The New York herald., 1921-04-19
continsed from First Poge.


bind the United States is clearly IL
legal; that the rights obtained by tho
United states from the victory could
not possibly be ceded to japan or to
any other nation without treaty. and
that no treaty has been made: that the
failure OF the United States to ratify
the Treaty OF Versailles could not pos
sibly affect the unsurreneered rights Of
the United States, and that since the
United States is not a party to the
Treaty OF Versailles its rights cannot be
invaded by the treaty: that the treaty
itself did not attempt to dispose OF any
German possessions except with the ap-
prevail of the United States as one OF
the principal allied and associated Pow
ers. and that Japan therefore cannot
claim American acceptance of mandates
on the strength of the Treaty OF YER
sailes.
Strengthens Position of q. s.
The foregoing points cover the SUBJ
stance OF the note sent by Secretary
Hughes. IT will be noted he not only
develops the attitude taken by his pred
ecessors, but immensely strengthens the
American position.
1t can be said authoritatively that the
position of this Government in the Yap
dispute would be the same even il Presi-
dent Wilson and Secretary Lansing had
failed to note a reservation on Yap. This
Government holds that the American
representatives at the Peace Conference
were without authority to surrender q
single right and that If Mr.. Wilson and
Mr.. Lansing deliberately had abandoned
zap to the Japanese It would not possibly
have affected the legality and fairness
OF the American position.
In his reply to the Japanese note of
February 26 Mr.. Hughes points out that
the Treaty OF Versailles specifically
states that Germany surrendered her
possessions in the Pacific to the principal
allied mad associated Powers. and adds
that it cannot be questioned that the
United States was one of the Powers to
whom Germany renounced her terri
tories. Mr.. Hughes states that neither
the Supreme Council OF the Allies nor
the League of Nations has any right to
speak for the United States or to de-
temine the American attitude as regards
Yap or any other place on earth.
One of the most important points OF
the dispute touches on the Japanese con-
tention that the whole matter of Japa-
nese mandate over Yap was settled final
~ at the Supreme Council meeting Of
May c. 1919. The standpoint OF this
Government. as explained to-day. is that
there was no settlement whatever, Moth
ing but a minute entered as to the days
proceedings, a minute which bound
neither the council nor any nation TO a
decision.
Flat Refusal I'm Japnn's Reply.
The correspondence began on Novem-
ber Q. 1920. with the despatch by the
a. -
note stating that ii was the understand
ing OF this Government that President
Wilson had made reservations at a meet
ing of the peace conference looking to
the Observation-Disclosures OF Yap forscable
purposes. To this note Japan replied on
November 10. stating that the mandate
over Yap had been definitely decided by
the allied supreme council and that the
Japanese Government would not con-
sent TO any proposal which, reversing
the decision of the Supreme Council,
would exclude the island Of Yap from
the territory committed to Japanese
charge.
On December the State Department
despatched 1.500 word note calling at
tention TO the fact that President Wilson
had made repeated objections to the al
lotment OF Yap to Japan and that II was
the Presidents understanding that the
matter was TO be left open for negotia-
tion. Moreover, the note drew Japan's s
attention to the fact that Certain" not
| "all," of the German possessions north
OF the equator were awarded by tho
meeting Of the supreme council OF May
! 7. 1919. II was this note which con-
tained the Presidents own reputation
OF the Japanese contention that he had
let zap go without a word. And this
very repudiaton by Mr.. Wilson is suf-
ficient to convince President Harding
and Secretary Hughes that no question
of fact In the matter does exist.
Il am directed by the President" the
| note states. Ito inform you that the Gov
| ernment of the United States cannot
agree that the island of Yap was in
cluded in the decision of May or in
other agreement OF the supreme council"
After two months Japan replied on
February 26. in $500 word note which
stated that Japan was unable to roll
low the American contention that
Japan reserved 10 herself the right of