I noticed today that some of my old links to Toron Talker are no longer working, such as the link to the 1899 Hwangseong Sinmun article. It seems that he moved to this new address: http://toron.chu.jp/take/index.html
Actually, I do not know if it is a new address or one of his old ones, but I was linked to a different address. Does he still have a link to the 1899 Hwangseong Sinmun article?
24.11.08
Dong-A Ilbo Archive Database
I have added a link to the Archive Database of the Dong-A Ilbo, which allows searches of the newspaper's articles that go back to 1920. To download a PDF file of the article, you have to register with the site and then pay 500 won for each download.
Dong-A Ilbo Archive Database
Dong-A Ilbo Archive Database
The Takeshima Secret Pact
Joong Ang Daily (中央日報） reported in March 2007 that there was a secret agreement concerning Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Japan and Korea before the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (日韓基本条約 Nikkan Kihon Jōyaku in Japanese; 한일기본조약, 韓日基本條約, Hanil Gibon Joyak in Korean) in 1965.japanese.joins.com/article/article.php aid=85628&servcode=200§code=200
According to the article, the four principles were agreed; 1) One should understand another's claim to Dokdo/Takeshima and would not object to the refutation to the claims, 2) As to a future fishery zone, both of the countries draw the lines first including Dokdo/Takeshima into own territories, and then the duplicated area should be decided as a common zone, 3) Continue the status quo under Korea's occupation but Korea would not increase guards and would not build a new building or enlarge the building, 4) Both of the countries will keep the agreement continuously.
In conclusion, these principles were made to consider that the dispute was resolved without resolving the matter (解決せざるを以て解決したものと見なす).
But the President Kim Yong-san 金泳三 broke the agreement and built new pier facilities. Since then, the dispute became apparent again.
According to the article, they would publish a book concerning this matter in Japan first and then, Korean version would follow.
And in October 2008, Japanese version of the book "竹島密約 (The Takeshima Secret Pact)" , written by Roe Daniel, was put on sale 19 months after the article.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6%E5%AF%86%E7%B4%84-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC-%E3%83%80%E3%83%8B%E3%82%A8%E3%83%AB/dp/4794216793/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227513391&sr=8-1(BTW, I haven't got a copy of the book yet. Are there anybody who already read it?)
22.11.08
"S. Korean Lawmakers to Visit Washington Over Dokdo Issue"
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!
A November 20, Yonhap News article entitled, "S. Korean Lawmakers to Visit Washington Over Dokdo Issue," says that a bipartisan group of South Korean legislators are going to Washington to "make sure that the incoming Barack Obama administration clearly acknowledges Dokdo as South Korea's land."
With all the economic problems facing Korea, the US, and the rest of the world, why would a group of Korean politicians be wasting time and money to go to the US to talk about a small group of desolate rocks in the the middle of the Sea of Japan instead of more important, pressing issues?
Korea already knows that the United States does not want to get involved in the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute. Also, why would Korea want to refocus world attention on Dokdo, given that Korea's historical claims to the islets are just a bunch of lies?
Besides getting a free vacation to the United States, the only other possible explanation I can think of for these politicians going to Washington to talk about Dokdo is that they are mentally challenged.
A November 20, Yonhap News article entitled, "S. Korean Lawmakers to Visit Washington Over Dokdo Issue," says that a bipartisan group of South Korean legislators are going to Washington to "make sure that the incoming Barack Obama administration clearly acknowledges Dokdo as South Korea's land."
With all the economic problems facing Korea, the US, and the rest of the world, why would a group of Korean politicians be wasting time and money to go to the US to talk about a small group of desolate rocks in the the middle of the Sea of Japan instead of more important, pressing issues?
Korea already knows that the United States does not want to get involved in the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute. Also, why would Korea want to refocus world attention on Dokdo, given that Korea's historical claims to the islets are just a bunch of lies?
Besides getting a free vacation to the United States, the only other possible explanation I can think of for these politicians going to Washington to talk about Dokdo is that they are mentally challenged.
19.11.08
1906 - Feb 20 & April 17 - "Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1" - Korean government protested about land transaction in 竹邊浦
Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not protesting about the island against Japan in 1906.
To follow is the official documents of the Imperial Korea's Ministry of Internal Affairs (大韓帝国議政府内部) in 1906 which recorded the exchanges among Korean central governmental officials, local officers, Japanese merchant and Japanese Resident-General. Imperial Korean government ordered the local government to investigate the situation when they received the report that a Japanese came to apply the official certification for the site after Japanese Navy removed watchtower that they built in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast, Uljin County, Gangwon Province. The nearest village on peninsula from Ulleungdo, which locates just opposite Ulleungdo. Then they sent official inquiry to protest the "land grab" against Japanese Governor General. As a result, they succeeded in preventing Japanese from gaining Korean land as illegal land transaction of the Korean land.
Famous Dokdo evangelist Prof. Shin also confirms this.
Korean side, including Prof. Shin claims that Korean "couldn't protest" against Japanese in 1906 when they finally realized the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo into Shimane by Japan, not that they "didn't protest", on the grounds Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty on Nov. 17, 1905 practically deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty. However, these Korean official documents revealed the fact that their claim is totally baseless. As their own documents shows, not only Korean did have a right to protest against Japan, but also they had actually succeeded in preventing Japanese from grabbing(!?) the land in Jukbyeon coast. On the contrary, they didn't even inquire of Japanese Resident-General, not to mention protest, for Takeshima/Dokdo case. Consequently, by the international law, it is naturally regarded that Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not expressing protest against Japan, even though they diplomatically protested for this other similar territorial case during the same period of time. In other word, Japanese government's claim to the title of Takeshima was unchallenged by the government of Korea in 1906. Thus, Japanese sovereignty was legally established internationally at this point.
Professor Shin seems to ignore this important fact intentionally.
Why they didn't protest for Dokdo, which, according to Ulleungdo magistrate, belongs to the county, while they did protest for Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast?
The two cases shares three points in common. 1. Territorial Dispute (between Japan) , 2. Officials in Charge(朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) 3. Period (Jan-May 1906).
As I showed above, in Takeshima case, when Korean central government finally received the report from Gangwon Province governor and Chunchon county magistrate Lee Myung-rae(江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來), who originally received the report about "Dokdo", which locates 40km(!?) away from Ulleungdo, becoming Japanese territory from the county magistrate Shim Heung-taek(沈興沢), Minister of Interior Lee Jee-yong（内部大臣 李址鎔) and Prime Minister Bak Che-soon (議政府参政大臣・朴齋純） ordered governor Lee to investigate the "circumstances of the island in concern and the activity of Japanese on the island" by the "Directive no. III (指令第三号)" on 28 May. But there are absolutely no documents which tells us how governor Lee reported back or central government reacted, went public so far. There were even some Korean newspaper, which reported about Shim's report (大韓毎日申報, 1 May & 皇城新聞, 9 May ), though still wrongfully explaining that Japanese delegation came to investigate the population on "Dokdo" which is actually uninhabitable barren rock, but still, government didn't take any further action. Though we are not perfectly sure if Korean government intentionally hide those documents or there are no such documents in the first place. However, considering the contents of all the Korean official documents available, it is natural to conclude that Korean Imperial government must have had received the report from local officer that the island "独島(Dokdo)" in concern was found not to be Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", a neighbouring island of Ulleungdo, but actually the Liancourt Rocks/Japanese "Takeshima(竹島)" which happen to share same Chinese letter with Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", or they simply realized that it was Shim's mistake reporting Dokdo, which apparently locates "outside" of Uldo County, belonged to the County. In consequence, they didn't made even inquiry nor protest against Japan.
It is extremely hard to think of any other reason why those three officials (朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) didn't even make inquiry to the Japanese Resident-General just like exactly the same trio did in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast case around the same period.
Actually, many Korean documents firmly support this. For example, the Korean newspaper, "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新聞) reported the article "Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County" on 13 July, which is only a month and a half later the "Directive no. III " was issued on 28 May. In the article, it says that when the Japanese Resident-General inqired the Korean Ministry of Interior about Ulleungdo Jurisdiction, Korean ministry officially replied the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri, which omit Dokdo from Uldo County . In addition, in September 26 edition, the same newspaper reported that the Uldo County magistrate had previously conducted a survey, starting the year of 1906, in accordance with an order from the Ministry of Interior, to determine boundaries and position of "the county," not the island. This implies Korean government did acknowledged the "boundaries of Uldo County" by the survey and must have realized Dokdo was totally outside of "Uldo County." On top of that, just like Japanese textbooks, all the Korean Geography textbooks define the eastern limit of Korea/Joseon as 130°35′～58′ Ｅ, excluding Takeshima/Dokdo which locates 131°55′ E.
Vaild Japanese Incorporation in terms of the International Law
As for Japanese incorporation of Takeshima, all the preocedures were done legitimately. Having received a request for incorporation by Yozaburo Nakai(中井養三郎) in September 1904, the government of Japan confirmed that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries, while there were Japanese civilian's hut for economical activity, there is no problem in bringing Takeshima under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch and that "Takeshima" is the appropriate name for the islands. With this confirmation, the government, in January 1905, through the Cabinet decision, stipulated that the islands came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, and that the islands were officially named as "Takeshima." This decision was conveyed to the Governor of Shimane Prefecture by the Minister for Home Affairs. Based on the Cabinet Decision and the Ministerial Instruction from the Minister for Home Affairs, the Governor of Shimane Prefecture published in February 1905 that Takeshima was officially named as "Takeshima" and that it came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch. He also informed the Okinoshima branch to this effect. These measures were carried in the newspapers of the day and were broadly publicized.Based on the Cabinet Decision stipulating that Takeshima came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, the governor registered Takeshima into the State Land Register, and established a license system for sea lion hunting. The hunting of sea lions continued from then until 1941. (See Japanese MOFA site. ) Those official procedures by Japan were considered to be the evidences for the display of sovereignty by Japan according to International Law. On the contrary, there are absolutely no trace of Korean display of sovereignty until 1950s.
Right after the incorporation, the Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks became famous since it located in the middle of the Japan Naval Battle and its name, sometimes with accurate maps, was printed and flying around in many media like official gazette(官報), newspaper（東京朝日新聞） and journals（日露戦争実記） all over Japan and even in Korea（皇城新聞） in 1905. Official gazette even corrected the name Liancourt Rocks to Takeshima. Since there were many Korean residents in Japan, especially Tokyo, plus Korean newspaper did reported "Angohu-to", there were plenty of chances for Korean to see "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese island. It is highly unlikely that Korean couldn't protest in 1905, when they still kept diplomacy, because they didn't realized this "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese territory. In fact, there are no single Korean documents which support they had any recognition of their sovereignty. Besides, even after they were told this by Shimane delegation and received the county magistrate's report in 1906, Korean government didn't even make inquiry to Japan about this issue as I show on this post. It is apparent Korean government then had no idea what this "Dokdo" island is nor had any recognition of Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory.
The documents were found by GTOMR and translated by matsu, with a great help of chaamiey and 小嶋日向守. Thank you, guys!! Beautiful collaboration. Love you all. And if you find the original document of those, please let us know where they are.
Inquiry No.3
Feb. 26, 1906
(From) Lee Jee-yong (李址鎔), the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(To) Sir Park Che-soon (朴齊純), Prime Minister (議政府參政大臣)
(Lee) received the "Report no.16" from Lee Myeong-rae(李明來), a governor of Gangwon-do and a magistrate of Chunchon(春川) county. The contents of the report as follows.
13th last month (January), I received a report from Yu(尹宇榮), a Uljin County Magistrate. It says that Japanese Navy had already retreated from the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon, Jukbyeon coast in Uljin(蔚珍), but this time, a Japanese merchant named "Kohga(高賀)" visited the Magistrate of Uljin on 27th December(**). He said "I bought watchtower in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast and its land from the administrator of watchtower. So I want Uljin Magistrate issue the official paper to approve my property." As a magistrate, I cannot process this by my own decision, so I report this to you."
(A commander of Kangwondo) ordered (Uljin magistrate) to swiftly investigate and report in detail the address, name and on what day, what month and at how much this "Kohga" man bought the land, as well as the name and the address of the administrator of the watchtower.
The magistrate of Uljin reported "By receiving the order, I summoned Kohga and inquired him more precisely. And he said "My address is ××××, 三養基郡○○○, Saga prefecture, Japan. And my family name is Saga(佐賀) and my first name is Mataji (Matatsugu?). A family name of the administrator of the watchtower is Takahashi and his first name is Kiyosige. He currently stations at Naval base in Sasebo, but I'm not sure where his real address is. I bought the watchtower at the price of 180 yen when Japanese Navy retreated in October, last year (1905). But I didn't buy the land itself. But it is common practice that the land usually belongs to the owner of the property on it. So I offered the previous owner that I'd like to buy the land as well. (Or I'd like to buy the land as I'd told him before.)"
(Lee Myeong-ｒae or Lee Jee-yong) investigated more precisely, and see this Japanese merchant Kohga's buying it from administrator Takahashi Kiyoshige privately, even after Japanese Navy who stationed the watchtower for military purpose and had already retreated, is like a bandit's illegal activity and this is unreasonable. So I report this to you. " I (Lee Jee-yong ) hope you to look into this matter, negotiate swiftly (with Japan), let them to ban right away and specify the deal.
From Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit, to Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
Feb. 26, 1906
Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1, Dates Apr. 17, 1906
Subject : Inquiry about selling watchtower and attached building in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast in Uljin County to Japanese
Government Inquiry No.56 to the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Apr. 17, 1906
(From) Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
(To) Lee Jee-yong, the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(Approved by) Prime Minister, (參贊), Chief of secretary section, Chief of document section, Prime Minister, Chief of bureau, Chief of inquiry, First Chief
Receiving Inquiry no.3 from Sir Lee, I sent a letter to Japanese Resident General, concerning a case of prohibiting illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon Jukbyeon coast in Uljin by Japanese, and received the reply document. To follow is what was written in the document from them.
"We received "Inquiry no. 13", concerning selling watchtower in Jukbyeon coast in Uljin County and based on the inquiry, we sent documents to Naval Base in Sasebo in order to investigate the situation. The report says "The building and structures used for watchtower was determined to be transferred to the buyer after receiving the payment and it was sold to Koga(古賀) Mataji from Saga prefecture. The payment had been collected on 27th of December, last year. However, the site was never sold." (We) would reply (to your "Inquiry no.13") in this way, hoping you would understand the situation."
As we have received Japanese answer such, so please do refer this.
(From) Park Che-soon, Prime Minister (to) Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
Apr. 17, 1906
References:
1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)＊＊It shows Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting （公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定）
1905 - Feb 24 - Takeshima Incorporated into Shimane Prefecture (山陰新報 "隠岐の新島")
1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"1905 - June 2 - 皇城新聞 : Korean called "Liancourt Rocks(リアンコルド岩)" as "Angohu島", not "Dokdo", Seokdo nor Usando.
1905 - June 3 - Japanese Magazine ”The True Record of Russo-Japanese War (日露戦争実記")
1905 - June 5 - Tokyo Asahi Shimbun Corrected "Liancourt Rocks" as "Takeshima"
1905 - Jul 3 - "Postcards to Commemorate Naval Battle" (山陰新報 " 海戦記念絵葉書")
1905 - Aug 6 - Japanese Officials to Visit Takeshima (山陰新報 "竹島渡航")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Governor Matsunaga Inspects Takeshima" (山陰新報 "松永知事の竹島視察")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Sea Pigs" Near Takeshima (山陰新報 "県庁内に海豚放養")
1906 - Mar 11 - "Voyage to Takeshima Decided" (山陰新報 "竹島行決定")
1906 - July - Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County (皇城新聞 「鬱島郡의 配置顛末」)
Korean Eastern limits described in various books world wide exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory
The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1
To follow is the official documents of the Imperial Korea's Ministry of Internal Affairs (大韓帝国議政府内部) in 1906 which recorded the exchanges among Korean central governmental officials, local officers, Japanese merchant and Japanese Resident-General. Imperial Korean government ordered the local government to investigate the situation when they received the report that a Japanese came to apply the official certification for the site after Japanese Navy removed watchtower that they built in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast, Uljin County, Gangwon Province. The nearest village on peninsula from Ulleungdo, which locates just opposite Ulleungdo. Then they sent official inquiry to protest the "land grab" against Japanese Governor General. As a result, they succeeded in preventing Japanese from gaining Korean land as illegal land transaction of the Korean land.
Famous Dokdo evangelist Prof. Shin also confirms this.
Right after the end of Russo-Japanese War, the chief of the watchtower and a Japanese merchant "conspired" to try to "snatch" the land when Imperial Japan took away the watchtower built in Jukbyeon coast, Uljin, Kangwon-to. Over the period of 6 months of dispute and negotiation, those efforts by Korean Imperial government succeeded to prevent this （Shin Yong-ha (1997)）.
Korean side, including Prof. Shin claims that Korean "couldn't protest" against Japanese in 1906 when they finally realized the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo into Shimane by Japan, not that they "didn't protest", on the grounds Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty on Nov. 17, 1905 practically deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty. However, these Korean official documents revealed the fact that their claim is totally baseless. As their own documents shows, not only Korean did have a right to protest against Japan, but also they had actually succeeded in preventing Japanese from grabbing(!?) the land in Jukbyeon coast. On the contrary, they didn't even inquire of Japanese Resident-General, not to mention protest, for Takeshima/Dokdo case. Consequently, by the international law, it is naturally regarded that Korean Imperial government officially acquiesced the Japan's sovereignty over Takeshima/Dokdo by not expressing protest against Japan, even though they diplomatically protested for this other similar territorial case during the same period of time. In other word, Japanese government's claim to the title of Takeshima was unchallenged by the government of Korea in 1906. Thus, Japanese sovereignty was legally established internationally at this point.
Professor Shin seems to ignore this important fact intentionally.
Why they didn't protest for Dokdo, which, according to Ulleungdo magistrate, belongs to the county, while they did protest for Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast?
The two cases shares three points in common. 1. Territorial Dispute (between Japan) , 2. Officials in Charge(朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) 3. Period (Jan-May 1906).
As I showed above, in Takeshima case, when Korean central government finally received the report from Gangwon Province governor and Chunchon county magistrate Lee Myung-rae(江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來), who originally received the report about "Dokdo", which locates 40km(!?) away from Ulleungdo, becoming Japanese territory from the county magistrate Shim Heung-taek(沈興沢), Minister of Interior Lee Jee-yong（内部大臣 李址鎔) and Prime Minister Bak Che-soon (議政府参政大臣・朴齋純） ordered governor Lee to investigate the "circumstances of the island in concern and the activity of Japanese on the island" by the "Directive no. III (指令第三号)" on 28 May. But there are absolutely no documents which tells us how governor Lee reported back or central government reacted, went public so far. There were even some Korean newspaper, which reported about Shim's report (大韓毎日申報, 1 May & 皇城新聞, 9 May ), though still wrongfully explaining that Japanese delegation came to investigate the population on "Dokdo" which is actually uninhabitable barren rock, but still, government didn't take any further action. Though we are not perfectly sure if Korean government intentionally hide those documents or there are no such documents in the first place. However, considering the contents of all the Korean official documents available, it is natural to conclude that Korean Imperial government must have had received the report from local officer that the island "独島(Dokdo)" in concern was found not to be Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", a neighbouring island of Ulleungdo, but actually the Liancourt Rocks/Japanese "Takeshima(竹島)" which happen to share same Chinese letter with Korean "Jukdo(竹島)", or they simply realized that it was Shim's mistake reporting Dokdo, which apparently locates "outside" of Uldo County, belonged to the County. In consequence, they didn't made even inquiry nor protest against Japan.
It is extremely hard to think of any other reason why those three officials (朴齋純 & 李址鎔 & 李明來) didn't even make inquiry to the Japanese Resident-General just like exactly the same trio did in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast case around the same period.
Actually, many Korean documents firmly support this. For example, the Korean newspaper, "Hwangseong Shinmun" (皇城新聞) reported the article "Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County" on 13 July, which is only a month and a half later the "Directive no. III " was issued on 28 May. In the article, it says that when the Japanese Resident-General inqired the Korean Ministry of Interior about Ulleungdo Jurisdiction, Korean ministry officially replied the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total of 200 ri, which omit Dokdo from Uldo County . In addition, in September 26 edition, the same newspaper reported that the Uldo County magistrate had previously conducted a survey, starting the year of 1906, in accordance with an order from the Ministry of Interior, to determine boundaries and position of "the county," not the island. This implies Korean government did acknowledged the "boundaries of Uldo County" by the survey and must have realized Dokdo was totally outside of "Uldo County." On top of that, just like Japanese textbooks, all the Korean Geography textbooks define the eastern limit of Korea/Joseon as 130°35′～58′ Ｅ, excluding Takeshima/Dokdo which locates 131°55′ E.
Vaild Japanese Incorporation in terms of the International Law
As for Japanese incorporation of Takeshima, all the preocedures were done legitimately. Having received a request for incorporation by Yozaburo Nakai(中井養三郎) in September 1904, the government of Japan confirmed that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries, while there were Japanese civilian's hut for economical activity, there is no problem in bringing Takeshima under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch and that "Takeshima" is the appropriate name for the islands. With this confirmation, the government, in January 1905, through the Cabinet decision, stipulated that the islands came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, and that the islands were officially named as "Takeshima." This decision was conveyed to the Governor of Shimane Prefecture by the Minister for Home Affairs. Based on the Cabinet Decision and the Ministerial Instruction from the Minister for Home Affairs, the Governor of Shimane Prefecture published in February 1905 that Takeshima was officially named as "Takeshima" and that it came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch. He also informed the Okinoshima branch to this effect. These measures were carried in the newspapers of the day and were broadly publicized.Based on the Cabinet Decision stipulating that Takeshima came under the jurisdiction of the Okinoshima branch of Shimane Prefectural Government, the governor registered Takeshima into the State Land Register, and established a license system for sea lion hunting. The hunting of sea lions continued from then until 1941. (See Japanese MOFA site. ) Those official procedures by Japan were considered to be the evidences for the display of sovereignty by Japan according to International Law. On the contrary, there are absolutely no trace of Korean display of sovereignty until 1950s.
Right after the incorporation, the Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks became famous since it located in the middle of the Japan Naval Battle and its name, sometimes with accurate maps, was printed and flying around in many media like official gazette(官報), newspaper（東京朝日新聞） and journals（日露戦争実記） all over Japan and even in Korea（皇城新聞） in 1905. Official gazette even corrected the name Liancourt Rocks to Takeshima. Since there were many Korean residents in Japan, especially Tokyo, plus Korean newspaper did reported "Angohu-to", there were plenty of chances for Korean to see "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese island. It is highly unlikely that Korean couldn't protest in 1905, when they still kept diplomacy, because they didn't realized this "Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima" became Japanese territory. In fact, there are no single Korean documents which support they had any recognition of their sovereignty. Besides, even after they were told this by Shimane delegation and received the county magistrate's report in 1906, Korean government didn't even make inquiry to Japan about this issue as I show on this post. It is apparent Korean government then had no idea what this "Dokdo" island is nor had any recognition of Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory.
The documents were found by GTOMR and translated by matsu, with a great help of chaamiey and 小嶋日向守. Thank you, guys!! Beautiful collaboration. Love you all. And if you find the original document of those, please let us know where they are.
Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1, Dates Feb. 26, 1906
Subject : To prohibit the illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon(近北面) Jukbyeon coast (竹邊浦) in Uljin(蔚珍) by Japanese
Subject : To prohibit the illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon(近北面) Jukbyeon coast (竹邊浦) in Uljin(蔚珍) by Japanese
Inquiry No.3
Feb. 26, 1906
(From) Lee Jee-yong (李址鎔), the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(To) Sir Park Che-soon (朴齊純), Prime Minister (議政府參政大臣)
(Lee) received the "Report no.16" from Lee Myeong-rae(李明來), a governor of Gangwon-do and a magistrate of Chunchon(春川) county. The contents of the report as follows.
13th last month (January), I received a report from Yu(尹宇榮), a Uljin County Magistrate. It says that Japanese Navy had already retreated from the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon, Jukbyeon coast in Uljin(蔚珍), but this time, a Japanese merchant named "Kohga(高賀)" visited the Magistrate of Uljin on 27th December(**). He said "I bought watchtower in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast and its land from the administrator of watchtower. So I want Uljin Magistrate issue the official paper to approve my property." As a magistrate, I cannot process this by my own decision, so I report this to you."
(A commander of Kangwondo) ordered (Uljin magistrate) to swiftly investigate and report in detail the address, name and on what day, what month and at how much this "Kohga" man bought the land, as well as the name and the address of the administrator of the watchtower.
The magistrate of Uljin reported "By receiving the order, I summoned Kohga and inquired him more precisely. And he said "My address is ××××, 三養基郡○○○, Saga prefecture, Japan. And my family name is Saga(佐賀) and my first name is Mataji (Matatsugu?). A family name of the administrator of the watchtower is Takahashi and his first name is Kiyosige. He currently stations at Naval base in Sasebo, but I'm not sure where his real address is. I bought the watchtower at the price of 180 yen when Japanese Navy retreated in October, last year (1905). But I didn't buy the land itself. But it is common practice that the land usually belongs to the owner of the property on it. So I offered the previous owner that I'd like to buy the land as well. (Or I'd like to buy the land as I'd told him before.)"
(Lee Myeong-ｒae or Lee Jee-yong) investigated more precisely, and see this Japanese merchant Kohga's buying it from administrator Takahashi Kiyoshige privately, even after Japanese Navy who stationed the watchtower for military purpose and had already retreated, is like a bandit's illegal activity and this is unreasonable. So I report this to you. " I (Lee Jee-yong ) hope you to look into this matter, negotiate swiftly (with Japan), let them to ban right away and specify the deal.
From Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit, to Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
Feb. 26, 1906
Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1, Dates Apr. 17, 1906
Subject : Inquiry about selling watchtower and attached building in Jukbyeon(竹邊) coast in Uljin County to Japanese
Government Inquiry No.56 to the Ministry of Internal Affairs
Apr. 17, 1906
(From) Sir Park Che-soon, Prime Minister
(To) Lee Jee-yong, the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
(Approved by) Prime Minister, (參贊), Chief of secretary section, Chief of document section, Prime Minister, Chief of bureau, Chief of inquiry, First Chief
Receiving Inquiry no.3 from Sir Lee, I sent a letter to Japanese Resident General, concerning a case of prohibiting illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Geunnbuk-myeon Jukbyeon coast in Uljin by Japanese, and received the reply document. To follow is what was written in the document from them.
"We received "Inquiry no. 13", concerning selling watchtower in Jukbyeon coast in Uljin County and based on the inquiry, we sent documents to Naval Base in Sasebo in order to investigate the situation. The report says "The building and structures used for watchtower was determined to be transferred to the buyer after receiving the payment and it was sold to Koga(古賀) Mataji from Saga prefecture. The payment had been collected on 27th of December, last year. However, the site was never sold." (We) would reply (to your "Inquiry no.13") in this way, hoping you would understand the situation."
As we have received Japanese answer such, so please do refer this.
(From) Park Che-soon, Prime Minister (to) Lee Jee-yong , the Minister of Interiors and the First Order of Merit
Apr. 17, 1906
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
内部來去案 第1冊 光武10年2月26日條
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것
（文書番号）照會 第三號
（発送日）光武十年二月二十六日（１９０６年０２月２６日）
（発送者）內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
（受信者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
現接 江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來의 第十六號報告書內開
頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓 留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온바
今陰曆十二月二十七日 日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰
竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라하온바
郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이하기
高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을
幷即詳探報來하야 以爲轉報케는事로 指飭以送이더니
即接該郡守報告 內開
即到指令를 承準하와 招致高賀 詳問事狀인즉
自己는 日本佐賀縣三養基郡○○○××××番戶(*) 而姓은佐賀오名은亦次오
望樓長은 高橋오 名은淸重이오 居住는日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址는 不知이온바
上年十月日 駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地는 不爲買賣이온니
基址之隨家는意有常例하야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다故로 緣由報告等因을
據査하온즉
蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온바
今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라
萬不近理이하기
玆以仰佈하오니 査照하신 후 迅辦交涉하시와 即行禁止케하시고 示明하시믈 爲要.
內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
光武十年二月二十六日
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것
（文書番号）照會 第三號
（発送日）光武十年二月二十六日（１９０６年０２月２６日）
（発送者）內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
（受信者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
現接 江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來의 第十六號報告書內開
頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓 留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온바
今陰曆十二月二十七日 日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰
竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라하온바
郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이하기
高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을
幷即詳探報來하야 以爲轉報케는事로 指飭以送이더니
即接該郡守報告 內開
即到指令를 承準하와 招致高賀 詳問事狀인즉
自己는 日本佐賀縣三養基郡○○○××××番戶(*) 而姓은佐賀오名은亦次오
望樓長은 高橋오 名은淸重이오 居住는日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址는 不知이온바
上年十月日 駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地는 不爲買賣이온니
基址之隨家는意有常例하야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다故로 緣由報告等因을
據査하온즉
蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온바
今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라
萬不近理이하기
玆以仰佈하오니 査照하신 후 迅辦交涉하시와 即行禁止케하시고 示明하시믈 爲要.
內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
光武十年二月二十六日
內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部(1906.04.17)
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회
（文書番号）議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
（発送日）光武十年四月十七日（１９０６年０４月１７日）
（発送者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
（受信者）內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
（決裁者）議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
貴第三號 照會는接到하와
以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在 望樓與地段 私相賣買禁止一事로
準即行文 日本統監□하고 業經照覆在案이온바
現樓該統監照覆內開
去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉
準即行文 我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開
該望樓所用建物及營造物 以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次
去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却等因
準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이하기
玆에 照會하오니 照亮하심을 爲要．
議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
光武十年四月十七日
(note)
* The original document specify the address.
** The original document wrote it was lunar calender 27 Dec., which is solar calender 21 Jan. But it contradicts the day Uljin Magistrate reported to Gangwondo commander, so I considered it was mistake and translated as simply "27 Dec."
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회
（文書番号）議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
（発送日）光武十年四月十七日（１９０６年０４月１７日）
（発送者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
（受信者）內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
（決裁者）議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
貴第三號 照會는接到하와
以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在 望樓與地段 私相賣買禁止一事로
準即行文 日本統監□하고 業經照覆在案이온바
現樓該統監照覆內開
去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉
準即行文 我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開
該望樓所用建物及營造物 以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次
去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却等因
準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이하기
玆에 照會하오니 照亮하심을 爲要．
議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
光武十年四月十七日
(note)
* The original document specify the address.
** The original document wrote it was lunar calender 27 Dec., which is solar calender 21 Jan. But it contradicts the day Uljin Magistrate reported to Gangwondo commander, so I considered it was mistake and translated as simply "27 Dec."
References:
1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)＊＊It shows Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting （公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定）
1905 - Feb 24 - Takeshima Incorporated into Shimane Prefecture (山陰新報 "隠岐の新島")
1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"1905 - June 2 - 皇城新聞 : Korean called "Liancourt Rocks(リアンコルド岩)" as "Angohu島", not "Dokdo", Seokdo nor Usando.
1905 - June 3 - Japanese Magazine ”The True Record of Russo-Japanese War (日露戦争実記")
1905 - June 5 - Tokyo Asahi Shimbun Corrected "Liancourt Rocks" as "Takeshima"
1905 - Jul 3 - "Postcards to Commemorate Naval Battle" (山陰新報 " 海戦記念絵葉書")
1905 - Aug 6 - Japanese Officials to Visit Takeshima (山陰新報 "竹島渡航")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Governor Matsunaga Inspects Takeshima" (山陰新報 "松永知事の竹島視察")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Sea Pigs" Near Takeshima (山陰新報 "県庁内に海豚放養")
1906 - Mar 11 - "Voyage to Takeshima Decided" (山陰新報 "竹島行決定")
1906 - July - Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County (皇城新聞 「鬱島郡의 配置顛末」)
Korean Eastern limits described in various books world wide exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory
The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1
18.11.08
1900 The Times Map : map of China (East) and Korea
The Times Atlas (1900) gave us the most accurate map of Japan.Here is the map of China (East) and Korea from the same 1900 version of the Times Atlas, which contained 132 pages of maps (comprising 196 maps). It was published by The Office of "The Times", Printing House Square, London and was literally one of the most reliable atlas at the time.
....
...
You can see an island in the Sea of Japan off the Korean peninsula - "Matsu Shima" which is definitely today's Ulleungdo but Liancourt Rocks were not depicted in the map.
It is natural because the rocks were depicted in Japanese map (see above). One of the most dignified maps recognised that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea, as Korean eastern limit was believed to be Ulleungdo.
(Click the left map to enlarge)
....
....
Addendum: Broughton Bay is labelled as "Broughton B."
1897 Bacon's Popular Atlas of the World: Map of Japan and Korea
This is a map of "JAPAN AND KOREA" from Bacon's Popular Atlas of the World, which was published in London in 1897.There are islands labelled as "Argonaut I.", "Dagelet I.", "Hornet In." and "Oki Shima" in the Japan Sea. Argonaut island was drawn in a broken line, which may indicate that it was a phantom island. The most noteworthy point in this map is a national border, a pink coloured broken line - it runs between Argonaut island and Dagelet island (Ulleungdo), so the map shows that Ulleungdo (Dagelet I.) and Liancourt Rocks (Hornet In.) were Japanese territory.
.................
.................
Of course it was a mistake - Ulleungdo was Korean territory. However, the reason why the same mistake was repeatedly adopted in western maps is quite simple. They thought Argonaut island was Take island (or Taka island) and Dagelet island was Matsu island as many western maps show. And it may have been transmitted to western mapmakers that Take island (Takeshima) was given back to Korea in the late 17th century and Matsu island (Matsushima) remained in Japan. So they may have kept publishing maps that show Argonaut island (Take island) was Korean territory while Dagelet island (Matsu island) was Japanese territory.Most importantly, this problem is about Ulleungdo, not about Liancourt Rocks. Nobody thought that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea. It seems that it was a kind of a common sense in those days.
This map may be expressed in Kaneganese's method as follows:
○ 1897 British map of Japan (Popular Atlas) Three isalnds. National border between Argonaut and Dagelet.
Addendum:
Broughton Bay is labelled as "BROUGHTON BAY OR GULF OF KOREA".
16.11.08
The Territorial Recognitions which Western Maps of Japan Show for Takeshima/Liancour Rocks between 1880-1905 : Ver.1
There is no single western maps of Japan(1880-1905) which shows Liancourt Rocks = Korean.
I checked all the western-made Japanese maps between 1880-1905 posted on this blog and the results were extremely interesting. Although there were some maps which still show non-existant Argonaut, more than half (14 out of 26) of them show both Uleungdo and Takeshima to be Japanese territory. One (The Times Map (1900), Left) shows Matsushima(Ulleungdo) to be Korean, and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese, which seems to be the most accurate map of that time. One shows Ulleungdo to be Japanese , but Liancourt Rocks are left to be uncoloured. The rest of them (10 out of 26) shows both islands to be uncoloured or unidentified, in other words, those are shown to be no man's land. In conclusion, it is safe to say that western countries(Britain, U.S.A., Canada and German) commonly considered Liancourt Rocks to be most likely Japanese territory around 1900.
We've already shown that there are absolutely no map of Korea which shows Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks (ex. R. Hausermann's Map of Korea(1880) , (1865?) (Corée)), nor no single documents which shows Korean territory extend to the Eastern longitude of today's Takeshima before 1905, theyear Japan incorporated it into Shimane. In addition to those, fromthe results, it is more apparent that there was a common sence worldwide that Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was not Korean territory, but most likely to be Japan's between 1880-1905. From those maps, it is illogical for Korean to claim Seokdo(石島) in Imperial Ordinance no.41 in 1900 to be today's Takeshima. If Korean really wants today's Takeshima to be Seokdo, they should have had identfied the location of this unknown/unidenrifiable island with more accurate expression plus they should have had notified Japan as long as many Japanese/Western maps and documents depict Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. Or they should have protested or at least made inquiry to Japanese Governor-General when they got to know that Takeshima became Japanese territory in 1906, but the fact is, Imperial Korean government officialy answered to Governor-General that Takeshima was out of Uldo County in return when Japanese made official inqury about the area of Uldo County after Korean media wrongfully reported "Dokdo" which locate 100ris(40km) from Ulleungdo (!?) was
their territory.
Japanese government incorporated Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks into Shimane prefercure in 1905, because 1. there were no traces of occupation by any other countries 2. there were petition to incorporate by Japanese civilian who have been engaged in economical activity on the island for the last few years. Considering the facts that there were no single documents/maps which show Korean had any territorial recognition or control on the island, nor western countries had any recognition it to be Korean's, but most likely to be Japanese, it was very reasonable and law-abiding for Japanese government incorporated it into Shimane, Japan.
Moreover, even though there are many Japanese/Western maps which show even Ulleungdo(Matsushima/Dagelet) to be Japanese territory either, Japanese Meiji government incorporated Takeshima alone, but left Ulleungdo untouched. Actually, Ulleungdo, where many Japanese were already resided on and had history they had been occupied in 1600s, were much more valuable both economically and strategically. Japanese government had every single chance to "snatch" Ulleungdo from Korea, but they didn't since they knew it was Korean though many western maps and documents says it is Japan's, too. This fact clearly shows Japanese government were no "aggressive for snatching Koeran territory" at all, but only followed international law for incorporating Takeshima, which had no trace of occupation by any other countries including Korea, alone, unlike Korean government claims.
I checked all the western-made Japanese maps between 1880-1905 posted on this blog and the results were extremely interesting. Although there were some maps which still show non-existant Argonaut, more than half (14 out of 26) of them show both Uleungdo and Takeshima to be Japanese territory. One (The Times Map (1900), Left) shows Matsushima(Ulleungdo) to be Korean, and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese, which seems to be the most accurate map of that time. One shows Ulleungdo to be Japanese , but Liancourt Rocks are left to be uncoloured. The rest of them (10 out of 26) shows both islands to be uncoloured or unidentified, in other words, those are shown to be no man's land. In conclusion, it is safe to say that western countries(Britain, U.S.A., Canada and German) commonly considered Liancourt Rocks to be most likely Japanese territory around 1900.○ 1880 - German Map of Japan from Adolf Stieler's Hand Atlas 7th Edition （National Border between Ulleungdo and Choson）＊
○ 1888 - British map of Japan and Corea (no Liancourt Rocks, but the borderline indicated that Dagelet island was Japan's territory)＊
○ 1891 - German Map "Ost-China, Korea und Japan" ( Stieler, Adolf; Gotha; Justus Perthes)＊
○ 1891 - American map of Japan (People’s Publishing Co. in Chicago)
△ 1891 - American map of Japan (International Cyclopaedia)Taka, Matsu and Liancourt Rocks
○ 1892 - German Map of ”China und Japan” （"Meyers Kleiner Handatlas," Leipzig）＊
○ 1893 - Ｇｅｒｍａｎ Ｍap ”Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan”
○ 1894 - British map of Japan (Edward Stanford, Charing Cross, London) ＊ Three islands
○ 1894 - American map of Japan (Cram Universal)
○ 1894 - British map of Japan and Korea (Popular Atlas of The World)＊ Three islands, with National border between Argonaut & Dagelet
○ 1894 - German map of "JAPAN UND KOREA" ( Leipzig, Germany)＊
○ 1894-1895 - Ｂｒｉｔｉｓｈ Ｍap of Corea and Ｍap of Islands of Japan (W. & A. K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London)
○ 1897 - German map of ”Japan Und Korea”) (Leipzig, Germany）
○ 1897 - German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN"＊ no colour but national border between Choson and Matsushima(Dagelet)
○ 1897 - American map of Japan and Korea (The Century Atlas)＊Three islands
○ 1898 - British Map "Japan Islands" (London, James Imray and Son )
○ 1898 - American Map "Empires of China, Japan and Korea" (Chicago: J. Martin Miller)
○ 1899 - American map of Japan and 1894 Japanese map of Korea (Map of Japan : George F. Cram of Chicago)
○ 1899 - American Map of Japan (George F. Cram of Chicago) ＊Three islands
◎ 1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)＊＊
○ 1902 - German map of "Japan und Korea" ＊
○ 1903 - German Map of Japan which was owned by German Embassy ＊
○ 1904 - Canadian Business Map of Japan ( Rand McNally Business Atlas)＊
○ 1904 - American Map "The Seat of the Japan-Russian War" (Geo.F.Cram, Chicago) ＊
○ 1904 - British Map of "Eastern China, Japan and Korea" (Edward Stanford, London) Three islands
○ 1904 - American Map of Japan, Korea & Manchuria (C.S. Hammond & Co., New York) Three islands
○ 1904 - German map of Japa "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas" ( Velhagen & Klasing, Leipzig)
◎ Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese → 1/27
○ Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Japanese → 15/27
△ Ulleungdo = Japanese , Liancourt Rocks = Undecided → 1/27
○ Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Undecided → 10/27
Liancourt Rocks = Korean → NONE
○ 1888 - British map of Japan and Corea (no Liancourt Rocks, but the borderline indicated that Dagelet island was Japan's territory)＊
○ 1891 - German Map "Ost-China, Korea und Japan" ( Stieler, Adolf; Gotha; Justus Perthes)＊
○ 1891 - American map of Japan (People’s Publishing Co. in Chicago)
△ 1891 - American map of Japan (International Cyclopaedia)Taka, Matsu and Liancourt Rocks
○ 1892 - German Map of ”China und Japan” （"Meyers Kleiner Handatlas," Leipzig）＊
○ 1893 - Ｇｅｒｍａｎ Ｍap ”Ubersichtskarte von China und Japan”
○ 1894 - British map of Japan (Edward Stanford, Charing Cross, London) ＊ Three islands
○ 1894 - American map of Japan (Cram Universal)
○ 1894 - British map of Japan and Korea (Popular Atlas of The World)＊ Three islands, with National border between Argonaut & Dagelet
○ 1894 - German map of "JAPAN UND KOREA" ( Leipzig, Germany)＊
○ 1894-1895 - Ｂｒｉｔｉｓｈ Ｍap of Corea and Ｍap of Islands of Japan (W. & A. K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London)
○ 1897 - German map of ”Japan Und Korea”) (Leipzig, Germany）
○ 1897 - German map "CHINA, KOREA UND JAPAN"＊ no colour but national border between Choson and Matsushima(Dagelet)
○ 1897 - American map of Japan and Korea (The Century Atlas)＊Three islands
○ 1898 - British Map "Japan Islands" (London, James Imray and Son )
○ 1898 - American Map "Empires of China, Japan and Korea" (Chicago: J. Martin Miller)
○ 1899 - American map of Japan and 1894 Japanese map of Korea (Map of Japan : George F. Cram of Chicago)
○ 1899 - American Map of Japan (George F. Cram of Chicago) ＊Three islands
◎ 1900 - The Times Map (China and Japan, Printing House, London)＊＊
○ 1902 - German map of "Japan und Korea" ＊
○ 1903 - German Map of Japan which was owned by German Embassy ＊
○ 1904 - Canadian Business Map of Japan ( Rand McNally Business Atlas)＊
○ 1904 - American Map "The Seat of the Japan-Russian War" (Geo.F.Cram, Chicago) ＊
○ 1904 - British Map of "Eastern China, Japan and Korea" (Edward Stanford, London) Three islands
○ 1904 - American Map of Japan, Korea & Manchuria (C.S. Hammond & Co., New York) Three islands
○ 1904 - German map of Japa "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas" ( Velhagen & Klasing, Leipzig)
◎ Ulleungdo = Korean , Liancourt Rocks = Japanese → 1/27
○ Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Japanese → 15/27
△ Ulleungdo = Japanese , Liancourt Rocks = Undecided → 1/27
○ Ulleungdo & Liancourt Rocks = Undecided → 10/27
Liancourt Rocks = Korean → NONE
We've already shown that there are absolutely no map of Korea which shows Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks (ex. R. Hausermann's Map of Korea(1880) , (1865?) (Corée)), nor no single documents which shows Korean territory extend to the Eastern longitude of today's Takeshima before 1905, theyear Japan incorporated it into Shimane. In addition to those, fromthe results, it is more apparent that there was a common sence worldwide that Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was not Korean territory, but most likely to be Japan's between 1880-1905. From those maps, it is illogical for Korean to claim Seokdo(石島) in Imperial Ordinance no.41 in 1900 to be today's Takeshima. If Korean really wants today's Takeshima to be Seokdo, they should have had identfied the location of this unknown/unidenrifiable island with more accurate expression plus they should have had notified Japan as long as many Japanese/Western maps and documents depict Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. Or they should have protested or at least made inquiry to Japanese Governor-General when they got to know that Takeshima became Japanese territory in 1906, but the fact is, Imperial Korean government officialy answered to Governor-General that Takeshima was out of Uldo County in return when Japanese made official inqury about the area of Uldo County after Korean media wrongfully reported "Dokdo" which locate 100ris(40km) from Ulleungdo (!?) was
their territory.
Japanese government incorporated Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks into Shimane prefercure in 1905, because 1. there were no traces of occupation by any other countries 2. there were petition to incorporate by Japanese civilian who have been engaged in economical activity on the island for the last few years. Considering the facts that there were no single documents/maps which show Korean had any territorial recognition or control on the island, nor western countries had any recognition it to be Korean's, but most likely to be Japanese, it was very reasonable and law-abiding for Japanese government incorporated it into Shimane, Japan.
Moreover, even though there are many Japanese/Western maps which show even Ulleungdo(Matsushima/Dagelet) to be Japanese territory either, Japanese Meiji government incorporated Takeshima alone, but left Ulleungdo untouched. Actually, Ulleungdo, where many Japanese were already resided on and had history they had been occupied in 1600s, were much more valuable both economically and strategically. Japanese government had every single chance to "snatch" Ulleungdo from Korea, but they didn't since they knew it was Korean though many western maps and documents says it is Japan's, too. This fact clearly shows Japanese government were no "aggressive for snatching Koeran territory" at all, but only followed international law for incorporating Takeshima, which had no trace of occupation by any other countries including Korea, alone, unlike Korean government claims.
13.11.08
1904 German map of Japan
This map is from the "Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas", published in Leipzig, Germany by Velhagen & Klasing in 1904. You can see "Matsu Schima (Dagelet)", "Liancourt R (Hornet In.)" and "Oki Schima" in the "Japanisches Meer (Japanese Sea)". Although "Liancourt R" is too small to identify the colour, "Matsu Schima" (Ulleungdo) is coloured in brown - the same as Oki Schima and Japan's mainland. It means that the mapmaker believed that Liancourt Rocks, the rocks between Ulleungdo and Oki island, were in the Japanese territory. This is another example of many western maps that deny Korea's sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks in the early 1900's...............
.............
6.11.08
The 16th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”
Below is a translation of The 16th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" "Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds”“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第16回 歴史的根拠を欠いた「独島の月」について 下條正男”
In July 4, 2005, Gyeongsangbuk-do assembly in South Korea enacted the ordinance of "Dokdo Month (October 25)" in opposition to "Takeshima Day" which Shimane prefecture assembly enacted on March 17, 2005. The ground they based on was "Imperial Ordinance No.41" dated on Oct. 25, 1900, which is 5 years earlier than Japan's incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane in 1905. Article 2 of this Ordinance determined jurisdiction of Uldo district as "whole Ulleungdo and Jukdo Seokdo", and since the pronunciation of "Seokdo" is similar to that of "Dokdo", Korean claim Dokdo was incorporated earlier than Japan. Korean side explains the reason for this speculation as in Ulleungdo, majority of immigrants were from Cholla-do and they pronounce "Dolseom(石島)" which has similarity with "Dokseom(独島)", hence this reference name by fishermen on Ulleungdo was inscribed as 石島 in the Ordinance. However, in order to claim this, they should have establish when they started to use this reference and when they started fishing on Ulleungdo by concrete evidence. If they cannot show the evidence, it simply stays as merely speculation.In fact, in his book "The Fishery Guide of Sea around Korea (韓海通漁指針) "(1903), Kuzuu Shuusuke wrote that "Korean/Japanese called the island as Yanko-to". So the former reference name of Dokdo by Korean was actually "Yanko-to", not "Seokdo/Dolseom" as Korean claim. This "Yanko-to" was started to be called as "Dokdo(独島)" around 1904. In the September 25 entry in the Japanese naval vessel Niitaka (新高丸)'s log, it was recorded that a Japanese civilian staying on Ulleungdo had personally visited Liancourt Rocks, which he said was written as "Dokdo" (獨島) by Koreans and was called "Ryanko-to" by Japanese fishermen. This is because sealion hunting on Takeshima became in full-scale around 1904 and Korean on Ulleugdo who were hired by those Japanese hunters went to Takeshima. Naturally, it is impossible that the name "Dokdo(独島)", which started to be adopted around 1904, has any influence on 1900's Ordinance and made it inscripted as "石島" at all. Thus, Korea's "Dokdo Month" has no historical grounds at all and their "Seokdo = Dokdo" theory is nothing but just an preposterous speculation after all.
This is strongly supported by the petition which was submitted by 李乾夏, a Minister of Internal Affairs of Korea, 3 days before the Ordinance NO.41 was promulgated. Since it specified Ullengdo, which later became Uldo County, has "80 ri(32km) in length and 50 ri(20km) in width" and its special products are "potatoes, barley, soybeans and wheat." In those years, major industries on Ulleungdo were agriculture and fishery were extremely as minor as harvesting seaweeds around on the shore around Ulleungdo. This is also proved by the report of inspector U Yong-jeong(禹用鼎) in June 1900, which lead Ulleungdo promoted as one of the county of Gangwon Province 4 months later. In his report "Uldo-gi(鬱島記)", U wrote that "its agricultural products were barleys, wheats, soy beans and sweet potatoes." and "fisheries were mainly harvesting seaweeds." As we can clearly see from this, on Ulleungdo in 1900, agriculture was the residents' legitimate occupation, while fishery were only for harvesting seaweeds. Islanders on Ulleungdo only started to voyage to Takeshima/Dokdo when they were hired by Japanese fishermen who began hunting sealions in earnest on Takeshima/Dokdo, which was 4 years after the Imperial Ordinance were promulgated.
Moreover, the area which U inspected was limited to "the circumference 140-150 ris (56-60 km)(周廻一百四五十里)", which means the area was Ulleungdo alone and he didn't go to Takeshima/Dokdo at all. This is because, for Korean, the territorial sphere for Ulleungdo were already established as Inspector Lee Gyu-won(李奎遠), who inspected Ulleungdo in 1883, had already wrote that Ulleungdo has "the circumference 140-150 ris (56-60 km)(周廻一百四五十里)". Then Lee defined neighboring islands of Ulleungdo as 竹島(Jukdo) and 島項( It was later changed to "鼠項島", whose pronunciation resembles to "Seokdo" very much. ) altogether and those two are small islands within 2km or so from Ullgungdo.
Gyeongsangbuk-do assembly made October a "Dokdo Month" , based upon "Imperial Ordinance no.41". But it is apparent that 石島 in the Ordinance was not today's Takeshima/Dokdo. Since Uldo County itself were limited to the Ulldngdo island itself, which has "the circumference 140-150 ris (56-60 km)(周廻一百四五十里)" excluding Takeshima/Dokdo. Korean assert that Japanese incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane as "invasion" based on this Imperial Ordinance, but it is actually Korean themselves who "invaded" Takeshima and still occupy Japanese land without any historical grounds.
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
Other Column of the Series:
The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
References :
1900 - Japanese map of Ulleungdo (赤塚正助 鬱陵島山林概況)
1900 - "Uldo-gi" (鬱島記), by U Yong-jeong (禹用鼎)
1901 - No Korean Fishermen on Ulleungdo in 1901 (Kim Ho-dong (김호동) The History of Dokdo & Ulleungdo (독도, 울릉도의 역사) )
1903 - The Fishery Guide of Sea around Korea (黒龍会 韓海通漁指針)
1904 - Sep 25 - First Record of "Dokdo" for Liancourt Rocks (軍艦新高行動日誌)
4.11.08
1900 The Times Map
This map, "China And Japan", is one of the maps in "The Times" Atlas which was published at the office of "The Times," Printing House Square, London in 1900. These maps were all 'tipped in' to the atlas, meaning that they could be removed as a single intact sheet. Many of the maps are based on maps that first appeared in Richard Andree's Algemeiner Hand-Atlas (Leipzig, 1880s), which is considered one of the most visually pleasing atlases from the late 19th century. The maps are finely detailed and the printing is sharp and crisp with no off-setting. Please look at the "Sea of Japan", there are islands "Matsu I." (Ulleungdo), "Liancourt Rks." (Liancourt Rocks) and "Oki Is."
Matsu Island (Ulleungdo) was coloured in light green (yellowish green) which directed Korean territory and Liancourt Rocks and Oki Islands were coloured in green which directed that they belonged to Japan.[Click the left map to magnify]
One of the most dignified maps showed that Liancourt Rocks were not Korean territory in 1900. Obviously the people of the world didn't think that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea. It automatically denies the theory of pro-Korean scholars that Seokdo in the Korean Edict #41 (1900) was Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).
The world saw Liancourt Rocks to be present in the Japanese territory, as Watanabe Kouki mentioned "Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks (= Liancourt Rocks) to be Japanese territory" in 1878. http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1877-watanabe-says-liancourt-rocks-is.html
And Meiji Government recognised the situation so they decided to incorporate the rocks after they reconfirmed that there were no traces of occupation by any other countries.
Looking at it impartially, the incorporation was done in accordance with the international laws. As far as Korea has no records to have reached Liancourt Rocks before Japan did, and no records to have owned and controlled the rocks before, it seems that Korea's claim is unreasonable.
1.11.08
1906年 - 02月 26日 ～ 4月17日 - 「內部來去案 第一冊」 大韓帝国、統監府に抗議し日本人による韓国の領土収奪を阻止する
以下にあげるのは、大韓帝国内部（内務省）の1906年における公文書で、蔚珍郡竹邊浦に日本海軍が建設した望楼を撤去した際にある日本人（個人）がその土地を取得して公文書を発行して貰うように申請して来た時に、これを日本人による韓国の土地の不正取得であるとして、統監府に照会して阻止した際のやり取りです。
韓国側は、1905年1月28日の編入時に、官報ではなく島根県によって告示がなされた事、同年11月17日に締結された第二次日韓協約 によって外交権が事実上奪われた事などを理由に、竹島の島根県編入を知った後も日本へ抗議をしなかったのではなく「出来なかった」と主張しています。しかし、本文書によって、大韓帝国政府が韓国の領土の竹辺を日本人が勝手に売買した事を知った後、統監府へ照会を行い、＂日帝は、露日戦争終結直後、江原道蔚珍郡竹辺浦に設置した望樓を撤去する際、望樓長と日本商人が結託して望樓土地を侵奪しようと試み、 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争と交渉があったが、韓国議政府の努力によって阻止された。（愼鏞廈(1997) (cache) ）＂実例が明らかになりました。
それはつまるところ、「独島」が自国領であるとの鬱島郡守 沈興澤の報告を江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來から受けた大韓帝国政府が調査を命じた後、その誤り、つまり”独島”は鬱陵島の付属島である竹嶼（韓国名竹島）ではなく、実はLiancourt Rocksであり韓国領土外であることが判明したため、統監府に抗議を行わなかったと考えるのが自然でしょう。この辺りの事情をうかがい知ることのできる公文書が存在しないのか、韓国政府が公開しないのか、大韓帝国政府が調査の結果どのような処置を行ったのか推測する以外の手立てはありません。が、同年統監府からの鬱島郡の所属島嶼とその郡庁の設置年を照会された際に、鬱島郡の範囲を「東西60里(24km)、南北40里(16km)、合わせて200余里(80km : 周囲)」（皇城新聞7月13日）と、事実上竹島が鬱島郡の範囲外である事を公式回答していることは、この事を裏付けるものです。また、1900年前後に発行された大韓帝国の地理の教科書等も全て、日本の資料と同じく朝鮮の東限が東経130°35′～58′となっており、東経131°55′にある竹島/Liancourt Rocksはその範囲外と明確に規定されていることも、また同様です。
なお、これら内部来去案は、ＧＴＯＭＲさんが発見・紹介して下さいました。翻訳はmatsuさんのものをたたき台に、chaamieyさんのご意見も取り入れながら、行いました。
1905（明治38）年1月の日本政府による竹島編入の閣議決定及び内務大臣の訓令に基づき、島根県知事は、2月、竹島が「竹島」と命名され隠岐島司の所管となった旨を告示するとともに、隠岐島庁に対してもこれを伝えました。当時の新聞にも掲載され広く一般に伝えられました。また、島根県知事は、竹島が「島根県所属隠岐島司ノ所管」と定められたことを受け、竹島を官有地台帳に登録するとともに、あしかの捕獲を許可制としました。（外務省ＨＰ より部分抜粋）。これら一連の正式な手続きは、国際法による領土編入の為の要件を十分に満たすものです。
また、竹島は日露戦争中の日本海海戦の主戦場となった事から、広くその名が正確な位置とともに知れ渡る事となりました。日露戦争の華やかな報道とともに、領土編入による「リャンコ島」「リヤンクール岩」といった従来の呼称が、官報 を始め各メディア によって新名称「竹島」と訂正される様子が当時の資料から明確になっています。1905年の時点において、こうした報道は当時東京を始め日本に多数居住していた韓国人にとっては当然周知の事実であったと考えられますし、また韓国においても現地語で報道された 内容などから、「旧リャンコ島が竹島という日本領土となった事実を韓国人が全く気付かなかったために日本政府に抗議できなかった」となどいうことはありえなかったでしょうし、1906年に気がついた後も抗議はおろか、今回明らかになったように抗議可能であったにも関わらず統監府への抗議どころか照会さえ行っていないことから、大韓帝国政府は1906年の時点で竹島を自国領土外であると考えていた事は明白です。
参照 :
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting （公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定）
1905 - Feb 24 - Takeshima Incorporated into Shimane Prefecture (山陰新報 "隠岐の新島")
1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"
1905 - Aug 6 - Japanese Officials to Visit Takeshima (山陰新報 "竹島渡航")
韓国側は、1905年1月28日の編入時に、官報ではなく島根県によって告示がなされた事、同年11月17日に締結された第二次日韓協約 によって外交権が事実上奪われた事などを理由に、竹島の島根県編入を知った後も日本へ抗議をしなかったのではなく「出来なかった」と主張しています。しかし、本文書によって、大韓帝国政府が韓国の領土の竹辺を日本人が勝手に売買した事を知った後、統監府へ照会を行い、＂日帝は、露日戦争終結直後、江原道蔚珍郡竹辺浦に設置した望樓を撤去する際、望樓長と日本商人が結託して望樓土地を侵奪しようと試み、 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争と交渉があったが、韓国議政府の努力によって阻止された。（愼鏞廈(1997) (cache) ）＂実例が明らかになりました。
日帝は、露日戦争終決直後、江原道蔚珍郡・竹辺浦に設置した望樓を撤去する際、望樓長と日本商人が結託して望樓土地を侵奪しようと試み 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争と交渉があったが、韓国議政府の努力によって阻止された例もあった。（愼鏞廈「日帝の 1904~5年 独島侵奪試図とその批判」 ）つまり、これらの公文書によって、韓国側の”外交権がなかった為に抗議出来なかった”とする主張には根拠がなく、実際は1906年4月当時の大韓帝国政府は自国領土を日本が”侵奪”しようとする行為に対して抗議する権利を保有・実行、そして成功していたことが分かります。事実、大韓帝国は同年3月になってようやく竹島が正式に日本領になった事を知らされた後も、政府として抗議はおろか、統監府への照会さえも行っていないようです。何故竹辺の件では行った照会さえ竹島ではしなかったのか？
それはつまるところ、「独島」が自国領であるとの鬱島郡守 沈興澤の報告を江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來から受けた大韓帝国政府が調査を命じた後、その誤り、つまり”独島”は鬱陵島の付属島である竹嶼（韓国名竹島）ではなく、実はLiancourt Rocksであり韓国領土外であることが判明したため、統監府に抗議を行わなかったと考えるのが自然でしょう。この辺りの事情をうかがい知ることのできる公文書が存在しないのか、韓国政府が公開しないのか、大韓帝国政府が調査の結果どのような処置を行ったのか推測する以外の手立てはありません。が、同年統監府からの鬱島郡の所属島嶼とその郡庁の設置年を照会された際に、鬱島郡の範囲を「東西60里(24km)、南北40里(16km)、合わせて200余里(80km : 周囲)」（皇城新聞7月13日）と、事実上竹島が鬱島郡の範囲外である事を公式回答していることは、この事を裏付けるものです。また、1900年前後に発行された大韓帝国の地理の教科書等も全て、日本の資料と同じく朝鮮の東限が東経130°35′～58′となっており、東経131°55′にある竹島/Liancourt Rocksはその範囲外と明確に規定されていることも、また同様です。
なお、これら内部来去案は、ＧＴＯＭＲさんが発見・紹介して下さいました。翻訳はmatsuさんのものをたたき台に、chaamieyさんのご意見も取り入れながら、行いました。
內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條 (韓国国史編纂委員会サイト )
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것
（文書番号）照會 第三號
（発送日）光武十年二月二十六日（１９０６年０２月２６日）
（発送者）內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
（受信者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
現接 江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來의 第十六號報告書內開
頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓 留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온바
今陰曆十二月二十七日 日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰
竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라하온바
郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이하기
高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을
幷即詳探報來하야 以爲轉報케는事로 指飭以送이더니
即接該郡守報告 內開
即到指令를 承準하와 招致高賀 詳問事狀인즉
自己는 日本佐賀縣三養基郡鳥棲洞二百十三番戶 而姓은佐賀오名은亦次오
望樓長은 高橋오 名은淸重이오 居住는日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址는 不知이온바
上年十月日 駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地는 不爲買賣이온니
基址之隨家는意有常例하야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다故로 緣由報告等因을
據査하온즉
蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온바
今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라
萬不近理이하기
玆以仰佈하오니 査照하신 후 迅辦交涉하시와 即行禁止케하시고 示明하시믈 爲要.
內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
光武十年二月二十六日
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條
蔚珍の近北面竹邊浦の望樓を日本人が私的に売買したのは不法なので禁止させること
（文書番号）照会第３号
（発送日）１９０６年２月２６日
（発送者）内部大臣李址鎔
（受信者）議政府參政大臣朴齊純
江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來から「第１６号報告書」を受けた。その内容は次の通り。
先月１３日に蔚珍郡守尹宇榮の報告を受けた。それによれば、蔚珍郡近北面竹邊浦の望楼に駐留していた日本海軍が最近撤収したが、１２月２７日(書き起こし文には陰暦とあるが、新暦では1906年1月21日に当り、この日は日曜日で、しかも1月13日に蔚珍郡守尹宇榮から江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來へこの件に関して報告がすでになされているので、新暦12月27日の誤りと推測される。)に日本商人高賀という者が蔚珍郡庁に来て、「竹邊浦所在の望楼とその土地を望楼長から買得したので、蔚珍郡庁からその認可する公文書を交付してほしい」ということである。郡守としては、自分の一存で処理することが出来ないので、報告するということであった。
そこで、高賀という人物の住所・姓名、ならびに何月何日にいくらで買得したのか、さらに望樓長の姓名・住所を速やかに詳しく調べて報告せよと指示したところ、蔚珍郡守から次の報告があった。
指令を受けて、高賀を招致して詳しい事情を聞いたところ、「自分は、日本の佐賀県三養基郡鳥棲洞２１３番地の、佐賀亦次という。望樓長は高橋淸重と言い、その居所は日本佐世保海兵団の詰所であるが、住所は知らない。去年十月、駐屯していた日本海軍が撤収する時に１８０円を出して望楼を買った。しかし、土地は買っていない。土地は、その上に建っている建物の持ち主のものであるのが普通なので土地も併せて買いたいと思い、前所有者に申し入れた。（もしくは ”以前そう告げていたので、土地も併せて買いたい”の意か。）」ということである。
（李明來もしくは李址鎔の言葉）この報告に基づき調査をしたが、蔚珍郡竹邊浦の望楼は、日本海軍が軍用に暫く駐屯していて既に撤収したのであるが、今、日本商人の高賀亦次が望樓長の高橋淸重から私的に買い取ったというのは法律に違反するものでいかにも理に合わないことなので、（李址鎔は）ここに報告するので内容確認のうえ速やかに交渉され、即刻禁止させてそれを明示されるよう願う。
內部大臣勳一等李址鎔より議政府參政大臣朴齊純閣下へ
１９０６年２月２６日
內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號. (韓国国史編纂委員会サイト )
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회
（文書番号）議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
（発送日）光武十年四月十七日（１９０６年０４月１７日）
（発送者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
（受信者）內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
（決済者）議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
貴第三號 照會는接到하와
以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在 望樓與地段 私相賣買禁止一事로
準即行文 日本統監□하고 業經照覆在案이온바
現樓該統監照覆內開
去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉
準即行文 我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開
該望樓所用建物及營造物 以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次
去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却等因
準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이하기
玆에 照會하오니 照亮하심을 爲要．
議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長
參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
光武十年四月十七日
光武十年四月十一日 裁定 課員
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號
蔚珍郡近北面竹邊浦の望樓及び付属建物を日本人に売却したことについての照会
（文書番号）議政府照会第５６号 内部（内務省）
（発送日）１９０６年４月１７日
（発送者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
（受信者）内部大臣 李址鎔
（決裁者）議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長 參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
貴第３号照会を受けて、蔚珍郡竹邊浦の望楼と土地の私的売買禁止の件について、(日本の韓国)統監に照会し回答を得た。回答は次のとおりである。
先月１４日、蔚珍郡竹邊浦の望楼売却について貴第１３号照会を受け取ったが、その照会に基づき日本の佐世保海軍鎭守府に文書を送って事実を調査したところ、その報告によれば、その望楼用の建物と設備は、代金收納後に全て他人に譲渡することとし、佐賀県人である古賀亦次に売却した。昨年１２月２７日に既に代金を受領したが、その敷地は売却していない。以上回答するので承知されたい。
このような照会結果であったので、内容を確認されたい。
議政府參政大臣朴齊純より内部大臣李址鎔閣下へ
１９０６年４月１７日
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것
（文書番号）照會 第三號
（発送日）光武十年二月二十六日（１９０６年０２月２６日）
（発送者）內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
（受信者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
現接 江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來의 第十六號報告書內開
頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓 留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온바
今陰曆十二月二十七日 日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰
竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라하온바
郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이하기
高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을
幷即詳探報來하야 以爲轉報케는事로 指飭以送이더니
即接該郡守報告 內開
即到指令를 承準하와 招致高賀 詳問事狀인즉
自己는 日本佐賀縣三養基郡鳥棲洞二百十三番戶 而姓은佐賀오名은亦次오
望樓長은 高橋오 名은淸重이오 居住는日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址는 不知이온바
上年十月日 駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地는 不爲買賣이온니
基址之隨家는意有常例하야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다故로 緣由報告等因을
據査하온즉
蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온바
今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라
萬不近理이하기
玆以仰佈하오니 査照하신 후 迅辦交涉하시와 即行禁止케하시고 示明하시믈 爲要.
內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
光武十年二月二十六日
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條
蔚珍の近北面竹邊浦の望樓を日本人が私的に売買したのは不法なので禁止させること
（文書番号）照会第３号
（発送日）１９０６年２月２６日
（発送者）内部大臣李址鎔
（受信者）議政府參政大臣朴齊純
江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來から「第１６号報告書」を受けた。その内容は次の通り。
先月１３日に蔚珍郡守尹宇榮の報告を受けた。それによれば、蔚珍郡近北面竹邊浦の望楼に駐留していた日本海軍が最近撤収したが、１２月２７日(書き起こし文には陰暦とあるが、新暦では1906年1月21日に当り、この日は日曜日で、しかも1月13日に蔚珍郡守尹宇榮から江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來へこの件に関して報告がすでになされているので、新暦12月27日の誤りと推測される。)に日本商人高賀という者が蔚珍郡庁に来て、「竹邊浦所在の望楼とその土地を望楼長から買得したので、蔚珍郡庁からその認可する公文書を交付してほしい」ということである。郡守としては、自分の一存で処理することが出来ないので、報告するということであった。
そこで、高賀という人物の住所・姓名、ならびに何月何日にいくらで買得したのか、さらに望樓長の姓名・住所を速やかに詳しく調べて報告せよと指示したところ、蔚珍郡守から次の報告があった。
指令を受けて、高賀を招致して詳しい事情を聞いたところ、「自分は、日本の佐賀県三養基郡鳥棲洞２１３番地の、佐賀亦次という。望樓長は高橋淸重と言い、その居所は日本佐世保海兵団の詰所であるが、住所は知らない。去年十月、駐屯していた日本海軍が撤収する時に１８０円を出して望楼を買った。しかし、土地は買っていない。土地は、その上に建っている建物の持ち主のものであるのが普通なので土地も併せて買いたいと思い、前所有者に申し入れた。（もしくは ”以前そう告げていたので、土地も併せて買いたい”の意か。）」ということである。
（李明來もしくは李址鎔の言葉）この報告に基づき調査をしたが、蔚珍郡竹邊浦の望楼は、日本海軍が軍用に暫く駐屯していて既に撤収したのであるが、今、日本商人の高賀亦次が望樓長の高橋淸重から私的に買い取ったというのは法律に違反するものでいかにも理に合わないことなので、（李址鎔は）ここに報告するので内容確認のうえ速やかに交渉され、即刻禁止させてそれを明示されるよう願う。
內部大臣勳一等李址鎔より議政府參政大臣朴齊純閣下へ
１９０６年２月２６日
內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號. (韓国国史編纂委員会サイト )
울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회
（文書番号）議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
（発送日）光武十年四月十七日（１９０６年０４月１７日）
（発送者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
（受信者）內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
（決済者）議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
貴第三號 照會는接到하와
以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在 望樓與地段 私相賣買禁止一事로
準即行文 日本統監□하고 業經照覆在案이온바
現樓該統監照覆內開
去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉
準即行文 我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開
該望樓所用建物及營造物 以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次
去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却等因
準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이하기
玆에 照會하오니 照亮하심을 爲要．
議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長
參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
光武十年四月十七日
光武十年四月十一日 裁定 課員
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號
蔚珍郡近北面竹邊浦の望樓及び付属建物を日本人に売却したことについての照会
（文書番号）議政府照会第５６号 内部（内務省）
（発送日）１９０６年４月１７日
（発送者）議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
（受信者）内部大臣 李址鎔
（決裁者）議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長 參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
貴第３号照会を受けて、蔚珍郡竹邊浦の望楼と土地の私的売買禁止の件について、(日本の韓国)統監に照会し回答を得た。回答は次のとおりである。
先月１４日、蔚珍郡竹邊浦の望楼売却について貴第１３号照会を受け取ったが、その照会に基づき日本の佐世保海軍鎭守府に文書を送って事実を調査したところ、その報告によれば、その望楼用の建物と設備は、代金收納後に全て他人に譲渡することとし、佐賀県人である古賀亦次に売却した。昨年１２月２７日に既に代金を受領したが、その敷地は売却していない。以上回答するので承知されたい。
このような照会結果であったので、内容を確認されたい。
議政府參政大臣朴齊純より内部大臣李址鎔閣下へ
１９０６年４月１７日
また、竹島は日露戦争中の日本海海戦の主戦場となった事から、広くその名が正確な位置とともに知れ渡る事となりました。日露戦争の華やかな報道とともに、領土編入による「リャンコ島」「リヤンクール岩」といった従来の呼称が、官報 を始め各メディア によって新名称「竹島」と訂正される様子が当時の資料から明確になっています。1905年の時点において、こうした報道は当時東京を始め日本に多数居住していた韓国人にとっては当然周知の事実であったと考えられますし、また韓国においても現地語で報道された 内容などから、「旧リャンコ島が竹島という日本領土となった事実を韓国人が全く気付かなかったために日本政府に抗議できなかった」となどいうことはありえなかったでしょうし、1906年に気がついた後も抗議はおろか、今回明らかになったように抗議可能であったにも関わらず統監府への抗議どころか照会さえ行っていないことから、大韓帝国政府は1906年の時点で竹島を自国領土外であると考えていた事は明白です。
参照 :
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting （公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定）
1905 - Feb 24 - Takeshima Incorporated into Shimane Prefecture (山陰新報 "隠岐の新島")
1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"
1905 - June 3 - Japanese Magazine ”The True Record of Russo-Japanese War (日露戦争実記")
1905 - Jul 3 - "Postcards to Commemorate Naval Battle" (山陰新報 " 海戦記念絵葉書")
1905 - Aug 6 - Japanese Officials to Visit Takeshima (山陰新報 "竹島渡航")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Governor Matsunaga Inspects Takeshima" (山陰新報 "松永知事の竹島視察")
1905 - Aug 22 - "Sea Pigs" Near Takeshima (山陰新報 "県庁内に海豚放養")
1906 - Mar 11 - "Voyage to Takeshima Decided" (山陰新報 "竹島行決定")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)