The Weiser signal. [volume] (Weiser, Idaho) 1890-1904, 1895-11-14
MONROE DOCTRINE
Congress Will Enforce It, and if
Nee sssary Fight.
C0NGRESSMEN OF ONE MIND
A Significant Symposium Published BY
the Chicago Inter-Ocean--Views
OF the West.

If 1t be true, as has been stated, that
the congress of the United States In
years past has carefully avoided an
endorsement of the Monroe doctrine.
that sense of timidity can not be said
to govern the present congress. A few
days ago the Chicago Inter Ocean ad-
dressed the following query to the SEN
ators and members of the house OF rep
resentatives:
l. What do you construe the Monroe
doctrine to mean?
g. Should the United States, If neces
sary, enforce it by war?
To these queries a large number of
replies have been received, and, as the
Inter Ocean points out, they show a
unanimous conviction in the minds of
congressman, both east and west, that
the Monroe doctrine must be enforced.
From the long list of replies The
Spokesman-Review has selected the fol
lowing:
GEORGE L. SHOUP. IDAHO.
I construe the Monroe doctrine to
mean:
1. That it is the policy Of our govern
ment not to interfere with European
powers in wars or strife relating to
their governments, reserving the right
to protect American citizens and their
property in all parts of the globe, and
to resent and indlgnity to our nation
or flag on land or sea.
2. That we consider an attempt by
any European government to acquire
new territory, or to extend their system
of government to any portion Of this
continent, not only dangerous to the
peace and safety of the United States,
but to all other republics in the western
hemisphere; and any move made In
that direction should be regarded by our
government as unfriendly to us; and
| any European nation attempting to en-
| large their territory to the detriment
of neighboring governments on this
continent, should be warned through
| the state department in a firm and dig
nified protest. Should such protest be
| disregarded, the United States should
enforce it's views if 1t required our ar.
| my and navy to do so. This is the Mon.
| roe doctrine as 1 understand it, and OF
which I am an earnest advocate.
| GEORGE L. SHOUP.
Boise, Idaho. Oct. 81.
LEE MANTLE, MONTANA.
construe the Monroe doctrine in the
| language in which 1t was written, thai
is to say, that this government will re-
gard 1t as a manifestation of unfriend
liness for any European power to at
tempt to extend its system to any por
ton of this hemisphere. The declaration
OF President Monroe was patriotic II
| -, fhad Pm,
American spirit There is no doubt tha
the great majority Of the American
people approved and indorsed its senti
ment in 1923, nor Is there the slightes
doubt in my mind that an overwhelm
ing majority of the American peopl
today indorse and approve the Monro
doctrine, and construe It as a declara
ton that the United States will neve
permit any European power to Obtain
any additional foothold upon this con
tinent; in other words, that our govern
ment, conceived and born in the nam
and for the sake of liberty, stand
pledged to protect and guard that lib
erty for the two Americas. The Ian
guage of the Monroe declaration doe
not convey this meaning In terms, bu
this Is the broad definition which tn
American people have placed upon 1t.
War is serious business. / have n
fear that we shall be forced to such a
extremity to sustain the popular def
milton of the Monroe doctrine on az
count of any existing difficulties. Thes
will yield to firm demand on our par
: At the same time the American peopl
are as brave as they are patriotic, an
not even war will deter them from a
, insistence upon every just and wa
rantable demand. and the maintenanC
, of every national policy and principl
LEE MANTLE.
| Butte, Mont, October 81.
, THOMAS CARTER. MONTANA.
For rs years all parties and all a,
ministrations In this country have a.
hered to the Monroe doctrine. Thi
doctrine has become a cardinal prime
[ pie in the foreign policy of this natio
t The doctrine is inherently right. I'll
question is, shall we proclaim the do
: trine as a mere sentiment, or shall v
$ insist that it embodies vital princip
: of national policy? If it is to be trea
e ed as a mere sentiment, its invasion
j foreign power might be viewed as {
d act of discourtesy. If, on the contrar
# there Is a vital. substantial nation
r | policy involved in the doctrine, {
Il foreign government violating our righ
: as we understand them should be he
s to prompt and strict accountability.
s believe the government should by
n strong arm resist any invasion OF II
d Monroe doctrine. If the issue involv
IT i war we may deplore. but we can n
,e avoid, the consequences The wond'
full progress of the nation during t
last 75 years has amply justified t
IS position announced by President Nc
roe. We have the strength, intelliger
IN and patriotism to comprehend c
rights and duties, and to enforce a
e. respect for them. All foreign pow
al have ample notice OF the position Of
ic United States with reference to I
s. hemisphere, and II with such not
ry and in defiance Of our government a
he foreign power attempts to treat a
n portion of either North or South Am
at lea as legitimate field for allen c.
k quest, II should be understood that
army and navy of the United Sta
will be on hand to resist the invasi
~ THOMAS CARTEL
90 October 81, 1895.
H. c. HANSBROUGH. N DAKO,
nal There can be but one construction
no +ha Monroe doctrine go far as the