The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-11-23
FOES OF MONROEISM.

tho chief topics for discussion at the
Pan-American Congress-. Charles II.
Sheriff., of New York, former Ameri.
can minister to the Argentine repub'
lie, declared that the South American
nations must inevitably become so
great and powerful during the twen-
tieth century as to demand an equal
right with the United States to con-
troll the affairs OF the western hemi-
sphere. It does not require the inspira-
tion Of a prophet to foresee that Mr..
Sherrill's prediction will be realized
substantially. As q result the agita-
ton for the abandonment OF recon
etruction Of the Monroe doctrine will
from now than 1t Is at present. It Is
wise, however, for all Americans to un-
derstand the issue and to study It caro-
fully as each crisis arises in a re-
public south of US.
At the Pan-American conference two
definite suggestions were made regard
ing the Monroe doctrine. Mr.. Sher-
rill took tho view that we should in
vite Argentina or Brazil or some other
American country, to Join with us if 1t
should become necessary to intervene
in Mexico. He assigned two reasons
for taking such action:
First, it would naturally remove any
idea among our American neighbors
that our purpose is land grabbing.
Secondly, 1t would free our govern
ment from the persistent opportunities
Of individuals and corporations urging
Intervention to the benefit Of their
pockets.
4he first point made by the advo-
cate Of this plan seems well taken,
but we doubt very much whether ad-
mitting South American republics to
participation In the enforcement Of the
Monroe doctrine would free our gov
enment from the opportunities Of indi-
viduals and corporations favoring in
tervention from selfish motives. Is 1t
not likely, on the contrary, that such
individuals and corporations would stir
up South American countries to inter
vention when they discovered that
they could not force this country to
intervene7 If this should prove to be
the result of modifying the Monroe
doctrine, the people Of this country
doubtless would regret that they had
not continued to enforce their sef-as-
sorted right to be the dominating influ-
ence in the affairs Of the western
hemisphere. AS matter Of fact, docs
not the very nature Of tho Monroe
doctrine require enforcement by sin
gle nation9 While it would be very
generous and chivalrous to call In at
least the greater among our sister re-
publics to enforce the spirit Of the
Monroe doctrine, would this not make
confusion worse confoundedi
DR.. George F. Tucker, the author of
book on the Monroe doctrine, urged
tho abandonment Of the doctrine. He
declared that even though South Am
ericans did not fear our Imperialism,
they realize the selfshness of the Mon
roe doctrine, and he said that it made
them dislike us and distrust our for
eign policy. Outlining his views fur
ther, he said:
Consequently. by maintaining this ma
| uonal shibboletn and adhering TO the
| words Monroe doctrine we diminish our
| possible influence for good in the east
ern hemisphere and we interfere with tho
growth OF our foreign commerce. We
| owe II TO ourselves TO give up the words
| Monroe doctrine and 10 adopt a policy
Of pan-American defense which will en-
able US to secure the friendship and sup
port OF our neighbors on the western
| hemisphere; which will Increase our in
| huence for good among them, and will
remove any handicap in the development
| OF our foreign commerce.
81 believe we can safely trust the
| handling OF the present Mexican situa-
ton to President Wilson. At the same
time wish II were possible for him to
| ers-Brazil. Argentina, Chile. n Colombia.
! etc.-for conference as TO what should
be done for the peace and prosperity Of
| Mexico"
The final suggestion Is one which at
first view would appeal to our country
men as likely to promote the best Of
feeling between the United States and
the great Republics of South America,
inasumch as such policy would serve
\ to convince them that we were perfectly
| sincere In our repeated statements that
we had no intention to aggrandize
either our Jurisdiction or our power
in other lands on this hemisphere.
It is well, however, not to be carried
away by enthusiasm for an iidescent
! idea. 1t is true that sometimes the
Monroe doctrine has been troublesome,
but it has fulfilled It's purpose through
more than three-quarters of a century,
and before we abandon or modify It we
should spend number of years In do
batting its merits and defects.
AS the result Of our selling the Phil
ippines, new and powerful argument
against the Monroe doctrine has been
evolved. While denying all nations Of
the Eastern hemisphere the right to
seize territory or to exercise turisdic.
tion in the Latin-American Republics,
We have exercised our right under In.
ternational law and the laws of war
TO appropriate one Of the most impor.