CHAPTER XXIV

American Protest against Foreign Aggression in China—Principle of “Open Door and Equal Opportunity”—Financial Reform—Operation of Revised Treaties—The Boxer Outbreak—Russia and Manchuria.

In addition to the various Agreements for the occupation of Chinese territory mentioned in the preceding chapter, negotiations were conducted with the Chinese Government about the same time by the European Powers concerned, and also by Japan, for the purpose of obtaining Declarations regarding the non-alienation by China of certain territories which were regarded by them as coming, respectively, within their special spheres of interest. As a result of these negotiations the French Minister at Peking received in March, 1897, a verbal assurance, confirmed later in writing, that the Chinese Government would “in no case, nor under any form, alienate to another Power the island of Hainan off the coast of the province of Kwantung.” In February, 1898, a similar Declaration concerning the riverain provinces of the Yangtse was made to Great Britain. In the following April the assurance previously given to France was extended so as to include the three southern provinces of Yunnan, Kwangsi and Kwantung bordering on Tonkin; while Japan in the same month received an assurance of a corresponding nature regarding the province of Fukien, the Chinese Government signifying its intention “never to cede or lease it to any Power whatsoever.” In thus obtaining from China a Declaration of non-alienation respecting the province of Fukien, similar to those given to Great Britain and France regarding other portions of Chinese territory, Japan established her claim to rank as one of the leading Powers in the Far East, a position which, as will be seen, received further recognition in the following year. Her success in this respect—due to her victory in the war with China, and to the alteration in her status as a nation which resulted from the conclusion of revised treaties with several foreign Powers—was rendered the more noticeable by the failure of Italy, after prolonged negotiations, to gain China’s consent to a territorial concession similar to those granted to other European Powers.

The years 1898 and 1899 witnessed the negotiation by European Powers with each other of two other arrangements relating to China of a somewhat different character. One of these was the Declaration made by Great Britain to Germany on April 19th, 1898, binding herself not to construct any railway connecting Weihaiwei, and the adjoining leased territory, with the interior of the province of Shantung. The other was the Agreement, effected through an exchange of Notes at St. Petersburg on April 28th, 1899, by which the British and Russian Governments recorded their intention to regard, for the purpose of railway concessions, the basin of the Yangtse and the region north of the Great Wall as the special spheres of interest of the two Powers, respectively, confirming, at the same time, the understanding arrived at between them in regard to the railway between Shanhaikwan and Newchwang.

The outbreak of war between the United States and Spain in the spring of 1898 led to the introduction of a new factor into the situation created in the Far East by the events above described. One of the results of the war was the cession of the Philippine Islands to America, who had already, by annexing Hawaii, secured a stepping-stone across the Pacific. By the acquisition of these former Spanish possessions, which provided her with a naval base in the Eastern Pacific for the protection of her commerce in Far Eastern waters, America’s attitude towards Far Eastern questions was at once affected. Hitherto in her relations with the Far East—with China, Japan and Korea—she had maintained a detached attitude in keeping with her traditional policy of non-interference in foreign questions. In China, where she came late into the field, she had been content to follow, at a distance, in the wake of other Powers; sharing in whatever commercial or extra-territorial privileges might be obtained, but never breaking the ice for herself, nor—to her credit, be it said—betraying any aggressive tendencies. As the pioneer of Western nations in putting an end to the seclusion of Japan and Korea, she had opportunities for exercising a powerful influence, of which her traditional policy forbade her to make full use. Regarding both countries somewhat in the light of protégés, her policy in respect to each soon settled down into one of benevolent inaction, varied only by occasional half-hearted opposition to the less complaisant policy of other Governments, whenever the duty of a patron, so to speak, seemed to call for her interposition. We have seen how she was thus led on two occasions in the matter of Treaty revision into a premature encouragement of Japanese ambitions, which was the cause of embarrassment both to herself, and to the nation whose wishes she was willing to further. The course thus pursued by America, which precluded concerted action with other Powers, was in some respects simply an extension to the Far East of the policy she had previously adopted in regard to European questions. Well as the traditional principle of holding aloof from affairs outside of the American continent, through fear of political entanglements, may have suited the conditions of her earlier existence as a nation, a too rigid adherence to this principle, when those conditions were fast disappearing, might lead to consequences more unpleasant than those she sought to avoid. An attitude of detachment carried too far might result in her exclusion from a voice in the regulation of matters of international interest. Towards some such position America appeared to be drifting, when, to borrow the phrase used by Mr. Hornbeck in _Contemporary Politics of the Far East_, she suddenly “stumbled into World Politics” through her occupation of the Philippines. From that moment her political isolation was ended. She began to take a more active and intelligent interest in Far Eastern questions, though the reluctance to abandon her traditional policy, which was still noticeable in her action when she did move, was liable to be mistaken for timidity.

The territorial concessions obtained, one after the other, by Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain, and the ear-marking of other Chinese territory by arrangements made either by the Powers concerned, as well as by Japan, with China, or by certain of those European Powers between themselves, caused uneasiness in Washington. There was a fear lest the new activity displayed by various Governments might result in the closure, or restriction, of Chinese markets hitherto open to all countries, in which case serious injury might accrue to American commerce and enterprise. The apprehension was not unfounded, even so far as the Declarations regarding the non-alienation of Chinese territory were concerned. Although the actual wording of these Declarations did not of itself justify an inference of this nature, from the fact that they were made at all it was generally held that their effect was to establish, in each instance, a sort of priority of right—a position of exceptional advantage in favour of the Power to whom the Declaration was made. The inference derived support from the vagueness of the term “spheres of interest” applied to the regions affected by the Declarations in question, and was also strengthened by the common impression formed at the time that this ear-marking of Chinese territory portended an eventual partition of China. This seems to have been the view taken by the United States Government.

In September, 1899, the American Secretary of State addressed Circular Notes to the British, French, German and Russian Governments, expressing the hope that they would “make a formal declaration of an ‘open door’ policy in the territories held by them in China.” An assurance was sought from each Power: that it would “in no way interfere with any treaty port or any vested interest within any so-called sphere of interest, or leased territory, it might have in China”; “that the Chinese Treaty tariff of the time being should apply to all merchandise landed or shipped to all such ports as are within the said ‘sphere of interest’” ... and “that duties so leviable should be collected by the Chinese Government”; and that it “would levy no higher harbour dues on vessels of another nationality frequenting any port in such ‘sphere’ than should be levied on vessels of its own nationality, and no higher railroad charges over lines built, controlled or operated within its ‘sphere’ on merchandise belonging to citizens or subjects of other nationalities transported through such ‘sphere’ than should be levied on similar merchandise belonging to its own nationals transported over like distances.” In the following November similar, though not identical, Notes were addressed to the Governments of France, Italy and Japan, asking them to join in these formal declarations of policy.

The reason for the distinction thus made both in the dates and tenor of the two series of communications may, perhaps, be found in the fact that the territories leased by the three first-named Powers, besides their greater strategic importance, were situated in a part of China where American interests were more closely concerned than in the region further south affected by French action, and that Japan, though interested in the Declaration regarding Fukien, had neither sought nor obtained any cession of territory; while Italy had failed in her endeavour to emulate the example of her nearest continental neighbours.

The assurance received from China by Japan regarding the non-alienation of the province of Fukien was, as we have seen, in effect, an admission of the position of power and influence she had by this time acquired. Her inclusion in the list of States consulted by America on this occasion was indirectly an endorsement of this admission, and is the first public recognition of her new status as a leading Power in the Far East.

Favourable replies were received from all the Powers consulted; each, however, with the exception of Italy, making the reservation that assent to the proposals was subject to the condition that all the Powers interested should participate in the Declarations. Thereupon, in March, 1900, the American Secretary of State sent instructions to the American representative at each of the capitals of the Powers consulted to inform the Government to which he was accredited that, in his opinion, the six Powers in question and the United States were mutually pledged to the policy of maintaining the commercial _status quo_ in China, and of refraining, each within what might be considered its sphere of influence, “from measures calculated to destroy equality of opportunity.”

The Notes thus exchanged between the United States and the six other Powers above mentioned explain the origin, as they also constitute “the formal basis” (to use Mr. Hornbeck’s words) of what has ever since been known as the policy of the “Open door and equal opportunity” in China. The latter part of the phrase was afterwards used in the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Alliance to designate the policy of Great Britain and Japan in Korea as well as in China. To the former country, now annexed to Japan, it no longer applies; but the policy has theoretically, if not always practically, been in force as regards China, for the last twenty-one years, and there is reason to think that more may yet be heard both of the phrase, and of the policy it represents, in connection with affairs in China, and possibly in other parts of Eastern Asia.

In touching on the subject of financial reform in a previous chapter attention was called to the monetary confusion which existed after the abolition of the feudal system, when the new Government which had come into power found itself saddled with clan debts and with clan paper money, mostly depreciated and of many different kinds. It was pointed out how, as a natural consequence of this monetary confusion and of financial embarrassments due to other causes, the monetary transactions of the country were for many years conducted on the basis of an inconvertible paper currency; and how by successive steps, taken as opportunity offered, to remedy this state of things, specie resumption on a silver basis was at length effected in 1886.

It was not till eleven years later, in 1897, that Japan adopted her present gold standard. The reasons for this step are given in the chapter on Finance contributed to Marquis Ōkuma’s book, already mentioned, by Marquis Matsugata, who also explains the means by which it was accomplished.

“When,” says this authority on Japanese financial matters, “the Government opened places for the redemption of paper money in 1886, silver coins only were offered in exchange. Such being the case, the currency of Japan at that time was based practically on a silver standard, although legally the system was bimetallic. The price of silver, however, owing to various reasons, gradually fell, and artificial checks to its fall were effective only for a short time. Fluctuation after fluctuation in foreign exchange seemed to follow each other in endless succession. In the meantime Western countries commenced to adopt gold monometallism. Our authorities knew very well that, to insure a healthy growth of finance, Japan must adopt, sooner or later, a monometallic gold standard, and this was impressed on the minds of financiers so keenly that the Government determined to effect the reform as soon as possible. The desired opportunity came with the Peace Treaty of 1895, when China began to pay to our country an indemnity of 200,000,000 taels” [_sic_ the amount was really 230,000,000 taels]. “Further negotiations between our Government and the Chinese authorities resulted in the payment of the indemnity, not in Chinese money, but in pounds sterling. This was important, since a large gold reserve was indispensable for the establishment of gold monometallism.”

The experience of 1886, referred to by Marquis Matsugata, proved that confidence in the Government’s ability to meet its obligations in paper money was all that was needed. This confidence once established, no further difficulty presented itself in the passage from an inconvertible to a convertible paper currency. Prepared for heavy calls on the specie resources of the Treasury, the Government had on that occasion accumulated a reserve of £5,000,000. When, at the end of a few days after the date fixed for the resumption of specie payments, the demand for specie ceased, it was found that the total value of notes presented for conversion did not exceed £30,000. The change from a silver to a gold standard in 1897 was conducted with equal facility, a large portion of the Chinese indemnity being transferred abroad. There it served a useful purpose in maintaining Japan’s financial credit, and, as a natural consequence, the market price of the Bonds of her numerous foreign loans, which for several years, to the surprise of private investors, were quoted at higher rates abroad than at home.

The year 1899, when the revised treaties came into operation, marked a fresh stage in the progress of Japan towards attaining a footing of equality with Western Powers—the aim which her statesmen had set before themselves ever since the Restoration, and which had in so many ways been the guiding principle of both domestic and foreign policy. With the object of allowing time for the negotiation of similar treaties with other foreign Powers, the revised British Treaty, signed in London in 1894, had, as already mentioned, provided that it should not come into force until five years after the date of signature. Before the expiration of the period named similar treaties had been concluded with all the other Powers concerned, those with France and Germany containing a few modifications of minor importance. In the meantime, moreover, the conditions specified in the Treaty regarding the new Japanese Codes and Japan’s adhesion to the International Conventions concerning Copyright and Industrial Property had been fulfilled. The way was thus cleared for the operation of the new revised treaties, which, accordingly, came into force on the 17th July, 1899, the earliest date possible. Though in these new treaties, recognizing the territorial jurisdiction of Japan, the stipulation of previous conventions which chiefly offended Japanese susceptibilities found no place, she still remained bound for a further period of twelve years—the term of the revised treaties—by a tariff of a unilateral character. Only when that period expired would she recover full tariff autonomy and be free to negotiate reciprocal treaties with the various Powers concerned on a footing of complete equality. This opportunity came to her in 1911, and she at once availed herself of it.

In the spring of the following year (1900) what is known as the Boxer Rising took place. In its inception it was a protest against missionary enterprise. As it developed, it became the expression of a feeling of exasperation among the official and lettered classes of Northern China engendered by the action of European Powers in occupying under the guise of leases various portions of Chinese territory in that region. During the previous autumn a society called I-Ho-C’uan (Patriot Harmony Fists) had been formed in the province of Shantung. Its formation was encouraged by the reactionary tendencies which made their appearance about this time at Peking, where the Empress Dowager, after the successful _coup d’état_ by which she had crushed the ill-conducted reform movement in 1898, was again in power. The magical powers claimed by its members produced on the ignorant masses an impression that was heightened by the incantations they performed. As the movement grew, it attracted the attention of the Governor of the province, who supported it with, apparently, the twofold idea of utilizing it against foreign aggression, and gaining favour at Court. As a result of his outspoken sympathy the Boxer movement assumed formidable dimensions. Though eventually, through the energy of Yuan Shih-k’ai, who was at one time, as we have seen, Chinese Resident in Korea, order was restored in Shantung, the movement spread northwards towards Peking. There, as Mr. Campbell explains in the China Handbook prepared under the direction of the Foreign Office, it gained the powerful support of the ignorant and reactionary statesman Prince Tuan, the selection of whose son as Heir-Apparent to the Throne gave him a commanding influence in the councils of the Empire. In April, 1900, bands of Boxers were drilling in the outskirts of the Capital, their appearance in every district they invaded being accompanied by murders of missionaries and massacres of native converts. Some weeks later the situation became so threatening that arrangements were made for bringing up to Peking small contingents of foreign troops for the protection of the Legations and such portion of the foreign community as still remained. These guards arrived opportunely at the end of May, by which time swarms of Boxers infested the Capital, and the Legations were practically isolated. Prince Tuan chose this moment for openly espousing the Boxer cause. This step on his part was followed by the murders of the Chancellor of the Japanese Legation and the German Minister, the two outrages occurring within a few days of each other. The subsequent course of events is well known: the storming of the Taku forts (June 16th); the siege of the Legations by Chinese troops and Boxers; the failure of Admiral Seymour’s attempt to re-establish communications with the Capital; the equipment of foreign expeditionary forces to operate against Peking; the issue of an Imperial Decree ordering a general massacre of foreigners in the Chinese dominions; the attack on the foreign settlements at Tientsin; the arrival of Russian and British reinforcements, and the taking of Tientsin city (July 14th); the relief of the Legations, and occupation of the Chinese capital on the 13th and 14th August by the allied forces; and the flight of the Chinese Court to Sian-fu, the ancient capital in the province of Shensi. With the flight of the Court from the capital Chinese resistance collapsed, and when Count Waldersee arrived in September with several thousand German troops to take supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, there was no enemy to fight. Hostilities gave place to negotiations between the foreign Governments concerned and China for the settlement of the various issues raised by the Boxer outbreak. The negotiations resulted in two preliminary exchanges of Notes, dated, respectively, December 22nd, 1900, and January 16th, 1901, embodying the conditions for the re-establishment of normal relations with China, and in the signature of a final Protocol on September 7th, 1901. Three days before its signature Prince Ch’un, who had proceeded on a mission to Berlin to apologize for the murder of the German Minister, was received in audience by the Kaiser.

The chief conditions imposed on China by these arrangements were the payment of an indemnity of 450,000,000 Haikwan taels (equivalent at the rate fixed—3s. per tael—to £67,500,000); the permanent occupation of certain places, including Tientsin and Shanhaikwan, for the purpose of preserving free communications between Peking and the sea; the razing of the Taku and other forts which threatened those communications; and the construction of a separate fortified quarter in the Capital for the foreign Legations, for the further protection of which permanent foreign guards were to be retained. Other terms included special reparation for the murders of the German Minister and the Chancellor of the Japanese Legation and the desecration of cemeteries; the punishment of Prince Tuan, as well as other personages and officials responsible for the attacks on foreigners; and the prohibition of the import of arms.

Thanks, as we learn from the Handbook already quoted, to the good sense of the leading provincial authorities, such as the Viceroys of Nanking and Wuchang and the new Governor of Shantung, who had the courage to disobey the Imperial Decree, the Boxer movement was stifled in the central and southern regions of China. There, in spite of considerable unrest, order was preserved. But further north in Manchuria the Governors were not so judicious. In obedience to instructions from the Court they declared war on the Russians. The sudden attacks made by Chinese forces created a panic on the Amur, and brought about the savage reprisals which occurred at Blagovestchensk on that river, and the occupation of the whole of Manchuria by Russian troops. The folly of the Empress Dowager and of the ignorant clique by whose counsels she was guided gave Russia the opportunity she desired for pursuing her designs of aggression in the Far East. Her subsequent conduct throughout the negotiations, and after their conclusion, destroyed the good effect produced by her valuable co-operation in the fighting at Tientsin, where the Russian reinforcements were, undoubtedly, the chief factor in saving the foreign settlements from destruction.

In the military operations against Peking, and in the protracted negotiations which succeeded them, Japan played a conspicuous part. She had suffered injury similar to that sustained by other foreign Powers in connection with the Boxer Rising, and she had a common interest with them in adopting whatever measures might be necessary in the international emergency which had arisen. Her proximity to China and her military resources enabled her to strike quickly, and with effect. To the invitation to take part in the expeditionary force in process of organization, which was addressed to her by the other interested Powers, with the exception of Russia, she responded with alacrity; and in a short space of time a well-equipped Japanese force took its place with the troops of other Powers, and joined in the march on Peking for the relief of the besieged Legations. The discipline and efficiency of the Japanese contingent won well-deserved praise from those best qualified to judge. In the subsequent negotiations the readiness shown by Japan to act in harmony with other Powers, whose attitude was influenced by consideration for the general interests of all concerned, facilitated the solution of many difficulties; and, when the question of claims for indemnity came to be discussed, the moderation of her demands was equalled only by that of Great Britain and the United States.