(e) China and the other Powers exercising control over Chinese railroads promised to accord equality of service irrespective of the nationality of travelers or the origin of freight.

1

The treaty relating to the Chinese customs tariffs 1 recognized "the principle of uniformity in the rates of customs duties levied at all the land and maritime frontiers" and made provision to give it practical effect.2

In addition to the treaties the Conference adopted a number of resolutions, among them:

(a) A resolution for the establishment of a Board of Reference to which various questions, for example, whether a particular concession violates the Open Door, may be referred for decision.

(b) A resolution looking to the abolition of foreign postal agencies in China.

(c) A resolution affirming, among other things, that all radio stations operated in China by foreign governments or their nationals, under treaties or concessions, should limit the messages sent and received according to the terms of such treaties or concessions.

(d) A resolution recording hope for the unification of Chinese railways under Chinese control.

(e) A resolution looking to full publicity regarding existing and future commitments by or with respect to China.3

'This treaty has not yet been fully ratified.

Within a year after the close of the Limitation of Armament Conference the United States was given opportunity for a further statement of its Open Door principles in connection with its participation in the Lausanne Peace Conference.

58. THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WITH REFERENCE

TO TERRITORIES ADMINISTERED UNDER MANDATE OF

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

By Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles Germany renounced "in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers [British Empire, France, Italy, Japan and the United States] all her rights and titles over her oversea possessions." This article was among those of which the benefit was extended to the United States by Article II of the treaty with Germany restoring friendly relations, signed August 25, 1921.1

2

By virtue of this provision the United States has maintained a claim to all the rights and privileges connected with the mandates of the former German colonies. As a covictor in the war which made the mandates possible this country would seem to have ground for similar claims with respect to the mandates of areas formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire.

It has been consistently and persistently argued that, from the very nature of the mandate conception, the Open Door must prevail in mandated territory and no commercial preferences of any kind may obtain there. Such contention is amply justified, so far as the members of the League of Nations are concerned, by the Covenant itself. Article 22 makes perfectly clear the purpose of the mandates to assist and work for the benefit of peoples "not yet able to stand by themselves." Their well-being and development are to form " a sacred trust of civilization" and the mandatories, as trustees, are to render periodic account of their stewardship to the League, an organization designed to represent the

1 Treaty Series, no. 658; Malloy, Treaties, p. 2596.

"According to a statement released to the press on April 6, 1921, notes setting forth this contention were, on April 2, addressed to Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.

entire world. The idea of special privileges could hardly be thought of as consistent with such a theory of administering the affairs of dependent peoples.

Three classes of mandates-which have come to be known as "A", "B" and "C" respectively-are designated by the Covenant. In the first of these the mandatory's functions are stated to consist only of rendering administrative advice. In the second the mandatory is given the duty of securing "equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League." In the third it is expected that the mandated area will be "administered under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its territory." This, however, may reasonably be interpreted as subject to the safeguards, spoken of in the article, designed for the benefit of the natives; and, if the spirit of the mandate principle is to be carried out, may be taken to assure to all states members of the League equality of opportunity in matters of trade and commerce with mandated areas.

The policy of the United States was clearly stated by Secretary of State Colby to Lord Curzon, foreign minister of Great Britain, in the course of a note dated November 20, 1920:

I need hardly refer again to the fact that the Government of the United States has consistently urged that it is of the utmost importance to the future peace of the world that alien territory transferred as a result of the war with the Central Powers should be held and administered in such a way as to assure equal treatment to the commerce and to the citizens of all nations. Indeed it was in reliance upon an understanding to this effect, and expressly in contemplation thereof, that the United States was persuaded that the acquisition under mandate of certain enemy territory by the victorious powers would be consistent with the best interests of the world.1

66

'League of Nations, Official Journal, Mar.-Apr., 1921, p. 140. See also article entitled Mandates and America's Stand Regarding Them," Current History, Apr., 1921, pp. 101 et seq.

Not having accepted the Treaty of Versailles and so obtained the rights in mandated territories which are expressly guaranteed by that treaty to members of the League of Nations, the American Government was constrained to undertake the negotiation of separate treaties with the mandatory states.

The treaty with Japan in regard to the former German islands in the Pacific Ocean lying north of the equator makes no specification for commercial equality in these small and economically unimportant islands, but provides that existing treaties between the United States and Japan shall be applicable to them. Moreover, it guarantees to the United States open-door treatment with regard to the landing of cables and certain rights in respect to radio-telegraphic communication. This mandate is of class "C." 1

Treaties concerning the "B" mandates have been concluded between the United States and France with reference to Togoland and the Cameroons and between the United States and Belgium with reference to Ruanda-Urundi. In Article 6 of the French and in Article 7 of the Belgian "B" mandates, as confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations, it is provided that

.. the Mandatory shall ensure to all nationals of States 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; except that the Mandatory shall be free to organize essential public works and services on such terms and conditions as he thinks just.

Concessions for development of the natural resources of the territory shall be granted by the Mandatory without distinction

1Treaty Series, no. 664; Malloy, Treaties, p. 2723. Signed at Washington, Feb. 11, 1922 (Article II, 3). The text of the most-favorednation clause in the treaty of 1911 between the United States and Japan is set forth supra, subdivision 16(c), note.

on grounds of nationality between the nationals of all States Members of the League of Nations, but on such conditions as will maintain intact the authority of the local Government.

Article 9 of the French mandates (Belgian, Article 10) is as follows:

The Mandatory shall have full powers of administration and legislation in the area subject to the mandate. This area shall be administered in accordance with the laws of the Mandatory as an integral part of his territory and subject to the above provisions.

The Mandatory shall therefore be at liberty to apply his laws to the territory subject to the mandate, with such modifications as may be required by local conditions, and to constitute the territory into a customs, fiscal, or administrative union or federation with the adjacent territories under his sovereignty or control, provided always that the measures adopted to that end do not infringe the provisions of this mandate.1

The text of the convention between the United States and France relating to the part of the Cameroons under French mandate is essentially as follows:

Subject to the provisions of the present convention, the United States consents to the administration by the Government of the French Republic, pursuant to the aforesaid mandate of the former German territory described in article I of the mandate.

The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy all the rights and benefits secured under the terms of articles . . . 6 . . . and 92 of the mandate to members of the League

'The terms of the mandates are set forth in full in the prologues to the treaties signed with the United States.

2 The rights secured to members of the League of Nations under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the mandate are likewise secured to the United States.