law lie exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the respective powers. THE RESERVATION ADOPTED BY THE The United States understands that under the statement in the preamble or under the terms of this treaty there is no commitment to armed force, no alliance, no obligation to join in any defense. CHAPTER XII THE AFTERMATH Washington, December 24, 1921: A mingled feeling of amusement, curiosity and regret prevails among the non-official Japanese here as to the question of whether or not Japan proper comes within the scope of Article II of the four-power treaty, a question which has blossomed forth into animated discussion in certain quarters. The more serious-minded patriots from the Mikado's empire are inclined to take it as an affront to Japan's dignity that the treaty should be interpreted as obligating the other contracting parties to extend even a moral assistance to the safeguarding of the territorial integrity of Japan proper. Quite properly they think that Japan can take care of herself as far as the protection of her main islands is concerned, and that no outsider need worry about it. Meanwhile, the Japanese delegation remain discreetly silent. Apparently they are in an embarrassing position. This question may be an interesting topic to a hairsplitting jurist, but as a practical matter its discussion is not worth the candle. For what does the treaty say? It says in Article I: "The high contracting parties agree as between themselves to respect their rights in relation to their insular possessions and insular dominions in the regions of the Pacific Ocean." And in Arti cle II the treaty goes on to say: "If the said rights are threatened by the aggressive action of any other Power, the high contracting parties shall communicate with one another fully and frankly in order to arrive at an understanding as to the most efficient measures to be taken, jointly or separately, to meet the exigencies of the particular situation." Now where in the whole world can you find a Power -a third nation which is outside the group formed by this treaty-strong enough to menace or attack in the coming ten years any of the islands in the Pacific Ocean, much less the main islands of Japan? The duration of the treaty is limited to ten years. In ten years' time neither Germany nor Russia will regain their former prowess. And besides these two nations there is absolutely no nation on earth which is likely to spell danger to the Pacific. How this controversy originated and has become so seriously considered is interesting only as a matter of history. When the treaty was discussed by the "Big Three," Mr. Balfour proposed that, inasmuch as Australia and New Zealand came within its scope, Japan proper should also be included in it. The Japanese delegate, knowing that the point was not very important, raised no objection. And so the question was readily disposed of, as far as the three delegations were concerned. For several days after the announcement of the treaty at the plenary session of December 9, the matter rested there, no outsider having raised a question as to the territorial scope of the treaty. Then came Mr. Hughes' answer to a newspaper reporter's query, definitely stating that the protection of the treaty was applicable to Japan proper. In the meantime the Japanese delegation received instructions from the home government, advising it to secure the exemption of Japan proper from the scope of the treaty. I am at a loss to understand why the Foreign Office at Tokyo dispatched such instructions after its delegation had definitely accepted the British and American interpretation of the treaty. In view of the trivial nature of the question, it seems hardly worth while for Japan to raise controversy over it and advise her delegation to go back on the commitment it had already made. The only plausible explanation for this peculiar action on the part of the Japanese Government may be found in the objection raised by a chauvinistic section of the Japanese press, which seems to attach an exaggerated importance to national dignity and honor. At any rate the eleventh-hour objection of the Japanese delegation must have puzzled Mr. Hughes and his colleagues and made them think that the Japanese were a queer lot. When the question of the territorial scope of the Pacific Treaty began to attract public attention, President Harding, for some reason unknown to the outsider, made it known that he believed the treaty to exclude Japan proper from its scope. This of course made confusion worse confounded. The President's statement was particularly mystifying because it followed upon the heels of Secretary Hughes' statement giving the contrary interpretation of the treaty. Did not the Secretary of State keep the President posted as to the meaning of the treaty? Was the President too busy to notice Mr. Hughes' utterances which had been widely published in the newspapers? These questions perplexed the public mind. Fortunately, Mr. Harding had no intention to enter into controversy with Mr. Hughes on this matter, and got out of the somewhat awkward situation, or rather smoothed it over, with a graceful and diplomatic statement. Nevertheless, the responsible Japanese both here and at home have genuinely regretted that the President has been put to an embarrassment which might have been avoided. They feel they are indirectly responsible for the President's embarrassment for the simple reason that the interpretation in question concerns their own country. The Japanese delegation, acting upon the instructions from Tokyo, has asked Mr. Hughes and Mr. Balfour that the treaty be so interpreted as to exempt Japan proper from its purview. It goes without saying that this request has met with a ready and favorable response. What sensible man cares to make ado about such a trivial matter? SUPPLEMENT TO THE PACIFIC TREATY NOTE: In compliance with the request of the Japanese Delegation, the following supplement is attached to the Four-Power Treaty, thus excluding Japan proper from the scope of the treaty.-THE AUTHOR. The United States of America, the British Empire, France and Japan have, through their respective plenipotentiaries, agreed upon the following stipulations supplementary to the quadruple treaty signed at Washington, December 13, 1921: The term "insular possessions and insular dominions," used in the aforesaid treaty shall, in its application to Japan, include only Kara futo (or the southern portion of the Island Sakhaline), Formosa, and the Pescadores and the islands under the mandate of Japan. The present agreement shall have the same force and effect as the said treaty to which it is supplementary. The provision of Article 4 of the aforesaid treaty of December 13, 1921, relating to ratification, shall be applicable to the present agreement, which in French and English shall remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States, and duly certified |