New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-05-13
OUR CONTINENTAL POLICIES.

NopERNIzING THE MONROE DOCTRINE. ~
ChaTla~ IT, Sheriff. Sso ID NV. .VS. Inc
HoaShtoo Anfnin Company.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE IN ITS RELATION
10 TIN REPUBIIC or hAYTi. BY Wiiiam
A MGcCo-kls. Ia ID. $40. -. lo1 The Nes'e
P,foltshinE Company
The title Of Mr.. Sherrill's book is
misleading. What he has in view is not
the undermining of the Monroe Doe
trine. but the substitution for the Mon
roe Doctrine Of the new doctrine OF
Pan-Americanism which President Will
son and Secretary Lansing are now try
ing to embody in a treaty TO be sub
scribed 70 by all the American re-
publics.
Monroeism and Pan-Americanism are
not synonymous. The latter IS not IN
any proper sense an outgrowth or
"modernization" OF the former. The
two doctrines do not even supplement
each other. On the contrary, they are
mutually antagonistic. The Latin
American states realize fully that Pan
Americanism,' if it becomes operative
through an international agreement
will put an end forever to the hegemony
of the Western World which the United
States has claimed land exercised in
theory, at lesst) for nearly a century.
Publicists and statesmen in this coun-
try who want 20 "moderniZe" the Mon
roe Doctrine in this manner ought 10
reflect that they are asking the United
States 70 exchange long-assef'ed
guardianship and protectorship over
the other American republics for a
single seat in a Pan-Amerlcan dlrecto-
rate in which this country viii nave
but one vote out of a total OF twenty
one.
The Monroe Doctrine is purely ma.
tional doctrine. 1t is an assertion OF
self-interest on the part Of the United
States. Ii is policy on which we de-
mend TO secure our future as the cher
power in the Western World. Our re-
iations with Europe under It are deter
mined entirely by what We believe 10
be TO our advantage. Our relations with
the other American states, as affected
by the programme OF preventing Eu-
ropean colonization in the Americas or
the acquisition by European powers OF
American territory, are also governed
by our conceptions Of self-lnterest'
Of the United States is law" on the two
American continents-as Secretary Ol-
new said in one of his Venezuela
Boundary dispute letters.
Mr.. Sheriff. wholly misunderstands
the purport of the Doctrine. therefore,
when he holds that its great defect Is
that il is "unilateral"-that the re-
sponsibilitv of maintaining it Is not
shared, like and like, by all the Amerl-
can powers. Such a division OF re-
sponsibility is what the LaUn-Amerl-
can states naturally seek. 1t would
shackle the United States and ehectu-
ally prevent US from enforcing IN the
case of unruly, bankrupt and anarchy
ridden American countries the obhga-
tions which we assume toward the eX-
cluded European powers when we tell
them that they must not themselves
exact redress beyond a certain point
for wrongs done to their nationals.
If the United States applies the Mon
roe Doctrine in limiting the free &C
ton of the European states in TINS
hemisphere, it must also apply the cor
rollary of the Doctrine, which guaran-
tees to European nationals normal
protection Of life and property, even II
such protection can be assured, as IN
Hayti, only by taking over the govern
ment, restoring orderly administration
and liquidating foreign debts.
To enter into an alliance which would
leave the enforcement Of the Monroe
Doctrine and the policing Of the small,
backward nations in the hands OF
congress in which the small states
must be greatly over-represented would
be to surrender practically every bene-
fit which has accrued to US through
oentury-long assertion Of the Doctrine.