Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-01-17
BACKGROUND OF EVENTS
BY PAUL Y. COLLINS.

COLLINSs
der the provisions of the Kellogg multi
lateral treaty, for that treaty does not
cnange either our Monroe Doctrine or
our right of self-defense.
X
The most persistent opponent of the
multilateral treaty in the Senate has
been Senator Bingham, formerly pro-
lessor in Yale University. Yet his op-
position was largely based upon his de-
termination that the treaty should be
explained as to its relation to the Nom
roe Doctrine. In 1914 Senator Bingham.
writing in the Atlantic Monthly, dis
cussed the doctrine under his heading,
Tne Monroe Doctrine. an Obsolete
abandonment. He declared:
l. THE doctrine was proclaimed
under false conception of (a) geo.
graphical proximity. for the great CEN
tiers OF South American life are nearer
to Europe than to the United States.
and OBJ the existence Of natural syrn-
pathy, which is difficult to encounter in
Latin America.
q. Latin America resents our attitude
OF being practically sovereign on the
continent, and opposed our war with
Spain, our interference in Panama,
Santo Domingo. etc.
8. 1t places the United States in the
false position of being the collector of
EuropeS debts, bringing our intervene
tlon IN these states on many false
grounds, and thus multiplying the
prejudice of Latin America against us.
4. The great growth of some Of the
South American states in recent years
Is ignored in the application of the
Monroe Doctrine. AS Viscount Bryce
represents them as saying, Since there
are no longer rain clouds coming uD
from the East. why should our friend,
an umbrella over us?"
X X ~
In answer to Senator Bingham, more
than decade prior, the words of Presi-
dent Roosevelt. in his massage to Con-
gress in 1901, are cited:
This (Monroe) Doctrine has nothing
TO do With the commercial relations Of
any American power, save that 1t in
truth allows each OF them to form such
as 1t desires. In other words, 1t is really
a guarantee of the commercial indie
pendence of the Americas We do not
ask under this doctrine for any excIu-
SlVe commercial dealings with any other
American state. We do not guarantees
any state against punishment, If it mis-
conducts itself, provided that punish-
ment does not take the form of the ac-
QUESTION OF territory by any non-Ameri-
can power"
Thereupon, discovering that the
United States Government did not, by
It's Monroe Doctrine, forbid Europe's
conectlng by force her loans or other
oeotss SO long aSrno annexation Of ter
Titory was included, Drago, the Argen.
clared against that very openine' and
thereby created a "Drago DOCTRINE" of
South America. much more drastic
than our Monroe Doctrine in its an
tagoniSm to Europe. In this "Drago
Doctrine" 1t is contended that "collec-
ton OF loans by military means i'm
plies territorial occupation to make
1t effective, and territorial occupation
signifies the suppression or subordina-
ton OF the countries on which it Is
imposed"
The outcome of the Drago Doctrine
was provision adopted by the second
Hague Conference, in the Porter
Yankee amendment, to the effect that
before any resort to arms for collection
Of debt there must be obligatory ar
bitration. This stops armed demon
STATIONS at nations port for the col
lection of even private investments Of
loans. Later another Argentine states
man, Calvo, declared against any
armed Intervention for debt collection,
saying:
ITO admit the principle Of indemnity
would be to create an exorbitant and
pernicious privilege, essentially favora-
BILE. to strong states and injurious to
fnAhlOVs 60
unjustif1able inequality between ma
tionalS and foreigners"
There appears no proof that the
umbrella" Is not needed to guard
against transforms from the East, since
Great Britain, France and Austria,
during our weakness of the Civil War,
attempted to seat Macmillan on q
Mexican throne. under pretense of coll
lecting debt claims. and would have
succeeded but for our Monroe Doctrine.
We did not undertake to prevent coll
lection of the debts, barring armed
threats. but We did object to estab-
lishment of a monarchy along the
Rio Grande. Now. If Latin America
protests that MaximilianS fiasco was
of the former generation, why over
look GermanyS more recent attempt
to seize Venezuela, which was stopped
by President Roosevelt? And If the less
aggressive and defiant Monroe Doctrine
is too strong defense for the Western
Hemisphere, how comes 1t that we hear
so little about the Argentine Drago
and Calvo doctrines, which go several
steps farther? A quarter century Is
not long enough period TO constitute
a fundamental doctrine Of national de-
Tense an "OhS0ieta ShihhOleth"
\ X
1t is quite true that South American
capitals may be nearer Europe, geo.
than Washington, but that
great international lawyer John Bassett
Moore said in addressing the Pan-
American Congress in 1915: ~
1.-The idea that America is not simply
a geographical term, but term repre-
senting the unity of interests, has ex-
sted so long that it may be presumed
that it is not false term, but one that
carries us absolutely and persistently
along the right road. The word Amer.
lea since the beginning of the last CEN
fury, during the struggle Of our neigh
bors for independence, represented the
dea of a community of political inter-
ests. As Henry Clay said. We ought to
be looked upon as united in the pur-
pose of establishing league of human
liberties
+ X
So anti-imperialistic is the sentiment
Of the United States regarding the col
lection of loans or the guaranty Of
American investments in Latin America
that on December 2, 1924. the late Sem
ator Laid introduced bill in the Sem
ate. which was duly passed. prohibiting
any Government official from giving
official recognition to any arrangement
which may commit the United States
% military intervention in order to COM
pei the observance Of alleged obligations
or to deal with any such arrangement
except to secure settlements Of claims
through ordinary channels Of the law.
In short. we went on record in accord
ance with the Drago and Calvo doc