Treaty rights of By Article XIV. of the treaty of May 22, 1882, the United States, its public officers, merchants, and citizens are entitled to most-favored-nation treatment in Corea. By the treaty between Great Britain and Corea November 26, 1883, certain ports, including Seoul, were "opened to British commerce," and British subjects were to have there the right to rent or to purchase land or grounds, and to erect buildings, warehouses, and factories, and they were also to enjoy the free exercise of their religion. By a protocol to the British treaty it was agreed that if the Chinese government should thereafter surrender the right of opening commercial establishments at Seoul, it should not be claimed for British subjects if it was not granted to those of any other power. Similar stipulations were embodied in the treaties of Corea with Germany and Russia. The United States is entitled to the privileges embraced in them under the most-favored-nation clause. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dinsmore, min. to Corea, No. 3, As to the abrogation of the regulations for sea trade for Chung Kiang With reference to certain American citizens engaged in benevolent and charitable work, who comprised all the citizens of the United States in Seoul outside of the American legation, the Department of State observed that they did not reside there by virtue of a treaty right to open commercial establishments, but under the special permission and encouragement of the Corean government, and it was supposed that that government would not regard the extinguishment of the right of foreigners to open commercial establishments at Seoul as affecting those Americans who, having gone thither on a mission of mercy and humanity, had enjoyed the active encouragement and assistance of the Corean government. It was added that any interference with the enlightened and charitable enterprises of such Americans would be deeply regretted, and that the United States could not view without grave concern any invasion of their property or other rights. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dinsmore, min. to Corea, No. 3, As to the rights of missionaries in Corea, see For. Rel. 1888, I. 447. "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 318, of the 5th ultimo, reporting the violation of the domicile of Messrs. Adams and Johnson, American missionaries, at Taiku, Korea, by Korean policemen acting under the orders of the governor of North Kyung Sang Do, in order to arrest a Corean writer of the missionaries. "The facts of the case as stated in your dispatch and its inclosures are as follows: "Messrs. Adams and Johnson desiring to stop temporarily at Taiku, Corea, and not being able to rent suitable quarters, lent money to a Corean with which to erect a building for their accommodation. In buying some tiles to cover the house, and in trying to enforce a contract which they had made (through their native employee) with a Corean tile burner, the matter came to the ears of the governor. The tile burner persuaded the governor that he (the tile burner) was the aggrieved party, and the governor, without interrogating the Americans or their servant on the subject, sent his police, who forcibly entered the domicile of the Americans and arrested their Corean employee, who was taken before the governor and inhumanly beaten. The Americans went to the governor's yamen to inquire into the case, but the governor refused to see them, pronounced their official Corean passports valueless and treated them with indignity, compelling them to stand in the courtyard with the coolies and runners, and refusing to hear their explanations. "The Americans having reported the case to you, you saw the Corean foreign minister and obtained an order for the release of the Corean employee of the Americans. It seems that at the trial of the case before the governor, the justice of the complaint of the Americans against the tile burner was so evident that the governor ordered him to pay back to them $120 out of $210 of an advance remaining in his hands. The governor also admitted that he had arrested and inhumanly beaten their servant for no cause whatever. "In presenting the matter to the foreign minister you contended that there had been violation of treaty in the following particulars: "1. Article IV., section 6, of the British treaty with Corea (which by virtue of the most-favored-nation clause of the treaty between Corea and the United States is applicable to Americans) expressly provides that British subjects may freely travel in the interior of Corea on passports, for purposes of pleasure, trade, or the transport and purchase of goods. You contended that if Americans are thus able to travel and reside temporarily in the interior on passports, they are at liberty to secure food and lodging while so sojourning in the country. You admitted that they are not at liberty, without special permission, to own real estate in the interior, but stated that whenever it became necessary to secure a dwelling house, owing to the absence of a system of rentals in Corea, they have secured dwelling houses in the name of a Corean, so as not to violate the treaty pro visions. You asserted that you had 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 Corean authorities; that this being well known to be the case, you could not forbid Americans from following the harmless custom referred to above. "2. Section 1 of Article IX. of the British treaty says: The British (American) authorities and British (American) subjects in Corea shall be allowed to employ Corean subjects as teachers, interpreters, servants, or in any other lawful capacity, without any restriction on the part of the Corean authorities.' You contended that 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,' the governor most flagrantly violated the above treaty provisions. 6 "3. You also contended that 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 Corean officer shall enter the premises of any British (American) subject without his consent.' "4. Section 8 of Article III. of the same treaty says: In all cases, whether civil or criminal, tried either in Corean or British (American) courts in Corea, 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.' You stated that you were not communicated with, nor were the Americans allowed to be present at the trial, and when they secured an entrance to the courtyard they were treated with gross indignity. "You presented the matter in writing to the Corean foreign minister, and asked for an early reply,' with a statement as to what sort of punishment shall be meted out to this official who has 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.' "The foreign minister replied, stating that the Americans were not treated courteously and that the former governor had violated the treaty through ignorance, and not with intent; that he (the foreign minister) had instructed the officials at Taiku, quoting the clauses of the treaty violated, rebuking them for their wrongdoing and warning them that they must thereafter, in dealing with foreigners, avoid a recurrence of such conduct and do what is exactly right and proper toward them. "This being unsatisfactory to you, as it did not include a copy of the instruction of the foreign minister, and said nothing in regard to the examination and punishment of the guilty official, you accordingly returned the communication of the foreign minister with a verbal statement as to these omissions, and upon the same day you received a satisfactory reply, together with a copy of the foreign minister's instructions to the governor. This reply of the foreign minister yields fully all the points made by you. "You conclude your dispatch with the statement that the actual money loss to the Americans was made good by the local officials; that the Americans themselves were not harmed, and that for the violation of their treaty rights their presence in Taiku is now officially recognized and sanctioned, and that you think they will experience no further difficulty. "I may say, in passing, that the British treaty does not appear to allow missionaries to travel or reside in the interior of Corea (for the purpose of preaching or teaching), but Minister Heard, in his dispatch No. 141, of April 2, 1891, in the Robert case, states that the French treaty with Corea omits the words (contained in the English treaty) for purposes of pleasure, trade,' etc., and he asserts that this was done with a view of covering the action of their missionaries. This view was acquiesced in by Corea in the Robert case. "The Department approves your treatment of the case, which is characterized by firmness and good sense." Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Allen, United States leg. at Seoul, April 18, See, also, Mr. Allen to Mr. Hay, June 7, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 398. In a dispatch of Aug. 20, 1901, Mr. Allen reported that the governor at ments. June 3, 1898, the United States legation at Seoul reported that an allotment of 900,000 square meters of land had been Foreign settle- made on Deer Island, in the harbor of Fusan, including the proposed site of a Russian coaling station, for a general foreign settlement. In a subsequent report the legation stated that the setting aside of ground for separate settlements for treaty powers at Corean ports was not then the custom. In the case of the settlement at Chemulpo, both China and Japan received spe-, cial tracts for their citizens, but such a course had since been discouraged, and both Chinese and Japanese had become owners of land in the general foreign settlement at Chemulpo, their own tracts having become too small. "By reference to the regulations for the foreign settlements at Chinnampo and Mokpo, copies of which I forwarded to you in my No. 35, diplomatic, November 13, 1897, and in my No. 3, consular, it will be seen by that article 10, The government of any treaty power may acquire a suitable lot or lots for a consulate on paying the upset price only; but such lot or lots shall be subject to the same regulations as regards payment of rent, taxes, and the like, as are other lots of the same class.' The advantage in this is that the ground may be selected and acquired without being put up at auction, as is the case with other lots. It was by virtue of this clause that the former Russian representative, Mr. de Speyer, bought up about one-half of the available land at each of these new ports. His government did not sustain him in this, however, and the Russian holding within the treaty limits of Mokpo and Chinnampo has been reduced to about 10,000 square meters, which is considered to be entirely reasonable. I did not suggest to the Department the purchase of consular sites at either of these two places, as we voluntarily surrendered the fine site reserved for us at Chemulpo, where we need a consul much more than at any of the new ports. "Article III. of the above-named regulations stipulates that: None but the governments, subjects, or citizens of the States whose representatives have signified their acceptance of these regulations shall be allowed to purchase or hold land in the foreign settlement, or be granted title deeds for lots within the said limits.' By this provision Americans can acquire land freely at any of the new ports. "The settlement on Deer Island at Fusan has not yet been surveyed and laid out, but when this is done, these same regulations will probably be accepted for it. "The regulations allow of the purchase of land within 3 miles of the limits of the settlement, and in accordance with this provision some Americans have purchased land so situated at Fusan, while the Russian government has made extensive purchases of such outside land at Mokpo and Chinnampo. They were not allowed, however, to acquire an island in the harbor of Mokpo under this provision.” Mr. Allen, chargé d'affaires ad interim, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, Aug. 26, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, 483. As to the foreign settlement at Chemulpo, see For. Rel. 1886, 207, 219; H. Doc. 551-vol 5-37 |