The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser., 1921-04-29
JAPANESE CURT
IN REPLY ON yAP
Toxic Declares That if Supreme
Council Excluded Mandate
1t Was Unfair.
HINTS AT OUR BAD FAITH
Note Given Out Which Inspired
Hughes's Stand on American Inter-
ests-Mikados Position Difficult as
France Favors Washington.

Observation-Disclosures of the text Of
recent correspondence between the
United States and Japanese govern
ments concerning the island of zap
is plain revelation of deadlock, Japan
not only refuses to meet the United
States half way but rather truculently
intimates that the American argument
was conceived in bad faith.
The spirit and tenor of the Japanese
replies obviously are disturbing and
displeasing to this government. This
blunt phrasing has aroused comment.
On the one hand is the American
attitude laid down by Secretary Colby
and greatly broadened and strength
ened by Secretary Hughes that not
only was the supreme council of the
Allies without authority to hand over
the former German possession of Yap
to Japan without consent of the Unit
ed States but that an express reserva-
tion actually was made by President
Wilson and Secretary Lansing looking
toward international control of the is
land and that the United States will
maintain both fact and principle.
On the other hand, Is the Japanese
attitude cOntradicting the American
assertion and maintaining the stand
that the supreme council made final
decision on May Z, 1919, to give to
Japan the mandate over all German
islands north of the equator and that
Japan would not be able to consent to
any proposal reversing the decision Of
the supreme council, which would ex-
clude the island of Yap from the terri
tory committed to its charge.
To this argument Japan adds COM
ment that has produced astonishment
here:
'It must also be remembered that If
a decision in favor of the exclusion OF
the island of Yap-a question OF grave
concern to Japan, and one on which
the Japanese delegates invariably
maintained a firm attitude-had really
been made, as is implied by the argu-
ment of the United States government,
at the meeting of May Z, 1919. at which
Japan was not represented, it could not
but have been regarded as an act of
entirely bad faith"
In its reply Of February 26 to the
note sent by the American State De-
partment on December theories ad-
vanced by the United States are re-
ferred to as "extraordinary, even I'M
reasonable, in which no one would be
likely to concur"
1t was to this Reputation of the
American position to which Secretary
Hughes replied on April in the note
which developed the American situa-
ton far beyond the question of zap
and asserted that the United States
would not accede to mandates that In
yolved the extinction of rights that
were not abandoned at Paris.
In the whole correspondence there
are two basic points. One is a question
of fact-did or did not President Will
son make a reservation in the case OF
Yap, reservation which supports the
position of the United States today!
The second is a question of principle
was it in the power of the supreme
council to turn over to Japan or to
any other country the absolute title
to territory where American rights are
involved without the consent of the
United States government? The en-
tire controversy boils down to these
two things.
AS regards the first it is authorita-
lively stated that the present govern
ment does not recognize there is any
fact to be determined. In it's point of
view all questions of fact were settled
when the President of the United
States just before he gave way to his
successor made the unqualified state
ment that reservation in the case OF
Yap had been entered with the su-
preme council That closes the ques-
tion of fact so far as this government
Is concerned. 1t will not argue the
matter. The testimony of President
Wilson and Secretary Lansing meets
the point squarely.