19世紀末 在朝鮮 未開口岸의 淸商 密貿易 관련 領事裁判案件 硏究 (A Study on the consular jurisdiction cases related to smuggling by Qing merchants through non open ports in Korea in Late 19th)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 동양사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 동양사학연구 / 111호 / 233 ~ 265페이지
· 저자명 : 이은자

초록

This study examined the realities of Korean‐Chinese bargaining by analyzing the procedure of settling three cases of consular jurisdiction through non‐open port that took place during the period of Yuan Shi‐kai as the General Commissioner of Negotiation and Trade with Chosun (1885‐1894) before the Sino‐Japanese War. For this study, we analyzed Cheongan (Asia Research Center of Korea University), documents of Chinese diplomatic offices in Korea during the late Qing Dynasty (Modern History Research Institute Archives of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica), and governmental documents in Hwanghae‐do (Gyujanggak of Seoul National University).
In the first case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchant Woo Ahn‐dang,’ Qing merchant Woo Ahn‐dang was arrested and his cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Taetan Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae‐do in September, 1889. In the second case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Hae Chung‐hyeon and Ju Dong hae,’ Qing merchants Hae Chung‐hyeon and Ju Dong‐hae were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Bi‐yeon Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae‐do in October, 1890. In the third case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Jang Eui‐seong and Seo Geuk‐geun,’ Qing merchants Jang Eui‐seong and Seo Geuk‐geun were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Sukdo Ferry in Hwanghae‐do in December, 1890.
In the three cases of consular jurisdiction above, Korean‐Chinese bargaining was initiated as the Chosun government detected Qing merchants’ illegal acts of smuggling and requested Yuan Shi‐kai to punish them and to confiscate their cargoes, but the procedure went in an unexpected direction. For the first case, Yuan Shi‐kai ruled Qing merchant Woo Ahn‐dang to be a smuggler but he regarded the other crew members as fishermen and, rather, rebuked the Chosun government for seizing their boat. For the second and third cases, he called to account Chosun officers’ illegal taxation (on the Qing merchants’ smuggling) rather than the smuggling acts, and demanded to punish the officers and to compensate for the confiscated cargoes.
In the process that Korea and China dealt with the cases of smuggling by Qing merchants through non‐open ports, there are two noteworthy points. One is that these cases show well how Korea and China invoked the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects. The other is that these cases suggest what networks smuggling by Qing merchants through non‐open ports.
The reason that Yuan Shi‐kai’s claim was accepted by Chosun government in the process of bargaining is not irrelevant to Chosun officers’ unchecked illegal taxation in coastal cities of Hwanghae‐do such as Jangyeon, Haeju and Hwangju, which were non‐open ports but visited frequently by Chinese fishing boats. Of course, it is needless to say that Yuan Shi‐kai utilized the provisions of consular jurisdiction over Qing merchants in Korea.

영어초록

This study examined the realities of Korean‐Chinese bargaining by analyzing the procedure of settling three cases of consular jurisdiction through non‐open port that took place during the period of Yuan Shi‐kai as the General Commissioner of Negotiation and Trade with Chosun (1885‐1894) before the Sino‐Japanese War. For this study, we analyzed Cheongan (Asia Research Center of Korea University), documents of Chinese diplomatic offices in Korea during the late Qing Dynasty (Modern History Research Institute Archives of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica), and governmental documents in Hwanghae‐do (Gyujanggak of Seoul National University).
In the first case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchant Woo Ahn‐dang,’ Qing merchant Woo Ahn‐dang was arrested and his cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Taetan Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae‐do in September, 1889. In the second case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Hae Chung‐hyeon and Ju Dong hae,’ Qing merchants Hae Chung‐hyeon and Ju Dong‐hae were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Bi‐yeon Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae‐do in October, 1890. In the third case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Jang Eui‐seong and Seo Geuk‐geun,’ Qing merchants Jang Eui‐seong and Seo Geuk‐geun were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Sukdo Ferry in Hwanghae‐do in December, 1890.
In the three cases of consular jurisdiction above, Korean‐Chinese bargaining was initiated as the Chosun government detected Qing merchants’ illegal acts of smuggling and requested Yuan Shi‐kai to punish them and to confiscate their cargoes, but the procedure went in an unexpected direction. For the first case, Yuan Shi‐kai ruled Qing merchant Woo Ahn‐dang to be a smuggler but he regarded the other crew members as fishermen and, rather, rebuked the Chosun government for seizing their boat. For the second and third cases, he called to account Chosun officers’ illegal taxation (on the Qing merchants’ smuggling) rather than the smuggling acts, and demanded to punish the officers and to compensate for the confiscated cargoes.
In the process that Korea and China dealt with the cases of smuggling by Qing merchants through non‐open ports, there are two noteworthy points. One is that these cases show well how Korea and China invoked the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects. The other is that these cases suggest what networks smuggling by Qing merchants through non‐open ports.
The reason that Yuan Shi‐kai’s claim was accepted by Chosun government in the process of bargaining is not irrelevant to Chosun officers’ unchecked illegal taxation in coastal cities of Hwanghae‐do such as Jangyeon, Haeju and Hwangju, which were non‐open ports but visited frequently by Chinese fishing boats. Of course, it is needless to say that Yuan Shi‐kai utilized the provisions of consular jurisdiction over Qing merchants in Korea.

참고자료

· 없음