“Japan’s contention in defense of the attack on the Russian ships at Chemulpo, that the port was not neutral on February 9, is false, again because Korea had proclaimed her neutrality. “Japan’s denial of malicious interference with the transmission of Russian telegrams over the Danish cable cannot be sustained. A telegram to Baron Rosen (then Russian Minister to Japan), at Tokio, sent from St. Petersburg February 4, was not delivered till the morning of February 7. That delay did not occur on the Siberian line, as was shown by the fact that a reply to a telegram from Viceroy Alexieff sent at the same time was received the same day. Therefore, it is conclusive that the Rosen telegram was held by the Japanese and not delivered for two days. “Communication with M. Pavloff (then Russian Minister to Korea) by the Korean telegraph ceased in the middle of January. As the Koreans were enjoying friendly relations with Russia, there is good ground for believing that the interruption was due to the Japanese. Thereafter M. Pavloff used a mail steamer or a special warship to communicate with Port Arthur. The Minister of Russia at Seul February 8, therefore, knew nothing of the diplomatic rupture. “Japan pleads that the charge against her seizure of Russian merchantmen before the declaration of war cannot lie after the establishment of prize courts. Their seizure before the declaration of war being piracy is not defensible by the establishment of prize courts, which cannot exist before a declaration of war. The steamer ‘Russia’ was seized in the waters of Southern Korea even before M. Kurino had presented his note here. “The reply concludes: ‘Our information regarding Japan’s announcement that in future Korea would be under her administration came from M. Pavloff and also from the Representative of a friendly Power at Seul. Japan’s denial, consequently, is fruitless, as also is the attempt to refute our statement that the Russian Minister and Consul at Seul were told to leave. We had conclusive proof in St. Petersburg on February 10 that the French Minister at Seul had officially notified our Representatives that the Japanese Government had intimated that they should leave, and that the Japanese had occupied territory in Korea. M. Pavloff was unable to notify our Consul at Fusan, his telegram being refused at the telegraph office.’” ----- Footnote 629: _N.-R._, Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21. Footnote 630: The Japanese dailies. Footnote 631: _N.-R._, No. 22. Footnote 632: In Article 3 of the Nishi-Rosen Protocol of 1898, and in Article 2 of the Russian counter-note of October 3. Footnote 633: See the same Article of the counter-note. Footnote 634: Article 8. Footnote 635: Article 2. Footnote 636: Articles 4 and 8. Footnote 637: Article 7. Footnote 638: Article 9. Footnote 639: Article 3, made necessary from the past experience in Korea.