Evening star., 1921-04-07
u S. Never Consented to Kap Island Mandate
and Asks Reconsideration in Note to Allies

Continuing q correspondence begun
by the Wilson administration relative
to the rights Of the American govern
mont to participate in the peace set
Elements affecting the former over
seas possessions Of tho German en-
pire. especially the Island Of Yap.
Secretary Of State Hughes has dis
patched practically identical notes to
| Japan. England. France and italy,
which have been received by those
governments.
The text Of the note to Great
| Britain, which Is similar to that to
France and Italy, follows:
with respect to the mandate to
Japan, purporting to have. been con-
| hrmed and defined in its terms by the
tions, Of the German possessions in
the Pacific ocean. lying north of the
equator, this government deems it ap-
proprtate to state sthe fundamental
basis Of its representations and the
principles which, in its view, are de-
terminative~
1T will not be questioned that the
right to dispose Of the overseas pos
sessions of Germany was acquired
only through the victory of the allied
and associated powers, and 1t is also
believed that there Is no disposition
on the part Of the British government
to deny the participation OF the United
States in that victory. It would seem
to follow necessarily that the right ac-
cruing to the allied and associated
powers through the common victory is
shared by the United States, and that
there could be no valid or effective
disposition of the overseas possessions
OF Germany. now under consideration.
without the assent Of the United
States. 3HA
United States Not Bound.
This government must, therefore,
point out that as the United States
has never vested either the supreme
council or the league Of nations with
any authority to bind the United
States or to act on its behalf, there
has been no opportunity for any de-
cision which could be deemed to affect
the rights of the United States 1t may
also be observed that the right ac-
cruing to the United States through
the victory in which 1t has participated
could not be regarded as in any way
ceded or surrendered to Japan, or to
other nations. except by treaty, and
that no such treaty has been made.
The fact that the United States
has not ratified the treaty Of Yer
saiiles cannot detract from rights
which the United States had already
acquired, and it is hardly necessary
TO suggest that a treaty to which the
United States is not a party could not
anect these rights. But it should be
noted that the treaty Of Versailles did
not purport to secure to Japan or to
any other nations any right in the over
seas possessions of Germany save as
a0nQl right oh
cured to the United States. On the
contrary, article 119 of the treaty of
Versailles provides:
Germany renounces in favor of the
principal allied and associated powers
all her rights and titles over her over
sea possessions
Germany Favored This Country.
1T will not be questioned that one
OF the principal allied and ASSOCIATED
powers in whose favor Germany re-
nounces her rights and titles is the
United States Thus. not only could
the position Of the government OF Japan
derive no strength from the treaty of
Versailles or from any discussions pre-
liminary thereto, but the terms of that
treaty confirm the position of the gov
ernment of the United States.
Further. the draft convention re-
lating to the mandate for the German
concessions in the Pacific ocean, north
of the equator, which was subsequently
proposed. proceeded in the same view,
purporting on behalf of the United
States as one Of the grantors to confer
the mandate upon Japan, thus recog-
mixing the rights and interest of the
United States and the fact that the
proposed action could not be effective
without the agreement of the United
States as one of the principal allied
and associated powers.
las the United States did not enter
into this convention, or into the treaty.
relating to the subject, this government
is unable to understand upon what
grounds it was thereafter attempted to
ment Of the United States. 1t Is mani
fest that the league of nations was
without any authority to bind the
United States. and that the confirma-
ton OF the mandate in question, and
the definition Of its terms by the coun
ber. 1920. cannot be regarded as hav-
Ing efficacy with respect to the United
States.
Peace Treaty Provisions.
ut should be noted that this mandate
not only recites article 119 of the treaty Of
Versailles. to the effect that Germany
renounced in favor of the principal al
over her oversee possessions. including
therein the groups Of islands in the
Pacific ocean lying north Of the equator
Lat also recites that the principal al
lied and associated powers agreed that
in accordance with article %. part
covenant of the league OF nations, Of
the said treaty. q mandate should be con-
ferred -upan his ma jesty the Emperor Of
Japan to administer the said islands
and have proposed that the mandate
should be formulated as set forth.
While this last quoted recital. as has
already been pointed out in previous
communica tions by this government. is
| inaccurate in it's terms. inasmuch as the
| United States as one Of the principal
allied and associated powers had not so
agreed and proposed. the recital again
recognizes the necessity Of the partici-
i patton Of the United States in order to
make the proposed disposition effective.
| las. in the absence Of any treaty
With the United States relating to the
matter. there was no decision on May
z. 1919. binding the United States, it 10
deemed to be unnecessary again to ex-
anime the brief minutes Of the meeting
of the supreme council on that date. It
may. however. be proper to say that
the minutes Of this meeting. although
obviously without any fnality. could
! not properly be construed without due