OCR Text |
Show AMENDING- PEESIDENT MONROE. The Monroe doctrine is caviled at more or less by publicists in various of the Latin-American nations. There seems to be prevalent in most of those nations an idea that the Monroe doctrine doc-trine is an interference with their sovereignty, sov-ereignty, and in a way it is; but that interference is to their help and riot to their harm. It is difficult, however, how-ever, to persuade some of them 'that they ought not to be allowed to go into servitude io European powers if i they want to. It is hard to make them understand that an encroachment by European powors on any American nation na-tion is an affront to the United States, and an intrusion upon all the weaker sovereignties of this hemisphere. A recent ' outgiving from our State Department has roused renewed protest pro-test in regard to the claims of this country to a sort of protectorate over the weaker nations. That protectorate was clearly implied in the recent executive ex-ecutive outgiving, and in tho Lodge resolution adopted by the Senate; and correspondingly the nations which have heretofore felt touchy about the Monroe Mon-roe doctrine are more touchy over these new expansions of it, or rather over those new declarations, based upon tho same principle that the Monroe doctrine doc-trine is based upon. It is not surprising, therefore, to sec that Dr. Lima of the Brazilian legation lega-tion in 'Washington proposes an amendment amend-ment which will do away, in some degree de-gree at least, with the assumed offen-siveness offen-siveness of the assertion of the Mon roe doctrine as a sort of protectorate ovor the Latin-American states. His proposition is explained io be "communal "com-munal opposition of tho nations of the western hemisphere agatn3t eucroach-meut eucroach-meut on the principles laid down by President Monroe." That is, he would have a sort of American confederation which would be based upon the Monroe doctrine lo resist European encroachment, encroach-ment, and for that alone. He oxplaius that while the United States at the time of tho formulation of the Monroe Mon-roe doctrine was the great bulwark of defeuso against' Spanish aggression, the weak Latin statc3 being practically defenseless, de-fenseless, that condition no longer exists. ex-ists. The progressive stales of South America, ns he explains, arc no longer feeble colonies, fturnos Ayrcs "is disputing dis-puting with Paris Ihe title of being the most, populous city of Latin nationality na-tionality in tho world," and Dr. Lima says that Brazil has more inhabitants than the United States had wlinn the Monroe doctrine was .promulgated. Jt ia argued that iu view of this change in tho comparative ability of the Latin nations to take care of themselves, them-selves, it is natural enough that anything any-thing that could be construed to bo even n suggestion of a protectorate oer those nations by the United States, diould irril:ilo Ihrm, ns thov fopl en tirely able to transact t?hcir own business busi-ness in their own HTiy. It Bhould be rcmombored, howover, by all concerned, and 13, undoubtedly, remembered fairlv and wall by tho Latin-American statesmen, that the Mouroo doctriuo as promulgated, bud not the loast trace of offotiBiveueea toward to-ward any other American nation, had no shade of arrogance, and was, undoubtedly, un-doubtedly, one of the purost. altruistic propositions that ovor emanated from a great nation. There has never boon any real complaint made by any of tho Latin-Amoricau nations against tho Monroo doctrine in its original phrnbing and intent; but these recent declarations, which, in nfl'ect, do suggest protectorates and meddling with the affairs of those nations, present puch changes that it is no wondor that offenso is taken, and that a clearer definition of what the United States moans by theso fresh doclaration3 is required. |