The times., 1901-05-26
Circulation Statement.
The Monroe Doctrine.

cognate character in a leadlng arllSIe
each week. The Review" as Times
readers are aware by now, is not par
ticuIarIy in love with this Republic
in fact views it and its alleged objects
and purposes with much dislike and
suspicion. It is especially severe upon
the Monroe Doctrine, which its editor
evidently thinks has outlived any use
fulness to England, and, therefore,
ought to be abandoned without ado.
Like some ether British writer's on
the subject the Saturday Review" is
conveniently forgetful of the origin OF
the doctrine. that is in respect of its
formal expression in President Mon
roe's message to Congress of December,
1928. In principle it was embodied IN the
Farewell Address of Washington, and
in a famous letter of Jefferson written
in 1S0S as the Hon. John w. Foster
has clearly demonstrated in his excel
lent work, "A Century of American
Diplomacy" In the end, however, its
declaration came in consequence of
friendly but scarce disinterested hint
from the British Foreign Office that
something ought to be done over here
to let Europe know that the return OF
the recently revolted Latin States OF
America TO Spanish allegiance would
not be permitted without fight. The
Holy Alliance, formed after the final
overthrow and exile of Napoleon, with
the purpose Of restoring TO the Old
World princes and dynasties their an
cient possessions, where that course
would not interfere with the interests
of a member, had already overrun
Spain and put the BourbOns back on
the throne.
England was satisfied that the allies
contemplated common action against
Mexico and other provinces which had
gained or were fighting for independ-
ence. and it was good English policy
to stop the game without appearing in
it. To do the latter would be to incur
the enmity Of Russia, Prussia, Austria,
and France simultaneously, and such
thing was not to be thought ola con-
venient catspaw was. The English in
terest in the matter was commercial
and not political. Under the rule Of
Spain her colonies were compelled to
trade exclusively with the mother cOun-
try. The Napoleonic wars and the
Spanish-American wars of independ-
ence had prevented the law from exc
cution So, a fine British commerce
with Latin America had grown up,
which would be lost were the colonies
10 be regained by the Crown Of Spain.
When the matter was broached to our
Minister at the Court Of st. James he
stated that, in his opinion. the United
States Government would cheerfulIy
and promptly issue the desired warn
ing. If England would first recognize the
independence Of the States then or pre-
viousIy in revolution. But this the
British Foreign Minister would not
think of. It was not human liberty,
but British trade that was being con-
sidered in Downing Street. The motive
was well understood in Washington;
nevertheless. the suggestion started the
ball rolling, and President Monroe and
the American statesmen of his day saw
the political danger to this country in
a movement which to England Involved
only commercial loss to a greater or
less extent. So the doctrine was pro-
mulgated, and has constituted our set
only break being made in the case Of
the Clayton Bulwer Treaty, in which
We allowed a European monarchicaI
Power equal participation and aU-
thority with US in the settlement Of a
purely American question. This brings
US TO a comment OF the London Sat
Urday Review" printed in its issue Of
o yesterday, perusal Of which has in
spired these lines. The Review says:
"The Monroe Doctrine. triply exaggerated. and
the rejection Of the Clayton Buwer Treaty are
the means by which south America is 10 be pre-
vented from being snatched from the loving
arms Of the United States. The two Americas
are to declare that Europe shall not enter
into, establish colonies in seek the partition
OF Central or South American States.
The United States bullying Venezuela
short time ago. and Venezuela turned nasty. Now
they viii try % bully and csioe her into de-
ugiug Germany the lease Of small Cgaliug sta
ti9n Soon Europe viii not be able 70 speak in
South America without asking the permission of
fhe United States. But We fancy South America
would prefer even the attentions Of Europe 10
those OF their friends in the North.
1T IS pleasant for Europe 20 be menaCcd with
the commercial hst and the mailed hst OF Arneri-
ca at the same time
Barring its triple exaggeration, the
first Of the paragraphs above quoted
is not particularly inaccurate If the
two Americas have the common sense
TO join in exactly the scheme charged.
there will be no difficulty about accom-
plishing its object If our Latin neigh
bors hold aloof and refuse To protect
themselves, there will be more result
ant trouble; but the outcome will be
the same 1t is a cold fact that the
American people viii not if they can
help it allcw the monarchical states
OF Europe to colonize or otherwise ac-
quire sovereignty in or to impose their
institutions upon any of the territory
OF the two Western Continents.
The second paragraph refers to mat
ters Of which We cannot speak 50
readily. The Republican Administra-
ton now in control here has in truth
appeared TO be bullying little Vene-
zuela. and solely for the benefit Of a
single American trust Such thing,
we may admit. is justly susceptible Of
foreign criticism and even Of denun-
ciation. As TO the Margarita Island
incident mentioned in the Review ar
ticle, that paper IS knowingly in the
wrong We had only TO enquire pO-
iftciy Of the German Government II it
intended TO establish a naval or coaling
station near the coast of South America
or anywhere in the West Indies or