New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-26

what the President meant by peace "lth-
out victor-." help to clearer understand
ing of that phrase? And how about the
rival Interpretation offered by "The New
York Tines? 1.-THE Times" made an
elaborate argument yesterday to show that
when the President said peace without
victory" he really meant "peace with vic
tory" since the conditions of a lasting
peace which he laid down could not but
imply victory over Prussian nnlitarism.
Putting the case in a more formal way
than we have put it, "The Times said
"For ourselves, we decline to reject the
lofty ideal, so eloquently set forth in all
the rest Of the address, merely for the sake
Of preserving in its integrity the phrase
about peace without victory"
According to "The Times's" theory we
must regard the phrase as mere slip OF
the tongue. If the President had written
the address and not delivered it orally,
peace without victory" would be explained
away as a simple typographical error.
Having gone thus far, why shouldn't
these gifted interpreters of the speech 60
further? The public will be still more
indebted to them if they explain what the
President meant by suggesting that there
should be united, independent, autono-
nous Poland" Why autonomous, if indie
pendent? Both European combinations
are talking about offering Poland-the
part of Poland within Russian possession
in 1914-autonomy without complete indie
pendence And what does "a united Po-
land" mean? Does it imply union of the
Poles of Austria and of Prussia with those
of Russia under one independent, or even
autonomous, government? Does 1T imply
the recreation of the Polish Kingdom as
it existed before its first partition? These
are highly interesting questions, especially
when taken in connection with the other
enigmatic suggestion that Europe ought to
be reconstructed in such a manner as to
give freedom "to all peoples who have
lived hitherto under the power Of govern
ments devoted to a faith and purpose hos
tile to their own"
The public would also like to know what
the President meant when he thus para
phrased the intent of the Monroe Doctrine:
"That no nation should extend its policy
over any other nation or people, but that
every people should be left free to deter
mine its own policy, its own way of devel-
opment, unhindered, unthreatened, una
fraid. the little along with the great and
powerful"
The Monroe Doctrine is burlesqued by
such an Interpretation. 1t is doctrine
both of defence and aggression. Under 1t
the United States has assumed the role Of
guardianship over the other American
republics. We have undertaken to keep
the European systems off the American
hemisphere. But we have also undertaken
to compel American nations to live up to
their lawful obligations to European gov
ernments and nationals.
Otherwise, why did the Wilson Admins
tration send marines into Hayti IN 1918
and force an American protectorate on
that republic? Otherwise, why did the
President order last summer the military
occupation Of the Dominican Republic,
whose government had failed to live up to
an agreement to pay regular instruments
on its foreign debts?
What does the Monroe Doctrine mean
when interpreted by Mr.. Wilson in Wash
ington and what does it mean when ad-
ministered by diplomatic and naval officers
in West Indian waters? Here are some
more problems in higher criticism which
''The Post" "The World" and "The Times
could proftably consider. The people can
not be expected TO appreciate the expan
sive idealistic craftsmanship of President
Wilson at its true value until they begin
to get clearer understanding Of what ne
really means.