The Washington times., 1914-10-31
THE MONROE DOCTRINE

, dor is the voice of the Kaiser. 1t is
the Kaiser, therefore, who must be
held responsible for this statement
of the German embassy:
The German point OF view is that.
by Joining In a European war. Cam
ada has put herself outside Of the
pale of the Monroe doctrine, but
Germany has not the intention or
attacking Canada or of coloni1ing
Canada.
It is just as well that the Kaiser
has not such intentions. Whether he
had or not would make no difference
to the Monroe doctrine. For the
American point of view is that Can
ada, willy nilly, cannot put herself
outside of the pale of the Monroe
doctrine so long as the United States
possesses the power to enforce the
Monroe doctrine.
The Kaiser cannot say when Can
ada ceases to be within the pale Of
the Monroe doctrine; Canada herself
cannot say.
The Monroe doctrine does not de-
pend upon Canada or upon any act
of Canada. 1t depends upon this
Government of the American people.
In respect to the present develop
ment of the essential principle Of the
Monroe doctrine Canada is no differ
ent from Mexico, no different from
the meanest state in South or Cen
tral America, the pettiest island in
this part of the world. This remains
true, whatever Canada does; the
Monroe doctrine still holds.
1t is the American point of view
that, though self-governing coun-
try in the Western Hemisphere
should elect to become a possession
of a European power, the Monroe
doctrine would forbid and the United
States Government prevent.
1t is the American point of view
that an existing colony or depend
ency of a European power cannot
call upon that power to assist in en-
croaching upon any Independent
country in America. That was the
American point of view when Great
Britain sought to press the claims Of
one of her American dependencies
against Venezuela. And the Ameri-
can point of view prevailed.
The Monroe doctrine does not con-
slider the mere interest Of the west
ern country, colony or dependency
involved. It considers, as the pri-
mary and paramount question, the
interest, welfare and safety Of the
United States as they may be there
by affected.
One of our contemporaries as
sumes with the Kaiser that Canada
has forfeited our protection. That is
not the issue; it cannot become the
issue. The issue is that neither Cam
ada nor any other self-governing
country of the Americas can forfeit
our protection to our disadvantage
or possible disadvantage.
That contemporary cites West In
dian countries which the United
States has occupied and partially ad-
ministered for the protection of the
rights of foreigners. But this was
done in the very fulfillment Of the
Monroe doctrine, not permitting oc-
cupancy, liable to become perma-
nent, by a European power.
In Mexico, with all its anarchy,
even the supine Administration Of
Mr.. Wilson warned Europe to keep
it's hands off and Europe kept its
hands off.
If Mr.. Wilson should hesitate to
do the same thing with Canada, the
American people would have some
thing to say about it. If England
should contract as part of treaty
Of peace with Germany to have the
Kaiser set up an empire in Canada
and if the Canadians themselves
should agree to be disposed of in
that manner, the American people
would have something to say about
it.
That is the American point of view
about the Monroe doctrine. That
will be the American point of view
so long as the United States has the
power to enforce the Monroe doc
trine.