The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1914-02-26
OBLIGATIONS OF U. S.

The editor of tho Manchester Guar
| dian understands the obligations OF the
Mouroe doctrine better than many
American editors, In this country a
notable lack Of logic has marked the
contentious of those who pretend TO
understand the Monroe doctrine, and
yet attack the policy OF President Will
son in practically forbidding foreign in
| tervention.
If the United States intends to en-
| force the Monroe doctrine it must as
sumo the obligation of protecting the
lives and property of foreigners in
Mexico. It is idle to say that the Mon
roe doctrine does not impose this duty
upon the United States. 1t is a duty
that is implied, if not expressed. In
tervention by a foreign nation means
| indefinite occupation, and the Monroe
| doctrine bans any attempt on the part
OF European powers to extend their
| system of government to any portion
of this hemisphere. But it goes far
| thcr than this, Ono Of tho sentences
used by President Monroe in his mes
sage of 1925 seems to have been for
gotten, and yet it forms an integral
| part OF his declaration. 1t reads:
Inlerposition by any European
power for the purpose of depressing the
independent American governments or
| controlling i'll any other manner their
destiny would be viewed as mani
fcstation of an unfriendly disposition
! toward the United States. -
In other words, the Monroe doctrine
for the purpose of controlling in any
manner the destiny Of nation on this
hemisphere. Practically it forbids all
intervention, although not absolutely.
The United States has taken the view
that European intervention is undesir-
able. If, therefore, foreign interveu-
tion is practically prohibited, can the
United States escape the obligation 10
protect the lives and interests of for
| eigners? Can it say, "Wc Will not
permit the European powers 10 protect
the lives and property of their own
subjects nor will the United States af-
ford protection ''9
The Manchester Guardian finds the
foregoing conclusion inevitable.
''Is it not mere playing with words
TO saN in such case, 'the United States
has no responsibility it asks. "sIf
that were so, the Monroe doctrine would
be mere instrument Of international
anarchy, whereas the whole tendency
OF President Wilson Is policy has been
to make it a force of order and good
government. lf we are not responsible,
then the United States is. We certain
ly do not wish TO drive the United
States government to intervene, but it
cannot deny 10 the powers the right
of defending their interests and at the
same time refuse to defend them it.
self.
Instead OF curtailing the Monroe doc
trine IN any respect, President Wilson
has amplified it to such an extent that
| ii has become new doctrine, iucludin Q
all of the old law and adding a new
law. The Monroe doctrine confined it.
self TO interdicting political control by
European powers in Latin America
e President Wilson announces that the
r United States will forbid financia
T control. He has made it clear that the
United States will not tolerate fiuan
j eial mastery any more than it will tol
t crate political mastery. The Monroe
i doctrine provided against European po
l. litical domination over the nations o1
0 this hemisphere, but today condition,
d have made financial domination an ever
> greater peril.
j. A. Maurice Low, writing in the Con
a temporary Review, says; "The Mon
d roe doctrine was warning to Europ,
d not TO attempt colonization, but it dit
= not specifically set forth the duty an,
d responsibility Of the United States. Th
# advantages conferred upon the Unite,
is States by the Monroe doctrine impos
Is a moral obligation. 1t is the duty o
n the United States, not alone to protec
the political entity of Latin America
&c but also to preserve its financial indie
ID pendence; to save it from its own weak
ID ness; TO prevent il becoming victir
x Of concessionaircs, whether they b
II American or fOrpiOu. IN cunble I I,ati