Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-06-16

Very naturally the speech has given
rise 10 various comments. The London
Spectator Is delighted and urges the
state department TO enunclate the doc
trlne clearly, as then Great Britain
could record her acqulescence, express
Ing at the same time. It's maintenance
Of British interests adding: Such a
course would certainly benefit the peace
Of the world as well as the security
Of Canada and our other possessions"
On the other hand the Saturday Re-
view, always violently antl-Amerlcan,
denounces Sir Frederick Pollock, and
declares his speech 10 be one OF the
lowest defenses Of what II maintains
to be pure aggression on the part Of
America. IN which a defensive element
does not figure. 1t means concludes
the Saturday Review, that all Amerl-
ca Is for the United states We might
as well say, II Is hereby declared that
all the islands Of the world belong to
Great Britain"
The Monroe doctrine has never been
officially defined. Enunciated In 1923,
Il has had many and various popular
interpretations but no official ones. In
the Venezuelan controversy Mr., Cleye.
land Invoked II, but did not define II.
His secretary OF state. Mr. Olney full
minated what came to be known az the
Olney doctrne-that the fiat OF the
United States Is law on the western
hemsphere-bu It was so ultra that II
was never accepted by the country
Mr.. Roosevelt in his first message
TO Congress made specific reference to
the doctrine After saying that It
should be the cardinal feature Of the
foreign policy Of all the nations Of the
two Americas as It Is OF the United
states he declared that there must
be no territorial aggrandizement by any
non-Amerlcan power at the expense OF
any American power on American SOIL
Surely there is definition that IS
plain, specific and Incapable Of mis-
understanding, 1t has not. as yet, the
force OF Monroe's declaration for It
lacks It's prestige, thing that comes
With time. 1t may be doubted II a
definition OF the doctrine. drawn
up and agreed to by this
country and England, would have the |
force and influence that the doctrine as
Il stands In Monroe's message now
does A definition would mean certain
and clear limitations, with two pow
ers to construe It instead of one. Once
eehned It is not probable that It would |
ever be revised, and 1t Is very certain
that any European power accepting |
the doctrine as defined would insist on
the stricI1st construction.
Not only is Europe concerned in the
matter but every independent govern
ment on either Of the American con-
tlnents has an interest IN IL as deep as
our own, They certainly should be
made parties to any definition Of the
Monroe doctrine
II II Is TO be formally recognized by
Europe 1t would seem to be no more
than right end proper that the doctrine
should be well and clearly defined that
II may be known by all the parties to
the recognition just what Is and what
ia not acknowledged. nation as well
az a man has right to know what
ne Is asked 10 admit.
As II Is Europe knows what the Mon
roe doctrine means. and while she may
not acknowledge II she gives It tacit
adherence. After all the whole thing
rests on the power to enforce It or
overthrow II, Should any power Of
Europe feel that II was strong enough
10 defy H. II Its interests demanded
IT, defy it It would no doubt So long
as Europe feels that the United States
is strong enough 10 enforce the doc
trine II viii be respected,