FOUR-POWER PACT.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1921, Page 5

FOUR-POWER PACT.

INCLUSION OF JAPAN. POSITION NOT CLEAR. CLASH OF OPINIONS. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyrlgtt. London, Dec. 20. The special representative of the Australian Press Association at the Washington Conference says that astonishment has been created by the announcement from the White House that the Administration interprets the quadrilateral agreement to mean that Japan is no more included in the islands of the Pacific than the United States, and that the quadri lateral agreement is concerned with the island possessions of the nations which are parties to the agreement. The executive would no more think it applied to the mainland of Japan than to the mainland of America. Japan is regarded as a party to the pact, not as an island.

The British interpretation is that the agreement does include the mainland of Japan, and Mr. Hughes recently expressed the same view. Received Dec. 21, 9.5 p.m. Washington, Dec. 20.

An interesting point in regard to the Four-Power Pact is the fact that the muchdebated inclusion therein of Japan’s mainland is due to Australian initiative, Mr. G. F. Pearce (Australia’s delegate) insisting that it was derogatory to Australian national pride to have Japan itself excepted while Australia was included as a country under the protection of the four Powers. White House and the State Department seem at variance over the interpretation of the Four-Power Pact. Presidential circles to-day let it be known that they did not consider the treaty applied to the islands of Japan proper any more than to the American mainland. American and British delegates have at one time or another declared emphatically that the provisions of the treaty are applicable to the Japanese home islands as well as the outlying possessions. The Japanese likewise have said they consider the treaty in the same way, but a Presidential announcement classes the islands of Japan as those of a party to the pact, and so distinct from island possessions. Interesting developments may be expected, adding fuel to the local controversy, and increasing Senatorial attention to the treaty. The White House interpretation of the Four-Power Treaty created a mild sensation in newspaper circles. The State Department declined to comment. Admiral Kato was bombarded with questions from all angles, but resolutely refused to be drawn, declaring that as a delegate he was bound in honor not to discuss a matter which was now in the hands of the Japanese Government. He hoped to make a full statement before leaving as to their view of the application of the treaty. He neither confirmed nor denied one leading question to the fact that Japan only consented to the homeland being included. It was revealed this afternoon during the discussions on the Four-Power Pact that it was clearly understood that the mainland of Japan was included, though at one stage Japan raised the point that she herself ought not to be included when Britain and the United States were not. This squares with the belief that the Australian representations caused the inclusion of Japan.