ports open, and was actually about sending them out, on his own responsibility, when he was stopped, partly by a peremptory order from the palace, and partly by the persuasion of his friends who represented to him the great personal danger he would incur by such a step.

The narrative of this official throws a curious side-light upon M. Pavloff’s methods and shows in an interesting way his persistence, even at a time when the correspondence between Russia and Japan preceding the war had reached a critical stage, in endeavoring by every means at his command to carry through the very intrigue which formed the gravamen of Japan’s strongest reason for complaining. It is easy, in the light of what has happened, to condemn this action; but even at the time it must have seemed to impartial observers more like the infatuation of a desperate gambler than the well-considered moves of a shrewd diplomatist. It was all done, too, in support of a transparent subterfuge, namely: that Russia had no arrangement with Korea which gave to the proposed use of Yong-am-po any other character than that of an entirely peaceful occupation for legitimate commercial purposes; and that her agents had done absolutely nothing in the way of preparing the place for military occupation. When he was urging upon the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs reasons for not opening Yong-am-po, the latter enquired: “Why have you staked off such a large extent of territory, and why are you building a fort?” M. Pavloff instantly denied in emphatic terms that anything of the kind had been done. “For the past ten days,” quietly replied the Korean official, “I have had two men whom I trust thoroughly on the spot, and my question is the result of telegraphic reports I have received from them.” The interview did not continue, but within forty-eight hours his scouts reported to the Acting Minister that all the stakes had been removed. There had not been time, they said, thoroughly to remove all traces of works upon the fortifications, but that as much of the works as possible had been levelled and the whole covered up with loose earth, tree-trunks and branches. Such effrontery seems incredible; but these are facts, and others like them equally typical of M. Pavloff’s methods could be recited. It is doubtful whether even his own government knew all the circumstances, or was fully aware, until it was too late, what he had done and was continuing to do to arouse Japanese suspicion and resentment.

The negotiations having in view the peaceful adjustment of the conflicting interests of Russia and Japan in the Far East, which were begun by the latter country in the summer of 1903, were further continued. Mr. Kurino, the Japanese Minister at St. Petersburg, was informed by Baron Komura, who was then Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the recent conduct of Russia at Peking, in Manchuria, and in Korea, was the cause of grave concern to the Government at Tokyo. “The unconditional and permanent occupation of Manchuria by Russia would,” said Baron Komura, “create a state of things prejudicial to the security and interests of Japan. The principle of equal opportunity would thereby be annulled, and the territorial integrity of China be impaired. There is, however, a still more serious consideration for the Japanese Government; that is to say, if Russia was established on the flank of Korea it would be a constant menace to the separate existence of that empire, or at least would make Russia the dominant power in Korea. But Korea is an important outpost in Japan’s line of defence, and Japan consequently considers its independence absolutely essential to her own repose and safety. Moreover, the political as well as the commercial and industrial interests and influence which Japan possesses in Korea are paramount over those of other Powers. These interests and this influence Japan, having regard to her own security, cannot consent to surrender to, or share with, another Power.”

In view of these reasons, Mr. Kurino was instructed to present the following note to Count Lamsdorff, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs: “The Japanese Government desires to remove from the relations of the two empires every cause of future misunderstanding, and believes that the Russian Government shares the same desire. The Japanese Government would therefore be glad to enter with the Russian Imperial Government upon an examination of the condition of affairs in the regions of the extreme East, where their interests meet, with a view of defining their respective special interests in those regions. If this suggestion fortunately meets with the approval, in principle, of the Russian Government, the Japanese Government will be prepared to present to the Russian Government their views as to the nature and scope of the proposed understanding.”

The consent of Count Lamsdorff and the Czar having been obtained, on August 12th articles were prepared and submitted by the Japanese Government which it wished to have serve as a basis of understanding between the two countries. The essential agreements to be secured by these articles were: (1) A mutual engagement to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Chinese and Korean empires, and to maintain the “open door” in these countries; and (2) a reciprocal recognition of Japan’s preponderating interests in Korea and of Russia’s special interests in Manchuria. These demands were not altered in any very important way by Japan during all the subsequent negotiations. It was their persistent rejection by Russia, together with her long delays in replying while she was meantime making obvious preparations of a war-like character, which precipitated the tremendous conflict that followed some months later. In her first reply with counter proposals which was made nearly eight weeks later through Baron Rosen, the Russian Minister at Tokyo, Russia not only reduced Japan’s demands regarding Korea, but even proposed new restrictions upon her in that country. But what was equally significant, the counter-proposals took no account of the demand for an agreement as to the independence and territorial integrity of the Chinese empire, or as to the policy of the “open door” in Manchuria and Korea. On the contrary, they required Japan expressly to recognize Manchuria as “in all respects outside her sphere of interest.” Meantime Russia was increasing her commercial and military activity in both the territorial spheres where the question of interests and rights was under dispute.

In the second overture of October 30th, several important concessions were made by Japan, to which on December 11th Russia replied with a repetition of the former counter-proposal—omitting, however, the offensive clause regarding Manchuria and inserting the Japanese proposal relating to the connection of the Korean and the Chinese-Eastern railways. Ten days later the Japanese Government presented a third overture in which Baron Komura tried to make it clear to the Russian Government that Japan desired “to bring within the purview of the proposed arrangement all those regions in the Far East where the interests of the two empires meet.” But when the reply of Russia was received in Tokyo on January 6, 1904, it was found that not only was there no mention made of the territorial integrity of China in Manchuria, but that Russia again insisted upon Japan’s regarding the “Manchurian Question” and the littoral of Manchuria as quite outside her sphere of interest. Russia, indeed, agreed “not to impede Japan or the other Powers in the enjoyment of the rights and privileges acquired by them under existing treaties with China, exclusive of the establishment of settlements”; but only on condition that Japan would agree not to use any part of the territory of Korea for strategical purposes, and also to the establishment of a neutral zone in Northern Korea. In spite of the fact that the two governments were still as far apart as at the beginning in regard to the most vital points of interest, Japan made another and fourth attempt. This overture was presented to Count Lamsdorff on January 13th and, in spite of the urgent request for an early reply, this did not come until February 7, the day following the severing of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Negotiations were then ended; appeal was now made to the “arbitrament of war,” so-called.

It is not our purpose to discuss in detail the question of rights, as involved in these negotiations, whether from the political or the moral point of view, or to consider whether Japan’s method of initiating hostilities was in accordance with law, or with precedent as established, if such it can be said to be, by the usage of civilized nations. In both regards we believe, however, that the claims of Japan to have the right upon her side are in all important particulars defensible. But having begun the war with Russia it can be seen that to secure free passage for her troops through Korea, and to secure Korea in the rear of her troops as they passed to the front, were necessities imposed upon Japan in a yet more absolute and indisputable fashion than was the undertaking of the war itself. If it was necessary in order to maintain the integrity and free, peaceful development of Japan that, all other means having failed, she should resort to arms in the effort to check the dangerous encroachments of Russia in Manchuria and Korea, it was immediately and essentially necessary for any measure of success in this last resort, that she should gain and hold control over the conduct of the Korean Court and the Korean populace during the war. What were the nature and the habitual modes of behavior of both Court and people has already been made clear; more information on these subjects will be afforded in subsequent chapters. As to danger of treachery we may note in passing that, while friendship was being protested to the face of the Japanese in Korea, a boat was picked up in the Yellow Sea, late in January, 1904—that is, a few days before the outbreak of the war—which bore a Korean messenger with a letter to Port Arthur asking for Russian troops to be sent to Korea. The resort to valuable concessions as a bribe for foreign influence became at once, on the beginning of hostilities, more active even than before. On this latter point we quote the words of Mr. D. W. Stevens:

At this time the Emperor was dominated by the influence of a courtier named Yi Yong-ik, whose foreign affiliations were wholly Russian. The Palace coterie, even including this man’s bitter political enemies, was almost entirely pro-Russian. But the Emperor was also, of course, much afraid of the Japanese, who were now near at hand, whereas the Russians and their Korean coadjutors had either fled the country or gone into retirement. For the time being, therefore, Japan had control of the Imperial environment. Meantime, one of two courses only seemed open to the Japanese themselves: they could either set aside the Emperor and his untrustworthy officials, and assume complete control of Korean affairs; or they could make some sort of arrangement which would secure an alliance with Korea. If faithful to this alliance, the Emperor would be assured of his personal safety and of his throne; and the country would be placed definitively under Japanese protection. The leaders in Japan knew perfectly well that His Korean Majesty was anti-Japanese and characteristically false and treacherous; but they hoped by moderation to win him over to at least a partial and temporary fulfilment of the obligations under which he would be placed by the adoption of the more friendly course.

There were also military reasons why a sort of protectorate and alliance seemed necessary; and if possible in a way to avoid the troubles of a forcible annexation. For, very special and momently imminent dangers threatened the construction and use of the railway by which the Japanese were transporting their troops and supplies through Korea to the seat of the war. In several instances armed attacks were made upon the workmen and the track was torn up. In another connection it will be shown that the charge of extreme cruelty and wholesale slaughter made by Mr. Hulbert[27] (and illustrated by a picture designed to excite pathos), because the Japanese military authorities executed some of the leaders of these dangerous riots, is quite unwarranted by the facts. The same thing may be said of the charge that the Po-an, or “Society for the Promotion of Peace and Safety,” was illegally and wantonly suppressed by the Japanese in July of 1904. The simple truth is that this society bore about the same relation to the cause of “peace and safety” which has been borne during the past two years by the several associations for intrigue and murder which have masqueraded under titles suggestive of the most noble schemes for promoting the interests of patriotism, education, morals and religion. It must be either a dull or a prejudiced mind, indeed, that can take in the atmosphere of Korean politics for even a few months—not to say, years—of residence in the land, and not understand the threatening significance of these associations. On the other hand, the question of propriety in dealing summarily with those who persist in tearing up the tracks of a military road in time of war may confidently be left to those who are experienced in such matters.

Indeed, with regard to the entire conduct of affairs by the Japanese during this period, we may ask the question, and give the answer, of Mr. Whigham:[28] “What, then, is Japan to do? Is she to sit down and watch the Russian flood descending on her fields without attempting to set up a barrier? The answer is very simple. Japan must take Korea and do it very quickly, too.”

It was such a situation of extreme peril and emergency which compelled the Japanese Government to secure formal recognition in an agreement with the Korean Government—so far as such a thing as government then existed in Korea—that should admit of no misunderstanding. This necessity gave rise to the Conventions of February 23, 1904, and of August 22 of the same year. The latter of these conventions was the logical sequence and supplement of the former. By the first of the Protocols[29] it was designed to secure necessary reforms in the administration of Korea and, besides, such an alliance between the two governments that Japan should guard the Korean Emperor and his people against foreign aggressions in the future and secure for herself the furtherance of her military operations against Russia. Of more permanent importance still was the prevention in the future of all such experiences as she had passed through in 1894-1895, and was passing through at the present time. The Convention of February, however, was no sooner concluded than His Majesty began plotting to prevent its going into effect. With the conduct of military matters he was indeed powerless to interfere; but every attempt at reform met with either his passive resistance or open opposition. This attitude of his made necessary the additional provisions stipulated in the supplementary Protocol of August 22, 1904.[30] In this, provision was made for the appointment by the Korean Government of a Japanese recommended by the Japanese Government as “Financial Adviser,” and of some foreigner, also to be recommended by the Japanese Government, as “Adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs.” The appointees to these positions were Mr. Megata and Mr. D. W. Stevens.

But still the intrigue and treachery of His Majesty went on. In spite of the excellent service of Mr. Megata in straightening out the confusion of the Korean finances, and in utter disregard of Mr. Stevens’ advices and endeavors to make the new Protocols both appear, and actually to be, greatly to the advantage of the Emperor and of his country, the imperial ways remained unchanged. His own Foreign Ministers were either disregarded or made tools of intrigue. Even after the Treaty of November, 1905, His Majesty sent secret telegrams from the Palace ordering the Foreign Ministers of other Governments to pay no attention to the directions of his own Minister of Foreign Affairs, while the latter was arranging for the closing of the Legations according to the terms of the Treaty. During the entire war he was in secret communication with Japan’s enemies, while claiming Japan’s protection under the Protocols of February and August, 1904. This treacherous correspondence was carried on through emissaries at Shanghai; and large sums of money, which the Japanese Financial Adviser had somehow to provide, were wasted upon these futile efforts to change the course of events. Indeed, in this correspondence and in the distribution of this money, it is probable that the chief agent in Shanghai was the same person as the chief agent of Russia herself.

The subsequent history of the relations of Japan and Korea, as these relations resulted through the events of July, 1907, in establishing a protectorate which placed all important Korean affairs, both internal and foreign, under the control of the Japanese Resident-General, cannot be understood or judged without keeping the necessity and the significance of these Protocols steadily in mind. Of the Convention of February, 1904, Lawrence significantly says:[31]