“First. Japan bases certain of her claims on the right acquired by conquest.  I asked myself the following questions:  Suppose Japan had not succeeded in her efforts to force the capitulation of the Germans at Tsing-Tsau; suppose that the armistice of November 11th had found her still fighting the Germans at that place, just as the armistice found the English still fighting the Germans in South-East Africa.  We would then oblige Germany to dispose of her claims in China by a clause in the Treaty of Peace.  Would it occur to any one that, as a matter of right, we should force Germany to cede her claims to Japan rather than to China?  It seems to me that it would occur to every American that we would then have the opportunity that we have long desired to force Germany to correct, in favor of China, the great wrong which she began to do to the latter in 1898.  What moral right has Japan acquired by her conquest of Shantung assisted by the British?  If Great Britain and Japan secured no moral right to sovereignty over various savages inhabiting islands in the Pacific Ocean, but, on the other hand, we held that these peoples shall be governed by mandates under the League of Nations, what moral right has Japan acquired to the suzerainty (which she would undoubtedly eventually have) over 30,000,000 Chinese in the sacred province of Shantung?

   “Second. Japan must base her claims either on the Convention with
   China or on the right of conquest, or on both.  Let us consider her
   moral right under either of these points.

“a) If the United States has not before this recognized the validity of the rights claimed by Japan under her Convention with China, what has happened since the Armistice that would justify us in recognizing their validity now?

“b) If Germany had possessed territory, in full sovereignty, on the east coast of Asia, a right to this territory, under international law, could have been obtained by conquest.  But Germany possessed no such territory.  What then was left for Japan to acquire by conquest?  Apparently nothing but a lease extorted under compulsion from China by Germany.  I understand that international lawyers hold that such a lease, or the rights acquired, justly or unjustly, under it, cannot be acquired by conquest.

“Third. Suppose Germany says to us, ’We will cede our lease and all rights under it, but we will cede them back to China.’  Will we recognize the justice of Japan’s claims to such an extent that we will threaten Germany with further war unless she cedes these rights to Japan rather than to China?

“Again, suppose that Germany, in her hopelessness of resistance to our demands, should sign without question a clause ceding these rights to Japan, even though we know that this is so wrong that we would not fight in order to compel Germany to do it, what moral justification would