On the occasion of the battle of Port Arthur I was on board
the Itsukushima, and accurately observed the fight as
carried on both on shore and at sea. I saw how the Imperial
troops fought, and how the squadron co-operated with the
army off the coast of Port Arthur, and I watched the
movements of the enemy with the utmost vigilance. Similarly,
I carefully looked out for any incident that might furnish
material for the study of my special subject, and I do
not therefore hesitate to say that I am among those best
informed as to what actually took place on that occasion.
Equally, I do not hesitate to declare that I saw nothing
blameworthy about the assault on Port Arthur.
I have seen to-day in a copy of the _Japan Mail_ that
reached me, that Mr. Creelman, the war correspondent of
the _New York World_, wrote to that paper to the following
effect: “Torpedo boats were going through the waves, sinking
junks loaded with men, women, and children endeavouring
to escape. Ten junks, laden with terror-stricken people,
were thus sunk, and the water was filled with drowning
inhabitants.” While regretting, for the sake of Mr.
Creelman, whose honour as a gentleman may be impaired by
such absurd fabrications, I fear that the public might be
led astray by what he has written, and therefore I feel
constrained to refute the false statements made by him.
In the first place, the assertions of Mr. Creelman are
entirely imaginary; for his allegation that he saw from the
shore, on the day of the assault upon Port Arthur, that is,
on November 21, 1894, Japanese men-of-war and torpedo boats
in motion, cannot be founded on actual fact. It is true
that on the 21st men-of-war and torpedo boats were off the
coast of Port Arthur, but for two days, from the evening of
the 21st, they were away from the coast, owing to stress
of weather. Now, Port Arthur was not entirely taken on the
21st. Severe struggles were still in progress on that day.
Hence it was practically impossible at such a juncture to
see the warships and torpedo boats in motion off the coast
of Port Arthur, and the fictitiousness of any statement to
the contrary will be admitted by any one actually at the
scene of the battle. On that same day certain staff officers
of the Army, desiring to communicate some intelligence
to the fleet, could only effect their object by braving
extraordinary dangers and hardships, and by passing through
the lines of the enemy. How, then, could Mr. Creelman have
seen the movements of the fleet and the torpedo flotilla
except in pure imagination!
Secondly, while the fleet and flotilla were lying off the
coast of Port Arthur and in the vicinity, from 5 a.m. to 6
p.m. on the 21st, not a single Chinese junk was captured.
Only two junks escaped that day, at a little past 5 p.m.
But the commander of the fleet had specially ordered that
any small vessel of the kind should be let alone, attention
being paid to the larger only. No other junk escaped. It is
true that there were five or six junks on the shore, close
by the foot of Lao-Tie-Shan, but they were all beached.
Thus the statement that junks, loaded with men, women, and
children, were sunk is not only absolutely groundless, but
the very allegation that such a number of junks attempted to
escape is a fabrication.
Thirdly, it is a fact that at a little past 4 p.m. two
steamers emerged from Port Arthur. It was subsequently
known by the confession of Chinese prisoners that a number
of Chinese officers were on these vessels. It is also a
fact that torpedo boats pursued these steamers. It would
have been a neglect of duty on the part of the fleet to
disregard the escape of such vessels. When the torpedo boats
gave chase to the steamers, they signalled, “Heave-to, or
take the consequence.” The steamers not obeying, two blank
cartridges were fired after them, but they still kept on
their course. Moreover, they returned the fire of their
pursuers, and the latter therefore began to chase them with
more vigour. Thereat one of the steamers turned back into
the harbour, and the other changing its course, ran ashore,
and all the persons on board fled. Was not this procedure on
the part of the Japanese officers perfectly proper, and in
strict accordance with the canons of western nations?
The foregoing explanations are sufficient to prove the
falsehood of Mr. Creelman’s statements. I regret that he
should be so lost to the sense of honour as to fabricate
such injurious stories. In order that the public may not be
deceived, I beg you to give publicity to these facts.
Your obedient servant,
TAKAHASHI SAKUYE,
_Hogakushi_.
Port Arthur,
_February 11, 1895_.
This disposes of the most gruesome fictions about the massacre, but it
does not deal with what took place on shore.
The true story, as I had it from a Japanese army officer who was there,
is as follows:—
The battle was over, and the Japanese were marching into the town, a
few Chinese retreating before them. Isolated fighting continued; but
the place was, to all intents and purposes, captured.
As the victorious Japanese pressed forward, a young officer suddenly
came across the remains of his brother, who had been captured, wounded,
a day or two before. The body showed that death had been inflicted with
atrocious Chinese tortures.
Maddened at this dreadful sight, the young officer practically ran
amok. Crying “No quarter,” he began to kill. His men, understanding
the cause, started on the same career of vengeance; and it spread like
wildfire through the army, that the town was full of the corpses of
tortured Japanese prisoners, and two or three regiments got out of
hand. For some time “Vengeance” was the battle-cry, and terrible things
happened that night.
Before we blame the Japanese, we should remember that our own hands are
not quite clean in this matter; human nature has its limitations, and
there are many men still living who can recall what they did when, in
the Indian Mutiny, they found rebels red-handed among the tortured and
outraged bodies of British ladies and children. Armchair ethics may
condemn; but the armchair critics sit at home doing the condemnation.
It is less easy to be philosophical in the hour of battle. The
philosopher must have been through it, and abstained from slaughter,
for his strictures to be worth anything. Personally, I think few things
come more under the head of “excusable” than the Port Arthur massacre,
so long as human nature remains human.
Port Arthur was converted into a Japanese base, and for a few weeks
events languished, while preparations were made for the attack on
Wei-hai-wei.