Evening star., 1921-12-22
NEED TO INTERPRET
SCOPE Of TREATY
Conference Delegates Face
Task of Settling Area of
''Pacific Reqion."

The four-power pact relating to the
Pacific islands has coined Il new
phrase-"Pacific region''-which may
call for definite Interpretation by the
powers signatory to the treaty. Such
an Interpretation could well be cared
for in an exchange of notes among
the powers. the United States, Great
Britain. France and Japan, it was said
today. --..-..- =. &
The confusion which arose as to
whether Japan's homeland-made up
of Pacific islands-was included in the
scope of the treaty is only case in
point which shows the need of some
definite geographical definition of the
territory affected by the treaty. Had
the treaty spoken of the Pacific
ocean," from a geographical point of
view, the definition would have been
more easily made. But the Pacific
region" spoken of in the treaty is in
definite, it was pointed out today.
Must Remove Doubt.
The indefiniteness of the region
covered by the four-power treaty has
already led to attacks upon the pact
by members of the United States Sem
ate. While the trainers of the treaty
insist that a correct Interpretation of
the language used leaves no doubt as
to the fact that the homeland of
Japan is included in the scope of the
treaty, since the words "insular
dominions'' are used and must apply
to the Japanese islands proper, the
very fact that President Harding
placed a different Interpretation upon
the treaty than that intended by the
delegates to the conference empha-
sizes the need of an exchange among
the powers which will leave no doubt
in the minds of any one as to the
meaning of the treaty.
The four-power treaty. as other
treaties, will be interpreted in the fu-
ture upon the language which it
actually contains, not upon what the
delegates who framed the document
are believed to have intended. In a
number of years it may be impossible
even to obtain the views of the dele
gates who framed the treaty.
The Indian ocean, the Arctic ocean
anu otHeT waters WASH Island possess
sions of the various powers signatory
to the treaty in what might be con-
Sldered the Pacific region" 1t is not
inconceivable that in the future some
question may arise which will demand
a prompt Interpretation of the mean
ing of the treaty. 1t would be easier,
it is thought, to have such an inter-
probation made now.
Action During Conference.
The conference, it is true, may have
had some definite purpose in select
ing the less definite phrase, Pacific
region" but If so it has not yet been
made plain. To men who will have to
pass upon the pact when it comes up
for ratification, it seems today that
it would be far better to have this
matter ironed out now while the con-
ference is still meeting.
In any definition that may be
made by the powers acting together
it would be clearly indicated that the
homeland of Japan was included in
the treaty, unless. indeed, the con-
ference, on second thought, should de-
eide that the mainland of Japan, like
the mainland of the United States,
should not be included. There seems
no doubt that unless this matter is
clarified, and definite understand
ing is obtained as to just what the
Pacific region" means, the oppo-
nents of the treaty will have a point
from which to attack it.