The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-08-03
Arbitration and the Monroe Doctrine

mentary Union resolved unanimously to
propose 10 the coming Peace Congress
at Tho Hague that even questions al
legged to involve a nations honor or vital
interests should be referred for exam
nation TO some disinterested Power or
Powers, though each Of tho ,disputants
should reserve tho right Of rejecting tho
de oision. We pointed out at tho time
that for several reasons most European
nations, and also Japan, would be likely
to reject the proposal. Since then some
American newspapers whose opinions
deserve consideration have asserted that
wen the United States might shrink
from accepting the suggested method
Of at least postponing recourse 10 war,
since 1t could not consistently assent
to an arrangement by which European
nations might be called upon to render
sven o provisional pronouncement on
the intrinsic merit or binding force Of
the Monroe Doctrine. That Ii not u
view OF the matter. In our judgment,
the United States would have nothing to
lose by signing tho agreement proposed
by the Interpariamentary Union.
II the Monroe Doctrine In it's operation
were unjust to European Powers, as was
asserted on August 1 by the Paris Liberte,
we could well understand that the Fed
'eral Government might oppose even a
provisional submission Of II to what
would be tantamount TO a European
tribunal. But II Is not true, as the
Liberte AYERS, that the purpose Of tho
Monroe Doctrine is to deprive the Latin
nations Of access to a continent, even
for commercial and financial purposes,
which they originally peopled and have
since financed. Facts refute oonclu-
sively the averment. France, Italy and
Spain, together with Germany and Great
Britain, share between them a virtual
monopoly Of South Americas import and
export trade, and the United States has
made no effort to dispute with them
the privilege OF lending to South Amer
lean Governments sums amounting In
the aggregate to some two billions Of
dollars. Az FOR the right arrogated by
European creditor Powers to exact by
force the fulflment Of contractual obli-
cations, President ROOSEVELT and the
late Secretary HAY declared in theory
and practice that a recourse to arms for
that purpose was not q violation Of the
Monroe Doctrine, so long as the foreign
creditor r~efrained from a permanent
occupation Of the debtors territory.
It was, Of course, In pursuance Of that
declaration that the Federal Govern
ment c-ountenanced the blockade Of
Venezuelan seaports by Great Britain,
Germany and Italy, and the subsequent
sequestration OF a third Of the customs
revenue Of La Guayra and Puerto Cabello
for the benefit Of subjects Of those Pow
ers. The Liberte would evince sagacity
and foresight II It carefully refrained
from Directing to the Monroe Doctrine
as interpreted by the precedent thus
established in 1923. BY q logical de-
velopment OF the principle embodied In
that precedent, not only a fraction, but
the whole of the customs income Of every
South American republic might be seized
for the benefit of foreign creditors and
retained for an indefinite period. The
ultimate outcome of such a state OF
things would be that the entire CONT
nent Of South America would become
economically a dependency of European
Powers, which would purvey to it every
thing 1t wanted to buy, and take from
it everything it had to sell. What
more could be. desired by the European
nations which, according to the Liberte,
have peopled and financed Spanish and
Portuguese American They would own
the continent economically, leaving to
the inhabitants the duty Of toiling for
foreign creditors and the burden Of In
ternai administration. In a word, they
would extract the kernel and throw away
the husk.
Az the Monroe Doctrine undoubtedly
involves the nations honor, the Federal
Government would always be at liberty
to resort to war IN its behalf, even II the
provisional ecourse to arbitration advo-
Gated by the Interparliamentary Union
should become aruie Of international law.
We should therefore have nothing to