The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-03-27

original declaration there was a great
element of sentiment and of sympathy
foc the people OF South America who
were struggling for freedom, and II has
been a source Of great satisfaction to
tho United States that the course which
II took in 1929 concurrently with the ac-
ton Of Great Britain played SO great
part in assuring the right of self gov
eminent to tho countries of South
America. Yet Is II to be observed that
In reference to the South American
governments, as in. all other respects
the international right upon which the
declaration expressly rests Is not senti-
ment or sympathy or a claim to dictate
what kind of government any other
country shall have, but the safety OF the
United States
Senator Root also addressed himself
to the suggestion that the doctrine has
been changed or enlarged. This, as he
said. is a mistake. He continued:
One apparent extension of the
statement OF Monroe was made by
President Polk In his messages of 1s45
and 1S4S, when he included the acauisi-
ton OF territory by a European power
through cession as dangerous to the
safety OF the United States. II was
really but stating a corollary to the
right OF self-protection against the other
American states as we'll as against Eu-
rope.
The corollary has been no long and
uniformly agreed to by the Government
and the people of the United States that
1t may fairly be regarded as being now
a part OF the doctrine.
But, all assertions to the contrary
Notwithstanding, there has been no other
change or enlargement of the Monroe
Doctrine since II was first promulgated
|. II Is the substance of the thing
to which the nation holds. and that is
and always has been that the safety Of
the United States demands that Amer
lean territory shall remain American
Senator Root said further:
"'Sfnce the Monroe Doctrine Is a dec
laration based, upon this nations right
or self-preservation II cannot be trans
muted into Joint or common declara-
ton by American States or any number
1T Is plain that tho building OF the
Panama Canal greatly accentuates the
practical necessity of the Monroe Doc
trine as 1t applies to all the territory
surrounding the Caribbean or near the
Bay of Panama. The plainest lessons
OF history and the universal judgment
OF all responsible students Of the sub
ject concur in teaching that the poten-
tial command of the route to and from
the Canal must rest with the United
States and that the vital interests Of the
nation forbid that such command shall
pass into other hands. Certainly no ma =
ton which has acquiesced In the British
occupation Of Egypt will dispute this
proposition. Undoubtedly as one pas
to the south and the distance from the
Caribbean increases. the necessity Of
maintaining the rule OF Monroe becomes
less immediate and apparent. But who
Is competent to draw the line? Who
will say. ITO this point the rule of Mon
roe should apply; beyond this point II
should not? Who will say that new
national force created beyond any line
that he can draw will stay beyond II
and will not in the long course OF time
! extend itself indefinitely?
THE danger to be apprehended from
the immediate proximity OF hostile
forces was not the sole consideration
leading TO the declaration. The need
to separate the influences determining
| the development and relation OF states
operating in Europe played an even
greater part. The problem of
| national protection IN the distant future
| Is one not to be solved by the first I'm
pressions OF the casual observer. bu:
| only by profound study of the forces
| which in the long life of nations work
out results. In this case the results OF
such a study by the best men OF the
formative period of the United States
are supported by the instincts OF the
American democracy holding steadily
in one direction for almost a century
The problem has not changed essen
tally
"I believe that these words spoken ir
1914, should be needed now.
at is idle to say that the covenant ir
It's present form adequately safeguards
our traditional policy. In this vita
! matter there is no reason why We
| should trust TO equivocal clauses OF
vague assurances II our policy Is no
respected. now is the time 10 know thi;
| important fact. II II is respected. let Il
be safeguarded appropriately. There 4:
no use In contending that the present
| covenant is adequate when so strong
supporter as President Lowell has THU
| to say:
1.-The United States would be JUSTIFIED
in asking. and in my opinion ought 4
ask. for a clause in the covenant that M
foreign power shall hereafter ACQUIRE bN