time to Japan. Public opinion was concerned not with the Law in the matter, but with its self-interest—the success of Japan.
Again, there was the case of the Malacca. Had the Black Sea been Japanese is it likely that anything would have been heard in England about the illegality of warships passing the Dardanelles? Would it not have been an expedient (and therefore justifiable) act? In Germany, however, instead of being 'reasonable enough,' as it was in the case of Russian ships, it would have been a gross violation of treaties and so forth ad lib.
There is a good deal of reason to believe that the Russian story of the Malacca incident is substantially true on several points. This story in full is as follows:—
The Malacca was watched by a Russian agent who saw on the wharf a number of cases believed to contain machinery for destroyers building in Japan and other war requisites. Observed watching, he retired. The next morning a broad arrow was upon each suspected case: though the official broad arrow should only have been put after the cases were received on board.
Hence the Malacca incident—the capture of the vessel and her subsequent release upon imperative British demands. Had the Japanese captured her under corresponding circumstances as suspected of carrying essentials for the Russian fleet would British
