and wholly irresponsible Dictators from the punishment they so richly deserve? If the United States would assume the responsibility of intervention for the maintenance of law and order in those countries, -in other words, if it would police all of Latin America, and prevent the perpetration of outrages, not only against foreigners, but also against their own helpless population, then it could with some show of dignity and good faith say to Europe, "Hands off.” To talk of our becoming involved in war with Germany, as many newspapers do, because of the Venezuelan affair, is utterly indefensible. Such a war would be the greatest crime in history, in which the United States would be in the eternal wrong. No higher or nobler service could be done to humanity, to the Latin-Americans themselves, and to civilization for all time, than for the United States to take possession and control of all Latin-American countries, except the three previously mentioned, and govern them in the same manner as it governs other dependencies. Until this is done, there will be no peace in the Western Hemisphere. The United States should adopt a sane and practical policy, consonant with the requirements of modern civilization. Whether it acts alone or in conjunction with other powers is immaterial. The important thing is that stability and security should take the place of anarchy, desolation, and destruction. Until that is done, there can be no permanent peace upon the earth. Every session of Congress will witness calls for additional naval appropriations, with the undisguised intention of making common cause with the banditti of South America against those great and civilized powers with whom we chiefly trade, who are related to us by ties of blood, literature, religion, and commerce, and whose friendship we ought not lightly to throw away. Such a war would cover with eternal infamy the administration responsible for it, and would make a blot on the fair page of American history which time could never efface. That sane and intelligent Americans can talk of possible war with England or Germany on such an issue is one of those disquieting things which can only be explained on the hypothesis of inexcusable and criminal ignorance. It is inconceivable that any right-minded American, conversant with the facts, could do other than applaud the German Emperor, who is doing so much towards making it possible for a white man to exist in these countries. I CHAPTER X THE MONROE DOCTRINE-A MENACE TO OUR NATIONAL PEACE AND SAFETY T must be clearly evident that the position of the United States in the world, its strength, and its relations are different from what they were when the Monroe Doctrine was promulgated. At that time it was believed to be essential to our peace and safety; European aggression was feared upon this continent, and it was vaguely believed that if Europe established powerful colonies on the Western Hemisphere, these might be made the starting-point for attacks upon us, involving us in ruinous wars and possibly threatening our existence as a Republic. It is difficult now to estimate the real danger which existed; it may merely have been one of those portents of evil which so greatly exceed the reality. And yet there was enough of truth in it to make it a matter of wise precaution. It was precisely for the purpose of preventing an occurrence like that which happened to the Boer Republics three quarters of a century later, on another continent but under very similar conditions, that the people of the United States instinctively made the Monroe Doctrine a part of their national creed. And they were entirely right, amply justified by the elemental principle that self-preservation rises above all other dogmas. So long as the Monroe Doctrine, or almost any other doctrine that could be conceived of, should be necessary to our national self-preservation, there could be no argument or hesitation in reference to its adoption. But nobody believes to-day that the United States could be endangered by any European colony, or any number of them, however powerful they might be, on the Western Hemisphere or anywhere else. Suppose South America grew to be as powerful as Russia or Germany or Great Britain, or all of them combined, should we be alarmed by reason of that fact? Not in the slightest; rather we would rejoice. From South America to North America is as far as it is from Europe to North America; all the ships of the world could not transport troops enough from there to successfully attack us. Are we so contemptible that we would hold a continent in barbarism because of some fancied danger, wholly imaginary, that if it were great and strong it might attack us? Canada to the north of us is an eternal hostage for the good behavior of England. In the event of war with the latter power it is well understood that we could overrun the former as easily as a giant could handle a baby; that we could bind it hand and foot, and hold it helpless and prostrate as was the South at the close of the Civil War. And this fact as to our mighty power, being unquestioned, is all the stronger reason why we should and why we will deal gently, kindly, justly, not alone with Canada, but with all nations. Our territory is invulnerable, and not all the nations of the earth could successfully invade it. If Napoleon found that narrow stretch of water, the English Channel, impassable to his armies; if the same great captain had his legions scattered and destroyed in his descent upon Russia without scarcely making a mark on that empire, how absurd the vagary to suppose that the United States could in any way be endangered by European colonies on the Western Hemisphere! What, then, are we to say of the message of President Cleveland in the Venezuelan case, in which he said: "Without attempting extended argument in reply to these positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound because its enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation, and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government. It was intended to apply to every state of our national life, and cannot become obsolete while our Republic endures." Shades of innocuous desuetude and paramount Blount, what are we to think of that? "Essential to the integrity of our free institutions"! "Cannot become obsolete while our Republic endures"! Has ever greater nonsense been written? - Does the aiding, abetting, or defending of barbarism in South America; does the pestiferous interference by which we make the lives of civilized foreigners on that continent unendurable, in any manner contribute to "the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government"? Is the protection of dictatorships — those bandit organizations misnamed governments, more completely unlike our own system than is the absolutism of China - in any way "essential to the integrity of our free institutions"? If men are so utterly devoid of the power to reason as Mr. Cleveland's declarations would indicate, ought not their sense of the ludicrous at least to save them from committing themselves to such unmitigated absurdities? Enough has already been said to show that our "peace and safety" are by no means conserved by the Monroe Doctrine. Indeed, if we had no concrete evidence to the contrary, it would be a legitimate inference that the "peace and safety" of a nation would probably not depend upon a doctrine which has long since outlived its usefulness, and now has no higher warrant for its existence than that it is the vague form of reminiscences and traditions, exercising its influence upon the minds of men rather because of its historical associations than of any present applicability to the world in front of us. I. A MENACE TO OUR PEACE I now propose to go far beyond a mere denial of the dogma that the Monroe Doctrine is in any way essential to our peace and safety, and to assert unequivocally that the Monroe Doctrine has become the greatest existing menace to our peace and safety, and even to the very peace and safety of civilization itself. This danger is augmented by the fact that the Doctrine as it exists to-day is a jumbled up mixture of platitudes, founded in neither sense nor reason, exercising the power of a superstition, and utterly unrelated to anything like logical or orderly processes of thought. Mr. Francis B. Loomis, First Assistant Secretary of State, in a recent address before the American Academy of Political and Social Science, clearly indicated that he appreciates the dangers which confront us in connection with this Doctrine. He said: "If an European nation, or a number of European nations acting together, were to take over and administer the finances of a Latin-American nation, contrary to the desire and will of its government, it would not require keen foresight to predict that in a few months the destiny of the country whose customs were being administered through foreign interposition would be in a large measure controlled by the agents of the alien creditor. In this wise, then, there might be evolved a situation fraught with danger to the peace of the world, and full of menace to the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. "But we cannot deepen the meaning nor widen the scope of the Monroe Doctrine without proportionately increasing our own responsibility. The time may ultimately come when we shall have to abandon some of our views respecting the Monroe Doctrine, or fight for them, and if I read aright the present disposition of the American people they will be slow to abandon any position which they have taken in their international policy. Therefore it behooves us to consider the Monroe Doctrine in our most serious vein, and to examine with scrupulous care every indication pointing to a change in its plication and interpretation. ар "The future is pregnant with embarrassing possibilities. Up to the present time we have been too busy to do more than guess at the potential dangers which confront us. Our government wisely attempts to cross no bridges before it reaches them. Yet its leaders scan the horizon, and they are not blind to some of the problems the future may hold. Suppose, to make concrete a single example, the recently much discussed Acre territory, between Brazil and Bolivia, had been strong enough firmly to establish an independent government; suppose, then, the people of that State had invited one of the continental powers to send a governor general to rule it as a colony, or as a protected State under the dominion of any European monarch; suppose, too, that the people of Acre, or a very large part of them, ardently desired this transfer of sovereignty or dominion, and that it were to take place. What, then. would be the position and attitude of the United States ? "Take another example: Suppose Venezuela, under the stress of poverty, were to sell or lease for a large and wholly satisfactory price the island of Marguerita to France for a period of ninety-nine years; would we maintain that Venezuela was not within her sovereign rights in selling or alienating a portion of her territory if she so chose? Or, leaving Venezuela, let us suppose, if you please, that some more potent Latin-American nation decided to lease important islands or harbors to European powers for coaling or naval stations, and we determined to resist the execution of the lease, sale, or transfer; should we not, in all probability, find our pretensions vigorously combated by two armed foes, each denying, from different points of view, our right to invoke the Monroe Doctrine?" II. DANGER OF UNNECESSARY COMPLICATIONS The suggestions of possible dangers, so briefly indicated by Mr. Loomis, by no means convey an adequate idea of the magnitude of the real menace to our national peace which this Doctrine constitutes, a situation which if it had any foundation in our interests, or in any other reasonable motive, might be regarded with patience, and, if the worst came to the worst, suffered with fortitude. But being unnecessary, contrary to our own interests and to the interests of the world, including the very people we are supposed to benefit, it is well calculated to fill with apprehension any man who has regard for the welfare of humanity. There is scarcely a day, certainly not a week, that passes but some one or more of the great metropolitan journals of the United States have a leading editorial calling the attention of the government to alleged violation of the Monroe Doctrine, until an American in South America becomes disgusted with the unending stream of drivel. Many of these editors would apparently have the government carry on a dozen or more wars at a time over this Doctrine with every nation which has any territory on this hemisphere. If there is a boundary dispute between French Guiana and Brazil, the great newspapers are nervous for fear the United States will not get mixed up in it in some manner. If the Italian government asks Paraguay to pay damages for having murdered some of her citizens and looted others, depend upon it, a metropolitan editor is "on the spot" with a scare headline demanding that Uncle Sam whip Italy in virtue of the Monroe Doctrine. From the dignified editorial of a great conservative newspaper to the language of a demagogue who would try to arouse public excitement on these matters, is a far cry, yet it is bridged, and the morning editorial is converted in the afternoon into the stampede of the irresponsible rabble. Fine business indeed would it be for us to get mixed up in every boundary dispute of these anarchistic barbarous countries. There is scarcely a single completely surveyed boundary line in South America. Reference to our chapter on Boundary Surveys will show what a |