New-York tribune., 1920-09-13
Scrappiag Monroe

Senator Harding has raised again
the question of the sufficiency Of
Article XXI Of the league covenant,
disclaiming interference with the
Monroe Doctrine. He cites the dis
similarity of the two texts Of the
article, French and English. The
English text purpQrts to guarantee
the validity of international en-
gagements, such as treaties Of arbi-
tration or regional understandings
like the Monroe Doctrine, for secur-
ing the maintenance of peace" The
Monroe Doctrine is, of course,
neither an international engage
ment nor a regional understanding.
The defenders of Article XXI
English text-say that it preserves
the Doctrine, even if it isn't an in
ternational engagement or regional
understanding or an instrument for
the maintenance of peace.
The French version is different.
1t says that the engagements named
in the article, among which the Mon
roe Doctrine is wrongly classified,
"are not to be considered incom-
patible with any Of the provisions
Of the treaty." This language ad-
nits of the construction that these
existing engagements are to be
harmonized with the treaty. So
harmonized, they might be found to
have lost their validity in so far as
they are inconsistent with the treaty.
This Interpretation of the French
text agrees with President Wilson's
original view. He expressed that
view when he said that he intended
to make the Monroe Doctrine
world doctrine. Mr.. Cummings re-
peated the Wilson phrase in his
speech to the Democratic National
Convention. He said that Article x
was "the Monroe Doctrine of the
world"
1t is clear that if the Monroe
Doctrine is universalized it must
lose its historical nationalistic char
acter. 1t has always been an ex-
preston Of purely American policy
AN assertion of the intention of
the United States to prevent Euro
pean intervention in the affairs of
the New World. Mr.. Wilson was
logical when he held, at the begin
ming, that there was no reason for
mentioning the Monroe Doctrine in
the covenant, since it would auto
matically lose it's nationalistic char
acter when the United States en-
tered the league. He yielded to
pressure when he allowed Article
XXI to be inserted in the covenant.
Undoubtedly he would have pre-
ferred to let the Monroe Doctrine
go quietly by the board.
Article XXI was late conces-
sion to an American sentiment
whose force the President had failed
to realize. 1t restores surface
vitality to the Monroe Doctrine.
But if the doctrine is to be retained
it ought to be retained in all it's
vigor. 1t has two aspects. One is
concerned with preventing European
penetration in the Americas. The
other is concerned with the attitude
of the United States toward back
ward American states whose mis-
management may lead to European
complications. The Wilson Admin
istration has itself been thoroughly
illogical in its drastic enforcement
Of the implications Of the Doctrine
in dealing with Hayti and the
Dominican Republic. 1t has not hest
tated to establish military protec-
torates in those two states, one of
which, Hayti, is an original member
Of the League of Nations. Is the
Haytian protectorate to fall and the
Caribbean policy underlying it to
be abandoned if the United States
enters the league without q real
Monroe Doctrine reservation? Would
not Hayti be entitled to appeal to
the other league powers for q resto-
ration Of her complete political indie
pendence?
Mr.. Wilson is satisfied with
Article XXI. Mr.. Cox is satisfied
with it. But the American people
are not satisfied with it. They don't
want to enter any association with
Europe on terms which might put
in jeopardy this country's position
on the American continents and
force us TO abandon that American
leadership which has come through
4ssas s5sa4 i III -s5.,. .i{s. +.