San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-09-24

be surprising if, instead of allaying those
fears, Mr.. Hughes exposition of the
doctrines meaning should aggravate
them.
.Accoi ding to this account, published i'll
the New York Times, the secretary OF
state said:
GAS the policy embodied in the Mon
roc Doctrine is distinctly the policy OF
the United States. the government OF
the United States reserves to itself its
definition. Interpretation and application.
"The United States has not been dis
posed 10 enter into engagements which
would have the effect of submitting to
any other power or to any concert of
powers the determination either of the
occasions upon which the principles of
the Monroe Doctrine shall be invoked
or the measures that shall be taken in
giving it effect.
"Thc United States is asserting sep
arate national right of sclf-defense. and
i'll the exercise of this right it must have
an unhampered discretion"
Most OF those assertions the American
people would doubtless fully endorse.
Moreover, the American people could no:
be convinced that Secretary Hughes
meant to imply, by any of his remarks,
that the government would ever. under
any conceivable circumstances. take dis
honorable advantage of the asserted right
to construe and apply the Monroe Doc
trinc to suit itself. And certainly the
American people have reason for repos-
ing confidence in the only modern ma
ton of the first class that has never pur-
sued an imperialistic course.
But, unfortunately. foreign peoples do
not have such great confidence in the
United States. When Our secretary of
state says that this country will do as
it pleases in constituting and applying
doctrine which affects other nations,
those nations can hardly be blamed for
inferring that we intend to make our
own interests at any time the sole test
OF what we shall then do under that
doctrine. Thus, in their eyes, we might
easily interpret the doctrine in one way
at given time, and in an entirely diff
ferent way at another time, the nature
of the Interpretation depending exclu-
sively upon the requirements of Our in
terests whenever the doctrine was in
voked.
Such criticism of Mr.. Hughes re-
marks does not, however, imply opposi-
ton to the idea that the United States
should not submit the Monroe Doctrine
10 other nations for Interpretation. The
doctrine is, indeed, distinctively the
policy of the United States, and this
country alone have the right to interpret
it. But Mr.. Hughes choice of words to
convey his ideas was unfortunate il his
object was to create favorable impress
sion upon South Americans. He said
that the United States reserves 70 it.
self" the definition. Interpretation and
application of the doctrine. The word
reserves was particularly unfortunate
1t might easily be interpreted to mean
that the United States purposes to make
the doctrine serve any purpose which
this country might at any time elect to
prosecute, and that it might elect to
prosecute purposes wholly and repre-
hensibly adverse to the rights of other
peoples.
AS all well-informed Americans know.
so far as moral principle is concerned
and moral principle has ever been this
country's pole star in its deliberate in
ternaticnal engagements-the meaning
of the Monroe Doctrine is fairly definite
ly fixed for, all practical purposes. From
that meaning the American people would
not permit their government to depart,
even if it should have the temerity to
make the attempt.
But because foreigners do not know
these things it is impolitic, to say the
least for any American government Of
ticial to say anything that is likely to
confirm in their minds the suspicion that
VIC purpose to use the Monroe Doctrine,
not merely for self-defense, but for the
promotion of predatory projects.
FLIVVERS AND EUGENICS