Year: 1866

Washington, and it seems rather incon-
sistent with his teachings. The Monroe
Doctrine, viewed 10 whatever light is pos
sible, proves to be doctrine Of interven-
tion, and not Of non-interyention. II is
the assertion of right in the United
States to intervene in the affairs of for.
eign nations. Foreign does not mean
trans Atlantic. Who will pretend that
the phrases 4" foreign entnnglements and
"foreigu alliances" imply trans Atlantic
entang glements and alliances onlyi The
more closely we examine the resulting ne
cessities of such doctrine, the position.
into which il would drive this government
if We were TO undertake its practical en-.
forcemeut, the moro plainly il appears TO
be direct method Of involving us in for
eign entaoglemeuts both els and trans
Atlantic, and therefore direct violation
of the principles Of Washington. Let
US think of all this. We make these sug-
gestions just DOW with the earnest desire
to direct attention to the real subject mat


ter Of the Monroe Doctrine, ard 10 induce


reflection and examination on the part Of
those who read. Is it doctrine which


we are willing TO risk lighting fort In


war undertaken upon it with any power
10 Europe, could We justify the war to
our own sense of right, or TO the judg-


ment of an impartial world9 Have we
higher right TO fight for our view Of that
doctrine than England would have to fight


for an opposite view3 These are queS-


tons which press themselves on the atten-


lion of the American people. They are


not TO be lightly treated. 1t is SO easy


for n politician to "bring down the house"


by loud enunciation of the idea that I" we


will never permit the footsteps Of foreign


tyaranny on American SOIL" that we can


hardly expect that the Monroe Doctrine


will be left out of party platforms, but it


may be shaped sensibly and definitely, if


sensible men will think twice before they


commit themselves to it. Even though


it originated with the father Of the Dem


ocracy, and has been peculiar tenet Of


the Democratic party for nearly half q


century, and has now been adopted by


the Republican party, so that no body Of


men are found in opposition 10 it, it is


just possible that it may be too broadly


laid down to be consistent with true


American principles. 1t does not neces-


sarily involve the Mexican question at all.


We may, in special cases like that iu Mex


leo, haze reason to warn European pow


ers that we are the natural protectors Of


free institutions and the right of self


government 10 this or any other quarter
Of the globe. Perhaps We may be des-
tined to take our position as the natural
ally of every people who are seeking TO be
free, wherever they make the attempt.
: The Monroe Doctrine would seem to linn
it our mission to this continent, and to a
very small portion Of it. We do not pre-
: tend TO saw what ought to be our posi-
ton. Let us al all events avoid falling
into the position of being the mere pro-
teclors of soil which we think We may
one day wish to possess. For il the
truth we're known it would doubtless APP
pear that many men have advocated tho
Monroe Doctrine only because they tho't
it fitted TO keep European hands off from
I territories which they hoped to see annex
ed to the United States. II we intend
: TO adopt any national rule of action, Jet
, us make il broad and clear, aud then rig.
idly adhere to it. Otherwise, il would
be better not TO have any rule, but regu.
late our course independently, as occasion
may require and wisdom dctate.-Jour'
: nal of Commerce.