The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-02-06
Have We Renowned the MonrOe
Doctrine:

Doctrine:
Hon. Roger a. Pryor has addressed a
letter to The New York Sun, asking
whether the United States has renounc-
ed the Monroe doctrine, and giving his
reasons for believing that it has. Jul
esteemed contemporary, replying to
Judge Pryor's arguments, says that, in
Its candle opinion, the Monroe doctrine
was never further from repeal, or re-
nunclation, or neglected enforcement,
than it is at this moment" The Sun
then goes on-not to quote the doctrine,
but to tell Judge Pryor what it is-as
follows:
1T does not muzzle the European gun
or guarantee immunity to the American
fortification. 1t does not even inquire
into the propriety or improperly, JUS
tice or injustice, benevolence or harsh
ness, of the particular measures of war
adopted by a belligerent attacking an
American republic but not attacking the
Monroe doctrine. The stage of proceed
ings at which it becomes active is per-
fectly defined. The stage is not reach
ed until the Independent existence of
the attacked republic is threatened, or
evidence appear of a purpose IN the
part of one or another European power
to acquire new territory in this hemis-
phere."
This is all very we'll if one is willing
to leave the whole matter to The New
York Sun, but who is the better judge
OF the meaning and intent of the doc-
tine-the man who formulated it or the
great metropolitan daily which is now
discussing it, three-quarters of a CEN
fury later? Which is the true author
ity regarding any public measure or ma
tiOnal policy the chief executive who
frames and gives it force or the news
paper which afterward comments upon
1t? AS to this, there cannot be a doubt
in any reasonable mind. The Sun de-
clares, first, that the Monroe doctrine
does not become operative until the
independent existence of the attacked
republic is threatened, or evidence ap-
pears of a purpose on the part of one or
another European power to acquire new
territory in this hemisphere" But
what did President Monroe himself say,
in his message to congress? Let us
see:
with the existing colonies and de-
| tendencies of any European power we
nave llol III oIdll III IHlCI-
fere. But with governments who have
declared their independence and main
tanned it, and whose independence we
have, on great consideration and on
just principles, acknowledged, we could
not view anw i~nterposition for the pur-
pose of depressing them or controlling
in any other manner their destiny by
any European power in any other light
than as the manifestation of an I'M
friendly disposition toward the United
States.'
That seems to be a very clear enun-
citation, but President Monroe in a let
ter to Mr.. Jefferson, October II, 1923,
| makes it still clearer:
MY own impression is that we ought
to meet the proposals of the British
government, n to make it known that
we would view an interference on the
part of the European powers, and es>
pecially an attack on the colonies by
them, as an attack on ourselves; pre-
Stunning that, if they succeeded with
them, they would extend it to U.s."
The individual will choose between
! the doctrine itself, with Mr.. Monroe's
concurrent personal declaration, On the
one hand, and The New York Suns
Interpretation on the other. For u
part, we unhesitatingly take sides with
the author and eXpounder of the doc
trine, who happened, by an interesting
coincidence, to be the president of the
United States at the time. And this
brings US to the question whether the
allies have interposed in Venezuelan
affairs "for the purpose of depressing
them (the Venezuelan people, or con-
trolling in any other their des-
tiny" etc.
Can there be more than one answer
to this question? Have not the allies.
through the agency of the blockade,
Oppressed" the Venezuelans? Have
they not cut them off from intercourse
with the outside world; seized and de-
stroyed their vessels, b~ombarded their
towns and forts, incidentally, though
knowingly. Subjecting many Of them
to starvation? Worst Of all. nave they
not directly, and with elaboration
sought to control their destiny
by conspiring to overthrow the
Castro government and set up instead
the regime of Matos-their creature and
beneficiary? They distinctly declared
at the outset that they had no designs
of territorial acquisition, and it may be
admitted that in this they were sincere;
but unless Mr.. Monroe was wholly mis-
taken as to the meaning and purport Of
his own declaration, the Monroe doc
trine has been Enthusiastically. pur-
posely, relentlessly-ever since the first
Venezuelan gunboat was seized and
scuttIed. Is there any moral differ
ence between Selling a territory out
right M governing it in all essential
respects through the medium OF a de-
| pendent and Obedient pupet?
Judge Pryor says That at this mo-
ment Venezuela is subject to oppres-
sion and the control of its destiny by
a European coalition is patent to the
world" And he speaks the simple, un-
d~eniab1e, hideous NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Post