American Legation,
Tokyo,
Japan
,
August 20,
1904
.
[Subinclosure.]
Statement of Japan’s position regarding the
capture of the “Ryeshitelni” at Chefoo.
The Imperial Government sustain the action of the Japanese destroyers
Asashiwo and Kasumi in capturing the Russian destroyer Ryeshitelni in the harbor of Chefoo on the
morning of the 12th August, upon the following grounds:
- (1)
- That the neutrality of China, territorially speaking, is
incomplete and extends only to those places which are not
for the time being occupied by the armed forces of either
belligerent.
- (2)
- That, independently of the question of the effect of the
presence of the Ryeshitelni in the
harbor upon the neutrality of China, Russia had, prior to
the capture, violated the neutrality of Chefoo.
- (3)
- That the Ryeshitelni first began
the struggle which resulted in her capture.
As to the first ground:
The Imperial Government at the beginning of the war declared that
they would respect the neutrality of China outside the regions
occupied by Russia so long as Russia did the same. All military
operations are now being carried on within the territorial limits of
China. So long as the armed forces of the belligerents remain within
the limits of Manchuria, so long will that region continue to be the
only portion of the Chinese Empire outside the neutrality of China.
But, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, a Russian vessel of
war escaping from Port Arthur and seeking in the harbor of Chefoo an
asylum which her home port no longer affords her, is guilty of a
violation of the neutrality of China which, so far as that incident
is concerned, fully justifies the Japanese Government in taking such
measures of self-protection as they may consider necessary.
As to the second ground:
It is the contention of the Imperial Government that the Ryeshitelni, by taking refuge in Chefoo under
the circumstances, violated the neutrality of that port. It is not
only in this case that Russia has openly disregarded the neutrality
of Chefoo. Shortly after, the investment and isolation of Port
Arthur a system of wireless telegraphy was installed between the
beleaguered fortress and the Russian consulate at Chefoo. That
system has been maintained ever since, notwithstanding the repeated
protests of the Imperial Government. In these circumstances neither
Russia, which had already disregarded China’s neutrality, nor China,
which had utterly failed to enforce her neutrality, is in position
to complain of the action of Japan.
As to the third ground:
The Ryeshitelni, by being the aggressor in the
struggle which resulted in the capture, instead of relying for
protection upon the authorities of the port, has deprived Russia of
the right of complaint which she might have possessed if the
lawfulness of the capture were otherwise in doubt.
The Imperial Government are still fully resolved to respect the
neutrality of China so long as Russia does the same, but they can
not consent that their enemy’s ships of war, in defiance of China’s
neutrality laws, shall be permitted to find in the harbors of China
an asylum which, by reason of the military operations of Japan, is
no longer offered them by their own ports.
The case under consideration is in itself of trifling moment, but the
principle involved is of the highest importance; for if the harbor
of Chefoo could under circumstances be said to afford an asylum for
the Ryeshitelni, it would equally give to the
big ships of the Russian navy a safe refuge against attack, to the
constant menace of Japan. It can not be expected that the Imperial
Government would give their consent to such a condition of
things.
