Feb. 5.
We reproduce to-day a report of an extremely important interpellation in the Japanese House of Peers on the famous Mizumachi letter' and the escape of "Little Hsu'' from the Japanese Legation in Peking. Of the Vatter our readers will need no reminder, but the more objectionable parts of Colonel Mizumachi's letter, not previously published, we believe, in Shanghai, are also given with Baron Pujimura's speech. We are not commenting on that letter, further than to say that most people will agree that it assuredly called for questions in the House, because Baron Fujimura (with some others to be mentioned presently) has said all that is necessary; and it would hardly be becoming for outsiders to add criticisms of their own: at least in similar circumstances we Britigh would naturally resent anything of the kind." But it may be permissible to remark on the conspicuous lameness and selfrcontradictory nature of the replies which Baron Fujimura received, a characteristic which adds further weight and justification to his extremely pungent criticism.
Baron Fujimura is well known to us all in Shanghai and_ his interzyYFion is precisely of the kind that we should expect of him. What we will to emphasize here is the very strong support that he has received from some of the best and most representative journals in Japan. Thus the "Yomiuri," commenting on the Baron's questions regarding "Little Hsu" says In yeply to Baron Fujimura's interpellation, General Tanaka, the!
War Minister, made two confess sions.
First, when the military authorities became aware of General Hsu Shu-cheng's plan to flee from the Japanese legation, they issued instructions that "he should not be confined but should not be assisted in fleeing." Some Japanese soldiers were punished in connexion with the escape of General Hsu. The instructions are incomprehensible, and... there is no knowing what instructions were really issued.
Secondly, the War Minister boastfully referred to the fact that the various organs in China the gathering of information. Is this not evidence that the army is overbearing the Foreign Office? We do not know for what purpose reference was made to General Aoki, but the object was apparently to show that the army has a galaxy of experts on things Chinese.
As to the reply of Count Uchida, the Foreign Minister, it seems that.
e was reciting what he was told by Mr. Hara, but his reference to the negotiations with the War Department may be taken as airing dissatisfaction with the pressure of the militarists.
Then the 'Tokio Asahi?' turns to the building of barracks in Chientao and Hungchun fall Chinese territory, be it remembered), saying When the Hungchun incident occurred we urged that steps should! be taken fundamentally to. solve the problem by converting the re-hellions Koreans. Ags to the Hung. chun incident itself, we urged that) Japanese troops should not be maintained: in Chinese territory for; a long time, and that the problem should be settled locally. Our plea has been entirely ignored. and a small number of troops whose practical utility is doubtful is still maintained in Chinese territory, thus courting the suspicions of China and the Powers. The Foreign Office is declaring that the troops will be withdrawn, but on the other hand, it is reported that the army is taking steps to arrect barracks for the garrison in Chientao. It may be assumed, therefore, that the army intends to maintain the troops on a semi-permanent basis.
ik will be very difficult for the present diplomacy toward; China, especially a diplomacy which must listen to the intentions of the militarists and a temporizing diplomacy to make a success. Te is expected that in the present} session of the Diet many important.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.