The purpose of such a proposal on the part of Russia (and we are inclined to credit the story because such methods are highly characteristic of Russian diplomacy), is, of course, obvious. It is intended to embarrass Japan in her future rela tions with China and the Powers. But, apart from any question as to the ultimate disposition of this territory, Japan could not thus be de prived of her right to the use of this region for military purposes. See editorial in N. Y. Times for May I5th. There has also been a report, emanating from St. Petersburg, to the effect that the Chinese have tacitly agreed to cooperate with the opera tions of the Japanese against Russia. The Japan ese propose, it is said, to drive General Kuropatkin's forces into Mongofia. This, it is urged, would place the Russians in the position of in
WON
vaders of Chinese or neutral territory, and would enable General Ma's army to make reprisals, thus cleverly avoiding the infringement of Chi nese neutrality by Japan or China. See N. Y. Times for May loth. If Russian troops should be driven into Chi nese territory, a well-known and indisputable rule of International Law requires that they be interned and kept there at Russia's expense until the close of the war or until exchanged. China has again recently given repeated assurances of her intention to observe all her neutral obliga tions toward both belligerents. For the recent attacks of Chinese bandits in Manchuria on Rus sian outposts and coal mines, China can in no wise be held responsible unless they have been inspired or encouraged by the Chinese govern ment.
THE JURY.
BY GUY H. HOLLIDAY, Of the Boston Bar. IT was in the early days of the Southwest where the juries were apt to be more familiar with Spanish than with English. The case against the prisoner was strong. There was upon the evidence, offered by the district attorney, not a shadow of a doubt that the defendant had stolen the horse, and the cross-examination by his counsel had not helped matters in the least. In spite of all this, however, and the fact that horse-steal ing in that region was more serious than murder or robbery, the defendant's counsel, who was something of a student of human nature, as well as learned in the law, man aged to win his case. As soon as he had learned from his client the weakness of the defense, he had sought out a Spanish speak ing friend and had learned from him four words of Spanish,—"Gentlemen of the jury." He had practised on these until his accent was irreproachable. Then, when the time came for the argument, he arose deliberately and turning to the jury spoke those four words; all the Spanish he knew. In an instant, the district attorney was on his feet, objecting to the use of Spanish in
the. argument, that English was the official language of this country, that such an inno vation was without precedent, and a great deal more to the same effect. But the de fendant's counsel waxed indignant also, and in the most urgent manner showed to the court that this case was of vital importance to the prisoner, that an argument to the jury lost half its force when filtered through an interpreter. Again and again, he shouted that it was the right, not only of the accused, but of the jury to have the argument made in a language that they could understand. Finally, as he had expected, the court de cided against him, and the argument was finished in English. As he had also ex pected, however, the jury, though unable to understand English well, had got the idea into their heads that he had wanted to ad dress them in Spanish and had not been al lowed to do so, and also got the notion that they themselves had in this way suffered a slight, and accordingly, with a fine disregard for the evidence, promptly gave their verdict in favor of the prisoner.
