Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1919-07-24
ToDAY's LETTER TAKES UP

zR TAKES UP
above, such a reservation would not
be regarded as a subtantial amend
ment of the Covenant. Upon this
point the official commentary of the
delegates of Great Britain upon the
revised Covenant is particularly per-
tInent. They refer to the Monroe.
Doctrine and similar understandings
as having shown themselves in his
tory to be not instruments of national
ambition but guarantees of peace"
and add
"The origin of the Monroe Doctrine
IS well known. 1t was proclaimed in
1928 to prevent America from be-
coming a theatre for the intrigues
OF European absolutism. At first a
principle of American foreign policy.
1t has become a national understand
ing and it is not Legitimate for the
for the people Of the United States
to say that the Covenant should re-
cognize that fact.
In its essence it is consistent with
the spirit of the Covenant, and in
deed the principles OF the League
as expressed in Article Y represent
the extension to the whole world of
the principle of the Monroe Doctrine.
while should any dispute as to the
meaning of the latter arise
between the American and the El-
ropean powers the League is there
to settle them"
This commentary received special
force from the fact that England
had close historical connection with
the proclamation of the Monroe Dee
trine in 1928 and IN the VereAulian
dispute the most advanced claim as
to the scope of Tire Doctrine was
sharply called to her attention: ard
no delegation at the Peace Confer
ence probably understood better than
that of Great Britain how the Mon
roe Doctrine was intended to be af-
fected by Article XXI.
Validity" Not Endangered.
AS the validity" of the Monroe
Doctrine is not affected" by Article
XXI, the Doctrine is excluded from
the operation of the Covenant. If
therefore a case within the principle
of the Doctrine should arise it would
not be within the jurisdiction If thu
League. Even if question whether
the Doctrine extended to a particu-
lar situation could be made the sub
| jet of inquiry under Article XIV, there
could be little doubt Of the result; for
if we except a few cases where doubt
has existed as to the application of
the Doctrine and the belated asser-
| ton of President Carranza that it is
nonresident, it is understood by all
of the nations of the whole world.
But it is too late to have forebod-
ings on account Of the remote chance
Sthat a question concerning the Mon
roe Doctrine may have to be sub
mitted to arbitration or inquiry I'M
der the Covenant, for, by the Bryan
treaties, ratified by the senate in 1914
and 1915, we have already agreed
with Great Britain, France, Italy and
six other European nations, as well
as with Chill, Brazil, Peru and seven
other American states, that all dis
putes of an international character,
including those affecting national
honor and vital interests, such as the
Monroe Doctrine shall be submitted
to an International Committee for in
, vestigation and report, and that pend
! ing such a report war will not be
+ declared or hostility commenced.
These treaties are international en-
gagements and their validity, within
the reservation of Article XXI, is
not affected by the covenant. Under
the Bryan treaties, therefore, arbitra-
tors, a majority of whom are not to
be American citizens, would have jul
risdiction to consider and report con-
corning any dispute arising under the
Monroe Doctrine, and while the ar
bitration was proceeding this country
would be obliged to abstain from en-
forcing the Doctrine, however ext
gent the situation might be. Under
such circumstances the question
whether Article XXI adequately re-
serves the rights of the United States