The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-01-02

a legal right which has ceased to bt
THIS would seem TO be the first
l. definite consequence of Presi-
dent Roosevelt's declaration. Others
must surely be implied, and it may
be useful, therefore, to fix in mind
the broad outlines Of our policy
toward Latin America.
The foundation was laid in Wash
ington's rule about avoiding political
connections with Europe In 1923
President Monroe was faced with
the double threat of a Russian adj
vance down the Pacific coast from
Alaska and of war in South Amer
lea to reconquer the rebelliouS Span
ish colonies He enunciated the
Monroe doctrine, which stated that
the United States would consider
any attempt on their g. e. Europe's)
part to extend their system to any
portion of our hemisphere as dan
gerous to our peace and safety"
This doctrine we have maintained
successfully against many attempts
to infringe it from the time when
Clay, in 1923, prevented the sale of
Cuba to France until 1912 when
Senator Lodge opposed the leasing
of Magdalena Bay to japanese in
terestS. We may call this the simple
Monroe doctrine. Under it we are
prepared to go to war to prevent
any European or Asiatic power from
obtaining new territory in this
hemisphere.
That was the whole of the doc
trine until about 1902. Throughout
the nineteenth century we did not
oppose European Intervention in
Latin America provided the acqui-
sition of new territory was not in
volved, and there were at least half
a dozen occasions when British war
vessels, and Spanish, too, blockaded
Latin ports. But in 1902,
when Britain, Italy and Germany
blockaded Venezuela to enforce
some property claims, Theodore
Roosevelt assembled the battle fleet
at Puerto Rico and ordered the
Germans, who were the active party,
to desist. This initiated the Sec
ond phase of the Monroe doctrine
under which we oppose any armed
intervention in this hemisphere.
This led quickly to the third
phase. If Europe was to be for
hidden to intervene to collect debts
or quell disorder, then, said Presi-
dent Roosevelt, we must ourselves be
prepared to intervene so as to
make their intervention unneces-
sary. This is usually known as the
Roosevelt corollary, and was pro-
claimed in 1904. 1t is under this
corollary that we have repeatedly
interviewed in the Caribbean region.
TIME next development occurred
4 under President Coolidge 1t
may be described as an attempt,
which failed, to extend the Monroe
doctrine to include not merely the
protection of foreign property
against disorder in Latin America
but against social reform. T his is
an ugly chapter in our history. It
arose out of the Mexican revolution
which in 1917 declared that the Gil
and minerals of Mexico were to be
the property Of the nation. This
infringed the vested rights Of Amer
lean and European oil companies.
The state department made itself
the advocate Of the oil companies,
and President Coolidge, probably
without a clear understanding of
what he was doing enunciated the
theory that property rights once &C
CURED by foreigners could not be
impaired
This fragrant denial Of the ole
mentary rights Of sovereignty pretty
nearly led us into war with Mexico,
how nearly the American people
have never fully realized. Suffice it
to say that at the eleventh hour
President Coolidge saw where he
was being led, sent Mr. Dwight w
Morrow to Mexico City, and allowed
the new ambassador to eXtricate the
United States from the entangle-
ment into which the oil companies
had taken us.
The Morrow mission to Mexico is
one of the great diplomatic achieve
ments Of our history. 1t marks The
real end of dollar diplomacy and
financial imperialism, and the be-
ginning of the policy Of friendliness
and non-intervention which Presi-
dent Hoover and Secretary Stimson,
President Roosevelt and Secretary
Hull, have sincerely and earnestly
been developing ever since.
TINE perfecting of that policy
l. can not be achieved by the
United States alone. 1t is possible
for us to renounce conquest as
President Wilson did in 1918 1t is
possible for us to renounce the
Platt amendment. which President
Roosevelt seems to be obligated to
DO. 1t is possible for us to renounce
the right to intervene to protect
property rights against social re-
form, which IS in substance what
Ambassador Morrow did. 1t is pos
sible for lis to declare that we are
opposed" to armed intervention by
ourselves alone, which is what the
President has just done. But we
can not guarantee that there will
never be armed intervention if
state of anarchy should break out.
If We are to make good the Presi-
dents promise that We will not in
tervene alone, then Pan-America
must come forward, must set up
appropriate diplomacy machinery,
and must enter into undertakings,
by means of which joint action can
be taken quickly if the lives of for
eigners are in danger as a result of
the breakdown of local authority.