The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-12
THE LODGE RESOLUTION.

The "advauccd Monroe doctrine
| professed in the Lodge resolution ap
pears, IN fact. TO be entirely discou
uected from the Monroe doctrine
proper. The Monroe doctrine was de
signed as protest and a. warning
against Spain undertaking to recon
quer her former American possessions
after the Spanish colonies in America
had declared and vindicated their free.
dom. The United States, through that
| doctrine, gave notice to Spain and to
all the world that it would resist any
such subjugation of independent Amer,
lean states. The threat of this at.
tempted snbjugation arose from the
terms of the agreement of the Holy
Alliance. which declared upon the de-
position of Napoleon that the bouuda-
ries Of all the nations should be re-
stored as they were prior to the Ma.
poloonic conquests. The United States
made no interference with respect to
Europe in the readjustment of those
boundaries. but it did declare that the
proposed restoration of the old bounda.
ries could not apply in this hemisphere.
The presumption Of the Monroe doc
trine, of course, was that the Spanish
colonies would resist any attempt to
rcsnbjugate them TO the Spanish con-
troll and it was notice to these col
onies that they could RELY upon the
United States as q co.defendcr with
them of their republican liberty. which
they had gained By force Of arms.
Now, however, the lodge resolution
makes new departure altogether 1t
reads as follows:
Resolved That when any harbor, or
other place in the American continent Is
so situated that the occupation thereof
for naval or military purposes might
threaten the communications or the safety
Of the United States, the Government OF
The United States could not see without
grave concern the possession OF such
harbor or other place. by any corpora
tion or association which has such a
relation to another government. not
American, as to give that government
practical power of control for national
purposes.
Now this is declaration altogether
different from the original Monroe doc.
trine, and has nothing whatever to do
with it, It declares that the United
States would view with grave concern
the possession of any barbor or other
place desirable for naval or military
purposes when secured even by apv
corporation or association Of subjects
of another government The reported
acquisition of fishery and land holding
rights on Magdalena Bay. Lower Cali.
fornia. by a Japanese company. is the
occasion for the assertion of this doc
trine. The assumption is that this
company could at any time transfer its
rights to the Japanese Government,
and that 1t would do so on demand of
that government. But in its present
stage the acquisition by the Japanese,
even if. true as stated, is simply a
commercial proposition. and for the
United States TO "view with grave
concern commercial enterprise by
foreign company in an American
nation entirely indepedet of our own,
is taking advanced views indeed And
supposing the report as to the japan
ese on Magdalena Bay is true, and
that the Japanese, having acquired
their land and fishery rights from Mex
leo. should pay no attention whatever
to this resolution; what would the
United States do about it? Let us
imagine that such rights arc CONNER
~ q 1,,r L
Of China, Of Great Britain, OF Ger
many. Of France, OF Spain, of Russia.
or of any other country. with the full
consent of the Mexican or such other
independent government in this hem
isPhere as might grant the concession.
What, then, would occur? Does the
United States seriously mean TO give
warning to all the independent nations
of North and South America that we
would view with grave concern auy
such commercial transfer of land and
water privileges as would necessarily
be contemplated in that resolution? If
so, have we made the proper founda-
tlon for il by getting the consent Of
all these independent American ma
tious for our interpretation in such
case' Presumably not; for that would
he restriction upon the liberties of
foreign diplomacy in those countries,
a bar to commercial expansion, which
it Is hardly conceivable that they
would suffer.
1t is noteworthy. also. that the
House does not Join in the passage of
this resolution. II is simply a resolu.
ZION passed by the Senate II is a.
resolution that it seems impossible the
United States could take any practical
action upon at any time Why. then,
pass il? Why should we invite the
autagouism and contempt of all ma.
tions of the world by putting forth
Of this kind that is i'm
practical IN its effect, and upon which
we base no policy Of interference or
TO the transfers that would
necessarily be made in such case. since
thero is no possible foundation there.