The special correspondent of the Times at Tokio describes in
Wednesday's paper the nature of the disputes between Japan and China, which had come to a deadlock owing to the unwillingness of Japan to accept the Chinese proposal of arbitration. In the Spectator of April 3rd we remarked that though there was a direct contradiction of testimony, the Peking correspondent of the Times inclining to the Chinese side and the Tokio correspondent to the Japanese, it is generally true that the nation which offers to resort to arbitration is not conscious of any deliberate perversity in its policy. The special correspondent who has gone to Tokio, in company with the Peking correspondent, to examine into the whole matter declares, however, that doubts as to Japanese moderation and good faith are quite unjustified. It was natural for Japan to object to the building of the Fa-ku-menn Railway by the Chinese, because it would compete disastrously with the Japanese South Manchurian Railway. Japan was able, moreover, to plead the clause in the Peking Protocol of
December, 1905, which was expressly intended to prevent the construction of such a railway. China disregarded the Japanese objections and signed the contract with a British firm for making the line.
