The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-21
THE JAPAN-COREA TROUBLE.
1t Involves Nothing Outside of PrOtec.
tion of japanese Citizens.
New York Sun.

New York Sun.
Our commercial relations with japan and
China would suffice to make us regard with
interest a conflict between those powers
with regard to the measures which should
be taken to protect life and property in
Corea. But that is not the only reason why
a rupture between the Toxic and Pekin
governments deserves attention in the
United States. II is by no means impossi-
BILE that a quarrel between the japanese
and Chinese nations might lead to a Euro
pean war. Russia seeks a preteXt for OBJ
tanning one of the Corean seaports. an ac-
QUESTION Indispensable 10 the development
OF her naval power in the Pacific. 1t is
equally certain that any move on the
Cars part in this direction would pro-
woke from England a resistance which,
this time, probably, would not be con-
fined to counterbalancing seizure of the
island of Port Hamilton. SO we see that
the Corean question may easily become one
of great magnitude, and 1t is, therefore,
worth our while to get a clear and correct
idea of it, and determine which Of the par
ties TO the dispute-Japan and China-ls
the more worthy of our sympathy.
\ glance at the actual relation OF Jap
anese traders TO the Corean peninsula,
viewed in connection with the events or
the last ten years and China's treaty en-
gagements, is likely TO convince unbiased
observers that Japan is not an aggressor,
but has been forced by the attitude of
the Pekin government to take Independent
steps for the defense of its citizens resid-
ing in Corea. 1t should from the outset be
borne in mind that the trade interests of
Japan in Corea are larger than are those
of any other country, and that there are
more Japanese sojourning in the peninsu-
lar kingdom than there are representatives
OF any other foreign nationality. 1t would
be the duty of the Mikado's ministers
under any circumstances TO provide some
means of protection for their fellow-coun-
trymen in Corea at time when the con-
stituted authorities of the latter state are
unable to enforce law and maintain order.
But the experience OF recent years has en-
phasized the necessity of prompt and Wig
ever a disturbance occurs in Corea the
Japanese residents and their belongings
are apt to bear the brunt of insur-
rectionary violence Two examples
| uprising took place in the Hermit king
| dom, the japanese legation at Seoul was
looted: members of the minister's suite
| were murdered. and the Japanese minister
| himself was driven out of Seoul and forced
| TO take refuge in a fishing boat, from which
| he was with difficulty rescued. An indem-
| nifty for this outrage was agreed upon, but
| before single payment had been made on
| account the debt was forgiven. In 1884,
| the Japanese legation was burned, forty
| two peaceful Japanese were murdered In
the streets OF Seoul, and the minister with
| his suite and a guard Of 40 soldiers were
obliged to fight their way out of this city
| of 100000 people. Again an indemnity was
promised, but after one payment had been
made the amount remaining due was re-
mitted. These remissions of indemnity are
| not reconcilable with the theory that the
| men who hitherto have directed the foreign
policy of Japan have evinced a disposition
| to treat Corea with severity, or to seek
pretexts for encroachment.
| The Corean insurrection of 1884 was fol-
| lowed the next year by the Tien-Tsin con-
| vention, whereby the Pel5in government ac-
| knowledged that Japan had as much right
| to send troops to Corea, for the protection
| of its subjects sojourning In that kingdom,
as China herself had 1t was, however,
| agreed by that convention that neither the
| Chinese nor the japanese government
| should send soldiers to the peninsular king
| dom without consulting the other In the
| present instance the agreement was broken
| by China, which dispatched troops TO Corea
| without a word of warning to Japan. Not
| until the convention had been thus rup-
| tured by the Pekin government did the
| Mikado's ministers exercise their equal
| right OF forwarding military force for the
1 defense of their fellow-countrymen. 1t
| should further be noted that there Is no
| foundation for the current assertion that
| China has offered to withdraw her own
| troops from Corea on condition that Japan
| shall take a similar step. On the contrary,
the Pekin government has declined to give
any such assurance. Moreover. it has
Il
would join with Japan in MAX
| ing such diplomatic representations
| at Seoul would lead to the reform of the
| abuses which have caused the present
| troubles. Even the offer of the British
minister to mediate between the two coun-
| tries has been ignored, the Tsung II Yamen
| (the body roughly corresponding to the
| Cars Council of Mnisters) combining it's
| reply to reiterated demand for the sum-
mary recall of the Japanese soldiers. That
| is to say, according to the present view of
| the Picking government, Japan has right
| under the Tien-Tsin convention, and China is
| not bound by the obligations which that
| agreement imposed on her.
Under these circumstances it is natural
| that the influence Of the sagacious men who
| for many years have advocated peaceful
| policy al Toxic should be shaken, and that
the war party should, for the moment, be
| preponderant. But even now, while deter
| mined to assert the right of protecting
| Japanese residents in Corea, a right for
| mally conceded by the Tien-Tsin convention,
the Mikado's ministers expressly and en-
| phatically disclaim any purpose of terri
| torial ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, and pledge them
| selves to withdraw their troops as soon as
the present revolt in Corea is quelled and
| satisfactory evidence is forthcoming, that
tranquility will henceforth be assured.
4