Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 5, 1905

The Secretary of State to the Japanese Minister.

Department of State,
Washington, January 18, 1905.

Dear Mr. Minister: Pursuant to my conversation with you this morning, I take pleasure in inclosing a paraphrase of the telegraphic instruction sent on the 17th instant to the American ambassadors at London, Paris, and Berlin, informing them of the Russian protest alleging Chinese violation of neutrality, and of the course pursued by the United States.

I am, etc.,

John Hay.

[Inclosure.]

To the American Ambassadors at London, Paris, and Berlin.

[Telegram.—Paraphrase.]

Department of State,
Washington, January 17, 1905.

Mr. Hay states that he has transmitted the Russian protest charging China with violation of neutrality to the American minister at Peking, instructing him to urge upon the Chinese Government strict observance of its obligations. Mr. Hay further states that he has addressed a note to the Russian ambassador at Washington bringing to his notice the fact that both the Chinese and Japanese Governments formally deny the charges of breach of neutrality. Mr. Hay in this note expressed the earnest hope and confidence of the President that there may not be on the part of either belligerent nor of a neutral power any breach of the neutrality which the whole civilized world has agreed to respect, a violation of which could only be disastrous to all the powers concerned.

Note verbale handed to the Secretary of State by the Japanese Minister, January 28, 1905.

Legation of Japan,
Washington [, undated].

telegram from baron komura to mr. takahira.

You are hereby instructed to hand to the government to which you are accredited a verbal note to the following effect:

The attention of the Imperial Government has been drawn to the communication recently addressed by Russia to the powers on the subject of the neutrality of China. The duty of defending China against the accusations of Russia does not devolve upon the Imperial Government, but so far as those accusations call in question the good faith and loyalty of Japan to her engagements, they feel bound to repel them.

(1) Russia indirectly suggests that the capture of Reshitelinui (Ryeshitelni) involved a violation of Chinese neutrality on the part of Japan. The capture in question was, on the contrary, nothing more than the just and inevitable measures of self-defense made necessary by the prior disregard of China’s neutrality by Russia. The facts of the case were fully explained by the Imperial Government at the time, and it is consequently unnecessary to repeat them in the present context.

(2) It is next asserted in the Russian communication that it has been ascertained many times (a) that the bands of the Chunchuses (Hunghutses) operating in the neutral territory were commanded by Japanese officers, (b) that a whole detachment of those Chunchuses have been enrolled in the Japanese army and are in the pay of the Japanese Government, and (c) that Japanese military instructors are constantly admitted among the Chinese soldiers stationed along the northern boundaries of Chili. These allegations, which, it is asserted, have been repeatedly ascertained, are one and all without any foundation whatever. Consequently the Imperial Government deny them, absolutely and without qualification, and declare that Russia can not produce any evidence worthy of credence to support their so-called ascertained charges.

(3) It is next stated it has been established that the Japanese have been using Miaotao Islands as a naval base of operations. Nothing of the kind has been established—nothing of the kind can be established—for the sufficient reason that the accusation is destitute of truth. As a matter of fact, however, those islands were used by Russia as a naval base until the blockade of Liaotung Peninsula was proclaimed, and thereafter until the fall of Port Arthur. They were made use of as a place of call for military junks employed by Russia in smuggling military stores through the blockade into Port Arthur from the Shantung Province. During this latter period Japanese men-of-war, it is true, cruised in the neighborhood of those islands, as it was deemed necessary to keep watch on the movements of these junks in question, but that a naval base in any sense of the word was ever created there by Japan is absolutely denied. It may be added, it was within the territorial waters of this Miaotao group that in March last the Japanese merchant steamer Hanei-maru, neither owned nor operated by the Imperial Government, was fired on and sunk by a Russian man-of-war.

(4) It is further charged that the Japanese are importing into Dalny from Chefoo and other Chinese ports, without hindrance, a great quantity of contraband of war. The Imperial Government do not deny that they have obtained from Chefoo and other Chinese ports through private persons supplies for their forces in the field. Neither do they deny that those articles, having in view their destination, were contraband of war; but they do deny that their action constituted a breach of China’s neutrality on the part of either Japan or China. Trade in contraband is not interdicted by international law. It is carried on subject to right of hostile capture. The fact that Russia is not now in a position to exercise that right is not sufficient to make the trade illicit, which would be otherwise entirely licit. That Russia did not regard trade with China in contraband as violative of China’s neutrality so long as she was in the possession of Port Arthur and was able to benefit by it, is shown by the fact that during the siege she drew a large portion of her military supplies for Port Arthur from China. Some idea of the extent of the traffic may be gathered from the fact that no less than half a dozen steamers and many tens of junks were captured in the attempt to pass the blockade. Besides, we know of several instances in which Russia, unlike the Japanese army, which obtained supplies from private individuals, herself fitted out vessels at several Chinese ports and transported contraband goods in them in flagrant violation of China’s neutrality.

(5) The complaint that the government shops at Hanyang are furnishing cast iron, to the Japanese army stands practically on the same footing as the charge just referred to. The facts of the case are as follows:

About four years ago a private firm in Japan entered into contract with the Hanyang foundry for the supply or a certain quantity of pig iron. The Imperial Government was not a party to the contract, neither had they anything to do with the transaction. The due fulfillment of the contract in question furnishes the only foundation for the accusation under this head.

(6) It is finally alleged in the Russian communication that the Chinese, no longer satisfied with a violation of the neutrality in the directions indicated, are making serious preparations with the apparent intention of taking an active part in military operations, and that a feverish excitement, dangerous alike to all Europeans, prevails among the Chinese people and is being constantly fomented. This condition of things, it is asserted, is due to the action of the Japanese and to their intimidating pressure on the government at Peking.

It is difficult to imagine how it would be possible to frame charges more mischievous or more remote from actual facts than these. That the Chinese are making preparations with the intention of taking part with the Japanese in the hostilities is entirely destitute of truth. That there is at the present moment in China any antiforeign movement or increase in the antiforeign feeling is equally unfounded. That Japan has attempted to draw China into the conflict or to cause a recrudescence of antiforeign sentiment in China is precisely contrary to facts which are, the Imperial Government believe, within the knowledge of all the powers. At the beginning of the war the Imperial Government agreed to the localization of warlike operations and engaged to respect the neutrality of China outside of the belligerent zone, provided Russia, making similar engagements, should in good faith fulfill conditions of such engagement. The Imperial Government loyally and in good faith kept their engagement, and they have no other intention than to continue to do so. They have at all times since the outbreak of hostilities watched with utmost vigilance the course of events in China, and they have repeatedly, whenever occasion arose, advised the Chinese Government, in as strong a manner as possible, to maintain, an attitude of strict neutrality and take all necessary steps to protect the lives and property of foreigners. They will feel bound to pursue the same course in the future if the situation in China at any time become such as to make similar action necessary or desirable. The conclusion of the Russian communication makes it abundantly clear that the motive of the Russian Government in formulating the baseless accusations which it contains was to relieve themselves of an engagement the terms of which, with the progress of the war, no longer inured mainly to their advantage.

At the same time you deliver the foregoing verbal note you will present a statement to the following effect:

statement of some of the more conspicuous instances in which russia has violated the neutrality of china.

(1) It is a notorious fact that Russia frequently dispatches her troops to Mongolia for the purpose of imposing military requisitions, and that she appropriated to military use horses, provisions, etc., thus collected from that province.

(2) In October last Russia chartered at Tientsin a German merchant steamer, Fooping, and loaded her there with arms, ammunition, provisions, etc. The vessel was placed under control and direction of a Russian military officer—Capt. Wasulyurle Wichessekalt—and was to run the blockade at Port Arthur. On her way to Port Arthur, however, she was captured by one of the imperial men-of-war off Pehuangcheng Tao and taken to Sasebo prize court, where the foregoing facts were disclosed upon examination.

(3) In December last Russia attempted to forward from Kalgan to Port Arthur 3,600,000 rounds of small-arm cartridges, concealed in 2,330 sheepskin packages, which were seized by the Chinese authorities at Fengtai. The latter also seized at Kalgan and other places about 4,000 packages of the same descriptoin, and 3,200 sets of saddles at Hsuanhuafu, all of which had been forwarded by Russia. Judging from the manner of packing, as well as from the enormous quantity, it is evident that these articles were intended for military purposes to be used at the theater of war.

(4) In June last wireless telegraphic apparatus was installed within the compound of the Russian consulate at Chefoo and at some other places, whereby telegraphic communication was established with the Port Arthur fortress, and in utter defiance of the repeated protests from the Chinese authorities the apparatus were maintained and communication continued.

(5) It is a well-known fact that the Manjour, a Russian gunboat which was lying in the port of Shanghai at the outbreak of hostilities, unwarrantably refused to leave the port for several weeks after the demand for the immediate departure had been made by the Chinese authorities, and it was only after prolonged negotiations that the commander of the vessel finally agreed to disarm her. In consequence of the naval engagement of August 10 last Askold and Grozovoi took refuge at Shanghai, and their commanders refused, under various pretexts, either to leave the port or to disarm the men-of-war, and it was only after several zealous negotiations that they eventually effected disarmament.

(6) When in November last members of the crew of the Reshitelinui were on their way from Chefoo to Shanghai to be interned there the commander of the vessel illicitly left the transport at Woosung, on a pretense of paying a visit to the Russian consulate, and escaped to Europe on board a steamer which sailed on the same day. This act was in total disregard of the internment enforced on him by the Chinese Government, and, as if in approval of his action, he has since been decorated by the Emperor of Russia. Later on the crew of the Rastorpny were also to be interned at Shanghai. The commander of the said man-of-war, Powel Mikhailowich Plen, and Sublieutenant Klawdy Balentinowich Seliow, secretly found their way to a merchantman, Negretia, and attempted to escape to Vladivostok in the disguise of freight agents. They were captured by the Imperial Japanese Navy and confessed the above fact at the Sasebo prize court.

(7) In December last Lieutenant-Commander Mizzenowff (second in command of Poltava) and seven others, including a naval officer, reached Chefoo in a small sailing vessel from Port Arthur. Whereupon the Chinese local authorities opened negotiations with the Russian consul at Chefoo, demanding that these Russians be interned in China, but the Russian consul, falsely pretending that they were merchants, allowed them to escape to Tientsin and other localities.

(8) With a view to limit the area of hostile operations in the present war to as small a zone as possible, the Imperial Government have invariably respected China’s neutrality in the region west of Liao-ho, but Russia has repeatedly violated it and is now stationing a large force of her army in that region.

In presenting the foregoing statement you will explain that the Imperial Government have adopted this course of procedure because, while they wish to bring actual facts contained in the statement to the full appreciation of the government to which you are accredited, they are still more anxious to exclude any intention inconsistent with a loyal adhesion to their engagement concerning the neutrality of China.