Omaha daily bee., 1919-09-09
Monroe Doctrine Amendment
From the Chicago Tribune.

When the president was answering the in
terrogaton of senators at the recent confer
ence he made the following statement in regard
to the provisions supposed to cover the Mon
roe doctrine:
There absolutely was no doubt as to the
meaning of any one Of the resulting provisions
of the covenant in the minds of those who par
ticipated in drafting them, and l respectfully
in their wording. The Monroe doctrine is
mentioned expressly as an understanding which
in no way is to be impaired or interfered
with by anything contained in the covenant"
A reader of The Tribune--and, by the way,
he was an officer and shows the reluctance SO
common in the A. E. F. to our involvement in
European politics-has submitted significant
parallel to Mr.. Wilson's remarks, quoted from
Lord Robert Cecil by the London Mail:
The amendment respecting the Monroe
is commonly understood to be the American
conception of that feature of American for
eign policy. but the amendment was frankly
accepted In order that the occasion for GER
tain opposition to the league covenant in
America might be removed. The amendment
may be described as vague in its essence. 1t
leaves the Monroe doctrine where SO years
or so of international practice has left it, and
one gathers that it is regarded as fully salts
flying American susceptibilities about the car
dinal features of their international policy
We think this statement of Lord Robert,
who the member of the conference for
Great Britain held chiefly responsible in the
matter of formulating covenant. should be
read and pondered by every American who is
inclined to accept the assurances of advocates
of ratification without reservation.
Lord Roberts statement of his understand
ing is in fiat contradiction of the president.
Mr. Wilson says there is nothing vague in
their workings Lord Robert says: THE
amendment may be described vague in its
essence"
Rut The most SeriouS consideration arising
from this deadly parallel is derived from Lord
Roberts disclosure of the real purpose of the
amendment as he understands it. 1t does not
recognize the American conception of the doc
trine,. but was accepsed frankly" to allay Ger
tain American opposition to the covenant. Mr.
Wilson declares there was no doubt as to the
meaning of any provision, that there was moth
ing vague, that the Monroe doctrine is named
expressly as I'm no way to be impaired or
interfered with by anything contained in the
covenant" Lord Robert declares con-
ception of the doctrine is not recognized and
that the amendment is vague in essence and
accepted only to allay opposition to the cove
nant.
If this is a meeting of minds our eye
sight is poor. Either Mr. Wilson does not
know what Lord Robert understood, or. know
ing, is concerned only to alay American oppo
stion by giving a false impression of the
amendment.
We should hesitate to make the latter
charge out tHe necessary dltelllduNe Is the COIL
clusion that Mr. Wilson has been deceived and
that his assurance to the senate that all was
perfect understanding at the conference is a
dangerous error.
The parallel demonstrates moreover, the
absolute need for clear reservations not only
as to the Monroe doctrine. but as to all essen
tial points of Americas vital interests. Lord
Roberts statement is warning of what the
future will develop in the way of misunder-
standings. mutual determinations, and danger
Gus friction
In fact, it emphatcally points to the wisdom
of demanding explicit recognition of the
Monroe doctrine by the principal powers which
propose to lean SO heavily upon our unweak-
ened arm America has asked nothing from the
peace conference or the associated powers and
she has got exactly what she asked. This is
false altruism.