and friendly assistance of the Chinese Government. Mr. Low sailed from Shanghai on Admiral Rogers's flagship May 8, 1871, but was not accompanied by Mr. Seward. The admiral proceeded to Nagasaki, Japan, where his squadron was reenforced, and he then sailed for Corea with six vessels. He duly arrived off the Corean coast. Communication was established with persons on shore, and no untoward incident occurred till the 1st of June, when some of the vessels, while exploring the passage between the mainland and the island of Kanghoa, were fired upon by two Corean batteries, which, it seems, were visited by the French admiral in 1866. The ships shelled the forts, which were abandoned by their occupants. Correspondence ensued with the Corean authorities, but, as it was not deemed satisfactory, a punitive expedition was sent out by the admiral on the 10th of June. By this expedition five forts were destroyed and 250 Coreans killed, while others were wounded and a few taken prisoners. The American loss was three killed and nine wounded. The fleet then returned to China. Mr. Low's "general was approved, with some criticism of his communications to the Corean authorities. course Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Low, min. to China, No. 9, April 20, 1870, For. Rel. 1870, 334; Mr. Low to Mr. Fish, No. 15, July 16, 1870, For. Rel. 1870, 362; same to same, No. 37, Nov. 22, 1870, For. Rel. 1871, 73; same to same, No. 61, April 3, 1871, id. 111; same to same, No. 69, May 13, 1871, and No. 70, May 31, 1871, id. 115, 116; same to 1882. same, No. 74, June 20, 1871, id. 126–142; same to same, No. 75, July 6, 1871, id. 142; Mr. Fish to Mr. Low, No. 54, Sept. 20, 1871, id. 153; Mr. Low to Mr. Fish, No. 123, Jan. 13, 1872, For. Rel. 1872, 127. In 1880 an attempt to negotiate with the Corean government was made by Commodore Shufeldt, U. S. Navy. On his Shufeldt treaty, first visit to the ports of the kingdom he failed to obtain an interview with the proper authorities or to establish any communication with them. His letter to them was returned unopened, although he sought to procure its delivery through the good offices of the Japanese envoy at the Corean capital. The effort to negotiate was not, however, abandoned. The interposition of Li Hung Chang was invoked and his influence was exercised with the Corean authorities to induce them to treat. November 14, 1881, Commodore Shufeldt was instructed to renew his efforts, if he should be satisfied that he would not meet with another repulse. He was to put forward as the prominent purpose of his visit a treaty for the relief of American vessels which might be shipwrecked on the Corean coast, and he was to secure the right of trade at such port or ports as might be open. He was to obtain a stipulation for most-favorednation treatment rather than a conventional tariff, and, if possible, an express prohibition of transit duties. Freedom to travel in the interior of Corea for purposes of trade was desired, as well as such privileges of extraterritorial jurisdiction as were conceded by China and Japan. He was also desired to secure for consuls the right of direct communication with the government till diplomatic representation should be regulated. Mr. Hay, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Bingham, min. to Japan, No. 543, Nov. 11, 1880, MS. Inst. Japan, III. 11; Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Commodore Shufeldt, U. S. Navy, May 9, 1881, MS. Inst. China, III. 228; Mr. Blaine to Mr. Angell, min. to China, No. 92 and No. 94 (confid.), May 9, 1881, MS. Inst. China, III. 230, 232; Mr. Blaine to Commodore Shufeldt, Nov. 14, 1881, MS. Inst. China, III. 271. As to the desire of the Chinese authorities to employ Commodore Shufeldt in the organization of their naval service, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Holcomb, chargé at Peking, No. 132, Nov. 14, 1881, MS. Inst. China, III. 278. For a history of the relations between Japan and Corea, see Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power. A treaty was concluded by Commodore Shufeldt May 22, 1882. A question was afterwards raised as to the dependency of Corea on China. No such relation was recognized in the treaty itself, but a letter from the King of Corea to the President declared that Corea was a dependency of China, although "the management of its government affairs, domestic and foreign, has always been vested in the sovereign." The Chinese government, however, had not admitted in the past that it was responsible for or that it internationally represented Corea; and when the United States formerly had employed force against Corea, China did not remonstrate. In view of these circumstances the United States regarded the administrative independence of Corea as a preestablished fact. The Senate consented to the ratification of the treaty on January 9, 1883. The resolution of the Senate expressed the understanding that the clause "nor are they permitted to transport native produce from one open port to another open port," in Article VI., did not prohibit American ships from going from one port to another in Corea to receive Corean cargo for exportation or to discharge foreign cargo, and the President was requested to indicate this interpretation to the Corean government in exchanging the ratifications of the treaty. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, min. to China, No. 30, "The existence of international relations between the two countries, as As to the desire of the Corean government to negotiate a treaty with Russia, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hunt, min. to Russia, No. 75, Dec. 28, 1883, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI. 373. As to the desire of the Corean government to obtain American military As to the desire for American school-teachers, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, See, also, the following references: Establishment of a government hospital at Seoul in charge of an Amer- Discovery of coal fields, worked by an American and Chinese company, Establishment of an "American farm" near Seoul, For. Rel. 1885, 353. "The United States, as you are aware, were the first western power to conclude a treaty with Corea. By reason of this fact, and perhaps to give greater emphasis to the friendship so happily initiated, the Corean government sought the introduction into the treaty of the provision on which this application rests. It was admitted by us as evidence of our impartial desire to see the independence and peace of Corea well established. The second clause of Article I. of the treaty of May 22, 1882, between the United States and Corea, reads thus: “If other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.' Except that the provision is made reciprocal, it follows the phraseology of Article I. of our treaty of 1858 with China. "This government could not, of course, construe the engagement thus entered into as empowering or requiring us to decide and maintain that the acts in respect to which good offices are desired are, in fact, unjust and oppressive. Such a construction would naturally render nugatory any attempt to derive good results from the engagement." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to England, Aug. 19, 1885, A series of interesting dispatches from Ensign Foulk, U. S. Navy, chargé In 1887, the Chinese government sought to prevent the departure of a Corean envoy to the United States on the ground of the dependent relation of Corea toward China. The American minister at Peking was instructed to express surprise and regret at this action on the part of the Chinese government. The envoy finally set out on his journey, but when he arrived in the United States the Chinese minister at Washington wrote to the Department of State to the effect that the Corean envoy would, on his arrival there, report to the Chinese legation, and would be presented through it to the Department of State, after which he might apply for an opportunity to deliver his credentials to the President. The Corean envoy, on the day after his arrival in Washington, addressed a note to Mr. Bayard, as Secretary of State, asking for an interview to arrange for the presentation of his credentials to the President. Such an arrangement was duly made, and the envoy was presented without the intervention of the Chinese minister. "As the United States," said Mr. Bayard, "have no privity with the interrelations of China and Corea, we shall treat both as separate governments customarily represented here by their respective and independent agents." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, tel., Oct. 6, 1887, For. Rel. 1888, "A diplomatic mission from Corea has been received, and the formal inter- As to the recall of Ensign Foulk, U. S. Navy, and his transfer to the U. S. Corea has no colonial possessions in the usual sense of the term. As to islands adjacent to the coast, see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Manning, Sec. of Treasury, April 28, 1886, 160 MS. Dom. Let. 58. As to Quelpaert Island, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Long, No. 101, Dip. Series, March 15, 1889, MS. Inst. Corea, I. 275. As to the diplomatic status of the Chinese resident in Corea, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 424, May 8, 1889, MS. Inst. China, IV. 446, enclosing copies of Mr. Dinsmore, min. to Corea, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, No. 169, Feb. 28, 1889, and Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dinsmore, No. 112, May 7, 1889. As to Corea and the Chinese-Japanese war, see Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sill, min. to Corea, tel., July 9, 1894, MS. Inst. Corea, I. 492; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bayard, ambass. to England, No. 453 (confid.), July 20, 1894, MS. Inst. Great Britain, XXX. 627; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, tel., Sept. 21, 1894, MS. Inst. Corea, I. 501; Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Sill, No. 58, Dip. Series, Feb. 25, 1895, MS. Inst. Corea, I. 519. Treaty rights of By Article XIV. of the treaty of May 22, 1882, the United States, its public officers, merchants, and citizens are entitled to most-favored-nation treatment in Corea. By the treaty between Great Britain and Corea November 26, 1883, certain ports, including Seoul, were "opened to British commerce," and British subjects were to have there the right to rent or to purchase land or grounds, and to erect buildings, warehouses, and factories, and they were also to enjoy the free exercise of their religion. By a protocol to the British treaty it was agreed that if the Chinese government should thereafter surrender the right of opening commercial establishments at Seoul, it should not be claimed for British subjects if it was not granted to those of any other power. Similar stipulations were embodied in the treaties of Corea with Germany and Russia. The United States is entitled to the privileges embraced in them under the most-favored-nation clause. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dinsmore, min. to Corea, No. 3, As to the abrogation of the regulations for sea trade for Chung Kiang With reference to certain American citizens engaged in benevolent and charitable work, who comprised all the citizens of the United States in Seoul outside of the American legation, the Department of State observed that they did not reside there by virtue of a treaty right to open commercial establishments, but under the special permission and encouragement of the Corean government, and it was supposed that that government would not regard the extinguishment of the right of foreigners to open commercial establishments at Seoul as affecting those Americans who, having gone thither on a mission of mercy and humanity, had enjoyed the active encouragement and assistance of the Corean government. It was added that any interference with the enlightened and charitable enterprises of such Americans would be deeply regretted, and that the United States could not view without grave concern any invasion of their property or other rights. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dinsmore, min. to Corea, No. 3, As to the rights of missionaries in Corea, see For. Rel. 1888, I. 447. "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 318, of the 5th ultimo, reporting the violation of the domicile of Messrs. Adams and Johnson, American missionaries, at Taiku, Korea, by |