Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume IX

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/116

HD–116

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers, Held in M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, December 24, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

Paris, December 24, 1919, 10:30 a.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. Hugh Wallace
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Harrison
  • Great Britain
    • Sir Eyre Crowe
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Norman
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau
    • M. Cambon
  • Secretaries
    • M. Dutasta
    • M. de Saint Quentin
  • Italy
    • M. de Martino
  • Secretary
    • M. Trombetti
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai

Joint Secretariat
British Empire	Capt. Lothian Small
France	M. de Percin
Italy	M. Zanchi
Interpreter—M. Mantoux

The following were also present for items in which they were concerned:

• Great Britain
  • Capt. Fuller, R. N.
  • Cdt. MacNamara, R. N.
• France
  • M. Leygues
  • M. H. Simon
  • M. de Peretti
  • Gal Le Rond
  • M. Laroche
  • M. Hermitte
• Italy
  • M. Dell’ Abbadessa
  • M. Catastini
• Japan
  • M. Shigemitsu

Sir Eyre Crowe recalled that the Supreme Council had recently decided upon the allocation to Poland of a certain number of German ships for police purposes.¹ The British Government asked whether that decision might not lead to certain difficulties between Germany and Poland, the more especially as it was a case of giving to that latter Power German vessels actually stationed at Dantzig. It was worth while considering in those circumstances whether it were not preferable to give to Poland an equivalent number of Austrian ships. 1. Allocation of Vessels to Poland

It was decided:

To refer to the Naval experts the question whether it were practicable to substitute for the German ships destined to be sent to Poland for policing her coasts an equivalent number of Austrian ships.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated his opinion that the resolution on the conditions of surrender of German warships was not exactly in accord with the decision taken by the Council at its meeting of 18th December. It was necessary to distinguish between the case of the vessels referred to in the Peace Treaty and the case of the vessels dealt with in the protocol.³ As the Council had decided to make no modification in the protocol it appeared to him that they ought to confine themselves in that matter to purely unofficial dealings with the Germans. The resolution, as actually formulated, maintained, on the contrary, that the Interallied Naval Commission of Control was to take the steps necessary for having the material of the five light cruisers, referred to in the protocol, delivered to the Allied and Associated Powers in the same places as the vessels themselves from which it had been stripped. He thought that the resolution ought to be amended so as to indicate that an unofficial advance should be made to the Germans either through the Naval Commission or through the Secretariat General. 2. Rectification of Minutes of Meeting of 18th December, H. D. 113²

Mr. Leygues had no objection to the Germans being approached unofficially provided the desired result were obtained, that was merely a question of form to which he attached no importance.

Mr. Clemenceau stated that he was equally of opinion that an unofficial step was preferable for the principal Powers had no right to act merely on their own account in the name of all the Powers who were signatories of the Treaty. He would ask Sir Eyre Crowe to be good enough to bring to the following meeting of the Council the text in writing of the modification that he proposed.

The Council had before it the account of two conversations that had taken place on the 23rd December between Mr. Dutasta and Baron von Lersner. (See Appendix A.) 3. Note of 22nd December to the German Delegation

Mr. Clemenceau said that when Mr. Dutasta had put before the Baron von Lersner the Council’s last note, the German Delegate had at first appeared very disagreeably impressed. He had declared that he would set out for Berlin that very day, accompanied by all the German experts. But in the afternoon he had come round and told Mr. Dutasta that he had changed his mind, that he would remain in Paris and content himself by sending to Germany only some of the experts from the German Delegation. Baron von Lersner had likewise declared that he would advise his Government to institute immediately an inquiry into the tonnage actually existing in Germany. But if Baron von Lersner had in mind an inquiry made by the German Government alone, he did not think that the Council ought to agree to this procedure but that it must insist that the inquiry could only have value if it were made in co-operation with the Allied Naval representatives.

Mr. Dutasta pointed out that von Lersner meant it in the latter sense.

Mr. de Martino emphasized that the Germans must be made to consent to the inquiry taking place only after signing.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated that according to the opinion of his Naval experts a serious inquiry into the number of docks existing in Germany would require weeks to carry out. If they did not wish to delay indefinitely the coming into force of the Treaty, it would indeed be necessary to require the Germans to give their signature before any inquiry.

Mr. Clemenceau thought that they ought to await the reply which the German Government would make to their last communication. When the Council had received that reply, they could let the German Government know that [what] they demanded of them, the first demand of all being that they should sign the protocol, the inquiry having to be made later. He would be inclined not to publish their last note, the substance of which was already known to the public; publication of the exact text would run the risk of creating in Germany a disagreeable impression and consequently of delaying the signature.

Mr. Wallace asked whether the German experts had all departed for Berlin.

Mr. Dutasta explained that a certain number of them had gone but that some remained in Paris. He felt that he ought to explain further that von Lersner had declared that Germany could not in any case sign the protocol before agreement had been arrived at on the quantity of tonnage to be demanded of her.

Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that that would involve a delay of a month.

Mr. Dutasta said that Baron von Lersner had told him that in his opinion they could on the same day sign the agreement regarding tonnage, the protocol and the procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications. To hasten communication between the German Delegation and Berlin, he had thought it right to make representations to the P. T. T.⁴ in order to have telegraphic wires with Germany which had been damaged by the storm immediately restored.

Mr. Leygues suggested that the Interallied Naval Commission at London ought to be asked to hold itself in readiness to leave at any moment for Germany in order to verify the figures supplied by the Germans.

Mr. Clemenceau felt that there was no purpose in the Naval Commission leaving in a body. The presence of an English Admiral seemed to him quite sufficient.

Mr. Clemenceau stated that he regretted having to leave the Council shortly as he had a meeting in the Chamber from which he could not be absent. Had Mr. Wallace any communication to make on the subject of the Convocation by the President of the United States of the first Council of the League of Nations. 4. Convocation of the First Council of the League of Nations

Mr. Wallace said he would like to ask at what time President Wilson ought to convoke the first Council of the League of Nations. Without doubt that question depended upon the moment of signing the protocol. But he would like to know what interval after the date of the exchange of the ratifications should elapse before the Council should be convoked.

Mr. de Martino pointed out that it had been decided that the Council of the League of Nations would be convoked on the first or second day after the exchange of ratifications.⁵

Mr. Mantoux recalled that there had even been a document drafted which was to be sent in advance to the members of the League who were to take part in the Council.

Mr. Clemenceau asked whether that notification had been sent.

Mr. Wallace thought that it had not.

Mr. Dutasta explained that it was the Drafting Committee that had been entrusted with preparing the document; he would discover whether it had been sent out or not.

Mr. Clemenceau, having handed over the Presidency to Mr. Jules Cambon, left the Council.

The Council had before it drafts of conventions relative to mandates to be attributed: 5. Draft of Conventions Relative to Certain Mandates

A. To the British Empire for part of German East Africa. (Appendix B).

B. To Belgium for part of German East Africa. (Appendix C).

C. To the British Empire (Union of South Africa) for German South West Africa. (Appendix D).

D. To the British Empire for the Island of Nauru (Appendix E).

E. To the British Empire (New Zealand) for German Samoa. (Appendix F).

F. To the British Empire (Australia) for the German possessions in the Pacific, south of the equator other than Nauru and Samoa. (Appendix G).

G. To Japan for German possessions in the Pacific Ocean north of the equator. (Appendix H).

Mr. Cambon stated that the drafts before them were simply the resolutions arrived at by the Mandates Commission in London in execution of a decision of the Supreme Council dated 7th May, 1919 put into treaty form.⁶

Sir Eyre Crowe made the comment that the pact of the League of Nations had provided for three different forms of mandate. In execution of those provisions the Mandates Commission had drawn up three types of mandates—A, B, & C. The form of mandate “A” had not been decided upon in London but texts had been drafted for types B. & C. Those texts had been sent to the Legal Advisors who had not modified the substance but had only put them in Treaty form. Those were the texts revised by the Legal experts which were actually submitted to the Council. They did not differ therefore, except in certain formal and unimportant modifications from the texts adopted by the Mandates Commission in conformity with Article 22 of the Pact of the League of Nations. He thought therefore that the Council would have no difficulty in adopting these texts. The question of Togo–Cameroon was not actually before the Council no definite understanding having been yet arrived at, but he thought it would be easy to come to an agreement and that the question could come before the Council very soon.

They were, on the other hand, confronted by a Japanese reservation applying to Mandate “C”, dealing with the ex-German possessions in the Pacific. Japan desired evidently the insertion in the “C” type of mandate certain clauses relative to equality of treatment in economic matters—clauses which were embodied in the “B” type. He could very well understand Japan’s interest in that modification but it appeared to him contrary to the Treaty. The difference indeed between the “B” and the “C” mandates was precisely that in the “C” type the territory with which the mandates dealt formed an integral part of the territory of the mandatory states and entered consequently into the revenue and administrative system of that state. There was a much closer connection between the mandatory power and the territory over which it exercised its mandate in the “C” type than in the “B” type. He therefore considered that they could not satisfy the demand made by the Japanese Delegation without modifying the explicit terms of Article 22 of the Pact of the League of Nations and consequently of the Treaties already signed.

Mr. Henry Simon stated that so far as concerned the two first drafts of conventions submitted to the Council, those namely relative to German East Africa, he did not think that they could raise any difficulty, the Mandates conferred upon the British Empire on the one hand and on Belgium on the other being both of the “B” type.

Mr. Cambon asked whether then the Council adopted in principle the drafts of conventions dealing with the Mandates to be given over ex-German East Africa to the British Empire and to Belgium. They could then pass to the discussion of the drafts conferring upon the British Empire (Union of South Africa) mandate over German South-West Africa.

Mr. Matsui stated that although Japan had no direct interest in that region, he felt obligated to make a reservation upon the point. The type of mandate involved being the “C” type, the same, that was to say, as that of the territories in the Pacific. He had circulated a note indicating the point of view of the Japanese Government upon the “C” type of mandate and the modifications that would have to be introduced to conform with his view. (See Appendix I).

The matter was for Japan at once a political question and one of principle. From the point of view of principle they considered that all states, members of the League of Nations, ought to enjoy “equal opportunity” in the same degree and that consequently the principle of equality of treatment in the economic sphere must be understood among the guarantees provided for in paragraph 5 of the same Article 22, in the interest of the native population. When the discussion of that general question had come before the Supreme Council two definitely opposed theories were discussed—that of annexation and that of mandates.⁷ An intermediate solution had been found at the end of several days’ discussion at which he had been present. There was no question at the moment of any discrimination whatever between the members of the League of Nations. They ought not to lose sight of this, that the League of Nations was founded upon the principle of absolute equality between its various members. His Government maintained that Article 22 of the Pact of the League of Nations ought to be interpreted in the sense that the conditions of equality in matters of currency and commerce alluded to in paragraph 5 were part of the guarantees implied in paragraph 6 at the end.

Independently of that question of interpretation, the matter presented itself for Japan in its political aspect. They had entered the war in 1914. It was the Japanese fleet that had driven the German cruisers from the Pacific and from the Indian Ocean. Now in the Pacific Isles which belonged to Germany before the war, natives of Japan had enjoyed complete equality of treatment with the natives of other Powers, including Germany. Japan now required the assurance that that situation would not be modified in such of the German possessions as were coming under the mandate of the United Kingdom or its Dominions. If that were not so, Japanese nationals would find themselves, after the war in which they had participated as victors side by side with their Allies, in a situation inferior to that they had enjoyed before the war. Their public opinion would be totally incapable of understanding and of accepting such a paradoxical consequence and could not endure Japanese nationals being on a footing different from those of other nations. It was in virtue of these considerations that the Japanese Delegate on the Mandates Commission had made a formal reservation upon the text adopted for the “C” type of mandate. The Japanese Parliament was actually on the point of assembling: he thought indeed that its first session was taking place that very day. They ran the risk of finding themselves in an extremely awkward situation unless they received the assurance that the rights of Japanese nationals in the ex-German possessions in the Pacific, which were coming under England or its Dominions, were respected. Japanese public opinion would experience serious disillusion and would be fully justified in so feeling. His Government asked therefore that article 5 of the draft of the “B” type of mandate, as it appears in the text worked out in London should be inserted in the draft of the “C” type. He had communicated to his Government the drafts of mandates drawn up in London and had received in reply the instructions, the substance of which he had just communicated to the Council. He had not yet received instructions about the texts which were at the moment put before them and which he had telegraphed to Tokio, but as they [there] were between those various documents only differences of form, he had ground for thinking that the instructions he had received would not be modified. In any case he was for the moment bound by the instructions he had received and he hoped that his colleagues would find it possible to satisfy the legitimate demands of the Japanese Government.

Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that article 5 of the draft of mandate “B”, to which Mr. Matsui had referred, bore in the text which he had before him and which the Legal Advisers had revised the number 8. But it was the same text.

He could not very well see how the modification to the “C” type of mandate demanded by the Japanese Government could be made without going directly against Article 22 of the Treaty which Japan had accepted since it had signed and ratified it. Paragraph 6 of Article 22 deliberately omitted the words which appeared at the end of paragraph 5 and which tended to ensure to members of the League of Nations equality of conditions in currency and commerce. If that difference had been formulated between the mandates “B” and “C”, it was done intentionally, since the territories under mandate “C” were an integral part of the territory of the mandatory Power, a state of affairs involving as a consequence equality of treatment between all the members of the League of Nations on the territory of the mandatory power itself. It seemed to him that by the very fact that it had signed the Treaty, the Japanese Government had already accepted the general principle of discrimination between the mandate “B” and mandate “C”, a principle the suppression of which it was that Japan was then demanding.

Mr. de Martino explained that in the question of mandates in general Italy had no special interests. He recognized nevertheless all the importance of the arguments which the Japanese Delegate had just expounded, alike from the point of view of the general principle of the liberty of traffic which they ought naturally to try and safeguard to the fullest possible extent and because of the fact that Japanese nationals ran the risk of finding themselves in a situation worse than that they had enjoyed before the war. But since, for that matter, he recognized that serious interests were involved from the point of view of Great Britain towards which country he would by no means adopt an unfavorable attitude, he would simply adhere to whatever decision would be taken by the majority.

He had said that Italy was not specially interested in the question of mandates. Their disinterestedness was due to the fact that Italy had been excluded from participation in the mandates over the former German colonies in Africa. He repeated to the Council what he had already had occasion to say elsewhere, that that exclusion seemed to him to be a mistake. The Council ought rather to have created upon the African continent, the future of which did not appear in a very re-assuring light, a solid united interest of all the Powers. He did not mean however to raise the question anew and he made his remarks in a purely platonic spirit.

Mr. Henry Simon explained that at London the French had supported the British interpretation of Article 22 and could not but adhere to their former point of view.

Mr. Matsui said that he had expounded the point of view of the Japanese Government and that he saw nothing to add to his former explanations. His instructions did not permit him to accept the draft submitted to them for the “C” type of mandate.

Mr. Cambon said that he considered with Sir Eyre Crowe that the Japanese Government, by the mere fact that it had signed the Treaty, had accepted the distinction between the “B” and “C” mandates, which was clearly formulated in Article 22 and the mandates commission had merely executed the provisions of that article.

Mr. Matsui said that a difference in interpretation existed between them; the Japanese Government considered in fact that the guarantees provided for in Paragraph 6 of Article 22 included similarly conditions of equality of treatment discussed at the end of Paragraph 5. It was in giving it that interpretation that the Japanese Government had accepted Article 22.

Mr. Cambon did not consider that it was possible to interpret the concluding provision of paragraph 6 in so wide a sense.

It was not indeed only the guarantees provided in the interests of the population.

Mr. Matsui claimed that equality of treatment too was as much in the interests of the native population as in that of foreign nationals.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the interpretation given to Article 22 by the Japanese Delegation did not seem compatible with the text. The guarantees understood in Article 6 meant only the prohibition of the abuses discussed in paragraph 5, such, for example, as were mentioned in the Treaty, the treatment of slaves, traffic in arms and in alcohol, etc. It could not be maintained that equality of treatment in the economic sphere fell within the same category. No subtlety of interpretation could avail against the fact that the passage relative to equality of treatment which had appeared in paragraph 5 had been deliberately omitted from paragraph 6. As he understood it the Japanese Government was bound by its acceptance of Article 22 and obliged consequently to recognize the fundamental difference that separated mandate “B” from Mandate “C”, and which it then desired to have suppressed. He hoped that a more careful examination of the question would enable the Japanese Government to become convinced that the interpretation it was proposing was diametrically opposed to the letter and the spirit of Article 22.

He would like to offer one further observation arising out of a remark just made by the Italian Delegate. The question involved—and under discussion at that moment—was not one as between British and Japanese interests. The three classes of mandates had been determined according to geographical considerations and the clauses of the “C” type of mandate engaging their attention then applied equally to all the former possessions of Germany in the Pacific which were coming within the mandatory power of Great Britain, its dominions or Japan. The same treatment would therefore be applicable to all territories in the Pacific for which a mandate was envisaged. The differences existing between the “B” and the “C” types of mandate resulted therefore directly and solely from the provisions of Article 22.

Mr. Matsui felt that he could only repeat that he was bound by the instructions received from his Government which considered its proposal in conformity with the principle of equality of treatment which served as the basis of the pact of the League of Nations and which was furthermore justified by the political considerations which he had adduced.

Mr. Cambon asked whether Mr. Matsui could not accept the draft before the Council under the reserve of gaining the approval of the Japanese Government. The other members of the Council appeared indeed unanimous for the adoption of the British interpretation of Article 22.

Mr. Matsui maintained that as he had already said he had asked for instructions when he sent to Tokio the drafts of the mandates prepared in London. He had so far received no instructions regarding the texts before them, but it was very unlikely that he would receive different instructions since between the former and the new text there appeared to be more unimportant differences of form.

Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that Mr. Matsui might not perhaps consider it necessary to maintain the reservation he had formulated in so far as concerned the mandate of the Union of South Africa over German South West Africa. He had himself said, indeed, that Japan had no direct interests in that zone. If Mr. Matsui would agree to confine his reservation to the territories of the Pacific, the Council would be in a position at the very least to settle that day the question of South West Africa.

He would also very earnestly urge the Japanese Delegate to make known to Tokio that the interpretation given by the Japanese Government did not appear to any of the other Delegations compatible with the text of the Treaty. He hoped that Mr. Matsui would gain acceptance for the arguments that had been put forward by the Council and would be good enough to recommend to his Government the adoption of the drafts they were discussing.

Mr. Cambon emphasized that they ought not to forget the need there was of arriving at a solution. Sir Eyre Crowe’s proposal seemed to him acceptable so far as concerned German South West Africa and he would be glad if Mr. Matsui would kindly let his Government know that in the opinion of the other Powers represented on the Supreme Council Japan was already committed on that question by the fact that it had signed the Treaty.

Mr. Matsui said he would send to Tokio an account of that discussion and would ask for new instructions. For the moment he was bound by the instructions he had received already. He would further like the Council to consider how important for Japan was the question of principle involved therein. Japanese public opinion would be quite unable to understand why their nationals should be in a more unfavorable situation after, than they had been in before the war, the more so as Japanese Squadrons had driven the German fleets from the waters of the Pacific.

As to the suggestion made by Sir Eyre Crowe and supported by M. Cambon on the subject of German South West Africa he regretted that he could not associate himself with it. German South West Africa fell as a matter of fact under the type of mandate “C” and he was consequently unable to withdraw a reservation bearing upon the very principle of that type of mandate.

Sir Eyre Crowe wished in no way to deny the force of Mr. Matsui’s argument, but he could only repeat that in his belief Japan had already accepted the provisions which it was then actually asking to have modified.

Mr. Matsui said that their acceptation ought to be understood in the sense that equality of treatment was for them part of the guarantees provided for in paragraph 6 of Article 22.

Sir Eyre Crowe maintained that that paragraph concerned only guarantees provided in the interests of the native population, namely, liberty of conscience and of religion, prohibition of commerce in arms and in alcohol and other provisions of the same nature.

Mr. Matsui pointed out that his Government believed that the principle of the Open Door was also in the interest of the native population.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that on referring to the minutes of the meetings of the Mandates Commission one might easily see that the provision dealing with equality of treatment inserted in paragraph 5 had been omitted deliberately and of design from paragraph 6. The Japanese line of argument consisted, on the contrary, in maintaining that the principle of the Open Door was understood in paragraph 6. That appeared to him in complete contradiction, not merely with the text of the paragraphs in question, but also with the efforts of the Commission.

Mr. Matsui maintained that the principle of equality of treatment upon which they were basing their arguments constituted the very basis of the pact of the League of Nations. It was clearly set forth in explicit manner by Article 23, paragraph (e) of the pact.

Sir Eyre Crowe repeated that he appreciated the force of the Japanese argument, but those arguments ought to have been adduced at the time of the discussion of the “B” and “C” types of mandate. It did not seem to him possible at that time to reopen the question without going against Article 22.

Mr. Cambon thought it necessary to suspend the discussion until Mr. Matsui should have received instructions from his Government.

Mr. Wallace said that in the event of his having to sign the drafts then before them, he would, in order to save time, ask instructions from Washington immediately.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated that the United States being a party to those acts, the signature of the American Delegate was indispensable.

Mr. Matsui added that Sir Eyre Crowe had just said that the drafts before them had been revised by the Drafting Committee. There must be some mistake for the Japanese Delegate on that Committee, Mr. Nagaoka, had no knowledge of those texts.

Sir Eyre Crowe said he believed that those texts had been submitted to the Drafting Committee, but he might have been mistaken.

Mr. de Saint Quentin explained that the text could not indeed have been prepared by the Drafting Committee for they had come to them in English, and communications from the Drafting Committee were generally prepared in French.

Mr. Cambon held that in those circumstances they might refer all those drafts of conventions to the Drafting Committee, it being understood that the drafts “A” and “B” relative to German East Africa were approved in principle by the Council.

It was decided:

To instruct the Drafting Committee to revise the texts of the drafts of conventions submitted to the Council relative to the attribution of mandates, it being understood that the drafts “A” and “B” dealing with German East Africa (British and Belgian mandates) were approved in principle by the Council. On the other drafts of conventions, discussion would be resumed once the Japanese Delegate had received instructions from his Government.

Mr. Wallace would refer that resolution to Washington for instructions from his Government.

The meeting adjourned.

Appendix A to HD–116

[Report of Conversations Between M. Dutasta and Baron von Lersner]

Note

Mr. Dutasta, Secretary General of the Conference received Baron von Lersner, President of the German Delegation, at ten-thirty this morning, December 23rd. He gave him the letter from the Supreme Council of December 22nd, and asked him to read it.

He then verbally informed the President of the German Delegation, as directed, of the message from the Supreme Council. Baron von Lersner seemed much impressed. He asserted that the German Government, could not, in any case, sign the Protocol⁸ before an agreement had been reached as to the deliveries to be made by Germany. He added that owing to the importance of the matter, he was obliged to leave for Berlin this evening, accompanied by all the experts, military, naval and others.

He asked the Secretary General of the Conference not to interpret this general departure as a rupture. He will leave a representative at Avenue de la Bourdonnais whose name will be given later.

Mr. von Lersner expressed the desire to put down, in writing, a résumé of M. Dutasta’s declaration. He did not ask the latter to initial it.

At 2:45 Mr. von Lersner asked to be received immediately by Mr. Dutasta, Secretary-General of the Conference, who received him at 3:30.

Mr. von Lersner informed the Secretary-General of the Conference that, contrary to his decision of this morning, he as well as Mr. von Simson had decided to remain at Paris unless he received contrary instructions from his Government.

Mr. von Lersner said that, after the communications of this morning, the German Delegation had the impression that the Allies were not in a hurry to put the Treaty into force. Mr. Dutasta declared that on the contrary, the Supreme Council unanimously desired the going into force of the Treaty, provided Germany gave all the satisfactions asked for.

Before leaving Mr. von Lersner said to Mr. Dutasta that he would advise the Berlin Cabinet to have made immediately by the Interallied Commission, the investigations provided for in the note of December 22.

Appendix B to HD–116

Convention Relating to the Mandate for the Part of German East Africa Assigned to Great Britain

Whereas by Article 119 of Part IV (German Rights and Interests outside Germany) of the Treaty of Peace, Germany renounced in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over her overseas possessions, including therein German East Africa; and

Whereas, in accordance with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of said Treaty, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of conferring a mandate upon His Britannic Majesty to administer part of German East Africa, and have decided to conclude a convention for this purpose; the High Contracting Parties have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say—

• The President of the United States of America:
• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
• The President of the French Republic:
• His Majesty the King of Italy:
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

1. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer upon His Britannic Majesty a mandate to be exercised in conformity with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919, to administer the former German Protectorate of German East Africa, excepting the following portions:—

(a) The area situated at the mouth of the Rovuma River and to the south of that river;

(b) The area situated to the west of the following line:—

From the point where the frontier between the Uganda Protectorate and German East Africa cuts the River Mavumba a straight line in a south-easterly direction to point 1640, about 15 Kilom. south south-west of Mount Gabiro.

Thence a straight line in a southerly direction to the north shore of Lake Mohazi where it terminates at the confluence of a river situated about 2½ kilom. west of the confluence of the River Msilala.

If the trace of the railway on the west of the River Kagera between Bugufi and Uganda approaches within 16 kilom. of the line defined above, the boundary will be carried to the west, following a minimum distance of 16 kilom. from the trace, without, however, passing to the west of the straight line joining the terminal point on Lake Mohazi and the top of Mount Kivisa (2100), situated on the Uganda—German East African frontier about 5 kilom. south-west of the point where the river Mavumba cuts this frontier.

Thence a line south-eastwards to meet the southern shore of Lake Mohazi.

Thence the watershed between the Taruka and the Mkarange and continuing southwards to the north-eastern end of Lake Mugesera.

Thence the Median line of this lake and continuing southwards across Lake Ssake to meet the Kagera.

Thence the course of the Kagera downstream to meet the western boundary of Bugufi.

Thence this boundary to its junction with the eastern boundary of Urundi.

Thence the eastern and southern boundary of Urundi to Lake Tanganyika.

The boundary described above is shown on the attached British 1:1,000,000 map G. S. G. S. 2932 Sheet Ruanda and Urundi.

2. Boundary Commissioners shall be appointed by the British Empire and by Belgium to trace on the spot the line described in Article 1 (b). In case any dispute should arise in connection with the work of these Boundary Commissioners, the question shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations, whose decision shall be final. The report by the Commissioners giving the final description of this boundary after it has been actually demarcated on the ground, together with copies of the necessary maps annexed thereto and signed by the Commissioners, shall be made in triplicate; one copy shall be deposited in the Archives of the League of Nations, one shall be kept by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and one by the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians.

3. His Britannic Majesty, hereinafter called the Mandatory Power, accepts the mandate thus conferred upon him, and will execute the same on behalf of the League of Nations and in accordance with the following provisions.

4. The Mandatory Power shall be responsible for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, and undertakes to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of its inhabitants. The Mandatory Power shall have full powers of legislation and administration.

5. The Mandatory Power undertakes not to establish any military or naval bases, not to erect any fortifications, and not to organize any native military force in the Territory except for local police purposes and for the defense of the Territory.

6. The Mandatory Power undertakes—

(I) To provide for the eventual emancipation of all slaves, and for as speedy an elimination of domestic and other slavery as social conditions will allow.

(II) To suppress all forms of slave trade.

(III) To prohibit all forms of forced or compulsory labor except for essential public works and services, and then only in return for adequate remuneration.

(IV) To protect the natives from fraud and force by the careful supervision of labor contracts and the recruiting of labor.

(V) To exercise a strict control over the traffic in arms and ammunition and the sale of spirituous liquors.

7. The Mandatory Power undertakes that in the framing of laws relating to the holding or transference of land he will take into consideration native laws and customs and will respect the rights and safeguard the interests of the native population.

No native land may be transferred, except between natives, without the previous consent of the public authorities, and no real rights over native land in favor of non-natives may be created except with the same consent.

The Mandatory Power undertakes to promulgate strict regulations against usury.

8. The Mandatory Power undertakes to secure to all citizens and subjects of Members of the League of Nations the same rights as are enjoyed in the territory by his own nationals in respect to entry into and residence in the territory; the protection afforded to their person and property; the acquisition of property, movable and immovable; and the exercise of their profession or trade, subject only to the requirements of public order and compliance with the local law.

Further, the Mandatory Power undertakes to ensure to all citizens and subjects of the Members of the League of Nations, on the same footing as to his own nationals, freedom of transit and navigation, and complete economic, commercial and industrial equality; provided that the Mandatory Power shall be free to organize essential public works and services on such terms and conditions as he thinks just.

Concessions for the development of the natural resources of the territory shall be granted by the Mandatory Power without distinction on grounds of nationality between the subjects or citizens of all members of the League of Nations, but on such conditions as will maintain intact the authority of the local government.

The rights conferred by this Article extend equally to companies and associations organized in accordance with the law of any of the members of the League of Nations, subject only to the requirements of public order and compliance with the local law.

9. The Mandatory Power undertakes to ensure to all complete freedom of conscience, and the free exercise of all forms of worship without distinction, which are consonant with public order and morality.

Missionaries of all such religions shall be free to enter the territory, and to travel and reside therein, and to acquire and possess property; to erect religious buildings, and to open schools throughout the territory.

But the Mandatory Power shall have the right to exercise such control as may be necessary for the maintenance of public order and good government, and to take all measures required for such control.

10. In accordance with these provisions, the Mandatory Power undertakes to apply to the territory the benefits of any general International Conventions already existing, or that may be concluded hereafter respecting the slave trade, the traffic in arms and ammunition, the liquor traffic, and the traffic in drugs, as well as the Conventions relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, the laws of aerial navigation, and postal, telegraphic, and wireless communication.

The Mandatory Power undertakes to operate in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.

11. The Mandatory Power shall be authorized to constitute the territory into a customs, fiscal and administrative union or federation with the adjacent territories under his own sovereignty or control; provided that the measures adopted to that end do not infringe the provisions of this mandate.

12. The Mandatory Power shall extend his diplomatic protection to the natives of the territory when in foreign lands, under the same conditions as to his own nationals.

13. The Mandatory Power shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council, containing full information concerning the measures taken to apply the provisions of this mandate.

A copy of all laws and regulations made in the course of the year and affecting property, commerce, navigation, or the moral and material well-being of the natives, shall be communicated therewith.

14. The Consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

15. If any dispute whatever should arise between the members of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or application of this mandate, which cannot be settled by negotiations, this dispute shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice to be established by the League of Nations.

States, members of the League of Nations, may likewise bring any claims on behalf of their subjects or citizens for infractions of their rights under this mandate before the said Court for decision.

Done at . . . . . . . the . … day of . . . . . ., a single copy of which shall remain deposited in the archives of the League of Nations, and of which certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all Powers, signatories of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

Confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations the . . . . . day of . . . . . . .

Secretary General

Appendix C to HD–116

Convention Relating to the Mandate for the Part of German East Africa Assigned to Belgium

Whereas by Article 119 of Part IV (German Rights and Interests outside Germany) of the Treaty of Peace, Germany renounced in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over her overseas possessions, including therein German East Africa; and

Whereas, in accordance with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the said Treaty, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of conferring a mandate upon His Majesty the King of the Belgians to administer part of German East Africa, and have decided to conclude a convention for this purpose; the High Contracting Parties have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say—

• The President of the United States of America:
• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
• The President of the French Republic:
• His Majesty the King of Italy:
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:
• His Majesty the King of the Belgians:

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

1. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer upon His Majesty the King of the Belgians a mandate to be exercised in conformity with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919, to administer the portion of the former German Protectorate of German East Africa situated to the west of the following line:—

[Here follows the same text, mutatis mutandis, as in appendix B, supra, beginning with the description of the boundary in section 1 (b), page 650.]

Appendix D to HD–116

Convention Relating to the Mandate for German South-West Africa

Whereas by Article 119 of Part IV (German Rights and Interests outside Germany) of the Treaty of Peace, Germany renounced in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over her overseas possessions, including therein German South-West Africa; and

Whereas in accordance with Article 22 of Part 1 (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the said Treaty the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of conferring a mandate upon His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on His behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa to administer the territory aforementioned, and have decided to conclude a Convention for this purpose; The High Contracting Parties have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

• The President of the United States of America:
• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
• The President of the French Republic:
• His Majesty the King of Italy:
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:

and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, for and on behalf of His Union of South Africa:

Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer upon His Britannic Majesty the mandate to administer the former German Protectorate of South-West Africa. This mandate will be exercised on behalf of His Britannic Majesty by His Government of the Union of South Africa in conformity with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919.

Article 2

His Britannic Majesty, for and on behalf of the Government of His Union of South Africa (hereinafter called the Mandatory Power), accepts the mandate thus conferred upon Him, and will execute the same on behalf of the League of Nations, and in accordance with the following provisions.

Article 3

The Mandatory Power shall have full power of administration and legislation over the territory subject to this mandate as an integral portion of the Union of South Africa, and may apply the laws of the Union of South Africa to the territory, subject to such local modifications as circumstances may require. The Mandatory Power undertakes to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory subject to this mandate.

Article 4

The Mandatory Power undertakes that the slave trade shall be prohibited, and that no forced labor shall be permitted except for essential public works and services, and then only for adequate remuneration. The Mandatory Power further undertakes that the traffic in arms and ammunition shall be controlled in accordance with principles analogous to those laid down in the Convention relating to the control of the arms traffic, signed by the parties to this Convention on the 10th September, 1919,⁹ or of any convention amending the same. The supply of intoxicating spirits and beverages to the natives shall be prohibited.

Article 5

The military training of the natives, otherwise than for purposes of internal police and the local defence of the territory, shall be prohibited. Furthermore, no military or naval bases shall be established or fortifications erected in the territory.

Article 6

Subject to the provisions of any local law for the maintenance of public order and public morals, the Mandatory Power guarantees in the territory freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, and undertakes to allow all missionaries, the subjects or citizens of any member of the League of Nations, to enter into, travel and reside in the territory for the purpose of prosecuting their calling.

Article 7

The Mandatory Power shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council, containing full information with regard to the territory, and indicating the measures taken to carry out the obligations assured under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Article 8

The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate. If any dispute whatever should arise between the members of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of those provisions which cannot be settled by negotiation, this dispute shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice to be established by the League of Nations.

Done at . . . . . . . the . . . . . day of . . . . . . . a single copy of which shall remain deposited in the archives of the League of Nations, and of which certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all Powers Signatories of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

Confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations the . . . . . day of . . . . . . .

Secretary-General

Appendix E to HD–116

Convention Relating to the Mandate for Nauru

Whereas by Article 119 of Part IV (German Rights and Interests outside Germany) of the Treaty of Peace Germany renounced in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over her overseas possessions, including therein Nauru; and

Whereas in accordance with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the said Treaty the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of conferring a mandate upon His Britannic Majesty to administer the island aforementioned, and have decided to conclude a Convention for this purpose; The High Contracting Parties have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

• The President of the United States of America:
• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
• The President of the French Republic:
• His Majesty the King of Italy:
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:

Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:—

Article 1

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer upon His Britannic Majesty a mandate, in conformity with Article 22 of Part 1 (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919, to administer the island of Nauru (“Pleasant Island”, situated in about 167° longitude East and 0°25′ latitude South).

Article 2

His Britannic Majesty (hereinafter called the Mandatory Power) accepts the mandate thus conferred upon Him, and will execute the same on behalf of the League of Nations, and in accordance with the following provisions.

Article 3

The Mandatory Power shall have full power of administration and legislation over the territory subject to this mandate as an integral portion of His territory. The Mandatory Power undertakes to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory subject to this mandate.

[Here follows text as printed in appendix D, supra, beginning with article 4, page 656.]

Appendix F to HD–116

Convention Relating to the Mandate for German Samoa

Whereas by Article 119 of Part IV (German Rights and Interests outside of Germany) of the Treaty of Peace Germany renounced in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over her overseas possessions, including therein German Samoa; and

Whereas in accordance with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the said Treaty the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of conferring a mandate upon His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Dominion of New Zealand to administer German Samoa, and have decided to conclude a Convention for this purpose; the High Contracting Parties have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, (that is to say):

• The President of the United States of America:
• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India:
• The President of the French Republic:
• His Majesty the King of Italy:
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:

and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, for and on behalf of His Dominion of New Zealand;

Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:—

Article 1

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer upon his Britannic Majesty the mandate to administer the former German Islands of the Samoan Group. This mandate will be exercised on behalf of His Britannic Majesty by His Government of the Dominion of New Zealand, in conformity with Article 22 of Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919.

Article 2

His Britannic Majesty, for and on behalf of the Government of His Dominion of New Zealand (hereinafter called the Mandatory Power) accepts the mandate thus conferred upon Him, and will execute the same on behalf of the League of Nations, and in accordance with the following provisions.

Article 3

In case of any dispute arising as to whether any island is or is not included in the above mandate, the question shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations, whose decision shall be final.

Article 4

The Mandatory Power shall have full power of administration and legislation over the territory subject to this mandate as an integral portion of the Dominion of New Zealand, and may apply the laws of the Dominion of New Zealand to the territory, subject to such local modifications as circumstances may require. The Mandatory Power undertakes to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory subject to this mandate.

Article 5

The Mandatory Power undertakes that the slave trade shall be prohibited, and that no forced labour shall be permitted except for essential public works and services, and then only for adequate remuneration. The Mandatory Power further undertakes that the traffic in arms and ammunition shall be controlled in accordance with principles analogous to those laid down in the Convention relating to the control of the arms traffic, signed by the parties to this Convention on the 10th September, 1919,¹⁰ or of any convention amending the same. The supply of intoxicating spirits and beverages to the natives shall be prohibited.

Article 6

The military training of the natives, otherwise than for purposes of internal police, and the local defense of the territory, shall be prohibited. Furthermore, no military or naval bases shall be established or fortifications erected in the territory.

Article 7

Subject to the provisions of any local law for the maintenance of public order and public morals, the Mandatory Power guarantees in the territory freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, and undertakes to allow all missionaries, the subjects or citizens of any member of the League of Nations, to enter into, travel and reside in the territory for the purpose of prosecuting their calling.

Article 8

The Mandatory Power shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council, containing full information with regard to the territory, and indicating the measures taken to carry out the obligations assumed under Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Article 9

The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate. If any dispute whatever should arise between the members of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of these provisions which cannot be settled by negotiation, this dispute shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice to be established by the League of Nations.

Done at . . . . . . . . the . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . a single copy of which shall remain deposited in the archives of the League of Nations, and of which certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary General of the League of Nations to all Powers Signatories of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

Confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations the . . . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Secretary-General

Appendix G to HD–116

Convention Relating to the Mandate for the German Possessions in the Pacific Ocean Situated South of the Equator Other Than Samoa and Nauru

Whereas by Article 119 of Part IV (German Rights and Interests outside Germany) of the Treaty of Peace Germany renounced in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over her overseas possessions, including therein German New Guinea and the groups of islands in the Pacific Ocean lying south of the equator other than German Samoa and Nauru; and

Whereas in accordance with Article 22 of Part 1 (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the said Treaty the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of conferring a mandate upon His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to administer the territories and islands aforementioned, and have decided to conclude a Convention for this purpose: The High Contracting Parties have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say:—

• The President of the United States of America:
• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
• The President of the French Republic:
• His Majesty the King of Italy:
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:

and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, for and on behalf of His Commonwealth of Australia:

Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:—

Article 1

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer upon His Britannic Majesty a mandate to be exercised on His behalf by His Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in conformity with Article 22 of Part 1 (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919, to administer the former German colony of New Guinea and the former German islands situated in the Pacific Ocean, and lying south of the equator, other than the German islands of the Samoan group and the island of Nauru.

Article 2

His Britannic Majesty, for and on behalf of the Government of His Commonwealth of Australia (hereinafter called the Mandatory Power), accepts the mandate thus conferred upon Him, and will execute the same on behalf of the League of Nations, and in accordance with the following provisions.

Article 3

In case of any dispute arising as to the boundary of the said colony or as to whether any island is or is not included in the above mandate, the question shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations, whose decision shall be final.

Article 4

The Mandatory Power shall have full power of administration and legislation over the territory subject to this mandate as an integral portion of the Commonwealth of Australia, and may apply the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia to the territory, subject to such local modifications as circumstances may require. The Mandatory Power undertakes to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory subject to this mandate.

[Here follows text as printed in appendix F, supra, beginning with article 5, page 659.]

Appendix H to HD–116

Convention Relating to the Mandate for the German Possessions in the Pacific Ocean North of the Equator

Whereas by Article 119, of Part IV of the Treaty of Peace (German rights and interests outside Germany), Germany renounced in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over her over-seas possessions, including therein the groups of Islands in the Pacific Ocean, lying north of the Equator; and,

Whereas, in accordance with Article 22 of Part I of the said Treaty (Covenant of the League of Nations), the Principal Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of conferring a mandate upon His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, to administer the territories and islands aforementioned, and have decided to conclude a Convention for this purpose; the High Contracting Parties have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

• The President of the United States of America:
• His Majesty, the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India,
• The President of the French Republic,
• His Majesty, the King of Italy,
• His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan:

Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer upon His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, a mandate to administer, in conformity with Article 22 of Part 1, (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28 June 1919, the former German Islands situated in the Pacific Ocean, north of the Equator.

Article 2

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan (hereinafter called the Mandatory Power) accepts the Mandate thus conferred upon him, and will execute the same on behalf of the League of Nations, and in accordance with the following provisions;

Article 3

In case of any dispute arising as to whether any island is or is not included in the above mandate, the question shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations, whose decision shall be final.

Article 4

The Mandatory Power shall have full power of administration and legislation over the territory subject to this mandate, as an integral portion of the Empire of Japan, and may apply the laws of the Empire of Japan to the territory, subject to such local modifications as circumstances may require. The Mandatory Power undertakes to promote to the utmost, the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory subject to this mandate.

[Here follows text as printed in appendix F, beginning with article 5, page 659.]

Appendix I to HD–116

[Note by the Japanese Plenipotentiary (Matsui) Indicating the Point of View of the Japanese Government Upon the “C” Type of Mandate]

I. The Commission on the Mandates Regime adopted two kinds of Mandates, respectively called Mandates “B” and “C”, and destined to be applied to the territories referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. However, the conclusions of this Commission did not express the unanimous opinion of the Commission, on account of the reservations made by certain Delegations.

As far as the Japanese Delegation is concerned, the Japanese Delegate proposed to the Commission to insert in the clause of Mandate “C” the stipulations of Article 5 of Mandate “B” on the principle of “equal opportunity”, the benefit of which is enjoyed by the nationals of States members of the League of Nations, on territory administered by the Mandatories.

This proposal not having been accepted by the Mandates Commission, the Japanese Delegate was obliged to make reservations concerning the draft of Mandate “C”, such as it was approved by the other members of the Commission.

II. It seems to us that no differences can be accepted between Mandate “B” and Mandate “C”, especially with respect to the advantages of the open-door policy, which the States members of the League of Nations should enjoy on an equal footing.

According to paragraph 6 of Article 22, the territories of Mandate “C” shall be administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of this territory, as distinguished from territories of Mandate “B”. This paragraph, thus drafted, however, gives the Mandatory no right to go against the elementary principles of the League of Nations, which are the expression of justice and equity.

It would be in flagrant contradiction with the very spirit of this regime to reserve more favorable treatment for some members of the League than for others.

III. Concerning the Southern Pacific Islands, which are to be administered according to the provisions of Mandate “C”, Japan has special interests, as considerable capital is invested in these islands and the natural resources of the country were improved thanks to the continual efforts of Japanese nationals.

If the Japanese Government makes a point of formulating the preceding proposition this is because it has in mind the situation of its nationals in Australia subjected to a regime different to that of other foreigners.

In this connection, if the same conditions were to spread to the territories of the Mandate, which may be feared owing to the present policy of the Australian Government in the islands which it occupies, it would be contrary to the spirit of the League of Nations. It would be a real injustice, equivalent to barring Japanese nationals from all kinds of trade and be prejudicial to their rights.

IV. It will be remembered that before the war, the Japanese were treated by the German authorities as on an equal footing with nationals of other countries, from a point of view of commerce, navigation, establishment and acquisition of property.

Japan’s participation in the war against Germany, the assistance which she lent to her Allies, to enable them to apply the Mandate regime to those territories, would lead, if the principle of “equal opportunity” were not admitted, to depriving Japanese nationals of the advantages which they formerly enjoyed and would place them in a situation inferior to that which they held when those territories were in the hands of the enemy.

Japanese public opinion could not possibly admit such a paradoxical consequence, and could not understand such a result crowning the efforts made by the country. The Japanese Government would be unable to justify the situation and assume responsibility in face of public opinion.

V. For these reasons the Japanese Government is unable to accept Mandate “C” such as it has been drawn up by the majority of Mandates Commission. Therefore, the Japanese Government proposes that stipulations similar to those in Article 5 of Mandate “B” relative to equal opportunities, be inserted in the clause of Mandate “C”.

[Annex]

Article V of Mandate “B”

[Here follows text as printed in appendix B, article 8, page 652.]

1. HD–106, minute 2, p. 469.
3. Appendix C to HD–80, vol. viii, p. 865.
2. Minute 6, p. 599.
4. Ministre des Postes, Télégraphes, et Téléphones.
5. For text of the decision, see HD–88, minute 6, and appendix D, pp. 85 and 91.
6. IC–181G, vol. v, p. 506.
7. BC–10, minute 4, vol. iii, p. 718; BC–12, ibid., p. 738; BC–13, ibid., p. 749; BC–14, ibid., p. 758; BC–17, ibid., p. 785; BC–18, ibid., p. 797.
8. Appendix C to HD–80, vol. viii, p. 865.
9. Treaties, Conventions, etc., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 3752.
10. Treaties, Conventions, etc., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 3752.