The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-05-03
MONROE DOCTRINE
is NOT ESSENTIAL
Best Interests of the United States Rot
Served.

The Needham Society, OF the Column
bian University. defeated the Debating
Society Of the same university last
evening in the first public meeting Of the
two organizations held at the college
hall. Fifteenth and H Streets northwest
The question at issue was one that has
puzzled wiser heads than the young
Columbians. but they discussed it at
length. and the winners convinced the
judges that the Monroe Doctrine is not
essential TO the best interests of the
country The winners had the negative
of the following:
Resolved. That the maintenance Of
the Monroe Doctrine is essential to the
best interests of the United States"
The contestants were advised that the
doctrine should be interpreted 10 mean
that the United States shall resist by
force il necessary any attempt by any
foreign power to gain or control ad-
ditional territory in the Western Hemis-
Dhare.
Samuel Herrick. of Pennsylvania. be-
gan for the affirmative. He declared that
the Monroe Doctrine is necessary for the
self preservation of the United States;
that there are ample authorities for
such action both in this country and
abroad, and that both on moral and
legal grounds it is altogether justified.
Otto L. Ferris. of Iowa. followed for
the negative. He insisted on a clear
definition OF the term essential and
upon a complete understanding Of the
entire question at issue. The doctrine.
ne said. was merely an expedient de-
vised to meet a temporary need.
Samuel EdeIstein. OF Wisconsin, con-
tinuing for the Debating Society. APP
pealed to the patriotism of the latter
day Americans TO stand fast by the wise
councils of their fathers. The speaker
declared that to abandon the doctrine
would destroy our trade entirely "The
geographical position of our country;
said Mr.. Edelstein. demands it
James H. Price. of South Carolina, re-
piled. He enumerated several in
stances of infringments upon the doc
trine which had passed unnoticed and
unpublished. He stated that it was I'M
wise TO become sponsor for the action
OF the South American republics. Ad-
herence TO the doctrine. he concluded,
meant the Transformation of the United
States into a great military power,
WHICH is destructive of commerce
B. z. Hinton, of Arkansas, drew a
strong argument from the danger of re-
nouncing the doctrine in the case of the
new Panama canal The early Con-
crosses dared to maintain this PROPOSE
ton. said he, though backed by a di-
minutive army and navy. Would the
United States in her present condition be
cowardly enough to give it up?
]. a. Sedgwick, OF Iowa, quoted statis-
tics with telling effect to show that we
would have nothing to fear for our COM
merce even though The tide of European
immigration were turned southwark.
South America needs our trade more
than we need her markets. said, the
speaker. lit is foreign to our policy and
traditions to warn civilization OF when
it knocks at the door Of South America.
To keep the doctrine would mean con-
tinual strife for the United States"
Five minutes were given Mr.. Ferris.
of the Needham Society, to disprove the
arguments of the affirmative He argued
that no policy should be sustained which
binds US to our line of action, defrauds
European governments of their rights,
and forces US to become a military ma
ton. The destiny OF the United States,
he said. should be left 10 her statesmen
and the integrity of her people.
Samuel Herrick, in a hve-nlinute re-
buttaI, declared that the question OF ex-
pediency should not be allowed to enter
into a discussion where our national
honor is involved.
The judges were Hon. Hannis Taylor,
ex-minister to Spain; Judge c. c. Cole,
of the District bar, and z. NJ Bradley,
acting for Hon. c. E Magoon, Of Nebras-
ka, then retired Judge Cole, after
complimenting both teams announced
that the Needham Society, uphoiding the
negative, had won.