proclaimed Presidents, and otherwise, over thirty changes, has spent over twenty-five years under three dictatorships, each violently overthrown, and has had civil war for twenty-nine years. No doubt as to this government, too, which has sustained its independence, and, to use the stately language of Mr. Monroe, whose independence, on great consideration and on just principles, we acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing it or controlling in any manner its destiny by any European power except as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. It is directly within the sphere of our influence, as Cuba was, and if there should ever arise an imperative necessity for the restoration of order from the outside, the task would be ours rather than that of any European nation. But would that task be quite so imperative or exclusive if, instead of overhanging the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, this nation were double as far away from us as half Africa is? "Such turbulent and revolutionary governments commit offences against foreigners; sometimes injure foreign residents, sometimes affront or injure foreign vessels in their waters, sometimes run in debt and fail to pay. What then? Is the Monroe Doctrine, or, still more, the Polk Doctrine, to be construed into an international bankruptcy act, to be enforced by the United States for the benefit of any American Republic against all European creditors? Or, on the other hand, is it to degenerate into an international collection agency, maintained by the United States for the benefit of European powers which may have just claims against American Republics? "But what then? What alternative is left? Shall we simply say to any European creditor that, as to any debt of any American Republic, the only rule is caveat emptor? Must the lender under any circumstances be merely told that he should have considered the risks before he made the loan, and that now he has no remedy? When the debtor country has no assets save its custom houses and its lands, must the United States, a power aiming to stand at the head of the world's civilization, say for all time, You shall not touch the only assets of your debtor, because it is an American Republic? And, assuming that to be just and our determination, are we ready to carry that doctrine in case of need, as far afield as Uruguay and Paraguay and Patagonia - and then to fight for it? “That is the vital point in the whole subject, as our First Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Loomis, pointed out in a recent sagacious address. It is better to consider the question before a case springs up and the patriotic temper of the people is aroused. Obviously we shall either modify the present extreme extensions of the old doctrine, which carry it far beyond any national interest it now serves, or some day or another we shall have to fight for it, and ought to, unless we mean to play the part of a vulgar braggart, and loudly assert that we are not ready to maintain. How far would it really have concerned our interests in the case of the Argentine troubles, which prostrated the Barings and brought on a great financial crash in London, if Great Britain had found it necessary for the protection of the rights of her people to take steps in that remote country, twice as far from New York as London itself is, which would seem to infringe upon the extreme extensions of the Monroe Doctrine by Polk and Buchanan? Happily the case did not arise. But some day and with some nation it is reasonably sure to. We may better now, in a time of profound calm, and when there is no threat to affect our dignity or disturb the serenity of our judgment, give serious consideration ourselves to this question: How far south do we mean now, in the twentieth century, to push the Monroe Doctrine and the Polk Doctrine, and hold ourselves ready at any challenge to fight for them? "I am not seeking to prejudge the question or even to influence the answer. I am only presenting the subject in a light in which it has never yet had from the American people at large that serious and solemn consideration which should always precede acts of war. "In this day, in the light of the last hundred years and with the present unassailable strength of representative government on this continent, it is for us to say if there is any ground of justice or right on which we rest the Monroe Doctrine, save that of our proper predominance, in our own interest, and in the interest of republican institutions generally, within the legitimate sphere of our national influence. Unless we stop there, we cannot stop logically short of a similar care over republican institutions wherever they exist on the surface of the globe. For in an age of fast steamers and wireless telegraphy, the two American continents can no longer be treated as shut up to themselves and measurably isolated from the rest of the world. Oceans do not now separate; they unite. Buenos Ayres is actually nearer in miles to Cadiz and Madrid than to New York, and so is more than half of all South America." XVI. A GERMAN VIEW OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE Among Europeans the Monroe Doctrine is generally regarded as a remarkable assumption of authority, which rests purely upon force, without any regard to "Right Reason," or to the rights and interests of other nations, and without conferring any very clear or well-defined benefit upon ourselves. According to the "Literary Digest" for March, 1905: “As a means of affording the German mind a correct notion of what it pronounces 'the amazing dexterity' of American diplomacy, the Berlin Kreuz Zeitung finds space for a hypothesis which it admits to be preposterous. Let it be assumed, we read in the semi-official daily, that Berlin had informed the powers that such claims as they might henceforth present against Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Switzerland must first be submitted for approval to the Imperial Chancellor of the German Empire, and 'any power neglecting to do this and taking direct measures against the countries named would be met with a declaration of war from Germany.' Add the additional hypothesis that Berlin, in thus announcing its intentions, omitted the formality of consulting Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Switzerland regarding their several sentiments in the premises, and we shall have a European counterpart of Washington's latest expansion of the Monroe Doctrine. What right has the United States to set up such pretensions?' inquires our authority, and it replies: Absolutely none.' Furthermore: "What does this mean? It means that the Union sets up a claim to supremacy over all Central and South American Republics without having made so much as a thrust of the sword to attain it. Prussia had to wage three great wars in order to attain her position of precedence in the German Empire. It almost seems as if the Union is attaining a similar, even higher, end through a mere declaration, accompanied, to be sure, by a veiled menace that all who do not approve of the step will be constrained to recognition of the claim by the keen edge of the sword. "This threat, too, is by no means an empty utterance. If Germany, for instance, were forced to undertake a new expedition against Venezuela, an American squadron would put itself across the path of the German squadron. Only against England would it be out of the question to make good such an attitude, since the United States is not able to cope with the British fleet. But it must be assumed from the recent speech of former Secretary of War Root that in this particular a mutual understanding exists between the two great "Anglo-Saxon " powers."" I am not prepared to deny that the hypothesis of the Kreuz Zeitung, however preposterous it may appear, is a true likeness of the Monroe Doctrine. Indeed, the Berlin paper might have gone further and added an additional hypothesis, to the effect that the German government denied all responsibility for the acts of the powers mentioned, refused to restrain them from insulting foreign nations and maltreating their citizens, stood ready automatically to defend them in the perpetration of any act of diabolism, however gross, and maintained dogmatically this attitude until civilization had been throttled and hell and anarchy reigned supreme; and I think this supposition, in conjunction with those above set forth, would not form a likeness of the Monroe Doctrine in any wise distorted. XVII. LATIN-AMERICAN VIEW OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE The military Jefes, as a class, regard the Monroe Doctrine as a good thing during periods of squally weather, that is, when there are foreign war-ships in the neighborhood. But when the atmosphere clears up, the Monroe Doctrine is merely a dish-rag, to be thrown aside with contempt until there is another dirty pot to be cleaned. The thoughtful, the scholarly, men of South America regard the Monroe Doctrine with ill-concealed antagonism or with positive contempt. Thus one of the most authoritative newspapers of Brazil, Correio da Manha, Rio de Janeiro, said (March 30, 1903) of the Monroe Doctrine that it is "up to the present time regarded as a pure eccentricity of the kind for which America has become the classic source. ... The Monroe Doctrine, as such, has no value whatever. At best it is simply another document for the benefit of those who would determine the characteristic psychology of the North American. Such a doctrine passes not only for a work very original and very Yankee, but also as being without substance as a whole. The government of the United States can invoke it, and put it into force when it is to its advantage to do so, and whenever it is able to give to the formula the unanswerable validity and strength of canons. And even for this purpose it might well be dispensed with.. But as a North American doctrine, created and interpreted exclusively by the government at Washington, and by that government, through its sovereign criterion, exclusively applied, what we, nations of South America, should do is, not admit any such doctrine, and treat it, moreover, as if it did not exist, as the statesmen of the Plata, as a matter of fact, and others principally wish. We ought not to talk any more about that doctrine. Our feelings of delicacy as a nation, our juridic conscience, our perception of our sovereignty, repel that doctrine thus disfigured and converted into an easy means for complications, that doctrine in whose circle in this part of the world live so many leaders and so many Chauvinistic patriots." But the next time a Brazilian fort fires on a French passenger steamer, killing helpless passengers, and war-vessels come "nosing" around making inquiries about it, "Chauvinistic patriots" will be forgotten, and everybody will yell, "Viva Monroe!" CHAPTER VIII THE MONROE DOCTRINE-A NATIONAL WHAT SUPERSTITION THAT good has the Monroe Doctrine done the world, or what hope does it hold out for the future? Has it made life sweeter and better worth living in South America? The answer from a million throats from that unhappy continent would be, No! Has it brought about the establishment of genuine republics there? No! A greater and more stupid farce could not be imagined. Despotism, dictatorships, and anarchy are the fruits of a century of Monroeism. Has it encouraged the advance of civilization? No! Barbarism, like an eternal pall, hangs over the continent. Has it promoted enterprise and inured to the benefit of the Latin-American people themselves? No! It has placed the good people of those countries at the mercy of the bandits, and encouraged the latter to outrage all the amenities of civilization. Has it advanced the cause of true liberty in the world? No! It has made the name liberty synonymous with license and pillage, and has filled with dismay all lovers of genuine freedom. Has it added to education, science, or knowledge in Spanish America? No! It has rather made them impossible, for it has permitted the devastation of that continent with blood, and these things come only with peace. Has it developed the enormous natural resources of that continent, and made the struggle for existence less fierce? No! It has made the lot of the pioneers of commerce, from whom alone there is hope, more dangerous than that of the sharpshooters on the firing-line of battle. Has it made friends for us among the nations of Europe? No! Ten thousand thousand times, No! Has it made friends for us among the Latin-Americans themselves? No! They consider us hypocrites when we claim to have established the Monroe Doctrine for their benefit, and they hate us accordingly. Have we increased our own trade with them, or in any way benefited ourselves by this doctrine? No! Reference to trade statistics shows that there is a balance against us of hundreds of millions of dollars. Has our Monroe Doctrine brought about cultivation of their illimitable prairies? No! They remain barren wildernesses. Has it developed cities, railroads, industry, and commerce? No! Vast sections of South America are no forwarder than when |