The only definite statement made gang that the first Japanese press that the explosives were _n0t fesponsitle for the wreckage of the {re bridge"
Matoass, tnavinwenity: bell'
As for the train, it now, after the refutation rq of tha aagertion it fe remark: or thet story. abeotstely fncompre- fort "f thie amtertion It te reas sensible. Why, having successfully statement referred to in the fore-completed the tang ofthe vlotace Caemment referred 4e In the should these plotters have been yi.¢ of this same report, contains foolish enough to sneak about the apanese guard-house to attract the attention ut the Japanese guard soldiers. and carrying hand-grenade es and letters of identification their pockets? The only logical inference seems to be that these dividuals had no connection with the blowing-up of the viaduct. the diametrically opposite assertion that "the explosives must have been placed on the rails at the foot of the -tone railway bridge supports."
for the latter part of the above jissertion, it is contradicted by the shattered ends of the girders, 93 pas been already explained. theories are mentioned Finally, the causes of the sion are dealt with. The first conclusions drawn are quite correct, namely. that a larg? amount of "powder" must have been ured, and that an electric contrivance must have been employed for the exvlesion of the "powder." But when tackling the question of the source of the explcticn, the committee vepert without any attempt 20 test their validity. It is suggested {tthe explosives might have been placed on top of the stone pier Jer the bridges, or in some of the cars, That an official committee with expert advice at their com mand should so utterly fail in the task entrusted to it, is mystifying the extreme.—Reuter.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.