Van Valkenburgh to William H. Seward, March 4, 1868

Mr. Van Valkenburgh to Mr. Seward.

Sir: In my No. 14, under date of March 1st, I had the honor to inform you that Taki Tensaboro, the officer who ordered the fire upon the foreigners at Hiogo on the 4th February, had been found guilty, and his execution was directed to take place on the next day (March 2) at Hiogo. The culprit was an officer of rank, and in accordance with the laws of Japan was permitted to commit hara-kiri.

On that day two Japanese officers, in accordance with what is understood to be the custom in this country, called upon the representatives unofficially to ask if the man’s life could not be spared, and whether we would not request the Mikado to reprieve him. In all cases of sentence of death I am informed this custom prevails throughout the land. We held a conference at once, lasting about four hours, desiring, if possible, to comply with the request of these gentlemen, and ask for a reprieve; but the conclusion arrived at was, that the safety of foreigners in the future would prevent the exercise of such clemency, and we declined to accede to the request. The representatives severally wrote out their conclusions, copies of which I transmit, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

We were then informed that the execution of the sentence would take place that evening at a temple in Hiogo, and were asked to designate each representative a witness. I accordingly appointed Commander J. Blakely Creighton, of the United States steamship Oneida, the senior naval officer at this port, as such witness from this legation. The execution took place about half past 10 o’clock in the evening, witnessed only by seven foreigners and about an equal number of Japanese officials. It is said to have been a very solemn and impressive scene. I enclose No. 7, copy of Commander Creighton’s official report to me of the execution.

We entertain the belief that the punishment of this man will have a salutary effect in preventing similar acts in the future, to some extent at all events, while it satisfies us of the good intentions and power of the Mikado. On the following day (March 3) we received the apology of the government for the outrage, in accordance with our demand, copy of which I inclose, marked No. 8. Inclosed in this communication was the sentence of Taki Tensaboro and also that of Hiki Tatewaki, who seems to have been the chief officer, and who, from not properly enforcing his orders, is placed in arrest. I inclose copy of these sentences marked No. 9.

This difficult question now having been satisfactorily arranged, we propose to reopen for a brief period our legations at Osaka, and then return to Yokohama, where our duties now seem to call us, inasmuch as large bodies of troops are moving in that direction.

Trusting that my action in this matter will be approved, I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

[Translation.]

Opinion of the minister of France on the question whether the foreign representatives shall apply for mercy in favor of Taki Tensaboro, officer of Bizen, who has been sentenced to death by the Mikado for the order given by him to his soldiers to fire on the foreigners at Kobé, on the 4th of February, 1868.

Sentence having in due form been passed on the officer guilty of the assault of the 4th of February, 1868, it appears to me that the question whether mercy would answer a better purpose than justice was virtually settled by the foreign representatives when, unanimously, they officially demanded, not the trial, but the capital punishment of the criminal.

They all signed this demand. They did not act hastily, nor should they permit a belief to be entertained that they acted hastily. They were not the judges, neither were they personally wounded or offended; but from a political point of view, they clearly appreciated the assault and the absolute necessity for reparation, being convinced, that sound feelings of humanity prescribed the duty to offer, to Japan the means of avoiding the consequences of retaliation, which would have been much more serious. If reparation had been refused, the ministers would certainly not in any measure have held themselves responsible for the consequences of repression by force of arms. Can they, therefore, now hold back from the criminal the capital punishment, which they expressly demanded?

The assault was political and national, inasmuch as it had its origin in popular prejudices or national hatred, and applied to all foreigners indiscriminately. To recede now from their judgment by applying for mercy, would render the ministers responsible for such other acts of violence and assaults which may occur in future and be prompted by the same prejudices, and the ministers would be unable to meet such responsibility from public opinion or their own, because having had it in their power to act when the opportunity was presented they would have failed to do so.

Even if these reasons, which in my opinion are conclusive, did not exist, in view of clemency having been advocated by the government themselves, by whom the criminal has been sentenced in proper form, the foreign ministers, by permitting themselves to be induced to apply for mercy would become liable to the suspicion, which would be little to their honor, of having countenanced a machination agreed upon beforehand, and of having contented themselves with reparation in name only. In a country like this and in the circumstances under which the assault took place, clemency cannot produce the same effect as stern justice. It is, therefore, justice only which can make the dignity of the foreign representatives, and, at the same time, the safety of their countrymen, respected.

Before the duty of protecting those interests every consideration of feeling should vanish, and compared to this duty the life of one man, who moreover was found guilty and has been sentenced by his own sovereign, must be of no account.

Opinion of the Count de la Tour, Minister of Italy, at the conference of the 2d of March, 1868.

LEGATION OF ITALY IN JAPAN, HIOGO, KOBÉ.

The demand for reparation for the assault committed on the 4th February was made after mature deliberation. In my opinion, it was based upon the conviction that a sentence to capital punishment of the officer who gave the order to fire was the just consequence of that aggression, and at the same time the only means to put a stop to the series of assassinations dictated by political motives since the opening of Japan, and which, with rare exceptions, have remained unpunished. The punishment of Taki Tensaboro should show us to what extent it is the intention of the government of the Mikado to insure respect of foreigners, and at the same time make known that the government possess the power to carry out what has been resolved upon.

The Japanese commissioners have asked us whether there was no way to save the life of this man.

They observe that in Europe sometimes manslaughter is not followed by capital punishment; in special reference they mention the case of the Polish student, who fired in the Bois de Boulogne on the Emperor of Russia, and who was not executed. They further say that no foreigner having been killed on the 4th February, public feeling in this country might feel hurt by capital punishment in this case. The first remark requires no further notice. This is a question of legislation, with which the customs and the laws of Japan are unconcerned. The second consideration has already been dimly perceived before sentence was passed, and in my opinion is inadmissible. Though it is true that no one was killed, yet the circumstances under which the assault took place upon peaceable people, unarmed, suddenly attacked, and which attack was kept up against those who with all speed ran away, or those who stopped to carry off the wounded American sailor—those circumstances were such, that all the foreigners who were there might, and it was intended should, have been killed.

I shall not pause to consider the painful impression which this step of the Japanese commissioners at this late hour has caused me, and which might lead to suppose that this sentence was only intended as satisfaction of the demand of the representatives, with the conviction underlying it that the sentence would not be carried out.

I think there is only one point to be considered, and that is, whether clemency or capital punishment will insure the most favorable result.

It is my deliberate opinion that clemency would not be comprehended or appreciated at its proper value, but would be considered as an admission of weakness, perhaps of fear, and induce every samurai (two-sworded man) to believe that the life of a foreigner can be taken with impunity; while on the other hand, even if the death of Taki Tensaboro should be followed by any act of special revenge, the exemplary punishment of this officer of rank, and one belonging to a family of distinction, would show to the Daimios the respect to which foreigners are entitled, and the means they possess of obtaining justice.

If the life of man is sacred, and if personally concerned, I should prefer to consult my better feelings; as minister of Italy in Japan, and under circumstances of such importance, I can only look to the safety of Italian subjects and the protection of their persons.

For these reasons, and convinced that clemency would be injurious, I vote for the execution of the sentence as rendered by the Mikado, and admitted by him to be just and according to law.

Opinion expressed by the Chargé d’affaires of Prussia at the conference of the 2d March, 1868.

The arguments of the Japanese commissioners have been of a twofold character. They first attempted to establish, that no one having been killed during the attack on the 4th February, the people of Japan would not comprehend why the criminal was executed, and they might feel hurt to learn that while no foreigner lost his life, that of a Japanese had been taken. In proof of their argument, and referring to the proceedings in the case of the person who in Paris tired at his Majesty the Emperor of Russia, it is said that in Europe, when no one is killed, the life of the criminal is spared.

The Japanese commissioners further declare, that the man has deserved death; that sentence has been passed, and that they applied to the clemency of the representatives in order to learn whether means could be found to save the life of the criminal.

The first argument requires no refutation. The attack made upon a great number of unarmed and peaceful foreigners is certainly the most serious one that has been committed since the establishment of relations between the treaty powers and Japan, and the fact that by God’s mercy no one was killed, should certainly not be admitted in extenuation, as the will to kill unquestionably was not lacking. It should moreover not be forgotten that during the entire period in which this matter has been discussed no expression of regret was tendered to the representatives, neither on behalf of the Prince of Bizen nor of his karo, (secretary,) or the guilty officer.

The second argument is simply an appeal to our feelings of humanity, and the minister of England has correctly summed up the impression of the conference, when he stated that we had met to decide whether clemency or strict justice would produce the better effect and protect more efficiently in the future the lives of our countrymen in Japan.

I consider the crime a political one, and one flowing from the estimate of worthlessness of the life of a foreigner, and from the almost certainty of impunity for an attack against foreigners, and this, in my opinion, has been the case of all murders for political reasons in Japan, and which the inefficiency of the laws and of the police in this country has unfortunately countenanced.

Six months ago, on the occasion of the attack on my secretary, Mr. Schnell, I had the honor to state to my colleagues, as I officially stated to the government of the Tycoon, that I saw of only one way of putting a stop to such murders and repeated attacks, and that was to demand the capital punishment of any samurai (two-sworded man) who, without just provocation, should draw his sword on a Prussian subject.

Recent events have not changed my opinions. However I may individually regret my inability to save the life of a man, I feel the more convinced that our clemency would not be appreciated, but would rather be mistaken for an admission of weakness or fear.

I regret to say that I am far from believing that the execution of this criminal will put a stop to murder in Japan; it is quite possible that some may be perpetrated by the relatives or the friends of the criminal from motives of personal revenge, but it is my opinion that the execution of the criminal, who is of high rank, and who evidently belongs to a good family, will produce an excellent and wholesome effect on the people of Japan.

It will prove, at all events, to Daimios. to superior officers and to the armed classes generally, that whoever attacks a foreigner does so at the risk of his life—that punishment will be demanded; that in Japan a power exists which can decree such punishment, and that the head of such a person, however high it may be placed, will fall in atonement of the crime.

The fact that the attack was made by a Daimio’s train, and the plea that foreigners had broken through the ranks, is for me an additional reason to insist upon capital punishment. This is the second time that, for a similar reason, a Daimio’s train murders inoffensive foreigners by the sword or with muskets. On the first occasion the attack on Messrs. Richardson, Marshall and others, remained unpunished, in so far at least that both the man who gave the order and those who carried it out escaped the deserved chastisement. Would it not be well, therefore, to prove to the Daimios and their Karos, that if we are unable to protect our countrymen from the attacks of common assassins, we are quite able to protect them in cases as now in question, and that an infringement of Japanese ceremonial shall no longer be regarded as excusing the order to murder foreign subjects.

In conclusion, and though this consideration is far from exercising a decided influence on my opinion, I cannot help believing, particularly after the request which has so unexpectedly been made to us, that the grant of mercy would have a very bad effect on our relations with the government of the Mikado, which has furnished us brilliant evidence of their energy and power. Neither myself, nor, I believe, the majority of foreigners and Japanese, could well escape the instinctive self-suggestion that sentence has been passed only to meet our demands, and not as a punishment justly due; that it was in fact a result of political circumstances, a compliance in an emergency, rather than the expression of the will and the power of the Mikado to cause the lives of foreigners to be respected.

Clemency would thus have a worse effect; it would completely destroy the respect and the consideration which are our only means of legitimate influence in this country, and the steps we have taken for the protection of our countrymen would become baseness.

In view of the foregoing considerations, I believe it to be my duty to vote for the execution of the sentence passed by the Mikado, and admitted by him to be just and reasonable.

To Hiki Tatewaki, Retainer of Bizen, No Shoshô.

On the occasion of your passing through Kobé weapons were used against foreigners on the pretext that they had broken your ranks, and in aggravation of this the Americans and French, who were trying to escape, and also the foreign ministers, were fired upon, nor was any attempt made to arrange the matter there. This is an outrageous and criminal act. The reformation at present in course of being carried out causes much anxiety to the Imperial bosom, especially in the case of foreign relations, in which is greatly concerned the stability of the nation. His Majesty is determined, whilst preserving his own dignity, to act in accordance with the public law of the universe, and to perform those things which are right and proper.

To have disregarded this state of things, and to have, on the contrary, acted in a way calculated to cause shame to his Majesty, is a flagrant crime, and one which cannot be passed over.

The man who gave the order to fire is therefore condemned to perform hara-kiri in the presence of witnesses of the different nationalities.

Dated second month.

To Hiki Tatewaki, Retainer of Bizen, No Shoshô.

When you were passing through Kobé your followers committed an outrage on foreigners. As this is an act which cannot be passed over, they are punished for it. But as his Majesty is of opinion that it proceeded from the said man’s (Hiki Tatewaki’s) orders not being properly enforced, it is ordered that he be kept under arrest. Dated second month.