The Washington times., 1921-04-18

single island such as zap in mind,
he would have been almost sure
to have explicitly mentioned II.
Seeing that the British govern
ment adopts the Interpretation that
IL was decided at that time that all
the ex-German islands north of the
equator were to be assigned under
the mandate to Japan, II Is obvious
that in employing the words Lloyd
George cannot have intended to sig
nifty the exclusion of the Island of
zap.
VAGUE GROUND.
ITO sum up. since in a matter of
such grave nature as the es-
tablishment of mandatory territor-
les only what appears on the face
OF the decisions should be accepted
as authoritative. the Imperial Gov
ernment cannot agree in giving an
extraordinary and unusual inter-
probation to the decision on a
vague ground that certain thoughts
sad intentions not expressed in
the text thereof existed in the
mind of the delegate OF one power
only.
Three, The decision OF May 7th,
1919, was made public on the fol-
lowing day, the eighth. II the pub
lished text of the decision differed
in sense from what was under
stood by the Government OF the
United States to be its meaning,
the latter should have and would
naturally have been expected to
have entered an immediate protest.
No such step was taken, however,
at the time and the Imperial Gov
ernment failed to understand the
reason why the American Govern
ment should have allowed more
than a year and a half to pass by
before electing to question the
decision.
THE note under reply refers to
the fact that President Wilson's
statement before the Senate Com
mittee on Foreign Relations on
August 10th. 1919, called forth no
comment by any nations and points
TO this absence of contrary opin-
ion as amounting to evidence to
prove that no power found any
thing in the Presidents view to
which II could take exception.
THE Imperial Government are
quite unable to follow contentious
OF this kind. In the one case we
must protest publication OF an in
ternational agreement in which the
American representative partici-
pated, whereas the other was essen
TALLY a pure domestic AFFAIR. As
to the former, in case the published
text would be found to differ from
what was understood by one party,
IT was incumbent upon him forth
with to lodge a protest and have
the errors. II any, rectified. In the
latter case, however. no third power
is called upon to make any refuta-
tion or correction and consequently
the fact that there was no nation
which took 1t upon itself to make
any adverse comment has no bear
ing whatever on the matter under
consideration.
-Four. On the strength OF article
three of the mandate covering ex-
German islands In the Pacific north
OF the equator submitted to the Su-
preme Council on December "a.
1919, Il Is contcnded in the note
under reply that no def1nite agree
ment had yet been reached as to
the fnal disposition OF all the ex-
German islands in the Pacific north
of the equator. The Imperial Gov
ernment would point out that this
article was intended solely to pro-
vide a means OF settlement in view
of any dispute that may arise as to
boundaries or the assignment Of
lands.
"Such provisions were by no
means confined to the particular
draft in question, but there were
also found similar provisions in all
original draft mandates covering
other territories which were stimuli
taneously submitted to the same
meeting. II the American conten-
tion in this connection is to be up
held II must needs follow that all
the mandatory territories are liable
TO be honeycombed by except. ons
or exclusions. But such a concIu-
sion Is wholly at variance with
facts and cannot be thought by
any one to be convincing. Con-
sequently,i the reference made to IL
in the note under reply tends in
the opinion OF the Imperial Gov
ernment in no way to strengthen
the contentious of the United States
Government.
STATES "oPEN DOOR STAND.
"Five. In the concluding part Of
the note under reply II is observed
that even on the assumption that
the Island of Yap should be includ-
ed among the Islands held under
the mandate by Japan. IL is not