The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-01-30

Ky declining to submit the manu-
script II IN, Monroe Doctrine, An
Interpretation DLitt.e, Brown and
Company To the criticism OF his
friends before publication Prof. AL
BERT BrsIINELL HART Of Harvard was
enabled to say just what he wanted to
say in the way he wanted To say 1t.
As Is not uncommon IN such cases. he
!n,erfrrcs somewhat with his purpose,
for while tho reader may h at
traoted hy some things. such as the
%Culloquiai language, which sometimes
becomes rather s.!pshud, and 10y p"liti-
cal catChwords, which are conCisely
descriptive hut hetray the authors ami
mus toward men or parties, they
dctract from the authority ~ the
statements. The more serious advice.
however. would have been to restrict
himself to the subject IN hand; this We
imagine L. what the author sought TO
avoid. for the theme j. the protest for
the expression Of his views on the for
e,cn policy of the United States, from
the beginning OF It's dealings with the
Latin American republics. and on its
present attitude in the affairs of the
world, or more properly, the views
which he believes the average intclli-
gent American To hold about these
matters.
Some time Is spent by Prof, Hart in
discussing the authorship NJ the
phrases in President Monroe's mos
sagcs that have been taken as the
text of the doctrine and he is inclined
to give the credit to John Quincy
Adams, tho secretary of state. with
notifications 10y the President himself.
The question seems to lie a purely
academic one save for the mOdlfica-
lions that twentieth century politicians
wish to apply to the doctrine. The es-
sent.al point. the warning To European
Powers that the Western continent
was no longer To he a field for their
colonization or conquest. had been. as
Prof. Hart shows, in the minds of the
men who built the nation from the
start, Al the first Presidents were
aWaI" of the danger from European
interference and expressed in one
form or another the obvious truth that
il the United States WAS to last Euro
pean acknowledgements must he avoided
| III Nv ~ ~ VI ~ ~ Wv . Y
was too weak to its position
officially and the occasion only arose
when the Spanish colonies revolteG
from the mother country and Presi-
dent Monroe Vas compelled to take a
stand in the matter. II was fortunate
for the United States that the British
interests at the time ~coinCided with
that view, and Prof. Hart might easily
have put more emphasis on George
Canning's share in the acceptance OF
the doctrine. The asseverdtion that the
United States would not interfere with
the new republics, undoubtedly made
sincerely at the time. Prof. Iiar'
chooses to regard as an integral par
of the doctrine, in common with sew
eral South American ~publicists.
1t is this side of the question thai
he has in mind in his account Of tho
Monroe Doctrine in later years. quoting
the utterances Of Presidents. Score
taries of State and other distinguished
men and grading them according t,
their holding to the standard he sets
He regards every extension OF terri
tory. whether by war. as In the case o.
Mexico, or 10y purchase, As in that o.
Alaska, or by treaty, as In that Of III,
Oregon boundary. as being moditiCa
tons Of the doctrine, lie does no
seem to pay much attention to wha
the United States actually could d.
at any particular time He relteratcl