Evening star., 1921-04-15
Concerning Premier Brands Reply

Premier Brands reply to Secretary
Hughes note of April on the subject
of the Japanese mandate concerning
the Island of zap is. to all intents and
purposes, an acceptance of the admin
istra tions claim that to date the
United States has surrendered none
of the rights accruing unto it under
the treaty of Versailles. For while the
French premier pronounces himself to
be unable formally to answer until
after an understanding has been
reached with the three other powers.
simultaneously addressed by MIR.
Hughes. in pledging his country to
evidence "the greatest desire to find
solution which will give every salts
faction to the United States" he an
swers for France. That pledge. evil
dencing the broad sympathy and
friendship which happily unites France
and the United States, will go far to-
ward assuring the vindication of the
Hughes contention.
Yet as we consider the graciousness
of the gesture Of France and look for
ward to the acceptance of our claim
by the others to whom it was ad-
dressed we cannot avoid the task of
inquiring into precisely how far and
under what circumstances we can
with justice press the principle therein
laid down. That principle, briefly
stated. is that as one of the victorious
powers in the great war we. are en-
allies in every phase Of the settlement
contracted at the end of the war.
The facts comprising the foundation
for that principle have been rendered
Infinitely more secure as a result of
the recently announced foreign policy
of the new administration. We are to
"engage under" the treaty Of Ver-
sailles. and grounds for the unspoken
yet troublesome question which was
bedeviling the minds Of many patriotic
Americans have by virtue Of that fact
been largely removed. That question,
with its attendant reasoning. was to
this effect: "As one Of the victors in
the war we obtained our share of GER
tain rights and privileges vested in
the combined victorious powers. With
those rights and privileges went Ger
tain obligations and responsibilities.
The other victorious nations in accept.
ing the advantageous phases of the
contract have undertaken the disad-
vantageous.s Can we, maintaining our
self respect, do less?'' There was never
but one answer possible to that ques-
ton. For the United States. enjoying
the proud distinction of having fought
the war with no selfish purpose to
serve. to be in peace the one nation
to demand rights ahd deny obligations
was unthinkable.
The major stumbling block to 4 just
assertion Of our rights has been re-
moved. Yet the way ahead is not all
smooth. We are. it appears. to ratify
the treaty of Versailles with reserva-
tions and notifications, and the old,
II under contract-and a treaty is
no more and no less-we materially
modify our obligations and responsible
tiles, should we not accept modification
OF our rights and privileges? Still
there is but one answer. and that an
swer should and will be the primary
basis by which decision upon each pro-
posal to change the provisions Of the
treaty Of Versailles will be reached.
1t may well be that certain modifica.
tions in our obligations may be so de-
sirable as to warrant a proportionate
reduction in our rights. The matter
must be decided from the viewpoint Of
our duty to ourselves and our children
and to humanity. Having decided. one
way or the other, we must pay the fair
price for our decision. And because.
under the circumstances. we are the
only nation for the time being likely
to have the judgment Of whether the
price is fair upon it's conscience. we
must judge with care. that we be not
later judged.
The attitude of France toward the
principle set forth by Secretary
Hughes, and the anticipated favora BILE
reaction Of England, Italy and Japan
thereto. add to the bonds of amity and
fair play by which this nation is bound
TO them. The United States will never,
by asking more than it feels it can
give, slacken that attachment.