Page:League of Nations-Appeal by the Chinese Government.pdf/61

  of July 1st, which were of a character to amuse the hatred of the Korean populace against the Chinese residents.

The Japanese claim, however, that these riots were due to the spontaneous outburst of racial feeling, and that the Japanese authorities suppressed them as soon as possible.

A result of importance was the fact that these outbreaks in Korea served directly to revive the anti-Japanese boycott throughout China.

Shortly after the anti-Chinese riots in Korea and while the Wanpaoshan affair was still unsettled, the Chinese Government made a protest to Japan, on account of the riots, charging Japan with full responsibility for failure to suppress them. The Japanese Government, in reply, on July 15th, expressed regret at the occurrence of these riots and offered compensation for the families of the dead.

From July 22nd until September 15th, there were negotiations and exchanges of notes between the Chinese and Japanese local and central authorities over the Wanpaoshan affair. The Chinese maintained that the difficulties at Wanpaoshan were due to the fact that the Koreans were living where they had no right to be, since their privileges of residing and leasing of land did not extend outside the Chientao District, in accordance with the Chientao Agreement of September 4th, 1909.

The Chinese Government protested against the stationing of Japanese consular police in China and asserted that the despatch of a large force of these police to Wanpaoshan was responsible for the incident of July 1st.

The Japanese, on the other hand, insisted that the Koreans had a treaty right to reside and lease land at Wanpaoshan, since their privileges were not limited to those specified in the Chientao Agreement, but included the rights, granted to Japanese subjects in general, of residing and leasing land throughout South Manchuria. The status of the Koreans, it was claimed, was identical with that of other Japanese subjects. The Japanese also urged that the Koreans had undertaken their rice cultivation project in good faith and that the Japanese authorities could not assume responsibility for the irregularities of the Chinese broker who arranged the lease. The Japanese Government consented to the withdrawal of the consular police from Wanpaoshan, but the Korean tenants remained and continued to cultivate their rice-lands.

A complete solution of the Wanpaoshan affair had not been reached by September 1931.

The case of Captain Nakamura was viewed by the Japanese as the culminating incident of a long series of events which showed the utter disregard of the Chinese for Japanese rights and interests in Manchuria. Captain Nakamura was killed by Chinese soldiers in an out-of-the-way region in Manchuria during the mid-summer of 1931.

Captain Shintaro Nakamura was a Japanese military officer on active duty and, as was admitted by the Japanese Government, was on a mission under the orders of the Japanese Army. While passing through Harbin, where his passport was examined by the Chinese authorities, he represented himself as an agricultural expert. He was at that time warned that the region in which he intended to travel was a bandit-ridden area, and this fact was noted on his passport. He was armed, and carried patent medicine which, according to the Chinese, included narcotic drugs for non-medical purposes.

On June 9th, accompanied by three interpreters and assistants. Captain Nakamura left Ilikotu Station on the western section of the Chinese Eastern Railway. When he had reached a point some distance in the interior, in the direction of Taonan, he and the other members of his party were placed