Trial and Execution of Ahn
By Franklin Rausch
Contributing Writer
Ahn Jung-geun's assassination of Hirobumi Ito in Harbin was an international event. A Korean subject had killed a Japanese subject on Chinese territory that was administered by the Russians! The practice of railroad imperialism, in which empires built railroads in weaker countries and then used them to expand their power led to this rather complicated situation.
Japan controlled the railway in southern Manchuria and so exercised authority around the tracks and the railway stations. Russia did the same in the northern part of Manchuria, which is where Harbin is located. Therefore, when Ahn killed Ito, Russian soldiers arrested him. After a brief interrogation he was handed over to the Japanese consul of Harbin and eventually transferred to the prison in Lushun (then referred to as Port Arthur), another part of China that had fallen under Japanese control.
He was treated relatively well in prison. He describes in his autobiography how the Japanese officials were often kind to him, giving him extra bedding and special allotments of food. He was even provided with tobacco and Western sweets. While Ahn appears to have seen such treatment as evidence of sincere kindness, there might also have been ulterior motives.
We saw in last week's article how it was important for Japan to show that it was a civilized nation. At this time, Japan was accused of violating promises to allow other countries to trade freely in Manchuria. In addition, just as Japan was hoping that foreign countries would give up extra-territoriality in Korea and allow their citizens to be tried in the Japanese-controlled Korean courts, its judicial system in Korea was being criticized as unfair to foreigners.
Therefore, it would seem that Japan sought to use Ahn's imprisonment, and later his trial, which would last for six sessions from Feb. 7 to 14, 1910, to show how civilized Japan was.
At first glance, Ahn's trial seems fair. The court appears to have faithfully followed the rules of evidence, allowed Ahn and his co-defendants to speak in their own defense, and was open to the public. Furthermore, though not required by Japanese law, attorneys were even assigned to defend Ahn.
While the image of Ahn's trial makes it appear to be a fair one, in actuality, it was nothing of the sort. Some scholars today argue that Japan did not have jurisdiction over Ahn and therefore the trial itself was illegal. Furthermore, a British, Korean, and Russian lawyer had been hired for his defense. However, Japanese law only allowed for Japanese lawyers and so they were not allowed to represent Ahn. Though Ahn was allowed to speak, the trial was conducted entirely in Japanese with only limited translation and so he had to defend himself without knowing exactly what was being said.
Ahn's two Japanese lawyers made a fairly solid defense. Kamada Shoji argued that while Japan might have jurisdiction it should enforce Korean law and since Korean law did not cover such an incident, Ahn should set free since he had technically committed no crime. Mizuno Kichitaro argued that while Ahn should be punished, he had acted patriotically and his actions were not unlike those of the Japanese heroes of the Meiji Restoration of 1868.
While good defenses, they were not what Ahn wanted. They did not question the legitimacy of Japanese colonial rule in Korea. Ahn had hoped to use the trial as an opportunity to indict Ito for his destruction of Korean independence and disturbance of peace in the East and to convince Japan to change its policy. He defended himself by arguing that he had killed Ito as an officer in a Korean righteous army and so should be tried in accordance with international law. His arguments were essentially ignored.
Ahn was found guilty of murder by the judge and sentenced to death. A series of then-secret telegrams between the judiciary in Lushun and the Japanese foreign minister reveal that had Ahn not been so sentenced, he would have been retried until he was.
As Ahn awaited execution, he spent his time copying passages from various books in his fine calligraphy at the request of Japanese officials and guards. He was supplied with hundreds of sheets of paper and a large amount of silk for that purpose. Some of his calligraphy still remains and can be seen on display at his memorial hall in Namsan Park in central Seoul. Ahn also wrote his autobiography and even started an essay entitled ``A Treatise on Peace in the East." Unfortunately, this work was unfinished; only the first chapter and introduction were completed.
Ahn wanted to see the priest, Father Joseph Wilhelm, who had baptized him, before his execution. However, Bishop Gustave Mutel, leader of the Catholic Church in Korea, refused, apparently wanting Ahn to publicly declare that his killing of Ito was a sin before sending a priest. In the end, Father Wilhelm defied his Bishop and visited Ahn in prison. He tried to convince Ahn that what he had done was wrong but was unable to do so. Before he left, he heard Ahn's confession and gave him Holy Communion.
On March 26, Ahn, dressed in a new suit of white Korean clothes, was led to the execution ground. According to a report from his Japanese interpreter, Sonoki, when asked if he had any last words, Ahn requested that they all pray for peace in the East. He also asked that they cheer together for the same end, but the warden refused. Ahn prayed quietly for several minutes and was then executed by hanging. Ahn had lost his life, and in a few months, Korea would suffer annexation and lose what was left of its independence.