New-York tribune., 1919-06-18

|
Der who are representatives of nations
that are inevitably under the domino.
ton and control Of these autocracies
Right to Determine
Own Affairs Demanded
'1 ask for time to bring to bea,
any power Of presence which we pos
sess upon the question of whether OF
not we wish to submit to the control
and domination of the league bodies
questions involving our own purely
internal affairs.
Il must ask for time to consider
whether or not such vital matters as
our right to regulate immigration, ou,
right to make alliances with other
nations, our right to make reciprocity
treaties upon such terms as we see
MT. and our right to inter
vene and adopt means and methods
necessary to protect the people of our
| own borders from the encroachment
of robber bands from adjacent, un-
| settled countries shall remain within
the sole dete rmination of our will and
purpose, or shall be subjected to the
determination of league body"
After discussing Article 21, which
recognizes the Monroe Doctrine as
regional understanding, Senator
Knox said:
II am bound in all soberness to say
that the author of this language either
had a profound ignorance of what the
Monroe Doctrine is or is determined to
make out of it something it is not and
ought not to be. In either event the re-
suit Of the league provision is the
same--it completely wipes out the doc
trlne as it has been accepted and en-
forced for a hundred years, as my
further observation will show In the
first place, the doctrine is not an Sin
ternational engagement nor is it an
understanding, regional or otherwise
all of which are of necessity reached
by international agreement, formal or
informal, by and between two or more
nations.
There is nothing in the circum-
stances attending the framing and proc
lamation of the doctrine, nothing in
the various discussions and pronounce
ments concerning it, which even re-
motely resembles the making of an in
ternational agreement. 1t is no more
such an agreement than is the pro-
nouncement of Washington against en-
tangllng foreign alliances, or our ma
ton old practice of neutrality, or our
labor protecting Chinese exclusion. or
our protective tariff, or our regulation
of immigration.
ut is difficulty to speak calmly OF
provision such as this. 1t is hard to
conceive of any man traditioned in
Americanism lending his sanction to
such monstrosity. Never before has
the Monroe Doctrine been mere meas
ure of spineless pacifsm. 1t has until
now been strong means Of self-pro-
lection and self-preservation. 1t was
designed first to preserve our own life
liberty, happiness and institutions, and
next to preserve the liberties and in
stitutions of our sister republics of
the Western world. 1t was aimed to
keep monarchy from this hemisphere;
kings, princes and emperors were to
have no place on this side of the
world. But under the new doctrine if
Mexico should peaceably agree to allow
to japan strip of her western terri
tory; if Guatemala should make an
alliance with Great Britain, or Brazil
with Germany, or Argentina with Italy
or if they should grant to them regions
or strips Of territory or concessions
or zones of influence, how could we
say that "a regional understanding
for securing thesmaintenance of peace
had been violated? Would not the
answer be, no hostile activity has oc-
Cured. none ia contaminated and rono
will occur unless you yourselves
Americans, undertake or threaten
them? And If we did threaten them
no matter how great the menace to
our own existence they might ulti-
mately prove, we should merely bring
ourselves within the restraining hand
of the whole league itself"
Withdrawal Provision