British Advice To Bryan.

New York Times 100 years ago today, May 19, 1913:
London Paper Picks Him Up on His Declaration of No War.
    LONDON, May 19.— The Dally Mail, in an editorial headed "Misplaced Idealism," says:
    "When Secretary Bryan loudly proclaimed that there should be no war during his tenure of office he forgot California and forgot Japan. It is not probable that Japan will proceed to extremes; her statesmen are too wise to fight on an issue where Western opinion would not support them, while her strength is not equal to a struggle with the United States.
    "It would be well for Mr. Bryan to remember that he who declares that nothing will force him to fight is inviting his opponents to drive him into a position where it would be difficult for him to keep the peace."
    The Times prints a three-column article by Sir Valentine Chirol, formerly foreign editor of the paper, dealing with the dispute between the United States and Japan. The writer analyzes the grounds on which Japan claims equality of treatment with Western nations, and expresses the belief that the situation created thereby is more dangerous than it was on any previous occasion.
    The Times, commenting editorially on this statement, says:
    "The ultimate point in the dispute does not affect America alone, but is essentially a world question. There should be plenty of room for the surplus millions of Japan and China in the undeveloped Asiatic territories for many decades to come. But California offers a quicker pathway to affluence for the ambitious Asiatics, therefore the fears of the Californians, thought to be exaggerated and premature, are not entirely groundless, and no useful purpose will be served by blind condemnation of the tendencies of public opinion in the Western States.
    "Whatever may be the issue of the present dispute, it is a question of magnitude for the white races in the future. Until the situation becomes more strained we prefer to believe that some middle course of settlement will be found.
    "While Japan is fully warranted in standing upon her treaty rights, she will do well to remember that a claim to enter a neighbor's garden is not the kind of a claim that can be pressed with unrestricted indignation, however strong its documentary support may be."