New-York tribune., 1903-03-14
ARGENTINA AND MONROE.

The Argentine note on the Monroe Doctrine
is a welcome and important contribution TO
a controversy in which the major part OF the
world is directly interested. It is gratifying
TO see that State, one Of the very foremost
on the continent in all respects, and perhaps
greatest of all in possibilities OF future de-
telopment giving its unreserved approval ana
support to the Monroe Doctrine. 1t has scoH-
ineIy been said Of late that the South Ameri-
can republics care nothing for that doctrine,
but rather resent this country's insistence upon
it. Now it would not affect our course II that
were So because the Monroe Doctrine was
made and is maintained primarily for our
own protection and comfort whether South
America wants it or not. But that scofhng
statement is not true. The South American
States are most desirous that the doctrine shall
be maintained, and here is one Of the fore
most Of them, and the most remote of them
all from the United States. making that desire
evident in the most direct fashion.
Argentina, indeed. seems almost to be more
Monroeish than Monroe. She would apply the
doctrine so as to inhibit European powers from
coercing the republics into payment Of their
debts. It may be that In that she goes too
far. But it is better to err in that direction
than in the other. There are those who would
permit any European power to rush In at will
and seize South American territory in satis-
faction Of claims, good, bad and indifferent
That would quickly mean spoliation and con-
quest Of the continent. There are few nations
in the world, indeed that could instantly
meet in full all demands that might be made
upon them at times chosen by malicious cred
itors. States should not be treated more
harshly In such matters than Individuals, and
even the most spendthrift bankrupt has rights
disregard. It is unfortunately true that some
South American States have been reckless in
contracting debts and dilatory in paying them.
There is grave reason to believe also that In
more than one case exorbitant and extortionate
claims have been trumped up against them.
There is, If anything. less excuse for the lat
ter than for the former. An extortioner is
worse than defaulter.
The attitude of the United States upon the
question seems TO commend itself to the sense
Of reason and Justice. 1t Is, as we understand
it. that the Monroe Doctrine is not to be used
| as shield for perverse defaulters, nor is 1t
to permit political and territorial spoliation
under the guise OF debt collecting. The South
American States have generally been amenable
to diplomatic influences in the collection OF
Just claims against them. When they have
not been, q display Of force has brought them
into court There has never been need OF
actual warfare, and certainly none Of seizure
Of territory. 1t would be well II all South
American States would bear In mind that the
Monroe Doctrine will not protect them In con-
tumacious disregard Of legal obligations and
II European countries, on the other hand, would
remember that the Monroe Doctrine contains
thus far and no further" clause In reia-
ton to coercion for debt collecting, and that
| that clause draws the line at political oppres-
sion and territorial spoliation. II European
promoters" would remember that, they might