Page:League of Nations-Appeal by the Chinese Government.pdf/59

 homeland but for the political and economic difficulties under which they have suffered, generally desire to be free from Japanese surveillance in Manchuria.

The Chinese, while admitting a certain sympathy with the Koreans, draw attention to the existence of the "Mitsuya Agreement" of June-July 1925 as evidence both of a willingness on the part of the Chinese authorities to curb the activities of Koreans whom the Japanese consider "bad characters" and a menace to their position in Korea, and of official sanction on the part of the Japanese themselves for certain of those very acts which the Japanese would have others believe are instances of Chinese "oppression" of the Koreans. This agreement, which has never been widely known abroad, was negotiated by the Japanese Police Commissioner of the Government-General of Chosen and the Chinese Police Commissioner of Fengtien Province. It provided for co-operation between the Chinese and Japanese police in suppressing "Korean societies" (presumably of an anti-Japanese character) in Eastern Fengtien Province, stipulating that "the Chinese authorities shall immediately arrest and extradite those leaders of the Korean societies whose names had been designated by the authorities of Korea", and that Koreans of "bad character" should be arrested by the Chinese police and turned over to the Japanese for trial and punishment. The Chinese assert, therefore, that "it is largely for the purpose of giving practical effect to this agreement that certain restrictive measures have been put into force governing the treatment of Koreans. If they are taken as evidence proving the oppression of Koreans by Chinese authorities, then such measures of oppression, if indeed they are, have been resorted to principally in the interest of Japan". Furthermore, the Chinese submit that, "in view of the keen economic competition with native farmers, it is but natural that the Chinese authorities should exercise their inherent right to take measures to protect the interests of their own countrymen".

The Wanpaoshan affair, together with the case of Captain Nakamura, have been widely regarded as the causes immediately contributing to the Sino-Japanese crisis in Manchuria. The intrinsic importance of the former, however, was greatly exaggerated. The sensational accounts of what occurred at Wanpaoshan, where there were no casualties, led to a feeling of bitterness between Chinese and Japanese and, in Korea, to the serious attacks by Koreans upon Chinese residents. These anti-Chinese riots, in turn, revived the anti-Japanese boycott in China. Judged by itself, the Wanpaoshan affair was no more serious than several other incidents involving clashes between Chinese and Japanese troops or police which had occurred during the past few years in Manchuria.

Wanpaoshan is a small village located some 18 miles (30 kilometres) north of Changchun, adjoining a low marshy area alongside the Itung River. It was here that one Hao Yung-teh, a Chinese broker, leased on behalf of the Chang Nung Agricultural Company, from the Chinese owners, a large tract of land by a contract dated April 16th, 1931. It was stipulated in the contract that it should be null and void in case the District Magistrate refused to approve its terms.

Shortly after this, the lessee sub-leased this entire plot of land to a group of Koreans. This second contract contained no provision requiring official approval for enforcement and took for granted that the Koreans would construct an irrigation canal with tributary ditches. Hao Young-teh had sub-leased this land to the Korean farmers without first having obtained Chinese formal approval of the original lease contract with the Chinese owners.