The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1921-12-21
Bv FRANK H. SIMONDS.

Something approximsting COM
pl}te bewilderment existed in con.
ference circles most OF yesterday as
a consequence of the definite state
ment made at the White House that
the President does not regard the
four-ower treaty as covering the
islands which constitute the home
land of Japan.
Several hours after the giving
out Of the White House statement.
a second and formal statement was
issued by the President which as
serted that the President had made
his earlier declaration without ref
erence to the Secretary OF State and
without knowledge of the position
taken by the State Department
II emphasized the fact that the
President had believed that the
treaty had not applied to the main
land of Japan. but also contained
the further declaration that the
President had no objections to the
treaty as interpreted by the State
Department. This declaration elm
mated the idea of break between
the State Department and the Ex-
ecutive over the treaty but added
rather than subtracted from the
amusement which the incident had
aroused.
No Explanation Made.
This bewilderment is due to the
fact that on three separate occa-
sions, in response to direct inter-
rogations, the newspaper represent
atives have. been told at the State
Department that the American del
egation to the Washington confer
ence which signed the document
signed IT in the belief that il did
apply to all Of Japan as well as to
the self governing dominions OF
Great Britain in the Pacific. Fur
thcr than this, similar definite and
authoritative statements q a SINH
lar Interpretation have come from
the French and from the British
delegations.
No explanation OF the White
| House view has yet been made. al
though II is said that the President
reached this view without consul
tation with the Secretary of Staue.
and that the declaration was made
at the White House without a pre-
vious knowledge OF the three sue
cessive declarations made at the
State Department.
Thrown Back to History.
We are then thrcwn back upon
the history which just preceded the
presentation of the four-party
treaty to the plenary session OF the
conference on December 10. How
ever, information obtainable yes
terday as to what happened at that
time strikinEly confirms the view
of the State Department rather than
of the White House.
1t would appear that on Decem-
Der 9 when complete agreement had
been reached by all concerned as to
| the form which the treaty should
take and as to the language of the
treaty Mr.. Balfour inquired as to
what the representatives of the ma
tions present understood by the
meaning of the term island" as
used in the draft of the treaty.
Various definitions were volun-
| teered, all tending to suggest that
an island was a small body of land
| surrounded by water. Then Mr..
Balfour explained that the British
view was that ell Pacific islands
were included in the document, and
that the British understood the
treaty to cover both the mainland
of the f-governing colonies OF
australia and New Zealand and
| also the islands constituting the
homeland of Japan: that Is, that IL
applied to the whole insular area
in the Pacific covered by the Jap
| anese flag.
Time to Consider.
At this point time was asked by
those concerned to consider the
| question, which seems only TO have
been raised definitely at this elev-
| enth hour.
| Just prior to the time the treaty
| was presented to the plenary ses-
sion all parties to the treaty agreed
to accept Mr.. Balfour's definition
as both accurate and satisfactory
and the representatives Of the
United states thus definitely and