The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-28
THE MONROE DOCTRINE.
Changing Conditions Have Caused
New Policies since 1923.

To THE EpiroR or THE SrN--Sir' Mr..
r. j. Lloyd in his letter of April "a
interprots the Monroe Doctrine very
correctly az II WAS in 1928. II Is no
doubt true that Canning, head of the
British Foreign Office at the time. in
tended that 1t should serve to preserve
the balance of power recently estab-
llshed in Europe as 1t extended to the
Western Hemisphere and thus to defeat
the object Of the Holy Alliance. Sec
rotary OF state Adams. however. meant
that the doctrine should he distinctly
American. and such in fact 1t became.
While the principles OF the doctrine
are fundamentally the same now as
they were In 1923. changing conditions
have caused new policies to grow up
about It, Thus In 1895, at the end Of
the Venezuela boundary dispute. Cleve-
land virtually announced that under the
Monroe Doctrine the United states as
sumed the moral responsibility OF COM
pelling Spanish American States to full
III their obligations and so give Euro
peans no ground for Interference in New
World affairs. Roosevelt. at the time Of
the German British blockade of NeneZ-
uela. held that a foreign Power might
coerce an American State without vio-
lation Of the Monroe Doctrine II no
territorial acquisition was IN view.
trine In its relation TO the present Mex
lean situation. There are some. no
doubt, who believe that we might fol-
low the precedent set by the Roosevelt
Administration, and allow the Powers
to settle affairs in Mexico provided they
took over no part of that country. But
the Mexican situation Is far from being
parable, to the situation in Venezuela
when England and Germany undertook
to seize revenues and duties to satisfy
dchtq. II the allied Powers or one
Power should undertake to put an end
to anarchical conditions existing In
Mexico and to establish a government
there under which foreigners might
live and do business in safety. II would
mean military occupation of the coun-
try. II would mean that Mexico would
for a long time be under complete or
partial European control. OF course
the United States, having shirked the
task itself, would he In no position to
dictate the measures TO be followed by
the Power or Powers intervening In
Mexico. Would this be compatible with
the principles OF the Monroe Doctrine?
Hardly. Therefore, II the doctrine is TO
continue as an American policy we
must apply Cleveland's Interpretation.
To do so, naturally. would be very
costly, not to say distasteful. II could
hardly be called war. however. for while
II would most certainly involve mill
tary operations. the fact that there Is
no Government IN Mexico would render
t. difficult 20 establish state OF war.
Even though We should be opposed ny
Mex cans in arms. we could not he
called their enemies nor could our acts
be called hclligerent
The future OF the Monroe Doctrine
rests entirely with the present Admins
tr1ton. which, II seems. Is inclined to
allow II to pass out of existence. J.
seems shame that the hesitation and
indecision Of one Administration should
he responsible for the passing OF the
enc vitality American policy which has
endured for nearly a century
A. T. TOMBSTONE.
BEVERLY, Mass. April &c.