New-York tribune., 1921-12-22
Explanation Advanced bv
Simonds That 4-Power
Treaty Is Predecessor to
MoreExtensiveAgreement
Many QueriesUnanswered
Protection for Japan's
Homeland Stirs Up Spec
ulations as to Motives
Dy Frank II. Simonds

SseeHpef az 1aii TO explain that the
four-party treaty covered the home
land of Japan?
On this question no official explsna.
tion was forthcoming. The following
suggestion, however, was advanced
namely: that the four-party treaty
constitutes in the minds Of the repre-
sentatives Of the several countries only
fraction Of the one which they have
in mind. 1t is to be supplemented by
a nine-power treaty covering China and
the Dutch islands. covering such con-
troverted questions as Saghalin lei
and in many other respects serving
as complementary document Further
1t has been intimated that an explana
oIon of She four-party treaty in certain
respects was withheld until such time
as the nine-power treaty could be dis
cussed as a companion piece. And
this is absolutely the only explanation
that has yet been volunteered in any
quarter.
A second question is even less salts.
factorily answered, namely: What lee
the United States representatives tx
accept that, Interpretation of the four
power treaty which made it applicable
to the mainland of Japan? The single
spokesman who acts for the American
delegation was asked to-day specifically
and definitely what had been the Amer.
lean position on this question during
the various phases of discussion within
the conference. He declined to make
any response, but fair inference de
ducible from his words was that the
United States, while accepting, did not
initiate or strongly champion such Z
translation.
British Explanation Clear
We are, therefore, thrown back upon
the British explanation, which is fairly
clear. The British were eager to have
Australia and New Zealand covered by
the language of the four-power treaty
Ihey were anxious because the Anglo
Japanese treaty, which is to disappear
when the four-power treaty is ratified
constitutes for the dcminions of Great
Britain in the Pacific Ocean a certain
guaranty against any Japanese aggres-
sion. Neither Australia nor New Zea-
land desired to have this guaranty
eliminated without receiving something
in return. Al extension of the four
power treaty to cover the mainland of
these two sovereignties was hardly pos
slble without q similar recognition Of
the sovereignty of Japan; otherwise
the treaty might have been unilateral
contract.
1t is asserted without contradiction
from American quarters that the
United States was also Interested be-
cause the island of Hawaii as a terri
tory of the American Republic and
neither an insular possession nor
dominion, might have fallen outside
the language of the treaty. But il
was possible to recognize it expressly
although it was part of the sovereign
t. OF the United States, when simi al
dominions and to the home land OF
Japan. And it is very strongly h.nted
that it was this argument which en-
listed American consent to the ulti-
mate Interpretation Of the four power
arrangement.
Japsn Objected at First
There remains the question of Japan
Now there does not seem to have been
at any time any particular desire OH
the part Of Japan to be protected at
home. Indeed, there come from British
sources direct suggestions that Japan
"a x iHe'ity 1SsSHLtu dH CHOTI 10 OSSbCN
upon her home land benefit which
was not similarly bestowed upon the
United Kingdom, upon the continental
United States or upon France and Eu-
rope. Perhaps Japanese objection
arose in part from the fact that the
Japanese were keenly alive to the fact
that what the British obviously had in
mind for her dominions was at least g
moral guaranty against Japanese
aggres ssion. 1t would be a mistake to
attribute this broader Interpretation
CT the treaty to any Japanese activity
or desire. The truth would appear to
be that the representatives. of the
United States had their attention called
to this issue by the British, that they
considered it, that they consented to it
and the Japanese accepted it without
enthusiasm and without attaching much
Importance to it.
There remains still another question
beginning to be heard IA MANY GUAR
ters. What will be the effect of the
discrepancy in the Interpretation be
tween the White House and the State
Department as to the meaning of The
treaty upon the future fate of The
treaty? Attention was called in many
quarters to-day to the fact that ths
Presidents second statement, while ac
knowledging that the State Depart
ment's view of the area covered by the
four-party treaty was the view held by
the American representatives wheI
tney signed the treaty, was not in any
sense a declaration by the Presiden,
tnat ne had changed his own view. Or
the contrary, what he said was that he
dld not purpose to oppose any inter.
pretation placed on the treaty by the
Secretary of State and his associates
IN the. conference, although that inter
pretatlon did not coincide with that OF
the PRESIDENT Of the United States.
Treaty Foes Active
Ihefe IS yet another question which
is beginning to be heard on all sides
has the episode over the interpreta-
tlon OF the treaty affected the chances
OF the treaty on Capitol Hill? No clear
answer IS possible at this time. 1t is
PLAIN that majority of the Senators
nad placed upon the treaty the exact
Interpretation later offered by the
PRESIDENT OF the United States. 1t is
matter Of common knowledge that in
recent days the President has been
hearing from certain advisers that the
broader Interpretation Of the four.
power treaty was likely to evoke po-
litical opposition in the Senate. Sen
ator Borah was the first to make OBJ
vieus use of the incident and he fol.
lowed it up with another statement to.
day. On the other hand, there is We,
no suggestion Of a sufficient break in
the ranks of the Republican party to
forecast n defeat or even q desperate
fight over the treaty. The situation is
atmospheric. There is a general agree.
ment that the latest episode gives aid
and comfort TO the enemies of the
treaty., but as vet there ia M d;spos;