500.A4a/162
Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with Ambassador Shidehara, of the Japanese Delegation, December 19, 1921
The Ambassador said that he had seen certain statements in the newspapers to the effect that there were Senators who objected to the Four-Power Treaty because it was deemed to include the main Islands of Japan, and asked whether that was so. The Secretary said that he had seen something of the sort but did not know how accurate the report was; that he did not think that this point would make any difference in the ratification of the Treaty.
The Ambassador said that curiously enough there were some in Japan who took objection because the main islands of Japan were included, and that while his Government did not intend to suggest any reservation upon this ground or did not want the Treaty changed, he thought that if there was objection to it here upon this ground, we might agree upon an interpretation which would exclude the main islands of Japan.
[Page 38]The Secretary recalled to the Ambassador that when this question was up during the negotiations the Secretary had asked Baron Shidehara whether he desired to include the main islands of Japan or to exclude them, and that the Ambassador had first said that he desired to have them excluded; that the Secretary then said that it was important to avoid any misunderstanding upon the point and had suggested an exchange of notes to cover the point; that then it was Mr. Balfour who suggested that he might find difficulty, if there [were] any question of relative dignity, in explaining the exclusion of the main islands of Japan to the people of Australia. The Secretary said that he had no preference one way or the other except that he did not wish to see any difficulty created with respect to Australia and New Zealand. The Secretary recalled that it was after this that Baron Shidehara decided not to press the point and to let the matter go in the view that the main islands of Japan would be deemed to be included.
The Ambassador, not questioning this recital, said that there might be a point of interpretation and thought that if there was difficulty in the Senate on that score it could be relieved by some agreement interpreting it in a more limited way, and that the matter could be explained to Australia upon the ground that it was an interpretation only of the words “insular possessions” and that they came under the heading of “insular dominions.” The Secretary said he would speak to Senator Lodge and Senator Underwood in relation to the matter.