and the Japanese mandate over former German islands north of the Equator resulted last month in a definite treaty between the United States and Japan, which was made public in association with the Four-Power agreement. Japan accords to the United States all that our Government has claimed as regards the use of Yap for cable and radio purposes, while the United States in turn recognizes the mandate of Japan over the former German islands north of the Equator. The treaty confirms to American missionaries and educators the rights they had long exercised in many of these islands. The agreement ends what had been a rather serious controversy, in a way that secures American rights and interests, while fully recognizing everything that the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations have accorded to Japan as exercising sovereignty over the islands in question. It was understood that, either with or without a definite agreement in treaty form, the United States would be accorded full equality with other nations in those islands south of the Equator that were assigned at Paris to the British Empire.

China's Claims at

As these pages were written, the

work of the Conference in its Washington more fundamental objects was completed and was successful. It is within bounds to express the view that no article has been written which more clearly sets forth those principal objects and successful results than the contribution which Mr. Simonds makes to our pages this month. There had not been completed, in time for final statement or discussion here, certain settlements affecting China. Nevertheless it was known that the Shantung question, which meant more to the Chinese than anything else, was about to be adjusted by mutual agreement with something like a complete withdrawal on the part of Japan. Secretary Hughes and Mr. Balfour were lending their good offices to the Japanese and Chinese delegates in order that the Washington Conference might not end with Shantung questions still in controversy. Japanese were not to withdraw wholly from Manchuria, yet China's sovereignty was acknowledged and limits placed upon the activities of foreign governments. Numerous claims involving national dignity, as asserted by the Chinese delegates, were admitted as just in principle by the entire Conference. These included the withdrawal of foreign

The

MISS WASHINGTON OPENS THE DOOR AND LETS AIR IN FOR THE INVALID

From the Evening Times (Glasgow, Scotland)

post offices from Chinese territory, the ultimate freedom of China to control and administer her customs duties, the withdrawal from China of foreign troops and police forces, and the abolition of foreign courts of justice. These changes cannot be made in a moment, for the simple reason that China is in a state of governmental chaos and unable to give proper guarantees. China has been brilliantly represented at the Conference, and everything that was practically possible has been done to secure proper consideration for Chinese demands and claims. China's one paramount task is that of building up a modern government, capable of exercising internal authority and of meeting external responsibilities.

HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, OF MASSACHUSETTS (Mr. Lodge is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and leader of the Republican majority. As one of the four American delegates in the Armament Conference, the task was assigned to Mr. Lodge of presenting the Four-Power Treaty. His speech on that occasion was one of notable excellence)

with which Western Europe was following the Conference discussions. Popular feeling in Japan about the great superdreadnought Mutsu had to be reckoned with at Washington in finally adjusting the details of the 5-5-3 program. The announcement of the treaty between the Sinn Fein delegates and Mr. Lloyd George over the status of Ireland visibly strengthened the hands of those who were guiding the Conference at Washington toward a successful conclusion.

"Mirrors"

We are fortunate in being able of the to follow Mr. Simonds' clear Conference and logical analysis of the Conference and its work, with a similarly noteworthy picture of the Conference, though more intimate and personal. The anonymous journalist whose recent volume entitled "The Mirrors of Washington" has stimulated so much curiosity and has been so widely read gives us an account of the Conference on its human side. This article characterizes some of the leading figures at Washington with a touch of wit and a flash of humor. It is wholly candid and highly readable; but it is a thoroughly sound and responsible study of the new forces of inter

Will the Senate Ratify?

Undoubtedly the forces of enlightened opinion in every country which has been represented at Washington are lending support to the work that has been done. Ratification of the agreements of the Conference ought to be prompt and virtually unanimous. An attempt on the part of Democratic Senators to obtrude partisanship into the debate on ratification of the Four-Power Treaty would be reprehensible in a high degree. Every Senator is entitled to his own opinions, and is solely responsible for his vote. And every Senator must take the course that seems to him best. But these efforts to avert war and to secure international accord do not come properly within the range of American party politics. Fortunately, the work of the Conference has been so open, and has been so fully presented to the country, that it would be impossible for any man in the

United States Senate to contribute anything essential to the public discussion by merely prolonging the debate and holding up the final vote upon endorsement. It does not appear that very many Senators will vote against ratification; and it is already permissible to express the opinion that those who feel it their duty to oppose the "FourPower Treaty" are not acting in a partisan spirit, but are following their own convictions, which lead them to condemn our joining in international agreements.

The British Prime

Minister Lloyd George's Greatest would have been a welcome Achievement figure at the Conference; but as our anonymous contributor so well explains, Mr. Balfour has headed the British group in a manner that has crowned his long public career with especial honor and distinction. As was to have been expected, the British were more in evidence than any other element at Washington, and they contributed greatly to the decisions and adjustments that were so skilfully made under the masterful leadership of Secretary Hughes. The British Government was in constant touch with affairs at Washington, and meanwhile Mr. Lloyd George was lending more help to the Conference by virtue of the occupations which kept him at home than he could have rendered by his presence in this country. To have settled the Irish controversy was to have served all mankind. The differences between Great Britain and Ireland had an international character from the Irish standpoint, just as the differences between the United States and the seceding South had an international character from the standpoint of the Government of Jefferson Davis at Richmond. The Washington Government insisted that Europe ought to see nothing but a domestic insurrection, and ought not to give the Confederacy the status of belligerency in international law. Yet Europe insisted upon viewing the American war as having an international aspect.

open warfare to the point of unconditional surrender, exactly as our Civil War was fought out and as Great Britain fought the Boers to a standstill. After the surrender of Lee's army, with an unhappy period of transitional mismanagement, the South was restored to its true place in the Union. In like manner, after the crushing of the little Boer Republics, there came about a reconstruction of South Africa which gave the Boers not only everything they could have desired in their own continent, but also a large position in the affairs of the British Empire and of the world. It does not follow that the American war was a fortunate circumstance for this country, or that the Boer War was a creditable episode in the development of the British Empire. If leadership had been wiser, both wars might have been averted. It was the business of English and Irish leaders, studying the lessons of history, to avoid a war, and to find a way not merely to make life as neighbors endurable, but to make it mutually advantageous.

"The Irish Free State" Announced

An agreement was reached between the British and Irish leaders in conference at London, on December 6, very largely because King George and the British Prime Minister took a broad and generous view of Ireland's claim to be treated as a nation. "The two Georges" decided to rely upon the good faith and good sense of the Irish people, rather than upon military or political coercion. Great Britain's delegation at Washington was entering upon the great adventure of trusting the American people and of coöperating with them on equal terms in exercising the responsibilities of naval power. In somewhat analogous fashion, the heads of the British ministry at home, with the hearty approval of King George, were deciding to give the Irish people full liberty to set up their Irish Free State, and to take their place in the world as a trusted associate of Great Britain. The realist in politics and economics knows that Ireland has more need of Great Britain as a good neighbor than Great Britain has of Ireland. But the sense of acting freely helps those who live side by side to be the more friendly and valuable as neighbors. Mr. P. W. Wilson, whose knowledge of the Irish. situation is based upon long and intimate study of it in all phases, writes for us this month a very timely article on the nature of the momentous treaty between the Sinn

CLARES

QUEENS WICKLOW

COUNTY

CARLOW

TIPPERARY

LIMERICK

WATERFORD

KERRY

CORK

THE COUNTIES OF IRELAND

CHANNEL

The Fate of the

King George opened a special

would have been regarded as impossible. Mr. De Valera, the nominal President of the Irish Republic, had not conducted the negotiations at Westminster, but had sent Mr. Arthur Griffith, Mr. Michael Collins, and other members of the Irish Sinn Fein Government, while he remained in Dublin. To the surprise of almost everybody, Mr. De Valera refused to accept the agreement and undertook to lead a movement for its rejection by the Dail Eireann, the name by which the legislative body of the Sinn Fein Government is known in Ireland.

Extremists Making a Final Stand

It was fully admitted by the Irish negotiators that the treaty was not binding unless ratified by the Dail Eireann. But Mr. De Valera, who is so unfortunate as to have a metaphysical rather than a political mentality, obstructed proceedings on December 14 by holding that the negotiators had no right to sign the treaty which they had been empowered to negotiate until the signing itself had been submitted to the Assembly at Dublin. This interposition of an absurd quibble carried the open discussion of the agreement itself cver until a later day. The sentiment of the Irish people, as expressed through their newspapers and through their religious and political leaders in general, had been overwhelmingly in favor of accepting an agreement which all the world regarded as more favorable than anything that Ireland had reason to expect. It was not surprising that the Ulster extremists, led by Sir James Craig, should attack Mr. Lloyd George and the King himself as having sacrificed Belfast and the adjacent counties in which separatist views predominate. But, with De Valera. and Craig both in opposition to the treaty, there was a good chance for moderate and sensible men to lay aside their differences and to come together for a harmonious Ireland. Thus obstruction from certain elements in both parts of Ireland, as well as from a certain "die-hard" Tory element in England, was to have been taken for granted. But it was also the general opinion that the treaty would be ratified at Dublin soon after its acceptance at Westminster, and that Ulster would ultimately see a new light and

session of the Parliament at Treaty Westminster on December 14, for the sole business of dealing with the proposed agreement. The King expressed the earnest hope that the strife of centuries might be ended and "that Ireland, as a free partner in the Commonwealth of Nations forming the British Empire, will secure fulfillment of her national ideals." It was well known that Parliament would support the agreement by an overwhelming majority. Mr. Lloyd George, in his opening speech, was able to show that not only the British Dominions but the friendly governments of all the world had sent congratulations and expressed distinct approval. The real fight over ratification was, therefore, not in Great Britain, although the British Government had made concessions which at any previous time during the past five hundred years.