Evening star., 1921-04-18
League Cannot Take Away
Americas Island Rights,
United States Reply.
JAPAN'S FOREIGN OFFICE
TALKS OF "BAD FAITH''
State Department Makes Public Its
Correspondence Covering Con-
troversy in Pacific.

To maintain it's position with re-
| gard to the Pacific Island of Yap the
American government would have ito
prove not merely the fact" that Pres
| ident Wilson made reservations con-
| corning it, but also that the supreme
| council decided in favor of those
views" the japanese government
ruary 26, made public today by the
ruary %. made public today by the
State Department along with the
other correspondence between the
two governments regarding zap.
| ut must also be remembered" Japan
says. 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 dele
cation invariably maintained a firm
attitude-had really been made, as is
implied by the argument of the
United States government, at the
meeting of (the supreme counciD
| May Z I919), at which Japan was not
represented, it could not but have
been regarded as an act of entirely
bad faith"
Mr.. Hughes Reply.
1t was to this note that Secretary
Hughes replied last April S, at the
same time sending similar notes to
the governments of Great Britain.
France and Italy. He declared that
| the United States was unable to agree
with Japan's contention that i'll order
to maintain its position it would have
ito prove" not only that President
Wilson made reservations regarding
zap. but also that the supreme coun-
Gil adopted those views.
AS no treaty has ever been con-
cluded with the United States relat-
ing to the Island of Yap," Mr.. Hughes
added, land as no one has ever been
authorized to cede or surrender the
right or interest of the United States
in the island. this government must
insist that it has not lost it's right or
interest as it existed prior to any
action of the supreme council or of
the league of nations, and cannot
recognize the ALLEGATION of the island
or the validity of the mandate to
Japan"
Japan has not as yet replied to this
correspondence consists of the two
notes quoted above, another formal
note sent by Acting Secretary Davis
last December by direction OF Presi-
with which the exchanges were in
itiated last November after some
question had arisen at the meetings
here of the International communica- =
tions conference concerning the ac-
ton of the supreme council with re-
gard to Yap.
Reserved for Future Action.
In the first memorandum, dated No
vember 3. the Secretary Of State said
it was "the clear understanding" of
the American government that the
supreme council at the previous re-
quest Of President Wilson had re-
served for future consideration the
final disposition of the island, in the
hope that some agreement might be
reached to place it under interna-
tional control and thus rendr it
available as an international cable
station.
The Japanese foreign Office replied
in a memorandum under date of No
vember 19 that it was "the definite un-
derstanding'' Of the Japanese govern
Z came to a final decision to place un-
der mandate to Japan all of the former
German islands north Of the equator;
that the decision involved no reserva-
tions whatever in regard to the Island
Of Yap.'' and that therefore the jap
anese government would not be able
to consent to any proposition which,
reversing the decision of the supreme
council. would exclude the Island Of
Yap from the territory committed to
In response to this memorandum, Act
ing Secretary Davis dispatched a long
formal note to Toxic. setting forth that
the American government could not
agree that Yap was included in the de-
cision of the supreme council of May
7. 1919, as claimed, and that even on
the assumption that the island had been
included in the mandate "all other
powers should have free access to the
island for the landing and operation Of
cables"
Japan's Interpretation.
The Japanese reply on February 2e
said that If the observation of the
American government with regard to
cables was put forth irrespective of
the fact that the island was within
the mandatory territory, then the
question seems to be one which
should be freely settled by the nation
which has charge or the place. namely.
Japan.
The note went on to say that il the
observation was made owing to the
nature Of the mandate. Japan would
draw attention that at the meeting
Of the commission on mandates on
July 10, 1919, Col. E. NJ House. one
of the American peace commissioners.
opposed Viscount Chinda's claim that
the same equal opportunities for COM
merce and trade should be guaranteed
in territories of the &C. class (such
as the Pacific islands) as in those be-
longing to the ''B' class of territories
under mandate.
In view of the position thus
taken by the American delegates"
the note added 1.-The imperial gov
ernment feels obliged to state that
in their opinion the American gov
eminent cannot with justice con-
tend for the open door in the c class
territories as against Japan and to
inform the United States government
at the same time that they cannot
consider themselves bound in any
way to recognize the freedom OF
other nations in the manner insisted
upon by the American government
in regard to the landing and the
operation of cables. even in places
where the principle of the open
door is to be guaranteed"
Quotes British Government.
Reverting to its claim to the award
of the mandate over Yap by the
supreme council. the Japanese GOV.
ernment said the British government
had placed the same Interpretation
on the action of the supreme council
on May Z 1t also declared that it
was unable to understand whv the
United States had waited for more
than a year and a half to question
tie decision" of the council, partic-
ularly in view of the publication Of
the text of the decision" at Paris on
May 8. 1t observed that the Ameri-
can government did not protest at
the time of publication, although
such a course would naturally have
lCon6pued on Page 2. Column II