The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-01-18
Another Senator Gone Wrong.

1t appears to us that Senator Sewell.
of New Jersey, must either possess an
obtuse understanding Of American pub
lie sentiment or else is disposed to gain
prominence by going counter to the
currents of popular opinion. In any
event, his speech Thursday In the SEN
ate repudiating the Monroe doctrine
and assailing President Cleveland for
pressing that doctrine beyond what
was originally contemplated" does him
no credit. 1t is we'll to have it under
stood from the beginning that If MIR.
Sewell intends to take this attitude on
questions affecting our nations foreign
prestige and safety. he will do so not as
a representative nor with the approval
Of the Republican party.
So far from pressing the Monroe doc
trine beyond what was originally con-
ten, lated. 1t is a fact Of common ac-
ceptance that Messrs. Olney and Cleve-
land have cut that doctrine squarely In
two and have thrown one-half of 1t
away. Whether they did this in ignor-
ance cf the full significance of the orig
iual doctrine or as a concession to the
opposition can only be conjectured; but
there can, among reasoning men, be
very little question of the truthfulness
of the assertion that the original Mon
roe doctrine meant the prohibition.
blunt and fiat, of the acquisition of fur
ther territory by European nations on
the American hemisphere. by any
means whatever, forcible or pacific, so
long as such extension Of European
control offered direct or prospective
menace to the supremacy of republican
institutions on these twin continents,
and particularly threatened in what
ever degree the primacy of the parent
republic of the United States among
the governments of the New World
The present executive and his secre-
tary of state cut that doctrine in half,
we say, when they affirmed their will
ingness to assent to any territorial ex-
tensions by European powers which did
not rest on force or coercion.
Under the Cleveland and Olney doc
trine, France, for instance could, with
our permission, have bought Mexico
thirty years ago although we would not
let her conquer it, and this notwith-
standing that a French empire to the
south of us would be as grave menace
TO our peace and welfare whether origi-
mating in conquest or in purchase
Thus, instead Of deserving censure for
having unduly extended the Monroe
principle. the present administration is
as a matter of fact, to be criticised for
having contracted it in a vital point
Such criticism, however, should rest
not on tradition, but on present-day
common sense. We must admit that
we have very little reverence for mere
tradition. We do not care farthing
fer the Monroe doctrine because Mon
roe wrote 1t; we care for it because to-
day it is a grand and a saving princi-
pie. Whatever Monroe may have had
in mind when, at Quincy Adams insti-
cation, he propounded the message
which has made his name accidentally
immortal, that was a concern Of his
contemporaries alone. We Of today are
privileged to do our own interpreting,
to make our own amendments, TO lay
d,,wn, II necessary, our own canons.
If the Monroe doctrine should at any
time require a new infusion Of twen-
tieth century blood. we trust that the
government and the people Of the Unit
ed States will be big enough and bold
enough to supply this need. without
undue delicacy. The past can take care
Of Itself. 1t is the future which we Of
this day must look out for. Only, don't