Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:45:32.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Japanese Government Policy, Business Opinion and the Seoul–Pusan Railway, 1894–1906

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Janet Hunter
Janet Hunter
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Like most research on Japanese involvement in Korea in the latter years of the Meiji period, this article is deeply indebted to the pioneer work of Professor Hilary Conroy. I have also drawn heavily on the work of Eugene and Han-kyo Kim. However, a detailed study of the railways of Korea does not come within the framework of Professor Conroy's book, and there is little material on the subject available in English. In Japanese there is the official government history, the Chōsen Tetsudō Shi, but the purpose of this essay is to show the views of the business world on the subject, and so contemporary articles in the leading economic journals have constituted the most important source. A consideration of those articles which comment on the changing state of affairs will perhaps clarify the reasons underlying dōmestic pressure for Japanese involvement in the construction of Korean railways.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 1977 , pp. 573 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Conroy, Hilary, The Japanese Seizure of Korea, 1868–1910 (Philadelphia, 1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Kim, C. I. Eugene and Kim, Han-kyo, Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, 1876–1910 (California, 1967).Google Scholar

3 Sōtokufu, Chōsen, Chōsen Tetsudō Shi (Seoul, 1915).Google Scholar

4 Quoted in Kentarō, Yamabe, Nikkan Heigō Shōshi (Tokyo, 1972), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

5 Shigeru, Hayashi, ‘Jingo Seihen to Rikken Kaishintōkei Shinbun Zasshi no Ronchō’, Shakai Kagaku Kenkyū, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1962.Google Scholar

6 Gunbi Ikensho, October 1893. Text in Ōyama, Azusa (ed.), Yamagata Aritomo Ikensho (Tokyo, 1966), pp. 215–22.Google Scholar

7 Under the terms of the Nikkan Zentei Gōdō Jōkan of 20 August, the Seoul–Pusan and Seoul–Inchon railways were to be built by Japanese capital. Under clause 3 of the agreement it was stated that the railways should be administered by the Japanese government until all costs were repaid by the Korean government. Details of the treaty are in Yamabe Kentarō, Nikkan Heigō Shōshi, pp. 106–7.

8 Imperial Palace Archive (Kunai Shoryōbu), Inoue Kōshaku-ke Monjo, Vol. 20, No. 80, Itō to Inoue, 1 11 1894.Google Scholar

9 Quoted in Conroy, , Japanese Seizure of Korea, p. 303.Google Scholar

10 The activities of these men are described in ‘;Keifu Tetsudō ni tsuite Jōkyō Iin Yamaguchi Shira no Dan’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 10 (06 1896), pp. 612–14.Google Scholar

11 Mutsu to Itō, 3 June 1895, quoted in Conroy, , Japanese Seizure of Korea, p. 299.Google Scholar

12 ‘Chōsen no Tetsudō’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 9 (05 1896), pp. 1–3. The journal was published by Japanese businessmen in Tōyō.Google Scholar

13 ‘Keifu Tetsudō wa Sekai no Yūbin Senro nari’, Tōyō Keizai Shinpō (06 1896), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

14 ‘Keifu Tetsudō ni tsuite Jōkyō Iin Yamaguchi Shira no Dan’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 10 (06 1896), p. 612. The leading members of the group were three businessmen named Yamaguchi, Matsumoto and Tamai.Google Scholar

15 Ōmiwa had in 1891 been appointed Chief of the Mint, and had tried to reform the currency, but his policies had ended in controversy in 1893.

16 ‘Keifu Tetsudō wa Sekai no Yūbin Senro nari’, Tōyō Keizai Shinpō (06 1896), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

17 ‘Keifu Tetsudō ni tsuite Jōkyō Iin Yamaguchi Shira no Dan’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 10 (06 1896), pp. 613–14.Google Scholar

18 For this see ‘Keifukan Tetsudō’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 11 (07 1896), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

19 Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 835 (25 07 1896), pp. 139–40.Google Scholar

20 The conditions are listed in ‘Keifukan Tetsudō no Nariyuki’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 13 (09 1896), pp. 85–6.Google Scholar

21 Taiyō, No. 15 (07 1896), pp. 48–50.Google Scholar

22 Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 835 (25 07 1896), pp. 138–40.Google Scholar

23 ‘Keifu Tetsudō no Nariyuki’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 840 (29 08 1896), pp. 378–9.Google Scholar

24 ‘Keifu Tetsudō no Tokkyo Ikaga?’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 839 (22 08 1896), p. 319.Google Scholar

25 ‘Keifukan Tetsudō no Nariyuki’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 13 (09 1896), pp. 85–6.Google Scholar

26 ‘Shinkoku Naichi Seizōhin Kazei Mondai oyobi Keifu Tetsudō Mondai’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 848 (24 10 1896), p. 715.Google Scholar

27 Maejima to Ito, n.d., quoted in Takeo, Oda, Maejima Hisoka (Takada, 1958), pp. 217–18.Google Scholar

28 Kokumin Shinbun, 26 07 1898.Google Scholar

29 Kim, and Kim, , Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, p. 96.Google Scholar

30 Itō held no office at this time, but his personal prestige was enough to make his visit significant.

31 ‘Keifu Tetsudō Jōkan’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 37 (09 1898).Google Scholar

32 Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 38 (10 1898).Google Scholar

33 Cited in ‘Keifu Tetsudō no Fusetsu Ikaga?’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 945 (17 09 1898), p. 619.Google Scholar The treaty is given in full in ‘Keifu TetsudōJōkan’, Nikkan Tsūshō Kyōkai Hōkoku, No. 37 (09 1898), pp. 1–4.Google Scholar

34 ‘Keifu Tetsudō to Keijin Tetsudō’, Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, No. 119 (03 1899).Google Scholar

35 Nan-sei, Shu in Taiyō, Vol. 5, No. 25 (11 1899), pp. 198–202.Google Scholar

36 Ibid.

37 Tadashi, Itō in Taiyō, Vol. 5, No. 25 (11 1899), pp. 76–9.Google Scholar

38 ‘Keifu Tetsudō no Fusetsu wa Yoroshiku Seifu Kore ni Atarubeshi’, editorial of Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, No. 145 (15 12 1899), pp. 8–10.Google Scholar

39 Kokumin Shinbun, 18 01 1900.Google Scholar

40 Nihon Shinbun, 1 02 1900.Google Scholar

41 Tatsuji, Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire (London, 1935), pp. 160–1.Google Scholar

42 Conroy, , Japanese Seizure of Korea, p. 327.Google Scholar

43 Kokumin Shinbun, 10 June 1900.

44 Announced in Nihon Shinbun, 4 October 1900, and in ‘Keifu Tetsudō no Fusetsu no Kakugo Ikaga?’, Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, No. 173 (5 10 1900), p. 9 (editorial).Google Scholar

45 Ibid., pp. 9–10.

46 Jiji Shinpō, 15 January 1901.

47 Jiji Shinpō, 22 September 1901.

48 Tōkyō Nichi Nichi, 23 October 1901.

49 Conversation reported in Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, No. 210 (15 october 1901).

50 ‘Keifu Tetsudō Endō Kanjin no Ikō’, Tsūshō Isan, No. 250 (01 1903).Google Scholar

51 Jiji Shinpō, 1 March 1903.

52 Chōsen Kyōkai Kaihō, No. 7 (04 1903), pp. 52–6.Google Scholar

53 ‘Keifu Tetsudō Saiken Hoshō no Gi ni tsuite’, Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, No. 265 (04 1903), p. 488, and No. 266 (April 1903), p. 539.Google Scholar

54 E.g. Tetsuya, Nakajima, ‘Keifu Tetsudō Kaisha no Shasai Bōshū ni tsuite’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1181 (2 05 1903), p. 18.Google Scholar

55 Saburō, Ozaki, ‘Chōsen no Tetsudō’, Pt 4, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1233, (7 05 1904), pp. 19–21.Google Scholar

56 Tōkyō Asahi, 31 October 1903.

57 Tsūshō Isan, No. 49 (revised version, 11 1903).Google Scholar

58 Quoted in Conroy, , Japanese Seizure of Korea, p. 328.Google Scholar

59 Tetsuya, Nakajima, ‘Keifu Tetsudō Kaisha no Shasai Bōshū ni tsuite’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1181 (2 05, 1903), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

60 Tōkyō Asahi, 29 December 1903.

61 Imperial Palace Archive (Shoryōbu, Kunai), Katsura Kōshaku-ke Monjo, Meiji 1900–1903, Inoue Kaoru to Katsura Tarō, n.d.Google Scholar

62 Tōkyō Asahi, 2 February 1904.

63 ‘Keifu Tetsudō no Sokusei ni tsuite’, editorial of Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, No. 291 (5 01 1904), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

64 E.g. Aijirō, Kasai, ‘Keifu Tetsudō to Keigi Tetsudō’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1217 (16 01 1904), pp. 22–3.Google Scholar

65 Saburō, Ozaki, ‘Chōsen no Tetsudō’, Pt 4, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1233, (7 05 1904), pp. 20–1.Google Scholar

66 The reshuffle and subsequent difficulties are covered in ‘Keifu Tetsudō Kaisha no Shinsō’ Pts 1 and 2, Tōyō Keizai Shinpō, No. 310 (15 07 1904), pp. 28–30, and No. 311 (25 July 1904), pp. 31–2.Google Scholar

67 ‘Tōkyō Keijō Kan Chokutsū’, Tōkyō Asahi, 7 11 1904.Google Scholar

68 Tōkyō Asahi, 27 May 1905.

69 Saburō, Ozaki, ‘Chōsen no Tetsudō’, Pt 1, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1230, (16 04 1904), p. 19.Google Scholar

70 Tetsuya, Nakajima, ‘Keifu Tetsudō Kaisha no Shasai Bōshū ni tsuite’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1181 (2 05 1903), p. 18.Google Scholar

71 Tsūsan Ihō, No. 49 (28 08 1905).Google Scholar

72 Tetsuya, Nakajima, ‘Keifu Tetsudō Kaisha no Shasai Bōshū ni tsuite’, Tōkyō Keizai Zasshi, No. 1181 (2 05 1903), p. 18.Google Scholar

73 Kanpō, 31 March 1906.Google Scholar

74 Quoted in Eiichi, Kaneko (ed.), Gendai Nihon Sangyō Hattatsu Shi, Vol. 22, Riku'un Tsūshin (Tokyo, 1965), p. 74.Google Scholar