Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1921-04-09
Test Of L. S. Note to
EnglandAShng Thai Zap
Azvard Be ReCOnS1dered

States through the victory in which
it has participated could not be re-
garded as in any way ~ceded or sur
rendered to Japan, or to other ma
lions, except by treaty, and that no
such treaty has been made.
Rights Not Affected
"The fact that the United States
has not ratified the treaty of YER
sailles cannot detract from rights
which the United States had already
acquired, and it is hardly necessary
to suggest that treaty to which the
United States is not a party could
not affect 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
save as an equal right therein
be secured to the United States. On
the contrary, article 119 OF the trea-
ty of Versailles provides:
Germany renounces in favor Of
the principal allied and associated
powers all her rights and titles over
her overseas POSSESSIONS
cit will not be questioned that
one of the principal allied and as
ISOLATED powers in whose favor Ger
many renounced her rights and til
ties is the United States. Thus, not
only could the position Of the gov
eminent of Japan derive no strength
from the treaty of Versailles or from
any, discussions preliminary there
to, but the terms of that treaty con-
firm the position of the government
Of the United States.
Further, the draft convention re-
latfng to the mandate for the Ger
man concessions in the Pacific ocean
north of the equator, which was sub
Gan1lant1V nrnnnGnd nrnOandn6 in the
same view, purporting on behalf of
the United States as one of the
granttors to confer the mandate upon
Japan, thus recognizing the right
the fact that the proposed action
could not be effective without the
agreement of the United States as
one of the principal allied and associ-
ated powers.
Grounds Not Clear
"As the United States did not en-
ter into this convention or into any
treaty relating to the subject, this
government is unable to understand
upon what grounds it was therefore
attempted to confer the mandate
without the agreement Of the United
States. 1t is manifest that the
League of Nations was without any
authority to bind the United States,
and that the confirmation of the
tion of it's terms by the council Of
the League of Nations in Deem
Der, 1920, cannot be regarded as hav
ing efficacy with respect to the Unit
ed States.
cit should be noted that this man
date not only recitess, article 119 Of
the treaty of Versailles to the eff
feet that Germany renowned in IA
vor of the principal allied and as
ISOLATED powers all her rights over
her overseas possessions, including
therein the groups of islands in the
Pacific ocean, lying north Of the
EQUATOR but also recites that the
principal allied and associated pow
ers agreed that in accordance with
article %, part /, covenant of the
League of Nations), Of the said trea-
ty, a mandate should be conferred
upon his majesty 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
communications by this government,
as the United States as one Of the
principal allied and associated pow
ers, had not so agreed and proposed,
the recital again recognizes the ne
cessity of. the participation of the
United States in order to make the
"As, 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 is deemed to be unneces-
sary again to examine the brief min
council on that date. It may, how
ever, be proper to say that the min
utes of this meeting, although obvi-
ously without any f1nality, could not
properly be construed without due
regard to the other proceedings Of
the supreme council and without talk
which President Wilson had already
made in the previous meetings of
the supreme council on April 81,
April 80 and May l, 1919.
Attitude Of Wilson
"The attitude Of President Wilson
is sufficiently shown by. the follow
the department of state on March g.,
1921:
"I beg to return the note receiv-
ed yesterday from the Japanese gov
eminent which 1 have read in rela-
ton to the proposed mandate cover
ing the island of zap.
My first information of con-
tention that the so-called decision
of May 7, 1919, by the founcil of
four assigned to Japan a mandate
for the island of zap, was conveyed
to me by Mr.. Norman Davis in Oc-
tober, last. [ then Informed him that
L had not consented to the assign
ment of the island of zap to Japan.
had not previously given par
ticular attention to the wording of
the councils minutes of May z, 1919,
which were only recently called to
my attention. | had on several oc-
casions prior to the date mentioned,
made specific reservations regarding
the island of zap, and had taken the
position that it should not be as
signed under mandate to any one
power, but should be International
lied for cable purposes. L assumed
that this position would be duly con-
sidered i'll connection with the set
Element of the cable question and
that it therefore was no longer
matter for considerat ton in c0nnec-
ton with the peace negotiations. |
sition in respect to the island - zap,
and l did not agree on May Z. 1919,
or at any other time, that the island
of zap should be included in the as
signment of mandates to Japan
LAS a matter Of fact all agree
ments arrived at regarding the as
assignment Of mandates were condi-
tional upon a subsequent agreement
being reached as to the specific terms
of the mandates and further. upon
their acceptance by each Of the prin-
cipal allied and associated powers.
The consent of the United States is
essential both as to assignment Of
mandates and the terms and proVi-
sions Of the mandates after agree