Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-01-02
The MONROE DOCTRINE.
AmorIean law Rorlew, Noyem per.peeemper.

the Monroe doctrine. 1t is certainly
much to be desired that we should
speedily come to an understanding of
what tho doctrine really is, and how
far il is a part Of our settled policy. 1t
would BIO fortunate if events should
compel us to take the matter out OF
tho hands of the State Department, and
subject IN to thorough consideration
by the people and Congress. 1t should
be made something more than vague
tradition. Definition is proverbially
dangerous, but to drift along without
any clear-out and authoritative detini-
tion of this most important doctrine is
even moro So We owe it to foreign
nations with whom wo have diplomatic
relations to make plain our position in
this regard, and we owe it to ourselves
that our course should be honorably
consistent and based on principle
defencible in reason and in the recog-
nized rules of international law.
So long as the doctrine is allowed TO
remain in its present indeiiniteness, il
is dangerously convenient handle for
the irresponsible jingo and chauvinist.
In the extreme form in which it is
sometimes asserted, il lends itself to
dangerous and indefencible meddle-
somenesa.
1t is sometimes asserted and main
tanned, with much show of historical
erudition, that there is to-day no such
thing as Monroe doctrine as part of
our foreign policy. 1t is insisted that
tho declaration of Mr.. Monroe was
temporary expedient TO meat condi-
tion of things long since passed away,
carrying with it the doctrine to which
~ A g.
this contention is to be found in the
repeated assertion Of the doctrine by
our government in recent years, and
the unquestioning support which it
finds among the great mass of the
American people. They are as Loyalty
devoted TO II rs they are to that other
great principle of our foreign policy,
non-intervention in the affairs of
Europe. That the doctrine. as presently
held by the American people, has never
received any clear and satisfactory
enunciation by the executive or put
into the form of resolution or statute
by Congress, is no warrant for denying
its existence. Much ia sometimes
mado OF the factsthat it has never re-
ceived the express assent of Congress.
Ii is indeed true that several resolu-
tions embodying the principle have
been defeated in Congress, but their
defeat cannot justly be construed as a
Reputation of the principle. The
dissent of Congress in each case was
limited to the particular application of
the principle sought to be made, and
never extended to disayowal of the
principle itself.
On the other hand, we should not
fall into the corresponding error of
maintaining that the declaration of
Mr.. Monroe is binding upon us to-day.
His declaration was made to meet a
particular exigency and ceased to be
operative long ago. Its life was limited
TO the continuance of the circumstances
| that provoked it, What we now call
the Monroe doctrine and cherish as a
fundamental rule Of our foreign policy,
is the principle which underlay Mon
roe's declaration, and not the declara-
| tion itself. The declaration of 1923
was simply particular application Of
a general principle, and is valuable
merely as a precedent. II is like a
judicial decision; not tho law itself,
! but an application of tho law; and, as
the lawyer studies cases to got at tho
| principle they embody, SO we may study
Monroe's declaration TO get at its
| pTlnClplb OF uOCtrlne.
| In doing 80 we shall discover that it
IL nothing more than rule of self
| defence, which may be expressed thus
The United States will oppose any in
reference on the part OF a European
| power in the affairs of this hemisphere
which it may deem, under all the cir
cumstances Of the particular case, dan
gerous to its life or interests
| We runnpt t1nIprafnD1 tba Monrpa
doctrine unless we take into considera-
tion the events that provoked it. Briefly
they were these. Absolutism had
triumphed with the downfall of Napo-
leon. The Congress of AK la Chapelle
/ (lSlS) which withdrew the army Of
occupation from France effected an ALI
ance between Russia, Austria, Prussia,
France and England. The ayowcd
purpose Of this alliance was to main
tain the stability of Europe, and the
mode of accomplishing il was to crush
every revolutionary movement by the
combined strength of all. II was a
league of absnlutism against conatitu
tionalism and republicansm. In tht
course of lS2O and 1921 revolution.
broke out in Spain, Naples and Sar
dinia, This activity Of the reyolu
tionary spirit so alarmed the allies thai
they assembled at Troppau in Silesia
October, 1920, and shortly adjourned
TO Laybdch in Styria. The outcom,
oil the Congress was the suppression
by Austria, with the consent of thu
allies, of the revolution in Italy. Eng
land alone objected. ii was iustifiet
by the allies on the ground that righ
, of Interference existed whenever
revolution arose in any country tend
ing to spread liberal and innovatinl
ideaH, dangerous to the stability o
Europe. Pursuant to an agreemen
I made at Laybach, tho allied power
, met at Verona in October, 1922 Th,
purpose Of this Congress was to arrang
, for armed interference in the affairs O
/ Spain. Over the objection of England
! the allies authorized France TO occup,
, Spain in the interest of tho royals
party. This was accordingly done
! Tho libGral constitution of Cadiz wa
J overthrown and the absoutism re
:. established. When President Monro
: referred in his message to the "Syaten
l of the Allies,'' il was to this polic
of interfering in the affairs of an
i country whenever they deemed tn
. interests of absolutism threatened. A
the Congress Of Verona, the plan O
, extending tho system to this hemis
phere and recovering for Spain he
rnbelliOus colonies, was a subject O
, discussion. England strenuously op
y posed such interference, not only be
} cause she was more Literally minde
! than the other allies, but eapecIal
because her trade with the SPANS
r colonies had recently assumed larg
r proportions, and she foreRaw that
2 Spain recovered her colonies. she Woul