THE COUNCIL OF FOUR


was certainly some difference between the two cases inasmuch as there
was a definite undertaking by China to transfer territory to Japan.
(After an interval during which other subjects were discussed, Mr.
Balfour was introduced and the discussion was continued.)
MR. BALFOUR said that by the instructions of the Supreme Coun-
cil he had seen Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda on Saturday.
The Supreme Council had his memorandum in their hands. Baron
Makino had come again to see him on Sunday evening. With great
delicacy but perfect clearness he had indicated that Japan wanted
a decision on the Japanese claims as a whole. He had pointed out
that Japan was asked to agree to the League of Nations although she
could not obtain recognition of her claims for equality of treatment.
He did not want to make trouble, but public opinion in Japan was
very much concerned on this question. If Japan was to receive one
check in Shantung and another check as regards the League of Na-
tions the position would be very serious. Consequently, it was very
important to obtain a decision on the question of Shantung before
the Plenary Meeting to be held the same afternoon on the subject of
the League of Nations. He understood that if Japan received what
she claimed in regard to Shantung, her representatives at the Plenary
Meeting would content themselves with a survey of the inequality
of races and move some abstract resolution which would probably be
rejected. Japan would then merely make a protest. If, however,
she regarded herself as illtreated over Shantung, he was unable to
say what line the Japanese delegates might take.
PRESIDENT WILSON asked if they would go to the length of refusing
to adhere to the League of Nations. His difficulty was that he could
not possibly abandon China. He had told the United States' dele-
gation that his line was this:-"If Japan will return Kiauchow and
Shantung to China and relinquish all sovereign rights and will re-
duce her claims to mere economic concessions foregoing all military
rights, I would regard it as returning these possessions to China on
better terms than Germany had held them."
MR. BALFOUR said that there was no doubt whatsoever that Japan
was returning these territories to China on incomparably better terms
than Germany had held them.
PRESIDENT WILSON said his experts did not agree.
MR. BALFOUR said that the United States' experts had not heard the
Japanese case. The same had applied to his expert, Mr. Macleay,
who had signed the expert Report furnished at the request of the
Supreme Council.14 After hearing the Japanese representatives and
cross-examining them for an hour he had been entirely satisfied.
MR. BmAouR, continued that the Japanese Government now in
power was not the same Government as had made the Treaty of 1915
'Appendix II to IC-176C, p. 227.


317