New-York tribune., 1921-12-25

to arrive at an understanding as to
the most efficient measures to be
taken Jointly and separately to
meet the exigencics of the particular
situation.
Article III
This agreement shall remain in
force for ten years from the time it
Shall take effect, and after the ex-
riration of said period it shall con-
tinue to be in force subject to the
right OF any of the high contracting
parties to terminate it upon twelve
months notice.
Article "
The agreement shall be ratified as
soon as possible in accordance with
the constitutional methods of the
high contracting parties and shall
take effect on the deposit of ratifica-
tions, which shall take place at
washington. and thereupon the
and Japan which was concluded at
London on July 13, 1911, shall termi
nate.
After the signing difference of opin
ION arose as to the interpretation of
the first paragraph of Article I. It
may be safely assumed that the draft
ers of the instrument intended to saw
that the signatories agreed to resnect
one another's rights in relation to their
several insular possessions and insular
domlnions in the regions of the Pacific,
But the meaning Of "insular posses
sions and insular dominions" was dis
puted. Japan is an insular emuire
with continental offshoot. Corea
But this insular empire has also in
sular dominions and possessions in the
Faclflc, IN the same sense in which the
United States has, or France has.
france owns colonies. We have a tor
rltory, Hawaii a dependency. the
Philippines, and scattered, politically
Hondescrlpt possessions like Wake.
Midway and Tutuila. Japan owns For
mosa, acquired by conquest from China
She also holds. under a mandate. the
former German islands in the pac;sc
north of the equator.
Geography Becomes Mixed
With Political Metaphysics
The question raised was whether in
Japan's case the homeland could be nut
into the same category with the above
mentioned dominions and possessions
1t was claimed that it could and that
japan, the empire, was also an insular
DOMINION or possession of Japan. the
treaty signatory. Geography became
mixed up here with political meta
physics
In his speech presenting the treatv
draft to the conference Senator Lodge
said nothing about Japan's holding in
suiar dominions and possessions and
being at the same time one of the pos
sessions and dominions held. It was
important to elucidate this theory
If the delegates had adopted it.
Senator Lodge said nothing on this
point when he presented the treaty. al
though he said great deal about less
consequential things. His address, as
1T turned out, was an error in tactics,
for the public, taking the phrase of
Article l at face value naturally
adopted the contrary view.
Rumors circulated in Washington
that the publc's conception differed
from the conference. But no authori-
tative explanation was offered. On the
afternoon of December 20 President
Harding let it be known that in his
opinion the phrases insular possessions
and insular dominions didn't cover the
principal islands of the Japanese EN-
pire. An Associated Press dispatch
stated "Mr. Harding was said to be-
ieve that the treaty no more applies to
the islands constituting Japan proper
than it does to the mainland Of the
United States. In his view, it was
said, the agreement only covers island
possessions in the Pacific, while the
main Japanese group occupies the posi-
ton of a party to the treaty rather
than possession"
Senator's Lodge and Underwood
called on the President in the evening
ard laid before him their interpreta-
tion of Article which differed
completely from his Subsequently
this statement was issued from the
w III I1OQSS.
"The President announced tonight
that the difference in view in no wise
will be permitted to embarrass the
conference or the ratification of the
agreement. He had assumed all
along that the spirit Of the confer
ence contemplates confidence which
pledges respect of territory in every
way which tends to promote lasting
peace.
"He mas learned from the United
States delegates to the conference
that they have agreed TO the con-
struction which includes the home
land of Japan in the term 'insular
possessions and insular dominions,'
and has no objection to that con-
struction."
AS practical matter, and from the
point of view of international rela-
tions, it makes little difference wheth-
er we agree to respect the territorial
integrity of Japan and her insular
possessions Or Of her insular posses
sions only. We have no desire to at
tack either Japan's outlying insular
territory or her home territory. If we
agree to refrain from attacking the
one it may be safely assumed that we
will refrain from attacking the other.
But from the point of view of domes-
tic politics the conference interpreta-
tion untioub btedly makes the treaty