The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-01-02
The DOCTRINE OF MONROE.
AN EXCEEDINGLY INTERESTING
ARTICLE WITH REFERENCE
THERETO.
ORIGIN OF The MONROE DOCTRINE.
A Full Expose of the Incidents Atten-
dant Thereon, as Reviewed by
One Familiar With the
Situation.

One Familiar With the
Situation.
A phrase that is much on the lips of
men in these days, and is glibly used IN
all the newspapers, is THE Monroe Doc
trine." One would think there was
cabalistic about it, so. misty
and even mysterious is the way in which
the phrase is used. 1t is popularity sup
posed to relate in a peculiar way to
South American States and to denote
guardianship that in some way has been
devolyed upon the United States with
respect to that portion of the Western
continent.
What is this blessed Monroe doc
trineT CRIES out the Westminster Ga
zette last week, with sneer. The
question from that source was jlbc, but,
nevertheless, there is room Tor lntoriha-
ton all around. There are even Ameri-
cans, Illuminating as the confession must
be, who do not understand or who Will
fully mjscomprehend it. l propose to
impartially relate its history.
In 1922 and prior to that time both
Russia and Great Britain claimed that
the Northwestern coast of North Amerl-
ca, that which is now known as British
Columbia and our own States OF wash
ingtOn and Oregon, was still open to
colonization and settlement by European
powers.
ORIGIN OF MONROE DOCTRINE.
John Quincy Adams was secretary of
state under Monroe, and in his diary
under date of July II, 1923, he notes an
interview between himself and Baron
Tuyl, the Russian minister. 81 told nm
specially that we should contest the right
of Russia to any territorial establish
mcnt on this continent, and that we
should assume distinctly the principle
that the American continents are no
longer subjects for any. new European
colonial establishments
lii that sentence lies the germ of one
branch of the Monroe doctrine. This
Nation would not recognize the right of
European Nations to plant colonies ana
establish authority over any portion OF
the Western hemisphere, as they have
done in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.
Shortly after this the Russian emperor,
Alexander |, substantially acknowledged
our contention by making no more pre-
ltUllOllS u DItSS HIS DDSSOSolOllo SOhth-
ward from what was then known as Rus
sian America. and is now known as
Alaska.
In the Southern hemisphere the case
was different. In Mexico and through
out South America 1he Spanish colonies
had revolted and esta blished republican
governments. The United States had
acknowledged their Independence, but
Spain was still making an effort to re-
conquer them. In 1922 she hoped. by
the aid of the holy alliance, a federation
composed of France, Prussia, Austria
and Russia, to win back her colonies, and
made every effort to gain the alliance to
her cause. Nor were the allies unwil
ling. At this juncture George Canning,
the British foreign secrctary-whO never
loved the United Statcs-suggestcd to
Mr.. Rush. the American minister at
London, that Great Britain would CO.
operate with the United States in resist
ing the resubjugation of the Spanish
this, but it gave rise to the opinion that
Canning was really tho Inventor, pro-
moter and champion" of the Monroe doc
.trinc. Charles Sumner, in his
prophetic Voices of America so de-
claros.
The situation when President Monroe
sent his message TO congress in Decem-
Der. 1923. was this: Snain was seeking
to enlist the aid of the European powers
to recover her lost possessions in South
America, and Russia was claiming the
right to extend her colonization schemes
southwark on the Pacific coast from the
region on the north.
In respect to Spain and the allied
powers Monroe said, after stating the
general sitration nrd the difference of
their political systems:
1--WE owe it, therefore, to candor and to
the amicable relations existing between
the United States and those powers TO
declare that we should consider any at
tempt on their part to extend their sys-
TEN to any portion of this hemisphere
as dangerous to our peace and safety.
With the existing colonies or depcnden-
cies of any European power, we have
not interfercd and shall not interfere.
But with the governments who have de-
clared their independence and main
tanned it, and whose independence we
have on great consideration and on Just
principles acknowledged, we could not
view any intcrposition for the purpose
of depressing them, or controlling in any
manner their destiny. by any European
mower, in any other light than as the
manifestation of an unfriendly DISPOSE
ton toward the United States"
This doctrine. so stated, has received
thp endorsement of--eYery- American
statesman from that day to the present
time. We do not propose to suffer any
EuroDcan government to OvCrturn the
government of any South American
State. or to establish new government
on its ruins. Daniel Webster. speaking
on the subject few years later, said:
"Sir, look on the message of 1S..3, as
forming bright page in our history. |
will help neither to erase It nor tear 1t
out: nor shall it he by any act of mine
blurred or hlottcd. 1t did honor TO tire
sagacity of the government, and ! will
not diminish that honor. 1t elevated the
hopes and gratifed the patriotism of the
people. over those hopes will not bring
mildcw, nor will ! put that gratitled
patriotism 20 shame
HAS NEVER BEEN DISSENTED
FROM.
This phase of the Monroe doctrine has
never been questioned by an American
writer ON International law, or any Amer
lean statesman.
jefferson. with whom Monroe had con-
suited, warmly approved of it. In writ
nv to Monroe, he said
Our first and fundamental maxim
should be never to entangle ourselves in
hn hoils ot Europe. Our second. never
to suffer Europe to NEEDLE in cisat!antic
affairs, America, North and South. has
y SET of interests distinct from those of
a 80