The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1922-01-01

OCStAoh \oI Va al eiCiC L VI
(a) 1.-THE high contracting parties
agree as between themselves to re-
spect their rights In relation to
their insular possessions and insular
dominions in the regions Of the
Pacific ocean"
This clause has direct bearing on
the inundated territories Of the Pa
cific. The treaty does not accord
equal rights In the areas specified; II
provides q mutual agreement to re-
spect the rights Of the high con-
tracing parties. This inequality
may give rise to controversy. and
for this reason reservations have
been added to the treaty. No res
ervation. however, will be adequate
to preserve American interests and
to maintain the American principle
Of freedom from entangling al
liances.
% III there should develop be-
tween any OF the high contracting
parties a controversy arising out Of
amy Pacific question and involving
their said rights which Is not salts
factory settled by diplomacy, and Is
likely to affect the harmonious
accord now happily subsisting be-
tween them, they shall invite the
high contracting parties to a joint
conference, to which the whole sub
ject shall be referred for considera-
ton and adjustment.
Full Of Pitfalls.
The vagueness and ambiguity Of
this clause makes 1t full Of pit
falls. 1t uses the phrase ANY Pa
cific question" and the simple and
unqualified word rights" What
is ANY Pacific question:" Is China
a Pacific question? Is Russia Pa
cific question? Both are Pacific
powers. Anything that affects the
Chinese situation or the Russian
situation Is susceptible of being in
terpreted as a Pacific question.
II any right of any one of the
high contracting parties is involved
in the middle of Chinese and Rus
sian questions, a joint adjustment
can be made without consulting
China and Russia. What are these
rights? The reservations adopted
at the suggestion Of the United
States fail to state that the treaty
is for the Inundated Islands only.
Under this Interpretation, rights in
volved in the Chinese question. the
Russian question, and the Pacific
question in general. not excepting
possibly the question Of the con-
tended rights Of any nation on the
Pacific coast Of the United States
may arise out Of this agreement,
and be presented for adjustment.
May BE Disputes.
It may be contended that the sec
ond article of the reservation makes
Il clear that the need OF adjustment
will not occur in questions which
according to international law lie
exclusively within the domestic
Jurisdiction of the respective
powers" The very fact that this
reservation has been adopted indi-
Gates that there may be disputes
arising that may be regarded as OF
a domestic character, such as the
California land law. In spite OF the
reservation II is obvious that II any
one Of the high contracting parties
believes her rights to be impaired.
and believes that conference OF
the four powers may prove OF ad'
vantage to her, the question may De
presented for adjustment by con-
ference. even II one of the parties
does not wish to have 1t presented.
There is not one word In this article
nv which II can be construed that
the parties should by agreement
No Mention Of Honor.
The argument will undoubtedly
he presented that IL one of the high
contracting parties refuses to arbi.
trate there is nothing to force her
to submit to arbitration. The fact
is that in the reservation there Is
no mention of national honor or
vital interest, the two issues which
are generally understood as being
outside the scope of arbitration. un-
less a treaty of general arbitration
exists. such as the one between
Italy and Denmark. Under the
four.power treaty any one Of the
nations can force the claim that
questions Of vital interest and ma.
tional honor are arbitrable. The
nation refusing to arbitrate be.
comes the guilty party. The ques'
ton Of the California land legIsla'
ton is still unsettled, and there has
been a difference Of opinion be-
tween the United States and Japan
as to whether Japan has a treaty
right which has been violated by
the California land law. II Japan
wishes, she can make an issue Of
this question by invoking the clause
under discussion. America may
hold that II Is a domestic question,
and Japan may ask the other two
nations to decide whether Japanese
treaty rights have been violated
or not.
Divergence Of Opinion.
Already there has developed
divergence Of opinion as to the in
depreciation of Article / between
the President and the Secretary of
State. The President has reversed
his original statement, to the effect
that the treaty provisions did not
apply to the main islands Of Japan
any more than they did to the main.
land Of the United States. A later
statement issued from the White
House admits that the mainlands.
that Is. Japan proper. are within the
provisions Of the treaty, and the
natural implication follows. In the
light of the previous argument used
by the President, that the mainland
Of the United States is likewise in
yOlyed,