Billeder på siden

his neighbors to accompany him on an errand intended to benefit him alone. Secondly, and in my opinion, of equal importance, it would free our government from the persistent importunities of individuals and corporations urging our sole intervention to benefit their own pockets, but who would not favor a joint intervention by us along with other powers. Furthermore it would be the best and most convincing form of invitation to Latin America to participate equally with us in the responsibilities and development of the Monroe Doctrine. The great Doctrine would at once become continental, and cease to be unilateral, which is to-day its one great defect. It is not the duty of the United States to police Latin America, and the sooner we get that idea spread broadcast, not only in South America but also in North America, the better will it be for our international repute. Whenever under the terms of the Monroe Doctrine, an occasion for armed intervention in this hemisphere arises, let us, in each and every instance, invite participation in that responsibility from other American countries, all of which are equally concerned in the benefits and responsibilities of that Doctrine."

That was what I said last January, and I feel it even more strongly today.

I hope and believe that there will be no armed intervention in Mexico, and in his resolute effort to obviate the necessity therefor, President Wilson deserves the support of every patriotic citizen of our country. Whatever may be the personal opinion of individuals as to details or methods, this is no time to discuss them, lest the discussion be misunderstood abroad.

I don't claim to know the South Americans better than many others do, but I do claim that no foreigner has ever liked them better than I do, and therefore am I earnestly eager to have their opinion seriously studied, and courteously accorded the consideration which it richly deserves.


By Honorable George F. Tucker

Many views have been entertained as to the meaning of the Monroe doctrine, and as to its claim to a place in the code of international law. The conservatives regard it as a declaration of little value and efficacy; to the devotees of bold and forceful politics it has become a kind of fetish; even a President of the United States asserted nearly twenty years ago that it "has its place in the code of international law as certainly and as securely as if it were specifically mentioned;" and yet, as to its genesis, aim, and validity there can be no room for cavil or controversy. Enunciated over ninety years ago, when Spain was bent on resubjugating her Spanish-American dependencies, which had long before asserted their independence, and when it was apprehended that she was assured of the support of other European powers, the Doctrine has never been sanctioned or adopted by the Congress of the United States, and its place in the code of international law has been strenuously and even bitterly questioned by most of the leading nations of Europe.

And what is this Doctrine? It may briefly be defined as a warning to the governments of the Old World not to establish colonies on, or to extend their political systems to these continents, and to refrain from interference in the affairs of the Spanish-American republics. Conceding that the Doctrine has no place in the realm of international jurisprudence and that it is hardly more than a fiat, we are confronted by the fact that its assertion by this government has more than once received the attention of European powers, and it has been, in a certain sense, recognized by them in the happy adjustment of the contentions which have occasioned its avowal. There are four conspicuous illustrations.

International misunderstandings over a projected waterway at the Isthmus of Panama long preceded the ratification

of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in 1850. This compact, which was intended to settle a perplexing question only augmented the difficulty, and the discussions and writings to which it gave rise would fill volumes. In the course of time differences were harmonized or contentions withdrawn, and the Hay-Pauncefote treaty has lodged ample power in the American government to construct the Canal; and the bickerings and quarrels of many years are forgotten. During the long period of unrest and disturbance in Cuba, Americans apprehended that Great Britain or some other European power contemplated the acquisition of that island, and Great Britain and France entertained a somewhat similar view as to the intentions of the United States. The two nations urged this country to enter into a tripartite stipulation to the effect that no one of them should obtain possession of the island or exercise any dominion over it. After the rejection of the proposal by this country in 1852, there seemed to be little hope of a settlement of the question, yet now we find Cuba enjoying independence under our own guardianship, and her present condition and her future welfare are matters of indifference to the powers of Europe. On the intervention of the French in Mexico about fifty years ago, the Monroe Doctrine was again invoked. The situation was for a time serious, but at last the invaders withdrew; and ever since no power has assumed to interfere in the affairs of this socalled republic, except the United States itself, now endeavoring through an able, upright and conscientious President to aid the Mexicans in the establishment of a stable government. And, lastly, there is the case of Venezuela, in 1895. The question related to the determination of a boundary line between that country and British Guiana. The feeling engendered between the two nations, parties to the controversy, was intense, if not bitter. However, the question at last reached a definite adjustment, and the incident is now history. These occasions of the so-called application or assertion of the Monroe Doctrine are cited to show that in every instance reason and sense have triumphed, and war has been happily averted.

We are now at the threshold of the future an


dod to

exercise prevision-to suggest how far the Monroe Doctrine ought to apply to prospective incursions of European nations into the territory of Central and South American republics, or to possible interference in their affairs. These questions are difficult to answer, and every case must be treated and settled according to the circumstances creating it, and the disposition and temper of the disputants. It is believed by many that there is little ground for apprehension that foreign powers will endeavor to establish on these shores settlements hostile to democratic institutions or disturb the autonomy of the Spanish-American republics, but if problems relating to land or government or even trade, or the enforcement of pecuniary obligations do come up for solution, there are the most cogent reasons for the exercise of the spirit of accomodation, for the application of liberal construction and interpretation, and for the abnegation not only of the apprehensions similar to those so prevalent at the time of the inception of the Doctrine, but also of jingo sentiments and policies.

The speaker is not inclined to present ideas and formulate rules of his own. It is his purpose rather to ask questions based on governmental conditions, international relations, commercial methods and practices, and the utilization of physical forces for the carriage of merchandise, so radically different from those which obtained or were employed ninety, seventy, or even fifty years ago. We should not forget that at the time of President Monroe's declaration this country had a population of only a few millions, and that her interests were inconsiderable in comparison with those of today, that the Spanish-American countries were emerging from colonial conditions that made the transition to independence and democracy difficult and problematical; that trade between civilized countries was not extensive and was largely limited to merchandise peculiar to an age when wants were few and luxuries little known; that transportation was not yet effected by the agencies which man has since called from latency; that knowledge the world over was the possession of the few, and that such a thing as the education of the masses was hardly contemplated; that racial affinities

[ocr errors]

and prejudices were marked and prevalent a fact due to the aloofness of nations, caused in a large measure by slow and imperfect means of communication; that there were few, perhaps no, societies and associations organized to promote the cause of peace and to agitate for settlement of wars and disputes by compromise or arbitration, and that no one dreamed-not even the visionary and enthusiast of the discoveries and inventions that were to modify the methods of trade and business, augment the wealth of the world, raise the standards of living, bring long separated peoples into closer relations and make possible coöperative efforts to promote amity and good-will among nations.

Is it not a fact that the Monroe Doctrine might possibly be applied today to the detriment of the southern republics in whose interest it may be invoked, and possibly to the discredit of the United States? It is fair to assume that there are only two nations that are likely in any event to oppose or violate this Doctrine or inhibition-Great Britain and Germany. In the past ninty years Great Britain has advanced from the rule of the few to that of the many, so that the subjects of the king enjoy about all the privileges of citizens of our country; she has covered the seas with her shipping, and has developed a colonial system the most remarkable and efficient in the history of the world; she has guarded and guards her subjects in every corner of the globe, and, wherever her flag flies, the lives and property of aliens are accorded the same protection as those of her own. Now is it not probable that, if Great Britain should interfere in the affairs of a Latin-American country, she would establish a system calculated to promote the interests of that country, and not at all inimical to those of the United States? And what system? Not that of the old Great Britain governed by gentlemen, but that of the Great Britain of today governed by the people.

Ninety years ago Germany was a collection of states without cohesion and with a not redundant population. Now regard the aspect of governmental unification, and consider her great advance not only in education and all the activities that go with learning, but in manufacturing and trade and commerce. The growth in population has been marvelous,

« ForrigeFortsæt »