Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1921-04-22
JAPAN DEMANDS
U. S. zap PROOF
Washington Makes Public Note
Received From Tokyo
Government.
HOLDS MANDATE STANDS
Reply to American Message Says That
United States Must Prove That
President Wilson Made Reserva-
tons at Peace Conference.

United States Must Prove That
President Wilson Made Reserva-
t;ons at Peace Conference.
Washington, April 20.-TO maintain
its. position with regard to the Pacific
island Of zap, the American govern
ment would have ito prove not mere
" the fact that President Wilson
made reservations concerning it, but
also that the supreme council decided
/ in favor Of those views the japanese
/ government says in note under date
of February 26, made public by the
State department, along with the other
correspondence between the two gov
ernments regarding zap.
1T must also be remembered,
Japan says, "that if decision in
favor of the exclusion of the island of
Yap-a question Of grave concern to
Japan and one on which the Japanese
| delegation invariably maintained a
firm attitude had really been made,
as it is implied by the argument OF
the United States government at the
meeting Of the supreme council, May
!. z (1919,) at which Japan was not
represented, it could not but have
been regarded as an act of entirely
bad faith.''
1t was to this note that Secretary
Hughes replied April 5, at the same
time sending similar notes to the gov
ernments of Great Britain, France
and Italy. He declared that the United
States was unable to agree with
Japan's contention that in order to
maintain its position it would have to
prove not only that President Will
son made reservations regarding Zap,
but also that the supreme council
adopted those views.
'As no treaty has ever been con-
Guided with the United States, relat-
ing to the island of Yap," Mr.. Hughes
added, "and as no one has ever been
authorized to cede or surrender the
right or interest of the United States
in the. island, this government must
insist that It has not lost its right
or interest as it existed prior to any
action of the supreme council or Of
the League Of Nations, and cannot
recognize the ALLEGATION of the island
or the validity Of the mandate to
Japan"
Japan has not as yet replied to this
communication, so, that to date the
correspondence consists of the two
notes quoted above, another formal
note sent by Acting Secretary Davis
last December 6 by direction of Pres
ident Wilson and two memoranda with
which the exchanges were initiated
last November after some question
had arisen at the meetings here of the
international communications confer
ence concerning the action of the SUI
preme council with regard to zap.
In the first memorandum, dated No
vember 9, the secretary of state said
it was 1.-THE clear understanding" Of
the American government that the SUI
preme council at the previous request
of President Wilson had reserved for
future consideration the final dispo-
sition of the island in the hope that
some agreement might he reached to
place it under international control.
The japanese foreign Office replied
in a memorandum under date of No
vember 10 that it was 1.-THE definite
understanding" Of the japanese gov
eminent that the supreme council on
May came to a final decision to
place under mandate to Japan all of
the former German islands north of
the equator that the decision involved
mo reservations whatever in regard
to the island of zap" and that there
fore the japanese government would
not be able to consent to any PROPOSE
ton which, reversing the decision of
the supreme council, would exclude
the island Of zap from the territory
committed to their charge"
In response to this memorandum,
Acting Secretary Davis dispatched a
long formal note to Tokyo, setting
forth that the American government
could not agree that zap was included
in the decision of the supreme coun-
ell of May Z, 1919, as claimed, and
that even on the assumption that the
island had been included in the man
date "all other powers should have
free access to the island for the land
i.zg and operation of cables"
The japanese reply on February 26
said if the observation of the Ameri-
can government with regard to cables
was put forth irrespective of the fact
that the island was within the man
datory territory "then the question
seems to be one which should be
freely settled by the nation which has
charge of the place, namely, Japan"