The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-06-21
Which if Adopted May Go Dow
in History As
M'KINLEY DOCTRINE.
It Is in Fact eEGreater Mon.
roe Doctrine"
And Includes the Right to In
terfere in Cuban Affairs.

On several recent occasions TINS mas
cropped out in White house conversation.
AS a rule, the president is busy with i'm
mediately pressing matters. But in the
evenings he now and then finds time, when
congenial friends are with him, to discuss
general politics. Those who enjoy init
macy with him know that the president
has been considering the application of
the Monroe doctrine in a broader scope
than any of his predecessors have done.
They believe that in his own good time he
will declare this application.
The last administration advanced the
doctrine to new relationships when Presi-
dent Cleveland sent in his Venezuelan
boundary message. What President Nc
Ktnley is thinking about is the logical
and legitimate bearing of the Monroe
principle upon the relations of the United
States toward Cuba. Simply stated, the
Monroe doctrine was originally this:
1.-The United States will not allow for
eign mOnarchial or other governments to
make aggressions or acquire territory or
dominion, by force, in this hemisphere.
1t is doubtful whether we should under
the Monroe doctrine allow them to
quire here any considerable dominion
territory even by purchase or exchange.
We do this on two broad grounds: Our
own safety and dignity may be disturbed
or threatened by such foreign aggressions
acquisitions. In the second place, our
form of government being Democratic and
Republican. as the fruit of a war for
independence, we favor such forms OF
government where the people themselves
control, as distinguished from autocratic
rule
President Mckinley is asking himself
whether the seventy-five years of up
building and unfolding of the Monroe
doctrine do not impose upon the govern
ment of the United States certain natural
obligations.
Not long ago Representative Cooke, of
Illinois, one of the most thoughtful mem
bers of the house, advanced a theory of
the application of the Monroe doctrine to
Cuba. His views attracted the attention
of the president, who has referred to
them impressing him strongly. While
he has not intimated that he will adopt
these views and act upon them, he has
said that he likes Mr.. Cookies discussion
of the subject very much. Taking the
Monroe doctrine as originally enunciated,
and as developed and accepted by the
world at the present time, the Illinois
congressman deduces this corollary:
Whenever any points in this hemis-
phere demand local seIf-government
against foreign tyrannical or other op-
pressive government, which denies the
right to representation in the body of
council which imposes taxation, and de-
MES the right to personal liberty and a
speedy and fair trial for crimes, and the
right of a free press and free speech, and
where such people. being so oppressed,
resort to war, in good faith seeking to
gain their freedom, then, and in all such
cases, the government of the United
States will not remain neutral; but will,
when so disposed, decree, and enforce
the decree, that such oppressed people
shall be and forever remain free, with
full right to choose their own form and
method of government and to thereafter
control their own destiny.
ITO the maintenance of this rule or line
of conduct we should as a nation stand
committed in the same way and to the
same extent that we are committed to
the maintenance of the Monroe doctrine.
as so far defined and given to the world
mo one seems to have considered that
there is a broad and general American
principle applicable to the Cuban ques-
ton We have all of us been regarding it
simply as question to be decided under
the ordinary and time-honored rules of
International law governing a war be-
tween mere rebels or insurgents against
the rightful authority of a government
with which we are at peace. or as a war
between two belligerent powers, with
each of which we are at peace, as defined
in our neutrality laws"
Mr. Cooke refers to the right which the !
great powers of Europe assume to step /
in, as between Turkey and Greece, and |
decide when it seems to them that dan |
ger or public wrong is likely to result. /
The United States freely comedies this |
right to the powers on their hemisphere, !
but denies it in this hemisphere.
Now" argues Mr.. Cooke, under the
Monroe doctrine, to the extent to which
it has been announced and defined, the
United States assumes the role of gem
eral arbiter of the destiny of this hemis- |
phere, which role is similar in it's scope
to that assumed by the powers of Eu-
rope over the destiny of the states in the |
eastern hemisphere It is conceded that /
the Monroe doctrine, as so far set forth |
and defined, is not wide enough to cover |
the present case of Cuba; but the same
principles and powers, formulated jus
titled and maintained as the doctrine of /
Monroe, are fully competent and suffi-
cient to sustain the corollary of that doc
trine.
1.-The letter of the Monroe doctrine, |
repeat, is that no foreign power shall !
make aggressions or acquire by force |
territory dominion over people within |
this hemisphere. Yet the United States |
is now allowing foreign power to per-
petuate and maintain cruel and heart |
less tyranny by force of the bayonet |
over people at our doors, who are weak
and defenseless, who are seeking for and |
declaring their right to local self-gov- |
eminent, who claiming the right to |
life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness, |
which our declaration of independence .
declares to be the inalienab1e right of
man; who are waging in the throes of
agony, starvation and death a second |