The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-09-01
FOREIGN VIEWS OF THE MONROE
DOCTRINE.

A casual reference TO the Monroe doc
trine by President Roosevelt in one of
his recent speeches has set foreign papers
Cabling at great rate. 1t was in his
speech at Bangor that. after referring to the
fact that Mr.. Blaine had always favored
closer relations between the United States
and the countries south of us, the Presi-
dent said:
But he could hardly have anticipated. no
one could have, the Spanish war and its eff
fects. In consequence of that war Ameri-
cas- interest in the tropic islands to our
south and the seas and coasts surround
ing those Islands, is far greater than ever
before. Our interest in the Monroe doctrine
Is more concrete than ever before. The
Monroe doctrine is simply a statement of
our very firm belief that on this continent
the nations now existing here must be left
to work out their own deStinieS among
themselves, and that the continent is no
longer TO be regarded as colonizing ground
for any European power. The one power on
the continent that can make that doctrine
effective is, of course, ourselves; for in the
world as IL is, gentlemen, the nation which
advances a given doctrine likely to inter-
fere in any way with other nations must
possess power to back il up If she wishes
the doctrine to be respected. We stand
firmly on the Monroe doctrine.
This is what has set the foreign press
talking. Some of the papers cannot under
stand why the President should have re-
ferred TO the subject at all, and seem to
think he had an Interior and unfriendly
purpose in doing so. One need not look for
a reason for his reference to the subject.
1t was probably caused by a truculent
| article in the London Daily Mail of the
| day before relative to the action of the
Venezuelan government in seizing some
Dutch ships The Mail, after inveighing
| strongly against the Monroe doctrine, said:
| America should keep its disorderly states
| in order and chastise them when, relying on
their weakness and her protection, they Of
| fend against international law" 1t will be
seen. therefore, that responsibility for open
/ ing the subject at this time rests on the
other side of the water.
There was nothing offensive in what the
President said. 1t was simply reaffirmatior
of the Monroe doctrine and clearly
defined by him in his annual message tC
| Congress, and as it is we'll understood by
all European statesmen. 1t does not in.
volve any aggression by the United States
nor any protectorate over weaker Ameri.
can states. further than protecting them
/ against territorial ACKNOWLEDGMENT by any
European power. AS has been said, al
European statesmen now understand tn,
| Monroe doctrine, and accept il as a settled
feature of American policy that in no way
| interferes with or threatens their rights
| IL European editors do not understand tn,
doctrine, as IL is plain that some of then
do not, 1t is their own fault German edi
tors surpass all others in their evident
| ignorance OF the true scope of the doctrin,
and OF the Presidents motive in referrin,
to 1t. His motive was TO give a correc
definition of the doctrine. which was mis-
represented by the London Mail. The New
Free Press of Vienna. the leading paper O
Germany. says: MIR. Roosevelt waves hi
bony fist against England because the Boo
war published 10 the world the poverty O
Great Britains military forces" Anothe
German paper says: THE speech is fore
and Is not intended as a warning TO Europe
though 1t comes just at the right time whel
the European governments are considerin,
renewal OF their commercial treaties" /
he would learn that the Monroe doctrin
has no reference TO commercial treatie
and that all European governments ca
make such treaties with South America