Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-03-10
A DEMOCRATIC VIEW
Limitations of the Monroe
Doctrine.
REPLY TO PRESIDENT
COLLECTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST
sANTo DOMINGO.
It is Asserted That the Doctrine Was
Never Intended to Meet Such
Condition.
REPLY TO PRESIDENT

Senator Morgan of the committee on for
eign relations has drawn up statement of
his position on the Santo Domingo treaty.
1t begins with quotations from President
Monroe's message to Congress, December z,
1923, in which was outlined the foreign
policy which since has become known as
the Monroe doctrine
The statement then goes on to say that,
in the view of the Senator, there is
no analogy between correct interpreta-
ton of that doctrine and President Roose-
velts application of it to the present ex-
igency in Santo Domingo. The statement
says in part:
Aim of the Monroe Doctrine.
There is no statement or allusion in
the Monroe doctrine to the effect that the
United States assumes a protectorate or
suzerainty over any Independent American
state, or any other attitude, except that
which is based on the right of self-pro-
lection, especially as the protection of a
republican form of government in states
that occupy and control this hemisphere
against their Oppression by European
powers, such as the Holy Alliance, or the
controlling Other destiny as Independent
republics in any manner. This declaration
is made on the distinct predicate that We
system to any portion of this hemisphere
as dangerous to our peace and safety
1T was this self-protection that was as
sumed as the basis of our right to intervene
in any controversy between an American
republic and a European state.
This was the purpose avowed by the
Holy Alliance, and it was to meet that dec
laration that the Monroe doctrine had it's
glorious birth.
Practice Of the Government.
"In the practice of the government and
in the oft-repeated declaration of our
Presidents, Secretaries of State and publ
cists It has been true, without any excep-
ton, that the United States has never at
tempted to control any American republic
in it's absolute enjoyment Of the right of
self-government and has never in any form
assumed such authority or asserted any
such right.
ITO construe the Monroe doctrine as
giving such authority or as justifying such
pretension is an abuse of its purposes
and, if persisted in, will defeat it's object
and reverse all the benign history it has
created The American republics will re-
pudiate it and will invite political alliance
with European and Asatic powers.
This Is the first attempt of the govern
ment of the United States to clear off
the debts of an independent state in any
form, and the message of the President
which accompanies and explains the pro-
tocor with Santo Domingo sent to the SEN
ate, bases this alleged power, right and duty
upon the Monroe doctrine and it's obliga-
tons alleged to be assumed by the United
States.
Collection of Debts.
But it is set up in the message that,
while our citizens cannot look to the Mon
roe doctrine or any other right or doctrine
to force those states to pay their debts to
them, the subjects of European states are
in better position, because their govern
ments hold that they will compel payment
with armies and navies.
IF we admit that to be sound internal
tional law why do we not enforce it in
favor of our people? And if it is not sound
law, why should we lend the powers of our
government to assist the subjects Of Euro
pean governments to collect their debts !?
That pledge is not in the Monroe doctrine
nor is it in any way to be deduced or in
ferred therefrom. But it is claimed in the
message that if we refuse to intervene and
enforce the payment of the debts of the
American republics to European subjects
those powers will resort to blockades rec
lamations, the seizure of ports and collec-
ton OF revenues, and that such proceedings
being lawful may result in the permanent
occupancy of those countries and that the
only way to preserve the peace and save
these republics is to take charge of them
with their consent, and proceed to manage
their revenues so as to pay their debts.
Limitations of the Doctrine.
II Is unnecessary TO quote from the I'M
broken array of great Americans to vindi-
cate the Monroe doctrine from misinterpre-
tation. They all alike concur that it gives
us neither power nor pretext' for establish
ing suzerainty over American republics
for any purpose, and especially that it neg
atives the pretext that this may be done to
save them from oppression or from danger
of conquest subjugation at the hands of
E,nrOpean yUb alsa uar
for the purpose of collecting debts and en-
mercenary promoters have robbed, from
their people under the guise of philanthropy
and the false assurance of national wealth
and progress. Once we have committed the
United States to this policy it can only end
in the absorption of Santo Domingo and
Haiti and the coast states along the Carib-
bean sea- and all the American states that
not under the flag of some great Euro
pean power.
I'VE owe no such duties to Santo Do
mingo and her creditors, to the states
or to the creditors of Columbia, or to Vene-
Zuela, who are already forming syndicates
of bondholders for the purpose of profiting
by tbs dangerous precedent.
Alleged Logical Result
1.-The inducement thus held out to the
creditors of weak states that oppressed
by masses of fraudulent debts to'drive them
into this international court of bankruptcy
through the connivance and support of the
governments who shelter them and cover
their iniquities will gather to their ports
and coasts invading armies and navies that
will convert peaceful blockades' into the
arm of power that we will be compelled to
strike down or else to stand accused of ma
tional perfdy.
'They will compel us to espouse the cause
of every American republic that may be in
distress and to assume a guardianship for
1t that will cost our people vast burdens of
taxation. and our government the incon-
ceivable Ilabor and responsibility Of adjust
ing the demands of tens of thousands OF
hungry creditors and heartless spectators,