The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-11-01
MONROE DOCTRINE OBLIGATIONS.

Had President Wilson granted recog-
nition to the Huerts government 1T is
conceivable that peace and order might
have been restored in Mexico'as a result
of the prestige, power and financial sup
port thereby bestowed Then President
Wilson, washing his hands of whatever
atrocities might have been committed,
could have taken credit for the estab-
lishment of stable conditions in Mexico,
Inasmuch, however, as the President has
seen fit not to recognize the Huerta
government and has practically an
nounced that he will not recognize 1t
under any circumstances, there are
those who urge the United States gov
ernment to take no further action.
Seeking refuge behind the general
principles OF international law, they
declare that the United States has no
warrant for further interference, be-
yond demanding guarantees for the Sc
curity Of the lives and property OF
Americans resident in Mexico. Unfor-
tunatcly the general principles Of inter
national law do not always apply to
the relations that arise between nations.
International law has been made by the
nations themselves and is modified by
changing conditions. Concediug that
Il 5r1 IF - rrhf nd
wrong in the realm of international law
as in the domain of municipal law, new
statutes, so to speak, are established
from time to time by the various pow
ers in the comfy Of civilized nations,
and. of course, are presumed to be based
upon these eternal principles of Justice,
Nevertheless, Just as law within
State, such for example as liquor law,
will impose new conditions and give
rise to new obligations, so notifications
of international law produce new con-
ditions and obligations.
When the United States wrote the
Monroe doctrine on the large page Of
international law, it made that doctrine
an adjunct, if NOT part, OF interna.
tional law. AS long as the United States
shall maintain the Monroe doctrine, it
cannot confne itself to the old rules
governing the relations between SOW
ereign States. AS the triple alliance
and the triple entente have imposed GER
tain obligations upon the parties TO
these compacts, so the Monroe doctrine
cxacts from the United States original
kinds Of action with regard to the ma
tions of this hemisphere. 1t is regret
table that no final definition of the
Monroe doctrine has been made or is yet
possible. From month to month and
from year 10 year for more than a CEN
turv the Supreme Court has been in
terpreting the Constitution of the Unit
ed States, and in the nature of things
this process must continue for centuries
TO come. While the Monroe doctrine
has not yet taken definite form, certain
Of its obligations are clear. Whenever
disorders occur in the Latin nations to
the South that threaten the lives and
property not only of Americans but of
other foreigners, the United States can
not cOnfine its scope OF action merely to
the protection Of its own interests. As
compensation TO other nations it must
guard their interests, inasmuch as it de-
nies them the right to intervene with
military force or TO seize and appropri-
ate lands.
If the United States limits its action
10 the general principles Of interna.
tional law-and in passing it may be
well TO remark that international law
Is still in its infancy-it cannot main
tain the Monroe doctrine 1t NAV be
that the Monroe doctrine was estab-
lished in no altruistic spirit. that the
United States was guided solely by mo-
tives of enlightened sclf-interest, and
not TO any great extent by moral con-
siderations, but whatever the motives
that dictated the Monroe doctrine. the
United States and the great powers of
the world must be cireumscribed in
their action by this doctrine as well as
by the general principles Of intcrna-
tional law in dealing with the affairs of