The sun., 1905-05-12
FRANCE DENIES ALL GUILT.
UHT DOESN'T JAPAN PROTEST TO
ENGLAND AND GERMANY
They Furnished the Coal for Russian Fleet
Declares Any Advantages RoJestven-
ILy Has secured TOgo Might Have
Had-AS 10 the Laws OF Neutrality.
.sp,,fdl casl. DeIpaieh 10 THE suN.

SpfcfH Cd5f DetDnlch 70 lhb oV"'
PARIS May 1.-The Temps publishes
an abstract Of Frances reply TO Japan's
complaints.
In the frst place the basis Of Frances
argument is explained from he time Of
Minister Motono's hBt protest on the oc-
casion Of the stop at Cherbourg Of some
Russian vessels. Then the French Govern
nent made known to Toxic It's point Of
view both in regard 10 the matter Of Law
and 10 that Of fact in the matter Of the
spplication Of the rules Of neutrality.
The French Government points out that
strictly there Is no code Of international
law. Each Power has its own. The French
code Of International law was formulated
At the beginning Of the war between Spain
and the United States. 1t declares that
telHgertnts cannot make use Of Frances
ports for the purposes Of war OF to obtain
arms and ammunition OF to execute works
with the object Of increasing their military
power.
The duration Of the stay OF belligerents,
II they are not accompanied by prizes,
Is not limited But they can only be sup
plied with provisions, commodities, and
the means for repairs that may be needed
for the subsistence Of the crews OF safety
Of navigation. Thus nothing brought for
ward by Japan as a violation Of neutrality
constitutes an Illicit act.
In equity and wishing TO fulfil in the
spirit the duty OF impartiality the French
Government admits the importance Of
the fact that the stay Of the Russian squad
ron for several weeks In French waters
creates special obligations These Il has
met in the full exercise Of its sovereignty
by sending precise instructions TO it's colo
nial officials.
In the second place, the stay Of the Rus
alan feet close to the Indo-Chinese waters
has given rise 10 no act in preparation for
war and the imputations emitted on this
subject have no foundation.
1. As regards coal, the Russian feet
has never used the privilege OF procuring
Il In French ports. Only at Algiers did two
torpedo bosts take in fftg-seye1 tons. II is
the English and the Germans who have
supplied the coal, and Toxic has never
protested against this action Of England
and Of Germany.
2. As regards the strstegical Use Of neu-
tral vatert. The French waters have
never been the scene Of the junction Of
various Russian squadrons. The cOaling
at Cherbourg, Dakar, Jibutil and Nossi
BE took place outside Of territorial waters.
Il may have happened that at Nosd Be
some Of the Russ an vess IL NAV have come
close TO the shore In the intercourse be-
tween the feet and the shore, but none Of
these were war vessels Of any kind.
5. As regards repairs Those at Cher
bouTg and Majunga did not exceed what
international practise permits
In the third place, a. regards the presence
Of the Russian feet in Indo-Chinese waters,
the French Government believes that the
japanese complaints are in founded.
I. II is an impossibility TO exercise a
preventive control on account OF the
extent Of the coast line and the absence Of
telegraphic stations. The Government has
done what Il could and could do no more.
2. In the matter Of coal at Saigon and
KGmranh, the Government replies that the
quantity bought was not large. Moreover,
the coal was bought OF private individuals.
Japan made no protest when Cardiff sold
much larger stocks. The latest instruc-
tons sent out are 10 provide only enough
coal TO take the feet TO VladivostOk.
3. The shores Of Indo-China have not
served az a base Of operations. According
to the best English authorities, continuous
occupation is the required characteristic
for base Of operations.
g. The case Of the Diana Ia a proof Of the
perfect correctness OF the French Govern
ment, Essential pieces Of the guns and the
machinery were taken out. When it was
decided TO change her dock the pieces were
put In plaoe again, but Immediately after
that they were taken out once more.
In the fourth place, the japanese point
Of view Is wrong and the Government re-
cards Jspan's remonstrances TO be un-
lustihable.
l. Frances impartiality circumstances and
Togos choice Of the field in which 10 give
battle have brought II about that the Rus
SLAMS have been able TO stay In Indo-Chiness
waters and that the japanese have not been
able TO obtain the same advantage, but the
French Government declines 20 accept any
responsibility for such a situation. II
Togo had gone to meet the Russians at the
entrance 10 the Red Sea the situation would
have been reversed and the Japanese would
have prohted by the same advantages
which the Russians have derived.
?. The Japanese have done In the Philip
pines and the Dutch Indies what they accuse
the Russians Of doing. That a japanese
bVuhuIon mas Deen CRUISING lot Two months
in the waters Of Singapore, Borneo and
Manila is beyond doubt. This stay in
volved frequent relations with the land,
unavoidable stays and taking in Of pro-
visions
5. The protest addressed 10 France alone
should have been addressed 10 other Powers
AZ we'll Before reaching the waters Of
lhdo-China the Russians ooasted along the
peninsula Of Malacca, where they we're
Joined by their colliers and provisioned
With coal, yet no protest has been addressed
10 London.
4. The French reasons. after examination,
have been approved 10y the British Govern
ment. Mr.. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne
In Parliament have found that the meas
ures taken by France were satisfactory.
Filthy and finally, FIVE conclusions are
dravn. Relying on the foregoing argu-
ments, the French Government believes:
l. That in Law IL IL complete ely cleared by
the general and notorious character Of its
rules Of neutrality.
p That in equity. in spite Of the letter Of
its rules, Il has taken certain measures
calculated TO secure the preservation Of
-