intimidation, and would possibly have prevented her making that very declaration. China’s further plea was that her engagement of May 1915 (see p. 653, the Twenty-one Demands) had been made under duress and was therefore null and void. It is a fact, however, that China did not question the validity of that engagement, when she willingly concluded the formal understanding of Sept. 24 1918, which was actually based on the above-mentioned agreement of May 1915, and accepted an advance of 20,000,000 yen under that understanding. The position of Japan, it should be observed, had furthermore been fortified by the previous undertakings of Great Britain, France, Russia and Italy in 1917, to support or at least raise no objection to the Japanese claim.
The Supreme Council finally decided in favour of Japan, on May 5 1919 (Arts. 156–158, Treaty of Versailles). Rumours were in circulation that Japan had struck a bargain between the race question and the Shantung dispute; and further, that the withdrawal of Italy from the Peace Conference had made for Japan’s strength. The latter surmise may have been true in a certain measure, but the former was hopelessly wide of the mark.
The ex-German islands in the Pacific lying N. of the Equator, which had been under the Japanese occupation since 1914, were allocated to the Japanese administration under the newly formulated mandatory system, at the Supreme Council held at the Trianon Palace on May 7 1919. They include the Marshall, Caroline, Palau (Pelew), and Marianne (Ladrone) islands.
The Restitution of Kiaochow.—With the coming into force of the Treaty of Versailles on Jan. 10 1920, the German rights and interests in Shantung passed to the hands of Japan, and the Tokyo Government, in conformity with their pledged obligation to China, and true to their repeated public avowals (by Baron Makino in Paris on May 4 1919; by Viscount Uchida in Tokyo, May 17 and Aug. 2 1919), immediately instructed Minister Obata to invite the Peking Government to open negotiations for effecting the restitution of the ex-German possessions in Shantung (Jan. 19). It was desired that the necessary preparations for accepting the restoration should forthwith be started, and that China should organize a police force to take over the charge of guarding the Tsinan–Kiaochow railway. As soon as such an organization was completed—even if it were prior to an agreement being reached as to the restoration—the Japanese troops would be immediately withdrawn. Three months passed without any response from Peking to the Japanese overtures. Japan repeated on April 26 her desire to start negotiations, and the Chinese reply (May 22) was that she could not conduct direct negotiations with Japan as to the question of Tsingtau on the basis of the Treaty of Versailles, which she did not sign, and further, that the whole public of China had assumed a strongly antagonistic attitude in respect of the question. Whereupon the Tokyo Government asked the Chinese Government to reconsider the matter, assuring the latter that they were ready to commence negotiations at any time China might deem convenient. But Peking again remained deaf. It was then rumoured that the question might be brought up by the Chinese delegation before the First Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva in Nov. and Dec. 1920. No direct mention of the question was made; but Dr. Koo reserved for “a more appropriate time in the future,” the matter of bringing before the League certain “subjects of vital interest to China, affecting international relations.”
The Yap Controversy.—The Council of the League which met in Geneva on Dec. 17 1920, decided upon the statute relative to “C” class mandates, under the terms of the Covenant of the League (Art. 22, 6) and pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Council on May 7 1919, allocating the ex-German South Sea islands to Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The Japanese Government had been contending that, according to their legal interpretation, the principle of equal opportunities for trade and commerce should, under the Covenant, be assured to “C” class as well as to “B” class mandates (Art. 22, 5). But in view of the importance of unity and coöperation among the Allied nations, Japan gave her assent to the issue of the statutes, on the understanding that “that decision should not be considered as an acquiescence by the Japanese Government in the submission of Japanese subjects to discriminatory and disadvantageous treatment in the mandated territories, nor have they thereby discarded their claim that the rights and interests hitherto enjoyed by Japanese subjects in these territories should be fully respected.”
To the statute relative to the islands N. of the Equator which came under the Japanese mandate, “as an integral portion of its territory,” the United States took exception, on the plea that the island of Yap should not be included in the islands to be so assigned. It was argued that President Wilson had submitted to the Supreme Council his proposal of having that island internationalized for reasons vitally affecting the world communications, and that its decision, published on May 7 1919, should not be regarded as by any means conclusive. Further, the Washington Government declared that they had never ratified the Treaty of Versailles and accordingly were not bound by that instrument in any sense; but the United States should, treaty or no treaty, have a voice in the disposition of the affairs immediately arising from the World War. So far as the status of the island was concerned, Japan’s position was that, if the published decision of the Supreme Council were not final, she did not know what she could rely upon as definite finality; the Allied powers in Europe appeared to support the Japanese view. In the presentation of their case, the American Government further stated that “even if Yap should be assigned under mandate to Japan, all other Powers should have free and unhampered access to the island for the landing and operation of cables.” Japan contended that “the (cables) question seems to be one which should be freely settled by the nation which has the charge of the place.” As the result of the Washington Conference at the end of 1921, an agreement between Japan and the United States was eventually signed on Dec. 12, by which Japan’s sovereignty (as the mandatory Power) in Yap was admitted by the United States, while Japan accorded to the United States full rights and facilities in connexion with the cables and other matters.
The European Tour of the Crown Prince.—The Crown Prince Hirohito broke the age-long tradition of Japan’s history, and, as the first heir to the throne to leave his native shores, set forth early in March 1921, in company with Prince Kan-in, and escorted by Count Chinda, ex-ambassador to the court of St. James’s, upon a tour of study and observation in Europe. Prior to his departure, the more conservative section of the Japanese public, including some influential leaders in politics, gave vent to their anachronistic, though loyal, solicitude as to the safety of the Prince in risking such an unprecedented adventure, the reported indifferent health of the Emperor also inspiring anxiety in many uneasy minds. To add fuel to the popular disquietude a rumour was in circulation that the betrothal between the Crown Prince and Princess Nagako of Kuni might be cancelled, and this development was even attributed to political reasons; a timely dementi, however, was issued by the Imperial Household. The battleship “Katori,” with the Crown Prince on board, called at Hong-Kong, Singapore, Bombay, Port Said, Malta and Gibraltar, en route to Portsmouth, where she anchored on May 8. The reception by the King and the public of Great Britain was most cordial and spontaneous, befitting the Alliance uniting the two nations for the past two decades. The Crown Prince, leaving for France on May 29, said in his farewell message to the British nation: “It has been my happiness to see something of almost every side of the national life and institutions of the British people.” The Imperial tour extended to France, Belgium, Holland and Italy. As to the United States of America, the Crown Prince had occasion to say that he much regretted he could not visit that country on this trip, but that he still hoped to do so in the not far distant future. (H. Sa.)
JASTROW, MORRIS (1861–1921), American orientalist, was born in Warsaw, Russian Poland, Aug. 13 1861, but went to Philadelphia at the age of five. Educated at the schools of that city and in the university of Pennsylvania, he studied subsequently at the universities of Leipzig and Breslau, Paris and Strassburg until 1885, when he returned to the university of
