File No. 793.94/475.
Ambassador Guthrie to the Secretary of State.
Tokyo, October 8, 1915.
Sir: I have the honor to report that a disagreement has arisen between Japan and China as to whether the treaty of May 25 last respecting South Manchuria and Inner Mongolia applies to Koreans residing in Chientao, a portion of Manchuria lying on the north of the Tumen River; or whether on the other hand such residents are covered solely by the agreement of February 4, 1909, between Japan and China.
If the latter is the case, then Koreans resident in Chientao are subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese judicial authorities; if the [Page 205] former, then suits against such Korean residents must be tried before the Japanese consul.
After the establishment of the protectorate over Korea, Japan on September 4, 1909, concluded an agreement with China fixing the Tumen River as the boundary between China and Korea57 (which in the past had been a subject of dispute) and defining the rights of Korean residents in Chientao.
On August 21, 1910, Korea was formally annexed by Japan, whereupon the Koreans became Japanese subjects. Notwithstanding this, however, the Chientao agreement was recognized by both Japan and China as still operative, and the Chinese judicial authorities in Chientao continued to exercise jurisdiction over Koreans residing in that territory as theretofore until the conclusion of the treaty relating to South Manchuria and Inner Mongolia of May 25 last above referred to, which confers upon all Japanese subjects the right of residence, etc., in “South Manchuria,” and gives to Japanese consuls therein jurisdiction over suits in which such Japanese residents are defendants.
After the conclusion of this treaty the Japanese authorities, claiming that it applied to Chientao, proceeded to assert jurisdiction over suits brought against Koreans residing therein, but the Chinese judicial authorities in Chientao denied this claim and continued to exercise judicial authority over Korean residents as theretofore.
Article III of the new treaty gives all Japanese subjects without distinction liberty to reside and carry on business in all parts of South Manchuria. Article V confers on Japanese consuls in South Manchuria exclusive jurisdiction over suits brought against Japanese subjects resident therein. And Article VIII provides that “Except as otherwise provided in this treaty, all existing treaties between Japan and China with respect to Manchuria shall remain in force.”
The local newspapers here in referring to the dispute say that the Chinese contend that the new treaty applies only to South Manchuria and that Chientao is not a part of South Manchuria and therefore is not affected by the new treaty which, by Article VIII above quoted, continues in force all existing treaties between Japan and China with respect to Manchuria when not otherwise provided in the treaty.
Positive information concerning the Chinese contention in this case is not obtainable here. It would seem, however, to be that Chientao is not a part of South Manchuria, to which the new treaty is restricted, and that therefore the new treaty has no application to it, and that the old treaty is continued in force by the express provisions of Article VIII above quoted.
The whole dispute, therefore, would seem to resolve itself into a question as to whether Chientao belongs to South Manchuria or to North Manchuria.
The Japanese Foreign Office, however, says that China has not raised this point; that Chientao has by custom always been regarded as a part of South Manchuria; and that Japan with the cognizance of China at present actually exercises consular jurisdiction under the treaty in the territory contiguous to Chientao on the north. This it considers as amounting to a tacit admission on the part of China that the district in question is a part of South Manchuria.
[Page 206]According to the Foreign Office the contention of China is based solely on the wording of Article VIII of the treaty (above quoted), maintaining that by it the former agreement respecting Chientao is continued in full force and effect. What the reasons for the position taken by the Chinese Government are, the Foreign Office states it does not clearly understand, not being as yet in full possession of the details of their argument. It thinks, however, that it is due to a misunderstanding resulting from an erroneous reading or interpretation of the article in question, and that as soon as this is removed, the dispute will be amicably settled.
I have [etc.]