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

Very naturally the speech has giyer
rise 10 various comments. The London
Spectator is delighted and urges the
state department to enunciate the doc
trine clearly. as then Great Britain
could record her acquIescence, 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 wen 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 It maintains
to be pure aggression on the part OF
America. IN which a defensive element
does not figure. IT means" concludes
the Saturday Review. that all Amerl-
ca Is for the United states We might
as well say, IT Is hereby declared that
all the Islands OF the world belong to
Great Britain"
The Monroe doctrine has never been
officially defined Enunciated in 1928
Il has had many and various popular
interpretations but no official ones, In
the Venezuelan controversy Mr., Cleye.
land Invoked IT, but did not define IT,
His secretary Of state. Mr. olney full
minated what came to be known az the
Olney detrimental the fat OF the
United States Is law on the western
hemisphere-but It was so ultra that It
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 II ~ OF the United
states he declared that there must
be no territorial aggrandzement 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. II has not. as yet, the
force OF Monroe's declaration for 1t
lacks It's prestige, thing that comes
With time. 1t may be doubted II
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 inetead of one. once
defined II 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 stricsast 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 II 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 II would seem to be no more
than right and 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 A nation as well
NJ 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 II. II It's 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
trlne II win be respected