To the Editor of the "Nonra-Omixa Darcy News."
818,—I have the honour, through your paper, to reply to Mr. Soredin-Sabatin, who boldly signed himself under the heading Audiatar et altera pars" as against "Ein Jopaner," who discussed the Mandjour question, At the same time T was greatly dis-appointe is arguments, if in 7 SPE be, teed oe, "in which no legal sense could be found through whole sentences.
From a subject of the Russian Government_ where inst Japan have surprising have to meet such an attack as has been yy Mr. Seredin-Sat It seems to me he has jours mooring at " neutral port, furiously tried to attack the innocent editors of Shanghai papers who, I think, have no, time to waste in poying attention to euch incoherent gramblings as were made by Mr.] Other argument might 0 be made, but I
Believe that I may repay. the debt' of Mr.
every particular statement, as the 1 would be scarosly necessary to ansyér Ein Japaner," the friend of mine, by concluding the letter? with words used by Mr. Shanghai public, except Mr. Seredin-Sabatin Seredin-Sabotin. and his friends, could not be so decrepit as "Those sophistical arguments and pure to require any" auflarung."" inventions made by Mr. Seredin-Sabatin However, two points may might appeal only to bar-room politicians only to deliver Mr. Seredin-Sabatin and the To attempt to reassure chat class of reader same-minded people from their delusion of of the Shanghai papers would require more International law adapted to the 16th imaginative and inventive power, as well as corresponding ability to handle the truth First as to the neutrality of Core, Corea than even Mr. Seredin-Sabatin possesses." could not be said to be a neutral Power any naving no necessity to conceal myseli—more than Manchuria has been allowed to for I am always ready to prove what I be neutral by Russia; Corea and Manchuria write—I have the honour to sign my real have been principal objects of the present name. war, and it is more than needless to explain Iam, ete., that the neutral principle is unacceptable Fusow Herr. in such a case, Even if we suppose that 10th March.
Cores was a neutral Power, Japan had the right to ignore a neutrality which could not be enforced, and which is very different from the neutrality of China, now being violated
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.