Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1901

Mr. Allen to Mr. Hay.

Legation of the United States,
Seoul, Korea, March 5, 1901.

No. 318, Diplomatic]

Sir: I have the honor to hand you a statement in regard to the ill treatment of two American missionaries at Taiku, the capital of the province of North Kyung Sang, to which I alluded in my No. 306 of December 14, 1900.^a

The facts are briefly as follows:

Messrs. Adams and Johnson, American missionaries residing under passport at Taiku, had some trouble over a contract for tiles to cover a house they were preparing for themselves at that place in the name of a Korean. The matter was brought to the attention of the local governor, who is reported as being a man of conservative and rather independent ideas. Upon the order of this governor the Korean writer employed by the Americans, who had written the contract with the tile burner, was arrested, the police forcibly entering the domicile of the Americans to make the arrest. The man was taken before the governor and most inhumanly beaten. When the Americans went to the governor’s yamen to inquire into the case, the governor refused to see them, pronounced their official Korean passports valuelesss and treated them with great indignity, compelling them to stand in the courtyard with the rabble, and refusing to hear their explanations though they were the principal parties to the transaction under discussion.

Mr. Adams telegraphed me upon December 5 and I sent him immediately a long telegram en claire in which I stated that the governor was at fault and that I would take up the matter with the Korean Government. I saw the foreign minister as soon as possible and obtained from him an order for the release of the Korean writer, Kim, which however did not reach Taiku for some days, owing to a sudden break in the telegraph lines. The governor had in the meantime presumably read while in transmission my telegram to Mr. Adams, for he at once announced that his mother had died and left his post to go into mourning. On December 17 I formally addressed the foreign minister as per inclosure No. 1, detailing the case upon information received from the Rev. Mr. Adams by letter, and contending that the treaty had been violated in four particulars. I saw the foreign minister several times and insisted on his replying to my letter. On January 25 he replied by quoting from a report of the acting governor, who was one of the chief culprits. This reply was not satisfactory and was almost if not quite discourteous. The principal points in this reply are included in a letter which I prepared on February 1.

In 1890 a French priest was very badly treated at this same city of Taiku, his property was stolen and he himself was imprisoned. This incident formed the subject of a dispatch, No. 141, of April 2, 1891, from Mr. Heard, to which Mr. Adee replied in No. 95 of May 19, 1891, instructing him to demand equal rights and privileges for Americans. No such demand has had to be made, as our people have kept “within the letter” of the treaties, but I thought I might well use these instructions in this case. I wrote, therefore, another letter, referred to above as having been prepared upon February 1, replying to the chief points of the letter of the acting governor of Taiku and inclosing a memorandum of the French case of 1890–91. In this communication I informed the foreign minister that I was compelled reluctantly to fall back upon instructions my predecessor had received in connection with the above-cited French case, and that in view of the fact that the action of his Government had rendered practically inoperative the treaty provisions restricting the residence of foreigners to the open ports, I should inform my people that they were at liberty to live anywhere in the interior where foreigners of other nationalities were sojourning. * * *

My object in writing this letter was that I might lay the whole matter before His Majesty and have the position of the Americans at Taiku made more comfortable. His Majesty has requested me to consult with him personally before taking any decisive action with the foreign office. I wrote this letter, therefore, with the intention of sending it informally to the Emperor to read before delivering it. I felt certain that His Majesty would not permit it to go officially to the foreign office, a surmise in which I proved to be correct when the translation of the letter was returned me with the request that I retain it for a few days while His Majesty had the foreign minister adjust the matter to my satisfaction.

The foreign minister called upon me twice and arranged with me that he should write a careful instruction to the governor of North Kyung Sang Do, who had meantime succeeded the former one, and that he should send me a polite and satisfactory letter on the subject. He offered to punish or dismiss the chief culprit, Noh Chusa, but in discussing the matter he begged that I would allow the new governor to examine first the said Noh. This suggestion met with my approval, as I did not desire the man to be punished without a hearing. I agreed to send the foreign minister an unofficial copy of my withheld letter of February 1, that he might give it to the new governor for his guidance.

On February 26 the foreign minister sent me, therefore, a letter, a translation of which I inclose. It proved to be unsatisfactory, as it did not include a copy of the instruction of the foreign minister to the newly appointed governor of North Kyung Sang Province and said nothing in regard to the examination and punishment of Noh Chusa. I had my interpreter return it in person, with a verbal statement as to the omissions, and upon the same day I received a satisfactory reply, a translation of which I inclose, handing me a copy of the foreign minister’s instructions to the governor, a translation of which instructions I inclose also.

I consider this settlement of the case to be satisfactory. The actual money loss was made good finally by the local officials at Taiku. The Americans themselves were not harmed, and for the violation of their treaty rights their presence at Taiku is now officially recognized and sanctioned. I think they will experience no further difficulty.

In the discussion of this case I have had to allude to the robbery by highwaymen of the Americans near Taiku, which occurred on October 14 last, and which I have referred to in my No. 301, of November 25. This case is also now in process of settlement. I have received one note from the foreign minister upon the subject, and I think he will do all he can to secure justice. I do not consider it necessary to ask for instructions in regard to the matter, and I will report upon it at length when I have brought it to a settlement or if I fail to obtain satisfaction.

I have, etc.,

Horace N. Allen.

[Inclosure 1.]

Mr. Allen to Pak Chai Soon, minister for foreign affairs.

Legation of the United States,
Seoul, Korea, December 17, 1900.

Sir: I have the honor to inform your excellency, that I am now in receipt of a full report in detail from the Americans at Taiku with regard to the violation of their domicile and arrest of their employee by the police under orders of the governor of North Kyung Sang Province, in regard to which I saw your excellency and secured your telegraphic instruction to the governor to release the prisoner and stop proceedings pending a settlement of the case at Seoul.

The report I have received is so long that I must content myself with quoting extracts from it, touching only upon the main points.

In the first place I am entirely willing to admit that by the provisions of the treaties the permanent residence of Americans in Korea must be at the ports or places opened to trade or within the treaty limits thereof. At the same time, by Article IV, section 6, of the British treaty (which is applicable to the United States as well, by virtue of the “most-favored-nation clause” of the treaty with the United States), it is expressly provided that Americans may freely travel in the interior of Korea on passport, for purposes of pleasure, trade, or the transport and purchase of goods. If my people are thus able to travel and reside temporarily in the interior on passport, they are certainly at liberty to secure food and lodging while so sojourning in the country. I admit also the fact that, without special permission, they are not at liberty to own real estate in the interior, and for that reason, when it has become necessary to secure a dwelling house, owing to the absence of a system of rentals in Korea, my people have always done this in the name of a Korean, so as not to violate the treaty provisions. I have personal knowledge that persons of other nationalities do not put themselves to this inconvenience, but actually acquire such property outright, with the sanction of the local Korean authorities. This being well known to be the case, I can not well forbid my people from following the harmless custom of which the case in point is an illustration.

The whole matter of the residence of the Americans in the interior on passport may be discussed separately, if you desire. I have alluded to it here in this place as a preliminary to the following representation in regard to the particular matter under discussion.

The facts in this case are that these Americans, Messrs. Adams and Johnson, desiring to stop in Taiku on passport, and not being able to rent suitable quarters, loaned money to a native Korean with which to erect a suitable building for their accommodation.

I may mention that at this city there is a regular station of Japanese guards under an officer who remain there permanently in connection with the protection of the Japanese telegraph line. There is also one French establishment there, which has been maintained for some time and seems not to be objected to by the local authorities.

There has been no opposition to the presence of the Americans at Taiku; in fact, the people and most of the officials have seemed to welcome them. For some reason they began to experience more or less official interference last spring, which was currently rumored to be because the Americans did not make it pecuniarily profitable for the officials to assist them. I have no written proof of this latter, and my statement is based on verbal remarks made to my people, which remarks I personally believe to be true.

This autumn the Americans experienced much trouble in buying some tiles with which to cover the house they are about to occupy, and in trying to enforce a contract they had made with a native tile burner, the matter came to the ears of the governor. The tile burner, a man named Soh, seems to have persuaded the governor that he himself was the aggrieved party, and instead of interrogating the foreigners or their servants on the subject the governor on November 25 sent his police into the quarters of the Americans and arrested their employee, Kim Tek Yung, who had written the contract for the tiles. The Americans tried to see the governor at once, but he excused himself. They did see the prefect, and showed him the contract and explained the circumstances; that Kim had only written from their dictation, and was in no way responsible for the document; whereupon the prefect discharged the man Kim.

On December 1, without any warning or permission, a policeman and a runner from the governor’s yamen forced their way into the innermost quarters occupied by the Americans in search of the man Kim, whom they afterwards found and arrested. The next day he was beaten to compel him to surrender the contract he had written for the tiles. He hadn’t it, and after being beaten till he was all bleeding and exhausted he was thrown into jail.

As soon as possible next day the Americans called upon the governor, but were refused admittance. They insisted that they would remain until the governor should see them, whereupon he had them admitted. They offered the governor the contract, for the possession of which he had so inhumanly beaten their employee the day before, but he would not receive it from them. He used them rudely and insultingly and told them that Kim was a Korean and he would do with him as he pleased. He ridiculed their passports when they called the next day and sent them in on his refusing to see them. He sent the documents back, declaring that while Americans usually carry such passports “they are of no value.” He refused to see the Americans. This same day the governor again sent police to the quarters of the Americans-to arrest another employee, but the man was out of town. My people then telegraphed me, and I saw your excellency on the subject.

When this case was called for trial, the Americans attempted to be present, as was their right, and also that they might give any evidence that might be required. They were not admitted except upon great importunity and after being kept outside for over half an hour. When admitted, they were compelled to stand down in the courtyard with the coolies and runners. The evidence, without anything from the Americans, was so damaging to Soh, the tile burner, that the governor had him stripped and beaten. Instead, however, of dismissing Kim on finding no evidence against him, he ordered him bound and whipped for “writing the contract for the foreigners.” When Kim was stripped his body was found to be so lacerated and his condition so weak from his beating that even the governor was moved to let him off because—to quote the governor’s language—“because of your pitiable condition.” He was obliged to promise not to repeat the act of which he was accused, namely, assisting foreigners in ordinary business transactions.

Your excellency will note that this prisoner was not released upon your order, but before your telegram could reach Taiku. He was released in a most pitiable condition because of the illegal application of torture to him before his trial and in violation of the published laws of your country. No case was proved against him and the other man was found to be at fault. Furthermore, Kim would have been again beaten for serving an American had he been able to stand another beating without dying in the act.

After the trial the governor did condescend to see the Americans and listen to their case. The justice of their complaint against the tile burner was so evident that he ordered the man to pay back to the Americans $120 out of $210 remaining in his (Son’s) hands of an advance. He thus showed the justice of the cause of the Americans even if he was unwilling to do them full justice. He also admitted that he had arrested and inhumanly beaten their servant for no cause whatever. The total money loss of the Americans in this case has been $960.

But worse than all is the insult and humiliation caused by the governor’s acts in thus violating the solemn treaty provisions. To quote from the letter of the Rev. Mr. Adams: “Words fail me when I think of the humiliation and indignities to which we have been subjected as Americans. To-day I asked another employee to write a business letter for me and he refused, frankly acknowledging that he was afraid to do so.”

Section 1 of Article IX of the British treaty says: “The British (American) authorities and British (American) subjects in Korea shall be allowed to employ Korean subjects as teachers, interpreters, servants, or in any other lawful capacity without any restriction on the part of the Korean authorities.”

In beating this servant of a foreigner for doing the latter’s bidding in perfectly legal matters, and in forcing him at what was practically the point of death to promise not to repeat the “offense,” this governor most flagrantly violated the above provision of the treaty upon which these people are here in Korea.

By forcibly entering the quarters of the Americans without permission the governor violated section 9 of Article III of the same treaty, which says: “But, without the consent of the proper British (American) consular authority, no Korean officer shall enter the premises of any British (American) subject without his consent.” This term “premises” would apply even to a room in a hotel which an American was for the time in possession of. Not having permission from me, the governor should have asked the consent of the Americans themselves. They would have assisted him in any proper manner. He evidently did not want their consent, and cared not for treaties any more than he did for passports.

Section 8 of Article III of the same treaty says:

“In all cases, whether civil or criminal, tried either in Korean or British (American) courts in Korea, a properly authorized official of the plaintiff or prosecutor shall be allowed to attend the hearing, and he shall be treated with the courtesy due his position. He shall be allowed, whenever he thinks it necessary, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to protest against the proceedings or decision.”

I was not communicated with and my people were not allowed to be present at the trial, and when they secured an entrance to the courtyard they were treated with gross indignity. When they offered their official passports these were treated with, great disdain and pronounced worthless, though they were but recently obtained from your excellency’s office and bear the great seal of the foreign office of Korea. The provisions of the treaty regarding passports are as follows: Ibid., Article IV, section 6. “British (American) subjects are also authorized to travel in Korea for pleasure or for the purpose of trade, to transport and sell goods of all kinds, except books and other printed matter disapproved of by the Korean Government, and to purchase native produce in all parts of the country under passports which will be issued by their consuls and countersigned or sealed by the Korean local authorities. These passports, if demanded, must be produced for examination in the districts passed through.” A penalty of a fine of $100 is attached to this provision to be inflicted for the violation of the provision. All Americans are provided with passports before going into the interior. Now, a governor of one of the great provinces of the land pronounces them worthless and declines to recognize them.

I must respectfully but firmly call your excellency’s attention to the unmistakable fact that this high officer of Korea has treated my people with marked disrespect and insult. He has denied them their treaty rights in the enjoyment of the services of Korean subjects. He has forcibly entered their domicile and arrested their employee without their permission. He has refused to see or hear them when trying a case in which they were the real defendants, and he has violated your own published laws in inflicting inhuman torture upon an innocent man, a servant of the Americans. By this action he has published to the inhabitants that he is unfriendly to Americans and has aroused a spirit that may well lead to serious results if not to the endangering of the lives of my people in that region.

What I have related to you comes to me from two witnesses, both of whom are American gentlemen of education and ability, and whose testimony I have perfect faith in. I have not repeated to you the many Korean rumors which have also come to me in this connection.

I shall be obliged to refer this matter in detail to my Government, and I must ask for an early reply from your excellency with a statement as to what sort of punishment shall be meted out to this official who has so grossly violated solemn treaty rights, and what steps will be taken to show to the natives of that region that the governor acted without the sanction of the central Government.

My Government can not pass lightly over such a breach of treaty provisions, and I trust I may have some satisfactory proposition as to measures to be taken for the satisfaction of this breach that I may report to my Government when sending them the official account of the same.

I have, etc.,

Horace N. Allen.

[Inclosure 2.]

Mr. Allen to Pak Chai Soon, minister for foreign affairs.

Legation of the United States,
Seoul, February 1, 1901.

Your Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s dispatch of January 25, replying to my dispatch of December 17, in which I complained of the treatment accorded certain Americans at Taiku.

Your excellency’s letter is chiefly taken up with quoting a reply you have received from the acting govornor of North Kuing Sang, to whom you applied for a report, upon the sudden departure of the governor at the close of the disturbances in question.

The acting governor devotes much of his letter to, first, an attempt to prove that the Americans by going to Taiku and furnishing a Korean with the money with which to build them a dwelling, which he falsely calls a church, were violating the treaty; second, he appears to feel hurt by the accusation repeated to my people by Koreans that this trouble was due to the fact that they did not make it pecuniarily profitable for the officials to support them; third, he accuses the Americans of falsehood in their statements as to the violation of their domicile, the insulting manner in which they were left in the courtyard of the yamen with the coolies, and the haughty manner in which the governor refused to receive their passports; fourth, he tries to prove that Kim, the employee of the Americans, was at fault in trying to “force and threaten a poor fellow” in obtaining money from the tile burner; fifth, he dismisses the whole statement of the Americans as “false and without proof.” Your excellency’s letter, omitting the above-cited quotation, is of little importance and is not satisfactory to me. You seem to disregard my dispatch entirely and to base your few explanatory remarks wholly upon the statements of the acting governor, whom I shall attempt shortly to show to be a man whose unsupported word I can not accept.

In reply I will mention briefly the chief points brought up in the letter of the acting governor, taking his last point first.

I assured your excellency that I had a written account of the matter of which I complained as witnessed by two credible American clergymen. What further proof can I be expected to bring? No Korean would dare risk punishment from his local magistrate by giving testimony against the latter and in favor of the foreigner. As I told you in my former dispatch, I base my representations entirely upon the written statements I have. If you decline to admit the truth of them and accept the challenge of this acting governor, who is one of the culprits to bring proof, then I must take other measures to secure redress.

The same holds true as to the third and fourth items. I claim and must insist upon it that my people were insultingly treated; their passports were scorned; they were long refused admission to a trial in which they were the real defendants, and when admitted were treated with great indignity and left standing with the rabble in the courtyard; their quarters were twice forcibly entered by police from the governor’s yamen and their employee was arrested and taken to prison, where he was most inhumanly beaten before any evidence of guilt was found attached to him; when he was found to be innocent he was ordered to be again beaten for serving the Americans, but was excused when it was discovered that further torture would be likely to result in his death; the governor forbade the people to serve or assist the Americans, thus endangering their position and denying them their treaty rights. After all this had been done and my people had opened communication with me, the governor attempted to smooth the matter over and have the Americans accept what they were denied by trial, in the way of money payment, and failing in this he suddenly left his post on the plea that his mother was dead.

That this is all true I must insist, upon the strength of the statement of these two Americans. I have also the further evidence of the great anxiety of the governor, who endeavored to induce the Americans to drop the matter, and, failing in that, suddenly made what is considered by Koreans at Taiku an excuse and left the place. I may add in explanation that, failing to find you on the day upon which I was advised of the condition of affairs at Taiku, I sent a long and very strongly worded telegram in plain characters to my people, telling them that the governor’s acts, of which they complained, were in gross violation of treaty rights, and that I should act vigorously in the matter. It was this telegram which caused the governor to release the man Kim and to attempt to smooth over the fact that he had already nearly tortured him to death while awaiting a trial. I know definitely that my telegram produced the release of Kim, because, on account of a break in the telegraph line, your telegram to the governor did not reach Taiku until after Kim had been released.

As to the second point of the acting governor’s letter, wherein he objects to the suggestion that the use of money might have made matters move more easily, I can not say more upon that without mentioning names, and by so doing making it possible for him to abuse my informants. I will relate, however, a circumstance which may well satisfy the gentleman and prove the truth of his poetic quotation that “When the water goes out the stone will appear.”

Some days after the affair at the governor’s yamen to which this correspondence refers, namely, early, in January, a Korean, whose name I shall not divulge, met the nephew of the tile burner Soh, who had been with his uncle during the trial. Finding that Soh was disposing of all his rice fields, this man inquired of the nephew why he was doing so. He was informed that the sale was in order to raise $600 to pay off the debt he had incurred at the trial—with a beating thrown in. When asked why he should pay the officials three times as much as the amount of the original debt, he said he had been induced to do so by the yamen runners, who had assured him he should get off free and without cost. And yet the acting governor complains that the man Kim was “trying to threaten and force this poor fellow!”

If your excellency desires any further information upon this subject, I refer you respectfully to the Noh Chusa, of whom I spoke privately to you and who you mentioned in your official dispatch. I can now tell you authoritatively that this Noh Chusa, who appears to be the head Chusa, and who has charge of the investigation of complaints and of the summoning and examination of witnesses, is the official who actually superintended the inhuman beating of Kim, and who afterwards came to the Rev. James E. Adams from the governor (as he said) and passed an hour pleading the governor’s case with the Americans in an attempt to induce them to accept payment and say nothing of the matter. The nephew of Soh is reported as having stated that Noh Chusa “ate $100 of the money.” Your excellency claims that you have no proof against this man. I can only say that as the man seems to be his own examiner and judge further proof will probably continue to be lacking.

As to the first and most important part of this strange letter from the acting governor, that relating to the so-called violation of the treaty by the Americans, I may say simply that I have several times suggested to your excellency that it would be wise not to bring this question to an issue, and I am sorry that your present course forces me to declare myself.

Knowing the sensitiveness of the Korean Government in regard to this matter, I have never encouraged my people to take up even temporary residence in the interior. I could not forbid them, however, as the treaty expressly provides for travel in the interior, and since you allow others to reside in all parts of Korea, I must see that my people have equal rights with those of other nationalities.

To be more explicit, as I informed you personally, your Government had trouble in Taiku in 1890 and 1891 because of a similar outrage committed upon a French priest. As a result of the settlement of this case, made in March, 1891, among six clauses of an agreement arrived at, which the records of your office will fully show, and of which I now inclose a full memorandum, the right to domicile at that place was fully accorded the French subject.

My predecessor referred this matter to my Government at the time it occurred, and received explicit instructions, by virtue of the most-favored-nation clause of article 14 of the treaty between the United States and Korea, to demand the same on behalf of our own missionaries whenever the occasion should arise.

To recapitulate, the facts are as follows: I have a written statement from two responsible American clergymen of most harsh and unwarranted treatment they have received at the hands of the governor and officials at Taiku, whereby the treaty stipulations were violated in four separate provisions. I wrote the matter fully to your excellency and have seen you personally in regard to it. I made no official demand, but kindly asked you to give me some evidence of a desire to make reparation for the unfortunate occurrence, so that in reporting the incident to my Government I might show that your excellency’s Government had done its full duty.

Also upon October 11, 1900, at Mil-Yang, near Taiku, the wife and infant child of one of the gentlemen cited in the present case, Dr. Johnson, together with another American, the Rev. Mr. Sidebotham, who was Mrs. Johnson’s escort, were set upon by robbers, some of whom were dressed in the uniform of Korean soldiers and had guns. These Americans were beaten, robbed, and otherwise grossly maltreated, but escaped with their lives. I saw your excellency in regard to this matter at once, and I wrote you officially upon November 24, and again upon December 15, citing in the latter dispatch a quoted remark of one of the robbers to the effect that they “had robbed no one but the Americans.” I have never been favored with a report upon this matter, and my two dispatches above cited remain unanswered in spite of the fact that I informed you in my dispatch of December 15 that in the absence of satisfactory explanations I should be compelled to hold the central Government responsible for this outrage, since it was perpetrated by what seems to have been Korean soldiers, and since the local authorities appear to have taken no steps of which I can learn to bring the culprits to justice, or to secure the goods which were taken from the Americans to the amount of some 600 yen, while, on the contrary, they seem to condone any mere robbery of an American.

I intimated to you privately what you allude to in your dispatch of January 25, that as a basis of settlement I should be satisfied if you would secure the issue of a decree to be published in that region instructing the people to assist and support the Americans, who, I may add, were in more or less distress, as I showed you in my dispatch of December 17, because the governor had so intimidated the natives that they were afraid to render the Americans the services which are allowed them by treaty; this decree to be supported by the punishment of the persons chiefly implicated in the matter complained of, and I particularly named the man Noh Chusa. I also asked that the money losses be made good to my people.

Instead of granting my request, I am told that my people have sent me false reports and I am censured for allowing them to go into the interior to live. My propositions for a settlement are entirely ignored.

In my letter of December 17 I fully admitted that, according to treaty stipulations, Americans were not allowed to own property in the interior, at the same time taking pains to point out to your excellency the privileges of travel and temporary residence in the interior accorded them by treaty, and I showed you that through a desire to avoid giving offense my people, when they found it necessary in the absence of hotels or any system of rentals to secure a stopping place, were in the habit of doing so in the house of a Korean, an inconvenience to which people of some other nationalities did not put themselves.

I now beg to inform your excellency that the provision of the treaty restricting the residence of foreigners to the open ports and immediate vicinity has been practically set aside by your excellency’s Government in the case of the French subject above referred to, as well as in other cases that have come to my knowledge. You have allowed foreigners of other nationalities to reside unmolested for a long time in most of the important interior cities, and as you have forced me to declare myself on this subject by your acceptance of the interested and false statement of the guilty officials at Taiku, in opposition to that of the Americans, I must now inform you that in lieu of a better settlement of this question I am compelled to fall back upon the explicit instructions of my Government and to demand equal rights for my people with those enjoyed by people of other nationalities.

In pursuance of this decision I shall inform Americans that they may freely visit and reside in any Korean town wherein any other foreigners may be sojourning, and I shall have to insist that the local authorities grant them full protection.

Regretting that your excellency’s failure to treat my complaints with the serious consideration they merit has compelled me to take a position which I have been reluctant to assume, I have, etc.,

Horace N. Allen.

[Subinclosure.]

Memorandum re difficulties of Americans at Taiku.

The following cases are detailed as bearing upon this case, as discussed verbally with the foreign minister:

September, 1890, M. Robert, a French priest stopping at Taiku, was forced to seek assistance from the then governor because of riotous Koreans. The governor refused to see or aid him. M. Robert sent in his passport, which the governor tore up, and sent the priest back to his home with a guard, as a prisoner. His house was found to be looted and he had no food or clothes. A final settlement was made in April, 1891, through the mediation of Bishop Mutel, who asked less than the French representative demanded. The terms were as follows:

1. A dispatch of censure, drafted by Mr. de Plancy, was sent to the governor.

2. A copy of this dispatch was sent to every governor in Korea as a warning to them not to commit such acts.

3. The governor wrote an apology to Mr. de Plancy.

4. All petty officers and soldiers connected with the affair were either banished or imprisoned.

5. An escort was given M. Robert to take him back to and protect him in his home.

6. A royal proclamation was issued to the inhabitants of Kyung-sang, warning them against a repetition of these acts.

All documents were first submitted to Mr. de Plancy. I believe the money loss was also made good. (See Foreign Office Records, May 10, 1894.)

The servant of an American and an Englishman at Peng-yang was arrested and beaten. He was released in a few days upon the verbal request of the British and American ministers, and on July 26 the case was settled by the punishment of the “chief offender” and the payment of the money loss, $500. (See Foreign Office Records.)

Horace N. Allen.

Seoul, Korea, December 26, 1900.

[Inclosure 3.—Translation.]

Pak Chai Soon, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Allen.

Foreign Office,
Seoul, February 26, 1901.

Your Excellency: In regard to the matter of Taiku and the treatment by the governor of Messrs. Adams and Johnson, American citizens, I have the honor to say that I have already instructed the officer there to report the entire matter, and I have written you what he reported, but that as the people of a country friendly to Korea were treated discourteously by the former governor, although he did not violate the treaty with intent, but through ignorance, I am not in a position to say that his conduct was proper and courteous toward the foreigners. Therefore I wrote a second instruction, which I inclose herewith, to the officers at Taiku, quoting the clauses of the treaty violated, rebuking them for their wrongdoing, and warning them that they must hereafter in dealing with foreigners avoid a recurrence of such conduct and do what is exactly right and proper toward them. I believe the new governor and the other officials will act accordingly, and that the Americans at Taiku will be undisturbed.

As to Noh Chusa, I will have the new governor, when he reaches his post, investigate the case carefully and punish him properly.

I have, etc.,

Pak Chai Soon,
Minister for Foreign Affairs.

[Subinclosure.—Translation.]

Pak Chai Soon, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the Governor of North Kyung Sang Province.

In dealing with foreigners business must be conducted on a basis of treaty provisions.

Since the foreign treaty, article 4, paragraph 6, states that foreigners are authorized to travel in Korea for purposes of trade under passport, therefore any foreigner with a passport may so travel anywhere in the interior.

Although foreigners are not allowed to buy land, build houses, or engage in trade except within the ports declared open to foreign commerce, it is impossible to forbid foreign travelers from residing temporarily in the houses of Koreans.

Should natives accused of wrongdoing or summoned as witnesses refuse to obey the instructions of the local authorities, trusting that foreigners will protect them in their disobedience, as Koreans ought not to trust, yet they may not be arrested if they are in hiding in the dwelling of a foreigner.

In article 3, paragraph 9, it is stated, viz:

“If a Korean subject who is charged with an offence against the laws of his country takes refuge on premises occupied by a foreigner, the consul of the country to which the foreigner belongs, on receiving an application from the Korean authorities, shall take steps to have such person arrested and handed over to the latter for trial. But without the consent of the proper consular authority no Korean officer shall enter the premises of any foreigners without his consent.”

The interior is not like a port, and the local authorities are unable to inform a consul of a contemplated arrest, but the owner of a house must be informed before any Korean within a house is arrested.

Although an inn in which a foreigner stops while traveling can not be called a dwelling, yet may not the habitation in which a foreigner stops for some time be designated a dwelling?

The arrest of Kim Dok Kun in the dwelling of the American teacher has caused trouble which is due entirely to ignorance of the provisions of the treaty.

When foreigners request an audience they must at once be received and treated politely. But are you not insulting and treating them rudely when you leave them standing in the courtyard? In your report you admitted that you permitted them to be present at the trial and afterwards received them in your office, but said nothing in regard to having forced them to stand in the courtyard. By failing to admit this fact, I can see what occurred on the occasion. You did not allow the Americans to attend the trial; you sent police to enter their homes to search for their servant; you did not treat them politely, and you forced them to wait in the courtyard. If this is your method of conducting business (with foreigners) how do you expect to avoid the case becoming a difficult one? In trying a case you must be impartial to both sides and endeavor to be entirely fair. Although in the employ of foreigners, the man arrested was a Korean. Had you treated him exactly as you treat other Koreans this difficulty would not have arisen.

In short, you should first have obeyed the provisions of the treaty. As to details of the suitable manner in which to direct the affair I can not counsel you. Foreigners must certainly be politely treated, and cases must be decided fairly and upon the basis of the treaty provisions. If you do this no contention will arise between natives and foreigners. Therefore, I instruct you to act in the manner I indicate and to instruct the magistrates under you to act likewise.

Pak Chai Soon,
Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Fifth year Kwang Mu, February 26.

1. Not printed.