The herald., 1895-04-29

We simply volunteer to do great deal
for the others, while they are under no
obligations to assist us. We have the
burdens. but none of the com pensations
of an entangling alliance. And it is
right here that the theories of the Wash
ington and the Monroe doctrines CO nfiict.
One consideration that gave force to the
Monroe doctrine when first advocated has
that time this country was much smaller
in area than now. its population compar :
atively Insignificant and its political
prestige weak. There was some reason to
fear the extension of the monarchiai sys-
tenn to this continent on our own &C
count, regardless OF the republics to the
south; and undoubtedly it was solicitud e
for the peace and welfare of his own coun-
try that. more than anything else, in
duced President Monroe TO formulate his
famous proposition. But the situation is
somewhat changed today and for the
future. 1t is not likely that the sun will
ever shine on the man who will see any
other part of the world strong enough to
imperll the life of this republic. We
added to the opportunities for conflict and
complication when we embraced arbitra-
ton. This last endangers the Monroe
doctrine to as great degree as the latter
does the Washington doctrine. The Euro
and intricate reations with Mexico and
Central and South America. In the ordi-
nary course of events these relations lead
to complications that must be settled
either by war or arbitration. We have
before us in the boundary dispute between
England and Venezuela just such an in
stance. 1t is said by competent authori-
ties that the British are right in their
contentious. That of course is a matter
of opinion. If both governments should
agree to submit the controversy to arbi-
tration, the majority of the court is bound
to be composed of men who do not recog-
nize anything like the Monroe doctrine
and who would in all probability con-
slider the case on its merits. Then if, in
deed, it should be proven that England is
right, it would mean the extension OF her
power beyond the confines Of her present
South American possessions, and big
extension. Or similar result might oc
cur from any other of long list of contro-
versies now ON or to come. If We are sim
cere in our adherence of war and our
advocacy of arbitration, we must tolerate
the adjustment of difficulties by the latter
method, even if the decisions thus at
tanned involve the extension of European
power to South America. But when we
thus submit we are going back on the
Monroe doctrine.
1t thus appears as if the three chief
planks in Our foreign policy would not
dovetail. The Washingtonian doctrine
and the arbitration doctrine in no way
conflict. but the Monroe doctrine conflicts
with and if absolutely adhered to, nulli-
fies both the others.
This situation of apparent irreconcila-
biity is one to be studied in the light of
calm. dispassionate and genuinely patri-
otto craftsmanship. In its consideration
effervescent and emotional sentiment
should have no place. If it implies in
consistency on our part, or threatens I'M
pleasant consequences in the future, we
should be extricated. The United States
can only afford to take such course as will
reflect honor on her judgment and guar
antee her ultimate welfare.