The herald., 1895-04-29
DO THE DOCTRINES CONFLICT


uous as the sponsor for three doctrines of
international importance and application.
Two of these were enunciated early in the
career OF the country; the third is
of more modern origin. The first found
its birth in Washington s farewell address.
In this parting to the American people
the principle of friendship with all ma
tions. but entangling alliances with none
The second doctrine received its initial
expression in President Monroes message
of December ., 1923, when he assumed
the grounds that any attempt on the part
of European powers to extend their mon
archial system to this continent should
be considered by this country an un-
friendly act menaclng our national exist
ence and accordingly should be resented
by us.
The third in this trinity is the pr1n-
ciple OF arbitration as applied to AL con-
troversies between governments. This lat
ter has been most ardently favored by the
United States and our championship CT
the heo1y, and willingness to submit
ourselves to its practice. have been largely
instrumental in securing for it recogni-
ton and observance by the remainder Of
have been accepted by the people as gen.
orally sound and worthy of being incor-
porated as fixed features of our foreign
policy. The doctrines of no entangling
alliances and opposition to the extension of
European power on this hemisphere con-
tain apparently the elements of political
wisdom, but time and contingencies must
determine in the minds of level-headed
nlsn their application. They are, more
strictly speaking. policies rather than
principles. and while principles may be
eternal and universal in application, the
value Of policies IS measured by the needs
and circumstances of the hour. But the set
Element of International disputes through
the medium of a court of arbitration is a
principle of action of unlimited utility
and serviceable to humanity as long as
sovereign states shall have different views
and opinions.
These features Of our state policy
threaten to conflict, and it may be that in
the presentation of any two of them
the remaining one will have to be sacri-
feed. 1t begins to appear as though it
would be impracticable for us TO hold fast
to the three IDEAS at one and the same
time. When Washington advised against
the formation of entangling alliances, he
had in mind agreements or conventions
negotiated with other countries whereby
we obligated ourselves directly or indi
recty to assist them Extensively or defen-
sively. He was strongly impre' sed with
the unwisdom Of becoming identified
with the quarrels of other peoples, and
in this the American people, then and evel
since, have concurred. The unanimity O.
opinion on that subject is testified to BY
the frequent declarations in the plat
forms of the great political parties. t.
the same effect.
But when, in 1923, Presid ent Monroe
gave forth the doctrine that bears hi.
name, but for which John Quincy Adam:
Is really responsible, he i'm paired the
vigor and threatened the integrity of tn,
Washingtonan declaration of no entan
clement. While the policy fathered by
Monroe does not imply or necessitatt
offensive or defensive alliances the effec
to a degree is the same as though it did
1t commits US to the defense of the othe
countries of this continent as against tn,
designs and inyasions OF the old world
1t is not for the form and phraseoloy,
that nations conclude treaties. but TO
the effects; and the effects of an often
svc and defensive alliance, in S,
far as duties for us to perform arr
concerned. are just as inevitable if W,
adhere to Monroeism as though we ha,
entered such an alliance; while it is ap
parent, of course. that none of the bene
fits that might accrue to us under sucl
mutual arrangement can be enjoyed