The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-05-20
TEE MONROE DOCTRINE.

concrete form almost any time, by rea
son of the turbulence in Mexico, or by
developments in some other of the
Central OF South American States.
There has been an uncertainty about
the Monroe doctrine that has been
source of annoyance to the Latin Amer
lean Republics in so far as it seemed
to assume sort Of supervision or
suZerainty on the part of the United
States over them, and to European
powers by reason of its indefiniteness-
The American republics are inclined to
resent this, and to claim that they have
a right to cede to European powers
coaling stations or naval stations II
they see fit. They allege that they
have the right to do this if they are in
dependent nations; and yet the Monroe
doctrine would absolutely forbid it,
The construction of the Monroe doc
trine has lately come into prominent
speculation by reason of the statement
of Senator Lodge that there was dan"
ger Of Japan obtaining a naval station
at Magdalena Bay in Lower California.
/
purpose, and Mexico has also denied it.
But for the purpose of considering the
application of the Monroe doctrine to
point Of this kind. it is not necessary
to insist that there is truth in the
rumor Of the Japanese design. 1t is
enough to indicate the possibility of
such design, and to consider how the
Monroe doctrine would be applied in
such case. Enough has already been
developed to show that the United
States would make. strenuous objection
to the acquisition by Japan Of naval
station at Magdalena Bay. But if
Mexico and Japan should come to an
agreement upon this question, and the
| Japanese should proceed to establish
such station, what form would the re-
sistance Of the United States take in
support of the Monroe doctrine, assumed
to forbid such establishment Mexico
would claim freedom Of action as SOW
ereign power; the japanese would nat
urally say that they were dealing with
an independent government that was in
no way subject to the United States,
and that therefore the United States
has no right to interfere. SO far as
the question is world question put in
that form, Japan's position that the
United States would have no more
right to interfere with a japanese
naval station at Magdalena Bay than
with a japanese naval station on the
coast Of Siam, the Japanese claim would
be unanswerable, But we have never
undertaken to extend the Monroe doc
trine as world proposition, but only
to apply it to North and South America;
and as we have always insisted that it
is doctrine applicable to the Amer
| icas, it is plain that we should either
have to abandon the Monroe doctrine
In such a case as cited, or go to war
with Japan. and perhaps with Mexico
also, to enforce the suzerainty of that
doctrine throughout all the Americas.
And the question is, would the United
States be justified or willing to under
take such d war in support of that doc
trine9
Again, in the case of Mexico, there
has been n good deal of pillage and
some slaughter of foreigners, Amer.
| cans, British, and Germans. There has
been some restiveness in Germany on
| account of the situation, but Germany
shows no special desire to intervene in
| behalf of her own citizens there. She
| does call upon the United States, how
ever, though not officially, to assume
! the protectorate and responsibility
which the enforcement Of the Monroe
doctrine would imply. Here, again,
comes the question, are we prepared to
accept that responsibility and enforce
international rights in Mexico rather
than allow European nations to go
there and enforce the rights of them
selves and their citiZensG
These and other questions are liable
to be both puzzling and urgent in the
near future, and it becomes the people
Of the United States TO consider well
the whole question Of the Monroe doc
trine and to what extent they would
be prepared TO go in enforcing It, a
mere declaration of doctrine amounts
to little in crisis unless the nation
announcing that doctrine is prepared TO
support it in practical form. AS an in
ternatlonal proposition, the enforcement
of the doctrine might easily be com
plicated by the resistance of a smaller
American nation TO the sovereignty or
guardianship which the enforcement of
the doctrine would necessarily imply on
the part of the United States over all
the other Republics of America. With an
American nation in agreement with a
foreign nation in the establishment of
a foreign foothold in that American ma
ton, 1T would indeed be an awkward
procedure for the United States to ih
tervene and stop the negotiations and
transfers that might be involved in