Under this heading the Japan Times, which as a rule steers a pretty straight course, contrary to this laudable habit tries to obscure the questions which form the subject of its remarks. Young barristers often make the mistake in opening 'a dise to say that they cannot see that the other side has a case at all so that the case is practically undefended. It does not take many minutes, however, to convince them that the case is defended, and as a rule, it goes against them. The Japan Times makes the same mistake, but is probably not so very much mistaken in the assumption that the wounded vanity of its Yokohama contemporaries will prompt them to pursue a false scent that leads them away from the main issue. We are too old a hand to be #0 easily caught. We therefore skip the whole wordy argument and come to the few words that, after all, are the essence of it. They are the following "We have nomandatefrom those in power to speak in their name on this matter, but from what we know about their views and policy, we think it safe to assure our contemporaries in the open ports, that there is no cause for alarm about the fate of their papers under the new treaties."
That is the little kernel of meat that remains when the husk of meaningless verbiage is peeled off. The Japan Times has no mandate to speak—it would not matter if it had, as nothing it prints cat be pleaded as law in a Court of Law—it knows something about the views and policy of those in power, and so do we—and presumably our knowledge of them dates much further back than that of any one on our contemporary's staff; thinks it safe—so does the boy who goes skating on the millpond and breaks through the ice—to assure its contemporaries in the open ports, etc., ete. Very good, tery good of our Tokio contemporary,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.