That the view of this authority as to the significance of the Conventions of 1904 is not the view of any individual alone has been clearly demonstrated by the acceptance of its conclusions, in a practical way, though the official action of foreign governments since the date of the conventions themselves. In particular it is to be noted that the Government of the United States has expressed an opinion touching the effect in international law upon the status of Korea of the February and August Protocols which is substantially identical with that of Professor Lawrence. Before there was any occasion for a formal expression of opinion a significant indication of the views of the Department of State upon the subject could be found in the Foreign Relations for 1904. Over the Protocols as published therein may be found the caption “Protectorate by Japan over Korea.” (437 _f._) Later on, Secretary Root had occasion expressly to state this opinion. This was when, in December, 1905, Mr. Min Yung-chan, whilom Korean Minister to France, came to the United States for the purpose of protesting against recognition by the United States of the Treaty of November 17th of the same year. In a letter to Mr. Min, explaining the reasons which made it impossible for the American Government not to recognize the binding force of that instrument, the Secretary added that there was another and a conclusive reason against interference in the matter. This reason, he said, was to be found in the circumstance that Korea had _previously_ concluded with Japan two agreements which, in principle and in practice, established a Japanese Protectorate in Korea, and to the force of which in that particular the Treaty of November 17 added nothing. To this view of the virtual significance of these earlier Protocols there is only to be opposed the demonstrably false assertions of the now ex-Emperor and the opinions and affirmations—quite unwarranted as the next chapter will show—of writers like Mr. Hulbert, Mr. Story, and other so-called “foreign friends” of His Majesty. These assertions and opinions are certainly not made any more credible by the willingness of their authors to denounce the President and Acting Foreign Minister of the United States in Korea, and, by implication, all the other heads of foreign governments who neither share their opinion, nor approve of their conduct in support of the opinion![32]