Pacific Historical Review/Volume 31/A Problem in Japan's Control of the Press in Korea, 1906-1909

by C. I. Eugene Kim

A Problem in Japan's Control of the Press in Korea, 1906-1909

C. I. EUGENE KIM

[C. I. Eugene Kim teaches political science in Western Michigan University.]

When Japan was consolidating her position in Korea for eventual annexation, Ernest T. Bethell, a citizen of Great Britain, then Japan's ally, published a Korean and an English newspaper in Seoul, the Taehan Maeil Simbo and the Korean Daily News.^[1] The Japanese objected to his papers, after some delay suppressed them, and in 1908 expelled him from Korea.

This Bethell case is not unique; there have been many cases of "ugly" or "handsome" citizens of the Great Powers working in various capacities in underdeveloped countries throughout history. It does highlight certain technical aspects in international politics: e.g., (1) when one nation seeks to control another, long-range political objectives may have to be modified for fear of adverse reaction on the part of other interested parties on the scene and because of conflicting pressures that may be exerted by other interested individuals and groups at the domestic level; (2) the possession of the instruments of force is prerequisite to the process of revolutionary political change, and their possession is almost imperative when a new regime is attempting to establish itself in a hostile environment. The prevalence of force in the control process is more or less in inverse ratio to the extent of popular allegiance to the regime and of the possession of authority by it.

In Korea the newspaper then had a limited circulation. Nonetheless, in combination with the verbal communication of its content between those who were directly accessible to the medium and those who were not, the newspaper functioned as the only kind of mass communication medium on certain issues and events. This combination occurs in a situation such as existed in Korea at the time when, under the quickened pace of important events, the news is eagerly looked for.

An observer of the events in Korea during this period summed up the influence of the newspaper in the following manner: "The Korean's idea of the daily press is still somewhat crude, and is illustrated by the fact that when some statement is denied, he is very likely to say, 'It must be true. The paper says so.'"^[2] Or, according to a Japanese official statement:

The press undoubtedly plays an important part in the mission of civilization, and journalism is decidedly one of the honorable professions. It would be unwise to interfere with freedom of the press in a civilized country. But in a backward nation where readers are easily influenced or instigated by seditious comments, this freedom is often accompanied by certain disadvantages which far outweight its merits. Should the necessary supervision be neglected, public peace and order would be endangered. Thus in a country like Korea, where public knowledge is yet backward and where insurrection and assassination are often provoked by seditious literature, proper measures of newspaper control and censorship are essential to the maintenance of peace and order.^[3]

Immediately after the conclusion of the protectorate treaty, the Japanese authorities began exercising control over the Korean press.^[4] In 1906, when the advisory police board was established, it was entrusted with the control of the press published by Koreans and "had power to examine the draft of each paper or to prohibit the publication of the same if facts were misrepresented or comments made injurious to public peace."^[5]

A general law concerning the press was promulgated on July 24, 1907. According to this law, "the publisher of a newspaper is required to receive from the Minister of Home Affairs permission to publish, his application being made through the Police Inspector-General in Seoul, or through a provincial Governor in the provinces; and 300 yen is to be furnished as a guarantee fund by the publisher but in the case of a newspaper engaging in religious or literary work this guarantee fund is not required."^[6] Also, the Minister of Home Affairs was empowered to prohibit the sale or distribution of the newspaper, to confiscate it, and to suspend or prohibit its publication if he deems it "injurious to public order or good morals."^[7] The publisher or editor of such newspaper was made liable to imprisonment or a fine.

The following table adapted from an official report shows the newspapers confiscated in 1908 and 1909.

Newspapers Confiscated 1908-1909*

Newspapers	Place of Publication	Number of Times Confiscated		Number of Copies Confiscated
		1908	1909	1908	1909
Tai Han Maiil Shimpo
⁠[Taehan Maeil Simbo]
⁠Korean ed.	Seoul	7	7	4,936	3,592
⁠Chinese-Korean ed.	Seoul	8	7	6,727	12,722
Kong Nip Shim Mun
⁠[Kongnip Sinmun]	San Francisco	18	4	10,264	6
Hap Nip Shim Po
⁠[Hapnip Simbo]	Honolulu	11	—	542	—
Haigio Shim Po
⁠[Haegyo Simbo]	Vladivostok	17	—	1,569	—
Tai Dong Kong Po
⁠[Taedong Kongbo]	San Francisco	3	—	688	—
Hap Song Shim Mun
⁠[Hapsong Sinmun]	Honolulu	—	4	—	46
Tai Tong Shim Mun
⁠[Taedong Sinmun]	Vladivostok	—	57	—	2,235
Shin Han Kong Po
⁠[Sinhan Kongbo]	San Francisco	—	31	—	1,211
Shin Han Kuk Po
⁠[Sinhan Kukbo]	Honolulu	—	27	—	1,135
	Totals	64	137	24,726	20,947

*Compiled from Residency-General's Office (Japan), Annual Report on Reforms and Progress in Korea (1908-1909), (1909-1910) and (1910-1911).

Interestingly, in 1908 and 1909 all the Korean language newspapers confiscated, except the Taehan Maeil Simbo, were published by Koreans abroad and seem to have been smuggled into the peninsula. The native- owned newspapers in Korea may not have given any reason for confiscation though there were altogether seven Korean daily newspapers as reported by the Japanese authorities in 1909.^[8] The Taehan Maeil Simbo, owned by Bethell, presented a difficult problem to the Japanese authorities, despite the fact that the press law of July 24, 1907, was amended in April, 1908, to bring its case under control.

As a citizen of a Japanese ally, Bethell enjoyed extraterritorial rights in Korea,^[9] and the press laws did not prove effective for the control of his papers. The Japanese authorities complained: "There was no means of examining the contents of these publications until they had been printed and actually delivered to their subscribers, so that offending copies had nearly always reached the public before it was possible for the authorities to issue orders forbidding their sale and distribution."^[10]

Furthermore, Bethell's papers were very widely circulated as compared with other papers published in Korea. In 1908, the Korean Daily News circulated 120 copies in Seoul, 280 elsewhere in Korea, and 63 in foreign countries. The Chinese-Korean edition of the Taehan Maeil Simbo circulated 3,900 in Seoul and 4,343 elsewhere in Korea; the Korean edition 2,580 copies in Seoul and 2,070 elsewhere in Korea.^[11]

The Koreans regarded Bethell's papers as the only mouthpiece through which they could voice their complaints.^[12] Some rebel leaders who were captured and imprisoned stated that they took up arms against the Japanese because they became indignant at Japanese rule after reading Bethell's papers; some of the rebel leaders used the papers in support of their instigation of rebellions and disturbances in favor of the "righteous" cause.^[13] The Japanese authorities charged that Bethell's alleged and irresponsible statements were the cause of riots and bloodshed upon the abdication of the Korean Emperor in 1907.^[14]

The Japanese authorities did all they could to stop Bethell and his papers. They tried to win him over and secure his silence with no success.^[15] They kept track of the regular subscribers to his papers.^[16] Also, according to Frederick A. McKenzie, who was in Korea at the time: "The Japanese were making his life as uncomfortable as they possibly could, and were doing everything to obstruct his work. His mails were constantly tampered with; his servants were threatened or arrested on various excuses, and his household was subjected to the closest espionage."^[17]

The Japanese authorities started their own official papers.^[18] The I (1906), 428.

Seoul Times became the official English newspaper under the editor- ship of an able Japanese journalist, Zumoto, once the editor of the Japan Times. The Japanese authorities also started the Keijo Nippo in Seoul, in both Japanese and Korean. There were other Japanese- owned Korean newspapers in Seoul, but almost all were in financial difficulty and gave way to this official paper.'"

Failing in all these attempts to suppress Bethell's papers, Japan in desperation took the matter up with the British ambassador in Tokyo and the British government. The Japanese insisted repeatedly that the British government do something about Bethell." During the summer of 1906, the Japanese authorities had several articles from the Taehan Maeil Simbo translated and sent them to the British government with a charge against Bethell of "adopting a course of action likely to cause a breach of the peace." The basis of the charge was eight articles, six of which were descriptions of the fighting between the "Righteous Army," Korean rebels, and the Japanese forces in the interior; one was about the proposed visit of the Crown Prince of Japan to Korea; and one urged the Koreans to value and cherish their independence."

The dominant influence of Bethell's papers in the mind of the Ko- rean people was a truism, and considering the Korean disturbances in the interior, especially after the abdication of the Korean Emperor in July, 1907, the British government had to act somehow, even though scrutiny of the articles for evidence to substantiate the charge does not indicate any factual falsification on the part of Bethell in order to pro- mote anti-Japanese feelings in Korea. Bethell was at last subjected to the "China and Korea Order in Council" of 1904, which was amended in February, 1907 , to cover the activity of British journalists in the Far East.

Henry Cockburn, the British consul-general in Seoul, visited Tokyo to confer with the British legation there in September, 1907. Upon his return, he summoned Bethell, on Saturday, October 12, to appear before a specially appointed court on the following Monday to answer the charge. Bethell, without attorney or counsel, stood before the court held in the consular buildings, with Cockburn acting as judge. The case was predetermined. Bethell was convicted and ordered to enter into recognizance of ?300 to be on good behavior for six months. The

1The Tokyo Asahi, Aug. 15 , 1906 . 2'Tsuruhara to Ito, Jan. 18 , 1906 , JA(Korea) 269, pp . 55 -56; Ito to Hayashi, Oct. 13, 1907, ibid., 344, 80ff. " (Director General [in the office of the Residency-General] to Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs), July 2, 1906, ibid., 366, pp. 129 -196 . For the translated articles, see ibid., appendix, 1-28.

Korean Daily News itself commented on the decision in the following manner. "The effect of the judgment is that for a period of six months this newspaper will be gagged, and therefore no further reports of Japanese reverses can be published in our columns.""' The Japanese authorities also made note of this with satisfaction and stated that "after Bethell's case the articles of the Taehan Maeil Simbo changed their outlook."

The case against Bethell did not stop here. According to Ito, the first Japanese resident-general in Korea, Bethell, not having changed his attitude, again became vindictive in 1908, "instigating disturbances, encouraging treason, and inducing assassination."2' A Japanese official report also stated that as soon as the six months' term of good behavior expired, Bethell's papers again showed "seditious activity" by publish- ing "incendiary comments on 'the Murder of Mr. Stevens,' and on 'Prince Metternich'; or under the captions of 'Why Hesitate?,' 'Songs of Appeal,' 'Flowers of the Educational World,' etc.""

Bethell was again brought into court on June 15, 1908, to answer a complaint laid before the British consular court by the Japanese au- thorities. This time the defendant was represented by counsel and the proceedings were presided over by Judge Bourne of Shanghai. The counsel for the defendant applied to have the case heard before a jury, but the application was refused. After several days' deliberation, during which Yang Ki-ta'ek, Bethell's Korean sub-editor, testified for Bethell, Bethell was sentenced to imprisonment for three weeks and required subsequently "to give security for good behavior during six months or to be deported." He was immediately sent to Shanghai after the trial to serve his sentence, and his papers were entrusted to his colleague, Marnham.

What amounted to the finishing touch for Bethell's cause came a little later. Bethell with his Korean sub-editor was charged with em- bezzlement of public funds. In February, 1907, under the leadership of a member of the conservative faction in the Korean court, Yun Ung-yul, an association called the National Foreign Debt Reimburse- ment was organized in Taeku, north Kyongsang province in south Korea.' The association urged that, if 20,000 ,000 Koreans saved twenty

22Cited in McKenzie, op. cit., 244. "Maruyama to Ito, Nov. 6 , 1907 , JA(Korea) 344, p . 2 . 24Ito to Hayashi, May 1, 1908, ibid. , 2 89 , pp . 4-8. Also see Annual Report (1908-1909), 88. 25 Loc. cit. ""Kankoku Chiho Seikyo (Local Political Situation in Korea)," Ito to Hayashi, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Archives (Library of Congress Microfilm), MT 1 .5 .3 .11 , pp . 122-138 . (This Japanese Foreign Office Documentary collection now in deposit at the Li- brary of Congress in microfilm is hereafter cited at "Japanese Foreign Office (micr ofilms)".)

cents a month out of their cigarette expenses, Korea would be liberated from the Japanese protectorate with the payment of several million yen which the Korean government owed to Japan." The Taehan Maeil Simbo and other Korean papers took care of the publicity and advertise- ment. The response to the appeal throughout the country was amazing, and substantial contributions were sent to various Korean newspaper offices.' For those sent to the Taehan Maeil Simbo, Yang was named as general secretary for the fund.

The newspapers in Korea then were not a profitable enterprise. Bethell was not seeking a political end in Korea by running the news- papers. The natural question was then: How did he operate the papers financially? Maruyama, the police inspector general, reported on Jan- uary 18, 1907, to General Baron Hasegawa during Ito's absence from his residency office that the papers by Bethell were a branch organiza- tion of a Russian Far Eastern Harbin newspaper and they were financed by the Russian government as the latter was." The same report also found that the Korean Emperor was secretly making a five hundred yen a month contribution to the papers besides an occasional bonus for their continued publication." Lastly, the Japanese police were informed of flagrant abuse of the fund entrusted to the Taehan Maeil Simbo for the National Debt Reimbursement Association."

Yang was arrested and detained in prison for interrogation. The British consul general, Cockburn, complained to the Japanese authori- ties on behalf of Marnham, the new employer of Yang. Addressing Ko- matsu in the office of the resident-general, Cockburn stated: Mr. Marnham has just been here to complain that his Korean sub-editor, Yang, who gave evidence for the defence at the recent trial, was last night induced to go and see Mr. Watanabe and then arrested and taken away by the police. Nothing is known of what has since happened to him. I feel sure that there must be some mistake. Mr. Nabeshima told me soon after the trial that the police have very strict instructions not to interfere with any of the Koreans who has appeared as witnesses for the defence, and I believe similar assurances were given to the Crown Advocate. It would have a most "Shunjo Shakuo, Chosen Heigoshi (History of Korean Annexation) (Keijo, 1926), 441. For a good description of the nature and purpose of the association, see "The Recent Seoul Trial," North China Daily News (Shanghai), Oct. 3 , 1908 , in JA(Korea) 336, pp . 73 -74.

28"Kenki (Gendarmery Secret Report)," July 27, 1908 , ibid. , 35 5 , pp . 66-67; "Kankoku Chiho Seikyo (Local Political Situation in Korea)," op. cit., 1 2 2-138. 2In addition to the sources already cited, see Sone to Ito, Aug. 2 , 1908 , JA(Korea) 290, pp. 2-3. "'Maruyama to Hasegawa, Jan. 18, 1907, ibid., 36 6 , pp. 187-188; Watanabe to Maruyama, Jan. 21, 1908, ibid., 1-7. "nMaruyama to Nabeshima, July 25, 1908, ibid., 355, pp. 66 -72 .

deplorable effect if it were found that they were being punished, and I hope to hear from Mr. White (who takes this letter to you) that Yang was arrested by mistake and has already been released."

Maruyama explained that he was acting in compliance with the order from the Korean minister of home affairs to investigate the accounting of the fund, and the Japanese authorities stated that Yang's arrest did not have anything to do with the second Bethell trial." Thus, there developed one of the most significant episodes for Japan in Korea. Ito was again in Tokyo, leaving the direction of his office in Korea in care of Sone, vice-resident-general, an office which had been newly created. Before he left Seoul for Tokyo, Ito instructed Maruyama that in essence:

The accounting of the fund for the National Foreign Debt Reimburse- ment Association should not be treated as relating to the second Bethell trial. Inasmuch as the fund is not from the national treasury but from public voluntary contribution, the names of the appellant for investigation should be made public and the police should be only acting on their behalf. Since the Taehan Maeil Simbo is not the only place entrusted with fund, the accounting for the other collectors of the fund should be made at the same time."

Only the criminal treatment of Yang was reported by Cockburn to the British government. Acting on instructions from the home govern- ment, the British ambassador in Tokyo referred Cockburn's report to the Japanese foreign minister. Ito sent a telegram to the office of the resident-general in Seoul, asking if Maruyama was acting according to his instructions. Maruyama in reply produced three Koreans-Yi Tong-hi, Chung Yong-ta'ek, and Yi Song-ho-as the complainers, asking for an investigation of the Korean minister for home affairs by whom Maruyama was ordered to act." Meanwhile, Yang had been detained in prison since July 12, and the few visitors he was permitted were not allowed privacy.

Marnham, who was granted the privilege of visiting Yang, told Cock- burn: "Yang... is ill, worn to a skeleton, and on the verge of collapse. . . .

He is confined day and night together with nineteen others in a room twelve feet by fourteen, making twenty people in that small space

"Cockburn to Komatsu, July 13, 1908, ibid., 1 22 . asMaruyama to Nabeshima, July 25, 1908, ibid., 66-67 . "Ito to Sone, July 22, 1908, ibid., 89-91. 3Maruyama to Nabeshima, July 25, 1908 , ibid., 6 6 -67 . in the great summer heat."^[19] Cockburn sent a written message to Miura, the Japanese resident in Seoul, stating that, based upon the facts told by Marnham, Yang should have better care if he were to survive the ordeal. Miura, however, showed indifference to the request, arguing that whatever treatment he was receiving was better than the treatment under the Korean government, and no partial favor should be given to Yang over the others who were likewise awaiting trial.^[20] Ito was displeased with Miura's argument and instructed that better treatment be offered Yang.^[21] Ito further ordered that Yang should be sent to a hospital. A Japanese prison doctor was brought in to diagnose Yang's condition, but he reported: "Yang's constitution not worse than he was before imprisonment."^[22] Ito, however, insisted that Yang be hospitalized and warned against the consequences of disobedience.^[23] Dr. Saido, director of the Japanese-operated Taehan Hospital, also rendered a diagnosis not much different from that of the Japanese prison doctor, but commented that Yang was suffering from a chronic disease in his digestive organs, and that his ordinarily frail physique made him appear a sick person.^[24]

Yang was sent to the Taehan Hospital. The nurses, somehow having mistaken the order from the Police Department, released Yang the next day, and he found security in Marnham's residence. As he was resting at Marnham's residence, a British doctor diagnosed Yang's condition as "dangerously ill," and Marnham, in cooperation with Cockburn, insisted that Yang be kept there until his recovery.^[25] Thereupon, a threatening demand for the person of Yang was made by Miura to the British consul-general who was much irritated by Miura's undiplomatic wording.^[26] The original date of the hearings for Yang's case was set on August 15, but with Yang in the custody of Marnham, it was postponed until August 31.

Meanwhile, Bethell, back in Seoul upon completion of his prison sentence, testified by affidavit at a staff meeting of the National Foreign Debt Reimbursement Association, which was held on July 30. (None of the three persons cited by Maruyama as the original complainers were at the meeting.)^[27] Bethell stated that the only private use of the fund was his use of five thousand yen to assist in his house construction since September of 1907. The Japanese authorities also could not produce any evidence to make a criminal charge against Yang, and there followed "the complete collapse of the prosecution."^[28] Ito was very much disturbed by this fiasco. Pointing out that the Japanese police method as used in this Bethell case was not to his liking, he stated:

It was his wish from the outset not to produce a criminal but to clarify the truth concerning the management of the fund for the National Foreign Debt Reimbursement Association. Before my departure from Seoul I instructed Maruyama specifically not to treat Yang Ki-ta'ek as a criminal, but Maruyama, only with reliance on the reports made by detectives, handed Yang over to the court despite deficiency in the factual evidence. This hasty action is much to be regretted ...

For the conclusion of this episode, the verdict of "not guilty" because of lack of evidence was given to Yang on September 29 by the Seoul court." No one in this connection brought a charge against Bethell before a British consular court.

It is difficult to estimate how much decline in popularity Bethell's papers suffered during and after the trials, and the public attitude concerning the trials was not uniform in its sympathy toward Bethell.Some pro-Japanese Korean organizations were, however, exploiting the opportunity by urging a boycott of the papers." What it all amounted to testifies to the authoritative position of Japan in Korea by that time."

Bethell left Seoul permanently shortly thereafter, still watched by Japanese detectives, and Maruyama was also relieved of his position."

4Ito to Sone, Aug. 5, 1908, JA(Korea) 306, pp. 47-49. 47For a detail of the court proceedings and the decision, see ibid. , 356 , pp. 90-101. 48"Taehan Maeil Simbo 'Bethell' Shobatsu ni taisuru Chiho Minshin no Jokyo (Local Public Reaction to Japanese Legal Action on Mr. Bethell of the Taehan Maeil Simbo)," 1908, ibid., 3 06 , pp. 130-133. 49"Kenki (Gendarmery Secret Report)," Sept. 1 , 1909, ibid. , 357 , p . 111. 60"Taehan Maeil Simbo 'Bethell' Shobatsu ni taisuru Chiho Minshin no Jokyo (Local Public Reaction to Japanese Legal Action on Mr. Bethell of the Taehan Maeil Simbo)," op. cit. mIshizuka to Tsuruhara, Aug. 27 , 1908, ibid. , 29 0, p . 76; Wakabashi to Nabeshima, Dec. 4, 1908, ibid., 352, p. 182 . This telegram was about the death of Mr. Bethell on May 1, 1909.

1. For a good discussion of various interpretations concerning the real Japanese intention toward Korea before 1910, see Hilary Conroy, The Japanese Seizure of Korea, 1868-1910: A Study of Realism and Idealism in International Relations (Philadelphia, 1960), 544 pp.
2. Homer B. Hulbert, The Passing of Korea (New York, 1906), 340.
3. Residency-General's Office (Japan), Annual Report on Reforms and Progress in Korea (1910-1911), (Keijo, 1911), 86. This Japanese official publication is hereafter cited as "Annual Report."
4. See Japanese Archives in Korea, photographed for and deposited at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 194, 164 pp. This document is hereafter cited as "JA(Korea)".
5. Annual Report (1908-1909), 85.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. "Kankoku Genji ni okeru Chiho Jinshin no Jokyo (The Present Condition of the Public Opinion of the Local Populace in Korea)," Nov. 1 , 1909, JA(Korea) 305, pp. 42-45.
9. (Police Inspector-General to Director General in the Office of the Residency-General), related to (Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs), July 2, 1906, JA(Korea) 336, pp. 192-196.
10. Annual Report (1908-1909), 89.
11. "Kenki (Gendarmery Secret Report)," 1908, JA(Korea) 327, pp. 9-11.
12. Frederick A. McKenzie, Tragedy of Korea (London, 1908), 214-215.
13. Matsui to Nabeshima, July 4, 1908, JA(Korea) 327, pp. 21-28.
14. Annual Report (1908-1909), 85.
15. McKenzie, op. cit., 213.
16. Ibid. Also see "Editorial" of Korean Daily News, [?] December, 1906, cited in ibid., 217.
17. "Taehan Maeil Simbo Shobatsu ni taisuru Chiho Minshin no Jokyo (Local Public Reaction to Japanese Legal Action on the Taehan Maeil Simbo)," 1908, JA(Korea) 306, pp. 130-133.
18. "Editorial Comment: The New Seoul Press," Korea Review, VI (1096), 428.
19. MacDonald to Ito, Aug. 5, 1908, related to Sone, ibid., 306, pp. 63-68.
20. Sone to Ito, Aug. 2, 1908, ibid., 390, pp. 2-3.
21. Ito to Sone, Aug. [?], 1908, ibid., 306, pp. 61-62; same to same, Aug. 10, 1908, ibid., 206, pp. 76-77; Ito to MacDonald, Aug. 8, 1908, ibid., 69-71.
22. Sone to Ito, [n.d.], ibid., 390, p. 7; same to same, Aug. 10, 1908, ibid., 306, pp. 77-79.
23. Ito to Sone, Aug. 10, 1908, ibid., 76-77.
24. Sone to Ito, Aug. 11, 1908, ibid., 81-82; Sone to Terauchi, Aug. 25, 1908, ibid., 290, pp. 28-31.
25. Sone to Ito, Aug. 14, 1908, ibid., 28-31.
26. Sone to Terauchi, Aug. 20 , 1908, ibid., 55-57.
27. "Kenki (Gendarmery Secret Report)," ibid., 306, pp. 54-57.
28. "The Recent Seoul Trial," North China Daily News (Shanghai), Oct. 3, 1908, op. cit.