The sun., 1904-12-30
Latin-Am orleans and Our New Ner-
sion of the Monroe Doctrine.

According to telegram from Buenos
Ayres, the press Of that city is unani-
nous in expressing disapproval OF tho
new Interpretation given TO the Monroe
Doctrine by President ROOSEVELT In the
letter read at the Cuban dinner, and of
ex-Secretary RooT's extended comments
thereon at the recent dinner of the New
England Society. From the Latin-Ameri-
can point of view. the new version OF
the doctrine is naturally unacceptable;
but it should be recognized that the
course pursued by the blockading Powers
toward Venezuela placed the United
States in dilemma, from which the only
practicable escape is the course recon-
mended by our Executive,
Let us try to state as fairly as We can
the position taken by Senior PELLEGRINI,
who has ably defended the opinions OF his
Argentine fellow countrymen in the Paris
Figaro. Latin-American statesmen have
never denied that a European Power,
where it has suffered public wrong at
the hands Of transatlantic republic,
and where diplomatic negotiations have
failed to secure redress, would be justified
in exacting due reparation by an armed
demonstration, which might be carried
even to the length of n temporary occu-
patton Of seaports and custom houses.
They have always insisted, however,
upon drawing a sharp distinction between
wrong and the non-payment of debts
arising out Of contract. They concede
that wrong has been inflicted when
the flag or an official represent ative of a
foreign State has been subjected to insult
or injury, or when, by violence or con-
fiscation, a subject or citizen OF such
State shall have suffered in his person or
bis property.
They have, on the other hand, con-
tended that, in the case of default
in the payment Of the interest or
principal of debts arising out of con-
tract the subjects or citizens of a
European Power to whom an American
republic is indebted are bound by the
Power osnnot undertake to collect the
debt by force without violating the
Monroe Doctrine. For the Monroe Doc
trine forbids a European Power not only
to occupy permanently any part of the
territory OF an American commonwealth,
but also 4in any way to control its des-
tiny" Is II not clear, say the Argentines,
that the destiny of an American republic
may be materially affected IL the whole
or a considerable part Of the customs
revenue needed for the maintenance OF
that republics internal government can
+. be applied, by forcible sequestration for
an indefinite period. to the payment OF
ordinary debts due by that republic to
the subjects of a foreign Power? Can
any one dispute. they ask, that the des-
tiny OF Egypt is now controlled by Great
Britain, which Is occupying by armed
force the Nile Valley and administering
it's revenues on no other pretext but
that the Egyptian sovereign failed 10
provide for the payment Of interest and
principal on debts arising out OF con-
tract9 Is the Monroe Doctrine recon-
cilable with such policy on the part OF
the United States as would suff er Latin
American republic to be reduced by q
European creditor to the condition of
Egypt?
The United States has never objected
20 the forcible exaction OF reparution
for public wrong. We need only cite
the latest precedent, Mr.. CLEvKLANDs g
countenanoe Of brief British occupa-
ton of a Nicaraguan port. On the other
hand, Secretary SEWARD called upon
the French TO retire from Mexico; and
II historical fact that their occupa.
ton Of that country had been based on
an svowed purpose TO exact, not repa.